Page images
PDF
EPUB

Pollard, Richard Watson, Blaydon, Devon, Farmer. May 19 at 3.30 at Magor's Commercial Hotel, Newton Abbott. Francis and Co, Newton Abbott

Popplewell, George Henry, Orston, Nottingham, out of business.
May 18 at 12 at offices of Belk, Middle pavement, Nottingham
Pursglove, Ishmael. Hayfield, nr, Stockport, Quarry Owner. May
31 at 12 at 79 Piccadilly, Manchester. Shakespear, Chancery lane
Ramsay, Henry Taylor, Kingston upon Hull, Watchmaker. May 17
at 2 at offices of Henry, Furnival's inn, Holborn
Robinson, Benjamin Frederic, Witton cum Twambrooks, nr North-
wich, Chester, Baker. May 26 at 11.30 at Wilson's Commercial
Hotel, Bridge st, Runcorn. Cooke

Scarlett, Edward Charles, Leominster, Hereford, out of business.
May 29 at 12 at Royal Oak Hotel, Leominster. Moore, Leominster
Schiffner, John, St John st, Clerkenwell, Card Box Manufacturer.
May 12 at 3 at offices of Whetherfield, Queen st, Cheapside
Selby, Thomas, Frisby on the Wreake, Leicester, Farmer.

May 19
at 2 at Bell Hotel, Humberstone gate, Leicester. Atter, Melton
Mowbray
Sheppard, Richard Henry, Bedminster, Bristol, Licensed Victualler,
May 16 at 11 at offices of Ward, Albion chambers, Bristol
Simpson, Sam, and Wharton Crossley. Bradford, York, Coal Mer-
chants. May 16 at 3 at offices of Neill, Kirkgate, Bradford
Smethurst, Henry, Stafford, Jeweller. May 18 at 11 at offices of
Morgan, Martin st, Stafford

Smith, George, Dalby on the Wolds, Leicester, Grocer. May 20 at 12 at offices of Bartlett, Mill st, Loughborough

Smith, Sydney Edmund, Lower Thames st, Packing Case Maker. May 23 at 12 at offices of Tower, Thames st

Smith. William, Stroud, Gloucester, Hotel Keeper. May 21 at 12 at offices of Jackson, George st, Gloucester

Solway, John, and James Solway, Weston super Mare, Builders. May 23 at 12 at offices of Weymouth, Regent st, Weston super Mare. Mann and Rodway Trowbridge

Summers, William, Hackney rd, Oil and Colour Man. May 18 at 3 at offices of Ellis and Crossfield, Mark lane

Terry, William, Birmingham, Licensed Victualler. May 20 at 3 at offices of Buller and Bickley, Bennett's hill, Birmingham Tibbatts, William Thomas, Bristol, Grocer. May 21 at 12 at offices of Andrews, Nicholas st, Bristol

Tilbury, Thomas, Church rd, Willesden, Builder. May 16 at 12 at offices of Greenfield, Abchurch lane

Towler, Levi, Burton in Lonsdale, York, Cotton Spinner. May 27
at 3 at offices of Chorlton, Brazennose st, Manchester
Turville, Amos, Coventry, Warwick. May 23 at 11 at offices of
Goate, Little Park st, Coventry

Tyson, William, Great Grimsby, Lincoln. Grocer. May 17 at 2 at the White Hart Hotel, Old Market pl, Great, Grimsby. Stead and Sibree, Kingston upon Hull

Waldron, John, Fulflood, Winchester. Wine and Spirit Merchant. May 25 at 1.30 at the Black Swan Hotel, Winchester. Eve, Aldershot

Westby, Henry, Burtonwood, nr Newton le Willows, Lancaster, Farmer. May 27 at 3.30 at 41, Legh st, Earlestown. Riley Wilcock, John, Clitheroe, Lancaster, Ironmonger. May 20 at 3 at the Mitre Hotel, Cathedral gates, Manchester. Robinson, Bolton Wilkinson, William, Wolverley, nr Wen, Salop, Farmer. May 19 at 3 at the Crown Hotel, St Mary's st Shrewsbury. Morris and Sons, Shrewsbury

Wood, George, Wraysbury, Buckingham, Paper Manufacturer. May 20 at 1 at the Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Lott, Gt George st, Westminster

Wood, Joseph, Leeds, Grocer. May 17 at 3 at offices of Granger and Raper, Bank st, Leeds

Woodyat, William Henry, Treharris, Weigher. May 18 at 10.30 at offices of Howells, Aberdare

TUESDAY, May 10, 1881.

