« PreviousContinue »
thought that was a very proper practice. At that time, all j the evidence was taken in writing, and there was, therefore, no difficulty in taxing the coats before the hearing. But when, under the Divorce Act of 1857, thepraotice of taking the evidence orally at the trial was adopted, it became impossible to know beforehand what the coats would be, and, therefore, impossible to tax them before tb.9 trial, and so the practice grew up, by a false analogy to the old rule, of estimating the costs beforehand, and requiring the husband to secure or deposit the amount so estimated, and then, when the oosts came to be taxed, limiting them to the sum so secured or deposited in accordance with a mere gness as to the amount which would actually be required. It was very proper that a husband should pay his wife's costs of her defence to a charge of adultery brought by him, because, by the law of England, all her property became his on the marriage, and she might have no means of meeting the expenses of her defence. Some means must be provided for her to carry on her defence to a divorce suit, and the defence must be conducted by a solicitor who could only look to the husband for payment for his services, and who ought not to lose his remuneration merely because the defence was unsuccessful. When the dcrence had been fairly and reasonably conducted the solicitor ought to be paid the full amount [of his costs incurred on behalf of the wife. The Court of Appeal was able to review the decision of the President of the Divorce Division, who had not exercised any discretion in the matter, but had merely followed the practice which had been established by his predecessors and which he could not well alter. The Court of Appeal were able to alter the practice and to lay down what appeared to thorn to be a more just rule. Of oourse, the judge would always be able to disallow any unreasonable costs.—Solicitors, Waddilove <fc Nutt; O. S. <fc B. Brandon.
C011 rAny — "winding Up—Arrangement—Debenture Holdbhs—Proxies Not Given To Debenture Holders— Voting—Majority—Joint Stock Companies ArrangeMent Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. 0. 104)—General Orders, November, 1862, Ord. 46.—In the case of In re Madras Irrigation and Canal Company, before the Master of the Rolls on the 21st inst., a question was raised whether the court woul 1 sanction a proposed sale of the undertaking under the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, under the following circumstances :—A meeting ot the debenture holders bad been held by the liquidator, pursuant to the Act, to ascertain their wishes as to the proposed sale, and a resolution in favour thereof was declared to be carried by three-fourths in value of the)pereons present, either in person or by proxy. A large number, however, of the proxies were given to the liquidator, who was cot himself a debenture holder in the company. A summons was now heard to confirm the sale, and the objection was taken that the proxies were invalid. No list of the debenture holders had been settled on the liquidation. Jessbl, M.R., although he thought under the circumstances that the 46th rule of the General Orders of November, 1862, was inapplicable, was still of opinion that for the purposes of meetings of any particular class of persons, proxies could only be given to, and held by, members of that class, and therefore that the proxies given to the official liquidator were invalid, and he directed another meeting of the debenture holders to be held.—Solicitors, Ashurst, Morris, Crisp, <fc Co.; Whittdkert <fc TFoolierl; I. S. Devonshire.
Practice—Action—Reference To Arbitration— EnForcing Award—Making Award A Rule Of Court.— in two actions of Burrowes v. Forrest and Forrest v. Burmese, before the Master of the Rolls on the 22od inst., a question arose whether, in an action where the matters were referred to an arbitrator, it was necessary, in order to enforce the award, to make it a rule of court. In the above action, all matters in difference were referred to an arbitrator, who made his award, whereby, amongst other things, he ordered the payment of a sum of money to Burrowes by Forrest. The award had not been made a rule of court. A motion was made on behalf of Burrowes for an order enforcing the award, and the point was discussed whether the award should be made a rule of court, which it was stated was not required at common law when the reference was in an action. Jessel, MR., expressing an opinion that it was desirable to the practice of
the Chancery and Queen's Bench !e the order naked for without requiring the
ard to be made a rule of court.—Solicitors, Uorlty f
Newspaper — Trade-mark — Nam E—Pibact—Ikj CAcTion.—la a case of Waller v. Head, also before the Master of the Rolls on the 22nd inst., a motion was made to restrain the defendant from selling any newspaper under the Dane or title of the Times. The defendant bad been issuing reprints of old copies of the Times, which were exact facaitailet of the former issues, except the last sheets, upon which tee defendant had inserted advertisements for his own profit. He had also issued future numbers of the Times as skits, also inserting advertisements for profit. The prices of the defendant's issues and those of the plaintiffs were disiimilsr, but the name and the device and arms at the commencement of the defendant's issues were exactly the same as the plaiotifiV. The plaintiffs now moved for an injunction, on thi ground that the defendant's issues were a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs', and an infringement of their trademark in their name and device. For the defendant it wis contended that the plaintiffs had no special property in the name of the Times, which was used in conjunction with other words by numerous other papers, and further, that the only ground upon which the plaintiffs could suoceed was that the issues of the defendant were calculated to deceive the public into the idea that they were buying those of the plaintiffs', which it was submitted they were not. Jessel, M.R., was of opinion that the issues by the defendant wera an exact copy of the plaintiffs' paper; that the plaintiffs had a right of property in their name and heading, which the defendant had infringed; and that the defendant had also attempted to appropriate one of the most profitable of the branches of the plaintiffs' business—their advertisements— and he must therefore grant the injunction asked for.—SoliCitors, Soames; A. W. Bodgkinion.
