« PreviousContinue »
however, to let the opportunity pass by, and it was not until the autumn of last year that he found himself constrained at last to apply for a silk gown, in order to obtain some relief from the ever-increasing demands of a practice which threatened to become overwhelming. His application was favourably received, and in March of this year he was called within the bar. Short as the time is which has since elapsed, he had already obtained a recognized position as one of the leaders of his court when the melancholy accident occurred which has cut short a career of so great promise. In May last, as he was fondling au old favourite fox-terrier, the animal, which was in his arms, suddenly caught bim by the ear, with force enough to draw a few drops of blood. Nothing seems to have beeu thought of the affair at the time, and as precautions were taken against evil result*, which indeed were not apprehended, and as no inconvenience was then experienced, the whole matter was practically forgotten. On Sunday, the 14th inst., however, he complained of a pain in the neck and shoulder, "as if a hot iron was being run down it," and on the next day he was so ill as to put himself under medical advice. Symptoms of hydrophobia, at first ambiguous, but soon unmistakeable, began to appear, and the disease developed with startling rapidity, until, after much suffering, it terminated, as before stated, in his death on the morning of tha 19th inst., after an illness of five days only. The deceased leaves a widow and five sons, the eldest of whom, now et Cambridge, is, we believe, intended for the bar. Mr. Clarkson was buried at Highgate Cemetery on Wednesday, many professional friends being present at the funeral.
THE JUDGES AND THE LONG VACATION.
The two amendments respecting the Long Vacation proposed by Mr. H. Fowler in the House on Wednesday received the support of several lawyers in the House as well as of those members who look upon the question of legal vacations from the point of view of the suitor. It is impossible to deny that there is a great deal to be said with regard to the inconvenience caused by the stoppage to business resulting from the Long Vacation. For instance, there is no doubt whatever that if tho courts sat all the year round there would be work enough to give them full occupation. It cannot, however, be forgotten that the work of a judge is of a very arduous nature, and that those who occupy that exalted position are ot necessity men of mature age, who have, so to speak, grown old in gaining the experience which entitles them to hold that position. As a rule, they are not so hungry for work as to be able to go on without periodical internals of rest. It may be fairly suggested that every judge should not take his vacation at the same time, but it must be borne in mind that any arrangement which involved continuous sittings of the High Court and Court of Appeal would also require that a sufficient number of judges should be appointed to enable every one to take a holiday at some time during the year. Such a plan in these days of economy appears to be hardly feasible, and besides this we could hardly treat our judges like the clerks in a Government office, and restrict them to taking their " leave " at such a time as will not cause any court to be closed by reason of no judge being available. The Judicature Act has already curtailed the legal vacations by about a month, and it is evident that the time is fast approaching when they will be further shortened.
Mr. Fowler's second amendment, which he subsequently withdrew, related to the offices of the court, and proposed that.as far as they are concerned, the Long Vacation should cease on the 10th of October instead of, as now, on the 24th. This proposal was based on the assumption that the offices are closed during the vacation. It would not
have been worth while to notice this proposal but for this assumption, which is an error; because if the court were sitting it would follow as of course that there could be no vacation in the offices where the detail work of the legal machinery is carried on. The Attorney-General appears to have shared the delusion that the offices of the court are altogether closed during the vacation. As a fact the offices of tho courts are open all the year round, except on Sundays, Christmas-day, Good Friday, and the Monday aud Tuesday in Easter and Whitsun weeks. In fact, the very thing is done which the Attorney-General undertook should be carefully considered and brought before the House next session—that is to say, the offices are always open "with shifts of clerks." The vacation work has, this week, been again very heavy, and there appears to be quite enough to occupy the two Vacation Judges nearly the whole of their time. Mr. Justice Kay, on Wednesday last, was unfortunate enough to miss his train, and did not arrive in town until three o'clock, the hour of eleven having been fixed for the sitting of the two judges as a divisional court. Perhaps the rumour, after all, is not true which says that one of the Vacation Judges has had a bed-room fitted up for him in Lincoln's-iun Hall, in order to be near his work.
