ment in the way of fraud; that attached to each county court there should be a registry of deeds affecting the property in the district; that a dictionary index of documents registered should be made, and that certificates of search should be given by the registrar at a low price. Mr. WAKE (Sheffield) was also in favour of registration, and he was followed on the same side by Mr. IBBOTSON (Sheffield), Mr. HUGHES (Sheffield), and Mr. DODD (London). Mr. HOWLETT (Brighton) was opposed to registration, as was also Mr. WALTERS (London). Mr. WALLINGFORD (St. Ives) said that the true solution of the difficulty was the abolition of the doctrine of notice, tacking, and consolidation of mortgages. Mr. W. SMITH (Sheffield) believed that the unsatisfactory state of the Middlesex Registry was the real index to what would otherwise be an unintelligible anomaly. While in Middlesex only one was in favour of registering, in Yorkshire they were hugging their chains, and bearing willingly the yoke about which Mr. Howlett had spoken. No.esolution was passed. DEVOLUTION OF REAL ESTATES OF INTESTAtes. Mr. HENRY BIRKS' paper "On the Attitude of the Legal Profession in relation to a Suggested Alteration in the Law as to the Devolution of the Real Estates of Intestates " was then read. He was of opinion that the existing law of descent is unsuitable to present requirements; that it works injuriously, and without compensating advantages, and that it is expedient that the profession should lend its influence in aid of the proposed change to the devolution of real estates of intestates to personal representatives. Mr. W. B. ESAM (Sheffield) believed that the abolition of the law of primogeniture would not touch large estates. If it did he would not approve of it, but he thought it would be well to abolish the law in the case of small freeholds to prevent injustice in the distribution of the property in cases of intestacy. PROBATE DUTY. duty. There is, however, a far stronger reason for retain. ing the present system, and that is, that small assets are very liable to be overlooked on making out the list for probate, which generally has to be done before there has been full time or opportunity to look into things; and if duty were to be paid only on the actual amount, the applications for rectification on the ground of mistake would be endless; and until probate duty can be paid at the same period as legacy duty, viz., when everything has been really ascertained and accounted for, the scale system must be retained. While upon the subject of rectification of duty it may not be unprofitable to point out what may be con sidered one or two defects in the present system, with the hope that the publicity may be a means toward their amendment. It cannot at present be considered that the facilities for rectification are such as they should be; it ought to be the aim of the revenue authorities to assist the practitioner as much as possible in this. Cases of mistake constantly occur in practice; on the one hand, an asset may be omitted or undervalued, and an increase rendered necessary, or an overvalue may be put, or something wrongly inserted, and a return, therefore, has to be made; or it may be difficult really to ascertain the assets, or their value, until after the grant is actually obtained and the estate realized. In all these cases the Revenue ought to make the prac titioner its friend, by the knowledge that if he chances to make a mistake it can easily be rectified, whereas the re verse is too often at present the case, and he knows that if too much duty is paid it may be a matter of trouble, vexa tion, expense, and delay, in getting it back again; and if too little, it will be nearly as bad. Let us take, for instance, the case of an undersworn administration, and see what is required to get it put right. First, the administrator has to make an affidavit for the probate registry, setting out the fact that the estate has been sworn under too small an amount and swearing it under the right one, and he and his sureties have to sign a fresh bond, or amend and re-execute the old one; upon this affidavit and bond the registrar gives a cer tificate that the proper additional security has been given. Then the administrator has to make out another affidavit setting out all the circumstances, and upon this and the cer tificate the additional duty is received. In all cases of increase the certificate of the solicitor, and a balance sheet, ought to be enough; the mere fact of the willing ness to increase the duty ought to be proof of a good faith. In cases of return, an affidavit and a balance-sheet as at present ought to be given; but the commissioners should have power to extend the time for a return in the case of a mistake: at present they can and do extend the time for return in case of debts, but unless the claim for return on the ground of mistake is made within six months after discovery of the error, they have no power to entertain the application, or extend the time; it may be said that six months is plenty of time, but circumstances may arise, such as the absence abroad, or illness of the claimants, which may render further time absolutely necessary. In cases of stamps or revoked grants, the rules of the Inland Revenue