Will—Construction—Trusts Declared By Refebexik. —In a case of Baahford v. Chaplin, before Fry, J., on the 26th inst., a testator by his will gave the residue of Lis estate to trustees upon trust to divide the same equally between bis children, and by a codicil he directed that bis trustees should hold the sum of £2,000, part of the share of his daughter Eliza, on trust to pay the income thereof to her for her life for her separate use, and after her death upon oertain trusts for the benefit of her children, with an ultimate trust, in case she should leave no children, for the benefit of the survivors or survivor of the testator's children, and the issue of each of them as should be then dead, leaving issue. And the testator directed bis trustees to hold the sum of £2,000, part of the share of his daughter Catherine, upon trust to pay the income thereof to her for her life for her separate use, and after her death to hold the same " upon auoh and the like trusts as are hereinbefore declared of the sum of £2,000 secured for the benefit of my daughter Eliza, as fully and effectually as if such trusts were here fully repeated." And the testator directed that his trustees should hold the sum of £2,000, part of the share of his daughter Louisa, and should pay, apply, and dispose of the same, and the income thereof, "upon such and the like trusts as are hereinbefore declared of the two several sums of £2,000 and £2,000 seoured for the separate use and benefit of my daughters Eliza and Catherine, as fully and effectually as if such trusts were here fully repeated." The daughter Eliza was dead, having left issue, aad the daughter Catherine was dead, never having had any issue. The question was whether the £2,000 of Catherine was to go upon exactly the same trusts as the £2,000 of Eliza— i t , to the issue of Eliza, or upon trusts corresponding to those declared of Eliza's £2,000, but substituting the name of Catherine for that of Eliza, the effect of which would be to give it to the survivors of the testator's children, and the issue of such of them as were dead leaving issue. Fey, held that that latter construction was the right one. He said that the word " like" implied that, though there was to be similarity, there was not to be identity. There was to be some difference, though the testator bad not pointed oat distinctly what the difference was to be. It was more reasonable to suppose that the difference was to be in tht fund and the takers rather than in the fund alone, and this view was confirmed by the subsequent direction as to the £2,000 of the daughter Louisa, for if the other construction was adopted, Che direction would be to hold her share npon two inconsistent trusts, the trust deolared of Louisa's £2,000, and the trust deolared of Catherine's £2,000—and, indeed, Louisa would not even take a life interest in her £2,000.—Solicitors, Blachford, Bichet, $ Co.; T. Forhint; Bolton, Bobbint, <fc Busk.
Trustee—Breach Of Trust—Liability To Make Good Corpus Op Trust Estate Received By Tenant Por Life—Accretion To Estate—New Shakes In Company Allotted In Respect Of Old Shares.—In a case of Briggi v. Massey, before Fry, J., on the 25th inst., a question arose as to the extent of the liability of a trustee to make good part of the truBt estate which, through his negligenoe, the husband of the tenant for life had been allowed to receive. By a marriage settlement, the residue of the estate of a testator, to which the wife was entitled, subject to the life estate of the testator's widow, was assigned to the trustees on trust for the wife for her life, with remainder to the husband for his life, with remainder to the children of the marriage. The wife was the surviving executrix of the testator, and the husband, availing himself of this circumstance, sold some leasehold estate of the testator, and some other parts of his personal estate, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use. Also, after the death of the widow, some shares in a company, which formed part of the testator's estate, were transferred from the names of the executors into the name of the husband alone. After this, some new shares were allotted by the company to, and accepted by, him in respect of the old ones, and he paid up the calls on the new shares in full. He afterwards mortgaged the shares, new and old, to secure an advance made to him by a person who had no notice of the trust. A decree having been made declaring that the surviving trustee of the settlement was liable to make good to the trust estate the amount of the proceeds of sale of the leasehold property, and all other the residuary personal estate of the testator received by the husband, and the trustee having paid into court the amount of tbe proceeds of sale of the leasehold property and of the other personal property (other than tbe shares in the company) which the trustee had sold, the question arose on further consideration whether the trustee was liable to account for the present market value of the new shares which had beeu allotted to the husband, or only for the selling value of the option to take tbem at the time when they were offered by tbe company. Under tbe settlement the trustees had no lund which they could have applied in paying the calls on the new shares. Fry, J., held that the trustee was liable to pay the present market value of all the shares, new and old, but that, if tbe husband bad paid the calls on tbe new shares out of the proceeds of sale of the leasehold property and other personal estate which he had received, the trustee would be entitled to be repaid the amount of the calls so paid out of the moneys which he had paid into court, and an inquiry was directed for this purpose at the risk of the trustee as to costs.—Solicitors, Singleton $ TatterthaU; F. W. Reynolds.
