costs to his own and getting them from the creditors. For the liquidator, in reply, reference was made to Waterloo Life Assurance Company's case, No. 2 (31 Bear. 589), as showing that the sheriff should get his costs from the persons employing him. Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., was of opinion that the injunction must be made perpetual, and that the creditors must pay the costs of the motion. As to the costs of the sheriff, if the Waterloo Company's case had been reported at length, he should probably have followed it without question, but the report was very short, and it did not clearly appear whether the costs therein referred to as being ordered to be paid by the employers of the sheriff were his ordinary costs of possession or the costs of the motion. Under the circumstances, he thought the proper order to make, as the liquidator had brought the sheriff there, would be to order him to pay his costs in the first instance, and then add them to his own costs and get them from the creditors.-SOLICITORS, Ingledew & Ince; Johnston & Harrison. INTESTACY-APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AND MANAGER EX PARTE-DISCHARGE OF ORDER-INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS-UNDERTAKING TO TAKE OUT ADMINISTRATION. -In a case of Werner v. Beyer, also before the Vacation Judge on the 22nd inst., a motion was made to discharge an ex parte order for a receiver and manager of an intestate's assets and business obtained under the following circumstances:-It appeared that the intestate had, prior to his death, entered into a contract for the sale of a business carried on by him to his manager for a sum of £1,900, part of which had been paid on deposit, the purchase to be completed on the 1st of January, 1881, and, in the meantime, the purchaser to continue to act as manager of the business. The intestate left a widow, who had resided for some years in France, though on friendly terms with her husband; and some children. The action was commenced by a married daughter against her mother and others to protect the assets pending the appointment of a legal personal representative, and a receiver and manager of the business was appointed er parte, on allegations that it was not known whether the widow was coming back or going to apply for administration, and that, in the meantime, there was risk of the business being misconducted and the assets lost. The plaintiff had lodged a caveat against administration being granted to the widow. The receiver at once took possession of the business and an affidavit of the purchaser was filed in which he stated that the greatest injury would be done to the business if the receiver continued in possession. There was no proof of misconduct on the part of the purchaser, and it was admitted that the agreement for purchase was a perfectly fair and proper one. The widow on the present motion filed an affidavit in which she stated she had now come to England and intended to reside there, and was going at once to take out letters of administration. Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., said that the ex parte order had been improperly obtained, and he discharged the same and ordered the next friend to pay the costs of the motion.-SOLICITORS, Oliver Richards; Rooks & Co.; Phil pott. In Nuckolls v. Commonwealth (32 Gratt. 884), says the Albany Law Journal, it is held that the game of poker, or draw poker, is not a game of the like kind with faro, keno, &c., and does not come within the meaning of the statute against keeping tables for such games or "tables of the like kind." In Stith v. State (13 Årk. 680), it was held by the Supreme Court of that State that the owner or occupant of a house, &c., cannot be indicted under the 4th section of the Gaming Act for permitting poker or any of the small games of cards mentioned in the 8th section of the Act to be played in his house, &c., but only for suffering some of the games, tables, cards, &c., embraced in the previous sections to be played, &c., therein. The court said: "An attentive perusal of the statute makes the conclusion almost irresistible that the first seven sections are intended to relate exclusively to the banking games, whether called by the names specified or by any new name or device. They are usually exhibited by persons whose occupation it is to prey upon the community, and who are therefore peculiarly ob noxious to the laws, which design also to punish with equal severity those who allow them to be exhibited in their houses." In Kennon v. King (2 Mont. 437), the court held that poker was a game of chance, and they would take judicial notice of it. JUVENILE OFFENDERS. THE Home Secretary has addressed a letter to the Mayor of Manchester on this subject, in which he says that, as the result of his inquiries, “in far the majority of cases the magistrates have expressed great reluctance to send the ohildish offender to gaol, but have pointed out defects in the present law which have left them sometimes hardly any alternative. The discovery of these defects and the appropriate