Page images

cluded by Hatton v. Haywood and The Anglo-Italian Bank Cases of the deek.

v. Davies. JAMES, L.J., said that those cases had decided that the appointment of a receiver, which gave the creditor,

through the receiver, the right to the possession of the land, BANKRUPTCY — SECURED CREDITOR - JUDGMENT - RE

was as much a delivery of the land in execution in the case CEIVER — EQUITABLE EXECUTION - ELEGIT — BANKRUPTCY

of an equitable interest as was the return of the sheriff Act, 1869, ss. 12, 16-27 & 28 Vict, c. 112, s. 1-JUDICA. the writ of elegit in the case of a legal interest. The sheriff TURE ACT, 1873, 8. 25, SUB-SECTION 8.-On the 20th inst. the never took actual possession of the land ; the return to the Court of Appeal (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, L.JJ.) writ was a mere verbal delivery in execution. In the present affirmed the decision of the Chief Judge in Ex parte Evans case there were in existence two orders for the appointment (27 W. R. 712, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 691). The question was of a receiver-the interim order which covered the day on whether, by the appointment of a receiver in an action which the liquidation petition was filed ; and the absolute in the Chancery Division, at the instance of a judgment order which, though it could not be considered as percreditor, before the commencement of the liquidation of the fected till the security had been given, was, nevertheless, judgment debtor, the creditor had obtained "equitable intended by the court as that equitable execution which the execution" of land in which the debtor had only an creditor had come to the court to obtain. The creditor had equitable interest, so as to make the judgment creditor a done all he could to obtain the equitable execution. secured creditor within the meaning of the Bankroptcy Act, THESIGER, L.J., said that, although the giving of security 1869, although the creditor had pot, before commencing his by the receiver was part of the order, it was not one of the action, issued a writ of elegit. The material facts were as follows :-02 the 15th of May the creditor recovered judg. delivery in execution, but, as soon as the order was made,

elements necessary to make the order equivalent to a ment against the debtor for £80 and costs. On the 7th of it bound the land, and, if the receiver afterwards perfected August, the judgment bring unsatisfied, the creditor com the order by giving the security, his appointment would menced an action in the Chancery Division against the relate back to the dite of the order. And their lordships debtor for an account of what was due on the judgment and all agreed that the issue of a writ of elegit in the case of an payment, or for a sale of certain real estate of the debtor equitable interest is a mere idle form, and one which is which was subject to a mortgage, and payment out of the

unnecessary since the Judicature Act. proceeds, and for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the property and an injunction. The plaintiff had not issued a writ of elegit. On the same day he applied ACT OF BANKRUPTCY-BILL OF SALE-ASSIGNMENT OF ex parte for the appoiotment of a receiver, upon an affidavit WHOLE PROPERTY TO SECURE ANTECEDENT DEBT_PRIOR that the defendant was not, to his knowledge, entitled to AGREEMENT TO GIVE BILL OF SALE “IF REQUIRED"-ONUS any other lands or hereditaments, or any other property PROBANDI.-In & case of Ex parte Kilner, before the Court against which any writ of elegit, fieri facias, or other pro of Appeal on the 20th inst., the question was whether an cess of execution might be issued for the purpose of obtain assigoment of the whole of a trader's property to secure & ing payment of the judgment debt, and an order was made loan made to him ton months previously, the assignment appointing an interim receiver, without security, to receive being executed about three weeks before he filed a liquidathe rents and profits of the mortgaged property until after tion petition, he being at the time of its execution practithe 14th of August, but the receiver was “ not in the cally insolvent, could be supported by an agreement, meantime to take possession" of the property. On the 14th entered into when the loan was made, to give a bill of sale of August an order was made in the action, upon notice, “if required” by the lender. The Chief Judge had held appointing the same person, upon his giving security, the bill of sale valid against the trustee in the liquidation. receiver of the rents and profits of the property, and direct. In support of the appeal reliance was placed on Ex parte ing that the tenants should attorn and pay their rents to Fisher (20 W. R. 849, L. R. 7 Ch. 636). On behalf of the him. The same day the debtor filed a liquidation petition, bill of sale holder it was urged that Ex parte Fisher is not and a receiver was appointed. It did not appear whether a decision that an agreement to give a bill of sale "if or the order absolute for the appointment of the receiver in the when required” by a creditor is necessarily a fraudulent action was made before or after the appointment of the

one, and one that cannot support a bill of sale of all the receiver uoder the petition. The receiver in the action debtor's property subsequently given to secure the debt. never gave security. Under these circumstances the Chief

Such a construction of the decision in Ex parte Fisher Judge held that the appointment of the receiver operated as

would, it was said, be contrary, not only to a series of prior a delivery in execution by "other lawful anthority" of the

anthorities, such as Mercer v. Peterson (15 W. R. 1179, 16 land, within the meaning of section 1 of the Act 27 & 28