Adams, James Andrew, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancaster, Saddler.
May 24 at 3 at offices of Jones, 51, King st, Manchester
Allen, Joseph Ogden, Manchester, Provision Merchant. May 27 at
3 at offices of Cobbett and Co, 61. Brown st, Manchester
Ayes, Henry, Mildenhall, Suffolk, Farmer. May 23 at 11 at the
White Hart Hotel, Mildenhall. Read, Mildenhall

May 20 at 11 at

Baker, James, Ormskirk, Lancaster, Potato Dealer. May 23 at 11
at offices of Brighouse and Brighouse, Ormskirk
Barker, Edward, Whitehaven, Cumberland, Hatter. May 21 at 11
at offices of Mason. 67, Duke st, Whitehaven
Barraclough, Joseph, Bradford, York, Grocer.
offices of Peel and Co, 135, Chapel lane, Bradford
Baxendale, Joseph, Kirkgate, Wakefield, York, Clogger. May 21 at
3 at Golden Lion Hotel, Le ds. Harrison and Beaumont
Bell, George John, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Merchant. May 20 at 2 at
offices of Traders' Association, 32, Grainger st West, Newcastle-on
Tyne. Richardson, Newenstle-on-Tyne

Banks, Thomas, Fenton, Stafford, Grocer. May 21 at 11 at offices
of Leech, Ironmonger, Newcastle-under-Lyme
Bilsbrough, William Thomas. Preston. Innkeeper. May 26 at 11 at
County Court Offices, Winckley st, Preston. Fryer, Preston
Bishop, James, Southampton. Chemist. May 19 at 3 at offices of
Lomas and Co, Old Jewry chmbrs. Watts, Southampton
Brain, William, Dockha3, nr Cinderford, Gloucester, Farmer.
May 23 at 12 at offices of Parker, Newnham

Briggs, Thomas Francis Richard, Sheerness, Kent, Taylor. May 10
at 12 at Sun Hotel, Chatham. Stallon, Sheerness
Brown, William Henry, Birmingham, Journeyman Painter. May 20
at 3 at offices of East, Temple st, Birmingham

Browne, Michael Charles, Schoolmaster, Waterloo rd. May 21 at 2 at offices of Hurd, Cheapside

Burrell, Thomas, Birstall, York, Draper, May 21 at 3 at Royal Hote Dewsbury. Smith and Wallis, Birstall

Burton, Frederick, Daniel, Sheffield, Professor of Music. May 20 at 11 at offices of Mellor, Queen st, Sheffield Chase, Francis, Thompson, Denmark terrace, Hornsey, Baker. May 18 at 3 at offices of Godfrey, Gresham bdgs, Guildhall Cort, Thomas, Manchester, Paper Manufacturer. May 25 at 11 at the Mitre Hotel, Cathedral gates Manchester. Preston and Young, Manchester

May 25 at 11

Cox, William, Feckenham, Worcester, Stone Mason. at offices of Scott, and Horton, New rd, Bromsgrove Croft, Frederick Lester, Bradford, York, Book keeper. May 20 at 11 at offices of Greaves and Taylor, Cheapside, Bradford Crosby, John, Bradford, York, Saddler. May 23 at 4 at offices of Last and Betts, Bond st, Bradford

Cross, Charles, Redditch, Worcester, Engineer. May 23 at 11.30 at offices of Powell and Browett. Ann st, Birmingham Cummings, James, Birmingham, Fishmonger. May 20 at 3 at offices of Fallows, Cherry st, Birmingham

Dark, Joseph, Copenhagen st, Islington. May 24 at 4 at offices of Holmes, Eastcheap

Davis, Edward, and Michael Joseph Gashion. High Holborn, Tailors. June 1 at 12.30 at offices of Vanderpump, Gray's inn sq

Denham, Joseph, Low Felling, Durham, Grocer. May 23 at 3 at offices of Pybus, Post Office chbrs, St Nicholas sq, Newcastle upon Tyne Dicksee, Samuel James Cox, Crowborough Cross, Sussex, Minister. May 25 at 2 at offices of Pilgrim, Southampton st, Bloomsbury Dobson, Elizabeth, Kirkgate, Wakefield, Innkeeper. May 23 at 11 at the Foresters room, Crown ct, Wakefield. Mander and Son, Wakefield

Drakes, Daniel, Market Rasen, Lincoln, Farmer. May 18 at 11 at offices of Chambers, King st, Market Rasen

Eales, Edward Nicholas, and William Wright Eales, Coventry, Grocers. May 23 at 1 at offices of Neale, Hay lane, Coventry Ewins, Samuel Daniel, Ave Maria lane, Ludgate hill, Fancy Warehouseman. May 21 at 11 at offices of Eley, New Broad st Finch, Benjamin, High Holborn, Sanitary Engineer. May 31 at 2 at Guildhall Tavern, Gresham st. Montague, Bucklersbury Fitzgerald, Patrick. Bolton, Lancaster, Provision Dealer. May 23 at 3 at offices of Rutter and Finney, Mawdsley st, Bolton Forbes, James, South Shields, Licensed Victualler. May 20 at 3 at offices of Newlands, King st, South Shields