Office are especially hard; these cases are more frequent than may be imagined; for instance, it is supposed a man dies intestate, administration is taken out, subsequently & will is found; or a will may be proved, and another of later date afterwards make its appearance; in both these the first grant has to be revoked, and a new one obtained. It would be only reasonable to imagine that duty having been paid on the revoked grant, a duty paid stamp might be given for the second; but this is not so; duty has to be again paid, and the duty on the first grant is not returned in cash, but a warrant is given entitling the unfortunate applicant to s stamp of a similar denomination and amount. Let us take as an illustration a case which occurred a few months ago. A testator died possessed of household furniture, railway scrip, money in the funds, and a leasehold house; a holograph will properly attested was found giving everything to the widow, and appointing her sole executrix; this was proved under £800, and a stamp duty of £15 was paid; the executrix obtained a transfer of the scrip and stock into her own name. Some time afterwards another will of later date was found, also in the handwriting of the testator, exactly similar in other respects to the previous one; really, it was the same will, but technically it revoked the will of which pro bate had been obtained, and it was necessary on account of same as is done in discharges for succession and legacy voked, then the latter will was proved, and the duty of £15 the leasehold house to prove it; the first probate was re Mr. GEORGE THATCHER (London) read a paper on "Probate Duty." After stating the history of the duty and describing the present law, he said :-The arguments generally used in favour of the present system are these: first, that no debts ought to be allowed until they are paid, and the executor may never pay them at all; second, that the debts cannot readily be ascertained immediately after the death; and, thirdly, that the duty can always be got back again on debts paid within three years of the grant, and so the estate does not really pay duty on debts at all. The remedy to the first and second objections might be found by making the executor give a list of liabilities as well as assets, and the one could be ascertained as readily as the other; and the answer to the third is, that although it may sound very well in theory, it frequently occasions great hardships in practice; as an instance of this, a manufacturer in a large way of business, whose will was proved in 1859, left assets over £130,000, the liabilities were over £110,000, so that he really died worth less than £20,000. Nevertheless, the executors had to swear the estate under £140,000, and pay a duty of £1,800, and it was not till the year 1869, when the estate had been fully administered, that they got the surplus duty of £1,400 returned to them, so that in this case Government had the use of £1,400 for ten years without interest. Practically, too, it will be found that it is not an easy task to get back overpaid duty, it is a work of time and patience. The Revenue do not seem disposed to part with money when once they have got it, and it is hardly to be credited, though a fact notwithstanding, that this spirit is so openly displayed, that applications for increase or return are not taken in the order of their entry, but all increase cases are taken in preference to return cases, no matter how long either of the applicants have been waiting. The last part of the affidavit declares the personalty to be under a certain sum, graduated by scale. It has been said that this is not fair, and that duty ought to be only payable on the actual amount. One objection brought against this in the recent debate in the House was, that it would be impossible to keep a number of dies sufficient to impress all the requisite stamps. This could easily be obviated by an official writing a receipt for the amount on the grant, and a stamp being impressed denoting that duty paid, the P had again to be paid; then a certificate was given by the registrar that the first grant had been revoked, and that the duty paid thereon ought to be allowed; then an application had to be made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, supported by affidavit, that the former grant had been revoked, and a fresh grant obtained and duty paid thereon; in fact, setting out all the circumstances, notwithstanding the registrar's certificate; then the commissioners gave a warrant entitling the executrix, not to the money, but to have a probate stamp for £15 if she happened to require such an article within a month. It should be stated, however, that, on a special application to the board they allowed the warrant to be issued to the solicitor, instead of the executrix herself; and in special cases, where the duty is very heavy, they will either pay it, or issue several warrants for smaller amounts. In all cases of this sort, however, all practitioners will agree that a denoting stamp should be granted as a matter of course. There is no doubt the commissioners are occasionally defrauded, and are obliged to exercise great watchfulness; but the way to make a man deal fairly and honourably is by dealing fairly