July 27 at 12 at offices of July 27 at 11 at offices of Taylor, Edward, Nottingham, Painter. Water, Adolphe Vande, Church st, Edgware rd, Horse Dealer. July 20 at 2 at offices of Arnold, Borough High st, Southwark Waterman, Thomas Lambert, Antill rd, Bow, Builder. July 20 at 2 at offices of Curtis, the Grove, Stratford Watts, Sydney, Bath, Bootmaker. July 22 at 11 at offices of Parsons, High st, Bristol. Bartrum and Bartlett, Bath Webb, Julia, Calne, Wilts, Grocer. July 19 at 11 at offices of Henley, Calne Whatley, Robert, Sutton Veny, Wilts, Market Gardener. July 20 at 3 at offices of Dunn and Payne, King st, Frome Whittaker, Lewis, Norland, Halifax, Joiner. July 22 at 3 at effices of Clay and Son, Union st, Halifax. Crossley Wicks, Fanny, Algernon rd, Kilburn. July 22 at 2 at offices of Clutton and Wood, George Samuel, Old Kent rd, Provision Merchant. July 26 at 3 at Creditors' Association, Arthur st East. Piesse and Son, Old Jewry chmbrs Wood, William, Epperstone, Nottingham, Paper Manufacturer. July 19 at 12 at offices of Wells and Hind, Fletcher gate, Nottingham TUESDAY, July 12, 1881. Armstrong, George, Susworth, Scotter, Lincoln, Miller. August 2 at 3 at the White Hart Hotel, Gainsborough. Newborn Asquith, James, and James Hemmingway, Carrgate, nr Wakefield, York, Fruit Dealers. July 25 at 3 at offices of Lodge, Townhall chmbrs, King st, Wakefield Attfield, Henry, High st, Camden Town, General House Furnisher. July 29 at 3 at offices of Taylor and Co, South st, Finsbury sq Austin, John, and Peter Austin, Beeston Hill, Leeds, Millwrights. July 25 at 11 at Wharton's Hotel, Park lane, Leeds Berry, Frederick, Upper st, Islington, Tool Manufacturer. July 28 at 3 at offices of Webb, Austin Friars Beswick, George, Patricroft, nr Manchester, Blacksmith. July 28 at 3 at offices of Philpots, King st, Manchester Bishop, Frederick George Shenstone, Birmingham, Engraver. July 26 at 11 at offices of Taylor, Colmore row, Birmingham Blackburn, Thomas, Over, Chester, Innkeeper. July 28 at 10.30 at offices of Cooke, Church st, Winsford Daniels, George, and Charles Daniel, Norwich, Seedsmen. July 25 at 2 at offices of Hardy, Castle chbrs, Opie st, Norwich Davis, Owen, and Robert White, Wood st, Cheapside. July 26 at 2 at Guildhall Tavern, Guildhall yd. Baylis and Pearce, Church ct chmbrs, Old Jewry Dickinson, Christopher, Stoke-upon-Trent, Corn Miller. July 25 at 12 at North Stafford Hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent. Bishop and Topham Hanley Dixon, Alfred, Newton Heath, Lancaster, Tobacconist. July 25 at 3 at offices of Leigh, Brown st, Manchester Handley, Theophilus, Longport, near Burslem, Stafford, out of busi- Hawkridge, Edward, Halifax, Grocer. July 25 at 4 at offices of Hewlett, William, jun, High rd, Lower Tottenham, Carman. July 26 at 4 at Park Hotel, Northumberland park, Tottenham. Wolferstan, Tottenham Heywood, Tom, Hollinwood in Chadderton, Lancaster, Builder. July 25 at 3 at offices of Watson, 11, Church lane, Oldham Hinchley, Nicholas, St James's rd, Old Ford, Boot Sole Sewer. July 19 at 3 at 11 Coleman st. Sydney Holmes, Henry, Derby, out of business. July 28 at 2 at offices of Briggs, 2, Amen alley, Derby Holmes, Joseph Henry, Bradford, York, Joiner. July 23 at 10 at offices of Berry and Robinson, 5, Charles st, Bradford Howes, Edward, Birkenhead, Butcher. July 22 at 3 at offices of Francis. Hamilton sq, Birkenhead Jones, Thomas, Lampeter, Cardigan, Coach Builder. July 23 at 2 at Black Lion Hotel, Lampeter. Millard, Lampeter Kilburn, Abraham Lee, Kingston-upon-Hull, Currier. July 25 at 3 at offices of Laverack, Land-of-Green-Ginger, Kingston-upon Hull Lawrence, Edward Henry, Bedford, Grocer. July 25 at 12 at George Hotel, Bedford. Conquest and Clare, Bedford Lawton, John James, Macclesfield, Chester, Joiner. July 29 at 2 at offices of May, Church Side, Macclesfield Lomax, John, Bolton, Lancaster, Blacksmith. July 25 at 11 at offices of Dowling and Urry, Silverwell st, Bolton Lovegrove, John, Malvern Link, Worcester, House Decorator. July 25 at 3 at offices of Tarleton, Beauchamp ter, Great Mal vern Manning, Joseph, Galley Wall rd, Rotherhithe. July 23 at 11 at Inns of Court Hotel, High Holborn. Chappell and Gibbons, Lincoln's inn fields Martin, George John, Flask Walk, Hampstead, Pork Butcher. July 19 at 11 at offices of Blunt and Kirby, Queen Vicroria st. Wolferstan and Co, Ironmonger lane Matts, Joseph, Jamaica rd, Bermondsey, Licensed Victualler. July 20 at 3 at offices of Bodman and Co, Victoria House, Trinity st, Southwark Mead, George, Curry Mallett, Somerset, Innkeeper. July 26 