Page images
PDF

to disclaim a lease without the leave of the court." It is also provided that" the court may, on application by any person claiming any interest in any disclaimed leasehold property, make an order for payment, either by the trustee personally, or out of the bankrupt's property, of such sum as it thinks fit, in respect of the breach of any covenant relating to the leasehold property and running with the land, provided that the breach has occurred with the knowledge of the trustee and before the date of the disclaimer." And sub-clause (8) provides that "the court may, on application by any person claiming any interest in any disclaimed property, and on hearing such persons as it thinks fit, make an order for the vesting of the property or delivery thereof (with any deeds or documents relating thereto) to any person entitled thereto, or a trustee for him, and on such terms as the court thinks just; and on any such vesting order being made, the property comprised therein shall vest accordingly in the person therein named on that behalf, without any conveyance or assignment for the purpose, and any such vesting order shall not be liable to stamp duty." And, finally, the clause of the present Act as to proof by persons injured by the disclaimer is repeated.

The effect of these provisions will, so far as we can see, be this :—Upon the disclaimer of a lease by a trustee ail interest and liability of the bankrupt and trustee under the lease will cease, and the "property disclaimed" [the draftsman's English in sub-clause (d) is peculiar, but this must be the meaning] will (unless the court otherwise orders) pass to the person entitled thereto on the determination of the estate or interest of the bankrupt therein." The "property disclaimed" is the estate and interest of the bankrupt in the lease; the person entitled to the estate and interest of the bankrupt on the determination of his lease must be the lessor. On the execution of a disclaimer by the trustee, therefore, the estate and interest of the bankrupt in the lease will pass to the lessor. If there is no sub-lease, there will be an end of the matter. If there is a sub-lease, the sublessee may apply to the court for an order vesting the property in him as "a person entitled thereto" on equitable terms. If he does so apply, and the court makes an order, there is again an end of the matter.

But suppose the sub-lessee—a mortgagee or a person holding a sub-lease at a peppercorn rent, says, "I will not apply to the court; I will stand on my legal rights," what then is to be done? The clause appears to contain nothing to interfere with his legal rights, for, as we have Been, it is only the " interest" of the bankrupt which is to cease and to pass (in the absence of any order of the court) to the lessor. Moreover, after the merger of the bankrupt lessee's reversion on the sub-lease in thi, reversion of the lessor, the provision of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, s. 9, would seem to apply, and, the reversion expectant on the sub-lease having merged, the estate of the lessor will, "to the extent and for the purpose of preserving such incidents to, and obligations on, the same reversion, as, but for the merger thereof, would have subsisted, be deemed the reversion expectant" on the sub-lease.

If we are right in this view, (which, it will be understood, we merely state as a query, since it is difficult to suppose that the framers of the Bill can have overlooked the effect of the Act of 8 & 9 Vict.), the result will be that, if no order is made by the court, the lessor may be saddled with a sub-lease for all the term, less one day, at no rent, and with no covenants. It is no answer to say that the landlord may apply to the court for an order vesting the property in the sub-lessee at the original rent and subject to the original covenants; as the clause stands, there appears to be nothing to prevent the sub-lessee from refusing to accept the property vested in him by the order of the court. This is an agreeable prospect for the lessor. How the clause should be amended we shall consider next week.

CORRESPONDENCE.

CALL OF SOLICITORS TO THE BAR. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,—I should be glad if you would kindly publish the following correspondence, and thus enable me publicly to answer the numerous inquiries constantly being made of me as to the position of this question, in which such great interest is taken. Gray's-inn, April 26. J. Perry Godfrey.

[The following is the correspondence referred to :—

Gray's-inn, March 12, 1881. To John M. Clabon, Esq., President of the Incorporated Law Society.

Sir,—From correspondence and interviews I have had with many members of the junior branch of the legal profession, and inquiries made of me, I venture to predict that if the regulations of the Inns of Court are only altered as suggested by those societies, such alteration would not be favourably received, and it is hoped that the council of the Law Society will reject the proposition, and accept such terms only as give to solicitors corresponding advantages to those enjoyed by barristers desirous of changing from one branch to the other. It were better that we took no concession from the Inns of Court than that we should accept an unsatisfactory proposition, as in so doing we should be only weakening our hands in presently applying for legislative enactment upon the subject, as determined upon at the last annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, and also at the annual provincial meeting of the same society held at Sheffield last year.

