Page images
PDF
EPUB

Power

promise to the ear while it broke it to the hope. was given to the grantees in their absolute discretion at any time without any notice to take possession of the property, and they might thus set at nought entirely the agreement for forbearance, and treat as a nullity the contract for redemption on a certain day. There was really no forbearance at all and therefore no fresh equivalent for the deed. And, as to the goodwill of the hotel, the debtor had done all that he could do to assign it to the grantees. It was in evidence that the lease of the hotel without the goodwill and the licences would be worthless, and therefore the £500 paid by the purchaser of the lease really represented the value of the goodwill, and if the deed was valid the grantees would have been entitled to the whole of the proceeds of the sale of the lease. There was, therefore, no exception from the deed, and it was void as against the trustee in the liquidation. COTTON, L.J., said that Ex parte Punnett was distinguishable beause there had been no dealing with the goodwill before the sale of the public-house, and in such a case a sale of the publichouse might well, and indeed did, carry with it the goodwill of the business.-SOLICITORS, Hamlin & Grammer; H. B. Clarke & Son.

[ocr errors]

EASEMENT-PRESCRIPTION ACT (2 & 3 WILL. 4, c. 71), s. 8-COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF FORTY YEARS-EXCLUSION OF LIFE ESTATE-" PERSON ENTITLED TO ANY REVERSION." -In a case of Laird v. Briggs, before the Court of Appeal on the 26th inst., a question arose upon the construction of section 8 of the Prescription Act, which provides that, "when any land or water upon, over, or from which any such way or other convenient watercourse or use of water shall have been, or shall be enjoyed or derived, shall have been, or shall be held under or by virtue of any term of life, or any term of years exceeding three years from the granting thereof, the time of the enjoyment of any such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned, during the continuance of such term, shall be excluded in the computation of the said period of forty years, in case the claim shall, within three years next after the end or sooner determination of such term, be resisted by any person entitled to any reversion expectant on the determination thereof." It was decided by Fry, J. (29 W. R. 197, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 440) that the words any person entitled to any reversion expectant on the determination of a life estate, are not limited to an owner of the whole reversion, but include a tenant at will to such an owner, and consequently that, if within three years after the determination of a life estate in land, an action is brought by a tenant at will to the reversioner against the claimant by virtue of an agreement with the tenant for life of an easement over the land, the term of the tenancy for life is to be excluded from the computation of the period of forty years. In the Court of Appeal it became unnecessary actually to decide the point, because the court (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.) allowed an amendment of the pleadings, the effect of which was to introduce some facts which were not before Fry, J. But the court said that the question of the construction of the section was a very difficult one, and one upon which, even if it had been fully argued before them, they should not wish to express an opinion, without mature consideration. They must not be supposed to agree with the decision of Fry, J., but the question must be considered as fully open to discussion, notwithstanding his decision.-SOLICITORS, Remnant, Penley, & Grubbe ; Harrisons.

COUNTY COURT-JURISDICTION-ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS-POWER TO COMMIT FOR DISOBEDIENCEJUDICATURE ACT, 1873, s. 89.-In a case of Richards v. Cullerne, before the Court of Appeal on the 27th inst., the question arose whether the judge of a county court has power to commit for contempt for disobedience to an order for the production of documents. The question arose upon the construction of section 89 of the Judicature Act of 1873, which provides that "every inferior court which now has, or which may after the passing of this Act have, jurisdiction in equity, or at law and in equity, and in admiralty respectively, shall, as regards all causes of action within its jurisdiction for the time being, have power to grant, and shall grant, in any proceeding before such court, sach relief, distress, or remedy, or combination of remedies, either absolute or conditional, in as full and ample a manner as might and ought to be done in the like case by the High Court of Jus. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON,

tice."

L.JJ.) held that the case was governed by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Martin v. Bannister (28 W. R. 143, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 491), that a county court has power to imprison for disobedience to an injunction restraining the commission of a nuisance. In that case it was held that the power existed for the purpose of enforcing obedience to a final judgment, but there was nothing to limit the provisions of section 89 to a final judgment; they applied equally to any order made in the course of an action.-SOLICITORS, G. L. P. Eyre & Co.