W. R. 486, L. R. 2 Ex. 304, 3 Ex. 104) and Harris v. Vict. c. 112, giving the creditor a charge or lien on the land, Rickett (4 H. & N. 1), which the Coart of Appeal recogand making him a secured creditor at the commencement of

nized in Ex parte Fisher, but would be inconsistent with the liquidation. In support of the appeal it was urged that,

later decisions of the same court, such as Ex parte Izard assuming that the appointment of a receiver could, under

(22 W. R. 342, L. R. 9 Cb. 271), and Ex parte King (24 any circumstances, amount to an "equitable execution,

W. R.559, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 256). BAGGALLAY, L.J., said that where an elegit had not been previously issued, a mere interim appointment could not have that effect, and the

the principle laid down in Ex parte Fisher was that,

where the giving of the bill of sale is purposely postabsolute appointment, being an appointment upon the receiver's giving security, could not amount to an equitable poned antil the trader is in a state of insolvenoy, in order execution until the security had been given. On this

to prevent the destraction of his credit, whioh would resalt point the case of Edwards v. Edwards (24 W. R. 713, L. R.

from registering a bill of sale, suoh a postponement is evi2 Ch. D. 291) was cited, in which it was held that, when

dence of an intention to commit an actual fraad against 8 receiver of chattels had been appointed upon his giving

the general creditors," and it was clear from the way security, an execution creditor who seized the chattels,

in which that principle was enunciated by Mellish, before the receiver had given the security, had not been L.J., that it was for the coart in each case to take guilty of a contempt of court. This, it was said, showed that into consideration all the surroanding circumstances, the appointment of the receiver bad no operation at all and judge whether there was an actual intention to commit until it was completed by the giving of the security. It was

a fraud on the general creditors. Ex parte Izard and Ex further urged that it was the settled practice of the Court of parte King were decided on their special cironmstances, and Chancery pot to interfere in favour of a judgment creditor, in neither of them was there any expression of dissent from even though the judgment debtor had no interest in land but the principle laid down in Ex parte Fisher. On the evidence an equitable one which an elegit could not affect, until the in the present case nis lordship came to the conclusion that creditor had done all that he could to enforce his judgment it was intended that the giving of the bill of sale should be at law by issuing an elegit, and it was said that the Judica- postponed until the debtor should be in difficulties, and it catore Act has made no difference in this respect. In the re sbould be necessary for the creditor's protection that it cent cases of Hatton v. Hayrcood (22 W. R. 356, L. R. 9 Cb. gbould be given. The case was therefore entirely covered 229) and The Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies (27 W. R. 3, by Ex parte Fisher, and the bill of sale was void as against L. R. 9 Ch. D. 275), in the latter of which it was held that the trustee in the liquidation. THESIGER, L.J., said that the appointment of a receiver on an interlocutory motion the principles of Mercer v. Peterson, and similar cases, were amounted to an equitable execation of land, an elegit had undoubtedly binding on the court; but those principles been issued. The court held that the case was really con must be applied with very great caution, for otherwise they

would open the door to great frauds. The court must re- | an equitable debt. The writ was a species of mesne proquire very clear evidence that the agreement set up to cess, analogous to the power of arrest under mesne process validate the bill of sale was a bona fide agreement, that it at common law in the case of a legal debt. Before the was pot, to use the language of Mellisb, L.J., in Ex parte Jadicature Act, & writ of ne exeat could not have been Fisher, an agreement that the giving of the bill of sale granted in such a case as the present, and the Judicature sbould be delayed until the debtor should be in difficulties, Act had made no difference. It was then urged on behalf with the view of avoiding the injury to his credit which of the applioant that an order of arrest might be made would result from the registration of a bill of sale. Ex under the exception contained in section 6 of the Debtors parte Fisher supplied a very wholesome correction to Aot, 1869, on the ground that the defendant's absence from Mercer v. Peterson and that class of cases. The court ought England would “materially prejadice the plaintiff in the to require a very clear explanation of the reason why the prosecution of his action," inasin uch as the plaintiff would execution of such a bill of sale had been delayed. In the pre be entitled to obtain discovery from the defendant in relasept case do explanation whatever had been given of the tion to the foreign insurances. Section 6, it was said, conld delay, and bis lordship inferred that the intention of the have no meaning if it did not refer to something of this kind, parties at the date of the agreement was that no bill of for otherwise the absence of a defendant abroad would be an sale should be given until the debtor should be in insolvent | advantage to a plaintiff, as it would enable him to obtain circumstances. JAMES, L.J., added that in such cases the judgment by default. The court, however, held that onus probandi was always on the person who get up the section 6 did not apply. JAMES, L.J., said that the dis. prior agreement to validate the bill of sale, to show, not covery suggested would not be a step in the prosecution of only that there was such an agreement, but that it was a the action. And THESIGER, L.J., said that the argument bona fide agreement.