To compel a solicitor after many years' practice, and who, it may be, is retiring from his branch of the profession, to pass a schoolboy's examination again before he can seek higher honours in the law, is so patent au anomaly that I need not here repeat the many arguments I have written and published upon the subject.

I beg to enclose form of a resolution which I submit to the council would meet the justness of the case if the Inns of Court approve of it.

It is proposed (to strengthen the hands of the council if they adhere to the resolutions passed at the meetings referred to, and on public grounds) to form a large committee consisting not only of solicitors (of whom every one will be invited to join), but also of barristers (many of whom have expressed themselves in favour of the desired chauge), and likewise of members of Parliament, several having already promised such a measure as that referred to their support.

Taking much interest in this subject, and having worked resolutely for some time past, on public as well as professional grounds, to remove the anomaly now under discussion, is the reason of my troubling you with this communication. J. Perry Godfrey.

Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-laue, W.C.

April 2.

Dear Sir,—Your letter of the 12th ultimo has been placed before the council, who desire me to inform you that the matter to which you refer is now receiving their consideration. E. W. Williamson, Secretary.

To J. Perry Godfrey, Esq., 6, South-square, Gray's Inn.

The following is a copy of the resolution referred to as proposed by Mr. Godfrey :—" Resolved that every person who shall have been a certificated solicitor for a period of not less than ten years, but who shall not have been admitted a solicitor under the provisions of section 4 of the Solicitors Act, 1860, or who shall not have been exempted under section 11 of the Solicitors Act, 1877, from passing the preliminary examination; and who shall have procured himself to be struck off the roll of

solicitors of the Supreme Court, and shall obtain a certificate, signed by the president or other the chief officer for the time being of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the council of the said society (being the society mentioned in the Solicitors Act, 1877), of his being a fit and proper person to practise as a barrister, shall be entitled to be admitted a member of any of the Inns of Court upon payment of the usual fees (other than deposit or caution money) payable on such admission, and after having been so admitted and kept terms for one year he shall be entitled to be examined by the Council of Legal Education, or other the duly authorized examining power at the next final or any subsequent final examination of members of the Inn to which he has been so idmitted, and on passing such examination to receive a certificate that he has so passed, as if he had kept all his terms and had otherwise qualified himself for such examination, and upon obtaining such certificate he shall, as regards his being called to the bar, be in the same position in all respects as if he had conformed to all the regulations, and complied with all the formalities required by the Inn to be observed or complied with respectively as a preliminary to his being called to the bar, and be entitled to be called accordingly."]

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY AND
THE "LAW LIST."

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,—The enclosed copy letter from the editor of the Law List will explain how the errors in that publication arose which necessitated the "correct list" of members desired by the council.

If you can find space for it I shall be obliged, and I will not again trespass on your kindness in this matter,

John Nicholxs.

73, Gresham-street, E.C., April 20.
[The following is the letter referred to:—

Somerset House, April 7.

Sir,—

The Incorporated Law Society and the Law List.

The reply to your letter of the 4th inst., with reference to the practice of distinguishing by means of an asterisk members of the above society, has beeu delayed in order that I might obtain copies of the Solicitous' Journal of the 26th ult. and 2nd inst., containing the correspondence to which you direct my attention.

I have now to inform you that complaints of inaccuracies have not been brought under my notice, but this may be explained by the fact that the marks denoting membership have been inserted in the Law List by the officers of the Law Society, who alone were responsible, as I understand, for any errors of description in this respect.

This system was continued till the year 1880, when the Law Society, instead of entering the marks in the proof-sheets of the official list compiled by myself, as they had been in the habit of doing, furnished the publishers with a separate list of members, so that the marks might be entered in the proof-sheets by the publishers themselves.

As this list was accompanied by other lists, showing or intended to show the extent to which it required correc tion, some confusion eeems to have arisen in the minds of the publishers as to the particular way in which they were to be applied, and hence may have occurred the recent inaccuracies alluded to.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. H. Cousins, Ed. Law List

J. Nicholls, Esq.]

without any deduction for debts or funeral expenses shall not exceed the value of £300, it shall be lawfii for the person intending to apply for probates or lettereof administration in England or Ireland to deliver to any officer of Inland Revenue a notice in writing," 4e.