and honourably with him, and to hold money back when there can be no question that it ought to be repaid, is calculated to afford a pretext to unscrupulous persons to themselves, in their turn, withhold from the Revenue money which ought to be paid. Surely the Government might repose more confidence in the profession than it appears to do. No class of men have greater trust reposed in them by the general public, and abuse it less, and where private individuals will confide to the honour of their solicitor, fame and fortune, surely the Revenue could do so when the amount at stake is only a few pounds, and, as before pointed out, it would be far more to its advantage to give every assistance and facility to the practitioner than to treat him with watchfulness and suspicion as is done at present there is no wish on the part of the profession to defraud the Revenue for the benefit of their clients, the simple desire is to deal fairly by both parties and not to give the one or take from the other, more or less, than the right amount. One other point, in conclusion, and a very important one, and that is, the time of payment of the duty; at present it must be paid before the grant is issued, and before the grantee can realize a penny of the assets, not in actual cash; too often he is placed in this dilemma, to get the money to pay the duty he must get the grant, to get the grant he must get the money to pay the duty; it is like telling a man to climb to the top of a house with a ladder which is lying on its roof. Except where the estate is very small few persons die leaving sufficient ready cash to pay funeral expenses and probate duty, and the executor generally either has to provide it out of his own pocket, or get the solicitor to advance it. The period for payment presses heavily on the estates of the lower middle class, and when it is remembered that more than four-fiths of the grants issued last year were sworn under £2,000, it will be seen that it is a matter which widely concerns the general community. Take the case of a professional man dying, leaving a widow and young children, the only assets the household furniture, a few pounds in cash, and a life policy, where is the widow to find the money to pay £30 or £40 for probate duty? and this case is not at all an uncommon one. A remedy could be easily provided by letting the grant issue as at present, but allowing the duty to be paid at the same time as the legacy duty, in fact add two and a quarter per cent. to the legacy duty and the thing is accomplished; this would be a great relief, and fraud could be prevented by retaining the present list of assets and checking it with the residuary account, and taking a bond in probate as well as administration cases. Of course there should be a severe punishment for all who obtained assets and did not pay the duty, or furnish some good reason for not doing so, within a limited time. There is no reason why probate duty should not be put on the same footing as legacy duty. NOTICE TO TRUSTEES' SOLICITORS. Mr. R. S. CLEAVER (Liverpool) read a paper on "The Practical Results of the Decision in the Case of The Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner (L. R. 14 Ch. D. 406)." He said, it will scarcely be necessary to make any apology for inviting the attention of this meeting to a recent judicial correction of what so excellent an authority as Lord Justice James states to be "a common misapprehension of the law." Common, moreover, not among the general public, but among ourselves. Whether the misapprehension exists to the extent, and is precisely of the nature charged by the Lord Justice, is probably a matter on which opinions will differ, but that the course of practice based on this alleged misapprehension, which has proved disastrous to the plaintiffs in this case, is one extensively adopted by the profession, there cannot be much doubt. The fallacy which the Lord Justice hopes he has demolished is, in the language of his judgment, that of supposing "that there is such a thing as the office of solicitor; that is to say, that a man has got a solicitor, not as a person whom he is employing to do some particular business for him, either conveyancing, scrivening, or conducting an action, but as an official solicitor, and that because the solicitor has been in the habit of acting for him, or been employed to do something for him, that solicitor is his agent to bind him by anything he says, or to bind him by receiving notices or information." In the case in hand the question was as to the sufficiency of the service of notice of incumbrance of a reversionary interest on the solicitors of the trustees, and the judgment proceeds "There is no such office known to the law. A man has no more a solicitor in that sense than he has an accountant, or a baker, or a butcher. A person is a man's accountant, or baker, or butcher, when the man chooses to employ him or deal with him, and the solicitor is his solicitor when he chooses to employ him and in the matter in which he is SO employed. Beyond that the solicitorship does not extend, and & man is not an agent for the purpose of receiving notice of an incumbrance created by a cestui que trust because he was the solicitor employed to invest the moneys, or