at 11 at offices of Paull, Court Barton, Ilminster Moore, Joseph, Manchester, Silk Manufacturer. July 27 at 3 at offices of Mann, Cooper st, Manchester Moore, Thomas. Birmingham, Cabinet Maker. July 20 at 11 at offices of Huggins and Mallard, Newhall chbrs, Newhall st, Birmingham Nichols, Henry William, Birkenhead, Chester, Joiner. July 23 at 11 at offices of Leeming, Duncan st, Birkenhead. Thompson, Birkenhead O'Malley, William, Hanley, Stafford, out of business. July 27 at 12 at offices of Sword, Cheapside, Hanley Pear, Thomas William, Welland, Worcester, Baker. July 26 at 11 at offices of Powell, Upton-upon-Severn Pontefract, Norman, Bank Bottom, Elland, nr Halifax, Manufacturing Chemist. July 28 at 3 at offices of Ramsden and Co,. John William st, Huddersfield Powell, Enoch, West Smethwick, Stafford, Gen eral Dealer. July 23 Ramsey, George, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Innkeeper. July 20 at 2 Roberts, Robert Price, Newent, Gloucester, Grocer. July 22 at 2 at offices of Cooke, Berkeley st, Gloucester Roberts, Thomas Hugh, Conway, Carnarvon, Saddler. Aug 6 at 12 at Queen's Hotel, Chester. Jones, Conway Roberts, William, Finsbury rd, Wood Green, Bootmaker. July 23 at 10 at offices of Webb, Euston rd Robinson, Richard, Ince-in-Mackerfield, Lancaster, out of business. July 23 at 11 at offices of Wilson, King st, Wigan Row, Robert Carley, Water lane, Brixton, Dealer in Tobacco. July 29 at 3 at offices of Sadler and Co, Three Crown sq, Borough Rumball, Edwin James, Castle st, Oxford st, Hairdresser. July 22 at 3 at offices of Durant, Guildhall chmbrs, Basinghall st Sarah, Timothy Thomas, Falmouth, Cornwall, Innkeeper. Ju,y 22 at 12 at offices of Lane, Grove pl, Falmouth Schmolze, Edward Henry George, Winston rd, Stoke Newington, out of business. July 25 at 3 at offices of Neave, Cheapside Schafer, John Jacob, Coningham terrace, Shepherd's Bush, Tailor. July 25 at 3 at offices of Stallard and Whitting, South Molton st Schofield, John, and Sidney Smith, Alverthorpe, nr Wakefield, York, Wool and Cloth Dyers. July 25 at 2 at Queen Hotel, Huddersfield. Sykes and Son, Huddersfield Sellens, Laura, Tonbridge, Kent, Confectioner. July 27 at 12 at Guildhall terrace, King st. Gorham and Warner, Tonbridge Skellern, George, Stafford, Grocer. July 26 at flat offices of Cooper, John st, Tunstall Smith, William, Ashbourne, Derby, Farmer. July 25 at 2 at Green Man Hotel, Ashbourne. Hextall, Derby Stephenson, Charles, Liverpool, Tailor. July 26 at 2 at offices of Burton and Coleman, Lord st, Liverpool Stoddart, William, Harrington, Cumberland, Draper. July 27 at 3 at offices of Mason, Duke st, Whitehaven Stone, Arthur, Charlton-by-Newbattle, Northampton, Baker. July 26 at 12 at offices of Pellatt, High st, Banbury Strawson, Henry, Exeter, Insurance Agent. July 25 at 11 at offices of Hirtzel, Bedford-circus, Exeter Tandy, Edward, Bradmore, nr Wolverhampton, Horse Dealer. July 22 at 3 at offices of Dallow, Queen st, Wolverhampton Taylor, Joseph, Bury, Lancaster, Baker. July 26 at 3 at Wheatsheaf Hotel, Fennell st. Standring and Taylor, Rochdale Taylor, William Charles, Caledonian rd, Islington, Draper. July 21 at 4 at offices of Marshall, Chancery-lane Tundley, John Peake. Hanley, Stafford, Provision Dealer. July 25 at 10 at offices of Ashmall, Albion st, Hanley Waller, William Henry, Halifax, York, Tailor. July 25 at 2 at offices of Rhodes, Horton st, Halifax Walmsley, John, Chorley, Lancaster, Grocer. July 22 at 3 at offices of Buck and Dicksons, Winckley st, Preston Ward, James, Oxford, Builder. July 25 at 11 at offices of Druce, High st, Oxford Waterhouse, William, Nottingham, Indiarubber Merchant. July 29 at 3 at offices of Dowson and Wright, Weekday-cross, Notting Wilkes. George, Shelton, Hanley, Stafford, Grocer. July 26 a at offices of Sword, Cheapside, Hanley Williams, John, Treorky, Ystradyfodwy, Glamorgan, Engineer. July 27 at 3 at the Griffin Inn, St. Mary's st, Cardiff. Williams. Pontypridd Wood, Charles, and Alfred Parkinson, Heaton Norris, Lancaster, Laundry Enginners. Jnly 26 at 11 at offices of Brown and Co, St Petersgate, Stockport Wright, Thomas Hollis. Gauden rd, Clapham, Gentleman. at 2 at offices of Pollard, Coleman st July 29 The Faculty pronounce it "the most nutritious, perfectly digestible beverage 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, Keeps 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, coating less than a halfpenny. COCOATINA 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, Я. SCHWEITZER & CO., 10, Adam-street, London, W.C. THE NEW REFRESHING AND