must go to this extent, that whenever a defendant to an action was a foreigner withont property in this country, but

baving property abroad, he could be arrested if he was in COMPANY - VOLUNTARY WINDING UP-AGREEMENT FOR

this country and was about to leave it. SALE OF BUSINESS ANI) ASSETS TO ANOTHER COMPANYVALIDITY AS AGAINST CREDITORS—COMPANIES ACT, 1862, s. 161.-In a case of In re The City and County Investment

PRACTICE-UNAUTHORIZED USER OF NAME AS PLAINTIFF Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 19th inst., the

--Costs-MOTION TO DISM]SS-LIABILITY OF SOLICITORimportant question was raised how far an agreement under | FORM OF ORDER.-In the case of Nurse v. Durnford, before section 161 of the Companies Aot, 1862, entered into by & the Master of the Rolls on the 21st inst., motions were made company about to be wound up voluntarily, for the sale of

by the defendants to dismiss for want of prosecution. The its business and property to another company, js binding

| action was one by country solicitors for an account against apop the creditors of the transferor company. The court

their London agents, and it appeared that one of the plain(JESSEL, M.R., and JAMES and BAGGALLAY, L.JJ.) beld that

tiffs, James Nurse, had instructed his then London agents, such an agreement was valid as against the creditors of the | Messrs. Eyre & Co.. to commence the action, making transferor company, po application baving been made to

himself and also the two co-executors (James Walker and the court for å winding-up order within a year from the

Ann Nurse) of a deceased son, formerly a partner with him, passing of the special resolution approving of the agree plaintiffs. James Nurse and Aon Nurse were both dead, ment. Section 161 contains the following provision :-“If and their estates were believed to be insolvent. On the an order be made within a year for winding or the com motion to dismiss being served on James Walker, he served pany by or subject to the supervision of tbe court, such a counter-notice on the defendants, asking that his name resolution shall not be of any validity, unless it is sano. might be struck out as plaintiff, as having been inserted tioned by the court.” JESSEL, M. R., said that if the agree- without his authority. On the 14th inst., when the motion ment was an actually fraudulent one, the case could was mentioned, the Master of the Rolls directed that the notice be easily dealt with at law or in equity, and if it of motion should be amended by asking that the solicitors amounted to a fraudulent preference, section 164 would should pay the costs occasioned by improperly joining James provide a remedy. If a mistake had been made, and Walker. The solicitors were served with notice of motion, the parties honestly, though erroneously, supposed that and all three motions came on to be heard together. they had provided funds for the payment of the company's The form of order suggested by the defendants was that debts, then the remedy was to be found in the above-men originally adopted in Dundos v. Dutems (1 Ves. jun. 200), tioned provision of section 161. If a creditor could not and since followed in numerous cases under the old chancery obtain payment of his debt he could apply within a year to practice-namely, of directing the costs to be paid by the the court for a winding-up order, and the court would not plaintiff, in the first instance, leaving him to obtain indemnity sanotion the arrangement if it interfered with the pay- from the solicitors. Jessel, M.R., said he could not agree ment of the creditors. Tbis view of section 161 was con- with the principle on which the rule had been established sistent with the general scheme of the Act. Shareholders that, if an agent professed to act without authority on might transfer their shares to a pauper, and, by virtue of behalf of his principal, the rule was to make him liable to section 38, they would not be liable to the creditors of the the persons deceived, and also to bis assumed priocipal for company after the expiration of a year, and the above pro any damage sustained by him. The common law rule had vision of section 161 placed shareholders who accepted always followed the principles of the agency cases, and the shares in the transferee company in the same position as courts had made the solicitor liable in the first instance. He shareholders who transferred their shares in the ordi thought the common law rule more correct in principle, and nary way. The agreement was binding on all the sbare

he said he should follow it in preference to that in use in holders by virtue of section 161, and it became binding on equity. He should make one order in all three motions, the creditors by lapse of the time mentioned in that staying all further proceedings in the action, and directing the section,

solicitors, Messrs. Eyre & Cc., to pay the plaintiff Walker's costs as between solicitor and client, and the defendants'