even because afterwards he, for convenience, received from the mortgagor the interest, and handed it, by direction of the trustees, to the different persons entitled to receive it." After stating the facts of that case (see 28 W. R. 681), the reader said: The facts of the case disclose an instance of what, as regards the action of the plaintiffs and the solicitors to the trustees is surely a matter of constant occurrence in the profession. According to common knowledge and reputation, a respectable firm of solicitors act in the business of a particular trust. They are known to have acted for the testator, to have proved the will, to have invested money for the trustees, and received and paid over the interest on such investments, and, further, to have acted for the trustees in a chancery suit, to which the testator was a party. An intending incumbrancer of a share in the estate applies to them for information, and in their reply they state: "We are solicitors for the trustees of the late John Hardy," a statement which seems to have been very well founded, and to savour nothing of misrepresentation. The incumbrancer was content, under the circumstances, to serve notice of his charge on the solicitors for the trustees, as-James, L.J., to the contrary notwithstanding, we must continue to call them-and it is apprehended that nine practitioners out of ten would have been content to do likewise. Both, as we now learn-the one in serving and the other in receiving the notice-were acting under an opinion, erroneous in point of law, that the employment of the latter as solicitors enabled them effectually to accept service of the notice. We are told in the language of the judgment, "that before a notic of this kind of a charge upon the property can be of the slightest validity, it must be given, if given to a solicitor, to a solicitor who is actually, either expressly or impliedly, authorized as agent to receive such notices, and," so says the Lord Justice, "I am of opinion that the solicitors in this case were not so authorized." No prudent practitioner will, after this decision, trust anything to implication in such matters; therefore we may disregard that part of the dictum as useless, and read it as laying down that express authority to the solicitor is essential to the validity of his acceptance of service of a notice. In the absence of such express authority the incumbrancer must be in a position to show "that the mind of the trustee has in some way been brought to an intelligent apprehension of the nature of the incumbrance which has come upon the property, so that a reasonable man or an ordinary man of business would act upon the information and would regulate his conduct by it, in the execution of trust" (per L.C. Cairns, Lloyd v. Banks, L. R. 3 Ch. 488). These being the alter natives, it is obvious that personal service of notices on all the trustees of the property affected must henceforth be the rule, unless some satisfactory mode of avoiding the inconveniences of such a course can be devised. Trustees, a term which for this purpose must be taken to include mortgagees, to the number perhaps of three, four, or five, may have various residences, and personal service on each, either by the incumbrancer or his agent, would frequently entail expense disproportionate to the amount involved. Moreover, the process of personal service of legal documents of any nature is disagreeable to those who are unable at once to appreciate their purport. A reference of the matter to the solicitor for the trust becomes desirable, if not inevitable. with the result that his charges, if he is paid any, fall not, as they ought to do, on the incumbrancer, but on the trustee. On the other hand, trustees cannot be called upon to give an acknowledgment of receipt of a notice. In short, on all grounds convenience would dictate that the solicitor should be the medium of reception of the notice, and it would then rarely happen that the trustees would fail to acquire that intelligent apprehension of the nature of the incumbrance" which has been held to be requisite on their part. The case before us affords an instance of failure of due communication between the trustees and their solicitor, and it remains to consider how the dangers of such eventualities may best be avoided. A suggestion that solicitors should arm themselves with express authorities from their trustee clients to accept service of all notices affecting the property of the trust would probably lead to no practical result. It would be requisite that such a practice should be invariable, or the benefits it was designed to confer would frequently be found unattainable when most wanted. Perhaps the lessons of this case point rather to the recognition and extension of the principle of the agency of the trustees' solici tor. Provided the incumbrancer be willing to pay his proper charges there should be no hesitation on his part, having regard to the convenience of all concerned, to undertake such agency. If the solicitor be asked to accept service of the notice, it is customary to pay his charge therefor, but henceforth, at least, it will not be considered safe to regard the process as concluded here. Evidence should be available both to solicitor and