Although the question of maintenance, as raised by Mr, Bradlaugh against Mr. Newdegate and his solicitor, has not been elucidated by any very recent cases, there have been two decisions during the present legal year upon the kindred subject of champerty. Ball v. Warwick (29 W. E. 468) came before Mr. Justice Grove ou further consideration in an interpleader issue. George Reynolds, having obtained a verdict for £150 in an action against a railway company, in which an order for a new trial had been made, and not having funds for the second trial, procured from a person named Loo an advance of £30, and signed an agreement whereby, in consideration of the loan, he undertook to pay to the latter one-third of the amount of any damages to be recovered by him against the railway company, but in case of his not obtaining a verdict, Loe was to have no claim upon him in respect of the advance. Upon the second trial Eeynolds obtained a verdict for £200, but this amount was attached by the defendant on account of a judgment against Loe, one-third of the damages being paid into court by the company to abide the trial of an interpleader issue between Loe and the defendant, who relied upon the defence that the agreement to pay to Loe one-third of the damages Was void on the ground of champerty. This plea was answered, by the counsel for Loe's trustee, by the argument that there could be no champerty when there was no undertaking to carry on the suit and no indemnity for costs; but Mr. Justice Grove entered judgment for the plaintiff. He observed that a collateral undertaking to carry on the suit to its termination might well be implied from the terms of the agreement, but he did not think that such an undertaking was a material element in the offence of champerty. Moreover, such an undertaking would be of no value to the lender, since the borrower might take the money and refuse to proceed, and the plea of champerty would justify his refusal. His lordship also pointed out that no such collateral undertaking was given in Hutley v. Hutley (L. fi. 8 Q. B. 112), one of the most recent authorities on the subject. He held that the agreement before him contained all the elements of champerty, the consideration being contingent and entirely dependent upon the chance of recovering a verdict from the railway company. There was clearly a campi partitio, an agreement to share the result of a litigation.
In Plating Company v. Farquharson (29 W. E. 510, L. E. 17 Ch. D. 49) the question of maintenance was raised in a somewhat novel form upon a motion for the committal of certain parties for contempt of court. The plaintiffs had obtained a decree from Vice-Chancellor Bacon establishing the validity of a patent for nickelplating, of which they were the owners. The defendants served a notice of appeal, and afterwards inserted in the Birmingham Daily Post an advertisement asking for subscriptions to aid them in carrying on the appeal, on the ground that the case was a test action, and another one in which a reward of £100 was offered to anyone who could produce documentary evidence that the process of nickel-plating was carried on before a specified date. The plaintiffs thereupon took out a summons for the committal of the printers and publishers of the newspaper, their counsel arguing that the latter had been guilty of contempt of court and subornation of perjury, and that the soliciting funds for the appeal, and the offer of a reward for evidence, amounted to the offence of champerty; but the application was summarily rejected by the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice James observing that the motion could not have been successfully made against the defendants, and still less could the mere printing of the advertisements be treated as an improper act.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
All persons interested in those questions between railway companies and the public, in which the Railway Commissioners have or have been supposed to have j urisdiction, will do well to study volume 3, part 3, of Neville and Macnamara's Railway Coses, jnst issued. It will be found that out of fourteen cases there published in no lesa than five was the jurisdiction of the commissioners questioned on prohibition, and that the jurisdiction has now been defined by the Court of Appeal, not exhaustively indeed, but with sufficient precision for most of the practical purposes of litigation. We propose to go shortly through the two more important of these cases, and to endeavour to show the general result of them. The two cases are South-Eastern Railway Company v. Sailway Commissioners (L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 586), and Great Western Railway Company v. Railway Commissioners (L. R. 7 Q. B. 182.) In the former case ic was held that the commissioners have jurisdiction to order structural works to be executed at a station; in the latter case that they have not jurisdiction to restrain overcharges.
