The only remaining decision which it is worth while to notice is Hayward, Appellant; Scott, Respondent (28 W. R. 988, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 231), which may be dismissed in a very few words. By sub-section 7 of section 28 of the Act of 1878 the revising barrister is required to expunge the name of every person, whether objected to or not, where it is proved that on the last day of July then next preceding such person was" incapacitated by any law or statute from voting." It was held, affirming the decision of the revising barrister, that the incapacity referred to by this sub-section is such incapacity as that attaching to peers, women, and other persons "who, from some inherent, or for the time irremovable, quality in themselves, have not the status of parliamentary electors," as explained in Stowe v. Jolliffe (L. R. 9 C. P. 734), and does not include the mere temporary disqualification arising from the receipt of parochial relief. The reasoning of this decision is unanswerable. The direction to expunge is given only in those cases where the claim to vote requires no argument for or against it.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION.

CAP. 24.-AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RESPECTING THE SERVICE OF PROCESS OF COURTS OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.

This Act, which (by section 2) is not to apply to Ireland, and, by section 3 is to come into operation on the 1st of October, provides (by section 4) that any process issued under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, if issued by a court of summary jurisdiction in England and indorsed by a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland (or vice versa), may be served and executed by an officer of either court within the jurisdiction of the indorsing court in the same manner as within that of the issu

ing court. Any process may be issued and indorsed under the hand of any person declared by the Act to be a court of summary jurisdiction, and may be indorsed solely upon proof (upon oath or by solemn declaration under section 41 of the Summary Jurisdiction

BURIAL LAW.

CAP. 2.-AN ACT TO REMOVE DOUBTS AS TO THE OPERATION AND EFFECT OF 80 MUCH OF THE BURIAL LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 1880, Aз RELATES TO THE BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT, 1874.

The 11th section of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 41), contained a curious "clerical error in the first sentence thereof," by reason of which doubts (in the statutory sense of the term, for there could be no practical difficulty in construing the section) soon began to arise.

The 11th section in question directs that the certificate of a registrar, given under section 17 of the Births and Registration Act, 1874, "shall, in the case of a burial under that Act," be delivered to the relatives of the deceased having the charge of, or being responsible for, the burial, instead of to the person who performs the funeral service. For "that" read "this," says the "Burial and Registration Acts (Doubts Removal) Act, 1881," in, as we venture to think, either too many or too few words. We might either have had a recital of the two sections causing the doubt, followed by a declaration that "this" meant " that," which would have been long, but plain | on the face of it, or the simple declaration by itself, which would have been plain by reference. Instead of either of these methods, we have a solemn direction that "nothing" in section 11 "shall have, or be deemed in law to have had, the effect of repealing

any

of the provisions contained' in section 17 of the Registration Act, 1874, "in any case whatever, save and except only in the case of a burial under the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880." As this direction is followed by a section substituting the needed "this" for the peccant "that," we take it to be surplusage. However there can be no mistake now, though it may take some readers a little extra time to discover what it

is all about, especially if—as is the case with most people -they had read through the principal Act of 1880, with a pardonable confusion of demonstrative pronouns.

the handwriting of the person issuing it. Where any process has been served under the section, requiring an appearance to answer an information or complaint, the court must be satisfied on oath, before issuing a warrant for non-appearance, that there is sufficient primâ facie evidence in support of the information or complaint. If the process is to procure the attendance of a witness, the court issuing it must be satisfied on oath that the evidence of the witness will probably be material, and that he will not appear voluntarily without the process, and he is not to be subjected to any liability for disobedience unless he has been paid or tendered a reasonable sum for expenses. The Act is not to apply to process requiring appearance to answer a complaint issued by an English court of summary jurisdiction to recover a "civil debt" within the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, or by a Scotch court in a case within the definition of civil jurisdiction under the Summary Procedure Act, 1864. By section 5 any person apprehended under the Act is to be forthwith taken to some place within the jurisdiction of the issuing court. Any warrant of distress issued in England, and indorsed in Scotland is to be executed in Scotland as a Scotch warrant of poinding and sale, and any duly indorsed Scotch warrant of poinding and sale is to be executed in England like a warrant of distress, but any account of the costs or charges of the execution or of the money levied, and any money raised thereby, must be dealt with as if the warrant had been executed within the jurisdiction of the issuing court. Section 6 gives a court of summary jurisdiction in England, and a sheriff court in Scotland, power to make an affiliation order, although the child was born, or the father or mother ordinarily resides, in Scotland if the court is English, or in England if the court is Scotch, and obedience may be enforced in the same manner as in the case of any other process under the Act, which is (by section 7) to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any existing statutory powers of executing warrants or other process in England or Scotland. Section 8 extends the term process (unless the context otherwise requires) to every summons or warrant to appear to answer any information or complaint, or as a witness, and every warrant of commitment or imprisonment or distress, and every order or minute, or copy of an order or minute, of a court of summary jurisdiction, as well as every document or process (other than a warrant of arrestment) required to be served or executed for any purpose connected with a court of summary jurisdiction.