"(3) The principal registrars of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in England . . • shall prescribe the forms of notice and make such regulations as may be necessary with: respect to the transmission of the notice by the officer, the steps to be taken for the preparation and filling up of forms," &o.

By 36 & 37 Vict. c. 52, in the case of a man dying intestate whose estate is under £100, his widow or children, if living more than three miles from a district registry, may apply to a county court registrar, who shall preparethe papers and carry through the grant by letter communication with the Probate Registry; and by 38 & 33 Vict. c. 27, the benefits of the former Act are extended to the surviving children of poor intestate widows.

The Acts 38 & 39 Vict. c. 41, and 39 & 40 Vict. c. 24, contain like enactments as to Scotch estates, testate or intestate, under £100, the only difference being thafc the application is made direct to the commissary clerk, instead of the county court registrar with the probate registrar.

Under the present Bill (clause 35) these two Scotch Acts are extended from the limit of £100 to £300, and the old procedure is retained, but nothing is said as to the two English Acts I have noticed. If it be intended that they shall be repealed (which they ought to be) they should be added to the schedule of repealed Acts. If it is not so intended, then, to prevent any doubt, their operation should be expressly saved.

It would be most absurd, and surely cannot be intended, as regards England alone, to keep up one procedure for the estate of a man dying intestate and leaving a widow and children, or of an intestate widow with estates under £100, and also another procedure for estates under £300 (not being such intestates leaving widows, or intestate widows), whether the parties die testate or intestate. As the Bill stands sucb> would be the case. John Graham.

3, Westminster Chambers, Westminster.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,—This Bill, brought in to alter the probate and legacy duties, provides (clause 34) " (1) where the whole personal estate and effects of any deceased person,

CASES OF THE WEEK.

Winding-up PetitionStating Proceedings Against CompanyUnregistered Company—J U R IsdictionDisCretion Op CourtPracticeCostsFormal Co-dependAst Companies Act, 1862, ss. 85, 199, 201, 204— Judicature Act, 1873, ss. 24, 25. — In a case of Rudnw v. The Great Britain Mutual Life Asturance Society, before the Conrt of Appeal on the 26th inst., a question arose as to the power of the coart to Btay proceedings against a company not registered under the Companies Aot, 1862, during the pendency of a petition for the winding up of the company. Section 85 of the Act empowers the court, at any time after the presentation of a petition for winding up a company "nnder this Act,'* and before making a winding-up order, to restrain fnrther proceedings in any action, <fcc, against the company, on such terms as the court thinks fit. Section 199 (in part 8of the Aot) provides that an unregistered company may be wound up under the Aot, and that all provisions of the Act with respect to winding np shall (with certain exceptions) apply to such a company. Section 201 empowers the conrt at any time after the presentation of a petition for winding up an unregistered company, and before making a winding-np order, to restrain fnrther proceedings in any action, <5sc., against any contributory of the company, or against the company, "as hereinbefore provided," upon suoh terms as the conrt thinks fit. Section 204 enacts that the provisions made by that part of the Aot with respect to unregistered companies shall be deemed to be made in addition to and not in restriction of. ooy provisions thereinbefore contained with respect to winding op companies by the court, and there is a proviso that "an unregistered oompany shall not, exoeptin the event of its being wound up, be deemed to be a company nnder this Act." In the present case the defendant oompany waa not registered under the Aot of 1862. The action was brought by the mortgagee of a policy which had been granted by the company on the life of a person who was dead. The mortgagor was made a co-defendant. The company ultimately abandoned their defence to the action, and consented to tbe polioy-money, wbioh had been paid into court, being paid out to the plaintiff. An order waa also made for payment of the plaintiffs costs by the company. This was on the 6th of August. The mortgagor had taken out a summons for the payment of his costs. This was resisted by the company, on the ground that tbe mortgagor was not a necessary party, and the hearing of the summons was adjourned till after the long vacation. At the end of October a petition was presented for the winding up of the company, and a winding-up order was made by Hall, V.C., on the 19th of November. On the 24th of November this order was discharged by the Court of Appeal, and the petition was ordered to stand over, with a view to the arrangement of the company's affairs under section 22 of the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870. On the 3rd of December the mortgagor's summons was heard by Bacon, V. C, and an order was made that the plaintiff should pay the mortgagor's costs, and should recover them from the company. The plaintiff paid these costs, and then, not having been repaid by the company, issued execution against them for tbe amount. The company then applied to Bacon, V.C., to stay the execution. The Vice-Chancellor refused the application, on tbe ground that, by virtue of the proviso at the end of section 204, the provisions of the Act, and of section 65 in particular, did not extend to an unregistered company until an order had been made to wind it np, because such a company was not to be deemed a company under the Aot, except in the event of its being wound up. The Court of Appeal (jesbel, M.R., and Bagqallay and Lush, L.JJ.) differed from the Vice-Chancellor on this point, Jbssel, M.R., said that the Vice-Chancellor read the words "being wound up " in section 204 as if they had been " having been wound up." This construction would make the Act hopelessly unworkable; an unregistered company oould not be wound np nnder it at all. What was meant was that an unregistered company should not be deemed to be a company nnder the Act except for the purpose of proceedings to wind it up, and the jurisdiction under section 85 must apply to an unregistered company, as well as to a registered company. But the Vice-Chancellor's decision was affirmed on' a different ground. Jessbl, M.R., said that the compauy might, on the hearing of tbe mortgagor's summons, have taken the objection that the pendency of the winding-up petition was an answer to the application, or they might have applied themselves to stay the proceedings. They did not do this, but they allowed the order to he made, and the result of it was that the plaintiff's position had been materially changed, and by the act of the company. Tbe order made her liable to pay the mortgagor's costs, but on the terms of getting them back from the company. If she oould not enforce her execution, she would only get a dividend on the costs which she bud paid to the mortgagor, and this would be very unjust to her. Tbe court bad a discretion under section 85, and ought to exercise it in favour of the plaintiff by allowing her to enforce her execution. Jessel, M.R., also took the opportunity of stating that, in tbe opinion of himself and the Lords Justices, the proper practice now, since the Judicature Act, in a case where costs are to be given to a formal co-defendant, which it is intended shall be ultimately paid by the principal defendant, is not, as was done nnder the old practice of the Court of Chancery, to order the plaintiff to pay tbe costs, aod giving him a right to recover them from the principal defendant, but to make a direct order for tbe payment of tbe costs by the principal defendant. Otherwise, if the principal defendant happened to be insolvent, tbe plaintiff would have to pay the 00defendant's costs, and would lose them' altogether. — Solicitors, Greenfield <£• Abbott; Prideaux tfc Son.