INVIGORATING. NEARLY EVERY SCHOOLBOY KNOWS THAT THERE ARE DIVISIONS OF THE EARTH THAT RELATE TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE LATITUDES, CALLED ZONES; AND THAT THESE HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED AS FIVE IN NUMBER-VIZ., ONE TORRID, TWO FRIGID, AND TWO TEMPERATE. IN THE YEAR 1876 ANOTHER TEMPERATE ZONE WAS DISCOVERED, WAS BROUGHT TO THE RECOGNITION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORLD, AND NAMED TEMPERATE HEDOZONE. WHAT HEDOZONE HAS TO DO WITH THE DIVISIONAL PORTIONS OF THE SURFACE OF THE GLOBE IS SO FAR THAT IT FORTIFIES MAN. KIND IN RESISTING THE EXTREMES OF TEMPERA. TURE IN ALL ZONES, AND DATING FROM 1876 PROVES IT TO BE THE ORIGINAL SPARKLING TONIC BEVERAGE AND DIET DRINK. CHEMISTS, WINE MERCHANTS, AND GROCERS. MANUFACTURERS, PACKHAM AND CO., LIMITED, CROYDON. ZONE. OF TO SOLICITORS, ARCHITECTS, and others (town or country).-Wanted, by an experienced Writer, Legal or other Documents to Copy. References and specimens if required. -Apply by letter to N., care of Geo. Jackson & Co., Advertising Agents, 4, Bishopsgate-street Within, E.C. AW.-Wanted, by a Gentleman, aged 26 (passed), with a view to a Partnership; unexceptionable references; salary £150.-Address, LIONEL H. MORTIMER, Brookfield, Colyton, Aăminster. LAW presents a good opportunity for a good advocate. For particulars AW PRACTICE.-To be SOLD, the Practice of the late George Belk, Esq., Solicitor, Nottingham. The above apply to Mr. GEORGE T. TRAVELL, Solicitor, Nottingham." CANADA. TO SOLICITORS, MERCHANTS, and Others.-A London Solicitor, about proceeding to Canada on business, is prepared to undertake any Legal or Business Matters requiring prosecution or arrangement in Canada.-Apply to CHARLES J. MACCOLLA, Solicitor, 109, Cheapside. THE NOVEMBER INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL EXAMINATIONS, 1881. R. ALBERT GIBSON'S Classes for these guineas. Postal preparation from same date; fee 6 guiness. Students desirous of joining should write at once, and they will be instructed as to the reading to be done in the meantime.—Address, 35, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane. (N.B.-Atthe June Final, out of 26 pupils 24 passed, this making 62 successful out of 67 pupils sent up for the Fina! this year. The result in Honours at the June Examination is not yet known, but at Easter, out of 10 pupils sent up for Honours 9 succeeded.] SOLICITORS' AND REGISTRARS' GOWNS. BARRISTERS' AND QUEEN'S COUNSEL'E DITTO, CORPORATION ROBES UNIVERSITY & CLERGY GOWNS, ESTABLISHED 1689. 94. CHANCERY LANE. LONDON. HAMPTON & SONS make NO CHARGE for inserting particulars in their FREE MONTHLY REGISTER of ESTATES, TOWN and COUNTRY HOUSES, Furnished or Unfurnished, or for Sale, to be had GRATIS at their Offices, or post-free for two stamps. Published on the 1st of the month, and 50, REGENT STREET, and 14, CORNHILL, LONDON. Existing Assurances exceed Invested Funds Annual Income Claims Paid exceed Bonuses Declared.. • £6,500,000 .. 2,121,711 279,-52 .. 6,500,000 2,342,000 During the past year (1880) each main item has shown improv men upon the preceding year. New Premiums Invested Funds.. previous to for inserted a non be sent not later than five days A end of month. AW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Chief Office-126, Chancery-lane, London, W.C. The Funds in hand and Capital subscribed amount to upwards of £1,600,000 sterling. Chairman-JAMES CUDDON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Goldsmith building, Temple. Deputy Chairman-C. PEMBERTON, Esq. (Lee & Pembertons), Solici tor, 44, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Every description of Fire and Life Insurance business transactol. Whole World and Unconditional Life Policies granted at a sh by the Paymaster in the recently issued notice, and it was hoped that, with increased facilities for the transaction of business, this full time would rarely be required. The pressure on the office during the next four weeks will be exceptional, and much inconvenience will arise to practitioners if the full time is still insisted on. COMMENTING LAST WEEK on the Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Bill, we asked why, if the provisions of ord. 2, r. 6a, are to be retained, Keating's Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 55) was not to be repealed. We are informed that the reasons for omitting Keating's Act were partly that section 5 appears to have been construed as giving a substantive right to recover noting expenses (Rogers v. Hunt, L. R. 10 Ex. 474), which it was