66

CORRESPONDENCE.

SHERIFFS' OFFICERS.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, It appears to mo that now-a-days to give a sheriff's officer a writ of attachment in the hope and expectation of its ever being executed is little better than a farce. Without mentioning names, I may say that a few weeks ago I had occasion to lodge such a writ with one of the officers in a certain county. He appears to have put it in his drawer with a number of similar writs, and never troubled his head about it for several days, at the expiration of which time he wrote stating that if I could identify defendant he could be taken. I accordingly went to the place where he was most likely to be found, met him, and immediately wired the sheriff's officer to send down a man at once, but although I waited patiently for two hours, no one came. In reply to a complaining letter, the officer wrote expressing his regret that no one was in when the telegram arrived, and asking me to give him twelve hours' notice of any appointment with the defendant.

I again arranged to meet the officer and another man, whose motto seems to be "defence not defiance," at ten o'clock punctually the next day. I attended at the time named, the man without the warrant arrived at the time named, but he who had the warrant sauntered down at 11.15 and another opportunity was lost.

Further comment on this would be superfluous; suffice it to say the defendant has not yet been secured, and probably the writ has been peacefully slumbering in the officer's drawer ever since his last bold attempt to execute it.

My object, of course, in troubling you is that possibly some of your numerous readers, who doubtless suffer in the same way, may be able to suggest a remedy.

A CONSTANT READER.

DUTY OF SOLICITOR ACTING FOR BOTH PARTIES ON SALE OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Permit me to avail myself of your columns to ask whether any of your readers can refer me to any case in which it has been held to be the duty of a solicitor acting for both parties, on the occasion of a conveyance of an equity of redemption, to inform the vendor that he will remain liable to the mortgagee, although he is parting with the property?

Lux.

[We do not know of any case, but we should think that it is clearly the duty of the solicitor acting for both vendor and purchaser of an equity of redemption to inform the vendor that he will remain liable on the covenants in the mortgage.-Ed. S. J.]

CHARITY LEASES.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-In settling a charity lease the other day I met with a mistake in Woodfall's "Landlord and Tenant' which is of some importance, and to which you might like to call your readers' attention. At pp. 34 and 35 of the 12th edition, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 136, s. 16, is mentioned as governing leases of charity lands, and the section is set out at length. I find, however, that that section has been repealed by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110, s. 17, and that section 12 of the latter Act now regulates the matter. Lincoln's-inn, Sept. 13. J. G.

Mr. Justice Watkin Williams, who is the judge selected to go on the Western Circuit at the ensuing autumn assizes, will, in addition, undertake some portion of the duties for Lord Justice Lush on the North and South Wales Circuits.

CASES OF THE WEEK.

COMPANY VOLUNTARY WINDING UP COMPULSORY ORDER-RIGHT OF FULLY PAID-UP SHAREHOLDER TO PETITION-INSOLVENT COMPANY-COMPANIES ACT, 1862, s. 138. -In the case of In re Belgravian Ice Company (Limited), an application was made before Kay, J., Vacation Judge, on the 21st inst., for a winding-up order of the company by a fully paid-up shareholder. The petition alleged that the company was insolvent unless the liquidation was most successful, and further, that one shareholder had a paramount interest in the company, and that the petitioner would be prejudiced by anything but a compulsory order and an independent liquidator. It appeared that since the presentation of the petition the company had agreed upon a voluntary liquidation. For the petitioner it was submitted that she was prejudiced by the voluntary winding up, and was entitled to a compulsory order, and reliance was placed upon la re West Surrey Tanning Company (L. R. 2 Eq. 737.) For the company it was submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi, and that the petition should be dismissed with costs, on the authority of In re Diamond Fuel Company (22 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 246), and further, that the only ground apparently for the petition was that the present liquidator was objected to, and as to the latter point, that the petitioner could have applied under the 138th section of the Companies Act, 1862, without the necessity of any winding-up order. KAY, J., said that it had been settled since the Beaugdais Wine Company's case (L. R. 3 Ch. 15) that a shareholder must make out a case for the court to interfere with a voluntary winding up. As far as he could judge, all that the present petitioner objected to was the liquidator, but she could have applied under the 138th section for his removal, and a winding up by the court was altogether unnecessary. Under the circumstances he should dismiss the petition, but as the voluntary liquidation had taken place after the presentation of the petition, he would dismiss it without costs.-SOLICITORS, Rogers & Chave; A. Kerby,