Pilliner, before Vice-Chancellor Hall, on the 27th inst., a question was raised as to the meaning and extent of the words "stock-in-trade" as applied to the business of a barge-builder. James Richardson, by his will, specifically bequeathed to the plaintiff his business of a barge-builder, carried on at Chiswick, "together with all and singular his stock-in-trade as a barge-builder, and also all his tools and utensils belonging to such trade." He directed that no barge in process of building at his yard at the time of his death should be considered as stock-in-trade, but that the same should form part of his residuary personal estate, which he bequeathed to the defendant upon certain trusts. In the present action, which was for the administration of the testator's estate, the chief clerk had found that five old barges which belonged to the testator at his death did not form part of the " stock-in-trade" of the business, but belongjd to the residue, and an adjourned summons to vary his certificate in this respect was now before the court. Evidenoe was given to the effect that in the business of a barge-builder it is the custom for the builder, if so required, to take an old barge in part payment for a new one. If possible, the old barge is repaired, and let out by tbe builder on weekly hire to lightermen and others. This course was adopted in the testator's business, and the rents were treated aa part of the income of the business, but the defendant contended that the old barges so acquired by bim did not become part of the stock-in-trade of the building business any more than a house or any other specific article which might be taken in payment would become so, and that, at the most, they were part of the stock of a barge-owner as distinguished from a builder. Hall, V.C., allowed the summons, saying that the barges in question were comprised within the business in the same way that old carriages taken by a coaoh-builder in part payment for a new carriage were properly part of his stock-in-trade.—Solicitors, Jones $ Starling; JPoodbridffe <b Som.

