capital of the legacy among the children of the legatee. Three months after the death of the testator, the legatee married the lady. FRY, J., held that, though the trust for investment on the marriage of the son, which cut down the original absolute gift of the legacy to him, was in its terms as general as possible, there being no limitation to marriage at any particular time, yet some limit must be placed on it. If it had been intended by the testator that it should be absolutely without limit, there ought to have been a direction to invest the legacy when it became payable, whereas the only direction to invest was on the marriage. His lordship thought that the limit must be the time when the payment of the legacy ought to be made or when it was in fact made-i.e., the marriage must take place before the expiration of a year after the testator's death, or before the time when the executors were ready to pay the legacy. It was immaterial in the events which had happened which was the limit to be imposed, for the year had not expired, and the executors had not suggested that they were ready to pay the legacy. It must be invested upon the trusts directed by the will.SOLICITORS, Lethbridge & Son; Rogerson & Ford.

PRACTICE-CONTEMPT-DISCHARGE-EX PARTE APPLICA

TION. In an action of In re Manning, Pendrey v. King, an application was, on the 11th inst., made to Hall, V.C., for an order of discharge from custody of the defendant, who had been committed for contempt in disobeying an order to answer the plaintiff's interrogatories. The order for his committal was made in September last by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, sitting as Vacation Judge. The defendant had now answered the interrogatories, and had delivered his affidavit to the plaintiff on the 4th of April. The present application was made ex parte, and a question arose as to whether it should not bave been made upon notice to the plaintiff. HALL, V.C., however, said that, as the plaintiff had received the answer to the interrogatories several days ago, and had taken no action whatever in the matter, he should direct the order to be drawn up upon the present application, subject to production to the registrar of the day of the office copy of the defendant's affidavit.-Solicitor, A. Rutter.

T. Noton (solicitor) in support of the application.-The creditors having agreed to accept a composition, the respondent is bound by the resolution, and he ought not to be allowed to proceed further upon his judgment.

C. Swann Sheild, for the respondent.-The respondent has obtained a warrant for the debtor's arrest, and he is in the position of a creditor holding a security. He ought not, therefore, to be restrained from taking further proceedings. The Earl of Lewes v. Barnett (L. R. 6 Ch. D. 252) shows that the court will not release a debtor who is. in custody for non-payment of money, being a default by a person acting in a fiduciary capacity. The debtor in this. case has put it out of his power to pay the debt by presenting a petition for liquidation, and Cobham v. Dalton (23 W. R. 865, L. R. 10 Ch. 655) is distinguishable.

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY.-If the debtor had been in prison might he not have come to this court and said: "I am in prison for a debt proveable under the adjudication, and you must restrain the creditor"?

Sheild.-I submit not. The principle laid down in The Earl of Lewes v. Barnett applies, and the respondent ought not to be restrained.

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said all that was done in The Earl of Lewes v. Barnett was this, that the bankrupt applied for his discharge to the Chancery Division, and the court refused the application, saying that the bankrupt, if 80 advised, might renew it after he had passed his public examination. He did not entertain the slightest scintilla of doubt that the debtor in this case was entitled to the injunction. When a debtor filed a petition for liquidation and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and the oreditors passed resolutions for a composition, there was no doubt he was entitled to say: "You shall not take my body in execution in respect of a proveable debt." The question as to whether the debt had been contracted by a person acting in a fiduciary capacity, or by fraud, was a matter to be considered when the debtor applied for an order of discharge.

Application granted.

Solicitor for the debtor, Noton.

Solicitors for the respondent, Ullithorne, Currey, & Villiers, for L. Jessopp, Bedford.

Injunction granted under a composition resolution to restrain proceedings by a creditor in respect of a proveable debt, although such creditor has obtained a committal order against the debtor from a county court.

This was an application on behalf of the debtor for an injunction restraining Mr. Pedley from taking further proceedings upon a judgment obtained against him until further order.

On the 11th of June, 1880, Pedley caused a default summons to be issued against Boulden in the Southwark County Court in respect of the sum of £1010s. 4d. received by the debtor as salesman, for goods sold for Pedley, who was a market gardener.