PRACTICE TAXATION OF COSTS-PRESENCE OF SOLICITOR -VACATION.-In the case of In re A Solicitor, also befora Kay, J., on the 21st inst., an application was made for leave to tax a solicitor's bill in the vacation. The common order to tax had been made on the 10th of September, and the taxing master was willing to proceed with the taxation forthwith, but he considered he had no power in vacation without an order of the judge to compel the attendance of the solicitor at the taxation. KAY, J., said that the order he should make would be to direct the taxation to proceed on notice being given to the solicitor, so that he might attend if he liked. If he did not attend, then the taxation would proceed in his absence.-SOLICITORS, Eardley, Holt, & Richardson.

PRACTICE-ARBITRATION-AGREEMENT TO REFER ALL MATTERS IN DISPUTE-CHARGING ORDER-ALTERATIONREFUSAL OF ARBITRATOR TO ACT-APPOINTMENT OF NEW ARBITRATOR-COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854, 8. 12.— In the case of Ruston v. Tobin, also before Kay, J., on the 21st inst., a motion was made for the appointment by the court of a new arbitrator under the following circumstances. The action was one in relation to setting aside an agreement, and had been dismissed by Fry, J., and there was a sum now in the hands of the plaintiffs payable to the defendant. Subsequently to the trial, the defendant and his solicitors had quarrelled, and an agreement was come to referring all matters in dispute to the arbitration of an eminent solicitor. The defendant's solicitors subsequently obtained a charging order on the moneys in the plaintiffs' hands for any sum so found due. By the agreement the arbitrator had power to tax the bill of costs of the defendant's solicitor. When the parties came before the arbitrator the conduct of the defendant was so violent that the arbitrator refused to proceed with the arbitration, and this motion was now made under the 12th section of the Comm Law Procedure Act, 1854, for the appointment by the court of a new arbitrator. It was also asked that the charging order might be varied accordingly. The defendan: submitted that no order should be made, and desired that all matters should be referred to the taxing master or

to one of the official referees. KAY, J., said he had power under the section referred to to appoint a new arbitrator when, as here, the named arbitrator refused to act, and he accordingly referred it to chambers to appoint an arbitrator. He said he had no power to vary the charging order as asked, but that a new order must be drawn up, inserting the name of the fresh arbitrator.-SOLICITOR, W. Webb.