remedy is one of the principal uses of the inquiry I am now conducting. It seems clear that the existing restrictions on committals to industrial schools and on the employment of a moderate personal chastisement for small offences as a substitute for imprisonment require to be re-considered. There is another evil which is very conspicuous. Small fines, from 6d. to 2s. 6d., are often imposed for petty acts of mischief. Bat, unfortanately, the costs swell the amount to a sum which poor parents are either unable or unwilling to pay. The costs are often ten times the amount of the fine. The child in default goes to prison, while his companions in the offence whose parents are better off remain at large. I have several cases before me where the older offenders, and, no doubt, the ringleaders, have thus got off, while the child of ten or eleven, who has been led astray, has gone to prison, with the most fatal consequences to his future life. These are surely defects in the administration of justice, pressing as they do with the greatest severity on the poor, which require reform." The Manchester Committee on this subject have drawn up a scheme which has been printed under the heading "Revised draft instructions for a Bill to amend the law with regard to juvenile offenders." By the early clauses of the proposed Bill provision is made for the establishment by the local authority of "places of detention" with separate accommodation for male and female children. A place of detention is not to be a prison, but "a place where the inmates are boarded, lodged, instructed, employed industrially, and subjected to proper discipline in accordance with certain rules." The plans and rules of places of detention are to be approved by the Home Secretary. Children are to be sent to these places of detention instead of to the common gaol. Special provision is to be made to guard children against contamination by detention in the common lock-ups. They are not to remain more than forty-eight hours at a police station. They are to be kept apart from adults even during their removal to the court and their accommodation at court. Clause 9 runs thus:-" Where a child is charged before a criminal court with any indictable or other offence, and is ordered to be sent to a place of detention, the order shall be by way of remand and not of committal under a criminal sentence, and it shall be within the discretion of the court to order him to be sent to a certified industrial school, or to a certified reformatory school, and if there be no certified industrial or certified reformatory school where the managers are willing to receive any such child, he shall be detained by remand from week to week in a place of detention until such certified industrial or certified reformatory school may be found. In every case in which a child is remanded by a criminal court to a place of detention he shall be again brought before the court at the expiration of the period of his remand, and the court shall inquire into his conduct while under detention, and shall either further remand him to a place of detention or shall commit him to a certified industrial school, or to a certified reformatory school, or shall order him to be discharged as they may think fit." In case of emergency the work house may be used as a place of detention. A penalty is imposed for employing a child in contravention of the Bill, and employment is defined so as to include the case of a parent (or guardian) sending & child into the streets for purposes of gain. The parent (or guardian) of a juvenile offender is liable to have an order made upon him to contribute a weekly sum, not exceeding 78., towards the maintenance of the juvenile offender in a reformatory or industrial school or a place of detention. With reference to the statement as to the possible retirement of one of the Scottish judges, and that "Mr. M'Laren will take the vacant seat," the Scotsman is authorized to state that the Lord Advocate is not a candidate for judicial promotion. Obituary. Case yet unimpaired. His demeanour as a judge was courteous and dignified, and his judgments were carefully prepared and well expressed. On several occasions (as in Mordaunt v. Moncreiffe) his judgment as a dissentient judge was eventually upheld by the House of Lords. In the complicated libel of Rubery v. Grant (which was tried before him about six years ago), his sum. ming up of the evidence was greatly admired for its ability and clearness. Sir F. Kelly will also be remembered for the elaborate harangue (occasionally of a political complexion) with which he was accustomed to welcome (and sometimes weary) a new Lord Mayor on his being sworn in before the Exchequer Division on the 9th of November. For the last three or four years he had shown symptoms of failing powers, and had become slow in the dispatch of business, but he still declined to relinquish his office. Some two or three years ago he was attacked by garotters when on his way home in the evening, but, although one of his ribs was broken, he resumed his judicial duties a few