Page images
PDF

was a Church of England clergyman, bad discovered that the Roman Catholic priest had been writing letters to the infant, telling him to read the Roman Catholic Prayer-book and other works of that Charon. The father had also discovered an imitation altar in the youth's bedroom. The father objected to the Roman Catholio religion, and was averse to his son going into that Church, or hairing any communication with Roman Catholic priests. Chitty, J., said tbat the infant was being induced to depart from the religious belief in wbich he had been trained by his father; that it was contrary to law for the priest to induce the infant to leave the Church in whioh he had been brought up, and therefore he granted the injunction asked for.—Solicitors, Remnant, Fenley, $ Qrubbe,

PracticeExecutrixWidow At Date Op DecrbbMarriage During Prosecution Op AccountsForm Op Order Ok Further Consideration. —In a case of Be Reeks, Reeks v. 1'acy, before Chitty, J., on the 10th inst., it appeared that the dofendaut, Sarah Randall, formerly Pacy, the executrix of the will of the testator in the cause, had married subsequently to the decree directing the usual accounts in chambers. Certain sums appeared in the accounts to be due from the defendant, some of which had been received before and some after marriage. It was asked, on farther consideration, that the husband and wife might both be ordered to pay the amount due, bat with a direction that the husband was only to be liable to the extent of the sums received by the wife since the marriage, and the moneys to which ho became entitled by the marriage. Chittt, J., made an order upon both husband and wife, with an additional direction that the husband was not to be liable for any portion of the sum received by the wife before the marriage, exoept to the extent of the value (if any) of the assets acquired by him in right of his wife at and after the marriage.—Solicitors, Nye £ Greenwood; J, W. Damson.

WillNomination By Testator Op Solicitor To The Trustees— ValidityTrust—Discharge Op Solicitor.—In a case of Foster v. Elsley, before Chitty, J., on the 13th inst., a motion was made for an injunction to restrain the defendants, who were the executors and trustees of a will, from employing any person other than the plaintiff as the solicitor to the estate of the testator, or in any business relating to the management or carrying out of the provisions of the will. The testator bad inserted in bis will a direction that his solicitor, naming the plaintiff, Bhould be the solicitor to his estate and to his trustees in the management and carrying out of the provisions of his will. The plaintiff had acted for some time as solicitor to the trustees, but dissensions having arisen between him and the trustees, the latter wrote to him asking him to deliver up all documents and send in his bill of costs, with a view to employing another solicitor in his place. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the conduct of the defendants was in direct conflict with the intention of the testator. Chitty, J., said that the direction contained in the will did not impose on the trustees any duty of employing the plaintiff in the trusts of the will, and the cases of Shaw v. Lawless (5 CI. & F. 129), and Finden v. Stephens (2 Phil. 142), were authorities against the proposition that such a direction constituted a trust in favour of the solicitor. The motion must be refused, with costs.—Solicitors, Swann & Co.; Johnson § Weatheralls.

PracticeSolicitor's BillTaxationObjections To Order Op CourseMotion To VaryTime Within Which Brought—Delay.—In a case of Re Tibbitts, also before Chitty, J., on the 13th inst., a motion was made to vary an order of course for the taxation of a solicitor's bill, on the ground that the order contained certain matters on its face and in the recitals improper to be inserted, and which enlarged unduly the scope of the taxation. It appeared that the order to tax was obtained on the 29th of March, 1881, and that, on the same day, by a cross-examination, the facts were discovered upon which it was contended the order was erroneous. On the 22nd of April the bill was carried in for taxation, and, on the 5th of July, 1881, the points in issue as to the validity of the order were discussed before the taxing master. On the 8th of August the taxation proceeded, and, on the 22nd of September, formal objections to the taxation were carried in and overruled by the taxing master. This motion to vary the order of course was not made until the 22nd of November. A preliminary objection to the motion was made that it was too late, and reliance was plaoed upon the case of Re Sprinyall (14 L. J. Cb. 12). For the applicant it was submitted that the motion was made as soon as possible after the objections bad been formally overruled, and tbat the same was in time. Chitty, J., said that it was the duty of the applicant to come to the court to rectify the error as soon as possible after it had been discovered and the matter disoussed before the taxing master. That he took to be the effect of the decision in Re Springall, though there the motion was made after report. He should refuse the motion on the preliminary ground, and with costs.— Solicitors, J. W. Bykes; Tibbitts & Son.

NuisanoObstruction On LandCause Op ActionRf/vbrsionerWeekly Tenant.—In a oaae of Cooper v. Crabtree, before Fry, J., on the 13th inst., the question arose whether a reversioner could maintain an action for the placing of an obstruction on his land, or for a nuisance. The defendant, whose land immediately adjoined that of the plaintiff, had erected a hoarding on poles, for the purpose of preventing the access of light to a window in a cottage wbich stood on the plaintiff's land. The plaintiff alleged that the poles had been improperly placed on his laud ; the defendant said tbat they stood on his own land. The plaintiff also alleged that the hoarding made a rattling and creaking, and that it caused an intolerable nuisance to himself and his tenant. And he claimed an injunction to restrain the trespass, and, in any event, an injunction to restrain the nuisance, and also damages. The tenant of the cottage, who was only a weekly tenant, gave evidence of the nuisance to himself and his family, but the plaintiff adduced no evidence

of injury to the reversioner. Fry, J., said that a reversioner could not maintain an action of trespass ; such an action could only be maintained by a person who was in actual possession of land. A reversioner might, however, maintain an action in the nature of an action on the case in respect of an entry on his land, or a nuisance. But, in order to do so, he must show either an aotnal injury to the reversioner, or that the act complained of was of such a permanent character that it must necessarily injure the reversioner. In the present case there was no evidence of actual injury, and the erection of poles and a hoarding was not of such a permanent charaoter as necessarily to injure the reversioner. The action was accordingly dismissed, with costs.— Solicitors, Jaqaes <fc Layton; Williamson, Hill, Co.