Boulden gave notice that he intended to dispute the debt, but at the trial he did not appear, and on the 12th of July Pedley obtained judgment. On the 24th, Pedley caused execution to be issued upon the judgment, but nothing was recovered from it.

A judgment summons was subsequently taken out by Pedley, and the county court judge, on the 22nd of November, made an order for the defendant's committal for ten days, but it appeared that the warrant had never been executed.

On the 15th of February, 1881, Boulden filed a petition for liquidation, and at the first meeting a statutory majority of the creditors passed a resolution by which they accepted a composition.

The debtor on the 21st of March applied to the county court judge to rescind the order for his committal, but he declined to do so, being of opinion that the order had been properly made.

At a meeting of creditors, held on the 23rd of March, the resolution accepting a composition was confirmed, and it had since been registered.

THE BANKRUPTCY BILL.

[SPECIAL REPORT.]

A MEETING of the Institute of Bankers was held at the London Institution, Finsbury-circus, on Wednesday evening, the chair being taken by Sir John Lubbock, Bart. (president), and afterwards by Mr. R. Biddulph Martin, M.P. (treasurer).

Mr. JOHN SMITH (manager of the London and Yorkshire Bank) read a paper upon the Bill now before Parliament for amending the law relating to bankruptcy, which dealt principally with the suggestions which had been forwarded to the Government by the council of the institute. He commenced bis paper by saying that the Bill appeared to him to be one of great value, and to deserve the cordial support of all who were interested in effecting a satisfactory reform of the bankruptcy laws. The Bill introduced a system of super. vision in bankruptcy matters by the Board of Trade which would prove an immediate gain in the practical working of the law, and was of vast importance for the future, as the intelligent superintendence of the department would afford a pledge that whatever might prove defective would, from time to time, be amended. The main features of this supervision were as follows-viz., the Comptroller in Bankruptcy would be placed under the control of the Board of Trade (section 44), which was also authorized to appoint official receivers of the bankrupt's estates, to be attached to each bankruptcy court, but who should act under the directions of the Board of Trade. This officer would act as receiver of the estate until a trustee was appointed. He would advertise, and preside at, the first meeting of creditors, receive and adjudicate upon proofs of debts, control the use of proxies, report as to any proposed scheme of arrangement or offer of composition, take part in the debtor's examination, and report to the court upon the conduct of the debtor, before he obtained his discharge (section 46). The trustee appointed by the creditors. must receive the certificate of his appointment from the

Board, and before doing so must give security to its satisfaction (section 20, sub-sections 1 to 4). The Board might object to any appointment of a trustee, or might remove one already appointed (with powers to the creditors, if dissatisfied, to appeal to the court) (section 24, sub-section 2). It would have power to modify the scale of remuneration to trustees, or to sanction an increased allowance in special cases (section 20, sub-sections 6 and 8). It would also be intrusted with the power to grant or withhold a release to the trustee, subject to the right of appeal to the court (section 32). Where no committee was appointed, it would act in place of one in all matters requiring the intervention of such a committee (section 61). It would thus be seen that, while leaving the creditors free to deal with the bankrupt's property, the Bill provided a most effective control over the conduct of the debtor and the administration of the trustee. This would undoubtedly prove one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill, inasmuch as no steps for perfecting the machinery of bankruptcy procedure could be expected to be effectual without an efficient and effectual control over its working. It had been objected that this involved a retrogade movement in the direction of that "officialism" which had characterized previous systems of bankruptcy administration, but it was the system of official administration which experience had condemned, which was the system which characterized the legislation of the early part of the present century, and was cumbersome and costly, the whole of the proceedings being marked with interminable delays and other sources of irritation. That system was condemned and swept away by the Act of 1869 and its predecessors. But the system of official supervision was a very different matter, and without such a supervision it was simply impossible to provide against the grossest abuses. Those who argued against it, on the ground that the creditors ought to be left perfectly free to manage their own affairs, forgot that there were matters on which the creditors as a body could not be consulted, and they made the serious mistake of confounding the action of "any creditor" with the action of "all the creditors." It was possible that even a majority of creditors might err and might appoint an utterly incompetent committee of inspec tion, or might dispense with its appointment altogether, and was a minority of creditors to have no redress, and no means of compelling a proper investigation and control ? The Act of 1869 utterly ignored minorities, and the absence of some provision for an independent supervision had been the main cause why it had proved such an utter failure.