days afterwards. Although in a weak state of health, he went the South-Eastern Circuit in July of the present year. He returned to town very much Eng-fatigued by his labours, and at once proceeded to Brighton in the hope of recruiting his strength. He retained his mental faculties until the day of his death, which occurred after less than a week's illness, and was mainly the result of old age. Sir F. Kelly was a bencher of Lincoln's-inn, and a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the county of Suffolk. He had been for several years a widower (having been twice married), and he leaves foar daughters. He was buried at Highgate Cemetery on Wednesday last. MR. SERJEANT SARGOOD. Serjeant Augustine Sargood died at Frankfort, on the 14th inst., from apoplexy of the heart, after a short illness. The deceased was born in 1805, and was called to the bar at Gray's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1846. He for many years confined his practice to the old Insolvent Debtors' Court, but after the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, and the abolition of the separate insolvency jurisdiction, he practised with considerable success in the Court of Bankruptcy. He was created a serjeant-at-law in 1868, at the same time with Serjeant Sleigh and the late Serjeant Cox (this being the last occasion of the creation of a sergeant, otherwise than in the case of newly-appointed common law judges), and he received a patent of precedence in 1872. He afterwards LORD CHIEF BARON KELLY. The Right Hon. Sir Fitzroy Kelly, knight, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Division, died at Brighton on the 17th inst., aged eighty-four. The deceased judge was the son of Captain Robert Hawke Kelly, R. N., and he was born in 1796. He formerly practised as a special pleader below the bar, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in May, 1824. He had already attained a reputation as a clever special pleader and a sound lawyer, and was soon successful in acquiring junior business. He first joined the Home Circuit, but a year or two later became a member of the old Norfolk Circuit, where he soon attained a good position. His chambers were much resorted to by students, and Lord Justice Bramwell and the late Mr. Justice Honyman were among his pupils. In 1834, although only of ten years' standing, he was created a Queen's Counsel. He soon obtained the lead of his circuit, and steadily acquired an extensive and lucrative commercial business in London. He was for many years standing counsel to the Bank of land and to the East India Company. His politics were Conservative, and he always took an active part in political life. He unsuccessfully contested Hythe in 1830, and Ipswich in 1832. He was elected M.P. for the latter borough in 1835, but was unseated on petition. He was again an unsuccessful candidate there in 1837, but the seat was awarded to him after a scrutiny. He was unsuccessful at Ipswich at the general election of 1841, but be represented Cambridge from 1843 till 1847, when he unsuccessfully contested Lyme Regis. He represented Harwich for a few weeks in 1852, when he was elected M.P. for East Suffolk, which constituency he represented during the remainder of his parliamentary career. In June, 1845, on the death of Sir William Follett, Sir Frederick Thesiger become AttorneyGeneral, and the Solicitor-Generalship in Sir Robert Peel's administration was conferred upon Mr. Kelly, who then received the honour of knighthood, but in July, 1846, he retired with his party. He had supported Sir R. Peel's Free Trade measures, but in Opposition he acted with the Protectionist party under Lord George Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli. He was again Solicitor-General under the Earl of Derby's first administration, but his tenure of office extended only from February to December, 1852. Under Lord Derby's second administration (from February, 1858, till June, 1859) Sir F. Kelly held the office of Attorney-practised before the Parliamentary Committees, being also General, after which he again spent seven years in Opposition. He had now attained the foremost rank at the common law bar, besides being often retained specially in the Court of Chancery, and in peerage and other cases before the House of Lords, and in Privy Council appeals. He was an agreeable speaker, with a polished style of delivery, though in the latter part of his career he often erred on the side of prolixity. He had been employed in many cases of an important character. He was engaged for the defence of several of the Chartist ringleaders, in the O'Connell case before the House of Lords, and in the prosecution of Dr. Newman for a libel on Dr. Achilli. He was also counsel in Egerton v. Earl Brownlow, Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, the Shrewsbury Peerage case, and many other important cases, and, as Attorney-General, he prosecuted Dr. Bernard in 1858 on a charge of being concerned in a conspiracy of Orsini and others to murder the Emperor of the French. According to a statement in the Times