undesirable to appear to question, and partly that suggestions had been made for reviving the procedure under the Act, and it was expedient to avoid any appearance of an expression of opinion on the point. We also suggested that the dead matter in the Common Law Procedure Acts ought to be included in the Revision Bill. We believe it has been thought better to deal with the Acts as a whole, and it is considered that a few additional rules of court would It is make a much more thorough repeal possible. hoped that next session will see the excision from the Statute-book of the dead matter which these Acts con tain. THE WITHDRAWAL of the Bankruptcy Bill will deprive Sir H. PEEK of the satisfaction of bringing on his proposed clause:"38a.-That if a solicitor is adjudicated bankrupt, he shall at the expiration of one calendar month from the date of the adjudication be disqualified from practising, unless he shall have applied for and obtained from the Incorporated Law Society a provisional certificate that the bankruptcy has been caused by misfortune." With some modifications we should not be sorry to see such a provision passed into law. There are we believe, not more failures among solicitors than among other classes, but the occasional dishonest failures of solicitors cause widespread distress, and bring discredit on the profession. All we have contended for from the first is that some means should be provided for distinguishing between bankruptcy from misfortune and from dishonesty, and that the matter should be dealt with by the disciplinary action of the Incorporated Law Society. Both these objects may be secured by an amendment of Sir H. PEEK's proposal. WHAT IS A LODGER within the meaning of the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871? Is this a question for the judge or the jury? And if it be a question for the jury, ought the judge to give his own opinion in charging the jury? Such seem to have been the three points involved in Morton v. Palmer, in which a divisional court (GROVE, J., and HUDDLESTON, B.) refused a new trial on Monday last. The soi-disant “lodger” occupied the whole of a house except one or two rooms, and in the rooms not so occupied the mesne landlord did not even sleep, so that the case was slightly distinguishable from Phillips v. Henson (26 W. R. 214, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 26), in which the mesne landlord slept in a bed lent by the "lodger." Mr. Baron HUDDLESTON, who tried the recent case, told the jury plainly that the plaintiff, who, having complied with the statute in all respects, sued the superior landlord for illegal distress, was, in his opinion, a lodger, but asked the jury to give their owa opinion also, and the jury having found that the plain- | tiff was a lodger, directed judgment to be entered for him. It was argued strenuously before the divisional court that the effect of this was to read "under-tenant into the Act in lieu of "lodger," but neither this argument, nor the many registration cases cited, nor the argument from the supposed submissiveness of the jury, availed anything. Looking to Phillips v. Henson, we cannot see how the court could have reversed the ruling of the judge at the trial, for so long as there is any bona fide retention of possession by the mesne landlord, we do not see that it makes any difference whether the mesne landlord uses all his possessory rights or not. But was Phillips v. Henson correctly decided? We doubt very strongly whether it was. The question appears to us to be whether the plaintiff was a lodger in the ordinary popular meaning of that term. The intention of the Act, as evidenced by the use of the term "lodger," seems to be to protect the goods of persons having a distinctly subordinate occupation of part of the house only, and we cannot think that it applies where the plaintiff has the principal and substantial occupation of the house. We are glad to observe that the question will come before the Court of Appeal, which has granted a rule nisi for a new trial in Morton v. Palmer. THE WATER FAMINE which has arisen in many parts of London by reason of the bursting of one of the Grand Junction Company's main pipes, and other causes, may possibly give occasion to litigation. The supply of water to the metropolis is dealt with by two Acts, and the special Acts of eight companies enumerated in those Acts. The general Acts are the Metropolis Water Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 84), and the Metropolis Water Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 113), and