receiver

Proceedings were to commence by a "petition "(section 3) presented either by a debtor or by a creditor or creditors for £20 or upwards. On an order for adjudication being pronounced, or on the appointment of a receiver, all proceedings for the recovery of debt would be stayed (section 10), and within three days of the adjudication, or such extended period as the court might allow, the bankrupt would be required to furnish a statement of his assets and liabilities (section 14). The court might, before adjudication, on the application of any creditor, appoint a and manager of the debtor's estate (section 8), and the "official receiver" would act in this capacity unless the court thought fit that some other person should be appointed (section 46, sub-section 2). An order of adjudication having been made, the property of the bankrupt would vest in the "official receiver" (section 11, sub-section 1), and unless a special receiver were appointed, he would be the receiver and manager until the appointment of a trustee (section 46, sub-section 1). But the court might, on the application of any creditor, appoint a special receiver (section 12). These provisions did not secure the appointment of an independent receiver. The general body of creditors would not be consulted before the first meeting, and nothing could be easier for a creditor who desired to have the manipulation of the estate, than to induce the court by an affidavit to appoint a special nominee of the applicant, and thereby defeat the intention of the Bill to secure an independent investigation prior to the meeting of creditors; and there was nothing to prevent a debtor, acting in collusion with a creditor, from securing the appointment of his own nominee. The argument in favour of the provision was that it was in certain cases necessary to have the debtor's business carried on by some one acquainted with the trade, but it would of course be the duty of the official receiver to appoint a qualified manager

for carrying on the debtor's business, if necessary, and the Bill should provide for this, otherwise it would fail in securing the interests of all the creditors. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent a special receiver at once proceeding to realize the debtor's stock.

The actual scale of remuneration of the trustee (section 20, sub-section 5, c. 8) he thought required modification. Thus, where the assets did not exceed £3,000, the remuneration was to be fixed by the creditors, but was not to exceed the scale mentioned in the first schedule to the Bill-viz., On realizations 2 per cent. on the first amount of £500 or less; 1 per cent. on the next £500 or less; per cent. on all further sums. On dividend-2 per cent. on the first £1,000 or less; 1 per cent. on all further sums. So that, for example, on an estate where the realized assets amounted to £3,000, and the dividends to £2,500, the remuneration to the trustee would amount, on realization, to £27 108.; en dividend to £35; total £62 10s. Where the assets exceeded £3,000, the creditors were not to be limited to any scale of remuneration, but might allow what they pleased, and the Board of Trade had further power to grant additional remuneration. The scale appeared to him to be far too low, and it was scarcely possible to conceive any circumstances where the scale would be sufficient to induce good men to accept the office. If it was not to include allowances for clerks, the expenses of realization would be swollen by charges for their time, and if such were included it was very inadequate, especially in the case of small estates. He suggested that the remuneration should be fixed by a resolution of the creditors, and should be in the nature of a commission on the net realizations and the amount distributed on dividends. The principle of section 29 of the Act of 1869, permitting solicitors who were appointed trustees to compound with the creditors for a fixed percentage to cover his remuneration and expense, ought to be extended to trustees, which would simply be carrying out the principle of payment by results.

The Bill provided that the trustees should forward to the comptroller statements of receipts and payments verified by affidavit, which should be audited by the comptroller, the audited accounts to be open to inspection by any oreditor (section 30). He (Mr. Smith) was of opinion that the accounts should be accompanied by an estimated valuation of unrealized assets, and of the steps being taken for their realization, and the accounts should be rendered to the official receiver of taxing master of the court. When taxed a copy should be forwarded to the comptroller, and the accounts and statement should be open to inspection by any creditor in the hands of the trustee. For it was evident that the comptroller could not audit the accounts of every bankrupt estate.