he was for some time in receipt of an income of £25,000 a year. Sir F. Kelly took an active part in the business of the House of Commons. He repeatedly brought forward a resolution in favour of the repeal of the Malt Tax, and he also introduced a measure dealing with corrupt practices at elections, some of the details of which were incorporated by a select committee in the Bribery at Elections Act, 1854, which was carried by Lord John Russell. Another measure introduced by him (though afterwards withdrawn) was a Bill for the establishment of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases. In July, 1866, immediately after the formation of Lord Derby's third administration, Sir Frederick Pollock resigned the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, and the vacant post was conferred upon Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council. He was then seventy years of age, but he soon showed that his mental powers were as often specially employed in arguing bankruptcy appeals before the Chief Judge and the Lords Justices, aud he had also been engaged in many election petitions. Mr. Serjeant Sargood retired from practice four or five years ago in consequence of failing health, and had ever since resided on the Continent. He was buried at the Frankfort Cemetery on the 17th inst. Mr. Justice Lush sat on Tuesday at judges' chambers. There were upwards of 100 summonses on the list, and a number before Master Francis. Up to the present time the following sittings of the Commissions to inquire into corrupt practices at elections are stated to have been arranged :-Mr. Charles, Q.C., commences the sitting of his Commission (Canterbury) on the 27th inst.; Mr. John B. Aspinall, Q.C. (Gloucester), first week in October; Mr. A. H. Collins, Q.C. (Chester), about the 6th of October; Mr. Merewether, Q.C., (Macclesfield), about the 4th of October; Mr. L. W. Cave, Q.C., (Oxford), about the 4th of October. A writer in the New York Graphic publishes some remarkable statistics to show that American expenditure for judicial services is, in the aggregate, larger than that of England. Thirty-four judges, he affirms, discharge the law business of England and Wales at an aggregate cost of less than one million dollars, the population served being about twenty-five millions; while New York State alone employs over four hundred and fifty judicial officers, at a compensation of more than a million dollars, to administer justice to a population of five million people. Expense per head in the British kingdom less than four cents; in New York, over twenty-five cents. [?] Societies. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. The seventh annual provincial meeting of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, October 6 and 7, 1880, at the Cutlers' Hall, Church-street, Sheffield. The business meetings will take place in the Old Banqueting Hall. The following is the programme of the proceedings : Wednesday, October 6.-The chair will be taken at 11 o'clock, a.m., by the president, Mr. John Moxon Clabon. 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., president's address; reading and discussion of papers. 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., adjournment for lunch, which will be provided in the front room of the Catlers' Hall. 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., reading and discussion of papers. 6.30 p.m. for 6.45 p.m. precisely, dinner given by the Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society, at the Cntlers' Hall, in the large banqueting room. William Wake, the president, in the chair. Mr. Thursday, October 7.-10 a.m. to 11 a.m., meeting of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association in the Catlers' Hall. 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., Law Society's adjourned meeting; reading and discussion of papers. 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., adjournment for lunch. 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., reading and discussion of papers. 9 p.m. to 1 a.m., conversazione and dance at the Cutlers' Hall, Church-street. Ladies' tickets for the conversazione and dance may be obtained on application to the honorary secretary. Friday, October 8.-10 a.m., excursion to Chatsworth. The arrangements for the excursion are as follows:The excursion is confined to members of the Incorporated and the Sheffield District Law Societies. They will assemble at the Cutlers' Hall, at 9.45 a.m. The carriages will start at ten o'clock punctually, and will pass up West-street and Clarkhouse-road, through Ecclesall, over the Moors to Fox House and Froggatt Edge, and so to Baslow and Chatsworth. This is one of the most beautiful drives in England. The arrival at Chatsworth will be about 12.30 p.m. His Grace the Duke of Devonshire has kindly consented to allow the whole of the house and gardens to be seen, and the great fountains, said to be the highest in Europe, reaching to 270 feet, to be played. A substantial lunch, provided by the Sheffield District Law Society, will be served at the