Will—Construction—Legacy— Vesting—Gift Over In Event Of Death Of Legatee Before The "Final Division", Of The Testator's Estate.—In a case of Spencer v. Jhukworth, before Fry, J., on the 25th inst., a testator had given the residue of his estate on trust to divide the same equally between four persons, and then he declared that, if either of the four legatees should die "before the final division of my eBtate," he bequeathed the share of the trust moneys intended for him or her so having died unto his or her ohildren or ohild in equal shares if more than one. Two of the legatees died, leaving children), more than a year after the death of the testator, but before the estate had been actually fully realized and divided by the executors. Fry, J., held that by the " final division" of the estate was meant the expiration of tbe period of one year from the death of the testator allowed by law for the payment of legaoies, and consequently that the gift over had not taken effect.—Solicitors, Lambert, Fetch, «fc Shakespear; Pritehard, Engle/ield, 4 Co.
Will — Construction — Charge Of Asnuity On Particular Real Estate—Charge Of Legacies On Real Estate—Priority.—In a case of Briggi v. George, before Fry, J., on the 26th inst, a testator gave and devised an annuity of £200 to his wife for her life, and he charged it on his freehold estate at H. And he directed that bis wife should have all such powers and remedies for obtaining payment of the annuity, and all arrears thereof, as landlords have for obtaining payment of rent. And he declared that the benefits thus conferred on his wife should be taken in full satisfaction of all dower and thirds to which she might be entitled, in or ont of his real and personal estate, or either of them. And he gave two sums of £6,000 to trustees upon certain trusts, and directed that these sums should be paid out of his personal estate, but in casa his personal estate should be insufficient, ho charged his real estate with tbe payment of the deficiency. And he devised his real estate at II., charged with the payment of the annuity to his wife, and all other his real estate to his son in fee. The personal estate proved insufficient, and tbe proceeds of sale of the real estate were insufficient for the payment of the annnity and the two legacies of £6,000 in full, and the question arose whether the annuity was entitled to priority in respeot of the proceeds of silo of the estate at H., on which it was charged. Fry, J., held that the annuity was entitled to priority. He said that it was in the nature of a demonstrative legacy.— Solicitors, Few <fc Co.
WORCESTER AND WORCESTERSHIRE LAW SOCIETY.
A general half-yearly meeting of the above society was held on the 21st inst., at the Law Library, present : Mr. T. G. Hyde (president), Mr. W. P. Hughes (vice-president), Messrs. H. G. Goldingham, J. Stallard, J. Holyoake, R. P. Hill. 8. M. Beale, G. A. Bird, J. Thompson, T. G. Stallard, W. W. A. Tree, F. R. Jeffery, J. Stallard, jun., and W. Allen (hon. sec). The president having read a letter from the honorary secretary intimating his intention to resign the office of honorary secretary, it wae proposed by the president, seconded by Mr, Goldingham, and carried unanimously, "That, in accepting the resignation of Mr. Allen, this meeting desires to record its sense of tbe services rendered by him to the society as their honorary secretary for a period of upwards of seventeen years, and tbe zeal and courtesy with which he has discharged the duties of the office." The president then, on behalf of the members of the Worcester and Worcestershire Law Society, begged Mr. Allen's acceptance of a handsome silver Queen Anne pattern Jardiniere, in recognition of bis valuable services to the society as their honorary ceoretary for upwards of seventeen years. Mr. Allen suitably replied, and Mr. F. Ronald Jeffery was afterwards, on tbe proposition of Mr. H. G. Goldingham, seconded by Mr. R. P. Hill, unanimously elected honorary secretary. Some other general business was transacted, and the meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the ohairman.
On tbe report of the Irish Land Bill on Tuesday, the Attorney-General for Ireland moved the insertion after clause 44 of a clause enabling the party to a proceeding before the Land Commissioners or sub-Commissioners to appear in person, or by a solicitor (but not by a solicitor retained as an advocate by such solicitor), or by a barrister, to conduct the case, subject to the rules from time to time prescribed by the court. The clause having been read the second time, Mr. Biggar moved an amendment in it to strike out the words "but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by such first-mentioned solicitor." On a division the amendment was lost. Mr. Healy moved an amendment to enable the court to give its sanction in particular cases to the appearance of a solicitor retained as an advocate by the solicitor of a party to any proceeding before tbe Land Commission or any sub-Commission. The AttorneyGeneral for Ireland opposed the amendment. It would throw on the court the odium of refusing to give its sanction. On a division the amendment was lost, and the clause was ordered to be added to the Bill.
Mr. Henry William Ackbill, aolioitor (of the firm of Llewellyn & Aokrill), of Tunstall and Hauley, baa been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Staffordshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeda by Married Women.