66

COLLISION IN RIVER THAMES THAMES NAVIGATION RULES (MARCH, 1880), RR. 22, 23.-In a case of The Libra, before the Court of Appeal on the 19th inst., a question arose on the construction of rules 22 and 23 of the Thames Navigation Rules of March, 1880. Rule 22 provides that "when two steam vessels proceeding in opposite directions, the one up and the other down the river, are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision, they shall pass one another port side to port side." And by rule 23, steam vessels navigating against the tide shall, before rounding the following points-viz. (inter alia) Tilbury Nessease their engines, and wait until any other vessels rounding the point with the tide have passed clear." In the case before the court a collision had taken place off Tilbury Ness The between the steamships Libra and Joseph Ricketts. Libra was going down the river on the north shore against tide; The Joseph Ricketts was coming up with the tide. The Libra starboarded her helm, and it was contended that sbe was justified by rule 23. The Joseph Ricketts had ported her helm, and it was contended that she was justified by rule 22. The court (JESSEL, M. R., and BRETT, and COTTON, L.JJ.), affirming the decision of Sir R. Phillimore, held that The Libra was to blame for the collision.-SOLICITORS, W. Batham; T. Cooper.

[ocr errors]

PRACTICE-DIVORCE SUIT-COSTS OF WIFE'S UNSUCCESSFUL DEFENCE-AMOUNT PAYABLE BY HUSBAND-RULES OF DIVORCE COURT OF DECEMBER, 1865, RR. 158, 159.In a case of Robertson v. Robertson, before the Court of Appeal on the 19th inst., a question arose as to the correctness of the practice which has prevailed for many years, first in the Divorce Court, and subsequently in the Divorce Division, in fixing the amount to be paid by a husband for the costs of his wife's unsuccessful defence to a suit for a divorce instituted by him. Rule 158 of the Rules of December, 1865, provides for the ascertaining by the registrar (after directions have been given as to the mode of trial), what is a sufficient sum of money to be paid into the registry, or what is a sufficient security to be given by the husband to cover the costs of the wife of and incidental to the trial of the cause. And rule 159 provides that, when on the hearing or trial the decision or verdict is against the wife, no costs of the wife of and incidental to such hearing or trial shall be allowed as against the husband, except such as shall be applied for and ordered to be allowed by the judge ordinary at the time of such hearing or trial." In Robertson v. Robertson the President of the Divorce Division made a decree nisi for a divorce against the wife on the ground of her adultery, and ordered that the costs incurred by the respondent (the wife) should be paid, "but not exceeding the amount paid into court or secured by the petitioner (the husband) for the purpose." This order, it appeared, was in the form always adopted in such cases, the practice having been so settled at the time when Sir C. Cresswell was the judge ordinary. The amount at which the wife's costs had been estimated, and for which the husband had been ordered to give security, was £370; her costs when taxed amounted to nearly double that sum. She appealed from the decree, and also contended that the excess of her costs above the £370 ought to be paid by the husband. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and COTTON, L.JJ.) affirmed the decree on the merits, but they held that the husband ought to have been ordered to pay the whole of the reasonable costs of the wife, and that his liability ought not to have been limited to the estimate made before the trial. Their lordships were of opinion that the practice had not been in accordance with rule 159. JESSEL, M. R., said that, according to the practice of the old ecclesiastical court, the order was to tax and pay the whole of the wife's costs before the hearing, without limiting them to any sum secured or deposited by the husband, and his lordship

[ocr errors]

thought that was a very proper practice. At that time, all the evidence was taken in writing, and there was, therefore, no difficulty in taxing the costs before the hearing. But when, under the Divorce Act of 1857, the practice of taking the evidence orally at the trial was adopted, it became impossible to know beforehand what the costs would be, and, therefore, impossible to tax them before the 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 costs came to be taxed, limiting them to the sum so secured or deposited in accordance with a mere guess 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 defence 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 them to be a more just rule. Of course, the judge would always be able to disallow any unreasonable costs.-SOLICITORS, Waddilove & Nutt; G. S. & H. Brandon.