BY

PATENT-INFRINGEMENT VALIDITY ESTABLISHED ACTION-AGE OF PATENT-ISSUES.-In the case of Holmes Marine Life Protection Association (Limited) v. Pilley, also before Kay, J., on the 21st inst., a motion was made to restrain the infringement of a patent now thirteen years old, and which had never been impeached. It was admitted that the validity of the patent had not been decided in any judicial proceeding, but an injunction was asked simply on the ground of the age of the patent. The plaintiff's alleged that if an account were kept by the defendant it would be no adequate protection to them, as the defendant was ruining the trade by his mode of selling. The defendant denied the validity of the patent on the usual grounds, and offered to keep an account until the trial. He objected to any injunction. KAY, J., said he did not think it was the practice to grant an injunction, even in the case of an old patent, where it had not been established by some judicial proceeding. All he could do now was to direct the usual issues to be tried as to the validity of the patent. The defendant must keep an account, and on these terms the motion would stand to the trial. The parties might deliver their pleadings at once, and then settle the issues if necessary.-SOLICITORS, Burton, Yeates, Hart, & Burton.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-DISTRESS-BAILIFF-AGENT OF LANDLORD-WITHDRAWAL OF DISTRESS BY LANDLORDRETAINER OF POSSESSION BY BAILIFF-EXPENSES OF DISTRESS. In a case of Pronger v. Freeman, also before Kay, J., on the 21st inst., a motion was made for an order that the defendants should give up possession of the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff was tenant of the defendant Freeman on a yearly tenancy, his tenancy expiring at Michaelmas next. It appeared that Freeman had written to the plaintiff applying for his rent, and stating that a distress would be put in unless the same was paid. The plaintiff at once sent Freeman a cheque for the rent, about £120, actually remainng due of the Lady-day rents, certain sums having been paid by the plaintiff on account of the defendant. Before the defendant had received the cheque he ordered the defendant Morgan, as his agent, to distrain for a whole year's rentnamely, £400-and Morgan accordingly went into possession and refused to allow any of the plaintiff's crops to be removed. On the plaintiff ascertaining that, notwithstanding the payment of his cheque, Morgan declined to withdraw from possession, and that he claimed expenses calculated for a seizure and sale for £400 instead of £120, the amount actually due for rent, he commenced this action for damages and an injunction. An interview subsequently took place between the plaintiff and Freeman, when the latter gave the plaintiff a receipt in full for the whole year's rent and also an agreement to pay him a valuation as outgoing tenant, and at the same time he sent off a telegram to the defendant Morgan saying that the distress was withdrawn. Freeman subsequently wrote to Morgan confirming the telegram, and stating that unless the plaintiff subsequently paid his expenses he would. Morgan still, however, refused to withdraw unless his expenses were first paid, and accordingly this motion was brought, asking that the defendants might be ordered to withdraw. For Freeman it was submitted that the agreement was that the plaintiff was to pay Morgan, and that he had not done so. For Morgau it was submitted that he was bound to be paid his expenses, and was entitled to remain in possession until that was done, and was in effect a quasi-officer of the court. KAY, J., was clearly of opinion that Morgan was only agent of the landlord, and was bound to withdraw from possession as soon as his authority was withdrawn. He was not at all in the position of a sheriff's officer where an execution had been put in. He must now withdraw, leaving the question as to his expenses to be subsequently determined. He would reserve the costs of the motion.-SOLICITORS, Eardley, Holt, & Richardson; Jackson & Prince.

SOCIETIES.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.

ANNUAL PROVINCIAL MEETING.

The following arrangements have been made for the annual provincial meeting of this society, to be held in the Pavilion at Brighton, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 11th and 12th of October next.

Tuesday, October 11:-The president, Mr. Charles Claridge Druce, will take the chair at 11 a.m., and address the meeting. After the address of the president, papers contributed by members of the society will be read and discussed. The meeting will adjourn at 1.30 for luncheon. It will be resumed at 2.30, and be closed at 4.30 o'clock. In the evening, the members of the Incorporated Law Society attending the meeting (to a number not exceeding 400) will be entertained at dinner by the president and members of the Sussex Law Society.

Wednesday, October 12:-The meeting will be resumed at 11 a.m, when the reading of papers and the discussion thereon will be continued until 4.30 p.m., with the exception of an interval of adjournment for luncheon between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. The forty-sixth half-yearly general meeting

of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association will be held in the Pavilion on this day, October 12, at 10 a.m.

On the evening of Wednesday, October 12, there will be a conversazione and ball at the Pavilion, at 9.30. Endeavours will be made to arrange one or more excursions on Thursday, the 13th.

The Brighton committee will be happy to give any further information to members proposing to attend the meeting on application addressed to Mr. J. W. Howlett, Brighton.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. The third meeting of the summer session was held on Tuesday evening, September 20, at the Law Library, Crossstreet, Manchester, when J. B. Edge, Esq., of Manchester, barrister-at-law, occupied the chair. It was unanimously resolved: "That the hearty congratulations of the society be, and are hereby, tendered to Mr. S. F. Butcher and Mr. Jas. Hislop upon their recent successes at the Solicitors' Honours Examination, and the society notes with pleasure the success which has attended the Manchester candidates at that examination, two out of the five in the first class having come from this city." The question for debate was: "Does notice of an act of bankruptcy committed after the seizure, but before delivery under a writ of elegit, deprive the creditor of the privileges of section 95 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869?" Messrs. Innes, Coward, and Law argued for the affirmative, and Messrs. Branthwaite and Caspar supported the negative. Mr. F. W. Roe Rycroft (solicitor) and Mr. Hislop (solicitor) also spoke in favour of the affirmative. The chairman then summed up in a very able and exhaustive manner, and the question on being put to the meeting was decided in the affirmative by four votes. A cordial vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting.