costs as between party and party. He also intimated that PRACTICE_WRIT OF NE EXEAT-LEGAL DEBT-DEBTORS | the solicitors would have a right to prove against the estate Act, 1869, s. 6.-In a case of Drover v. Beyer, an applica of the plaintiff James Nurse, who had caused the misjoinder, tiop was, on the 15th inst., made to the Court of Appeal for for all the costs they would have to pay. a writ of ne exeat, the application baving been previously refused by Jessel, M.R. (ante, p. 66). The action was brooght apon a mortgagee's covevant to pay the mortgage debt, the L PRACTICE-LEAVE TO SIGN JUDGMENT UNDER ORD. 14, mortgage being of a foreigo ship, and some policies of insur- R. 3-AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER. ance upon hergranted by some foreign insurance companies, - In a case of Grugin v. Grepe, before the Master The defendant was a foreigner resident abroad, having of the Rolls on the 22nd inst., a question arose whether & property abroad, but having no property in England. He plaintiff on an application to sign judgment under ord. 14, bappened to be temporarily in England, but had stated his r. 3, could file and use an affidavit in reply to the case intention of leaving almost immediately. The court | made by the defendant in his affidavit for leave to defend. (JAMES, BAGGALLAY, and THESIGER, LJJ.) refused the It appears that there have been conflicting decisions in the application. JAMES, L.J., said that a writ of ne exeat was common law divisions on the point. JESSEL, M.R., was granted by the old Court of Chancery only in the case o of opinion that there would be no difficulty in allow ing such a practice. What the judge had to do was to deter SPECIAL EXAMINER — EXAMINATION or CO - PLAINmine whether the defendant coald make out a primâ facie TIFFS RESIDENT ABROAD-ORD. 37, RR. 1, 4.-In a case cage showing a defence, and there was no more diffioulty in of The Banque F anco. Egyptienne v. Lutscher, before Fry, doing this by baring the affidavit in reply than without J., on the 24th inst., the action was brought by a foreign such an affidavit. The equity courts were quite familiar corporation, and four foreigners resident abroad as co-plaio. with the practice of determining whether a primâ facie tiffs. The bank sued in respect of a very large debt; the case was made on affidavits, as they bad to decide this very co-plaintiffs sued in respect of a very much smaller debt question on every application for an interlocutory injunc arising out of the same transactions. The co-plaintiffs were tion. As there were conflicting decisions on the point, joined as plaintiffs, instead of being made defendants, he was not bound by either. He considered that under because it was feared that if they were made defendants they the words of the order the practice might be adopted, and, would become hostile to the bank. The bank desired to in his opinion the right course was to allow the affidavit in

have the evidence of the co-plaintiffs in support of their case, reply to be read.

but the co-plaintiffs refused to come to England to be examined. Under these circumstances the bank moved for

che appointment of a special examiner to take the evidence CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LEASE_UNDERLEASE–Mis.

| of the co-plaintiffs abroad. Fry, J., made the order, apDESCRIPTION – EXFCRCING CONTRACT. – In a case of Camberwell Building

pointing a special to take the evidence of the four co-plainSociety V. Holloway, before the

tiffs (naming them), and providing that this was not to delay Master of the Rolls on the 20th inst., a question arose

the trial. The costs to be costs in the action. whether the court would enforce the sale of a leasehold property under the following circumstances:-In the particulars of sale it was described as a “leasehold residence," Costs — DISCRETION OF THE COURT - UNNECESSARY held at a low ground rent. The next house was stated to ACTICN TO EXECUTE TRUSTS OF SETTLEMENT.-In a case of be “ underleased at an apportioned rent." By the conditions Fane v. Fane, before Fry, J., on the 25th inst., the action of sale the vendors were to deliver an abstract commencing

was brought by one of two tenants for life under a settlewith an indenture of lease, under which the lot was held,

ment of a money fund to have the trusts of the settlement and the lease was to be produced at the time of sale, and the carried into execution by the court. There were originally purchaser was to be taken to bave notice of all indentures

two trustees, one of them died, and the defendants to the therein contained. An abstract of tille was delivered com- action were the surviving trustee and the other tenant for mencing with the lease, which on its face purported to i life. The alleged that the surviving trustee was permanbe an underlease, and on this the purchaser ultimately ! ently resident abroad, and that be ought to be removed from declined to complete. JESSEL, M.R., after commenting un. bis office, and that ewo new trustees ought to be appointed, favourably on the decisions in Madeley v. Borth (2 De G. and

and he asked that this might be done. The settlement conSm. 718) and Darlington v. Hamilton (Kay, 550), came to

tained a power of appointment by the tenants for life. The the conclusion that in the present case there was no mis.

plaintiff also alleged that the defendant trustee had comdescription, that there was nothing to show that an under mitted a breach of trost, and asked that certain bonds, in lesse was not intended to be sold, and, moreover, that the which the trust funds were invested, might be deposited in purchaser was put upon ample notice that the property he a bank in the names of the new trustees. At the trial the was buying was in fact held under an underlease. He plaintiff abandoned the charges agaiost the defendant trastee, therefore gave judgment for specific performance, with and admitted that there was no ground whatever for his costs.