Infant's LegacyPayment Into CourtPayment Out To TestamenTary Guardian—36 Geo. 3, o. 52, s. 32.—la a case of In re Cresswell, before Fry, J., on the 6th inst., a question arose as to the payment out of court of the share of the residue of an estate to whioh an iufant was entitled, and which had been paid into oourt by the executor under section 32 of the Aot 36 Geo. 3, c. 52. The mother and testamentary guardian of the iufant petitioned that the fund might be paid out to her. She did not allege that she intended to apply the money for the benefit of the infant, or adduce any evidenoe to satisfy the court that the proposed payment out would be for the infant's benefit, but the petition Wsb based on the decision of the Court of Chancery in Ireland in a case of McCreight v. McCreight (13 Ir. Eq. 314), in whioh it was held that, where an infant was entitled to a vested legacy, payment of it during his minority by the executors to the infant's testamentary guardian was valid, the guardian being able to give a valid discharge for it. Fry, J., refused the application, on the ground that, by section 32 of the Act 36 Geo. 3, the money paid into oourt is to be "paid to the person entitled thereto, or otherwise applied for his benefit." He said that the testamentary guardian was not the person entitled to the money, and that, if money was to be applied for the benefit of an infant, the court must be satisfied that the proposed application would be for his benefit. There was, therefore, no jurisdiction to do what was asked. He did not intend to question in any way the authority of the Irish decision, but it did not apply to the present oase, because there the application was made to the court under its general jurisdiction, not under the Legacy Duty Aot.—Solicitor, /. N. Mason.

Married WomanSeparate Estate—Satisfaction Op EngagementsLimited Power Op Appointment.—In a oase of Skinner r. Todd, before Fry, J., on the 7th inst., a question arose as to the power of the oourt to direot the satisfaction of an engagement of a married woman out of property over which she had a very special power of appointment. By a post-nuptial settlement certain freehold and leasehold property was vested in trustees npon trust, dnring the joint lives of the husband and wife, to pay the income to him, and after the death of snoh one of them as should first die, upon trust to pay the income to the survivor for his or her life, snob, payment being made to the wife, in the event of her surviving and marrying again, to her separate use, without power of anticipation. The settlement contained a proviso that, during the continuanoe of the life estates, tba trustees should, at the direction of the tenant for life, "direot repairs, alterations, and improvements " of the property comprised in the settlement, and that all expenses whioh should be properly incurred by the trustees in carrying out the trusts or powers of the deed Bhould constitute a charge on the trust premises in their favour. The wife survived the husband and married again. After her second marriage she ordered a builder to perform some repairs to some houses whioh formed part of the settled property, and be exeouted the work accordingly. The trustees were not informed of it till afterwards. The builder, not having been able to obtain payment of his hill, brought the present aotion against the husband and wife and the trustees, olaiming judgment against the trustees and against the wife for the amount of his bill, and that the judgment might be declared to be a oharge on the wife's interest in the settled property, and that the oharge might ba enforced by sale or otherwise. Frt, J., held that the effeot of the proviso in the deed was that the trustees were bound to do all suoh repairs to the property as the tenant for life might direot, subject to this, that the cost did not exceed the value of the property, so that they might be able to recoup themselves the cost. And his lordship held that the plaintiff was entitled to have the benefit of the wife's power to direot the trustees to direot repairs to be executed. He came to this oonolnsion, first, on the general prinoiple on whioh the court had dealt with the separate property of a married woman, modifying its decisions so as to compel her to do that whioh was honest; and, seoondly, on the authority of the oases, whioh bad established that, where a married woman had a general power of appointment over property, she wonld, for the purpose of satisfying her general engagements, be treated as the owner of the property. In the present oase the power was not a general power bnt a particular one, but the same principle was applicable. Effeot ought to be given to the particular direction or engagement out of the partioular power, just as the oourt had given effeot to a general engagement out of a general power of appointment. There had been in subBtanoe an exercise of the power by the married woman. It was a matter of form, not of substance, whether she first directed the trustees to have the repairs done, or directed a builder to do them and the direotion was afterwards communicated to the trustees. His lordship accordingly ordered the trustees to raise the amount of the builder's bill by means of a oharge on the property, and, when they bad raised the amount, to pay it over to him.—Solicitors, S. B. Bennett; Makinson § Carpenter; O. S. \ H. Brandon.

Partition ActionOrde For SaleProceeds Op SaleConversion —real And Personal Representatives— Partition Act, 1868, s. 8—. Leases And Sales Of Settled Estates Act, 1856, ss. 23— 25.—la a case of Mordaunt v. Bemoell, before Fry, J., on the loth inst., the question arose whether some money, which had been paid into court as the proceeds of sale of property directed to be sold in a partition action, was to be treated as real or personal estate. Section 8 of the Partition Act, 1868, provides that Beotions S3 to 25 (both inclusive) of the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act, 1856, "shall extend and apply to money to be received on any sale effected under the authority of this Act." And section 23 of the Leases and Sales Act provides that all money to be received on any sale under the authority of the Act shall be applied {inter alia) in "the purchase of other hereditaments to be settled in the same manner as the hereditaments in respect of which the money was paid, or the payment to any person becoming absolutely entitled." And by section 24, tbe application of the money is to be made upon an order of the court upon the petition of tbe person who would be entitled to the possession Ot the receipt of tbe rents and profits of the land if the money had been invested in the purchase of land. Three of the persons entitled to shares of the property sold were infants. They all died before their shares in the proceeds of sale bad been dealt with, leaving their father their heir-at-law. He then died intestate, and the question was whether their shares should be paid out of court to bis heir-at-law or to his administrator. Fry, J., held that the shares formed part of the father's personal estate, and must be paid out to his administrator. His lordship said tbat, according to the ordinary rule, if a testator directed the conversion of his real estate into money for a purpose which did not exhaust the whole, and the heir therefore became entitled to the surplus, though he took it in the oharacter of heir, he took it as personal estate, and it belonged to his personal estate. So here, the shares of the infants were in tbe condition of money when the father took them, and could not have been re-invested in land without his consent. He oould have received them out as money. They were in fact money, and, as between his real and his personal representatives, they must ba treated as money, there being no controlling direction that they should go as land.—Solicitors, G. H. Cole § Son; J. S. Solomon; Whyte, Collision, dt Prichard; G. Aldham.