Mr. Thomas Metcalfe Barron, aolioitor, of Darlington, baa been appointed a Commiaaioner to administer Oaths in the Snpreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. James Valentine Battisoombe, solicitor (of the firm of Walker & Battiacom.be), of 16, Water-lane, Great Toweratreet, in the city of London, and of Leytonstone in the County of Essex) baa been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Counties of Middlesex and Essex, for taking the Acknowledgments of Married Women.
Mr. Henri Thomas Brown, solicitor (of the firm of Brown & Sogers), of Chester, haa been appointed a Magistrate for that oity. Mr. Brown was admitted a aolioitor in 1855.
Mr. Edmund Kkll Blyth, aolioitor, of 10, St. Swithin'slane, London, E.C., haa been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeda by Married Women in and for the Cities of London and Weatminater and the Countiea of Middleaex and Surrey.
Mr. Matnard Broadhcrst, of the Bengal Civil Service, has been appointed a Judge of the High Court of Judicature for the North Weat Provinces of India, on the resignation of Mr. Jnstioe Spankie.
Mr. Joseph Richardson Davidson Lynn, solicitor, of Blyth, has been elected (after a poll), as Coroner for the Southern Division of the County of Northumberland, in aucoeasion to the late Mr. Lonsdale Maving Cookroft, of Newcastle. Mr. Lynn was admitted a solicitor in 1865.
Mr. Evan Miller Jones, solicitor, of Leeds, haa been appointed a Perpetual Commiaaioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the West RidiDg of Yorkshire.
Mr. Maurice S. Rubinstein, solicitor, of 20, Regentstreet, Waterloo-place, has been appointed a Perpetual Commiaaioner for taking Acknowledgments of Married Women in and for the County of Middleaex, and the Cities of London and Westminster.
Mr. Henry Lindley White, aolioitor, of 7, Southampton-street, Bloomabury, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County of Middleaex, and the Cities of London and Westtniuater.
DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. Miller Corbet, John James Corbet, and Basil Birch Bagster, solicitors, 27, Churoti.street, Kidderminster, and No. 14, Foregatest, Worcester (Miller, Corbet & Co). June 29. The said Miller and John James Corbet will continue to carry on the said business at No. 27, Churoh-street, Kidderminster, and 14, Foregate-street, Worcester, nnder the style of Miller and J. J. Corbet. Tbe said Basil Birch Bagster will in future csrry on business at Commercial-buildings, Kidderminster. [Gazette, July 22, 1881.]
Thomas Wright Badger, Frederick Parker Rhodes, and George Thomas Barras, solicitors, Rotberbam, Sheffield, and Hoyland Nether, Yorkshire (Badger, Rhodes, & Co.), so far as regards the said George Thomas Barraa. July 1. The business will henceforth be carried on by the said Thomas Wright Badger and Frederick Parker Rhodes.
Frederick James Chester and Edward Chester, solicitors, 86, Newington Butts (Henry Frederick and Edward Chester). July IS.
Edward Colnett Sfickbtt and John Edward Price, solioitora, Pontypridd. July 23. Tbe said parties will continue to practise separately aa solicitors at Pontypridd.
[Oaxtte, July 26, 1881.]
LIMITED IX Chancbby.
Alfreton Aerated Water Company, Limited. — Petition* for winding up, presented July Is, directed to be heard before trae M R., on July 30. Satchell and Chappie, queen st, Cheap»ide, agents for Harris, Crich, solicitors for the petitioners.
Anglo-vieginian Fbbehold LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.—Hall.V.C,
has fixed Tuesday, Aug 2, at 1, at his chambers, for the appoi ntment of an official liquidator. Cambrian Miking Company, Limited.—Petition for winding; up. presented July 20, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on July 30. Gregory, Bishopsgato st Within, solicitor for the petitioner.
London And Provincial Traders' Wholesale Stores, Limited.—
Petition for winding up, presented July 21, directed to be beani before the M.R., on July 30. Maples and Co, Frederick's place. Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioner.
[Gazette, July S3. J Impkkial Union Absubancb Company, Limited. — Petition for winding up, presented July 26, directed to be heard before Fry, J , on Aug 5. Godfray, Finsbury pavement, solicitor for the petititioner.
Indian Mammoth Gold Mines, Limited.—The M.R. has, by an order dated June 20, appointed George Whiffin, 8, Old Jewry, Uj be official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or before Nor 1. to send their names and addresses to the above. Tuesday. Nor lo, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims.