Gascoine, William Gustavus, Central Meat Market, Meat Salesman, May 21 at 1 at offices of Seymour Hubbard, London Joint Stock Bank chmbrs, West Smithfield

Gent, George, Clevedon, Somerset, Medical Practitioner. May 23 at offices of J. and S E. Parsons, High st, Bristol. Bakers and Co, Weston-super-Mare

Gittins, Thomas Jordan, Stoke-upon-Trent, Licensed Victualler.
May 19 at 11.30 at Glebe Hotel, Glebe st, Stoke-upon-Trent.
Ashwell, Stoke-upon-Trent

Hancox, John Handel, Oldswinford, Worcester, Chartermaster.
May 23 at 3 at offices of Addison, High st, Brierley Hill
Hand, Thomas Daniel, Leicester, Builder. May 24 at 12 at offices of
Shires, Market st, Leicester

Harvey, John, Stoney Stanton, Leicester, Licensed Victualler.
May 24 at 3 at offices of Hincks, Bowling Green st, Leicester
Haynes, James Thomas, Walthamstow, Essex, Ginger Beer Maker.
May 18 at 11 at Broadway, Stratford

Heath, John Grindy. Rudyard. Stafford, Butcher. May 21 at 2 at offices of Bloor, Stockwell st, Leek

Heppel, Jane, Durham, Bootmaker. May 25 at 11 at offices of Marshall, Market pl, Durham

Hill, Jason. Sambourne Warren, Warwick, Feedle Manufacturer. May 21 at 11.30 at offices of Powell and Browett, Ann st, Biring

[blocks in formation]

Swansea

Jones, George, Prestatyn, Flint, Accountant. May 24 at 3 at Royal Hotel, Rhyl. Evans, Holywell

Jones, John, Lampeter, Cardigan, Builder. May 28 at 2 at offices of Lloyd, High st, Lampeter

Jones, Watkin, Newport, Mon. Coal Merchant. May 20 at 11 at office of Vaughan, Dock st, Newport

Jordan, Richard. Stoneycroft, nr Liverpool, Builder. May 23 at 12 at offices of Paynter, South Castle st, Liverpool

Knowles, John, Runcorn, Chester, Licensed Victualler. May 21 at 3 at Wilson's Hotel. Day and Lake

Lee, Levi, Russell villas, Seven Sister's rd, Builder. May 23 at 2 at offices of Keily, Molyneux ehbrs, Goswell rd

Lees, William, Warwick, Grocer. May 23 at 11 at 19, High st, Warwick. Boddington, Warwick

Lloyd, Richard, Gilfachgoch, Llantrissant, Glamorgan, Tailor.
May 21 at 12 at offices of Rosser, High st, Pontypridd
Luff, George Thomas Baker, Cadogan mansions, Sloane sq,
Builder. May 23 at 3 at offices of Van Tromp, Essex st, Strand
Mabe, George, Templeton, Narberth South, Pembroke, Butcher.
May 21 at 11 at offices of Lascelles, Narberth
Mainman, Alfred Reid, Bala, Mer oneth, Grocer. May 27 at 11 at
offices of Roose and Price, North John st, Liverpool. Grace and
Smith, Liverpool

Manley, Henry James, Barnstaple, Innkeeper. May 23 at 2 at office of Bromham, High st, Barnstaple

Mansell, William, Little Queen st, Bookbinder. June 3 at 3 at Law Institution, Chancery lane. Vanderpump, Gray's inn sq

Marsh, George John Eyton, Westow terrace, Upper Norwood, Grocer. May 25 at 2 at Masons' Tavern, Basinghall st. Brown, Basinghall st

McCowan, Heywood, Lancaster, Grocer. May 20 at 3 at offices of Grundy, 14, Union st, Bury

Mignot, William John, Shipton st, Hackney rd, Boot Manufacturer. May 25 at 3 at offices of Harte, 47, Moorgate st

[blocks in formation]

Millns, Rebecca, North Wingfield, Derby, Grocer. May 26 at 3 at SCHWEITZER'S COCOATINA,

offices of Gee, High st, Chesterfield

Minns, George, Gt Peter st, Westminster, Licensed Victualler. May 20 at 12 at offices of Chandler and Co, 15, Coleman st

Moyes, Laurie, Camden rd, Commercial Traveller. May 23 at 2 at offices of Smith, 37, Walbrook

Napper, David, Birdhand, Sussex, Farmer. May 27 at 2 at offices of Gregory, 81, East st, Chichester

Neave, Alfred James, Kingston, Surrey, Auctioneer. May 28 at 10 at offices of Cannon, The Broadway, Wimbledon Newton, Robert, Kingston-upon-Hull, Grocer.