PaettttonMonet Paid For Equality Op Partition—Allowance For Expenditure In Permanent Improvements.—In a case of Walton v. Gass, before Fry, J., on the 10th inst., a question arose whether, in determining the amount to be paid by one of two sets of owners of property, whiob was to be partitioned between them in shares of nneqnal values, for equality of partition, a deduction ought to be made in respect of sums which had been expended by them in permanent improvements of tbe shares which they were respectively to take. The action was brought to obtain a partition on the footing of an agreement which had been entered into between the parties some years previously, and under which the property had been since, in fact, enjoyed in severalty, as therein provided, but no legal conveyances had ever been executed, because some of the persons interested were under disability. The evidence showed that the one property was worth £1,960, and the other was worth £1,070, the difference in value being £890, so that on that footing tbe sum to be paid for equality of partition woold bave been half £890—tbat is, £495. Bat the evidence showed that, Binoe the date of the agreement, the persons who had been in the several enjoyment of the property of the larger value had expended £425 in permanent improvements upon it, and tbat the persons who had been in the several enjoyment of the other property bad expended £50 in permanently improving it—that in each oase the expenditure bad resulted in a corresponding increase in the value of the property. And it was contended that, in estimating the sum to be paid for equality of partition by the persons who were to take the property of larger value, the sums thus expended in permanent improvement musts be first deducted from the values of the two properties respectively. Fry, J., at first felt some difficulty in acceding to this view, but ultimately he did so, on the authority of Parker v. Trigg {Weekly Notts, 1874, p. 27).—Solicitors, Melder, Robert; $ Oillett.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS. (Before Mr. Registrar Murray, acting as Chief Judge.) Dec. 6.—Ex parte Ball, Re Crozier. H. ft Co. sold goods to C, a retail trader, and before they were paid for C. filed a liquidation petition.

Held, that H. & Co. were entitled to prove under C.'s liquidation for the full amount of his debt without deducting trade discount.

This was an appeal by Messrs. Hall & Wainwright from the partial rejection by the trustee of a proof of debt made against tbe estate of the debtor in liquidation.

Tbe appellants were hosiery manufacturers, and they sought to prove under tbe liquidation for the sum of £184 4s., in respect of goods sold to tbe debtor in the usual course of business. The debtor, up to the date of the liquidation petition in August, 1881, carried on business as a shawl, mantle, and mantle cloth merchant and warehouseman. The trustee rejected the proof to the extent of £14 7s. 6d., on the ground that trade discount to that amount at the rate of 7} per cent, on the account of the appellants bad not been allowed.

Tbe appellants alleged that it was the custom of the hosiery trade to make up accounts to the 20th of the montb, and for the purohaser to make payment an one of the early days of the second following montb, thus allowing a purchaser a credit of about six weeks, and upon payment, but only upon payment, the discount was allowed. The usual discount was 10 per cent., but, in some special departments of the trade and under special circumstances, such discount varied, but there was no custom in the hosiery trade which recognized a trade discount in contradistinction to a cash discount. The only discount allowed in the trade was upon the goods being paid for, and, if the goods weie not paid for, the account was always " net."

Tbe proof was made by the appellants for the amount due, less discount at the rate of 2i per cent.

The trustee alleged that it was the usual custom of the trade to allow a discount of 1\ per cent, off the invoice prices of the goods, and such discount had reference only to the price of the articles told, and not to any period or time for payment. A further discount of 21 per cent, was allowed on oash payment within two months. These discounts were distinct and separate allowances, the one being for the price of the goods, and the other a countinghouse allowance.

E. C. Willi), for tbe appellants.—The appellants have a right to sue for their whole debt, and, if the amount be paid, the debtor oan deduct the 7} per cent, additional discount, but not otherwise. In Re Cumberland, Ex parte Worthington (L. R. 3 Cb. D. 803), where wholesale traders supplied goods to a retail dealer on the terms that he was to be allowed a discount of 20 per cent, from the invoice prices on payment in cash within a month, Bason, C. J., held that cash payments not having been made, proof must be admitted in the bankruptcy of the retail dealer for the full amount of the invoice price of the goods.

Birch, for the trustee.—The proof can onlv ba admitted for the invoioe prices of the goods, less the discount: Ex parte Pigoit (3 Madd. 136).

Mr. Registrar Murray held that the evidence in support of the appeal was clear and distinct that the discount of 10 per cent, was allowed only upon payment. He, therefore, admitted the proof for the full amount, and allowed the appeal.

Solioitor for the appellant, Thomas' Wright,
Solicitors for the trustee, T. If H. B. Gill.

SOLICITORS' CASES. Court Op Appeal, Westminster. (Before Jissel, M.R., and Brett and Cotton, L.JJ.) Deo. 8.—In re George Johnson, Solicitor.* This was an appeal by Mr. Johnson from an order of the Queen's Bench Division.

The matter was originally an application, on the part of Miss Edwards, for a rule calling upon Mr. Johnson, a solioitor of the court-, to show oause why he should not answer the matters of certain affidavits which alleged that he bad improperly withheld from her a enu of £33 5s., which had been recovered in an aotion brought by her against a Mr. Whitwell, and why he should not pay the oosta of the application. Tbe matter was referred to a master, who reported as follows :—" On the 3rd of November, 1879, Mr. Johnson was instructed by Mr. Raynes, a solioitor, to commence an notion, as tbe London agent, at the suit of a Miss Edwards against Mr. Whitwell. In that action judgment was reeovered for the plaintiff under ord. 14, r. 1. Mr. Raynes instructed Mr. Johnson to issue execution for the amount of the debt, £33 5s., and costs £9 16s. 6d., and a writ of fi. fa. was aooordingly issued directed to the sheriff of Essex. Oo or about tbe 13th of March, 1880, Mr. Johnson received from the sheriff of Essex £43 la. 6.1., the amount of debt and oosts. Mr. Johnson had no authority or instructions from Miss Edwards or Mr. Raynes to receive this money, bat he received it as Mr. Raynes' London agent. At the time of receiving this money, Mr. Raynes was indebted to Mr. Johnson for oosts inourred as his London agent (inoluding the sum of £8 10s. 91. the amount of Mr. Johnson's agency charges in the action Edwards v. Whitweh) in a sum equal to or exoeeding the amount of £43 Is. 6d. so received, and Mr. Johnson claimed to retain tbat amount in part payment of his oosts against Mr. Raynes."