In the South-Eastern case the application was for on order to compel the company to enlarge the Hastings Station, to provide a better booking office, waiting room, refreshment room, and general accommodation therein; to alter the existing platforms and provide new ones; and to improve the warehouse and cattle accommodation. The commissioners were also asked to order the company to enlarge the platform at the St. Leonards' Station, and to provide a new road of approach. The commissioners made an order generally in favour of the applicants, explicitly ordering some of the works asked for, and indirectly ordering others. The Queen's Bench Division (Cockburn, C.J., and Manisty, J.) prohibited the commissioners, but Lush, J., dissented, and there was, as might have been expected, as appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision (in a judgment from which Brett, L.J., partly dissented); but it must not be understood from this that they decided wholly in favour of the company. The demurrer was " allowed generally "; Lord Selborne intimating the opinion that neither party had been wholly right or wholly wrong. The judgment has far more important results in favour of the public than might be supposed, for, in the the first place, it had been contended for the company that, independently of undue preference, the commissioners bad no jurisdiction whatever; that is to say, that the companies might withhold facilities for traffic and travelling as much as they pleased,
so long a? they withheld them from all persons equally; and tliis argument was much strengthened by the undoubted f act that, independently of undue preference, no complaint had ever been preferred to the Court of Coalman Pleas, which preceded the Railway Commissioners in the administration of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act o( 1854. This plausible contention has now received its deathblow in the j udgment of the Court of Appeal, and will not, we suppose, be heard of again.
Secondly, and this was of course the main question decided, it is now settled that the commissioners hire power to order the construction of "works." It had been contended for the company that all that the commissioners could do was to order particular arrangement." of traffic, that one train should start at a particular tint, or from a particular place, and so forth, but that at soon as any buildings became necessary to carry out any proposed order of the commissioners, such proposed order* could not be made—a contention which, carried to its logical extent, would enable a company to dispense with stations and even with platforms altogether. This contention has also been shown to be groundless, and it seems to follow from the judgment, though it is not quite precisely expressed, that companies are bound, subject to a limitation which we will consider presently, to increase their stational accommodation in proportion it their traffic increases.
The third point which we have to notice is In favour of the companies. It is settled that the commissioner;, when they have decided that " works" must necessarily be constructed, cannot prescribe to companies a particular mode of constructing them, but must leare the mode of construction to the companies themselves. This is reasonable enough, inasmuch as the statute gives no such precise powers as could support particular orders of this kind.
It is, however, left a little unsettled what particular works may be ordered, and what may not. The extension of a platform was held not to be within the powers of the commissioners to order, but this was because the extension of it was dependent upon the enlargement of a particular bridge, which the court held to be not within the powers of the company. It is left uncertain, therefore, whether platform accommodation is comprehended in the term facilities; but we think it follows from the general scope of the judgment that it is. Refreshment rooms and covered platforms, however, are clearly held not to be within the jurisdiction of the commissioners to order, " however desirable they may be for the comfort or convenience of the passenger." The ratio decidendi appears from the following passage in the judgment of Lord Selborne :—
"The result is, that the commissioners had, in my opinion, jurisdiction over the subject-matter|of the complaint, ■ ■ ■ and had also jurisdiction to order some, at least, of the things contemplated by their judgment, provided that tber did so in proper manner and form ; but that, as to other things which they (apparently) intended to order, they had no jurisdiction, partly because those things were beyond the company's powers, partly because they were not facilities reasonably necessary for the particular purposes mentioned in the Act, and partly because they would have required particular structural works to be executed which are sot prescribed in the Aot, and which cannot be supposed t» be <*• only possible means of affording the facilities which the Act does require."
We cannot but think that in this paragraph the court has trespassed to some extent on the jurisdiction of the commissioners to determine questions of fact, which has never been disputed. Surely, what it " reasonably necessary," and "what is the only possible means, are questions for the commissioners to decide upon the evidence before them. It is to be regretted, too, that the judgment contains no definition of tbe term, "according to their respective powers," in the enactment that " every railway and canal company shall, according to their respective powers, provide all reasonable facilities, &c." These words wereapplied—whetherrightiy or wrongly we will not now consider—to the case of an inability to enlarge a bridge. But their general and ordinary application seems to us to be far different. The reference seems to us to be to the specific parliamentary powers—to the powers of the particular Acts under which a company is governed. We should, therefore, have twoimportant and precise limitations—the limitation of land, and the limitation of capital. It would not be a very strained interpretation of the statute if the control of the commissioners were to be held to extend to all acts which they could do upon their own land, out of their own capital not specifically appropriated, for faciliating the conduct of their business.