although both these Acts are sufficiently full of penal clauses, it is not very easy to get at the precise effect of those clauses. By section 7 of the Act of 1871 the companies must give, and continue to give, "a constant supply of pure and wholesome water sufficient for domestic purposes, constantly laid on at such pressure as will make such water reach the top storey of the highest house within the water limits, but not exceeding the level prescribed by the special Act." By section 16, "any company which violates, refuses, or neglects to comply with any of the preceding provisions of the Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred pounds, and to a further penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, for every month during which such violation, or refusal, or neglect to comply with the said provisions continues, after they shall have received notice in writing from the Board of Trade to discontinue such violation, refusal, or neglect as aforesaid." But, by section 15, "notwithstanding anything in this Act, a company shall not be subject to any liability for not giving a constant supply, if the want of such supply arises from frost, unusual drought, or other unavoidable cause or accident." With regard to the penalties, the question at once arises whether they are incurred in respect of each house, or only in respect of each act of default. On one construction, it seems that the penal clauses would be satisfied by the companies discontinuing the constant supply whenever it should be inconvenient to themselves, and sending a cheque to the metropolitan authority (which, by section 44, is the party to sue) for the amount of the penalties incurred. With regard to the exceptions, "unusual drought" is the one most likely to be relied on as a defence to any proceeding for penalties. We should doubt whether an excessive consumption by the public, caused by the drought, would come within the exception, which apparently applies only to the case of an actual deficiency in the reservoirs caused by lack of rain. The exception for "other unavoidable cause or accident," throws on the company the burden of showing that the bursting of a pipe was unavoidable.. It is well to point out that the penalties alone can be relied on for procuring compliance with the Act, and that no action lies for any result of non-compliance. It was held by the Court of Appeal in Atkinson v. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Company (25 W. R. 794, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 441) (reversing the decision of the Court of Exchequer), that no action lay upon the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, in a case where the plaintiff's timberyard and saw-mills were burnt down owing to the pressure in the defendant's pipes being insufficient to extinguish a fire; and the reasoning of the judgments in that case would, we think, apply equally to the penal clauses of the Metropolitan Water Acts. LORD JUSTICE BRAMWELL, it is stated, announced at the Hertford Assizes, his intention not to try London cases sent down to the country for trial. The assizes were held, he said, solely for the purpose of disposing of the business of each particular county, and it was not fair that the legitimate work should be interfered with by cases from London. There is no doubt that a Northumberland juror might think it hard to be detained in Newcastle for the purpose of trying a case from Cornwall, but there seems to be nothing in the Jury Acts, or the Judicature Acts, or the Rules of Court, to prevent this being done, if the parties to the cause so desire, unless order 36, r. 1, can be construed to give the judge power of his own mere motion to interfere. That rule prescribes that, "when the plaintiff proposes to have the action tried elsewhere than in Middlesex, he shall, in his statement of claim, name the county or place in which he proposes that the action shall be tried, and the action shall, unless a judge otherwise orders, be tried in the county or place so named." Are the words "unless a judge otherwise orders" confined to cases where one of the parties makes application to the judge, or do they bear the interpretation that a judge may decline of his own mere motion to try a case? It seems at least doubtful whether the order otherwise can be made except on the application of the party. 