May 23 at 3 at Bank cabrs, Land of Green Ginger, Hull. Redfearn Norton, George Edmund, Shaftesbury, Dorset, Grocer. May 21 at 3.30 at Temperance Hall, Bell st, Shaftesbury. Rutter and Son, Mere

Orton, Samuel Allinson, Heywood, Lancaster, Solicitor. May 23 at 3 at offices of Heath and Sons, 48, Swan st, Manchester

Pass, Benjamin, Castle st, Falcon sq, Furrier. May 24 at 3 at offices of Wright, Walbrook

Pearse, Richard, Wye. Kent, Coal Merchant. May 24 at 12.30 at the Queen's Head Inn, Canterbury

May 25 at 3 at offices of

Proctor, Isiaah, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottingham, Beerhouse Keeper. May 25 at 11 at offices of Stevenson. Weekday-cross, Nottingham Prout. Henry John, Burton Bradstock, Dorset, Baker. May 27 at 12 at offices of Gundry, Bridport. Lock, Dorchester Raines. John, Dukinfield, out of business. Coates, Old st, Ashton-under-Lyne Rawding, George, St. Helen's, Lancaster. Licensed Victualler. May 31 at 3 at offices of Sutton and Elliott, Fou tain st, Manchester Reed, Thomas, Bumble Hole, near Dudley, Licensed Victualler. May 20 at 11 at offices ef Shakespeare, Church st, Oldbury Reeve, Lewis, Greasley, Nottingham, Wheelwright. May 23 at 11 at offices of Stevenson, Weekday cross, Nottingham Robins, Charles Willlam, Highworth, Wilts, out of business. May 19 at 11 at Bell Hotel, Faringdon

Robins, George, Liverpool, Outfitter. May 20 at 10 at offices of Knowles, Cook st, Liverpool

Robinson, John, Darlington, Durham, Grocer. May 23 at 11 at offices of Wilkes and Wilkes, Northgate, Darlington

Sanders, Benjamin Eleazer, Aston. Birmingham, Brassfounder.
May 17 at 3 at offices of East, Temple row, Birmingham
Skan, Elizabeth Bryan, Birmingham. May 17 at 3 at offices of
Jaques, Temple row, Birmingham
Smith. Abraham Edwin, Bath, Licensed Victualler. May 13 at 11 at
at Christopher Hotel, Market place, Bath. Bartrum and Bartlett,
Bath

Smith, Thomas Slater, Altonbury, Huntingdon, Merchant. May 25
at 1.30 at George Hotel, Huntingdon. Hunnybun
Smith. David, Barrow-in-Furness, out of business. May 26 at 11
at Imperial Hotel, Barrow-in-Furness. Nalder and Jones, Barrow-
in-Furness

Startup, Thomas William, Bucklersbury, Wine and Spirit Merchant May 26 at 3 at 5, Mark lane. Sorrell and Son, Gt Tower st Stevens, Thomas, Bradfield. Berks, Clerk in Holy Orders. May 21 at 2 at the Queen's Hotel, Reading. Longbourne and Co, Lincoln's inn fields

Story, James, Kingston-upon-Hull, Tailor. May 26 at 2.30 at Imperial Hotel, Paragon st, Kingston-upon-Hull. Stamp and Co, Kingston-upon-Hull

Stott, George, Walton-le-Dale, Lancaster, Labourer. May 23 at 11 at the County Court Oflices, Winckley st, Preston. Fryer,

Preston

Swann, the Rev. Ernest Henry, Tottington, Norfolk, Clerk, May 23 at 2.30 at offices of Overbury and Gilbert, Upper King st, Norwich

Thompson, Thomas, and John Wharam, Lincoln, Drapers. May 21
at 12.30 at offices of Hayes and Son, Market pl, Gainsborough
Tulley, Reuben, Hastings, Builder. May 21 at 12 at Provincial
Hotel, Havelock rd, Hastings. Hare, Pinner's ct, Old Broad st
Tutcher, Henry, Bristol, Currier. May 23 at 12 at offices of Collins
Broad st, Bristol. Beckingham, Bristol

Uhlhorn, Johanna Caroline, and Jules Billhardt, Barbican, General
Merchants. May 18 at 2 at offices of Phelps and Co, Gresham st
Upfill, Robert Horace Gray, Walsall, Malleable Ironfounder. May
23 at 12 at offices of Underhill, Darlington st, Wolverhampton
Upton, George Evans, Old Jewry, Dealer in China. May 25 at 2 at
Masons' Hall Tavern, Masons' avenue, Basinghall st
Vince, John, Duke st, Grosvenor sq, Scotch Woollen Warehouseman.
May 23 at 12 at offices of Joselyne and Co, King st, Cheapside.
Nicholls, Gresham st

Voryce, Enoch, Drybrook, Gloucester, Licensed Victualler. May 26 at 2 at Swan Hstel, Cinderford. Goldring

Ward, James, Liverpool, Licensed Victualler. May 23 at 3 at offices of Gibson and Bolland, South John st, Liverpool Watson, Henry William, junr., Sunderland, Wholesale Druggist. May 20 at offices of Robinson, West Sunniside, Sunderland Wilkins, Frank, and Robert Wilkins, Fulham rd, South Kensing ton, Builders. May 19 at 2 at Cannon st, Hotel, Cannon st. Rawlins, Queen Victoria st

Williams, Arthur Henry, Liverpool, Pianoforte Dealer. May 23 at 4 at offices of Lowe, Mount Pleasant, Liverpool

Williams, Henry, Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Grocer. May 24 at 12 at offices of Rosser, High st, Pontypridd Wood, Stephen, Longton, Stafford, China Dealer.