removal. Under these circumstances the only question was

whether the plaintiff ought to pay the whole of the costs of RECTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT-MISTAKE-EVIDENCE.

the action. Fry, J., said that the action was really brought, In an action of Edwards v. Bingham, heard on the 21st

not to have the trusts executed, but for the other purposes inst., before Malina, V.C., his lordship reotified a settlement

which had teen abandoned. The plaintiff was entitled to made on the marriage of Mrs. Edwards to her late husband,

judgment for the execution of the trusts, but the trust funds opon her upsopported evidence, under the following cir. bad never been in danger, and there was no ground for comcomstances :- She swore that she had not intended, and

ing to the court. The court had a discretion as to the costs, had not instructed her solicitor to prepare, the settlement,

and it would be properly exercised in this case by ordering which comprised her property only, in such a way as to

the plaintiff to pay all the costs of the action up to and limit ber power of disposing of any of her properly in the

including the trial event of her surviving her husband. The settlement, how. ever, gave her a power of appointment by deed as to a sum PRACTICE_BANKRUPTCY OF DEFENDANT AFTER ACTION of £600, and, sobject thereto, and to her life interest in the SET DOWN FOR TRIAL-ORDER OF REVIYOR AGAINST property, a power of appointment by will only over the TRUSTEE-SERVICE_DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE-FILING whole of her property; and, in default of appointment, there PLEADINGS AND NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT was a trast for the benefit of her children by any marriage, i NON-APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT AT TRIAL-AFFIDAVIT and, subject to the preceding trusts, there were trusts, in

OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF TRIAL-ORD. 50, RR, 2, 4, 5the event of her husband surviving ber, for bis benefit, and

ORD. 16, R. 13-ORD. 19, R. 6-ORD. 36, R. 20.-In a for the benefit of a stranger, and in the event of her sorvi.

case of Chorlton v. Dickie, before Fry, J., on the 21st inst., ving her husband for the benefit of her next of kin. Her

the action was brought by one of three trustees against his hasband pre-deceased her, and there were no children of co-trustees, Dickie and McLachlan, to compel the marriage, and she had not married agaid. MALINS, good a breach of trust. The pleadings having been closed, V.C., was of opinion that the settlement ought to be recti notice of trial was given by the plaintiff, and was served on fied, having regard to the events which had happened, by the solicitors on the record, who appeared for both the giving Mrs. Edwards a power of appointment by deed over defendants, and they accepted service for both defendants. the wbole property.

The action was set down for trial, but, before it came on to

be tried, the defendant Dickie was adjudicated a bankrupt, PRACTICE-DEFENDANT IN PERSON.-In an action of and a trustee of his property was appointed. The common Cusel y. Bashford, brought to trial before Malins, V.C., on

order of course was obtained by the plaintiff that the action the 25th inst., wbile the plaintiff's case was being opened,

and the proceedings therein shonld be carried on and the defendant repudiated in person both the solicitors ap

prosecuted against the trustee, in like manner as if he had pearing on the record for him and the counsel instructed

been originally a defendant thereto. This order was served by them. MALINS, V.C., said that, under the circum

upon him, but he did not enter an appearance. The action stances, he could only hear the defendant in person, and

had been marked in the list as standing over by reason of that in so doing he was following a precedent laid down by

the bankruptcy, but, after the order of revivor had been Knight Bruce, L.J., who bimself had followed Lord Eldon.

made, it was restored to the paper for trial. Notice of this He, however, allowed the action to stand over for a week

was served on the trustee. When the action came on for for the parties to consider their position.

trial the defendant McLachlan appeared, but neither Dickie nor his trustee appeared. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. The registrar declined to draw up the judgment on two grounds-(1) that, as the trustee had not entered an appearance, the pleadings and notice of motion for judgment ought, in accordance with rule 6 of order 19, to have been filed as against him; (2) that, as Dickie did not appear at

MR. JOAN PEARSE. the trial, an affidavit of service of the notice of trial upon Mr. John Pearse, solicitor, of Hatherleigh, died recently bim ought to have been filed before the trial. Fry, J., held at his residence at that place, after a long illness. Mr. that, as notice of trial had been duly served on the defend Poarse was born in 1818, was admitted a solicitor in 1842, ant, Dickie, and the effect of the order of revivor was to and had ever since practised at Hatherleigh. He was & place the trustee in the shoes of Dickie, it was unnecessary commissioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Court of that the pleadings and notice of motion for judgment Jadicatore, and a perpetual commissioner for Devonshire, should be filed. His lordship also held that an affidavit of

and he had a large private practice, having been for service of notice of trial was unnecessary, on the ground that

many years the only solicitor in the town. Mr. Pearse the defendant wes sufficiently protected by the power of

had been for many years clerk to the Commissioners of setting aside the judgment, given to the court by rule 20 of

Taxes for the Hatherleigh Division of the county, and he order 36. He said that when he held in Cockshott v. The

was also olerk to the Hatherley Highway Board and Sohool London General Cab Company (26 W. R. 31) that an

Board. He was in partnership with his son, Mr. George affidavit of service of notice of trial ought to be produced at

Pearse, who was admitted a solicitor in 1874. the trial when the defendant did not appear, he did so because he was told by the registrar that it was the practice always to require this to be done. But it now appeared that this was not the practice in the common law divisions.