incumbrancer, that each trustee has intelligent apprehension of the notice; and if this be secured through the medium of the solicitor, the cost will fall on those who ought to bear it. The case has one more lesson. The solicitors for the trustees narrowly escaped being made liable in damages for the results of their alleged misrepresentation that they were the solicitors for the trustees. They escaped chiefly because the incumbrancers were partakers with them in the erroneous impression that, because for previous purposes they had been solicitors to the trustees, notice to them was notice to the trustees. The safe course will now be to abstain from all representations of this nature, and to confine ourselves to the signification of our willingness to act as the agents of others for the purpose of communications with our clients. The result is not one which tends to magnify our office. The analogy of the shopkeeper is prayed in aid for the purpose of illustrating the nature of our daily employment. That time-honoured institution, "the family solicitor," is threatened with extinction. And thus we are fain to discuss how we shall with the greater decency shuffle off our ancient pretensions, and conform ourselves and our practice to these, the latest judicial definitions of our true functions. Mr. HOWLETT (Brighton) in the interest of the profession rejoiced to see this decision. He thought those solicitors who received notices on behalf of their clients were indulging in a dangerous practice, and one which involved them in responsibility which, until this case was decided, they hardly conceived. Mr. J. N. COOMBE (Sheffield) said there appeared to be a very simple remedy for this question. He should suggest that the person who had probate for the time being should be the person to whom notice of any incumbrance should be given, and that probate should be searched from time to time, like the registry was. Mr. B. WAKE (Sheffield) said that the practical result of this case was, that the advice given for long years to trustees, "Never accept a trust and never act at all," will be intensified. He would advise a trustee never to act without a solicitor, for the responsibility was enormous. Mr. COOPER (Manchester) moved, and Mr. R. R. DEES (Newcastle-on-Tyne) seconded, "That the council be requested to consider what course should in future be taken in practice in consequence of the decision in the case of Saffron Walden Benefit Building Society v. Rayner." The motion was carried. DERBYSHIRE MINES. Mr. B. WAKE read a paper on Lead Mines in Derbyshire, which elicited no discussion. The PRESIDENT announced that the time had now expired, and the two last papers by Mr. Blyth and Mr. Godfrey would have to be taken as read. They would, of course be published in the transactions of the society. A vote of thanks was then given to the local society for their hospitality, which was warmly received. Mr. HERBERT BRAMLEY, the local secretary, whose name elicited great cheering, replied. Thanks were also accorded to the Mayor and Master Cutler for their welcome to town; to the readers of papers and to the president. In the evening there was a conversazione and dance in the Cutlers' Hall. Cases of the Week. PARTNERSHIP-RECEIVER-COSTS.-A motion for the appointment of a receiver was made on the 6th inst. in Moir v. Paddon, before the Vacation Judge, under the following circumstances :-A Mr. Dicas entered into partnership with the defendant for fourteen years, and died during the term. Notwithstanding his death, the defendant continued to carry on the business, using the assets of the firm; but it appeared that he had offered to give security to the plaintiff (who was Mr. Dicas' executor) for what he alleged to be the amount of his testator's share, but this amount was disputed. For the plaintiff, Harding v. Glover, 18 Ves. 281, and Lindley on Partnership, 4th ed. 1011, were referred to. LORD COLERIDGE, C.J., refused the motion, with costs, but directed a reference to chambers to ascertain the amount of the plaintiff's share of the assets, and ordered the defendant to give security for £500 within a fortnight.-SOLICITORS, Hicks & Arnold; W. F. Stoices. STREAM-DIVERSION-POLLUTION-RIPARIAN OWNER. -On the same day the plaintiff in Richards v. Petia Tinplate Company, Limited, moved to restrain the defendant from damming up, diverting and polluting a small stream in Glamorganshire, so as to interfere with the supply of water to the plaintiff's weir. In opposition to the motion it was contended that, in the present case, the company had only taken a reasonable quantity of water, having regard to the purpose for which it was required. Both parties were riparian owners. Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., said that the test of reasonableness as to quantity was not the amount required by the abstracting owner, but the amount diverted by him from other owners. Ultimately the defendant gave an undertaking not to return any heated or polluted water into the stream above the plaintiff's weir, and no order was made on the motion. The Registration Courts. MID SOMERSET.-(Mr. HOOPER).