The first accounts were to be made up and a dividend be declared within four months after the first meeting of creditors (section 27). He would suggest that subsequent accounts should be rendered, and dividends declared, within every four months until the conclusion of the bankruptoy.

Section 28 provided for the payment of all moneys over £50 into the Bank of England to the credit of the PaymasterGeneral. Where, however, a business was being carried on, and frequent payments had to be made, it was difficult to see how such a provision could be carried out, and he would suggest an amendment to the effect that the amounts to be retained by the trustee should not exceed £50. There was no doubt that when trustees were required to pay the moneys received by them to the account of the Paymaster-General, dividends were much more rapidly distributed.

Every bankrupt was to be examined in open court (section 33). It appeared to him that if the examination of every debtor was to take place before the judge or registrar, either the time of every judge and registrar throughout the kingdom would be occupied, or the examination would be delayed and performed in an unsatisfactory manner, as was the case under the present system. He would suggest that the power of the courts under the Act of 1869 to appoint substitutes should not be interfered with, and that power should be given for the examination to be conducted by the court, or by the trustee, official receiver, or any creditor who had proved his debt.

The Bill did not contain any provision for the inspection of the debtor's books by any creditor. This ought to be remedied

by requiring that the books and accounts should be open to the inspection of every creditor who had proved his debt.

Section 17 provided that no creditor was to vote in respect of a current bill of exchange unless he treated the liability of every other party to the bill as a security to be valued and deducted from his proof. Where the bankrupt was the acceptor, it would simply amount to confiscation if a creditor were compelled to surrender the obligation of the indorsers, an obligation to which the bankrupt's estate could never have any claim. It ought to be provided that no creditor should vote in respect of a bill of exchange unless he was willing to treat the liability to him of every person liable on the bill antecedently to the debtor, and who was not a rupt, as a security.

Section 16 provided that any person interested might, within a prescribed time after the date of adjudication, require a surrender of the security for the benefit of the credi tors. The time should be fixed by the Act, instead of being left to a hostile trustee, or some irresponsible dratsman, acting in the name of the Lord Chancellor, and power should be given to creditors to amend their valuations on showing that the security has altered in value. The trustee should also be empowered to require a surrender of any security so valued at the valuation price; also to require that the creditor should take to his security as part satisfaction of his debt at the amount of the valuation; also, to require the property to be sold by public sale. These provisions would secure the estate against depreciated valuations, and relieve prudent creditors from that vindictive system of spoliation to which they were at present subjected under the rules of court.

Section 35, sub-section 2, required the consent of a majority and three-fourths in value of all the creditors to enable the debtor to apply for his discharge during the continuance of the bankruptcy. The court was very properly constituted the sole judge whether he was entitled to his discharge, or whether it should be refused or modified. Why, then, should this consent be required? Any innocent man might be overtaken by misfortune, and to give one or two selfish creditors the right to bar his application for a discharge, without reason assigned, would be an act of oppression which the authors of the Bill never intended to sanction. This subsection, ought, therefore, to be omitted.

The provisions of section 19 were entirely satisfactory. Section 15 should be amended by extending the ordinary maximum period to fourteen days from the adjudication, and providing for seven days' notice being given in the Gazette, and by circular to the creditors, and the time allowed the bankrupt for furnishing the receiver with a statement of assets and liabilities ought to be extended to seven days.

An addition should be made to section 16, sub-section 2, providing that the proof should state the amount of the debt alleged to be due, and the consideration and date when incurred, and should be accompanied by vouchers necessary to substantiate it.

The bills of solicitors must be rendered for taxation within seven days of being demanded by the trustee, which must be before a dividend was declared. This would prove satisfactory. The suggestion of the institute that it should be deemed a criminal offence for a solicitor to share remuneration with the debtor or trustee, had not been dealt with, probably owing to practical difficulties in the way of enforc ing such a provision.