May 25 at 11 at offices of Tomkinson and Furnival, St. John's chmbrs, Queen st, Burslem

Woods, Edwin, Great Grimsby, Lincoln, Commission Merchant. May 27 at 3 at at Yarborough Hotel, Great Grimsby. Mason, Great Grimsby

Anti-Dyspeptic Cocoa or Chocolate Powder.

Guaranteed Pure Soluble Cocoa of the Finest Quality, with the excess of fat extracted.

The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritions, perfectly digestible overage for Breakfast, Luncheon, or Supper, and invaluable for Ir valids and Children."

Highly commended by the entire Medica Press. Being without sugar, spice, or other admixture, it suits all palates, zeeps better in all climates, and is four times the strength of cocoas THICKENED yet WEAKENED with starch, &c., and IN REALITY CHEAPER than such Mixtures.

Made instantaneously with boiling water, a teaspoonful to a Breakfast Cup, costing less than a halfpenny.

CCCOATINA A LA VANILLE is the most delicate, digestible, cheapest Manila Chocolate, and may be taken when richer chocolate is prohibited.

In tin packets at 1s. 6d., 38., 5s. 6d., &c., by Chemists and Grocers, Charities on Special Terms by the Sole Proprietors,

H. SCHWEITZER & CO., 10, Adam-street, London, W.C.

[blocks in formation]

Το

Estate and Auction Offices, 8, Pall Mall East, S.W.

O GENTLEMEN WITH CAPITAL.-EIGHT GENTLEMEN with a capital of £5,000 each, Required to Join two others who will subscribe the like amount, to work one of the best paying undertakings yet established; the scheme is one of public importance.-Full particulars can be had on application to Major JoHNSON, Victoria House, 111, Victoria-street, S.W., but as the matter is perfectly bona fide none but principals with the capital named at command need apply.

N Old-established Firm of Solicitors in London can Recommend a Gentlemen (admitted), age 23, as Conveyancing or Assistant Chancery and Common Law Clerk in London or the country.-A. H. Y., Messrs. Dunn & Duncan, Law Stationers, 203, Fleet-street, E.C.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Edwards v. The Midland Railway Company (Q.B.Div.)....... 609
Emden v. Carte (Chan.Div. Fry,J.)

Farmer v. May (C.P.Div.)

Glover v. Giles (Chan. Div. Fry.J.)

Goodman's Trusts, In re (App.)

[ocr errors]

597

Hardcastle, Ex parte. In re Mawson (Bkcy.).
............................ 615
Holroyde, In re (Ch.Div. M.R)..

599
601

606

........

612

Rudow v. Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society (App.) 585
Seal v. Claridge (App.).

Hoole v. Smith (Ch.Div. Fry, J.)

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Lucas (Q.B.Div.)
Ridgway v. Ridgway (Div. Div.)

Smyth, In re (Lun.)

Thomas v. Patent Lionite Company (App.)
Wilkinson and Wife v. Corfield (Prob. Div.)

598

613

THE ASPECT of the rooms in the Royal Courts of Justice which are now being prepared for the chief clerks of the four judges of first instance in the Chancry Division is very different from that presented even so short a time since as Easter of this year. No doubt appears to exist that these rooms will be actually entered upon during the month of June, and that each chief clerk and his staff, numbering in all about seventy officials, will before the end of next month, be installed in the new building.

IT IS WORTH NOTICING that the recent applications with reference to the Canterbury and Oxford election petitions have brought to light the circumstance that the Masters consider 200 guineas as the highest amount which can be allowed as between party and party for getting up a case, instructions, and drawing up briefs for counsel. The charge made in the Canterbury case was 500 guineas, and in the Oxford case (in which the brief contained between 400 and 500 folios) 400 guineas. In each case the sum of 200 guineas was allowed.

A SUGGESTION has been made by the Treasury to the Lord Chancellor for adjusting the salaries of some of the clerks in the legal offices, so as to assimilate them to the salaries of the corresponding classes in the Civil Service. Under the proposed regulations the salary of a first-class clerk will be £500, rising by annual increments of £20 to £600; that of the second class will be £250, rising by annual increments of £15 to £400, and that of the third class will be £100, rising by annual increments of £10 to £200. This suggestion, if carried out, will affect between sixty and seventy of the clerks in the chancery offices.