-Sept. 29. The Rev. J. H. Evans was objected to on the ground that, as the living had been sequestrated, the whole of the profits and benefits arising out of it were vested in the sequestrators. The reply to this contention was that although the living was sequestrated the vicarage house was not so, the latter being a freehold, and that the bishop had no control over the house so far as the sequestration was concerned. It was elicited that Mr. Evans did not live in the house now. Mr. Screl (Conservative) said Mr. Evans, who claimed for a freehold house and land, might come back to-morrow if he liked. The sequestration did not affect the house. THE BARRISTER said the point raised was new to him, but he should allow the vote. TAUNTON.-(Mr. HOOPER).-Oct. 2. Tithe rent-charge. Mr. Trevor (Conservative) claimed a vote on behalf of Mr. John Chatworthy Aiken, a Bristol merchant, in respect of the forty-first share of a freehold tithe rent-charge at Creech St. Michael, of a greater annual value than 40s. Mr. Cook (Liberal) opposed the vote. It appeared that Mr. Herbert Meade King sold, on behalf of himself and cotrustee, Mr. R. J. Beadon, to Messrs. C. B. Hare, John Harvey, and Bigg, of Bristol, as representing forty-one purchasers, for the sum of £2,378, commuted annual rentcharges in the parish of Creech St. Michael amounting to the clear annual sum of £128 1s. 2d., and each person interested in the purchase was to be entitled to his share as from the 1st of January, 1880. It transpired, in the course of Mr. Cook's examination of Mr. Meade King, that no purchase-money had been paid, and that, although interest had become due, and was payable on the 1st of January, none had been actually paid. THE BARRISTER said this was fatal to the claim. It had been laid down in Orme's case (L. R. 8 C. P. 281), before the Court of Common Pleas in 1873, that the contract amounted to nothing unless there had been actual manual receipt of the tithes, and it was laid down in Hadfield's case (L. R. 8 C. P. 306) that actual possession meant possession in fact, in contradistinction to possession in law, and there must be an actual manual receipt of the rent itself or part of it. Being entitled to the rent was not tantamount to being in possession of it. Claim was disallowed. SOUTHWARK.-(Mr. Hurrell).—Oct. 3. THE BARRISTER called attention to the forged or fictitious claims which had come before him in the course of his revision. These were confined to three parishesBermondsey, St. George's, and St. Saviour's-more He had considered especially to the first-named parish. these cases, but he had not as yet had time to give them such consideration as to enable him to say whether he should submit them to the Secretary of State. In the meantime, however, he had to request that the vestry clerks of the parishes named should make out and hand to him an authentic list of these claims, retaining the original claims in their own custody, so that, if afterwards required, they could be produced by the proper custodians of them. If he found that there was sufficient in those claims to justify him in submitting them to the Secretary of State, the vestry clerks would, of course, be communicated with on the subject. In respect of the youth, Henry Jacobs, who was before him at Bermondsey on Monday, as one of the actors in getting up these fictitious claims, he certainly erred in ignorance, and was the cat'spaw in the hands of others more knowing than himself. He was a very young man, of excellent character, and he (Mr. Hurrell) did not think the Secretary of State would proceed against him unless he saw that by so doing he would be enabled to bring the actual wire-pullers to punishment. He wished, however, to have a list of these claims in the three parishes; and should ulterior measures be decided on, the parish authorities would be communicated with. The vestry clerks of the three parishes named, being present, stated that they would hand the Revising Barrister the required lists at once. Notice of objection. The claim of Mr. Edward Alcock, of 151, Fort-road was objected to on the ground that he did not reside there. It appeared that the notice of objection was taken to the house, but that the messenger, not finding Mr. Alcock there, the paper was brought away. Mr. Parish (Liberal) contended that if the notice was sent to the house, and the person could not be found, the Act of Parliament had been complied with, and it was right not to leave the notice at the house. A postman, under the same circumstances, would not leave a letter, which would be returned through the dead letter office. Mr. Barker (Conservative), urged that the notice of the objection had not been left at the house. It should have been left at the last known place of abode. Mr. Parish said he had two witnesses who had been to the house, and they were told that Mr. Alcock did not reside there. THE BARRISTER said it appeared to him that the service must be personal, or it should be left at the last known place of abode. If the notice were taken to the house and brought back he could not see how it could be said to be properly served.-Mr. Parish: But if you go to the house and the person is not there ?-THE BARRISTER: You could leave the notice under the door.-Mr. Parish remarked that the spirit of the Act was that a fair effort should be made to find out the person and did not bind them to leave the notice at the house.