COMPANY WINDING UP-ARRANGEMENT-DEBENTURE HOLDERS-PROXIES NOT GIVEN TO DEBENTURE HOLDERS-VOTING-MAJORITY-JOINT STOCK COMPANIES ARRANGEMENT ACT, 1870 (33 & 34 VICтt. c. 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 would sanction a proposed sale of the undertaking under the Joint Stock Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, under the following circumstances :-A meeting of the debenture holders had 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 persons present, either in person or by proxy. A large number, however, of the proxies were given to the liquidator, who was not 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. JESSEL, 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, & Co.; Whittakers & Woolbert; I. H. Devonshire.

PRACTICE-ACTION-REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION-ENFORCING AWARD-MAKING AWARD A RULE OF COURT.In two actions of Burrowes v. Forrest and Forrest v. Bur. rowes, before the Master of the Rolls on the 22nd 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, M.R., expressing an opinion that it was desirable to assimilate the practice of the Chancery and Queen's Bench Divisions, made the order asked for without requiring the

award to be made a rule of court.-SOLICITORS, Morley & Shirreff.

NEWSPAPER-TRADE-MARK-NAME-PIRACY-INJUNC TION. In a case of Walter 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 name or title of the Times. The defendant had been issuing reprints of old copies of the Times, which were exact facsimiles of the former issues, except the last sheets, upon which the 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 dissimilar, but the name and the device and arms at the commencement of the defendant's issues were exactly the same as the plaintiffs'. The plaintiffs now moved for an injunction, on the 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 was 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 succeed 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 were 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 advertisementsand he must therefore grant the injunction asked for.-SOLICITORS, Soames; A. W. Hodgkinson.

WILL-CONSTRUCTION-TRUSTS DECLARED BY REFERENCE. -In a case of Bashford 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 his children, and by a codicil he directed that his 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 certain 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 such of them as should be then dead, leaving issue. And the testator directed his 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 such and the like trusts as are herein before declared of the sum of £2,000 secured for the benefit of my daughter Eliza, as fally and effect. ually 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 secured for the separate use and benefit of my daughters Eliza and Catherine, as fully and effectually as if such trasts were here fully repeated." The daughter Eliza was dead, having left issue, and 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-ie, 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. FRY, J., 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 had not pointed out distinctly what the difference was to be. It was more reasonable to suppose that the difference was to be in the 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, the direction would be to hold her share upon two inconsistent trusts, the trust declared of Louisa's £2,000, and the trust declared of Catherine's £2,000-and, indeed, Louisa would not even take a life interest in her £2,000.-SOLICITORS, Blachford, Riches, & Co.; T. Fortune; Bolton, Robbins, & Busk,

TRUSTEE-BREACH

OF TRUST-LIABILITY ΤΟ MAKE GOOD CORPUS OF TRUST ESTATE RECEIVED BY TENANT FOR LIFE-ACCRETION TO ESTATE-NEW SHARES IN COMPANY ALLOTTED IN RESPECT OF OLD SHARES.-In a case of Briggs 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 trust estate which, through his negligence, 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 the proceeds of sale of the leasehold property and of the other personal property (other than the 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 been allotted to the husband, or only for the selling value of the option to take them at the time when they were offered by the company. Under the settlement the trustees had no fund 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 the husband had paid the calls on the 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 & Tattershall; F. W. Reynolds.

[blocks in formation]

IN EVENT OF DEATH OF LEGATEE BEFORE THE "FINAL DIVISION" OF THE TESTATOR'S ESTATE.-In a case of Spencer v. Duckworth, 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 estate," he bequeathed the share of the trust moneys intended for him or her So having died unto his or her children or child 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 the period of one year from the death of the testator allowed by law for the payment of legacies, and consequently that the gift over had not taken effect.-SOLICITORS, Lambert, Petch, & Shakespear; Pritchard, Englefield, & Co.