MR. GEORGE ALLISON. Mr. George Allison, solicitor and proctor (the head of the firm of Allison, Son, & Willan), the oldest practising solicitor at Darlington, died at his residence at that place

on the 12th inst., after a somewhat short illness. Mr, Obituary.

Allison was admitted a solicitor in 1820, and originally

practised at Richmond, but a few years later removed to MR. SERJEANT cox.

Darlington, where he carried on business until his death. Mr. Edward William Cox, serjeant-at-law, deputy-assistant

He was at one period in partnership with Mr. Robert

Nesham, afterwards with his son, Mr. George Thomas judge of the Middlesex Sessions, died soddenly from apoplexy at his residence, The Moat Mount, Highwood-hill,

Allison, and more recently with Mr. Richard Willan.

| He was a commissioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Middlesex, on Monday, the 24th inst., at the age of seventy.

Court of Jadioatare, and a perpetual commissioner for the On Monday morning he took his seat at Clerkenwell, in the second court, and discharged his judicial duties without any

County Palatine of Durham, and the North Riding of Yorkappearance of ill-health. He returned home in the after

| sbire, and his private practice was very extensive. He was BOOD, and in the evening he took part in a penny reading at

for many years solicitor to the Darlington District Bank. Mill.bill. On returning home he went to his library, where

Mr. Allison had formerly a good practice as a prootor in shortly afterwards he was found dead by his daughter. Mr.

| the local ecclesiastical courts. His death is much regretted Serjeant Cox was the eldest son of Mr. William Cox, of

at Darlington. Taunton, and he was born in 1809. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1843, and

MR. BENJAMIN WORKMAN. practised for many years on the Western Circuit, and at the Devonshire, Exeter, Plymouth, and Devonport Sessions, Mr. Benjamin Workman, solicitor, died at his residence, and be had for many years a good criminal business. He Hampton House, Evesham, on the 8th inst., ai the age of was well known as a legal writer, being the founder, eighty.six. He was the son of Mr. Joseph Workman, and and for many years the editor of the Law Times. was born in 1793. He was admitted a solicitor in 1819, and He was also the author (in conjunction with Mr. , practised for about thirty years at Evesham. He had a large Thomas William Saunders) of a work on the Criminal i business, and was in partnership with his brother, Mr. Henry Law Consolidation Acts, and (in conjunction with Workman, and with Mr. Herbert New, the present registrar Mr. Standish Grove Grady) of a treatise upon the of the Tewkesbury County Court. Mr. Workman retired Law of Registrations and Elections. He also published from practice about thirty years ago, and was shortly after(among other works) a Digest of Criminal Cases, "The wards placed in the commission of the peace for WorcesterŻaw of Joint Stock Companies," and "The Arts of Writing, shire and Gloucestershire, as well as for the borough of Reading, and Speaking,” and he was editor of the well- Evesham. He commanded the Tewkesbury Rifle Volunteers known reports known as “Cox's Criminal Cases." He was for several years after the forination of the corps. He had recorder of the boroughs of Helston and Falmouth from for some years devoted his attention to artistio pursuits, and 1857 till 1868, when he was appointed recorder of Portsmouth, his collection of paintings had obtained some celebrity. Mr. In the same year he was created a serjeant-at-law, at the Workman was a bachelor. same time as Serjeants Sargood and Sleigh, this being the latest creation of serjeants, except in the case of newlyappointed judges. Mr. Serjeant Cox was a Conservative, and unsuccessfully contested Tewkesbury in 1854, and Taunton in 1865. He again stood for the latter borough in

Appointments, Etc. 1868, when he was returned in conjunction with Mr. Barclay, defeating the present Sir Henry James by a few votes, but he was unseated on petition, and the scat was

Mr. Bruce LOCKHART BURNSIDE, Q.C., Attorney-General awarded to the latter. He was a magistrate and deputy

of the Bahamas, has been appointed Queen's Advocate for the lieutenant for Middlesex, and chairman of petty sessions

Island of Ceylon, in succession to Mr. Richard Cayley, appointed for the Edgware Division, and in 1870 (on the death of Mr.