-THE BARRISTER thought it must be proved that due diligence was used to find out the person.-After some further discussion, THE BARRISTER gave the following decision:--Notice of objection must be personally served at the place of abode, or at the last known place of abode, and in the latter case it must be shown that reasonable efforts have been made to effect service, provided the service has not been made by and through the post. Obituary. MR. WILLIAM PETTIT DEWES. Mr. William Pettit Dewes, solicitor (of the firm of Dewes & Musson), died rather suddenly at Ashby-de-laZouch on the 15th ult. Mr. Dewes was the son of Mr. William Dewes, solicitor, clerk to the magistrates at He was artiAshby-de-la-Zouch, and was born in 1823. cled to his father, and was admitted a solicitor in 1847. He had ever since practised at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, having been formerly associated in partnership with his father and with his brother, Mr. Charles Saunders Dewes, but more recently with Mr. William Alfred Musson. The firm had a good private practice. Mr. Dewes had been for about twelve years registrar of the Ashby County Court (Circuit No. 20). He was also clerk to the Ashby and Swadlincote Local Boards. Mr. Dewes was an active supporter of the Conseratvive cause. He was a man of generous and charitable disposition, and had contributed liberally to the restoration of Ashby church. He leaves a widow and four children. He was buried at Ashby-de-la-Zouch on the 20th ult. MR. GEORGE BROWNE, Q.C. He Mr. George Browne, Q.C., recorder of Ludlow, died at Calverley-park, Tunbridge Wells, on the 19th ult., after a very long illness. Mr. Browne was the second son of the late Mr. John Browne, of Hall Court, Herefordshire. was born in 1825, and was educated at Jesus College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1849, and practised for many years on the Oxford Circuit, and at the Gloucestershire and Herefordshire Sessions, where he long enjoyed a good share of criminal business, and since 1857 he had had a good probate and divorce practice, having been engaged in many very important suits, including the Chetwynd case, the Mordaunt case, and Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards. Mr. Browne was for many years a revising barrister, and also one of the board of classical examiners appointed by the Four Inns of Court, and he had been recorder of the borough of Ludlow since 1873. Three or four years ago his health failed, and although he remained at work as long as he possibly could, he was compelled to retire altogether from practice. In March last he received a silk gown from Lord Cairns, but since that time he had not appeared in court. He was married to the daughter of the late Mr. John Greatorex. Mr. Browne was a man of kind and genial disposition, and his death will be lamented by a very large circle of professional friends. MR. JAMES CROSBY. Mr. James Crosby, barrister, died at Georgetown, Demerara, on the 30th of August. Mr. Crosby had been for nearly forty years in the colonial service of the Crown. He was born in 1806, and was educated at a private school at Greenwich, where he is said to have been a schoolfellow of Lord Beaconsfield. He then proceeded to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1826. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in June, 1830, and was formerly a member of the Western Circuit. In 1844 he was appointed police magistrate in the Island of St. Vincent for the Kingston District, and he also practised at the bar in the colony. In 1853 he became Speaker of the House of Assembly of St. Vincent, and afterwards acted as Colonial Treasurer. In 1857 he was appointed a stipendiary magistrate in British Guiana, and in 1862 he became Immigration Agent-General for that colony, which office he held until his death. He was a member of the Court of Policy, and had acted as a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of British Guiana. During Mr. Crosby's residence in St. Vincent he was Lieut.-Colonel of the Southern Regiment of the St. Vincent Militia. In his capacity of Immigration Agent-General Mr. Crosby had done much to improve the condition of the Coolies in British Guiana. MR. JAMES FLOWER FUSSELL. an Mr. James Flower Fussell, solicitor (of the firm of Fussell, Prichard, Swann, & Henderson), of Bristol, died at Abbot's Leigh on the 25th ult., after a long illness. Mr. Fussell was born in 1819, was admitted a solicitor in 1840, and had practised for forty years at Bristol. He first joined Mr. Charles Savery and Mr. Edward Clerk, and the firm afterwards included also Mr. Fosket Savery. Mr. Fussell had been for many years at the head of the firm, and in partnership with Mr. Charles John Collins Prichard, and with his two sons-in-law, Messrs. Edward James Swann and James Henderson. He had extensive private practice, and had for many years conducted the legal business of the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company. He was also solicitor to the Bristol Cemetery Company, the Bristol General Steam Navigation Company, the Bristol Waterworks Company, and other important local bodies. He was one of the original members of the Bristol Incorporated Law Society, and had filled the