for that purpose, by a Royal warrant, as a trustee for her Majesty. Some persons subsequently claimed to be next of kin of the testator and presented a petition of right, under which their claim was established. Malins, V.C., held that the Crown must pay the claiments interest on the sum which had been received by the Solicitor to the Treasury in respect of the rents and profits of the property. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M. R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) reversed this decision. JESSEL, M.R., said that by the law of England interest is never payable except by contract or by statute. An administrator is liable to pay interest on a principle of equity applicable to trustees, but as the Crown had not administered to the estate this principle did not apply. The case was governed by the ordinary rule of law which was clear.-SOLICITORS, Hare & Fell; Ewbank & Partngton.

A

DECEASED LUNATIC-ADMINISTRATION ACTION-PAYMENT OF PERSONAL ESTATE TO EXECUTOR.-In a case of In re Sayer, before BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L. JJ., on the 25th ult., a question arose as to the right of the executor of a deceased lunatic to receive payment of the personal estate. The lunatic had made a will before she became insane. After her death a creditor commenced an action in the Chancery Division against the executor to administer the estate. petition was presented in lunacy by the committee of the estate, asking that the per-onal estate, which was in court, might be paid to the executor. The plaintiff in the action asked that the funds might be transferred to the credit of the action, on the ground that it would save expense, as if they were paid and transferred to the executor he would have to bring them into court again in the action. The court held that, without the consent of the executor, who had a legal title to receive the personal estate, they could only order payn ent and transfer to him.-SOLICITORS, E. F. Jenkins ; John McClellan; H. M. Phillips.

to an

INTESTATE-PERSONAL PROPERTY IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY-ADMINISTRATION OF COURT OF DOMICIL-POWER TO GIVE RECEIPTS-On the 27th ult., the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M. R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision of Fry, J., in Eames v. Hacon (29 W. R. 259, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 407, on which we commented ante, p. 273). The question was as to the power of intestate who bas personal property in different countries administrator appointed by the court of the domicil of an give a good discharge to a subordinate administrator. General administration of the property of an intestate who had died in Ireland, and was, so far as appeared, domiciled there, was granted by the Irish court to his widow. The intestate had personal estate in Bombay, and the widow appointed some persons in Bombay her attorneys to apply for and obtain letters of administration from the court there on her behalf, and letters of administration were granted by that court to the attorneys to the use and for the benefit of the widow. The attorneys, acting under these letters of administration, collected the Indian assets, and, after paying the debts due by the intestate there and the costs of administration, they remitted the balance to their agents in London, requesting them to pay it to the party entitled thereto, on your being furnished with a satisfactory release duly executed." The agents declined to hand over the funds to the widow, alleging that they were liable to be sued by the next of kin, and that the widow could not give them a good discharge. Fry, J., held that the agents were bound to pay the money over to the widow, and that she could give a good discharge, and that the next of kin could not make a claim except through her. The Irish letters of administration had been sealed by the Probate Division in England, though this fact is not stated in the reports of the hearing before Fry, J. The Court of Appeal held that, though the agents were liable to be sued by the next of kin, yet the Irish administatrix, being the administratrix appointed by the court of the domicil, could give them a valid discharge for the admitted surplus of the Indian assets, the next of kin not having intervened. JESSEL, M. R., said that the point was really decided by Shadwell, V.C., in De la Viesca v. Lubbock (10 Sim. 629), which had never been questioned.SOLICITORS, Hacon & Turner; John Wilkinson.