Chief Justice of Ceylon. Mr. Burnside was called to the bar

at Lincoln's-inn in Easter Term, 1866. He was for several Joseph Payne) he became deputy-assistant judge, and discharged the duties of that office until his death. Mr. Ser

years Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Bahamas, jeant Cox had devoted much attention to psychological studies,

and he was appointed a Queen's Counsel for the colony in and he was president of the Paychological Society, and

| 1874, and Attorney-General in 1875. author of “The Mechanism of Man," and other philosophi Mr. MONTAGU HAWKINS, solicitor, of 115, Leadenhallcal works. It may be remembered that he became the street, E.C., has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner purchaser of the site of Serjeant's-inn on its recent sale by for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married the former members. Mr. Serjeant Cox was twice married, Women in and for the Cities of London and Westminster duu first, in 1836, to the daughter of Mr. William Harris, and County of Middlesex. secondly, in 1845, to the daughter of Mr. John William Mr. GEORGE WADHAM, solicitor (of the firm of Guscotte, Martin Fonblanque, many years a commissioner of the Court

| Wadham, & Daw), of 19, Essex-street, Strand, has been of Bankruptcy.

appointed Under-Sheriff of the City and County of Bristol

for the ensuing year. Mr. Wadham was admitted a solicitor ! in 1862, and has been ander-sheriff of Bristol since the year | 1871.

the debts and claims


Societies. WILLIAN REED and WILLIAM JOLLIFFR, 86, Howardstreet, North Shields, and 25, Side, Newcastle-upon-Type, solicitors. (Reed & Jolliffe.) November 12. (Gazette, HULL INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. November 25.)

The annual meeting of the members of this Society

was held on the evening of the 12th inst. Mr. Companies.

Henry Birks (vice-president) occupied the chair. This was

the last meeting of the old Hull Law Society, founded in the WINDING.UP NOTICES.

year 1818, and a resolution having been passed transferring

its assets and property to the new Hill Incorporated Law JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

Society, the first annual meeting of the Incorporated Law LIMITED IN CHANCERY. PARIS HANSON CAB COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has by an order Society was held. The following were elected officers for the

dated Oct 14, appointed Mr. W. Williams, King st, Cheapside, to be ensuing year:-President, Mr. Henry Birks ; vice-president, official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or before Dec 30, to Mr. E. Laverack ; bon. secretary and treasurer, Mr. J. T. send i beir names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims to the above. Jan 15 at 11 is appointed for adjudicating upon

Woodhouse ; council, Mr. F. Lowe, Mr. J. J. Thorney, Mr.

C. S. Wake, Mr. J. L. Jacobs, Mr. J. Gething, and Mr. J. TOWYN PIER COMPANY, LIMITED:-Br an order made by V.C. Jlall, Cook; hon, auditors, Messrs. Pearce and Sibree. After the dated Nor II, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Steele,

meeting the annual dinner was held, and there was a large College hill, solicitor for the petitioner

(Gazette, Nov 21.)

attendance of members. Mr. Birks (president-elect) occupied LLYNFI, TONDU, AND OGMORE COAL AND IRON COMPANY, LIMITED. the chair, and there were also present as guests -the mayor Creditors are required, on or before Dec 31, to send their names and (Alderman King, M.D.), the sheriff (R. M. Craven, Esq., addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims. to John Joseph Smith, Cannon st. Jan 9 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudi J.P.), Mr. Bedwell (judge of the Hull County Court). eating upon the debts and claiins

Letters were received from the recorder (W. Beasley, Esq.), MIDLAND HOTEL, BIRMINCHAM, LIMITED.-By an order made by the aod deputy-stipendiary of Hull (E. C. Twiss, Esq.), regretMR., dated Nov 15, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the hotel be continued. Pearce and Sons, Giltspur st, for Wilkinson

ting their inability to be present owing to pressing engageand Gillespie, Walsall, solicitors for the petitioners

ments in London. After dinner, the usual loyal toasts

[Gazette, Nov. 25.) having been proposed from the chair, the chairman proposed UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

“ Her Majesty's Judges," and said that the reputaYrtraL SOCIETY.-The M.R. has fixed Dec 4 at 11 for the appointment ef an official liquidator

tion of the learned judges of the Supreme Court

[Gazette, Nov, 21.) for learning, ability, and impartiality was never greater than BALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA PIER COMPANY.-Petition for winding up, pre at present; and amongst our intellectual athletes and dissented Nov 20, directed to be heard before V.C. Malips, on Dec 5. lliffe and Co. Bedford row, for Thompson, jun, Middlesborough; tinguished statesmen and scholars the names of Lord Chansolicitor for the petitioners

cellor Cairns and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn stood preSLATE CrXPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R., dated Nov eminent; but, whilst expressing their feelings of pride and