IT IS TO BE HOPED that, as regards the "well" for solicitors in the new courts, the arrangements of the Court of Appeal at Lincoln's-inn, which were approved of by Lord CAIRNS, will not be taken as a model. It is essential that solicitors should be placed face to face with the counsel they may have occasion at any moment to communicate with. It is not convenient that counsel should be compelled to attract his client's attention by ... 596 patting him on the head with his brief. The solicitors' seats should be opposite to, and facing, those of the counsel of the inner bar, and immediately below the latter seats there should be provided a table or desk for the papers of the solicitors, with provision for writing. As regards the solicitors' "well," the arrangements of the court now occupied by Mr. Justice KAY are a very fair model. It should not be forgotten that the shorthand writers should be placed as nearly as possible halfway between the counsel and the judge, and facing the witness-box.

William Brown's Trusts, In re (Ch.Div. Fry,J.).
Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Company v. Bond
(Ch.Div. M.R.)...

CURRENT TOPICS.

604

599

LORD JUSTICE BAGGALLAY has been confined to his house for some days by serious indisposition. His lordship is progressing favourably towards recovery, and hopes to resume his seat on the bench of the Court of Appeal in the course of a few days.

SEVERAL OF THE NEW COURTS in the Royal Courts of Justice are so far advanced as to be ready to receive the necessary fittings for the judges, barristers, solicitors, and jury, but it is understood that before the plan of these is finally settled, the Lord Chancellor, with Lord COLERIDGE and several of the judges, will inspect the courts and give their opinion as to the arrangements to be made.

POOR MR. REA, the Belfast solicitor whose tragic end has this week been recorded in the papers, carried the virtue of pertinacious presentation of his cases to unheardof lengths. Some of our readers may, perhaps, recall the scenes in the Parliamentary Committee on the Belfast Town Improvement Bill in 1864. On the eleventh day of the sitting of the Committee, Mr. REA, who conducted his opposition to the Bill in person, had not concluded his cross-examination of the fourth witness, having taken a much longer time over the cross-examination of each witness than had been occupied by the promoters

and all the other opponents of the Bill put together in the examination and cross-examination of all four witnesses. On the eleventh day, the patience of the Committee being completely worn out, they declined to hear Mr. REA any further. He refused to withdraw, and, after a fearful struggle, in which one of the policemen was injured, he was dragged out of the room by three policemen, after threatening to bring an action against every member of the Committee.

AN APPLICATION made this week to the City of London Court, which we report elsewhere, opens up a gloomy prospect to solicitors. A solicitor, of course, is not personally liable to witnesses whom he subpoenas for their expenses unless he thinks fit to bind himself to pay them. And we have always understood that the evidence which is necessary to render a solicitor liable in respect of a promise to pay the expenses of a witness must be clear and unambiguous. If the evidence is ambiguous or doubt. ful, or the acts or statements of the solicitor relied on are consistent with his acting as agent or solicitor only, then the court will hold that there is no evidence at all of any promise to be personally liable (see the observations of POLLOCK, C.B., in Lee v. Everest, 26 L. J. Ex. 334, 338). In Gilbert v. Terry it appears from the judgment of Mr. Commissioner KERR that the evidence of the plaintiff was that Mr. TERRY, a solicitor, went to the plaintiff, a surveyor, and "told him he (Mr. TERRY) wanted him to give evidence on behalf of his client." Upon the evidence the jury found a verdict of three guineas for the plaintiff, and on an application for a new trial the judge held that "the jury believed that the defendant was unwise enough to say a word on his own responsibility, and so found against him;" and he refused to order a new trial. If the whole evidence against Mr. TERRY is correctly stated in the judgment of the commissioner, there would seem to have been no evidence whatever to fix the solicitor with personal liability.

A CHARGE of appropriating a £5 note picked up in the street, which came before the magistrate at the Thames Police Court last week, illustrates the anomalous state of the law as to larceny by the finder of a chattel. Mr. LUSHINGTON dismissed the charge, on the ground that the finder had no means, at the moment when he picked up the note, of knowing who the owner was. Reg. v. Thurborn (1 Dear. 387) is the leading case upon this point. There the prisoner picked up a bank note, there being no circumstances which would facilitate his finding the owner, but the jury found that he had, when he picked it up, intended to appropriate it to his own use. PARKE, B., delivered an elaborate judgment, and arrived at the conclusion that there had been no larceny, because there was no evidence of taking invito domino. He cited the following passage from 1 HALE's Pleas of the Crown, 506 :-" If A. find the purse of B. in the highway, and take and carry it away, and hath all the circumstances that may prove it to be done animo furandi, as denying or secreting it, yet it is not felony; but he stated that the taking would be larceny if the finder reasonably believed that the owner could be found. The correctness of this judgment was doubted by MARTIN, B., in Reg. v. Glyde (16 W. R. 1174, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 139), although Reg. v. Thurbern was followed. The prisoner had picked up a sovereign. He met the owner of the money very soon afterwards, and denied having found it. The jury found | that he had, with a knowledge that he was doing wrong, determined to keep the sovereign, even if the owner should become known to him. The conviction was quashed, on the ground that there was no evidence of his belief, when he picked up the money, that he could find the owner. COCKBURN, C.J., however, observed,

[ocr errors]

that if the finder were to say, "Even if the owner doesclaim it, I mean to keep it,' that might be larceny."