%* Re Fencott, Deceased, Fencott V. Proudfoot. —VVo have received the following note from Mr. H. A. Patience, of No. 17, Qracechurch-street, E.C., with reference to the report of this case, which appeared ante, p. 392 :—" Your reporter has misconceived the point, which the Master of the Rolls stated was an important one to solicitors. The facts are shortly as follows :—The defendants, Joseph Vaughan and wife, were rapresented by Mr. John Cotton in the action until a short time before the settlement thereof. Messrs. Merediths & Co. then obtained the usual order to ohange solicitors, and they then acted as solicitors or agents for defendants Vaughan and wife in place of Mr. Cotton. The order for settlement of action directed plaintiff to pay the costs of defendants Vaughan and wife, and add the amount thereof to his costs, which were to be paid by tbe defendants other than the defendants Vaughan and wife. Mr. Cotton carried in bis costs, prior to change of solicitors, for taxation, and Messrs. Merediths & Co. theirs subsequent to such ohange, and both bills were taxed. Mr. Cotton gave me notice that he had received no money on account of his costs from defendants Vaughan and wife, and that he required payment of the amount of his taxed costs to be made to him, and not to defendants Vaughau and wife, or their then solicitors or agents. I thereupon paid the amount claimed to Mr. Cotton. Messrs. Merediths & Co. claimed to have this sum paid to defendants Vaughan and wife personally, or to themselves on their clients' order. I paid to Messrs. Merediths & Co. the amount of their costs subsequent to change, and declined to pay over again the amount paid to Mr. Cotton; on this Messrs. Merediths threatened to issue execution on a separate certificate obtained by them from the taxing mastor ex parte, and I thereupon served the notice of motion for injunction, &c, which resulted in the decision of the Master of the Rolls that, notwithstanding the order directed payment of the costs direot to the client, Mr. Cotton had a lien, and was entitled to enforce the same, and this, although he was not then acting as solicitor in the proceedings; and plaintiff was entitled to have satisfaction entered upon the taxing master's certificate and costs of motion."

Will—Gift Of Business And Stock-in-trade—BaboeBuildbk.—In an action of Re Richardson, Richardson v.

OBITUARY.

MR. WILLIAM WALKER. Mr. 'William Walker, barrister, many years a judge of county courts, died at bis residence, Wileich, near Donca9ter, on the 21st inst. Mr. Walker was tbe son of Mr. William AValkex, barrister. He was born in 1807, and waa educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optime and in the third class of tbe classical tripos in 1829. He was called to the barat Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1834, and he formerly practised on the Northern Circuit and at the West Biding of Yorkshire Quarter Sessions. On the passing of the first County Court Act he was appointed by Lord Cottenham to be judge of county courts fcr Circuit No. 13, comprising Sheffield and other large towns in the West Biding, and after sixteen years' judicial service, lie retired on npeusion. Mr. Walker wa9 a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the West Riding, and an active member of the Doncaster Board of Guardians and Highway Board, in which capacities bis professional and judicial experience was of very great value. He was married to a daughter of tbe late Mr. Hugh Parker, banker, of Sheffield.

MR. HENRY WEST, Q.C. Mr. Henry "West, Q.C., died at his residence, Longhlinstone House, near Dublin, on the 21st inst., being his seventythird birthday. Mr. West was the son of tbe late Mr. Henry West, atid was born in 1808. Be was educated at Trinity College, Dnblin, where he giaduated B.A. in 1831, and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1833. He formerly practised on tbe Connaught Cirtuit, and be was for several years one of tbe prosecuting Crown counsel for the county and borough ot Galway. In 1862 be was appointed county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions for tbe county of Leitrim, and in 1864 he was transferred to the county of Wexford, and he held tbe latter office till 1879, when he retired. Mr. West was also a magistrate for the latter county.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION.
Easter Examination, 1881.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded to the following students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination:—