London And Paris Deeps And Millinery Association, Limitkd.— The M.R. has fixed Aug 1 at 12 for the appointment of an official liquidator
Metropolitan And Subburban Steam Laundry Compamy, Limi
Tbd.—The M.R. has, by an order dated May 11, appointed Thomu Stephen Evans, 6, Bucklersbury, to be official liquidator
Midland Land And Invkstmrnt Coeporation, Limited.—By an order made by the M.U.. dated July 10, it was ordered that tbe voluntary winding up of the above corporation be continued. Burton and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioner
Onllwyn Ano Dulms Collibry Company, Limited.—V.C Kail has fixed Aug 5 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator
Sankey Brook And Ashtox Green Collibbies Company. LtMirt —Petition for winding up, presented July 23, directed to be board before the M.R. on July 30. Sharpc and Co, Bedford row, amenta for Peace and Co, Wigau, solicitors for the petitioner
Sheffield Equitable Benefit Building Society.—Petition fnr winding up, presented July 25, directed to be heard on Ancr 5, before the M.R. Maude, Winchester st hldgs, ageuts for Webster and Styring, Sheffield, solicitors for tbe petitioners.
Scotch Bank, Limited.—Bacon, V.C, has fixed Thursday, Aug », at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator.
United Service Supply Association, Limited.—By an order marie by Bacon, V.C, dated July Hi, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of tho Association be continued. Best and Co, KimpT st, Strand, solicitors for the petitioners.
[Gazette, July 36 J Unlimited In Chancery. Penarth, Sully, And Barry Railway Compaity.—By an oiilea made by Fry, J., dated July 15, it was ordered that the compaii-Tbe wonnd up. Ingledowuud Xnce, Fenchurch st, solicitors for iba petitioners
[Gazette, July 26. J County Palatine Of Lancaster. Ascroft, Robinson, And Wilson, Lihitkd.-The V.C. has, by ten order, dated July 1, appointed Daniel Philips Davics, 11, Canada Dock, Liverpool, John Watkin Lumley, 54, Regent nl, Liverpool, and Walton Batcheldor, It, Johnson st, Livei'iiool, to be ofnc:al liquidators. Creditors arc required, on or before Aug 17, to sexMl their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts ai»l claims to the above at 14, Johnson st, Livcrjiool. Aug 24 at 11 ia appointed for hearing and adjudicating ujwn tbe debt* and claims
[Gazette, July 22." Buckburn And District Benefit Building Society.—Petition for winding up, presented July 23, directed to be heard befcrre the V.C, at St George's Hall, Liverpool, on Aug 5. Etty, Lor.1 st, Liverpool, solicitor for tho petitioner
[Gazette, July SfS.J
Friendly Societies Dissolved. Agricultural And Tradesmen's Friendly Society, Gate Inn,
Ford House?, Bushbury, Stafford, July 18 [Gazrtte July 2CJ. ■ Blyth Master Marinebb' Mutual Absubancb Society, Dun Oow,
Blyth, Northumberland. July 21 Fbstiniog Benevolent Society, Main st, Festiniog, Merirarth.
July 25 I Gazette July »a.l
Tbe Western Jurist thus reports a banquet of the Iowa State Bar Association :—" After tbe appetites of a hungry profusion were sufficiently appeased, order was secured, and the first
toast propose! was: The judge, bis duties and pleasures
Hon. Geo. W. McCrary. And then followed : Good ditreation : its compatibility with a lawyer's conscience.—Hon. N. M. Hubbard ; Tbe Itinerant Bar.—Hon. Joseph Knapp The Lawyer in Politics.—Hon. H. H. Trimble; Onr Wires and these that are to be.—Col. D. B. Henderson.'*
MR. RICHARD HART. Mr. Richard Hart, solicitor, died at Folkestone, on the 271h nit. Mr. Hart was born in 1808, and was admitted a solicitTM in 1829. He commenced his professional career at MaidBtone, but a few years later he removed to Folkestone (his native town), where he continued to praotise until his death. Mr. Hart was a perpetual commissioner for the oounty of Kent, and he had a most extensive private practice. He was for some time a member of the Folkestone Town Council, and he was eleoted mayor of the borough in 1851. He was soon afterwards elected clerk to the borough magistrates, and, after resigning that office, he was placed in the commission of the peace for the bwough. He was elected vestry clerk of the parish of Folkestone in 1849, and be filled that office until the early part of this year. Mr. Hart was for many years agent for the Liberal party in the borough and connty, and he was an active supporter of all schemes that were calculated to develop the interests and add to the health and prosperity of Folkestone. He waB buried at the Folkestone Cemetery on the 2nd inst. The Town Council have passed a vote expressive of condolence with the family of the deceased.
MR GEORGE CALLAGHAN. Mr. George Callaghan, barrister, died at his lodgings in Craven-street, on the 18th nit., after a painful illness. Mr. Callaghan was born in the south of Ireland in 1824. He was engaged early in life as a newspaper reporter and correspondent, and in Michaelmas Term, 1862, he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple. He practised only in the Probate and Divorce Court, where he was for many years the reporter for the Times. He was also a parliamentary reporter in the House of Lords, on tne staff of the Morning Post. Mr. Callaghan had occasionally sat as deputy judge of the Lambeth County Court. He bad suffered for several months from a painful disease of the liver, but he remained at work almost to the last. He was a man of most amiable and genial disposition, and his funeral at the Roman Cathollo Cemetery, Kensal Green, on the 21st ult., was attended by a large number of professional friends. Mr. Callaghan was unmarried.
LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK.
HOUSE OF LORDS. JULY 21.—BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. Private Bills.—Staines and West Drayton Railway, Sonth Eastern Railway, Banbury and Cheltenham District Railway, Stalybridge Extension and Improvement. Wild Birds Protection Aot (1880) Amendment.
JULY 22.—BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. Private Bills.—Sonthport and Cheshire Lines Exten. sion. Metropolitan Bridges. Supreme Conrt of .Judicature.
JULX 25.—BILL READ A SECOND TIME. Private Bill.—Teign Valley Railway.
BILL READ A THIRD TIME. Private Bill.—Severn Navigation.
BILL READ A FIRST TIME. Bill to amend the 1'utriotic, Fnod Aot, 1867, and to make fnrtber provision respecting certain Funds administered by the same Commissioners as the Patriotio Fond (Earl of Northbrook).
JULY 26.—BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. British Honduras (Court of Appeal), Pedlars' Certificates, Metallio Mines (Gunpowder).
BILL READ A THIRD TIME.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
JULY 22.—BILLS IN COMMITTEE. Metropolitan Board of Works (Money), Public Works Loans (Advances).
BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. Private Bills.—Earl of Hardwioke's Estate, Redoastle and Farradale Estates, Seotioual or Blook Buildings Management, &o. Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension.
JULY 25.—BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. Private Bills.—Croker's Estate, Bagot Estate. Alsager Chapel (Marriages), Petroleum (Hawking).
BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. Private Bills.—Copland's Patent, Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway.
JULY 26. BILL IN COMMITTEE. Petroleum (Hawking).
BILL READ A THIRD TIME. Metropolitan Board of Works (Monev).
JULY 27.—BILL IN COMMITTEE. Pnblio Works Loans.
BILL READ A THIRD TIME. Alkali Works Regulation.
BILLS WITHDRAWN. County Courts, Vivisection Abolition.
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OK PROOF.
Atwood, John Jones, Aberystwith, Cardigan, Gent. Sept 1. Jones v Atwood, V.C. Hall. Atwood, Aberystwith
Clbabby, Anthony, Sir Penmoyro, Brecon, Knight. Aug 16. Cloasby v Cleasby, V.O. Hall. Hill and Co, Old Broad at
Fbnsom, Richard, Caddington, Bedford, Farmer. Aug 31. Lockhart v Fensom, Frv, J. Wetherfleld, Gresham bldgs, Basinghall at
Hindson, Isaac, Kirkby Lonsdale, Westmoreland, Wine Merchant.
Aug 31. Bell v Greenbank, Fry, J. Pearson, Kirkby Lonsdale Holliday, Louisa, Witney, Oxford. July 26. Saltmarsh v Holli
day, V.C. Hall. Boyle, Mecklenburgh sq Jonbs, Daniel, Broughton, Denbigh, Grocer. Aug 27. Beirne v
Jones, V.C. Bacon. Hughes, Wrexham Levin, Ephraim, Hamilton tor, Esq. Sept 1. Levin v Levin, M.R.
Emanuel, Finsbury circus Mbllob, Benjamin, Stainland, Halifax, Woollen Manufacturer.
Oct U Mellor v Schofleld, V.C. Hall. Wavoll, Halifax
| Gazette, July 12.]
Baron, William Macroft, Aveley, Essex. Sept 1. Rose v Pudney'
V.C. Hall. Wilkinson and Drew, Bermondsey st, Bermondsey Jonbs, David, Dyff ynarth, Cardigan, Gent. Oct 1. Jones v
Jenkins, V.C. Hall. Hughes and Sons, Aberystwith Luckhdbst, Alfrbd, Uckfield, Sussex, Brewer. Oct 1. Luckhurst
v Luckhurst, V.C. Hall. Hillman, Lewes Studdy, Henry, jun, Ridgeway, Llawhadeu, Pembroke, Esq. Sept