WILL CONSTRUCTION - CHARGE OF ANNUITY ON PARTICULAR REAL ESTATE-CHARGE OF LEGACIES ON REAL ESTATE PRIORITY.-In a case of Briggs 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 his 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 out 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 case his personal estate should be insufficient, he charged his real estate with the payment of the deficiency. And he devised his real estate at H., 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 the proceeds of sale of the real estate were insufficient for the payment of the annuity and the two legacies of £6,000 in full, and the question arose whether the annuity was entitled to priority in respect of the proceeds of sale 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 & Co.

SOCIETIES.

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. S. 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 the services rendered by him to the society as their honorary secretary for a period of upwards of seventeen years, and the 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 Jardinière, in recognition of his valuable services to the society as their honsuitably replied, and Mr. F. Ronald Jeffery was afterwards, orary secretary for upwards of seventeen years. Mr. Allen on the 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 chairman.

On the report of the Irish Land Bill on Tuesday, the Attorney-General for Ireland moved the insertion after clanse 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 the 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.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. HENRY WILLIAM ACKRILL, solicitor (of the firm of Llewellyn & Ackrill), of Tunstall and Hanley, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Staffordshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Mr. THOMAS METCALFE BARRON, solicitor, of Darlington, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. JAMES VALENTINE BATTISCOMBE, solicitor (of the firm of Walker & Battiscombe), of 16, Water-lane, Great Towerstreet, in the city of London, and of Leytonstone in the County of Essex) has 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. HENRY THOMAS BROWN, solicitor (of the firm of Brown & Rogers), of Chester, has been appointed a Magistrate for that city. Mr. Brown was admitted a soli

citor in 1855.

Mr. EDMUND KELL BLYTH, solicitor, of 10, St. Swithin'slane, London, E.C., has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women in and for the Cities of London and Westminster and the Counties of Middlesex and Surrey.

Mr. MAYNARD BROADHURST, of the Bengal Civil Service, has been appointed a Judge of the High Court of Judicature for the North West Provinces of India, on the resignation of Mr. Justice 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 succession to the late Mr. Lonsdale Maving Cockroft, of Newcastle. Mr. Lynn was admitted a solicitor in 1865.

Mr. EVAN MILLER JONES, solicitor, of Leeds, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. MAURICE S. RUBINSTEIN, solicitor, of 20, Regentstreet, Waterloo-place, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking Acknowledgments of Married Women in and for the County of Middlesex, and the Cities of London and Westminster.

Mr. HENRY LINDLEY WHITE, solicitor, of 7, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County of Middlesex, and the Cities of London and Westminster.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. MILLER CORBET, JOHN JAMES CORBET, and BASIL BIRCH BAGSTER, solicitora, 27, Church-street, Kidderminster, and No. 14, Foregate st, Worcester (Miller, Corbet & Co). June 29. The said Miller and John James Corbet will continue to carry on the said business at No. 27, Church-street, Kidderminster, and 14, Foregate-street, Worcester, under the style of Miller and J. J. Corbet. The said Basil Birch Bagster will in future carry on business at Commercial-buildings, Kidderminster. [Gazette, July 22, 1881.]

THOMAS WRIGHT BADGER, FREDERICK PARKER RHODES, and GEORGE THOMAS BARRAS, solicitors, Rotherham, Sheffield, and Hoyland Nether, Yorkshire (Badger, Rhodes, & Co.), so far as regards the said George Thomas Barras. 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 13.

EDWARD COLNETT SPICKETT and JOHN EDWARD PRICE, solicitors, Pontypridd. July 23. The said parties will continue to practise separately as solicitors at Pontypridd. [Gazette, July 26, 1881.]

COMPANIES.