Edensor Inn, Chatsworth, the Peacock, Baslow, &c., at 2.30 p.m. The return journey will commence about five o'clock, and will be by way of Owler Bar, Totley, and Abbeydale, reaching Sheffield at seven o'clock. Members wishing to start for their homes from Chatsworth, instead of returning to Sheffield, can probably be conveyed to the Rowsley Station of the Midland Railway (four miles from Chatsworth), to meet the up train to London and the down to Manchester, on giving two clear days' notice to the honorary secretary. The committee of the Sheffield Club, Norfolk-street, have passed a resolution allowing members, on production of their card of membership, to use the club during their visit. The inquiry office and writing room, where full information can be obtained, will, during the meeting, be at the Cutlers' Hall, the first door on the left after entering from Church-street. Post and telegraph direct from this room. Gentlemen desiring farther particulars prior to the meeting are requested to apply to the honorary secretary of the Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society, Mr. Herbert Bramley, 6, Paradise-square, Sheffield. The hotels are shown on the plan. As some of them are already filled, application for rooms should be made to the honorary secretary, who will be pleased to attend to the wishes of members. If a member makes arrangements for himself, or is to stay with a friend, it will lighten the secretary's work if he is informed of this. A meeting of metropolitan magistrates will be held in a few days to discuss the recent letter of the Home Secretary on the punishment of juvenile offenders. In all probability alarge number of town and country magistrates will attend. ASSESSMENT OF WORKHOUSES AND THE following letter, affecting the quinquennial assessments now in progress, has been received by the Hackney Board of Guardians from the Local Government Board :"Sir, I am directed by the Local Government Board to state that they have had their attention drawn to the absence of uniformity in the system of assessment of workhouses and infirmary buildings in the metropolis, when situate within the unions of parishes to which they belong. The board find that in some instances the establishments referred to are altogether omitted from the valuation lists, while in others the amounts inserted are considerably below the assessable value of the property, the result being that the contributions of the unions and parishes in ques-tion to the metropolitan common poor fund are necessarily based upon lower totals than they would otherwise be. With a view, therefore, of remedying this anomaly in future, the board feel it to be their duty to impress upon the assessment committees the necessity of taking steps during the pending revision of the metropolitan valuation lists for insuring that all workhouse and infirmary buildings and other property used for poor-law purposes within the parish or union for which they act shall be duly entered in the valuation lists and assessed therein at their proper value. The board think it right to remind the assessment committee that under the provisions of section 32 of the statute of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 67, it is competent for any board of guardians or assessment committee in the metropolis to appeal to the Assessment Sessions, if they should feel aggrieved at the total amount of the gross or rateable value of any parish being too high or too low. "I am, Sir, your obedient servant, "JOHN LAMBERT, Secretary. "To the Clerk to the Assessment Committee of the Hackney Union." ORDER ON HIGHWAY BOARD TO REPAIR ROAD. who Ar the Bedford Petty Sessions on Saturday (Mr. Thornton presiding), a case was decided which raised some points of interest for the various highway boards in the country. It appears that for some few years grave complaints have been made, at first to the highway board of the Bedford district, and subsequently by presentment to quarter sessions, by a county magistrate, Mr. W. F. Higgins, of Tarvey House, as to the dangerous condition of the public road (formerly a turnpike) leading from Turvey to Bromham, where it joins the main highway from Bedford to Newport Pagnell. Notwithstanding these complaints the highway board took no action, and consequently the only remedy left to Mr. Higgins appeared to be to proceed against the board under the 18th section of the Highway Act of 1862. Accordingly he laid an information a few weeks ago against the waywardens of the three parishes in which the road com. plained of lies, and the justices, acting under the section referred to, directed that the condition of the road should be reported upon to them by the county surveyor of Northamptonshire, would be an independent and impartial witness. Messrs. Law & Son, of Northampton, discharge the duties of county surveyor, and in their report, which was considered at the special session on Saturday last, the validity of the complaint of Mr. Higgins was abundantly upheld. Mr. Mitchell, solicitor for the complainant, then asked the bench to makean order