of Tomlin v. Underhay, before the Court of Appeal on the 27th ult., a question arose as to the effect of a direction given by a testator that a debt due to him by a person to whom he bequeathed a legacy should be discharged by his trustees out of the legacy. The will recited that the testator had entered into a bond with some bankers as security for a sum of £3,000 which they had advanced to the legatee, and he directed that if the £3,000 should not have been paid off by the legatee before the testator's death, the same sum, or so much thereof as at his death should remain due on the bond, should be paid by the trustees ont of a legacy of £7,000 which he had bequeathed to the legatee. By a codicil the testator recited that he had been requested to pay the £3,000 to the bankers, and that be had paid other suns under securities given by him for the legatee, which, with the £3,000, amounted in the whole to more than £5,000. And the testator directed that unless the legatee should previously to his decease have repaid to him the sum of £5,000 at least, on account of the payments so made by the testator for him, the said sum of £5,000 should be taken to be in part satisfaction of the legacy of £7,000. Before the death of the testator the legatee had repaid him part only of the £5,000, and the question was whether the codicil was to be construed literally so as to reduce the legacy to £2,000, on the ground that the legatee had not repaid the testator £5,000 at least, or whether the legacy ought to be reduced only by such an amount as remained due by the legatee to the testator at the time of his death. Hall, V.C., held that the codicil must be construed literally; the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M. R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) adopted the other construction. JESSEL, M.R., expressed his disapproval of the decision of Fry, J., in Aird v. Quick (L. R. 12 Ch. D. 291).-SOLICITORS, Wm. Tatham & Son; Fladgate, Smith, & Fladgate.

RAILWAY COMPANY-COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND -MINES AND MINERALS-RAILWAYS CLAUSES ACT, 1845, s. 77. In a case of In re The Metropolitan District Railway Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 28th ult., the question arose whether, on a compulsory purchase of land by a railway company, the company were entitled to have the mines and minerals in and under the land conveyed to them. The price to be paid by the company for the land had been determined by an arbitrator, who had valued the land as building land, but had in his award in no way referred to the mines and minerals. The company, however, contended that a reservation of the mines and minerals would be inconsistent with a purchase of the land as building land. Hall, V.C., held that there having been no express agreement for the sale of the mines and minerals, the company were not entitled to them, and the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision on the same ground.-SOLICITORS, Baxters & Co; A. F. & R. W. Tweedie.

PRACTICE-COSTS-APPORTIONMENT-ACTION TO ADMINIS TER REAL AND PERSONAL ESTATE "TESTAMENTARY EXPENSES."-In a case of Patching v. Barnet, before the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M. R., and BAGGALLAY and LUSH, L.JJ.) on the 28th ult., JESSEL, M.R., said that the practice now is, when an action is brought to administer both real and personal estate, to order the costs which relate exclusively to the administration of the real estate-i.e., the costs of the action so far as they have beer. increased by the administration of the real estate-to be paid out of the real estate. And his lordship said that it is also a common practice, and one which he generally adopts himself, for the judge in such a case to apportion the costs between the real and personal estate, instead of leaving it to the taxing master. And if the judge of first instance had made an apportionment, the Court of Appeal would be very unwilling to disturb his decision. In the particular case the testator had directed that his "testamentary expenses" should be paid out of a specified part of his personal estate. The COURT held that the costs of administering the real estate did not come within the description of "testamentary expenses."-SOLICITORS, Senior, Attree, & Johnson; Berkeley & Calcott; Dizon, Ward, & Co.; Palmer, Palmer, & Bull.

SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

The second and final dinner given by the metropolitan members of the Incorporated Law Society during the present year to the members of the Provincial Law Societies, in acknowledgment of the hospitalities shown to them by their country brethren at the annual provincial meetings, was held at the society's hall, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 23rd ult., Mr. J. MOXON CLABON, president, in the chair. A condensed report of the proceedings appeared in our last issue. The members of the Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Cambridge, Sheffield, and Sussex Law Societies, and the solicitors of Oxford, who received the society at the meeting held there in 1876, were invited, and about one hundred and forty gentlemen sat down. Amongst those who accepted invitations, the majority of whom were present, were:- -Mr. C. C. Druce (vice-president), Mr. F. Halsey Janson, Mr. F. L. Hutchins, Mr. H. S. L. Hussey, Mr. Grinham Keen, Mr. F. Ince, Mr. F. R. Parker, Mr. R. Mills, Mr. W. B. Paterson, Mr. R. Pennington, Mr. A. G. Pritchard, Mr. B. Fielder Watson, Mr. H. Roscoe, Mr. W. Melmoth Walters, Mr. W. Williams, Mr. W. J. D. Andrew, Mr. G. W. Barnard, Mr. E. Bailey, Mr. M. Bateson Wood, Mr. J. W. Howlett, Mr. J. Mullings, Mr. W. B. Brook, Mr. George Burges, Mr. A. Carpa.ael, Mr. W. Chubb, Mr. H. M. Cotton, Mr. A. Crossfield, Mr. W. Crossman, Mr. A. C. Crowther, Mr. G. A. Crowder, Mr. A. G. Ditton, Mr. E. Emanuel, jan., Mr. J. A. Farnfield, Mr. H. J. Francis, Mr. W. J. Fraser, Mr. J. J. Freeman, Mr. W. Greaves, Mr. R. Greening, Mr. H. E. Gribble, Mr. E. Hare, Mr. T. Hazard, Mr. M. B. Herbert, Mr. E. Hughes, Mr. J. G. Humphry, Mr. J. T. Ince, Mr. G. M. R. Janeway, Mr. N. Jourdain, Mr. H. Kimber, Mr. J. H. Lee, Mr. J. Morris, Mr. F. B. Moyle, Mr. F. K. Munton, Mr. A. Murray, Mr. J. Nicholls, Mr. M. D. Osbaldeston, Mr. A. R. Oldman, Mr. K. Peck, Mr. J. Pedley, Mr. E. Pope, Mr. M. Pope, Mr. H. W. Purkis, Mr. W. S. Prideaux, Mr. J. W. Russell, Mr. H. S. Ryland, Mr. W. Shaen, Mr. R. Smith, Mr. W. Compton Smith, Mr. G. Thatcher, Mr. H. Thorn, Mr. J. B. Tippetts, Mr. A. T. Trebearne, Mr. F. J. Tucker, Mr. H. Vizard, Mr. H. Wansey, Mr. W. Webb, Mr. G. B. Wheeler, Mr. T. J. White, and Mr. E. H. Whitehead (Incorporated Law Society, U.K.); Mr. G. Hadfield, Mr. M. B. Wood, Mr. W. H. Guest, Mr. T. Jepson, and Mr. S. Unwin (Mauchester); Mr. E. Wayman and Mr. J. Eaden (Cambridge); Mr. J. W. Howlett, Mr. W. J. Williams, Mr. Cheesman, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Hy. Verrall, and Mr. Fitzburgh (Sussex); Mr. J. Miller, Mr. D. T. Burges, Mr. H. Cook, Mr. H. Lawes, and Mr. W. H. Clarke (Bristol), Mr. J. C. Malcolm, Mr. F. Eddison, and Mr. Ford (Leeds); Mr. Thos. Mallam, Mr. R. B. B. Hawkins, and Mr. W. Parker (Oxford); Mr. R. T. Cleaver, Mr. A. Bright, Mr. F. D. Lowndes, Mr. Marton, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Thornley (Liverpool); Mr. J. Binney, Mr. H. Bramley, and Mr. C. G. Busby (Sheffield Law Societies); Mr. E. W. Williamson (secretary), Mr. G. P. B. Buckmill (assistant secretary), and Mr. F. Boase (librarian).

The usual loyal toasts having been given from the CHAIR. and honoured with the customary enthusiasm,

The CHAIRMAN proposed the toast of the evening, "The Provincial Law Societies." He said: I approach the present 10ast with very pleasurable feelings. I commenced my professional life in the country, and I remember-it is longer ago than I care to chronicle-that at that time there existed a law society in Kent which I believe had been founded for some time. I believe that many of the provincial law societies are older than the Incorporated Law Society of London, and I am sure that they have always done very good service to the profession. There was at one time, I believe, an idea that some antagonism existed between the provinces and London; but I desire to express my opinion that there has never been any real feeling of that kind. At any rate there exists no jealousy on the part of London, whatever may be done by our friends in the provinces; and it is a very happy thing that we have societies in the provinces and London who work together to the common benefit of our profession and of our clients, the public. I am old enough to remember when the notion of a jealousy of this kind led to the foundation of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, and how, after a number of