66 IT APPEARS from the debate upon the Judicature Bill when passing through committee that the senior puisne judge of the Queen's Bench Division is to have some of the patronage which has lapsed by the abolition of the two chiefships. Upon this proposal, Lord CAIRNS observed that the puisne judges had no natural connec tion with patronage, and he should feel it his duty to ask them to consider whether that proposal could not be altered." We fail to appreciate the meaning of a "natural connection with patronage," and do not see why a puisne judge should not make as good an appointment as a Chief Justice. This question of patronage, which is now stated to involve the appointment to about one hundred offices, has never yet received the proper attention of Parliament, and we are not without hope that it will be duly discussed in the House of Commons when the Judicature Bill comes before that House. The best body we can think of for dispensing patronage would be a committee of five, of which the Lord Chancellor should be an ex-officio member, and should have a casting vote. We see no à priori reason why there should be any other ex-officio member, nor-although there may be no reason for depriving any judge of existing patronage-do we see how any judge, however elevated, has " any natural connection" with patrouage. The only question for Farliament to consider is what man or body of men would naturally make the best appointments. THE LEASES BILL was withdrawn on Wednesday last The Bill, as we have said before, was by far the best which has been introduced in the House of Commons, and the only reason alleged against it was that the Government intend to deal with the matter in their Land Bill. The fate of the sixth Government Bankruptcy Bill has also been settled. If it had either been introduced in the Commons earlier in the session, or had been first introduced in the Lords, it might have had a better chance of passing into law, but it seems to be impossible to carry a Bankruptcy Bill, and probably the only practicable plan will be to allow the Court of Appeal to continue to legislate on the subject (as they have recently done with regard to the disclaimer clause) until the bankruptcy law attains a satisfactory condition. WE ARE INFORMED that a District Registrar of the Supreme Court in an important centre of commerce has, up to last week, been in the habit of heading orders issued from that registry, and made in causes originally marked for Vice-Chancellor MALINS, with the words "Vice-Chancellor MALINS," ignoring the order of transfer which was made when that learned judge retired from the bench. This affectionate refusal to forget an ex-judge is pleasing, if not altogether proper. THE DOCTRINE OF CONDITION PRECEDENT AS APPLIED TO CONTRACTS FOR SUCCESSIVE DELIVERIES. In the case of Honck v. Muller (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 92), recently tried in the Court of Appeal, there was, unfortunately, a division of opinion upon a point of very great commercial importance, which, until a decision of the House of Lord settles the question, will, no doubt, in future cause considerable doubt and difficulty. The point that arose turned upon the frequently difficult question what constitutes a condition precedent, and was briefly this:-A contract being made for the sale of 2,000 tons of iron, to be delivered by equal quantities in the months of November, December, and January, the purchaser committed a breach of the contract by refusing to accept any iron in November; the question then arose whether, having so refused, he could insist on delivery of the remaining two-thirds in December and January. There has been, previously to the decision we are discussing, some conflict of authority on this subject. Hoare v. Rennie (8 W. R. 80, 5 H. & N. 19) and Simpson v. Crippin (20 W. R. 141, L. R. 8 Q. B. 14), are not easily reconcileable. And the present decision, in which the majority of the court followed the former decision, is not satisfactory, owing to the conflict of opinion. The question seems to us to be a very difficult one, and the difficulty is one which, in various forms and to various degrees, is always cropping up with regard to the application of the doctrine of conditions precedent. In the present case Bramwell, L.J., and Baggallay, L.J., followed Hoare v. Rennie, and held that the plaintiff, having refused to accept the first delivery, could not insist on the second and third delivery; Brett, L.J., being of the opposite opinion, and preferring the conclusion arrived at in Simpson v. Crip. pin. Bramwell, L.J., takes a very broad and strong ground. He says that where no part of a contract has been performed, and one party to it refuses to perform the entirety to be performed by him, the other party has a right