The provisions of section 18 as to proxies were not quite satisfactory. They were cnmbrous, and would not be effectual. They did not meet the case of blank proxies and "touting" trustees, who would simply collect the official forms signed in blank, and then fill in the name of someone else to vote for them, or sell them to the highest bidder. He would suggest that creditors should be permitted to give general proxies to persons in their regular employment, or special proxies to vote for any special resolution, or trustee, or member of committee, provided the name of the trustee or member is filled in before tion, and that the proxies must be deposited with the official receiver forty-eight hours before the meeting of credi

tors.

execu

By section 4, the limit of the debt of the petitioning creditor was reduced from £50 to £20. He was of opinion that there was no occasion for this, and it would work harshly in some cases.

The provision of section 16, sub-section 7, that no proof should be admitted or amended after the expiration of three months from the date of adjudication, except under special

Section 34, for annulling the bankruptcy, ought to b supported in the interests of honest but unfortunate traders. Section 51, requiring a debtor to present his petition to the court of the district where he had resided or carried on business for the longest period during the six months preceding the petition, was a useful amendment of the law.

With a view of making the measure as comprehensive as possible, he would suggest the addition of clauses provid. ing that a creditor should not vote at any meeting in respect of any proof, unless it had been lodged with the receiver or trustee forty-eight hours previously, and every creditor who had lodged a proof should be entitled to see the proofs of other creditors before the first meeting, and at all reasonable times. The trustee should submit to the committee every four months a statement of proofs, securities, and valuations, and any person interested might bring to the notice of the court any neglect on the part of the trustee in adjudicating on any proof, and the court could hold the trustee personally liable for the consequences of such neglect. The object of these clauses was to enable a proper investigation of all proofs to be made before they were used for voting purposes; and to insure impartial dealings with all proofs by the trustee, in regard to which there were no provisions, either in the Act of 1869 or in the present Bill.

While the form of the Bill as an amending, instead of an amending and consolidating, measure might to some extent enhance the difficulty already felt of ascertaining the law upon any point, and might, therefore, point to the necessity for having a more competent digest of the law than any possessed at present, he could not doubt that it was the intention of the Government, if it became law, to follow it up as soon as possible with a consolidating or codifying measure, in which the whole of the complicated provisions of the bankruptcy law should be brought into a simple and well-ordered arrangement. He was bound to say that if the Bill was adopted, subject to the amendments he had suggested, and provided that nɔ new disturbing element in the shape of "experimental" legislation were introduced, there would be reason to congratulate themselves on having secured a measure in no way inferior to the Scotch bankruptcy law, while it would, in some respects, be undoubtedly superior. He had referred to the groundlessness of the objection which had been raised to the Bill in regard to what was termed its tendency to officialism. The Morning Advertiser had described it as

66

a measure which recalled the severity of the older bank. ruptcy laws for the mere purpose of promoting what Mr. Chamberlain called public morality." But just as, on the one hand, no honourable trustee would object to submit his accounts to an independent audit, so, on the other hand, no honourable trader would object to the exclusion

of reckless and dishonest traders from the benefits of the Bankruptcy Acts. In fact, in both of these respects the Bill would only fulfil the first requirements of any measure of administrative justice, inasmuch as it proved "a terror to evil-doers, but a praise to them that did well."

The CHAIRMAN said they were indebted to Mr. Smith for his exhaustive paper, and they were also indebted to the Government for making an honest attempt to grapple with the necessity of making some alteration in the bankruptcy law, which had been so long desired by all those engaged in commercial pursuits. The amend ments suggested in the paper commended themselves, on the whole, to his judgment. Mr. Smith had enunciated