Turning to the Great Western case, said by Manisty, J., to be "one of the most extraordinary applications that have ever come under tho consideration of any court," we think it somewhat fortunate that it should have been decided before the issue of the Beport of the Select Committee on Rates and Fares; since it had no doubt been considered, prior to the decision of this case, that the effect of the decision of the Scotch Court of Session in Aberdeen Commercial Company v. Great North of Scotland Railway Company (3 Nev. & Mac. 205) was that the Railway Commissioners have jurisdiction to order a railway company not to charge beyond their statutory limits. If the Great Western Railway case had not been decided, as it has been, to the contrary effect, express legislation conferring such a jurisdiction could not be reasonably recommended. It will now be absolutely necessary for the committee to make some recommendation on the subject; for the decision of the English Court of Appeal ia not binding on the Scotch courts, and it would be a very undesirable state of tilings that the jurisdiction should be less extensive in England than in Scotland.
With regard to the decision itself—that under the powers to order reasonable facilities for traffic, the commissioners have no power to order a company to desist from an overcharge affecting all persons alike—we cannot but think that it is correct. The reason of the decision is well put by Brett, L.J.:—
"There is no statement that the overcharge was made with the intent to prevent the traffic of a passenger, or the progress of any train, and there is no statement that that overcharge is of such an amount or of such a nature as would prevent any traffic of any passenger, or forwardiog of any train at all, and it is on account of the absence of either of those allegations that . . . this complaint is not one which the Railway Commissioners had power to entertain. ... It is consistent with this complaint that precisely the same number of trains would go, at precisely the same time, carrying precisely the same number of passengers as if the alleged overcharge had not beeu made."
But ought the commissioners to have the jurisdiction In question or not P We are very clearly of opinion that they ought, and hope on a future occasion to be able to show good reasons for the extension of the jurisdiction of the commissioners in this and many other particulars.
CASES OF THE WEEK.
Practice—Service Op Writ Out Op The JurisdicTion—Balance Of Convenience. — In the case of Royal Exchange Shipping Company v. McMillan, before C'ave, J., Vacation Judge, on the 19th inBt., in which the Master of the Bolls had granted leave to serve the wit on the defendants Macmillan out of the jurisdiction, a motion was now made by these defendants t0 discharge the order. The action was for breach of 8 contract made in London by the defendants McMillan with the defendants Patton & Co., as agents for the plaintiff company for the bnilding of three ships. The plaintiffs are registered in England, and the defendants ratton carry on business in London. The defendants McMillan carry on business at Dumbarton, on the Clyde.
The cause of action arose in reference to the third ship, which bad not been delivered, and npon which the defendants claimed a lien, and which they had registered inGlasgow. The action was for damages, for an account, for "an injunction, and to restrain the sale by the defendants McMillan of tho third ship. It was in evidence that there was a local court at Dumbarton, but that as the amount in dispute was large, the defendants in any proceedings in that court could have removed them to Edinburgh, and they had moreover brought an action in Greenock to have the ship sold. Cave, J., was of opinion that the only point he had to consider was as to the comparative cost and convenience of bearing in Scotland or in England. As the contract was made in England, and the defendants McMillan resided in Scotland, the plaintiffs might go to either place, and he considered on the evidence there was sufficient to show that the proceedings in England would be more convenient and less costly than proceedings in Scotland, and therefore he dismissed tho motion with costs.—Solicitors, Waltons, Bubb, $ Walton; McDiarmid <fc Teather.