THE PHILANTHROPIC Gentlemen who recently met at the Mansion House to inaugurate a licensed home for drunkards, under the Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879, said a good deal about the self-supporting character of the institution to be established in order to prevent the Act from becoming a dead letter, but they omitted to draw attention to the circumstance that under the Act every "retreat" must "from time to time, and at least twice in each year, be inspected by the inspector or assistant inspector of retreats." Hence, on the establishment of the proposed "model licensed home," an inspector of retreats will have to be appointed by the Home Secretary, and the "salary and allowances" of such inspector, as well as his expenses in carrying out the provisions of the Act, will have to be "paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." It is questionable whether, even if the Act were put in force by the local authorities, the public should be burdened with any costs attending the "retreat" of the drunkard, but it is still more doubtful whether for the sake of a mere amateur experiment the British taxpayer ought to be saddled with thesalary and expenses of an inspector.

THE SECOND MONTHLY LIST of persons detained in prison in Ireland under the Protection of Person and Property Act, shows that the number of prisoners has risen from thirty-five to fifty-four. Most of the additional prisoners are incarcerated upon grounds similar to those upon which those included in the first list were detained, but it appears that JOHN RUANE and PATRICK RUANE are detained at Galway on reasonable suspicion of having committed murder, while WILLIAM DOORLEY is imprisoned on suspicion of arson. cause assigned for the arrest of Mr. DILLON, M.P., is that he is reasonably suspected of having been guilty as principal, of a crime punishable by law - that is to say, inciting persons to forcibly oppose and resist the execution of process of the law for giving possession of lands, and to riot and assault" within a prescribed district.

[ocr errors]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

The

THE case of The Queen v. Willshire (29 W. R. 473, L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 366) is one of those provoking cases in which a prisoner gets off by a technicality without there being any moral doubt of his guilt, and yet the circumstances were such that it is impossible to deny that the court was bound to give effect to the technicality. Such unfortunate occurrences give great occasion to the unlearned to blaspheme.

The facts were these. A man was convicted of bigamy under the following circumstances:-The prisoner had. in 1864, married a woman whom we will call A. In 1868 he went through the ceremony of marriage with B., A. being still alive, and he was charged with, and convicted of, bigamy. In 1879 he married C., and in 1880, C. being still alive, he married D. He was then charged with bigamy in marrying D., C. being still alive, and he was convicted. The question was whether this conviction could be sustained. The point upon which the case turned was as to the presumption with regard to the continued existence of A., and the court held that, it not having been left to the jury to say whether A. was alive or not when the prisoner married C., the conviction could not be sustained.

It seems quite clear that this most unsatisfactory conclusion was inevitable. At first sight the result might seem more absurd than it is, because it looks as if the prisoner escaped the conviction for bigamy in respect of

our

one former marriage, on the ground that he was guilty of bigamy in respect of another former marriage, but this is not the case: the woman A. might possibly have been alive when the marriage with C. took place, and dead when the marriage with D. took place, in which case, though the marriage with C. would be a bigamy, the marriage with D. would be no bigamy. The case was one of a slip in the way the matter was left to the jury, which must sometimes occur; but, apart from the point upon which the decision actually went, the case illustrates very forcibly the possible absurdities that may arise from the cumbrous rigidity which still characterizes criminal procedure. If the case had been correctly left to the jury, in what position would it have stood? The evidence on which the jury would have had to decide whether the woman A. was alive in 1879 when the marriage with C. took place was not very satisfactory. There is, it is said, a presumption that the marriage with C. was valid; that it could not be presumed to have been a bigamy, and that the presumption in its favour rebutted the presumption of the continued existence of A. It was held that it was for the jury to decide between these conflicting presumptions, whereas the Common Serjeant, who tried the case, told the jury that there being a prima facie case of bigamy, the onus was thrown on the prisoner of proving that the woman A. was alive when he married C. But assuming that the jury on the facts had come to the conclusion that A. was alive in 1879, when the marriage with C. took place it will be observed that the marriage with D. took place in 1880-what ground in reason, without more, would they have for presuming that A. was dead in 1880 ? It seems to us that in reason and justice the prisoner certainly ought to have been convicted. If A. was dead in 1879 he was guilty of bigamy in marrying D., C. being alive. If A. was to be presumed to be alive in 1879, she ought surely to be presumed to be alive in 1880. But the difficulty would then have arisen that the prisoner was indicted for bigamy in marrying D., C. being alive, not for bigamy in marrying D., A. being alive. It seems doubtful whether an indictment could be allowed containing counts charging the felony alternatively. An amendment, assuming it possible, does not meet the case, because the truth is that the jury might not really be able to come to a conclusion whether A. was alive in 1879 or not, but they might well think that if she was alive in 1879, she was alive in 1880, and so that quacunque via the prisoner was guilty of bigamy. For the same reason a fresh indictment for bigamy in marrying D., A. being alive, might prove unavailing.