Petition for

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. ALFRETON AERATED WATER COMPANY, LIMITED. winding up, presented July 13, directed to be heard before the M.R., on July 30. Satchell and Chapple, Queen st, Cheapside, agents for Harris, Crich, solicitors for the petitioners. ANGLO-VIRGINIAN FREEHOLD LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has fixed Tuesday, Aug 2, at 1, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator.

CAMBRIAN MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented July 20, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on July 30. Gregory, Bishopsgate st Within, solicitor for the petitioner. LONDON AND PROVINCIAL TRADERS' WHOLESALE STORES, LIMITED.Petition for winding up, presented July 21, directed to be heard before the M.R., on July 30. Maples and Co, Frederick's place, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioner.

tioner.

[Gazette, July 22.1 IMPERIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.--Petition for winding up, presented July 25, directed to be heard before Fry, J, on Aug 5. Godfray, Finsbury pavement, solicitor for the petiti INDIAN MAMMOTH GOLD MINES, LIMITED.-The M.R. has, by an order dated June 29, appointed George Whiffin, 8, Old Jewry, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or before Nov 1. to send their names and addresses to the above. Tuesday, Nov 10, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts LONDON AND PARIS DRESS AND MILLINERY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.The M. R. has fixed Aug 4 at 12 for the appointment of an official liquidator

and claims.

METROPOLITAN AND SURBURBAN STEAM LAUNDRY COMPANY, LIMITED. The M.R. has, by an order dated May 14, appointed Thomas Stephen Evans, 6, Bucklersbury, to be official liquidator MIDLAND LAND AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION, LIMITED. By an order made by the M. R., dated July 16, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the above corporation be continued. Burton and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioner ONLLWYN AND DULAIS COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-V.C. Hall has fixed Aug 5 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

SANKEY BROOK AND ASHTON GREEN COLLIERIES COMPANY, LIMITED. -Petition for winding up, presented July 23, directed to be heard before the M.R. on July 30. Sharpe and Co, Bedford row, agents for Peace and Co, Wigan, solicitors for the petitioner SHEFFIELD EQUITABLE BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented July 25, directed to be heard on Aug 5, before the M.R. Maude, Winchester st bldgs, agents for Webster and Styring, Sheffield, solicitors for the petitioners. SCOTCH BANK, LIMITED.-Bacon, V.C., has fixed Thursday, Aug 4, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator. UNITED SERVICE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-By an order made by Bacon, V.C., dated July 16, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the Association be continued. Best and Co, Essex st, Strand, solicitors for the petitioners.

[Gazette, July 26.] UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. PENARTH, SULLY, AND BARRY RAILWAY COMPANY.-By an order made by Fry, J., dated July 15, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Ingledew and Ince, Fenchurch st, solicitors for the petitioners

[Gazette, July 26.] COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. ASCROFT, ROBINSON, AND WILSON, LIMITED. -The V.C. has, bra order, dated July 1, appointed Daniel Philips Davies, 11, Canada Dock, Liverpool, John Watkin Lumley, 51, Regent rd, Liverpool, and Walton Batcheldor, 14, Johnson st, Liverpool, to be official liquidators. Creditors are required, on or before Aug 17, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and claims to the above at 14, Johnson st, Liverpool. Aug 24 at 11 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and

claims

[Gazette, July 22.7 BLACKBURN AND DISTRICT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented July 23, directed to be heard before that V.C., at St George's Hall, Liverpool, on Aug 5. Etty, Lord s Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, July 28.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. AGRICULTURAL AND TRADESMEN'S FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Gate in, Ford Houses, Bushbury, Stafford, July 18 [Gazette July 21.) BLYTH MASTER MARINERS' MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY, Dun Cow, Blyth, Northumberland. July 23 FESTINIOG BENEVOLENT SOCIETY, Main st, Festiniog, Merioneth. July 25 [Gazette July 25.

The Western Jurist thus reports a banquet of the Iowa State Bar Association :-" After the appetites of a hungry profes sion were sufficiently appeased, order was secured, and the first toast proposed was: The judge, his duties and pleasures.Hon. Geo. W. McCrary. And then followed: Good diges tion its compatibility with a lawyer's conscience.-Hon. N. M. Hubbard; The Itinerant Bar.-Hon. Joseph Knapp The Lawyer in Politics.-Hon. H. H. Trimble; Our Wives and those that are to be.-Col. D. B. Henderson."