Lonis John Aiiken, Edward William Bather, and Edward Sumner Bird, Lincoln's-inn; Alan Walter Lennox Boyd, Inner Temple; Reginald Breit, Middle Temple ; Frederick Gordon Bluett Campbell, Inner Temple; Charles Henry Chadwick, Lincoln's-inn; John Brandon Chancellor and Henry Reginald Clayton, Inner Temple ; Joseph Coatsworth, Lineoln's-inn j Charles Henry Cook, Frederick Francis Daldy, Hanbnry Davis, Edward Louis De Hart, Thomas Edward De Sampayo, and Walter Russell Donogb, Inner Temple; Arthur Lee Ellis and Charles Gregson Ellis, Lincoln's-inn; Herman Erichsen, Inner Temple; Harry Trelawney Eve, Lincoln's-inn; Charles Henry Evill, Inner Temple ; Godlrey Werge Fardell, Gray's-inn; Arthur Edwiu Gaeper, Inner Temple; Bicbard William Giles, Middle Temple; Herbert Wilson Greene, Inner Temple; William Brandford Griffith, Middle Temple; William Dugdale Harland, Arthur Addleshaw Hartley, William Frederick Harvey, and Percy Ambrose Sewell Hickey, Inner Temple; Spencer Langton Holland, Lincoln's-inn; Herbert John Butler Hollings, and Jonathan Edmondson Joel, Inner Temple ; Arthur Macdonald Kirkham, Lincoln's-inn ; Harry Norman Lachlan, Middle Temple; John Grant Lawson and William Edward Lawson, Inner Temple ; Alfred Henry Lefroy, Francis Paul Lefroy, and John Henry Lonsdale, Lincoln's-inn; Charles Carroll Macnamars, and Sandford Moore, Inner Temple; Alexander Falconer Morison, Middle Temple ; George Musgrave, Inner Temple ; Walter John Napier, Lincoln's-inn ; Karl Pearson, Inner Temple; Robert Arthur Bcrthon Preston, Lincoln's-inn; Henry Laurence Piior, and Mohammed Lutfur Rahman, Inner Temple; Henry Charles Richards, Gray's-inn; Russell

Brooke Robertson, Middle Temple; David Macdonald Bobertson-Macdonald, Inner Temple; Frederic Hamilton Salusbnry, Lioeoln's - ion; Andrew Downing Soealea, Middle Temple; Bovill William Smith, Inner Temple; Gordon Smith, Lineoln's-inn; Henry John Stanyon, and Hugh Arundell Trevanion, Inner Temple; Daniel Ward, and Francis Watkins, Middle Temple; Edward Vincent Vashar Wheeler, Lincoln's-inn; Sidney Wright, Tl Howard Wright, Arthur Watkin Williams Wynn, Walter Baldwyn Yates, Inner Temple.

The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman Law :—

Andrew Oswald Acworth and Hugh Alston, Lincoln's, inn; Coaeno Gordon Antrobus and Arratoon Thomas Apcar, Inner Temple; George Ballon, Middle Temple; Willian Barnard and George Stapylton Barnes, Inner Temple ; Charles Croker Barton, Middle Temple; William Francis Beddoes, William Francis Bence-Jones, and Robert Wallace Glen BraddeU, Inner Temple ; Charles White Burroughs, Middle Temple; Fanindra Bhansaa Chatterjes, Lincoln's-inn ; Charles Henry Fehler Christie and Skel'ton Cole, Inner Temple; William Henry Cross, Inner Temple j. Francis William Crook and Mancherji Dadabhai Dadysett, Middle Temple; Edwin Arthur E ide, Lincoln'sinn; Henry Miles Finch, Arthur Fanshawe Fox, Benedict William Ginsburg, John Peter Grant, Benjamin Booth Haworth-Booth, and Frederic William Heather, Inner Temple; Edgar Percy Hewitt, Lincoln's-inn; Francis John Hoxt, Inner Temple; Lionel Ferneaox Knipe Hill, Gray's-inn; James Arthur Henry Jameson and Laurence John Jenea, Inner Temple; Samnel Kearns, Middle Temple; Bichard Walter Kittle* and Thomas Richard Lee, Lincoln's - inn; Edwardt Frederic Nicholas Lynch and Thomas Russell Hillier McClatchie, Middle Temple; Lionel McMahon, Inner Temple; Alan Macpherson, Lincoln's-inn ;Ed ward Mark wick, Middle Temple; Thomas Alexander Martin, Stuart Archibald Moore, Thomas Moore, and John Ignatius Morris, Inner Temple; Basil George Nevinson, Lincoln's-inn; Glencairn Smart Ogilvie, Inner Temple ; John Robert Patchell, Middle Temple ; Henry Cecil Phillips, Lincoln's-inn ; John Suckling Pritcbett, Francis Joseph Ridgway, and Frank E Iw&rd Robinson, Inner Temple; George Smith, Lincoln's-inn; William Douglas Watson Smyth, Inner Temple; Francis Elmer Speed, Middle Temple ; Josiah Ragland Thomas, John Mytton Thornycroft, and Joseph Robert Walker, Inner Temple; Roger William Wallace, Middle Temple; Edmond Warner, Lincoln's-inn; Benjamin Whitehead, Middle Temple; Arthur Allen Wickens, Linooln's-inn; Alfred Edmund Wigan, Middle Temple ;Arthur George Wither by and John Wood, Inner Temple.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Percival Bibkett, solicitor, of No. 6, Lincoln'sinn-field*. London, has been appointed a Commissioner in and for the Supreme Court of Hong Kong, for taking Oaths and Declarations, and for doing all Acts authorized to be done by any Commissioner or Notary Public under the Code of Civil Procedure in the Colony of Hong Kong (sec. 56, sub. 7, of Ordinance No. 13 of 1873), in England.