the principle that the creditors ought to be left perfectly free to deal with the property of the bankrupt. There were two questions to be considered, one the conduct of the bankrupt, and the other the realization of the property. The conduct of the bankrupt is a question which ought properly to come before the court, because the whole mercantile community, and not merely the creditors of the bankrupt, have an interest in the question. On the other hand, when they came to consider the assets of the bankrupt, they would all admit that these were the exclusive property of the unfortunate creditors. He could not see what there was that was mysterious or secret about the assets of a bankrupt, or why there should be this elaborate machinery to protect the creditors with reference to the portion of their property which consists of certain debts due to them. It was said that creditors did not look after their debts, and that it was necessary the Government should do that for them which they did not do for themselves. Why was it that the creditors were so negligent? Simply because under the present state of the law they had no power to act. Mr. Chamberlain himself had said, in most graphic language, that when a trustee had once been appointed he was practically omnipotent, and creditors naturally did not look after their property, because they had no power. They were bound, hand and foot, to whatever the trustee did, and very naturally they did not care to give themselves useless trouble and waste valuable time. But once give the creditors the power of dealing with the property, and he could not understand why there should be any reason to suppose that they would neglect that more than any other part of their property. He thought that if the suggestion made by the institute, and to which Mr. Smith had called attention, that the creditors should have greater power to call meetings, and to call upon trustees for information, and to remove them if they thought they were not carrying on the liquidation successfully, the creditors might be safely left to manage the assets for themselves. No doubt, in the first instance, the value of the system proposed in the 28th section would not be so materially felt. With regard to the provision that all amounts above £50 should be paid to the Paymaster-General in London, he did not see why money arising from the realization of assets in the provinces should all be remitted to London. It seemed to him most important that it should be paid to a separate account, and one over which the creditors should have the fullest control. The payment of the money to the Paymaster-General would either become a farce, or it would lead to great delay. He would either simply receive it with one hand and pay it out with the other, or if he thought it an important duty, and inquired into the accounts, there would not only be the trouble of dealing with the trustee, but the additional difficulty of dealing with the Paymaster-General. This would lead to considerable delay in getting the dividends. One point in the Bill he would like to see strengthened—namely, that the creditors should have more power over the assets than the Bill at present gave them.

Mr. MORLEY, M.P., was very hopeful that they were likely to have, at last, a Bankruptcy Act as nearly satisfactory as they were likely to secure, for some years to come at all events. He hoped it would lead to a codification of the laws on the subject. The Act of 1869 was passed in order to give creditors power over that which unquestionably belonged to them-the property of the insolvents. Morally and equitably that ought to pass with rapidity into the hands of those to whom it belonged. But the creditors had divested themselves of all future power in the estates, which had passed into the hands of a set of trustees who had plundered them enormously, and no plan would be satisfactory which did not give to the creditors reasonable power over their property, which required the supervision of the court. He would look with great jealousy to anything like a return to the present system. He believed more money had been lost under the management of creditors than under the old official system, bad as it was. It was of great importance that creditors should be secured from the proving of debts which were to a large extent secured, without the proper production of the security. As to the appointment of the Paymaster-General, the difficulty was to secure the safe custody of money. It would never do to allow it to be paid into private banks unless there were to be at least two or three names in connection with it, and there onght to be security that the money was so deposited as to be

safe from the hands of the trustee. He believed it was no exaggeration to say that there were some millions of money at the present moment in the hands of various trustees, and there would be great embarrassment on the part of a few when it was known that they would have to pay over the sums which they had realized as trustees. There was now the best prospect that he had had in his trading experience of a measure that would do justice to the honest debtor, and would take care that the dishonest one would be subject to such investigation as every right-minded trader would wish he should be exposed to.

Mr. MARTIN, M.P., thought that debts under £50 would be sufficiently dealt with at the county courts. Persons going into trade should be compelled to keep books. He would like to have seen some provision made for the trade associations whose object it was to look after bankruptcy proceedings, which he thought were doing useful work. It was very important that the rules of court should be codified and made as far as possible portions of the statute law.

Mr. McKEWAN agreed that the Bill was a great improvement. There should be a limit of time within which the trustee should have control over the creditor's security.

Mr. BARNARD thought the bankrupt should be allowed professional assistance in preparing his statement of assets. He objected to the payment of dividends through the Paymaster-General.

Mr. WHINNEY was of opinion that a bankrupt's discharge should be suspended where there had been no annual stocktaking. He thought it was going too far to say that every bankrupt should pass a public examination, for then his affairs became public property, and there were instances where it was desirable that it should not be known who were the creditors. He defended the trustees, and said that their position ought to entitle them to respect. It was utterly impossible that trustees should give security for the whole of the estates passing throughout their hands.

Mr. LINDSAY thought a comptroller would be required in every county in England, with some central control in London. He looked upon this legislation as a step towards one bankruptcy statute for the United Kingdom.

rupt kept no books misconduct which would justify the Mr. MANN was in favour of making the fact that the bank. court in suspending his discharge.