I

years, we found that we were doing very much the same work as one another, and this led to a feeling that this ought no longer to be the case, and ultimately we amalgamated; -but with this condition, that each year we must pay a visit to the provinces. I do not doubt that many of us remember the meetings we have had. I happily remember a great number both in the time of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association and of our own society, aud they have always been of the most pleasurable kind, not merely on account of the social intercourse which we had with our friends in the country, but because of the papers which were read, and the pleasure of meeting with our fellow practitioners, and of going over common ground with them. need not say how much we have been indebted to them for the munificent hospitality we have received from them. We have been entertained in the most princely way, and I cannot help feeling how small a return we are making for all they have done for us. Let us hope that this will not be the last year in which we shall have meetings of this kind. I hope we may meet in London as often as we have met in the country in happy intercourse together. Now and then it may possibly happen that for a moment there has been a little clashing of opinion between the provinces and LondonI am sure never a feeling of antagonism-but at certain moments there has been this little difference, and perhaps even at this moment there exists amongst our friends at Liverpool a feeling that we were not in accord as to a Bill called the Solicitors' Renumeration Bill. But it will all end well. Explanations follow immediately on any offence being taken-if there has been any-and in the result I hope we shall attain the desired end. All our friends on the council and all our friends in London have just the same feeling which I have expressed towards our friends in the country, and in drinking the toast we drink it from our very hearts.

Mr. Hr. VERRALL (Sussex Law Society), in responding, remarked that the members of his society might almost fancy they were interlopers, for they were there in anticipation of the visit the society was to pay to Brighton. He would, however, promise them a hearty welcome. Turning to the question of the connection between the metropolitan society and the provincial societies, he, as well as the chairman, was old enough to remember when a degree of jealousy existed on the part of the provincial solicitors in the country with reference to the position of the law society in the metropolis. It was felt that it was constituted by the metropolitan solicitors as a means to their own convenience; but if that were ever so, every solicitor must be sensible that the day had long passed when the society confined its operations to London. They had enlarged their views of their duty and had taken a much higher position in respect to them. The Incorporated Law Society had exercised their influence in favour of the profession generally and he might say in the interests of the public. If he were to turn to some few matters which the society had taken under their special consideration, he might mention the security that those who desired to enter the profession should have received a proper education; also the maintaining, so far as lay in their power, that those who had entered the profession should conduct themselves honourably towards their clients. They had also promoted many changes and improvements in the laws of the country and in the administration of the law, and had, as far as in them lay, secured that sound and honourable advice should be given to the client. And again, they had done as much as was possible for obtaining a reasonable and sufficient remuneration for solicitors. In all these points, and he might have added many others, they had considered not only their own interests, but the interests of the profession at large and of the public. In conclusion, he assured the members of the Incorporated Law Society that the Sussex Law Society would give them a hearty welcome on their approaching visit to Brighton, and would do their best to render it interesting and agreeable.

Mr. F. H. JANSON gave the "Incorporated Law Society," and observed that when he looked at the portrait, which hung in the room in which they were meeting, of Mr. Bryan Holme, who was unquestionably the founder of the society, although his name did not appear in their earlier records, he was led to think of the small beginnings of the society, when a few London solicitors met together in a small apartment in an upper floor in Chancery-lane, and later on in a neighbouring coffee-house, to endeavour to promote organization amongst the body to which they

influence

belonged. Up to that time no organization at all had existed, and if they compared those small beginnings with the state of affairs at the present time, he thought they might fairly indulge in some feelings of pride and satisfaction not unmingled with gratitude to those who were the original founders, and to those who fostered the society in its earlier years and fairly sent it on its way. Down to the year 1831 when the society first had a building which it could call its own, the sphere of its operations had been very limited, and its external had been scarcely felt. Now it could boast a governing body which held in its charge the examinations of all candidates who sought to enter the ranks of the solicitor branch of the profession. He might even almost say that the society held in its charge their legal education. The status of the solicitor branch had been immeasurably improved by its influence; and at the present time the judges and members of the Houses of Parliament consulted it in all projected reforms in legal procedure. was unquestionable that the society now exercised a not inconsiderable influence upon current legislation. But feeling grateful as they ought to their founders and to those who assisted in the formation of the society, very much was due to two able men, who, during the fifty years over which the existence of the society extended, had aзted as its only secretaries-be referred to Mr. Maugham and Mr. Williamson. He believed that no society was ever better served by its secretaries, and each of the gentlemen he had named seemed to him particularly fitted to his own time and sphere of action. Mr. Williamson was the type and model of a secretary. He united to great intelligence and activity a never-flagging zeal, happily tempered with judgment and discretion, and although his multifarious avocations must often have put both his powers and his temper to the test, his courtesy and affability must be appreciated by all who knew him.