to refuse to perform any part to be performed by him. There seems obviously a great deal to be said in justice for that view, for otherwise a man who has entered into a contract upon one consideration is forced to take another. The vendor may fairly say that he would never have contracted to sell the smaller quantity. Instead of getting payment for 2,000 tons he gets payment for twothirds of that quantity, and a right to damages in respect of the other third. A contract-breaking purchaser ought not to be permitted to force him into that position, at any rate not where the part of the contract broken by such purchaser is a substantial part of an entirety. Cases of this sort are not like cases of contracts involving all manner of different and severable stipulations of greatly varying degrees of importance. To such cases it may be just to apply the doctrine of Pordage v. Cole (1 Wms. Saund. 319)-viz., that when an independent stipulation, the breach of which can be well compensated in damages, is broken, that is not a failure to perform a condition precedent. It is very obvious, however, that the thing is a matter of degree, and that the definition of the degree is extremely difficult. In one sense, whenever a man does not get all the matters performed which constituted the part of the contract to be performed by the other side, and yet is held bound himself, he is forced by the law to accept a consideration which he did not agree to accept. The common law did this every day, and in most contracts equity made no difference. When a man having done his part is refused specific performance, and only given damages, the same reasoning applies. Lord Justice Bramwell seems to have thought himself driven to admit that if the contract has been part performed and cannot be undone, then it must be proceeded with without the power of declaring off; that is, if the plaintiff had taken the November delivery, but refused the December, the defendant would have been that this admission, so far as it goes, is a formidable bound to make the January delivery. It does seem to us blow, though we by no means say a fatal one, to the position of the judges forming the majority. Lord Justice Brett, in his judgment, dwelt very forcibly on this topic. He says, "It is suggested that if there is a failure in the first delivery, then the party against whom that failure is committed may throw up the contract. But why? Supposing at the time of the first delivery there is no difference between the market price and the contract price of the goods, the person against whom the failure is made suffers positively no loss. But at the time of the second delivery, the difference between the market price and the contract price may be enormous; yet at the time of the third delivery, it is said, if you have fulfilled the contract as to the first delivery, when it did not signify whether you did so or not, but have failed in the second delivery, where it was of the utmost consequence, nevertheless you can insist on the third delivery; but if you have failed in the first delivery, where it was of no consequence at all, although the question of the delivery of the second and third is of the utmost consequence, your right to them is to be of no avail." If the general principle upon which the opposite view is founded be, that a man who will not perform his contract in its entirety ought not to be allowed to enforce performance of it-and a great many of the expressions used by the judges forming the majority really depend on this-it seems to us that these observations of Brett, L.J., as to the distinction drawn between the first and second delivery, are very trenchant. But there is a distinction between the first and subsequent deliveries which may be taken, and which, although not altogether satisfactory, seems to us to have some weight, and it does not seem to us to have been fully brought out. Refusal to take the first delivery is, at the time of such refusal, some evidence of intention not to perform the contract at all. It hardly seems to have been sufficiently considered how hard a position is that of the vendor when the purchaser refuses to take one delivery, a large number of future deliveries remaining to be made. He must provide for those deliveries, not knowing that the purchaser will take them, and having considerable ground from his conduct to suppose that he will not do so. A similar question arises in the case of successive deliveries, when the purchaser accepts, but makes default in payment for one or more of the earlier deliveries. A class of |