On the 17th of November, 1880, on reading the above report, and hearing counsel, the court ordered tbe matter to be referred back to the master to further report as to the general practio 1 between solicitors and their London agents, and also as on the writ of sam-nons and other matters.

On the 9th of December, 1880, tbe master reported as follows:—"I find the general practice between country solicitors and their town agents to be that, when the writ of execution is issued by the town agent, the town agent receives tbe proceeds of such execntion on behalf of the country solicitor ; that the town agent is not entitled to retain any debt or any part of a debt so recovered; that he has a lien upon, and is entitled to retain, the costs so recovered for any costs that may be owing to him by the country solioitor on his general agency account; that the London agent is entitled to the same lien as, and no greater lien than, the country solicitor, and, therefore, if the country solicitor could not retain the debt recovered as aforesaid against his client, so neither can the London agent retain it. The original writ was indorsed, so far as is material, as follows :—' This writ was issued by George Johnson, of, &c, in the city of London, as agent for W. R. Raynes, &o., solicitor for the plaintiff.' I further find that tbere was not any practice as to accounts between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Raynes, as this was the first time Mr. Johnson ever received any money for, or on behalf of, Mr. Raynes."

After the reading of the master's report,

Dodd moved, on behalf of Miss Edwards, for an order directing Mr. Johnson to pay over to her the sum of £33 5s., with oosts.

The Court (Field and Manisty, J J.) came to the conclusion that the court had jurisdiction in the matter, and ought to interfere summarily to compel Mr. Johnson, as an officer of the court, to pay over the mouey to Miss Edwards. The rule was made absolute (see 30 w. R. 14).

Mr. Johnson appealed.

Tatlock, and Dodd, for Mr. Johnson.

The other side were not called upon.

Jessel, M.R.—This is an attempt to appeal from a discretionary order as • Reported by W. Blew, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,

to co-t«. As regards the appeal itself, I must say I have the strongest opinion that the appeal should never have been brought; there is no justification for the appeal. The case is simple in the extreme. Money is recovered in an action, and the town agent receives the debt and cost*; he receives the debt due to Miss Edwards, who owes nothing whatever to the country solicitor, and Miss Edwards is entitled to receive the debt paid, by operation of law, to the town agent. But the town agent, having received the money, says that he will not pay it, but will keep it in his own hands, because the country solicitor owes him money in respect of some other account. Two questions arise in this ease. First, Is the the town agent entitled to keep this money p and, secondly, If not, can an application be made under the summary jurisdiction p I think it clear that the town agent cannot retain this money, and it is equally clear that this application may be made against him, iu the exercise by the court of its summary jurisdiction. In the first place, the town agent receives Miss Edwards' money by virtue of his position as a solicitor on the record, and for the reception of it he requires no other authority. When he receives it, be should pay it over to the country solicitor, who should pay it to his client ; he has no greater right to money he receives as town agent than the country solicitor has. tie cannot keep the money belonging to Miss Edwards for a debt dne to him from theconntry solicitor, unless the country solicitor has a lien upon it to as great an amount as he has. As between the town ag«nt and the country solicitor he has no claim, and must pay the money to the country solicitor or the olient. Had there been no decision, I should have thought it a clear case, but I happen to know a good deal of the chamber practice in equity, and I find from the decision in Hanley v. Cassan (lljur. 1188), and also from the report of the master as to the practice of London solicitors, that it is the practice of the profession. [The learned judge read the master's report as given above.] As regards the summary jurisdiction of the court, I said, during the argument, I never heard the proposition that you must have fraud as a ground of an application. The very point was decided in another case; that was an application by the client against a town agent for the court to exercise its summary jurisdiction without any fraud being imputed. If authority were wanting, there was another oase as to the court's authority over solicitors. When a solicitor is complained of, it must be in a case in which the solicitor is acting qua solicitor, and it must be with regard to professional conduct. If the court finds one of its officers retaining money belonging to a client, though not with a fraudulent mind, the court will say that the money must be paid over. It is as much for the benefit of the solicitor as for the public, and obtaining a rule is quicker thsn proceeding by way of au action. It having been decided that the court's jurisdiction is general, it seems to me that there is no ground for this appeal, which must be dismissed, with costs,

Brett, L.J.—I am of the same opinion, and think that the appeal should never have been brought. The solicitor against whom this appeal is made was agent for a country solicitor and was instructed to bring an action; it may he, also, by especial directions, that he had conducted an execution against the defendant and obtained pry ment of the debt and costs. No wan application was made against him by notice calling upon him to answer certain matters contained in an affidavit. Upon that he does not say in answer that there was any lien upon the money, but he assumes to hold it against another account ha has against the country solicitor. The question is whether the court can order him to pay the sum to Miss Edwards. It was argued that the court could not so order, because there was no privity of contract between the client and the London agent. It does not follow that the court could not exercise summary jurisdiction against the solicitor. That the court has always exercised summary jurisdiction cannot be denied; the rule was laid down so long ago as by Lord Tenterden, then I think Chief Justice, that "the court exercises summary jurisdiction over solicitors, and that it ought to be exercised ccording to law and conscience, and not by any technical rules." It was said that this court would not exercise its jurisdiction unless there were fraud on the part of the solicitor. Here there was no fraud, and no imputation of fraud, and nothing can be fraud iu the proper sense unless there is a fraudulent mind, but the court will exercise its jurisdiction where there is no fraud. A case has been cited from 2 Scott's Rep., but the meaning of that judgment is that, where the jurisdiction of the court is asked on the ground of alleged fraud on the part of the solicitor, the court will not act unless the fraud be clearly made out. In such a case as this the solicitor should pay. He was told to bring an action, and he knows that he is recovering money for Mies Edwards, and, that being so, he could not retain the money. There is authority against the appellant in this case. Principle and authority are both against him, and so is the practice of the court, and the appeal must fail.