The truth is that it is quite possible, under our present system (especially in cases of felony, where the indictment can only charge one felony)-although it does not, of course, often happen in practice—that a man may escape who is clearly guilty of one of two alternative charges, because it is difficult to say which he is guilty of. Of course, there might be substantial difficulty, as when the punishment or nature of the offences differed; but when, as in the case we are suggesting, the offence is substantially the same, only with slight difference of circumstance, it is really absurd that there should be any difficulty in convicting and punishing a miscreant who, quacunque via, thoroughly deserves it. We believe we have seen it gravely argued in some book of high authority on criminal law that when the evidence is so balanced that it is impossible to say whether a man is guilty of stealing or receiving, though he must have been guilty of one or the other, he ought to be acquitted. If this be good law, it seems to us very bad The difficulty we are discussing depends very much on our system of indictments. So far as the true allegation and proof of circumstance may be properly material, it may be necessary that such allegation and proof should be strictly required in the interests of the prisoner. But in such a case as this the result appears to us to be absurd. The very ground of defence really shows the offence, with slight change of circumstance, to have been committed.

sense.

Some time ago we took occasion to point out the useless and even mischievous character of the oldfashioned system of indictments. It is a survival from a period of our law when, perhaps, it had its uses, an obsolete application of that almost superstitious consideration for legal instruments and documents which once so largely prevailed in the law, and was, no doubt, a valuable principle in earlier times. The indictment is, in form, a presentment, and in early days, we suppose, when the function of the jury was to present, as being neighbours already cognizant of the facts, rather than to to try, it might be necessary that the charge should be set out with rigid accuracy, and it seems obvious that such accuracy would be a safeguard. But now the indictment answers cther purposes. Its really essential function is to inform the prisoner what the charge against him is. We have pointed out how badly and cumbrously it performs this function. The depositions really give the prisoner the requisite information. What, in fairness, the prisoner ought to be informed of are the facts upon which the prosecution mean to rely, and, perhaps, in addition to this, he ought to have some notice or particulars of the crime or crimes, whether statutory or common law, of which it is alleged the facts show him to be guilty. Of course, if there were a code, that would be done by referring to the section of the code. The question whether more than one charge should be tried at the same trial ought to be one for the discretion of the court; the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in this respect seems quite illogical and groundless. The case upon which we have founded the above remarks affords another illustration of the vices of the present system to which we before drew attention.

THE STOLEN GOODS BILL. THE Bill which it is proposed to call the Stolen Goods Act, 1881, which was recently read a second time in the House of Lords, is not likely to meet with much opposition. Thieves and receivers are, of course, not represented in Parliament, and we should hardly imagine that "second-hand dealers " and pawnbrokers are represented sufficiently to be able to interfere. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that the various clauses of the measure should be carefully scrutinized in the interest of the general convenience of the public.

[ocr errors]

Shortly put, the objects of the Bill are the prevention of "receiving" and the speedy detection of thieves, and these objects are proposed to be effected by vesting in the police an extensive power of search, and by putting traders under a sharp supervision and control. The power of search is not quite new, no doubt, for the germ of it may be found in the little-known "Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861" (24 & 25 Vict. c. 110), and in sections 24 and 25 of the Metropolitan Police Act (2 & 3 Vict. C. 71). And ever since the "Act against Brokers' (1 Jac. 1, c. 21), pawnbrokers have been (very properly) subjected to divers harassing regulations. But it is now sought greatly to extend the power of search, and to subject. second-hand dealers in a large variety of articles (including wearing apparel) to the same control and supervision as pawnbrokers. We propose to consider the thirty-seven clauses by which this is proposed to be done, premising that the Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861, and the two sections in the Metropolitan Police Act to which we have referred, are, with one or two other less important enactments, repealed and replaced by the provisions of the Bill.

The first paragraph of clause 3 is as follows:-
:-

"Where an officer of police, being an inspector, or of equal or superior rank, states on oath to a court of summary jurisdiction that he has received information that certain articles specified by him have been stolen, and that he has reason to believe and does believe that the said information is true, and that those articles or some of them are in

« PreviousContinue »