upon the board in accordance with the powers conferred upon them under section 18. Mr. Jessopp, solicitor and clerk to the board, objected on the ground that the justices had not complied with the section by appointing Messrs. Law & Son instead of "a competent person," but this was overruled. He next tendered evidence on behalf of the board as to the state of repair of the road, with a view to rebut the report, but the court refused to hear such evidence. On these two points he gave notice that within seven days he should ask for a case to the superior court. The bench ultimately made an order on the board to put the road in a "complete and effectual" state of repair within eighteen months, and to pay the costs, which amounted to £14 16s. 2d. It was contended for the board that the justices had no power under section 18 to award costs, but, on the other side, it was. pointed out that under Jervis's Act the magistrates have discretion to order payment of costs by a defendant whenever they make an order. Notice of appeal on this head also was given, the case to be applied for within seven days. Appointments, Etc. Mr. HENRY MASON BOMPAS, Q. C., who has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Knaresborough, is the son of the late Serjeant Bompas. He was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he was fifth wrangler in 1858, and he also graduated LL.B. at the University of London in 1862. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1863, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1877. Mr. JOHN BONNETT, solicitor, has been appointed DeputyCoroner for Cambridgeshire. Mr. Bonnett is also clerk to the Harston School Board. He was admitted a solicitor in 1876, and is in partnership with Mr. Charles William Palmer, the coroner for the county. The Hon. BERNARD JOHN SEYMOUR COLERIDGE has been appointed Secretary to the Chester Election Commission. Mr. Coleridge is the eldest son of Lord Coleridge, and was born in 1853. He was educated at Trinity College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in modern history in 1875. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in June, 1877, and he is a member of the Western Circuit. Mr. RICHARD HENN COLLINS, barrister, who has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Boston, is the son of the late Mr. Stephen Collins, Q.C., of the Irish bar. He was formerly fellow of Downing College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the first class of the classical tripos in 1865. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1867, and he is a member of the Northern Circuit. Mr. Collins is one of the revising barristers for Lancashire. Mr. CHARLES CROMPTON, barrister, who has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Knaresborough, is the eldest son of the late Mr. Justice Crompton. He was formerly fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as fourth wrangler in 1855. He practised for a short time as a special pleader, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1864. Mr. Crompton is a member of the Northern Circuit. Mr. ALBERT VENN DICEY, barrister, who has been appointed a Commisioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the City of Canterbury, is the son of Mr. Thomas Edward Dicey, of Clay brook Hall, Leicestershire. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in Litere Humaniores in 1858. He obtained the Arnold Prize in 1860, and was afterwards elected a fellow of Trinity College. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1863, and is a member of the Northern Circuit. Mr. Dicey is junior counsel to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Mr. HENRY HOWARD, solicitor, of Greenwich, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. JOHN WEST JONES, solicitor (of the firm of Tennant, Paine, & Jones), of Hanley, Leek, and Stone, has been appointed Solicitor to the Hanley Starr Bowkett Building Society, in succession to the late Mr. Alfred Tennant. Mr. Jones was admitted a solicitor in 1877. Mr. WILLIAM ALEXANDER LINDSAY, barrister, who has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Boston, is the eldest son of the Hon. Colin Lindsay, and was born in 1846. He is a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1873. He is a member of the Northern Circuit. Mr. FRANK LOCKWOOD, barrister, who has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the City of Chester, is a graduate of Caius College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at Lincoln'sinn in Hilary Term, 1872. Mr. RALPH CHARLTON PALMER, barrister, has been appointed Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, in succession to Mr. Charles Romilly, resigned. Mr. Palmer is the third son of Lieut.-Col. George Palmer, of Nazing-park, Essex, and was born in 1839. He was educated at Winchester and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated third class in classics in 1861. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1864, and he has practised in the Chancery Division, having formerly been a member of the Home Circuit. Mr. Palmer was secretary to the Public Schools Commissioners, and he was appointed principal secretary to the Lord Chancellor in April last. Mr. JOHN SHORTT, barrister, who has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Macclesfield, is a B.A. of Trinity College, Dublin, and an LL.B. of the University of London. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1866 (when he obtained a first-class certificate o honour). Mr. CHARLES WILLIAM REES STOKES, Solicitor, of Tenby, has been elected Town Clerk of that borough, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. John Gwynne. Mr. Stokes was admitted a solicitor in 1864. Mr. ALBERT CHILDERS MEYSEY THOMPSON, barrister, has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in the Borough of Macclesfield. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1872. Mr. WILLIAM MOUNTFORD KINSEY VALE, barrister, has been appointed Attorney-General of the Colony of Victoria in the new Administration. Mr. Vale was called to the bar at Gray's-inn in July, 1878. Mr. THOMAS WALTERS, solicitor, of Carmarthen and Lampeter, has been elected Clerk to the Carmarthen School Board. Mr. Walters was admitted a solicitor in 1876. Mr. GEORGE EDWARD WEBSTER, solicitor (of the firm of Webster & Styring), of Sheffield, has been appointed Solicitor to the Sheffield Water Consumers' Defence Association. Mr. Webster was admitted a solicitor in 1865. DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. ALFRED LEGGE and JOSEPH DENISON, 33, Mosley-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, solicitors (Legge & Denison). Sept. 15 [Gazette, Sept. 17, 1880.] Companies. WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. MID-CANNOCK COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Baron Pollock, dated Sept 8, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the above company be continued. Taylor and Co, Gt James st, Bedford row, agents for Wise and Co, Ashborne, solicitors for the petitioner PATENT LIONITE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Malins, dated Sept 8, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Lumley and Lumley, Old Jewry chambers, solicitors for the petitioner [Gazette, Sept. 17.] The Registration Courts. MARYLEBONE.-(Mr. J. N. GOREN).-Sept. 17. Attendance of New Lodger Claimants. Mr. Seager (Liberal) said he was going to ask his Honour not to strike out the names of lodgers who did not put in an appearance, on the ground that, according to the Act, the declaration annexed to the notice of claim was primi facie evidence of the claim. He contended that the 23rd section of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, applied to all lodgers, and that the onus lay upon any person objecting to prove that the lodger was not entitled to be registered, and that the attendance of the lodger was not compulsory or even required at the revision. The 25th section of the same Act imposed a penalty on the lodger, to the extent of twelve months' imprisonment, if he made a false declaration, and that he contended was intended to obviate the necessity of the lodger attending the revision in the same way as all other claimants, who were under no such penalties, were required to do. It should be remembered that the Act of 1878 was not the one conferring the franchise; the Act of 1867 was the one that did it, which gave the same form for the declaration of facts. Mr. Wood (Conservative) said this was entirely in favour of the old lodger, but the new lodger had nothing to do with prima facie evidence. He should contend that new lodgers were obliged to come forward to substantiate their claims. At any rate they must come forward and prove their claims by producing evidence to satisfy the revising barrister. The moment that was done he and his party would always be satisfied. Mr. Seager: No distinction is made in the 23rd section between an old lodger and a new lodger. The BARRISTER: Do you mean to say that in the case of those lodgers who have signed a declaration, and do not come here to-day, the declaration shall be primâ facie evidence? Mr. Seager: I do, and I shall object to all names of lodgers being struck out, although they do not attend here to-day; and if they are struck out I shall ask for a case for a superior court in respect of all such cases. The BARRISTER said that Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice Denman were of opinion that the Act applied to old and not to new lodgers, but Mr. Justice Lindley held that there was some doubt on the point. He (the Barrister) therefore found that two of the judges, who were his guides to a great extent, indorsed Mr. Wood's views, and he was of opinion that the Act applied to old lodgers and not to new lodgers. Upon this Mr. Seager asked for a case, which the BARRISTER granted. CITY OF LONDON.-(Mr. O. J. WILLIAMSON).