:

OBITUARY.

MR. RICHARD HART.

Mr. Richard Hart, solicitor, died at Folkestone, on the 27th ult. Mr. Hart was born in 1808, and was admitted a solicitor in 1829. He commenced his professional career at Maidstone, but a few years later he removed to Folkestone (his native town), where he continued to practise until his death. Mr. Hart was a perpetual commissioner for the county 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 elected 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 borough. 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 county, 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 was 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.

He

Mr. George Callaghan, barrister, died at his lodgings in Craven-street, on the 18th ult., after a painful illness. Mr. Callaghan was born in the south of Ireland in 1824. 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 the staff of the Morning Post. Mr. Callaghan had occasionally sat as deputy judge of the Lambeth County Court. He had 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 Catholic 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, South Eastern Railway, Banbury and Cheltenham District Railway, Stalybridge Extension and Improvement.

Wild Birds Protection Act (1880) Amendment. JULY 22.-BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. PRIVATE BILLS.-Southport and Cheshire Lines Extension, Metropolitan Bridges.

Supreme Court of Judicature.

JULY 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 Patriotic Fund Act, 1867, and to make further provision respecting certain Funds administered by the same Commissioners as the Patriotic Fund (Earl of Northbrook).

JULY 26.-BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. British Honduras (Court of Appeal), Pedlars' Certificates, Metallic Mines (Gunpowder).

BILL READ A THIRD TIME.

BILLS READ A THIRD TIME.

PRIVATE BILLS.-Earl of Hardwicke's Estate, Redcastle and Farradale Estates, Sectional or Block Buildings Management, &c.

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 (Money). JULY 27.-BILL IN COMMITTEE. Public Works Loans.

BILL READ A THIRD TIME. Alkali Works Regulation.

BILLS WITHDRAWN. County Courts, Vivisection Abolition.

[blocks in formation]

MELLOR, BENJAMIN, Stainland, Halifax, Woollen Manufacturer. Oct 1. Mellor v Schofield, V.C. Hall. Wavell, Halifax

Gazette, July 12.]
BARON, WILLIAM MACROFT, Aveley, Essex. Sept 1. Rose v Pudney'
V.C. Hall. Wilkinson and Drew, Bermondsey st, Bermondsey
JONES, DAVID, Dyff ynarth, Cardigan, Gent. Oct 1. Jones V
Jenkins, V.C. Hall. Hughes and Sons, Aberystwith
LUCKHURST, ALFRED, Uckfield, Sussex, Brewer. Oct 1. Luckhurst
v Luckhurst, V.C. Hall. Hillman, Lewes

STUDDY, HENRY, jun, Ridgeway, Llawhaden, Pembroke, Esq. Sept
1. Phillips v Summers, Fry, J. Lascelles, Narberth
WALROND, Right Hon. Lady JANET, Cullompton, Devon. Aug 31.
Rooper v Walrond, M.R. Willcocks, Gt George st, Westminster
Gazette, July 15.]

LEGAL NEWS.

An alleged fraud on the Inland Revenue has been recently investigated in the Dublin Police Court. Mr. Thomas Colclough, 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 sold 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 the value of five shillings each, was told at the 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 the presentation of the form there it was discovered that the stamps already on the form were forgeries. All the forms used in the Common Pleas, Exchequer, and Queen's Bench

PRIVATE BILL.-Central Norfolk Railway (Lynn and Divisions are the same, and are printed by the same printer, Fakenham Railway).

[blocks in formation]

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, which is supposed to have been used in the forgery and a large number of forged stamps, which had been torn off the

Metropolitan Board of Works (Money), Public Works forms. It also appeared that he had not purchased, until Loans (Advances).

April, during the present year, any embossed stamps,

« PreviousContinue »