OBITUARY.

MR. HENRY CHARLES TRENCHARD. Mr. Henry Charles Trenchard, solicitor, of Taunton, died suddenly on the 13th inst. He was out shooting at West Buckland with his son, when he fell to the ground, and died almost instantly. Mr. Trenchard was admitted a solicitor in 1831, and he had practised for over fifty years at Taunton. He had an extensive private practice, and he had been for many years clerk to the Taunton Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and superintendent registrar for the district. He was also solicitor to the Taunton and West Somerset Licensed Victuallers' Association, and secretary to the local Conservative association. Mr. Trenchard was universally respected at Taunton, and his sudden death is much lamented.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

-

Mr. JOHN BREWSTER, solicitor, of Middlesborough, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. JOHN BOWLING, solicitor, of Leeds, has been appointed Clerk to the Horsforth Local Board.

Mr. EDWARD GREER, solicitor, of Newry, has been appointed an Assistant Legal Commissioner under the Irish Land Act. Mr. Greer has been for several years sessional Crown solicitor for the county of Armagh.

Mr. GERALD HUNNYBUN, solicitor, of Huntingdon, has been appointed by the Duke of Manchester to the office of Coroner for the Leytonstone Division of Huntingdonshire.

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

NORTHERN COUNTIES BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Sept 14, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., at the Rolls Court, Chancery-lane, on Wednesday, Sept 28. Nash and Field, Queen st, Cheapside, agents for Pybus, Newcastle on-Tyne, solicitor for the petitioner.

WATSON KIPLING AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Sept 7, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the said company be continued. Crowder and Co, Lincoln'sinn-fields, agents for Ward, Middlesbrough, solicitor for the petitioners. [Gazette, Sept. 16.]

GENERAL IRON SCREW COLLIER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented September 20, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge, Rolls yard, Chancery lane, on Sept 23. Lyne and Holman, Great Winchester st, solicitors for the petitioners. NORTHERN COUNTIES BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Sept 17, directed to be heard before Kay, J., at the Rolls court, Chancery lane, on Sept 28. Rossiter, Verulam bldgs, Gray's inn, agent for Joel, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, solicitor for the petitioner.

PROVINCIAL MONETARY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Sept 14, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Kingsford, Dorman and Co, Essex st, Strand, agents for Titley, Bath, solicitor for the petitioners. WORKING MEN'S MUTUAL SOCIETY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Sept 7, it was ordered that the above society be wound up. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner. Kay, J., has fixed Friday, Sept 30, at 12, at the chambers of Chitty, J., Rolls yard, Chancery lane, for the appointment of an official liquidator.

SILVER VALLEY MINES, LIMITED.-Kay, J., has fixed Friday, Sept 30, at 12, at the chambers of Chitty, J., Rolls yard, Chancery lane, for the appointment of an official liquidator.

13

[Gazette, Sept. 20.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. LIVERPOOL WAITERS' SICK AND BURIAL SOCIETY, Liverpool, Sept CROFT JUNIOR FEMALE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, General Elliot Inn, Croft, Lancaster, Sept 13 [Gazette, Sept. 16.] FRIENDLY AND BENEFIT SOCIETY, Crown Inn, Strickland, Dorset. Sept 16. [Gazette, Sept. 20.]