Company—Winding Up—Stay Of Order—Wishes Of Shareholders — Expense — Delay. — In a case of In re Wheal Elizabeth Company, before the Vacation Judge, on the 1? I h iost., a motion was made to stay the drawing up of a winding-up order made on the 17th inst. The applicant was a large shareholder residing in Scotland, and he stated that he had not been asked as to his wishes, and did not know that a liquidator would be appointed on the hearing of the petition. On the 17th inst., the nsual compulsory order was made on the application of a small shareholder, on the ground that the company was a bubble, and the provisional liquidator was by tha order appointed official liquidator. The company did not oppose the order, but it was now alleged that the counsel who appeared were not properly instructed by the company, and it was now further alleged that the company had incurred no debts, that the only assets were the application and allotment moneys which were virtually intact in the hands of the company's bankers. The applicant now asked that the winding-up order might he stayed to enablo a meeting of the shareholders to be called to decide on the steps to be taken, and as to whether a voluntary or oompulsory winding up should take place. The application was opposed by the petitioner and also by the company. Cave, J., was of opinion that it was now too late to stay the drawing up of the order. The applicant could if he had desired have appeared on the hearing of the petition, of which he must be taken to have had notice. The motion must be refused with costs.—Solicitors, Snell & Greenip; Beall; Davis.
Company—Winding Dp—Transfer To County Court —Section 41, Companies Act, 1867.—In the case of In re Middlesborough, Redcar, Saltbnrn-by-the-Sea, and Cleveland District Permanent Benefit Building Society, also before the Vacation Judge on the 24th inst., a petition was presented by shareholders for the winding up of the Eociety, which was not registered under the Building Societies Act. The assets of the company were stated to amount to over £200,000. By a clause of the rules, members could, on giving notice, ceaso to be members, and become oreditors for the amount of their shares. It was now asked by a member who had become a creditor that the winding up might be transferred to the county court under section 41 of the Companies Act, 1867. Cave, J., made the usual windingup order, but refused to transfer the winding up to the county court.—Solicitors, Bell, Brodrick, <£• Gray.
Habeas Cop.pus—Extradition Acts, 1870 And 1873— Accessories After The Fact—Beceiviiio Stolen Goods —Offence In England.—In a case of In re An Application for Habeas Corpus, before Cave and Kay, JJ., Vacation Judges, sitting as a divisional court on the 24th inst., an important question arose on an application to make absolute certain writs of habeas corpus, as to the construction of the Extradition Acts. The Act of 1870 refers to the surrender of "fugitive criminals" and by section 26 the term "fugitive criminal" means any person accused or convicted of an extradition crime committed within the jurisdiction of any foreign State, who is in, or suspeoted of being in, some part of her Majesty's dominions." It appeared that a burglary and robbery of a quantity of jewellery was committed in Brussels on the 3rd of June, and that one of tbe principal felons bad escaped to Knglnnd with I ho stolen property, some of wbioh was found shortly after the robbery in the hands of five persons who had tried to pawn the same. Tbe five persons had been snbseqoently arrested under the Extradition AotB, aDd warrants for tbeir extradition issued, on the ground that they were accessories after the faot, and bad received the stolen goods with a gailty knowledge. WritB of habeas corpus had been obtained which it was now sought to make absolute. For the Crown and the Belgian Government it was contended that tbe warrants of extradition to ESelginm bad been duly issued. It was submitted that there was evidence of collusion between the principal and tbe present prisoners before and after the crime'sullicii-nt to cause the principal to be in effect the agent of tbe prisoners in Belgium, and so in effect cause a constructive receiving by them over there, and thus an offenoo within the Acts. It was contended that the court was not sitting on appeal from tbe magistrate, and that they could not release the prisoners unless they were satisfied that the magistrate had absolutely no evidence before him suffioienc to establish &primd facie case against them. Cave, J., was of opinion that the prisoners must be discharged. Tbe question was whether they were " fugitive oriminals" within the words of the Act of 1870. In his opinion they could cot be said to be within the definition of these words in the 26tb section, and, in his opinion, there was no evidence that any of them had committed any crime within a foreign State. There was no evidence that any of them had been in Belgium, though there was evidence that the principal had committed a felony in Belgium, of his escape to England, where he had been shown to be in the company of the prisoners. There was strong evidence of their having received stolen goods in England, but none of their having done so in Belgium. In his opinion there was no primd facie evidence before the magistrate to show an extradition crime had been committed in Belgium, and, therefore, the latter had no jurisdiction to grant the extraditiou. Kay, J., was of the same opinion, and that there was no direct evidence to show that any crime had been committed in Belgium. He could not see any actual or constructive possession or reoeiving by the prisoners in Belgium, and no evidence to justify their extradition.—Solicitous, Solicitor to the Treasury; Ei. Zee; W.F. Morris.