Mr. lion Hut Malcolm Kerr, LL.D., judge of the City Court, has been elected Cbairman of the St. Fancras Board of Guardians for the ensuing year.

Mr. CnARLES Robert Rivington, solicitor, of 1, Fenchurch-buildings, has been elected Vestry Clerk of the Parish of St James's, Dukes-place. Mr. Rivington is theson of the late Mr. Charles Rivington, solicitor. He was admitted in 1869, and is also vestry clerk of tbe parishes of St. Andrew Undershaft, St. Katharine Cree, and St. Katharine Coleman, clerk to the Stationers' Company, and ward clerk of Aldgate and Lime-street Wards.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. Wright, George, and Alan William Cam, Broad-streetcorner, Birmingham, solicitors. (Wright and Co.) The said Alan William Cam will continue to cwy 00 the said business on his own account under the style or firm of Wright and. Co March 7.

[Ga&tte, April 26, 1881.1

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP' NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited iir Chancery. Bbitatto. Hon And Colonial Fibb Association, Limited.

Creditors are roquired, on or before Juno 1, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to Messrs. Frederick Dixon Dixon-Hartlantl, M.P., and John Messent, 429, Strand. June 1G at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

Cleddau Valmt Slatb Quarries Compant, LnrrrBD.—Petition for winding up, presented April 1, directed to be heard before the M.R., on April 30. Andrew and Co, Great James st, Bedford row, solicitors for the petitioners

Cottages And Villas Building And Investment Company Limited. —The M.R. has, by an order dated March 15, appointed Charles Grobb Catler, 18, Bennett's hill,: Doctor's commons, to be official liquidator

Patent Composite Fibb Light Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented April 20, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on May 6. Bradley, Mark lane, solicitor for tho petitioners

[Gazette, Apr. 22.J

Lomb Irp Loam Awd Investment Company, Limited.—Creditors are

I .required, on or before May 31, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to Thomas Moggy, 22, Bedford place, Russell square. June 14 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

N. C. Szebelmby And Company, Limited.—The M.R. has by an order, dated March 16, appointed Joseph John Saffery, 14, Old Jewry chambers, to be official liquidator. Creditors are roquired, on or before May 20, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to tho above. May 31 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

Richards And Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented April 20, directed to be heard before the M.R. on May 7. Da vies and Co, Frederick's place, Old Jewry, agents for Elisor, Cardiff, solicitor for the petitioner

\QazetUt Apr. 26.]

Friendly Societies Dissolved. Amicable Preservative Society, Peacock Hotel, Northampton. Apr 22

Aemttt's Well-Wishes Lodge, White Horso Hotel, Congreve fit,

Birmingham. April 22 Shbkwsbuby Excblsiob Co-opebative Society, Limited, Abbey

fore-gate, Shrewsbury, Salop. Apr 22 Sr. John's Pluck And Bescotchdbchopengland Provident And

Benevolent Institution, St John's School, Walsall,. Stafford.

April 22

tGazette, Apr. 26.]

THE BANKRUPTCY BILL.