Cotton, L.J.—There aro two questions in this case. First, whether Mr. Johnson was right iu retaining the money to satisfy a debt due to him by Raynes; secondly, can that sum be recovered by summary jurisdiction? I am against the appellant on both points. The appellant says that he may pay himself a debt due to him from the country solicitor. The practice is against him. Then, as to the question should we interfere, I think we should. There is no imputation of fraud against Mr. Johnson, but he only makes a claim that could not be substantiated. He obtained this money byissuing a writ in the action in his own name, according to the directions/.£ the solicitor whose agent he was, and, that being so, he applies the money to himself. It is the duty of the court to interfere. The country solicitor had no right to retain the money from his client, and therefore the London agent could have no possible right to do so.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Solicitors, Johnson; J. W. Sikcs.

High Court Of Justice.Queen's Bench Division. (Sittings tn Banc before Denman, J., Huddleston, B., and Hawkins, J.)

Dec. 18.—Jn re A Solicitor. W. Murray, on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, moved for a

rule calling on a solicitor to answer certain matters in affidavits, or in default to show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls. The gentleman, he said, had been appointed solicitor to a debt-colleo'ing society in 1879, and in May, 1881, the manager said he discovered that the weekly acconnts had been falsified and all the moneys received for the society not accounted for. The solicitor was asked t> send in his account; and in the one first rendered he admitted a balance against him of £337 19s. 5d., which he said he bad expended for his own purposes, and which he said he would pay by instalments. Subsequently he sent in another aocount, in which he admitted a still larger deficit—viz., £389 19s. 8d.

Hawkins, J.—Do you suggest that he is now keeping back any farther moneys?

Murray.—Yes, my Lord; the manager swears he thinks he has the costs of other actions, especially one sum of £22 4s., recovered in an action, bat he says he does not know whether he can prove it.

Denman-, J.—You can take a rule.—Times*

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
HONOURS EXAMINATION.
November, 1881.

At the examination for honours of candidates for admission on the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court, the Examination Committee recommended the following gentlemen as being entitled to honorary distinction :—

First Class. [In order of merit.] Philip Scott Minor, who served his clerkship to Mr. W, R. Minor, of Manchester.

Alexander Trotter, who served his'clerkship to Mr. H. K. Hebb, of Lincoln; and with Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co., of London.

Duncan Clerk Winter, who served his clerkship to Mr. Reginald Bury, of Barnsley; and Mr. Henry Turnbull, of Scarborough.

Charles James Fox, who served his clerkship with Mr. Charles Edward Jackson, of 202, Bishopsgate-street Without; and Messrs. Pattison, VYigg, & Gurney, of London.

Cecil Crosskey, who served his clerkship with Mr. 0. G. Beale, of the firm of Messrs. Beale, M irigold, Beale, & Groves, of London and Birmingham.

David Churtjn Taylor, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr. J. C. Barnard, of London.

Charles Edward Nankivell. who served bis clerkship with Messrs. Sparkes & Pope, of Crediton; and Mr. Daniel H. Shilson, of the firm of Messrs. Ooode, Shilson, & Co., of St. Austell.

Francis Alban Barraud, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. A. A. Penley, of London.

John Kelly White, who served his clerkship with Mr. G. G. White, of Launceston ; and Mr. G. H. Carthew, of London.

Adolphns Havergal Dickinson, who served his clerkship with Mr. T. G. Gibson, Newcastle-on-Tjne ; and Messrs. Stibbard, Gibson, & Co., of London.

James Mark McDonnell, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. B. Batten, of London.

Frederick Ferguson, who served his clerkship with Mr. M. Fielding, of Bolton.

Second Class. [In alphabetical order.] James Braidwood Birkbeck, who served his clerkship with Mr, F. T. Maddock, of Liverpool; and Messrs. Byrne & Lucas, of London.

Richard Bowes, who served his clerkship with Mr. G. N. Watson, of Darlington; and Messrs. Iliffe, Russell, & Co., of London.

Edwin Gardner, who served his clerkship with Mr. John Fortescue, of Banbury.

Tasker Pierson Hart, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. Watts, of Scarborough ; and Messrs. Iliffe, Russell, & Co., of London.

Herbert Francis Lowe, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. T. Moss, of Hull; and Mr. A. R. Oldman, of London.

James William Mather, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. Dowling, of Bolton.

John Arthur Nicholson, who served his clerkship with Mr. H. Wood, of York.

Samuel Relph, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. R. Donald, and Mr. J. Ostell, of Carlisle.

John Edward Wase Rider, who served his clerkship with Mr. H. Wade, of Shrewsbury; and Messrs. Brownlow & Howe, of London.

John Russell Thomson Robertson, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr. Oarr Wigg, of London.

Thomas Henry Scholfield, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. T. Doyle, of Manchester; and Mr. T. St. John Sewell, of London,

James Holker Sutcliffe, who served his olerkship with Mr. F. G. Hindle, of Over Darwen.

Joseph Studholme Tiffen, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. B.Hodgson, of Carlisle; and Messrs. Ullithorne, Currey, & Villiers, of London.

William de Vins Wade, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. W. Knocker, of Sevenoaks; and Mr. Evan Hare, of London.

James Turner Welldon, B.A., who served his clerkship with Mr. 0. J. Finlay, of Ashford; and Messrs. Duncan, Warren, & Gardner, of London.

Herbert Whittingham, who served his olerkship with Mr, W. WhittiDgkam, of Bolton.

Third Class. [In alphabetical order.] Dick Baker, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Emmerson & Cot tew, of Sandwich.

Samuel Bartlett, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. C. Ellis, and Mr. J. H. Mundy, both of London.

Sturgeon Nunn Pretyroan Brewster, who served hi? clerkship with Mr. A. Cunnington, of Braintree; and Mr. E. Bromley, of London.

William Eli Cbarnley, wlio Berved his clerkship with Mr. B. Finch, of Preston ; and Mr. F. Brooke, of London.

George David, who served his clerkship with Mr. C. M. Bailhache, of Newport, Monmouth.

John Richards Davis, who served his clerkship with Mr. T. Ponsford, of Bardon, near Taunton.

Bertram Greatrex, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. Oerton and Mr. E. Westwood, both of Birmingham.

John Sheldon Hepworth, who served his clerkship with Mr. E. W. Parke 8, of London.