1. Phillips v Summers, Fry, J. Lascelles, Narbcrth Walbond, Right Hon. Lady Janrt, Cullompton, Devon. Aug 31.
Rooper v Walrond, M.R. Willcocks, Gt George st, Westminster
An alleged fraul on tne Inland Revenue has been recently investigated in the Dublin Police Court. Mr. Thomas Cololough, a gentleman who. occupied the position of stamp distributor to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, was charged with having made and «old forged law stamps. It appeared from the evidence that Mr. Colclough had been appointed stamp distributor in 1869, and that the frauds commenced so early as 1871. Suspicion was first aroused by an accidental circumstance. A solicitor's clerk having purchased a form bearing three embossed stamps of tlie value of five shillings each, was told at tbo Registry of Deeds Office that it required another five shilling stamp, and in order to get this attached he went to the Stamp Office at the Custom House, and immediately on iho presentation of the form there it was discovered that the stamps already on the form were forgeries. All the forms need in the Common Pleas, Exchequer, and Queen's Bench Divisions are the same, and are printed by the same printer, there being a slight distinguishing mark to show for which division they are intended, and some of the forms sold by the prisoner were only supplied to him in June last; while they purported to bear stamps dated the month before. When the detectives went to prisoner's office they found a handpress, whioh is supposed to have been used in the forgery and a large number of forged stamps, which had been torn off the forma. It also appeared that he had not purchased, until April, during the present year, any embossed stamps, although, Id a few months of the year, he had purchased £1,455 worth of adhesive stamps, which are only used as supplementary to the embossed stamps. The amount of embossed stamps used in the year was only £150 worth, while the adhesive stamps which he bad purchased amounted to £3,600. It is therefore suppoied that many thousand pounds' worth of embossed stamps must have been forged yearly. Already £1,500 worth have been identified as having been purchased from the prisoner. It is considered remarkable that the fraud should have escaped discovery so long. The prisoner was committed for trial, bail being refused.
At the Manchester Assizes, Joseph Lowe, a member of the firm of Potter & Lowe, solicitors, was charged, before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, with stealing or concealing certain title deeds relating to six shops in Rochester-road, Manchester, which were the property of a builder named O'Brien, and upon tbe security of which James Addison and William Opensbaw had advanced £1,800 of trust money, which was given by them to Lowe to be forwarded to O'Brien. Tbe prisoner was also charged with forging a subsequent deed purporting to be signed by O'Brien relating to the same transactions. Mr. Addison, Q.C., and Mr. Nash conducted the case for the prosecution; Mr. Hopwood, Q.C., and Mr. Blair defended tbe prisoner. It appeared that Lowe made advances to O'Brien for the purposes of his building operations in the course of the year 1876. In December of tbat year Addison and Opensbaw, who had trust fnnds to invest and were clients of Lowe, were taken by him over the Rochester-road property, and agreed to advance £1,800 upon it, a cheque for which amount was subsequently given to Lowe, and then, according to Addison's evidence, a mortgage, dated the 22nd of December, 1876, duly executed on parchment by O'Brien, was received by tbem, along with tbe bundle of title deeds in Lowe's office, and placed in Addison's own safe. Tbe deeds were subsequently given to Lowe to be used in a chancery suit, and in the end were taken by Addison from Lowe's brother. Addison then found that the original parchment mortgage, which he said he had read in 1876, had disappeared, and in its place there was a paper mortgage unstamped, but bearing O'Brien's signature, of date January 1, 1879. The payments of interest which had been made by Lowe stopped in 1879, and when Addison complained that be had not got his original mortgage, he was told by Lowe he mutt be satisfied with what he had. The defence suggested was that the original parchment deed never existed, and evidence was given to show that no trace of it was to be found in the business books of the firm of Potter & Lowe. O'Brien gave evidence that be had no recollection of signing the parchment deed, but bo admitted in cross-examination that he did not remember signing the paper deed of 1879, though he believed the signature was his. It appeared in the course of the case that between December, 1876, and Jannary, 1879, Lowe had obtained a mortgage (in which no mention was made of a prior incumbrance) to Reid and Kenyon for £2,000, and a second mortgage to secure £600 due by O'Brien to a Mr. Haigh; and, further, that the two chief rents included in tbe mortgage of 1876 had been sold for £180. The Lord Chief Justice carefully summed up the case to the jury, who subsequently returned a verdiot of Guilty. The learned j udge sentenced him to five years' penal servitude.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
"SSLL* ^ZV"" V.C.BAOO*.
Monday, Aug. lMr. King Mr. Teesdale Mr. Jackson
Tuesday 2 Merivale Farrer Cobby
Wednesday.... 3 King Teesdale Jackson
Thursday .... i Merivale Farrer Cobby
Friday 6 King Teesdale Jackson
Saturday 6 Merivale Farrer Cobby
v p ut.r Mr.Jun.ieo Mr. Justice V. C. Hill. p,r KiT
Monday, Aug. IMr. Koe Mr. Latham Mr. Pemberton
Tuesday 2 Clowes Leach Ward
Wednesday.... 3 Koe Latham Pemberton
Thursday .... 4 Clowes Leach Ward
Friday 6 Koe Latham Pemberton
,...6 Clowes Leach Ward
SALES OF ENSUING WEEK. Augnst 2.—Messrs. Deue.vham, Tewson", Farmer, & Bridge
Water, at the Marr, Freehold Investment and Copyhold
Ground Rent (see advertisement, July 16, p. 5). August 3.—Messrs. Edwin Fox & Boosiibld, at the Mar',
at 2 p.m., Freehold and Leasehold Estates (see advertisement,
July 23, p. 5).