Mr. TRITTON observed that the bankers did not object to the list of creditors being made known. At present a suppositious list was often passed round, and it would be of im portance that the knowledge on this point should be definite.

Mr. CHALMERS said the trustee was only required to give security to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade, not to the

value of the assets.

Mr. SMITH, in reply, believed the Act of 1869 was intended to give creditors the power of dealing with the estates of debtors, but unfortunately it ended by their appointing someone as trustee, and divesting themselves of any control over the estate. He asked that they should in every case have the control of the official receiver exercised for the few days which elapsed between the adjudication and the first meeting. With regard to the Paymaster-General, it was simply intended that such sums as were not required for the management of the estate for the time being should be placed in his hands. The object of the Government was to acquire the use of a large sum of money for investment, and the interest from the investment was to go to the reduction of the fees. He had suggested that the trustee should be allowed at any time to require the creditor to take to his security and keep it as part payment. There was no doubt the creditor ought to have the right to call upon the trustee to elect whether he should take the security, or whether it should be valued, or whether the creditor should take it. With regard to the money in the hands of trustees, at present section 71 required that this should be accounted for.

SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wednesday, April 13, Mr. P. Rickman in the chair; the other directors present being Messrs. Asker (Norwich), Brook, Hedger, Keen, Mellersh

(Godalming), Pennington, Roscoe, Walters, and Woolbert (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £245 was distributed in grants of assistance to necessitous solicitors, and the necessitous widows and families of deceased solicitors; thirty-three gentlemen were admitted members of the association; and other general business was transacted.

INNS OF COURT LENDING LIBRARY. The fifteenth annual meeting of the members of this society (which was established to provide barristers' clerks with good standard literature) took place this week at the library, Figtree-court, when Mr. John Macgregor, M.A., presided. The report stated that the society was in great need of funds to rebind and replace the numerous books which had become dilapidated, and urged upon the meeting the necessity of making efforts to secure new members and also to obtain donations of books and money. It was stated that the library, with the exception of a few donations from the various Inns of Court, had been self-supporting up to the present. The meeting then re-elected Sir F. Herschell, Q.C., M.P., the Solicitor-General, and Mr. G. Chance, police magistrate, members of the committee, and, after addresses by the chairman and Mr. G. B. Hughes, the proceedings terminated with votes of thanks to the Benchers of the Inner Temple for the use of the library, to the Middle Temple for a donation, and to the chairman for presiding.

of leading business. From April till July, 1866, he was Legal Adviser to the Lord Lieutenant. In 1869 he was a candidate for the county of Tipperary in the Liberal interest, but he was defeated by Mr. O'Donovan Rossa. The latter having been disqualified on the ground that he was a convicted felon, Mr. Heron again became a candidate, and was returned by a small majority; but he retired at the general election in 1874. He was elected a bencher of the King's Inns in 1872, and about a year ago he was created a serjeant-at-law. He was also a magistrate for the counties of Armagh and Down. Mr. Serjeant Heron was one of the counsel for the Crown in the recent Land League prosecutions at Dublin. He was married to the sister of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, but he was left a widower in 1863.

MR. SAMUEL JOHNSON ROBERTS. Mr. Samuel Johnson Roberts, solicitor, died at Chester, on the 25th ult., at the age of eighty-seven. Mr. Roberts was the son of Mr. Samuel Johnson Roberts, solicitor, of Chester. He was born in 1794, and was admitted a solicitor in 1826. He shortly afterwards succeeded to his father's During the latter part of his professional career he was business, and he practised at Chester for over fifty years. associated in partnership with Mr. Francis Edward Roberts and Mr. Samuel Johnson Roberts Dickson, but he retired from practice about ten years ago. Mr. Roberts was a perpetual commissioner for Cheshire and the city of Chester, and he had a large private business. He was formerly clerk to the Chester Goldsmiths' Company, and he was for many years solicitor to the Chester Gas Company and to the Chester Waterworks Company.

OBITUARY.

MR. JOHN MCKELVIE.