JACKSON, THOMAS, Ruswarp, York, Gent.
Pannett, Whitby

JENKINSON, WILLIAM, Sheffield, Leather Dealer.
Sheffield

LEIGH, SAMUEL GEORGE, Leeds, Surgeon.
Middlebrook, Leeds

Gray and Pannet, Doe 31. Gray and

Oct 17. Wheat,

Nov 15. Butler and

MARNER, MARY ANNE GOODWIN, Lewisham High rd. Nov 9. Thomas, Regent st

MILLETT, HANNIBAL CURNOw, Blenheim rd, St John's Wood, Solicitor. Oct 20. Coode and Co, Bedford row

PEMBERTON, FREDERICK ALBERT, Horseferry rd, Westminster. Oct 18. Mackeson and Co, Lincoln's inu fields

POLLARD, JOHN, Holker, Lancaster, Gent. Sept 29. Tyson, Daltonin-Furness

PROCTER, WILLIAM, the younger, Durham, Gent. Oct 6. Marshall, Durham

STANDFILLD, WILLIAM THOMAS, Crewkerne, Somerset. Brewer. Oct 12. Sparks and Blake, Crewkerno

THOMPSON, ROBERT, Kendal, Westmoreland, Glass and Ch.ns Dealer. Oct 22. Bolton, Kendal

WILCOX, WILLIAM, Walsall, Stafford, Spur Manufacturer. Oct 10. Stubbs and Smythe, Birmingham

WILSON, JOHN, Dewsbury, York, Gent. Nov 1. Chadwick and Sons, Dewsbury

[Gazette, Sept. 13.]

DITCHETT, WILLIAM DAY, Louth, Lincoln, Surgeon. Nov 14. Wood, Louth

DUNCOMBE, RICE JOHN IVES, Exeter, Gent. Nov 1. Tozer and Geare, Exeter

GORDON, CATHERINE MARIA, Onslow guns, Kensington. Oct 31. Boodle, Davies st, Berkeley sq

GOULBURN, SARAH, Cheetham, ur Manchester. Oct 20. Marlow and Dixon, Manchester

HARLAND, CHARLES, Duke st, St James', Esq. Oct 15. Crawley and Arnold, Whitehall pl

LORD, ALFRED, Vicar of Mithian, Cornwall. Nov 1. Edward Carpenter, Trafalgar sq.

MAGEE, THOMAS, Birmingham, House Agent. Oct 16. Tyndall an Co, Birmingham

OWEN, WILLIAM, Rotherham, York, Ironmaster. Nov 9. Nichol son and Co, Weth, nr Rotherham

PEARSON, MARGARET ANN, Heigham, Norwich. Oct 9. Sadd and Linay, Norwich

PINCHES, CONRAD HUME, Cromwell rd, South Kensington, Barrister at Law. Nov 1. Gregson, Angel ct, Throgmorton st

PURNELL, THOMAS, Gunnersbury, M.D. Oct 31. Hobbs, jur, Wells

SELLER, JOHN LARDEN, Tarporley, Chester, Esq, M.D. Oct 20. Birch and Co, Friars, Chester

SMITH, GEORGE KEITH, Gosport, Southampton, Wine Merchant.
Nov 1. Wilkinson and Drew, Bermondsey st

SPARROW, SARAH PRICE, Welshpool, Montgomery.
Howell and Co, Welshpool

WAITE, FRANCIS USHER, Beeston, Nottingham. Whitehall pl

Sept 29.

Nov 1. Murray,

WHITEHEAD, WALTER WILLIAM, Leeds, Bookbinder. Nov 1. Walter Harland, Leeds

CREDITORS' CLAIMS.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

ARSCOTT, THOMAS REYNOLDS, Exmouth, Captain in the Devon
Artillery Militia. Oct 15. Tozer and Geare, Exeter
BAINBRIDGE, WILLIAM, Yarm, York, Gent. Nov 1. Newby and Co,
Stockton-on-Tees

BIRKET, JOHN, Cartmel Fell, Lancaster, Gent. Oct 22. Bolton,
Kendal

BROWN, ROBERT, Newmarket All Saints, Cambridge, Fishmonger. Oct 1. Fenn and D'Albani, Newmarket

BURLEY, JOHN, Halifax, Gent. Oct 15. Edwards Hill, Halifax BUXTON, ELIJAH, London rd, Fishmonger. Oct 1. Binney and Co,

Sheffield

MILBURN, THOMAS, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Carman. Dickinson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Nov 1.