Aurnst 6.—Messrs. Norton, Trist, Watnbt, & Co., at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Freehold Property (see advertisement, July 16, p. 5).
Fiiday, July 22, 1881. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the 1 To Surrender in London. Davies, Evan, May's bldgs, St Martin's lane. Pet July 18. Murray. Aug 5 at 11.30
Reid, Thomas, Warwick st, Regent st, Engraver. Pet July 20. Pepys. Aug 0 at 11.30
Tilley, Thomas Henry, Durham cottages. Hackney, Sausage Manufacturer. Pet July 20. Pepys. Aug 9 at 11
To Surrender in the Country. Bailey, William, Wilsden, Bradford, Coal Merchant. Pet July 19.
Lee. Bradford, Aug 5 at 12 Bates, William, Leicester, Shoe Finiaher. Pet July 18. Moore.
Leicester, Aug 3 at 2 Howe, Thomas Hcslope, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Genu Pet July 13.
Edwards. St Albans, Aug 3 at 3 Spcnce, Thomas, West Hartlepool, Durham, Butcher. Pet July 19.
Boulton. Sunderland, Aug 4 at 11.30 Stephens, Thomas Train, Bristol, Brewer. Pet July 20. Harley.
Bristol, Aug 3 at 2 Trahar, William Henry, Devonport, Captain in her Majesty**
Auxiliary Forces. Pet July 20. Edmonds. East Stonehouf?,
Aug 4 at 12
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 186U. Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. Tuesday, July 26, 1881. To Surrender in London. Fennel!, Richard Thomas, Barking rd, Essex, Commercial Clerk. Pet July 22. Murray. Aug 10 at 11
To Surrender in the Country. Balaban, Jacob, Manchester, Commission Agent. Pet July 23.
Hulton. Salford, Aug 10 at 11 Green, Charles Edward, Gt Yarmouth, Painter. Pet July lti.
Worlledge. Gt Yarmouth, Aug 13 at 12 Lord, Thomas, Haslingden, Lancaster, Innkeeper. Pet July --Bolton. Blackburn, Aug 8 at 11
BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED. Friday, July 22,1881. Bond, Alfred, Freston, Suffolk, Clerk in Holy Orders. July 13 Elford, Thomas, Plympton. Devon, Gent. July 20 Lloyd, Oliver Wimburn, Gresham bldgs, Basinghall st, Solicitor. July 16
Tuesday, July 26, 1881. Cooper, Thomas Henry, Fcathcrstone bldgs, Holboru, AccouniaaiJuly 22.
Liquidations by Arrangement.
FIRST MEETINGS OF CREDITORS. Fbiday, Jnly 23, 1881. Adams, Samuel Enoch, Belvoir rd, Lordship lane. Builder. Aug 10
at 3 at Inns of Court Hotel, High Holborn. Marsden and Wilson,
Old Cavendish st Alwen, John, Wordsley, Stafford, Farmer. Aug 2 at 3 at offices of
Homfray and Holberton, High st, Brierley hill Astell, William John, Claydun, Oxford, Farmer. Aug6 at 2 atotnor*
of Munton and Stockton, High st, Banbury Bagglcy, Daniel, Silverdale, Stafford, Miner. Ang 4 at 11 at offlce» of
James, Nelson sb, Newcastle-under-Lyme Barker, Richard, New Mai ton, York, Horse Dealer. Aug 9 at 11 at
Angel Inn, New Mai ton. Simpson, New Malton Barnett, Louis, Birmingham, Furniture Dealer. Aug 4 at 11 at office*
of Burn and Co, Temple st, Birmingham Beech, William, jun, Tunstall. Stafford, Joiner, Aug 5 at 3 at office-*
of Llewellyn and Ackrill, Piccadilly st, Tunstall Bell, Thomas Henry, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Innkeeper. Aug 2 at
1 at offices of Hoylo and Co, Burdon bldgs, Grainger st West,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Bond, Walter, Preston, Lancaster, Fancy Stationer. Aug 12 at 2 at
offices of Thompson and Craven, Lune st, Preston Bott, William, aud Thomas Jones, Burslem, Joiners. Aug 2 at 4 at
North Stafford Railway Hotel, Stoke-upon-Trent. HoUiusbcari.
Brown, John, Wroot, Lincoln, Farmer. Aug 5 at 12 at Elephant
Hotel, Doncaster. Parkin and Co, Epworth Buckley, Wood head, Huddersfleld, Printer. August 4 at 11 ax office*
of Welsh, Queen st, Huddersfield Buncombe, John Clarke, Bruton, Somerset, Ironmonger. July 30
at 12.30 at High st, Bruton. Russ Burrcll, John Samuel, Lanchester, Durham, Grocer. August 4 at
12 at offices of Holmes and Co, Pilgrim st, Newcastle upon Tyne Bushell, Edmund, Faversham, Kent, Carpenter. August S at 3 at
the Ship Hotel, Faversham. Norman, Chatham