It

The CHAIRMAN, in acknowledging the toast, wished that Mr. Williamson could have replied to it. He had had years of experience of the society, whilst he (the Chairman) had only had fifty weeks' experience as president. However, with the exception of Mr. Williamson, he supposed that he knew more about the Incorporated Law Society at the present moment than anyone else. He would not think for one moment of detaining them by talking of all that the society was doing, but he could say one or two words with respect to education. It was all very well to talk of the examinations that were held in the society's hall, but he held that the principal part of the education of the articled clerk took place in the office of the solicitor to whom he was bound, who had first of all to teach him to be an honest man. As to the purification of the solicitor branch of the profession, he was happy to believe that as the solicitors increased in numbers, so the offences of solicitors became fewer and fewer, and they only appeared to be greater to the public, because they were in most instances brought to light. The solicitors washed their dirty linen before the world, whilst in other communities, such as the bar, it was done in private. One of the matters which had occupied the attention of the society during the year, had been the intercourse of solicitors with the bar. He hoped that in future years the access of solici tors to the bar would be rendered very much easier than was at present the case. There had been a little difference with the bar during the last few weeks, who thought that the council were attacking them personally. But they were not attacking them personally. They were only attacking the system, and they meant to attack the system and hoped it would be reformed some day.

The members of the bar had

perhaps some advantage over the solicitors in having the privilege of direct access to the bench; at the same time the solicitor had the advantage of direct access to the client -and the public hardly knew how often the solicitor prevented litigation-how often he gave his advice as an honest man with a view to bringing about an arrangement and putting an end to litigation. With regard to the society, it was a body charged with very important functions. He had already spoken of the provincial law societies, and observed how pleased the metropolitan society was that they existed; but it was obvious that there must be one body charged with certain grand duties, and that body would most naturally be one which had its babitude in the metropolis. He could not help remarking upon the pleasure it had been to him during his year of office to find the members of the council who composed the various deputations to the judges and others

in authority received with that consideration which they rightly deserved. The solicitors were called the lower branch of the profession. He repudiated the term altogether. They might have functions to perform which were different from those of the other branch, but he considered them all on the same level. The judges, of course, rose above them; otherwise they were all members of the legal profession doing their utmost to serve the public to the best of their ability in their several capacities. He believed the Incorpor ated Law Society was well served by those who represented it in London, and he would remind their friends in the country that twenty of the fifty members of the council were from the country. He could only say in conclusion that he was sure the Incorporated Law Society would continue to be represented, as it had been, by good men, and, putting him. self out of the question, that in the presidents that had gone before him, and he believed in those that would come afterwards they would find men who would worthily represent the honour, dignity, and interests of their common profes. sion.

Mr. THOMAS MALLAM (Oxford Law Society), in submitting "The Health of the President," referred to the fact that it was twenty-five years since he first made his acquaintance, and at that time he looked forward to his occupying an exalted position in the profession. The toast was received with acclamation.

The CHAIRMAN, in acknowledging the compliment, said that he had always looked upon the position of president of the Incorporated Law Society as one of great honour, but he did not know how he would have fared had he not had the able assistance of the secretary, the assistant secretary, and the remainder of the staff, in the performance of the duties which devolved upon him. It was a position which was of considerable use to the profession, and he was quite sure that those who followed him would continue to execute its duties handed down from his predecessors with the same zeal and earnestness which had characterized their efforts.

Mr. BRAMLEY (Sheffield Law Society) gave “The Entertainment Committee," and, in the course of his remarks, trusted that the Incorporated Law Society would use their efforts with the object of obtaining better provision for the accommodation of the solicitor branch of the profession in the New Law Courts.

Mr. GRINHAM KEEN (Chairman of the Entertainment Committee) responded, and observed that the more solicitors pulled together the better it would be for the interests of the profession, and, what was far more important, for the good of the country.