William John Hodges, who served bis clerkship with Mr. F. A. Laugh am, of Bastings; and Mr. S. F. Langham, of Loudon.

Arthur Symond Jones, who served his clerkship with Messrs. Gold & Co., of Denbigh ; and Messrs. Frankish & Buchanan, of London.

George Malpas, who Berved his clerkship with Mr. A. Addison, of Portsmouth; aud Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Co., of London.

Percy Edward Marshall, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. J. Faulkner, of Northampton.

James Armytage Robinson, who served his clerkship with Mr. R. Ascroft, of Oldham.

William Turner Rylance, who Derved his clerkship with Mr. W. E. Barker and Mr. W. Rylance, both of Manchester

Charles Richard Steele, who served his clerkship with Mr. F. Miller, of London.

Arthur Mnllett Styring, who served his clerkship with Mr. G. Smith, of Salisbury; and Messrs. Purkis & Perry, of London.

Theodore Tylor Trotter, who served his clerkship with Mr. W. T. Page, jun., and Mr. R. C. Carline, both of Lincoln ; and Messrs. Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland, of London.

Alfred Edwin Whittingham, who served his clerkship with Mr. E. D. Broughton, of Nantwioh.

William Wright, who served his clerkship with Mr. J. Walker, of Leeds.

The Council of the Incorporated Law Society have accordingly given class certificates and awarded the following prizes of books:—

To Mr. Minor, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clement's-inn, value ten gnineis. The Daniel Reardon Prize, value £24 7s. 6<l.

To Mr. Alexander Trotter, the prize of the Honourable Society of Clifford'sinn, value five guineas.

To Mr. Winter, the prize of the Honourable Society of New-inn, value five guineas.

To Mr. Fox, Mr. Crosakey, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Nankivell, Mr. Barraud, Mr. White, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. McDonnell, and Mr. Ferguson, prizes of the Incorporated Law Society, value five guineas each.

The council have given class certificates to the candidates in the second and third classes.

The number of candidates who attended the examination was 95.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.

Tuesday, December 6.—Mr. W. A. Bilney in the chair.—Mr. H. A. Heard was elected a member. A report of the sooiety's representative members at the meetings of the Social Science Association was laid before the meeting and adopted. After some business had been disposed of a debate took place on the question, " Is it desirable to substitute an affirmation for the oath in judicial proceedings p'' The discussion was opened by Mr. Bartlett in th< affirmative, and he was followed on the same side by Messrs. Hutton, Khys, Xapier, and Richardson. The negative view was supported by Messrs. Randolph, C. E. Barry, Stevenson, and Pope. Mr. Bartlrtt having replied, toe question was put to the meeting and decided in the affirmative by a majority of two votes. The number present at the meeting was 29.

Tuesday, December 13.—Mr. Bartlett in the chair Messrs. J. Ballantyne

and Henry Woolcott were elected members. A debate took place upon the question whether, in the case of a sale of manufactured articles by a maker of such articles, there was an implied condition that they shonld be of the vendor's own manufacture. The point was argued in the case of Johnson v. Ray Hon (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 438) before the Court of Appeal, when the learned judges differed in their judgments. [See 26 Solicitors' Journal, 19. ] Mr. J. W. Ellis opened the debate in the affirmative, and after a discussion the question, on being put to the meeting, was decided in the negative by the casting vote of the chairman. There were twenty-seven members present. The next meeting of the society will be held on January 10, 1882, and not on the 20th hut. as announced.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting held at Clement's-inn Hall on Wednesday, November 30, Mr. Dow son in the chair, Mr. Hamilton moved—"That notions for breaoh of promise of marriage ought to be abolished." He was opposed by Messrs. Richardson, Jenks, Shirley, and Robinson, and supported by Mr. RnndleLeiey. Messrs. Brown and Conybeare having spoken from a neutral point of view, Mr. Hamilton replied. The chairman then summed up, and the motion on being put to the meeting was negatived by a minority of four. Members present, 16; visitor, 1. Mr. Sydney-Kempster was elected a member of the society.

On the 6th of December the sooiety met at the Liw Institution for the purpose of discussing the question, "Is there, on the sale of goofls by a manufacturer of such goods, who is not otherwise a dealer in them, and in the absence of usage, an implied oootract that the goods Bhall be of the manufacturer's own make?" {Johnttm v. Rnytton, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 438). The discussion was opened by Mr. Shirley Shirl-y, who took a negative view ol the question, and was supported by Mr. S pence, the opposers being Messrs. Richardson and Davies. Mr. Shirley replied, and the chairman having summed up, the question was put to the meeting, the result being an equal division of votes. The chairman then gave bis casting vote in favour of the opener's contention.

At a general meeting of the society held at Clement's-inn Hall on the 7th of December, Mr. Maclaren in the chair, a lively discussion took place upon the subject of " The general and special fines imposed by the rules of the society." Mr. Spence's Bill to amend the criminal law was taken in committee, and after an animated debate sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 were agreed to, and section 4 passed in an amended form. Messrs. Spence, Shirley, Richardson, Parsons, Tillotson, Conybeare, Hobbs, and Kains-Jackson spoke upon the various sections ; and the further consideration of the Bill was ultimately ad journed. Members present, 17. Visitors, 2.

The annnal dinner of the society will take place iu January.

MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. The third meeting of the Bession of this society was held at the Law Library, Cross-street Chambers, on Tuesday evening, the 29th nit, when the chair was occupied by C. J. Fleming, Esq., barrister-at-law. The question for discussion was—" Should a trader be allowed to mortgage his Btook-in trade by a bill of sale?" The affirmative was supported by Messrs. Law, Coward, Olewortb, Ionep, Howartb, Hardman, and the hoc secretary (Mr. Price), and the negative by Messrs. Peaoook, Walley, aud Ryoroft, and after the summing up of the chairman the question was deoided in the affirmative by a majority of one vote. A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the proceedings.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. The 697th ordinary meeting of the Birmingham Law Students' Society was held in the Law Library, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham, on Tuesday, the 6th of December. Ths chair was taken by E. Orford Smith., E'q., town clerk of Birmingham. The following was the suhje.t for debate:—"That in view of the provable legislation iu favour of county boards being established for regulating the taxation and local government of rural England, it is expedient that the union or rural sanitary district should be adopted as the primary area for all purposes." Mr. Stieetly opened the discussion on the affirmative side, and was followed by Messrs. Coley and W. S. Rogers. Messrs. Cochrane aud G. Huggins spoke on the negative side of the question, arguing that the parish would be a better primary area than the nnion. The opening speakers on either side having replied, the chairman closed the discussion with an able address, remarkable for its comprehensive treatment of the subject. Upon his putting the question to the meeting the voting was: for the affirmative 13, for the negative, 3. A vote of thanka to the chairman conoluded the meeting.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Henry Hardinoe Samuel Cunynohamb, barrister, has been appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the Condition of the Office of the Administrator-General for the Colony of British Guiaua. Mr. Cunynghame is a graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Tempie in November, 1875.