-Sept. 22. Attendance of New Lodger Claimants. Mr. Hughes (Conservative) asked what course would be adopted with regard to lodgers who could not personally attend. He thought that under section 23 their attendance conld be dispensed with. The BARRISTER said that section 23 did not apply to new lodgers, and he believed it was intended when this Bill was passed that new lodgers must come before the court. Section 23 was only intended to apply to old lodgers. Mr. Hughes said that he did not think that intention had been carried out. The BARRISTER said that when the lodger claims came on, if the agents had investigated the matter and were satisfied, he would raise no objection, subject to the condition that if any third party appeared to object proper notice should be given. BLACKBURN.-(Mr. T. H. JAMES).-Sept. 20. Mr. Eastham (Liberal) contended that over 1,000 notices of objections given by the Conservative agent were bad, on the ground that the double notices to voters on the parliamentary and municipal lists were only addressed, stamped, and registered once, instead of being addressed, stamped, and registered for each notice, as he alleged the Act of Parliament required. Mr. Brooks, postmaster, was examined, and deposed that last year he received from the Postmaster-General a circular, dated the 25th of July, in which it was stated " by the 40th section of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26), it is enacted that the provisions of section 101 of the Parliamentary Electors Registration Act, 1843 (6 Vict. c. 18), as to the service of notices should apply to the service of notices under the former Act. Notices under the Act of 1878 brought to money order offices in England for transmission through the post must therefore be dealt with in the same way as any such notices under the Act of 1843 have hitherto been dealt with. The Act of 1878, however, includes notices relating to municipal elections as well as notices relating to parliamen tary elections, and it mast happen in boroughs which are both parliamentary and municipal that two notices-one parliamentary and the other municipal-may be sent on one piece of paper to a person who is both a parliamentary and a municipal elector. In those cases the two notices are to be treated as one, and the charge for postage and registration must be levied upon one letter only." The BARRISTER gave his decision that the notices were good, but he granted a case. BRIGHTON.-(Mr. JEMMETT).-Sept. 20. Notice of Objection. The question arose whether the return of a notice of objection through the "Dead Letter" office was sufficient evidence of decease or removal to justify the erasure of the voter's name from the list, it being stated that there were numerous cases in which such notices had been returned with indorsements indicating that the parties were no longer to be found at the houses specified. In one instance, however, it was satisfactorily shown that, though the notice had been returned indorsed "not at" certain address, the party referred to did actually reside there, upon which The BARRISTER observed that the Post-Office authorities should remember that they delivered these notices under an Act of Parliament which gave them special fees, and that it seemed that there had been a gross dereliction of duty, which, unless properly explained, he should report to the Postmaster-General. An official from the Post-Office subsequently apologized to the court for the inconvenience which had been caused, which, he explained, was due in one instance to there being two streets of the same name, and in others to a difference between the description of the houses in the rate books and in the local directories. The BARRISTER replied that the office had no business to rely only on directories, as it was their duty to take every possible care that such notices reached their destination. The names objected to were retained on the list. At Bow-street, on Friday, a solicitor named John Barnard Banks, of 24, Sandringham-road, Dalston, was charged with misappropriating several sums of money belonging to his employers, Messrs. Button, Grove, & Co., solicitors, of 6, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden. Evidence was given to prove that £15 was received by the prisoner on or about November 3, 1879, and £5 on or about March 1 on behalt of clients, and for which he never accounted. It was stated that his defalcations amounted to £128 10s. The case was remanded. The Globe says that the "lodgers" in Marylebone assembled in large numbers at St. Pancras Vestry Hal or Friday week to get their claims registered, but at 9.10 only 238 in the first four wards out of 706 had been disposed or Mr. Goren, the barrister, then proposed to adjourn ant Wednesday evening, which was met with loud cries of No. no; go on; we've been here two hours." Being asked t take the cases of those present, the barrister refused, am: cries of "Shame! monstrous!" &c., and said he would retur: on Wednesday evening, and upon this there arose a scene c excitement and uproar unprecedented in the history o registration courts. In addition to loud protests of an insa?" ing and uncomplimentary character there were hisses, greas cat-calls, and hooting, during which the barrister let the hall, as the excited crowd rushed through the barriers in threatening manoer. |