THE COURT OF APPEAL.
Mb. Jvstice Williams has addressed the following letter to the editor of the Times :—" Your correspondent, ' W. B.,'in diecussing the future constitution and prospects of the Court of Appeal, has, it seems to me, uindc a fatal omission when enumerating the causes of the unquestioned success of the existing court. Speaking from practical experience of the courts of law, as distinguished from the chanceiy courts, I nm satisfied that a most material element in the success of the Court of Appeal has been the fact that the Lords Justices have been mostly men, not only of great ability and acknowledged legal learning and authority, but aUo men possessed of great knowledge and present and continued practical expeiience of the detailed course and procedure of the trials, tho results of which come before theui for review. The importance of this is far less than in the chancery procedure. If the Court of Appeal should come to be governed and guided by men who are relieved from going circuit, and who have not their knowledge freshened and recruited by the actual experience of trying actions, then 1 venture to predict a certain failure for a court which has promised so well at its starting. It would be a great mistake to suppose that tbe decisions of the Court of Appeal are not open to, and have not produced, a good deal of hostile criticism. One of the most learned, cautious, and experienced lawyers lately expressed to me his opinion that the decisions ot the present Court of Appeal would not hereafter be cited with the same weight and authority as the decisions of the Exchequer Chamber. If this be well founded, which I do not believe, the cause is one which your correspondent has entirely overlooked, and which lies at the root of the necessity for tbe Lords Justices keeping up their knowledge and experience of practice, and it is this :—In former times the questions that went by way of appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and House of Lords
were generally well defined, exact, Bud limited questions of law, raised and reserved with cara ami elaboration, and involving sound legal principle, and adopted by both ti jet as the questions of law upon which the c*uss and the rights of the parties turned. Now, on the other hand, every appeal isa re-hearing of the whole cause on its merits, and points sod questions of faot, as well as law, that miy have been overlooked or neglected, or even abandoned, and not thoroughly investigated at the trial, are liable to be raised and seriously relied upon for the first time in the appellate court, so that, without a thorough practical aequaiatance on the part of the appellate judges with the course and incidents of trials, the grossest miscarriage of justice is liable to take place, and in fact does take place, even when unexceptionable law and admirable legal principles are laid down. The practical conclusion, therefore, to which I desire to call attention, is this: that to insure continued success in tbe Court of Appeal, either the procedure must be so altered as to limit the points and questions for review to precise and definite questions of law, or mere legal principles, or, if you are to retain the great advantages of the present more complete appeal, your appellate judges mnet be men who continue to have practical experience of the ways and manners of trying the actions* and the issues that they have to review.—Your obedient servant."
The above letter has been answered by the following. Iron "B."—" Mr. Justice Williams, in the letter you insert thia morning, says that in the Appeal Conrt ' the grossest milcarriage of justice is liable to take place, and in fact does take place.' This is serious. Will you allow me to ask him, through you, to name a few instances, say half-a-doxen to begin with, and whether any of those miscarriages ban been set right by the House of Lords, and if not, why not? Should he favour me with an answer, would yon be to good S9 to insert it, if addressed to you?"
THE RIGHT HON. JAMES ARCHIBALD STUART WORTLEY, Q.C.