PLACE, CAROLINE, York. Nov 1. Whitehead, Pickering
RANDALL, Venerable Archdeacon HENRY GOLDNEY, Christian
Malford, Wilts. Nov 1. Booty and Bayliffe, Raymonds bldgs,
Gray's inn

REILLY, THOMAS, Wednesbury, Stafford, Insurance Agent. Oct 17.
Jones, Wednesbury
RICHARDSON, Joux, Heslington, York, Gent. Nov 22. Crumbie,
York

RONAYNE, ELIZABETH, Harrogate, York. Nov 1. Emmet and
Walker, Halifax

STOKES, Rev. GEORGE, Hope, near Hanley, B.D. Oct 10. Bishop and Topham, Hanley

WHEELER, GEORGE, Warminster, Wilts, Nurseryman. Nov 30. Wakeman and Black, Warminster

WIFFEN, ROBERT, Thames Ditton, Surrey, Licensed Victualler. Oct 21. Wells, Paternoster row

WIGHTMAN, JOHN, Chard, Somerset, Retired Ironfounder. Oct 8. Clarke and Lukin, Chard

[Gazette, Sept. 20.1

LEGAL NEWS.

The Lord Chancellor is suffering from indisposition, brought on by overwork, and has been advised to take complete rest. It is stated that his medical advisers hope that he will be convalescent in the course of a week.

ins

It is stated that the Commissioners of Prisons have reported against the retention of Newgate Gaol, and it only rema' for the Home Secretary to confirm their decision. Clerken well Prison will become the central lock-up for London malefactors; and the courts of law which comprise what is known as the Old Bailey will be enlarged so as to cover the space now occupied by the prisou.

In Davis v. Mayor and Council of Macon, says the Albany Law Journal, Judge Bleckley observed :-" When I was a solicitor-general nothing in my experience struck me with more force than that, term after term, in each county of my circuit, I met substantially the same body of people who had connection with the criminal docket-the same array of prosecutors, defendants, and witnesses. Here and there a new man would come in, and occasionally a prosecutor would become a prosecuted, and vice versa, and the witness class would occasionally disintegrate and mix up with the other two; but my intimates were, and continued to be for four years, very much the same individuals. They were my regular customers."

At the Wandsworth Police Court on Wednesday last an important case was heard, having reference to the construction of shop basements, Alfred Boon, a builder, being summoned at the instance of the Wandsworth Board of Works for proceeding to the erection of houses in the Battersea Park-road contrary to the order of the board. It appeared that the defendant sent in an application for the erection of a number of shops with basements. Upon that the board passed a resolution in effect stating that they could not permit the houses to be erected below the level of the road. Mr. Guy, who appeared for the defendant, said he believed the point had never been raised before. If allowed, it would practically prevent the construction of basements in London. Mr. Corsellis, clerk of the board, said the main sewer was laid in the Battersea Park-road fifteen years ago, and on the occasion of storms the water rose and flooded the basements. The only way to avoid the difficulty was to prevent the construction of basements. Mr. Pilditch, the surveyor, was called to corroborate that statement. After a lengthened argument, in which the magistrate thought the board had power to make the order, Mr. Corsellis suggested that the defendant should fill up the basements which he had already constructed. The defendant asked to be allowed to retain the basements to some half-dozen shops on the understanding that the remainder should be erected without them. summons was ultimately adjourned to allow of an arrange

ment.

The

Mr. J. N. Goren, the revising barrister for St. Pancras, on Thursday gave his decision in a case which arose at the

St. Panoras Registration Court a few days ago, and which affects a large number of claims. It turned upon the distinction to be drawn between a " lodger" and an "occupier." Charles Simpson claimed as an occupier for three rooms at 24, Princes-crescent. Having been objected to, he appeared and proved that the furniture in the rooms was his own, that he had free ingress to the rooms, and could shut out the landlord if he chose, and that the landlord gave him no service or attendance. The question the revising barrister said was whether Mr. Simpson was a lodger or an occupier, and that had always been one of great difficulty, and was rendered more difficult by the interpretation of the words "dwelling-house" in the Act of 1878. To entitle Mr. Simpson to the franchise it must be shown that he had sole and exclusive occupation or use of a room or rooms, and that he had during the time of such occupation been rated as an ordinary householder. He was of opinion that Mr. Simpson had made out his claim on the first point-namely, that he had sole and exclusive use of part of a house. With regard to the next point-namely, the payment of rates-it had been decided that where a number of persons occupied distinct and separate parts of a factory or building, and the landlord paid the whole of the rates, then the various persons must be held to have been rated as ordinary householders, although not separately rated by the overseers-a thing which it was practically impossible for the overseers to do. He therefore held that the claim of Mr. Simpson had been made out, and should disallow the objection made by the Conservatives.