post of president of that body. Mr. Fussell was buried at Abbot's Leigh on the 29th ult. He leaves a widow, two sons, and four daughters. MR. WILLIAM SALTER. Mr. William Salter, solicitor, died at Chard on the 18th ult. after a short illness, at the age of eighty-nine. Mr. Salter was born in 1791. He was admitted a solicitor in 1845, having been for many years a clerk in the office of the late Mr. Thomas Edward Clarke, to whom he was articled, and to whose practice he succeeded. At a later date he was joined by Mr. Edward Clarke, and Mr. John Thomas Bent Lukin, the present mayor of Chard, but he relinquished practice about ten years ago, being then nearly eighty years old. He was a perpetual commissioner for Somersetshire, and had a large private practice. He was steward of the Manor of Chard, and was for several years clerk (jointly with the late Mr. Charles Benjamin Tucker) to the county magistrates at that place. He was for several years a member of the Chard Town Council. In 1847 he was elected an alderman, which position he filled till his death, and he had been six times mayor of the borough. Mr. Salter had been twice married, and he leaves two daughters. He was buried at the Chard Cemetery on the 23rd ult. MR. ROBERT WILLIAM PARMETER. Mr. Robert William Parmeter, solicitor, many years clerk of the peace for Norfolk, died at Aylsham, on the 26th ult., at the age of eight-five. Mr. Parmeter was born in 1795, and was admitted a solicitor in 1818. He was a perpetual commissioner for the county of Norfolk, and had a large number of clients in the town and neighbourhood of Aylsham. He was for many years in partnership with the late Mr. Robert Copeman, whom he succeeded in 1841 in the office of clerk of the peace for the county of Norfolk. He held that office till about ten years ago, and a year or two later he relinquished his practice on account of failure of health. MR. JOHN WATSON. Mr. John Watson, solicitor, of Dyers' Hall, Dowgate-hill and of 22, Highbury New-park, died suddenly in Kendal Church, on the 26th ult. from disease of the heart. Mr. Watson was born at Kendal in 1829. He served his articles with Mr. Christopher Thornton Clark, of Lancaster, and with Messrs. Johnson & Weatherall, of 7, King's Bench-walk, Temple, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1862. He formerly practised at 30, Coleman-street, but in 1876 he was elected clerk to the Dyers' Company, and he had since had his offices at Dyers' Hall. Mr. Watson was spending the vacation at Kendal. On Sunday, September 26, he was apparently in good health, and he took a long walk in the afternoon. He went to the evening service at Kendal Church, and during the voluntary on the organ before the service he was taken il, and died in a few minutes. He was buried at the Kendal Cemetery on the 29th ult. The sad event has caused great sorrow both at Kendal and in the neighbourhood of Highbury, where the deceased resided. He leaves a widow and six children. MR. WILLIAM GRAY. Mr. William Gray, solicitor, of York, died at Eller Close, Grasmere, on the 25th ult. Mr. Gray was the son of Mr. Jonathan Gray, solicitor, of York. He was admitted a solicitor in 1828, and had practised at York for over fifty years. He was formerly in partnership with his father, and at a more recent date with his son. Mr. Edwin Gray was associated with him. Mr. Gray had a large private practice which had been carried on by members of his family for nearly a century, and he was the legal adviser of the leading county families in Yorkshire. He was a perpetual commissioner for the city of York and for the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire, and he for many years discharged the duties of under-sheriff for the county. Mr. Gray was a liberal supporter of the Church Missionary Society, and other religious bodies. He took an active part in municipal business, and he was Lord Mayor of the city of York in 1845. His death has caused a feeling of regret among all classes. He was buried at St. Maurice's Church, York, on the 29th ult. Appointments, Etc. Mr. DANIEL TRAVERS BURGES, solicitor, of Bristol, has been appointed Town Clerk of that city, in succession to Mr. William Brice, resigned. Mr. Burges is the son of Mr. Daniel Burges, many years town clerk of Bristol. He was admitted a solicitor in 1862, and he has been first clerk in the town clerk's office since 1875. Mr. THOMAS HENRY FARRER, barrister, has been appointed eldest son of Mr. Thomas Farrer, and was born in 1819. He a Magistrate for the County of Surrey. Mr. Farrer is the was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in classics in 1840. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1844. He formerly practised in the Court of Chancery, and has been for several years principal secretary to the Board of Trade. Mr. WILLIAM FRANCIS FINLASON has been appointed s Revising Barrister. Mr. Finlason is a graduate of Truity College, Dublin. He practised for several years as a special pleader, and he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1851. He is a member of the SouthEastern Circuit. Mr. RICHARD WILLIAM FORD, solicitor and notary, of Portsmouth, Gosport, and Havant, has been elected Clerk of the Peace for the Borough of Portsmouth, in succession to |