The Right Hon. James Archibald Stuart Wortley, Q.C., formerly recorder of the city of London, died at fVelton Hall, Lincolnshire, on the 22nd inst. (while on a visit to Earl Brownlow), at the age of Beventy.six. The deceased w»i the third son of the first Lord WharnclifTe, and was born in 1805. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where be graduated second class in classics and first class in mathematics in 1826, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of Merton College. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1831, and he was a member of the Northern Circuit. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1841, although of only ten years' standing, and be enjoyed for many years a good leading business both on circuit and in London. In 1844 he was appointed standing counsel to the Bank of England, and in the following year he became AttorneyGeneral of tho Duchy of Lancaster, and Sjlicitor-General to Queen Adelaide. He was M.P. for Halifax in the Conservative interest from 1835 till 1837, when he was an unsuccessful candidate, and in 1842 he waselerted M.P. for Buteshire. In January, 1840, he accepted the office of Judge AdvocatrGeneral in Sir Kobert Peel's Ministry, and was sworn a member of the Privy Council, but in the following July be retired with his party. In 1850, on the death of the Hon. Charles Law, Mr. Wortley was elected recorder of the city of London, and he held that office till 1356, when he accepted the office of Solicitor-General in Lord Palmerston'i Ministry, but he retired in the following year. In 1859 be resigned his seat for Buteshire and stood for the West Riding of Yorkshire as a Conservative, but he was unsuccessful, and he did not again seek to enter Parliament. It may be remembered that Mr. Wortley took an active part in the movement against the relinquishment by the House of Lords of its appellate jurisdiction. He was the senior living Queen's Counsel, having held that rank for exactly forty yean. He was a bencher of the Inner Temple, and had served the office of treasurer of that society. He was also a magistrate for Surrey, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, a deputylieutenant for the West Riding, Buteshire, and Forfarshire, and a commissioner of lieutenancy for the city of London. The deceased was married to tho only daughter of the first Lord Wenlock, and he leaves two sons and five daughters. His younger son, Mr. Charles Bail by Stuart Wortley, was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in January, 1876. He practises on the North-Eastern Circuit, and he was elected M.P. for Sheffield, in the Conservative interest, in April, 1880.
THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM BROOKE,
The Right Hon. 'William Brooke, LL.D., Q.C., many years a master in chancery in Ireland, died at his residence at Dondrum, near Dublin, on the 19th inst., at the age of eighty-five. Mr. Brooke was born in 1796. He was educated at Trinity' College, Dublin, where he took high honours, and subsequently proceeded to the degree of LL.D. He was c lied to the bar at Dublin in 1817, and he practised in the Court of Chancery. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1835, and nine years later be was appointed a master in chancery. From February till December, 1874, he was a Commissioner of the Great Seal in Ireland, in conjunction with Sir Joseph Napier and Mr. Justice Lawson, and be shortly afterwards resigned his mastership in chancery, and was sworn a member of the Irish Privy Council on his retirement. The deceased was a bencher of the King'sinn, and a member of the Representative Body and the General Synod of the Irish Church. He was a member of the Evangelical party, and for many years he warmly advocated the revision of the Book of Common Prayer. He was a widower, having been twice married.
Mr. Robert Chapman, solicitor, of 92, London-wall, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. Frederic Cljft, B.A., LL.D., Camb., solicitor, of 111, Cbeapside, EC, nnd Upper Norwood, Surrey, has beensppoinled by the Lord Chief Justice of England a Perpetual Commissioner for Taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds hy Married Women in and for the Cities of London and Westminster, and the counties of Middlesex and Surrey.
Mr. Henry Isaac? Cobckn, solicitor (of the firm of Coburn & Yonng), of 54, Leadenhall.street, and 22, Colvilletquare, Bayswater, 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.
Mr. Benjamin Percy Farreb, solicitor, of Brighouse, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. Thomas Herbert Edward Foord, solicitor (of the firm of Foord & Edwards), of 16, Philpot-lane, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Dr. Erwin Grubber, of the University of Munich, has been elected Reader in Roman Law ia the University of Oxford.
Mr. Bancroft Haworth, solioitor, of Blackburn, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Bupreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. William Mcrsland Moore, solioitor (of the firm of Ingram & Moore), of Leicester, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature,
Mr. Frederick Jones Sheppard, solicitor, of Towcester, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Mr. Edward Orfohd Smith, solicitor (of the firm of (Bolton & Smith), of 3, Temple Gardens, and of Solihull, has been elected Town Clerk of the Borough of Birmingham, in succession to Mr. Edwin John Hayes, deceased. Mr. wraith was born in 1841. He served bis articles with Messro. Sondamore & Brennan, of Maidstone, and he waB admitted a solicitor in Easter Term, 1863, when he obtained a certificate of merit. He has been for several years clerk to the Solihull Hoard of Guardians, Assessment Committee, School Attend
ance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and super, intendent registrar for the district.
DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS. Walter James Guy, and John Staines Williamson (Guy & Williamson), solicitors, Scarborough. August 8. James Guy will henceforth carry on the business.
[Gazette, August 19, 1881.]
Georce Lewis Phipps Eyre, James Mason Allen, and Charles Lewis Eyre (G. L. P. Eyre & Co.), solicitors, 1, John-street, Bedford-row. May 13. G. L. P. Eyre and James Mason Allen will continue to curry on business at the same address ; and Charles Lewis Eyre will carry on business on his own account at 3, Drapers'-gulden?, Thtogmorton-street.
[Gazette, August 23, 1881.]
LIMITED 11c Chancery. Automatic Button Company, Limited.—The M.R. has, by an order dated July 9, appointed William Cornish Cooper, 20, King's Arms yard, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or before Oct 3, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to the above. Thursday, Nov 3, at 11, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims
Great Wheal Polgootk, Limited.—Cave, J., has appointed Tuesday, Aug 30, at 11, at the chambers of the M.R., to appoint an official liquidator.
Pbnabth Ibow And Stbsl Compact, Lihited. — Creditors are required, on or before Sept 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Graham Dornford, Bute Docks, Cardiff. Friday, Oct 28, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims.
Bocthport And West Lancashibe Baneing Company, Limited.— Creditors are required, on or before Oct 3, to send to Frederick Whinney and Thomas Walton Stead, Temple, Dale st, Liverpool, the particulars of their debts or claims. Friday, Oct 28, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims. [Gazette, Aug. 19.)
City Op Brunswick Tramways Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Aug 23, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge, at Rolls yd. Chancery lane, on Aug 31. Manning, Gt George st, Westminster, solicitor for the petitioners
H. Brewerton And Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Aug 17, directed to be heard before tho Vacation Judge, at Bolls yd, Chancery lano, on Aug 31. May and Co, Adelaide pi, London bridge, solicitors for the petitioner
John Bagnall And Sons, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Aug 19, directed to be heard before Cave, J, on Aug 31. Tucker and Lake, Serle st, Lincoln's inn, agents for Wragge and Co, Birmingham, solicitors for the petitioners
Saint Brides Welsh Slatb And Slab Company, Limited.—The M.R. has, by an order dated Aug 1, appointed William Hopkins Holyland, 44, Gresham st, to be official liquidator. Creditors are required, on or beforo Oct 3, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims to the above. Oct 27 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims
[Gasette, Aug 23.]
CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY
LAST DAY OF PROOF. Bankes, Meyrick, Winstonley hill, Lancaster, Esq. Oct 1. Murray
v Murray, V.C. Hall. Ellis, Wigan CnBisTUAs, Cornelius Harlby, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, Esq. Oct
3. Martin v Lacon, M.R. Worship and Rising, Gt Yarmouth Clabidob, John, Sheffield, Butcher. Oct 3. Brown v Hill, M.R.
Elliott, inn, Sheffield Cbesy, Theodobe Gbant, Gravesend, Kent, Surgeon. Oct 1.
Hind v Crcsy, V.C. Hall. Sharland, Gravesend Cutlan, William, Lynton, Devon, Hotel Keeper. Oct 1. Cutlan v
Cutlan, M.R. Wooler, John st, Bedford row Honychurch, Edwin, Churchyard row, Newington Butts, Gentleman. Oct 1. Honychurch v Honychurch, V.C. Hall. Barker,
Union ct, Old Broad st Lloyd, Hubert, Surbiton, Surrey, Gent. Sept 30. Lloyd v Paine,
Fry, J. Paines and Co, Gresham house Mettaji, Saeah, Sheffield. Oct 1. Mettam v Ashberry, V.C. Hall.
Wightmau, Sheffield Pexbebton, Mabia, Birmingham. Sept 21. Davies v Houghton,
V.C. Hall. Caddick, West Bromwich Raynbibd, Robebt, Hengrave, Suffolk, Farmer. Sept 30, Rayn
bird v Raynbird, V.C. Hall. Warren, Chancery lano