The CHAIRMAN, referring to the observations of Mr. Bramley, stated that the council had been very active with respect to the question of the accommodation of solicitors in the New Law Courts. They had conferred with Mr. Street early in the year, and had asked for accommodation in the courts, and joint access with the bar to the corridor and library, and that rooms might be provided for solicitors. A short time since they had heard from the Lord Chancellor that two courts had been provisionally fitted up, and they had been invited to inspect them. They had iuspected them, and did not at all like one of them-in which the old well for solicitors was retained. The other one was fitted up in a much better fashion, very much on the model of the Lord Justices' court, and the Exchequer Court at Westminster, and a table was provided for the convenience of the solicitors. The council, in replying to the Lord Chancellor, had expressed a hope that seats might be placed for solicitors on both sides of the table, and stated that they had been led to the belief, from what passed with Mr. Street, that solicitors would have access to the corridors and library in the same way as barristers. The question of access to the library would probably depend upon whether the society would join in the expense of furnishing it with books.

An excellent selection of music was performed by Miss Agnes Larkcom, Mr. Stedman's choir boys-Masters Probert, Walenn, Fielder, and Toop; Mr. Harper Keaton, Mr. Frederick Bevan, and Mr. Luigi Carozzi (solo flute), under the direction of Mr. John Davis, who presided at the piano. Messrs. Ring & Brymer served the dinner. Mr. Harker was toastmaster.

constitutional law, 1880), B.A., Oxford; Mr. Robert Scipio de Ricci, of the University of Dublin; Mr. Edward William Jones; Mr. Vincent Waldo Calmady Hamlyn, M.A., Oxford; Mr. Alexander Campbell Tiley; Mr. Herbert Harrison Kettlewell, B.A., Cambridge; Mr. Alfred Henry Lefroy, LL.B.. Cambridge; Mr. Charles Sandwith Campbell, of Trinity College, Cambridge; Mr. Harry Trelawney Eve, of Exeter College, Oxford: Mr. Louis John Aitken, University of Edinburgh; Mr. Charles Gregson Ellis, B. A., Oxford; Mr. Clarence Kirkpatrick, licentiate in law of the Calcutta University; Mr. Charles Henry Chadwick, B.A., Oxford; Mr. Spencer Langton Holland, B.A., Oxford; Mr. Walter John Napier (studentship in jurisprudence and Roman civil law, C.L.E., Hilary Term, 1881), B.A., Oxford; Mr. George Frederick Hart, University of London; Mr. David Jouffroy Watson, University of London; Mr. Edward Vincent Vashon Wheeler, LL.B., Cambridge; Mr. Charles Lewis Coote, B.A., Oxford; Mr. Joseph Coats worth, University of London; and Mr. Matthew Henry Box.

The undermentioned gentlemen were called to the bar by the Honourable Society of Gray's-inn:-Mr. Ernest Chester Thomas, B.A., Trinity College, Oxford; Mr. Lionel Ferneaux Knipe Hill, M.A., Oxford; Mr. Frederick Lorenzo Pearson, B.A., Trinity College, Dublin; Mr. Godfrey Werge Fardell, B.A., Oxford; Mr. Frederick Brian de Malbisse Gibbons, B.A., Cambridge.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. THE following notice has been given with reference to the forthcoming annual meeting :

22, Queen-street, City, E.C., June 29, 1881. "Dear Sir, I beg to give notice that I shall, at the annual meeting, draw the attention of the society, on the motion for the adoption of the report, to two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal-the first affecting solicitors' costs and seriously shaking public confidence in commercial enterprize (Re Express Engineering Company, Law Reports of February last), and the second seriously damaging the securities of building societies and mortgagors of freehold and leasehold property (see SOLICITORS' JOURNAL of June 4, 1881, p. 584). "I also intend to move resolution No. 3 in the enclosed list of resolutions, and to comment on the non-publication of the report of the Legal Procedure Committee.-Yours truly, "EDMUND KIMBER. "E. W. Williamson, Esq., Incorporated Law Society." The following are the resolutions referred to:1-That no Committee on Legal Procedure can have the confidence of the public, or of this branch of the professiou, unless both be properly and adequately represented, and this society recommends to her Majesty's Government the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of economizing, simplifying, and accelerating the process and practice of the law.