Mr. John McKelvie, solicitor, died a few days ago at Whitehaven. Mr. McKelvie was born in 1831, and was admitted a solicitor in 1863, having been articled to Mr. Christopher Hodgkin, late registrar of the Whitehaven County Court, with whom he was for the next few years in partnership, but at the time of his death he was practising alone. Mr. McKelvie had a very good private business, and he held several important public appointments, being clerk to the Whitehaven Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, superintendent registrar, clerk to the Commissioners of Land and Assessed Taxes, and coroner for the Lordship of Egremont. His death has caused general regret in the neighbourhood.

MR. HORATIO FREDERICK FOULGER
WARREN.

Mr. Horatio Frederick Foulger Warren, solicitor, of Langport, was killed on the 13th inst. Mr. Warren was the son of Mr. James Frederick Horatio Warren, solicitor, town clerk of Langport, and registrar of the Langport County Court. He was born in 1847, and was admitted a solicitor in 1872. He was in partnership with his father, whom he succeeded two or three years ago as clerk to the Langport Board of Guardians, and to the Assessment Committee and Rural Sanitary Authority, and he occupied that position until his death. Mr. Warren had been for several years a lieutenant in the 2nd Somersetsbire Rifle Volunteers. He was found dead in his garden, with his rifle in his hand. It is supposed that it went off while he was examining it, and that he had forgotten that it was loaded. An inquest was held, and a verdict of "Accidental death" was returned. Mr. Warren was unmarried.

MR. SERJEANT HERON.

Mr. Denis Caulfield Heron, Q.C., third serjeant-at-law in Ireland, died suddenly on Good Friday. He was fishing at Galway, when he was seized with an apopletic fit, which in a short time proved fatal. The deceased was the eldest son of Mr. William Heron, and was born in 1826. He was educated at Downside College and at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the Irish Bar in 1848, and he practised on the Munster Circuit. He was for several years professor of jurisprudence at Queen's College, Galway, and he was the author of a "History of Jurisprudence.' He became a Queen's Counsel in 1860, and he had a large share

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. GEORGE WOODBURY COCKRAM, solicitor, of Tiverton, had been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Cockram has served the office of mayor of Tiverton, and is an alderman for the borough. He was admitted a solicitor in 1847, and he is vestry clerk of the parish of Tiverton, and clerk to the Tiverton Burial Board and School Board, and to the Borough Charity Trustees.

Mr. THOMAS COOMBS, solicitor, of Dorchester, has been appointed Clerk to the Visiting Justices of the Dorsetshire County Lunatic Asylum. Mr. Coombs was admitted a solicitor in 1876, and is clerk to the Dorchester Highway Board, and to the county magistrates.

The Hon. JOHN CHARLES DUNDAS, barrister, M.P., has been elected Chairman of the North Riding of Yorkshire Quar ter Sessions. Mr. Dundas was born in 1845, and was educated at Harrow and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the second class of the classical tripos in 1867. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1869, and was formerly a member of the Northern Circuit. He is Lord-Lieutenant of Orkney and Shetland, and a deputy-lieutenant for the North Riding. Dundas has been M.P. for Richmond in the Liberal interest since 1873.

Mr.

Mr. WILLIAM HARDMAN, barrister, has been appointed a Deputy-Lieutenant for the County of Surrey. Mr. Hardman is the only son of Mr. William Bridge Hardman. He was born in 1828, and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1852, and formerly practised as an equity draftsman and conveyancer. Mr. Hardman is chairman of the Surrey Quarter Sessions, and he was appointed recorder of Kingstonupon-Thames in 1875.

Mr GEORGE WILLIAM LATHAM, barrister, has been ap pointed a Magistrate for the Borough of Crewe. Mr. Latham is the second son of Mr. John Latham, of Bradwall Hall, Cheshire, and was born in 1827. He was educated at Brasenose College, Oxford, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term 1852. Mr. Latham formerly practised on the North Wales and Chester Circuit. He is also a magistrate for Cheshire.

Mr. JAMES PRICE, solicitor, of Haverfordwest, has been appointed Registrar of the Haverfordwest County Court