Mr. Randolph Charles Want, solioitor, of 34, Cleraent's-lane, E.C, has been appointed a Commissioner for Oaths, in the Supreme Courts of

Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania.

Mr. Samuel Bright Williams, solicitor, of Redditch, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judioature.

Mr. Thomas Qarrold Stallard, solioitor, of Worcester and Tewkesbury, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. John Adyk Cdbran, of the Irish bar, has been appointed a Police Magistrate for the City of Dublin, iu succession to the late Mr. William Exham, Q.C.

Mr. Qdintus Charles Colmore, solicitor, of Birmingham, has been ehcted Clerk to the Magistrates for that borough, in succession to Mr. Thomas Henry Qem, deceased. Mr. Colmore was admitted a solicitor iu 1876.

Mr. Edward Harry Adcock, solicitor, of Pulmerston-buildinge, Old Broadstreet, E.C, and Croydon-roa'1, Penge, Surrey, has been appointed a Commissioner for the States of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connectiout, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, North Carolina, Tennessee, and California, United States of America, for taking Proofs and Evidence and Acknowledgments of Deeds and for Affidavits, and also for certifying as to Patents and Reoorda, &o. Mr. Adcock was admitted in Hilary Term, 1865.

DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP. Robert Thomas Leyson and Jenkin Jones, solicitors. Swansea (Levson & Jones). Nov. 28. [Gaxttte, Dec. 13.]

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. Joint Stock Companies. Limited In Chancery. Favfhbttam Brickfields Company, Limited.—Petition for winding np, presented Dec

7, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Dec 17. Longcroft and Myers, Clement's

inn, solicitors for the petitioner Ha Tod Brewery Company, Limited.—Petition for winding np, presented Dec 6,

directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Dec 17. White, Poultry, agent for Leyson

Swansea, solicitor for the petitioner Hawestob China Clay Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Deo

7, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, at Roll's yard, Chancery lane, on Dec 17.

Tibbitts and Son, Field ct, Gray's inn, solicitors for the petitioners Patent Automatic Knitting Machinb Company, Limited.—Creditors are required,

on or before Jan 4, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their

debts and claims, to Sidney Hersee, Palmerston bldgs, Old Broad st. Wednesday,

Jan 18, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims Silica Company, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Dec 6, directed to be

heard before Chitty, J, on Doc 17. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the

petitioners

Southend Marine Palace Company, Limited.—By an order made by Fry, J, dated Dec 2, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Boilings-worth and Co, East India avenue, solicitors for the petitioners

[Gazette, Dec. 9.J

Coalville Brick And Terra Cotta Company, Limited.—By an order made by Chitty, J, dated Dec 3, it was ordered that the voluntary winding np of the company be continued. Wright, Fenchurch bldgs, solicitor for tho petitioner

Cumberland Steam Cultivation Company, Limited.—By an order made by Chitty, J, dated Dec 3, it was ordered that the said company be wound np. Speedily and Co, New inn, solicitors for the petitioners

London And Provincial Supply Association, Limited.—By an order made by Chitty, J, dated Dec 3, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the association be continued. Piesse and Son, Old Jewry chambers, soticitors for the petitioners

Nilgherey South Indian Gold Mining Syndicate, Limited.—Petition for winding up, presented Dec 10, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Jan 13 Eostwood, Great St Helens, solicitor for the petitioners

Onllwyn And Dulais Collibry Company, Limited.—Hall, T.C., has by an order, dated Aug 9, appointed William Waddell, Queen Victoria st, to be official liquidator

Texas Freehold Farm And Emigration Union, Limited.—By an order made by Hall, Y.C., dated Dec 2, it was ordered that the union be wound np. Labrow, Finsbury pavement, solicitor for the petitioner

[Gazette, Dec. 13.]

Unlimited In Chanceby. Company Ov Proprietors Of The Hobncastlb Navigation.—Petition for winding np,

presented Dec 5, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Deo 17. Tempany, Bedford

row, solicitor for the petitioners Syndicate Op The Mining Propbbty Places Attripkro General Alvarez.—By an

order made by Fry, J, dated Dec 2, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up.

Edwards and Son, Cloak lane, solicitors for the petitioner

[Gazette, Dec. 9.]

Hull Rechabiti Savings Fund And Equitable Loan Society.—Chitty, J., has fixed Dec 22, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

[Gazette, Dec. 13.]

Feiendly Societies Dissolved. Bbooes Lodob, G.U.O.O.F., Black Bull Inn, Bentham, York. Nov 7

[Gazette, Deo. 9.1

Coventry And Warwickshire Sick Ajtd Funeral Society, Moriden Tavern, New

bldgp, Coventry, Warwick. Dec 9 Promoters Of Sobbiety And Economy Friendly Society, Market Hall, Brynmawr,

Brecon. Dec 9
Robeht Burns Society, Stag Inn, Kinver, Stafford. Deo 8

[Gazette, Dec. 13.]

OBITUARY.

MR. RALPH DICKINSON GOUGH. Mr. Ralph Dickinson Gongb, solicitor, formerly of Wolverhampton, died nt his residenoe at Willenball on the 9th inst. Mr. Gongh was born in 1822, He was admitted a solicitor abont the year 1845, and praotiBed for over fifteen years at Wolverhampton. In 1863, shortly after his retirement from practice, he was placed on the commission of the peace for Staffordshire ; and he was very active in his magisterial duties, his legal training and knowledge proving extremely valuable. Mr. Gongh was also a magistrate for Montgomeryshire. He was for many years chairman of the Willenhall Local Board and of the Willenhall Board of Guardians, and both those bodies bave passed resolutions expressive of condolence with his iamily.