2. That her Majesty's Prime Minister be requested to receive a deputation of the members of the society, for the purpose of urging the appointment of such Royal Commission as is suggested by the foregoing resolution, and that such deputation consist of the following gentlemen and such other members as like to attend; and that the secretary give notice to every member of the society of the time and place for the reception of such deputation :—

Mr.

Mr.

Mr. Mr.

3. That a committee be chosen from the members of the society for the purpose of recommending what changes might be beneficial in the organization and functions of the society, so as to make it more useful to the public and the members, and more representative of the wishes and interests of the profession at large; and that such committee consist of the following gentlemen:—

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

OBITUARY.

MR. LONSDALE MAVING COCKROFT. Mr. Lonsdale Maving Cockroft, solicitor (of the firm of Mather, Cockroft, & Mather), of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, died suddenly at Brockenhirst, Dumfries-shire, on the 6th ult. Mr. Cockroft was born in 1825, and was admitted a solici tor in 1847. He carried on a large practice at Newcastle, being in partnership with Messrs. Edward Mather and Philip Edward Mather. He had been for many years coroner for the borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and he was also coroner for the Southern Division of the county of Northumberland. The announcement of bis sudden death was received with universal regret at Newcastle. Mr. Cockroft was buried on the 11th inst. at the Jesmond Cemetery, Newcastle.

MR. WILLIAM ARTHUR WARNER SLEIGH. Mr. William Arthur Warner Sleigh, barrister, died on board the steamship Victoria on the 29th May. Mr. Sleigh was the son of Mr. Serjeant Sleigh. He was born in 1843, and was educated at Harrow. He entered at an early age at the Middle Temple, where he was called to the bar in Michaelmas Term, 1864. He was a member of the Western Circuit, practising also at the Central Criminal Court and at the Middlesex Sessions. He devoted his chief attention to criminal practice, though he had also a fair share of licensing business. Mr. Sleigh was an ab'e and ready speaker, and he had been intrusted with several important defences. In 1868 be defended one of the prisoners in the prosecution arising out of the Clerkenwell explosion, and in 1879 he ably, but unsuccessfully, defended Kate Webster on her trial for the murder of her mistress at Richmond. He had long been in a precarious state of health, and, at the time of his death, he had started on a trip to America in the hope of regaining strength.

MR. GEORGE JAMES ANDREWS.

Mr. George James Andrews, solicitor (the head of the firm of Andrews, Son, & Huxtable), died at Dorchester, on the 12th ult. Mr. Andrews was born in 1812, and was admitted a solicitor in 1834. He had practised for many years at Dorchester, and had also a branch office at Cerne Abbas. At the time of his death he was in partnership with his son, Mr. George James Williams Andrews (who was admitted a solicitor in 1876), and with Mr. Henry Anthony Huxtable. He was a perpetual commissioner for Dorsetshire, and his private business was very large. Mr. Andrews had been for many years clerk to the county magistrates for the Cerne Division of the county, and he was also clerk to the county magistra es for the Dorchester and Cerne Divisions. He was universally esteemed and respected, and his funeral was attended by a large number of professional and other friends.

MR. THOMAS SALE.

Mr. Thomas Sale, solicitor, town clerk of Leominster, died at his residence at that place on the 3rd ult., after a linger ing illness. Mr. Sale was born in 1805, and was admitted a solicitor in 1829. He had practised for about fifty years at Leominster, and he was the oldest practitioner in the town. He was a perpetual commissioner for Herefordshire, and had a very good local practice. He had been town clerk of the borough since 1851. He was in partnership with his son, Mr. William Thomas Sale, who was admitted a solicitor in 1868, and is deputy town clerk and clerk to the School Attendance Committee of the Town Council. Mr. Sale was an active member of the Conservative party in the district.

MR. EDMOND BEALES.

Mr. Edmond Beales, judge of county courts, died at his residence, Osborne House, Bolton-gardens, Brompton, the 26th ult., in his seventy-eighth year. Mr. Beales was the son of Mr. Samuel Pickering Beales, of Cambridge, and was born in 1804. He was educated at Eton, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln'sinn in Trinity Term, 1830. He pract sed for forty years in the Court of Chancery, and he had a fair junior business s