In the course o( a bankruptcy cane before Mr. Daniel, 1 i.C, tbe Bradford County Court Judge, on Tuesday, he remarked that as far as he had been able to judge, the new Bankrnptcy Bill seemed to go a long way towards redressing many of the grievances of the present system. There were two points to whioh he should like attention to be drawn—namely, tbe provisions in the Bill whioh related to the amendment of the law of fraudulent preference and those with reference to jurisdiction. In the report of the Committee of the House of Commons, over whioh the late Sir Henry Jackson presided, attention was called to the evils whioh bad arisen in the case of Butcher v. Stead in the House of Lords, and he observed that the 64th clanse of the Bill dealt with those evils, providing that any payment voluntarily made by an insolvent, with a view to give a creditor a preference, should be void. That provision would meet that case, but the evils which had arisen from the decisions given previously to the Act of 1869 were not touched, and those evils appeared to him to have arisen from the decisions of the court, which had held that where there was pressure there wat no fraudulent preference ; that pressure might be a mere application for payment, and that where payment was made after pressure it was not a fraudulent preference, because to make a fraudulent preference according to the views of the judges the act done by the debtor must be a spontaneous act. In the case of Ex parte Topham, Lord Justice Mellisb, in his carefully considered judgment, referred to tbe case of Ex parte Blacklturn, which went up from that court, and said that the Act of 1869 did not alter the previous law, according to which it was quite clear that pressure was not only sufficient to prevent a payment being a fraudulent preference, but that the creditor, though he knew the debtor to be hopelessly insolvent, had a right to use any amount of pressure for the purpose of getting his debt. Thar,

was a state of law which required to be carefully considered, for this reason: Where a man knew himself to be insolvent he owed a duty to the general body of his creditors—those who had no security; and when a man was insolvent any act which was in that sense voluntary he might refuse to do. Where a man was hopelessly insolvent be should say in reply to the pressure of a creditor, "No ;yon are asking me to do that whioh' as an honest trader I cannot do," and he (the judge) thought that, without injustice to the creditors, thehw might be in such a state as that it should not only betua duty of the debtor to refuse to give an advantage to a particular creditor, but that it should also be considered a matter of conscience binding upon tbe creditor himself not to ask for preference for himself when he knew that the debtor was insolvent and had no right to give it. He thought that state of the law would tend to raise the standard of commercial morality, and would lead to the result that any oreditor who had the misfortune to find.that his debtor was insolvent would not say to him, "Give me all you can," as was now said, but, " Being insolvent it is your duty to place your unpledged assets under the control of the law, so that they might he equally divided between me and all your other unsecured creditors." He did not think that a law of that description would be inconvenient to commerce, and it would tend very much to raise the standard of commercial morality. He should like to know whether that view would be one that would be entertained by commercial and professional men. His meaning of tbe word "voluntary" was that the Act was voluntary if a man was not compelled to do it, and it should be made tbe duty of a man who was insolvent to say "No," to an unsecured creditor; "You know I am insolvent ; " and it should also be made the duty of the creditor who knew of the insolvency not to ask for preference, but to place the unsecured assets so that they might be administered equally for the benefit of all tbe unsecured creditors.

LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. APRIL 25.—BILLS BEAD A SECOND TIME. Pbivatb Bills.—Crystal Palace Company, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, Penarth, Sully, and Barry Railway, Medway Conservancy (No. 2). Bridges (South Wales).

BILLS IN COMMITTEE. Alkali WorkB Regulation, Inland Revenue Buildings (passed through Committee).

BILLS READ A THIRD TIME: Private Bills.—Cleator Moor Local Board, Goole and Distriot Gas and Water, Stv. Helena and District Tramways.

APRIL 26.—BILL READ A SECOND TIMB. Pbivatb Bill.—Birkenhead Corporation Improvement

(No. 2).

APRIL 27 —BILLS READ A FIRST TIME.

Bill for the Declaration of the Law relating to Fresh Water FiBh not of the Salmon kind (Mr. E. Noel).

Bill for better securing tbe Purity oi Beer (Colonel Barne).

COURT PAPERS.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
Rota or Registrars In Attendance On

n.t« CoOTTT OT MiSTBR OT THH v fl n,«.

DBte- APP1XL. ROLLS. V.O.Bioow.

Monday, May 2Mr. Farrer Mr. Ward Mr. Leach

Tuesday 3 Teesdale Femberton Latham

Wednesday.... 4 Farrer Ward Leach

Thursday .... 5 Teesdale Pemberton Latham

Friday 6 Farrer Ward Leach

Saturday 7 Teesdale Pemberton Latham

T.O.H1LL. Mr. Justice Mr Justiot
Fax. Kir.

Monday, May 2Mr. Cobby Mr. Merivale Mr. Clowes

Tuesday 3 Jackson King Koe

Wednesday.... 4 Cobby Merivale Clowes

Thursday .... 5 Jackson King Koe

Friday 6 Cobby Merivale Clowes

Saturday 7 Jackson King Koe

« PreviousContinue »