MR. THOMAS HENRY GEM. Mr. Thomas Henry Gem, solioitor, of Birmingham, died at Leamington, from paralysis, on the 3rd inst. Mr. Gem was born in 1819. He was admitted a solicitor in 1841, and had ever since praotised at Birmingham. He had an extensive private practice, and had been olerk to the magistrates for the borough of Birmingham since 1856. He was also clerk to the county magistrates, and to the Commissioners of Taxes for the hundred of Hemlingford. Mr. Gem was one of the earliest supporters of the Volunteer movement at Birmingham, and at the time of his death held the rank of Major in the 1st Warwickshire Rifles. He was buried on the 10th inst.

CHIEF JUSTICE FRENCH. Mr. George Frenob, Chief Judge of the Supreme Consular Conrt for China and Japan, died at Kobe, Japan, on the 13th nit. Tbe late Chief Justice was educated at Shrewsbury School and at Caius College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at Linooln's-inn in Easter Term, 1844, and formerly praotised in the Chancery Division. He had a long experi

ence as a law reporter. He resided for several years at Brentwood, at whioh place he often sat as judge of the oounty oonrt in Essex, as deputy for Mr. Gurdoc, the late judge of Circuit No. 38. In 1867 Mr. Frenoh was appointed Chief Justice of the colony of Sierra Leone. He returned to England in 1875, and in 1877 he was appointed Chief Judge of the Supreme Consular Conrt for China and Japan, and he held that offioe until his death. He leaves a large family.

MR. TOM JOHNSON MASON. Mr. Tom Johnson Mason, solioitor, of Chester, died in London on the 12th ult., from rheumatic gout. Mr. Mason was born in 1841. He was for several years a olerk in the office of Mr. John Poetlethwaite Cartwrigbt, the present sheriff of the city of Chester, with whom he ultimately served bis articles, and be was admitted a solioitor in 1876. He was for a Bhort time in partnership with Mr. Manriee Nordon, of Liverpool, but more recently he bad praotised alone. He held the office of Chief Conservative Registration Agent for West Cheshire. Mr. Mason was a member of tbe Chester Town Counoil as a representative of Trinity Ward. When attacked with his last illnesB be had come to town with a deputation to the President of the Local Government Board on the subjeot of the pollution of the River Dee. He leaves a widow and five children. Mr. Mason was bnried at the Chester Cemetery on the 16th ult.

MR. YARD EASTLY. Mr. Yard Eastly, solioitor and notary, of Paignton and Torquay, died at his residence, Southfield, Paignton, on the 15th ult. Mr. Eastly was born in 1826. He was admitted a solicitor in 1848, and bad for many years carried on business both at Paignton and Torqnay. He was a perpetual commissioner for Devonshire, and a notary public, and he had an extensive private praotioe. He bad also been for many years clerk to tbe Commissioners of Inoome Tax for the division of Hayton, Bteward of the manor of Paignton,, and Conservative registration agent for the Torqnay distriot. Mr. Eastly was a member of the Torqnay Sohool Board. He was buried at Paignton at the 18th ult.

MR. ROBERT ALLAN FITZGERALD. Mr. Robert Allan Fitzgerald, barrister, died at his residence, Ch orleywood, Hertfordshire, on the 28th ult., after a long illness. Mr. Fitzgerald was the second son of Mr. Thomas Fitzgerald, of Shalstone, Buckinghamshire, and was born in 1834. He was educated at Harrow and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1860. He was a member of the old Norfolk Circuit, but be bad for some timo ceased to practise. Mr. Fitzgerald was well known as a crioketer. He played in tbe Harrow and Cambridge elevens, and he was for several years secretary to the Marylebone Cricket Club, the interests of which body be actively promoted, the purchase of the freehold of Lord's Ground having been carried out during his tenure of offioe. About four years ago he was compelled through ill-health to resign the secretaryship. In the summer of 1872 he was captain of the amateur eleven of cricketers who visited Canada and the United States. Mr. Fitzgerald was married to a daughter of Mr. James Rigby, of Moss House, Lancashire.

MR. JOHN THOMAS AMBROSE. Mr. John Thomas Ambrose, solicitor, of Manningtree and Mistley, died at bis residence at tbe latter place on the 22od ult., in his eighty-fonrtb year. Mr. Ambrose was horn in 1798. He was admitted a solicitor in 1836, and had practised for nearly forty-five years at Manningtree and at Mistley, where he had an important practice. Mr. Ambrose was a man of quiet and retiring habits, and was highly esteemed on account of his amiable disposition and bis wide-spread liberality. He was a liberal supporter of the Essex and Colchester Hospital, and was also one of the founders of the Eastern Counties Asylum fur Idiots, of which institution he was vice-president. Mr. Ambrose was unmarried. He was buried at Mistley on the 25th ult.

It is stated that Lord Justice Lush, having had a return of the weakness from which he suffered prior to the Long Vacation, has been advised to abstain from performing his judicial duties during the remainder of the present sittings.

Until the return of the judges from the winter circuits, one court will sit in Sane in tbe Queen's Bench Division on Mondays and Thursdays to hear motions, and two courts on those days will proceed with the trial of jury actions, while on the other days of the week fcur courts will sit to try actions. Mr. Justice Stephen will be the judge who will attend at chambers.

According to Kemp't Mercantile Gazette, the number of bills of sals filed in England and Wales during the weekending December 10 was 1,072. The number iu the corresponding week of last year was 1,116, showing a decrease of 44, being a net decrease, in 1881, to date, of 4,128. The number filed in Ireland during the same week was 26. The number in the correspondingweek of last year was 37, showing a decrease of 11, being a net increase in 1881, to date, of 287. The number of failures in England and Wales gazetted during the week ending Saturday, December 10, was 256. The number iu the corresponding week of last year was 271, showing a decrease of 15, being a total decrease, in 1881, to date, of 909.

« PreviousContinue »