15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Ellis and Co, St admiration for the judges generally, he was sure the memSwithin's lane, solicitors for the petitioners TYNEXOUTH AQUARIUM AND WINTER GARDEN COMPANY, LIMITED.-By

bers would join with him most heartily in giving expression an crder made by V.C. Hall, dated Nov. 14, it was ordered that the to the sentiments of respect and esteem in which they held company be wound up. Hemsley and Heasley, Court yard, Albany, Mr. Bedwell in particular. Mr. Bedwell, who was received solicitors for the petitioners

[Gazette, Nov 25.]

with loud applaiise, returoed thanks, and after alluding to FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

the talents of the judges-many of whom he had the pleasure FEJENDLY SOCIETY OF FARINGDOX, Faringdon, Berks. Nov 19

of knowing personally-spoke of the pleasure it always gave WEST KENT AGRICULTURAL LABOUREEB' UNION FRIENDLY SOCIETY, him to meet his brother lawyers at Hull, and said that he Grassbopper Inn, Westerham, Kent. Nov 19

should not soon forget the kind reception they gave him

[Gazette, Nov 21.7 BOCKINGHAM LODGE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Nottingham Ancient Imperial

when he first came amongst them about five years ago. Upiied Order of Odd Fellows, Albion Tavern, Little Sheffield, York. They were all engaged in a noble profession, and it was Nov 22

amongst their chief duties and privileges to teach and show [Gazette, Nov 25.]

what authority meant and wbat respect meant. Mr. Lowe, in

felicitous terms, next proposed “The Mayor and CorporaNew Orders, Etc.

tion,” wbich was acknowledged by the mayor (Dr. King)!

Mr. Middlemiss then submitted the health of the sheriff, COUNTY COURTS.

which was enthusiastically received and responded to by Mr. Craven, after which Mr. Bedwell proposed

" The Hull I, the Right Honourable Hugh MacCalmont, Earl Cairns, Incorporated Law Society,” remarking that he regarded a Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do, under the society like this most useful, particularly in protecting the powers vested in me by the County Court Rules, hereby honour of the profession, and encouraging esprit de corps order that the offices of the county courts may be closed on the 26th, the 27th, and 29th days of December, 1879.

amongst its members, and it had his very best wishes Given under my band this 3rd day of November, 1879.

for its prosperity. The president-elect (Mr. Birks), CAIRNS, C.

who was loudly applauded, said : In the absence, through serious indisposition, of the retiring president, which we all

deplore, it becomes my duty to respond to the toast so On Satorday, Mr. Collier beld an inquiry at the Wado's kiadly and beartily proposed by Mr. Bedwell, and honoured by Arms, Jeremiah-street, Poplar, touching the death of our other guests, of success and prosperity to the Hull IncorAlfred Holder, aged twenty-six, a solicitor. The body was porated Law Society. This society is the successor of one estabidentified by Mr. John Holder, a solicitor, of Malvern-road, lished in the town of Hull for upwards of sixty years, and Dalstop, who stated that be last saw his brothor alive on which has to-night ceased to exist. By incorporation we the 16th, when he appeared in his ugual health. He had hope to obtain certain advantages more appreciable by suffered from his heart, and on Thursday, from information lawyers than the general public, and we have taken the he (witness) received, he went to the Islander's beerhouse, opportunity of incorporation to revise our rules ; bat our in the West Ferry-road, and there saw his brother dead. objects remain the same as before. In one respect, I hope Maurice Jobs Sexton, the landlord of the honse in question,

we shall differ considerably from the late society. In its said that the deceased was at his house on Thursday old age it had become somewhat languid and indifferent. arranging for the transfer of the premises. He was sitting I trast our re-constitated society will exhibit more of the quietly in a chair negotiating the necessary business, when energy and enthusiasm of youth. We may possibly lose be suddenly fell backwards, and before medical aid could the grand court hitherto held after our annual dinner. I be summoned he expired. Medical evidence showed that

fear the charter under which we hold it is not embodied in death arose from aneurism in the aorta, accelerated by the our artioles, or otherwise confirmed to us. But the days of severe weather, and a verdict was returned accordingly. “high jinks" are passing away, and, as the humoar of MONEY SAVED BY ADOPTING CHAPPUIS' DAYLIGHT REFLECTORS

the court sometimes verged on the frolicsome, the loss even They superzede gas in daytime and improve natural daylight. They of the grand court may not be a cause for unmixed regret. are in use in all Government offices, on board ships, and in private The objeots we have in view are to uphold and improve houses-from the nobleman's mansion to the artizan's workshop. prospectus address two stamps to 8. J. CHAPPUIS, Patentee and Manu.

the status of the profession, to call the members tofacturer, 69, Fleet-street, London.-(ADIT.)

gether from time to time for social intercourse, and


« PreviousContinue »