EQUITABLE MORTGAGEE-POSSESSION – MORTGAGE OF was brought to set aside a sale which had been made under THEATRE-MANAGER-FORM OF ORDER.-In a case of a power of sale in a mortgage, it being alleged that the Dallas v. Bagholt, before the Master of the Rolls on the sale had been made at an undervalue, and otherwise im. 5th inst., a question arose as to the order an equitable properly. One point taken was this. The sale was made . mortgages of a theatre and properties was entitled to where by a person who had paid off the original mortgagee, but he desired to take possession of the theatre and to carry on who had not actually obtained a transfer of the mortgage. the same, and where the court had already appointed a And it was contended that, in such a state of circumstances, person receiver, and one of the mortgagees manager, of the the power of sale was suspended--that it could not be mortgaged property. The mortgagee appointed manager had exercised by a person who had not become a legal transrefused the receiver admittance to the theatre, and a motion

feree or assign of the mortgage. Fry, J., overruled the was now made to commit him for his contempt, and the

objection, on the ground that, after payment of the mortactual contempt was not, in fact, denied. The action also gage debt, the original mortgagee was a mere trustee of the • extended to restrain the two mortgagors from interfering

power for the person who bad paid him off, and was bound with the receiver, and asked that possession might be given to exercise it at his direction. The action was dismigged to the mortgagee. The contention on the part of the mort

on its merits. gagee manager was that, inasmuch as the court had already appointed him manager, it could not alter the order 80 as to give the plaintiff possession, to which, moreover, be Costs_TAXATION-APPLICATION TO REVIEW-MOTION was not entitled. The plaintiff desired to continue the or SUMMONS.-In a case of Millard v. Burroughs, an theatre open, and offered to do so at his own risk. JESSEL, application was made to Fry, J., on the 8th inst., by way of M.R., was of opinion that the proper order to make would motion, to review the taxing master's taxation of costs, and be to appoint the receiver also manager, and the defendant the question was raised whether the application ought to must at once give him possession of the theatre. The order not to hare been made by summons. The action had been had not yet been drawn up, and, therefore, he could alter it; transferred to Fry, J., for the purpose of trial, and had been but even if it had been drawn up the manager would only tried by him, and he held that it was more convenient that have been appointed until further order," and he could the application should be made to him, than to the judge to Dow appoint another manager. The plaintiff must, how-! whom the action was originally attached, and that it was ever, undertake to be personally responsitle for any loss to properly made by way of motion, the defendants occasioned by bis keeping open the theatre.

PRACTICE-ALTERNATIVE PLEADING-LIBEL-JUSTIFICAPRACTICE-SALE OUT OF COURT BY RECEIVER-SALE TO

TION AND PAYMENT INTO COURT.-In Hawksley v. Brad

shaw application was made to the Queen's Bench Divisiou, ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION-MOTION IN THE

on the 4th inst., to set aside an order made by Field, J., ACTION TO ENFORCE THE SALE.-In a case of Fowler v.

at chambers. The action was for libel in a newspaper. Murray, before the Master of the Rolls, on the 5th

The defendant, in his statoment of defence, admitted the inst., the receiver in the action had, by the authority of all

publication of the words, but denied the inuendo imputed the parties, sold the partnersbip property by public auction,

to them, and said that the statements were true and a fair and the plaintiff was declared the purchaser. Subsequently the defendant declined to complete, on the ground of some

comment on a public man; in the alternative he said that he fresh arrangement with the receiver, which had not been

had publicly apologized in his newspaper for the statements, carried out. The plaintiff now moved in the action that the

if they were defamatory, which he did not admit they were, --sale might be confirmed, and that the defendant might be

and finally paid forty shillings into court. Master Hodgson ordered to complete, and that he might be at liberty to pay

had ordered the alternative plea of apology and payment into

court to be struck out. On appeal from his order to Field, the purchase-money into court. Tbe objection was taken

J., that judge allowed the plea to stand, and it was from this that the motion was irregular as being to confirm a sale

decision that the plaintiff now appealed. For the defendant, out of court, and that an action for specific performance of the agreement was necessary. Jessel, M.R., said he

it was urged that, under the Judicature Acts and Orders, should be sorry if he had not jurisdiction to confirm a sale

several inconsistent matters might now be pleaded in a state

ment of defence. The court would not interfere, or strike out between the parties to an action, all of whom were sui juris. He considered he had ample power to make the order asked

any matter, except such as was embarrassing or scandalous, for, the parties all being before him, and he should accord

wbich was not the case here. Reliance was placed on

Berdan y. Greenwood (26 W. R. 902, L. R. 3 Ex. D. 51) as ingly do so with costs.

an authority in favour of this contention. The court

(COCKBURN, C.J., and MANISTY, J.) were of opinion that COMPANY-WINDING UP BY High COURT- PREVIOUS PE.

justification and an apology and payment into court could

not be pleaded simultaneously. Moreover, in this case the TITION IN PALATINE COURT-JURISDICTION TO REFER PETI·TION TO PALATINE COURT.-In the case of Re Northern

statement of defence was calculated to embarrass the plaintiff, Counties of England Fire Insurance Company, before the

and, on that ground also, the plea of payment must be struck Master of the Rolls on the 6th inst., a petition was pre

out. sented by a creditor for a winding-up order, and a previous petition for a similar object had been presented to the

REVISING BARRISTER -- NEGLECT OR REFUSAL TO Palatine Court. The creditor who had presented the

STATE A CASE-REGISTRATION ACT, 1878 (41 & 42 Palarine petition opposed the petition before the Master of

Vict. c. 26) s. 37-WRITTEN NOTICE TO REVISING the R lls, and submitted that the proper course was to

BARRISTER – CONDITION PRECEDENT - REGISTRATION refuse that petition and refer the matter to the Palatine

| Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 18) s. 42.-In the Matter of Court for a winding up. The company had commenced an

Bane and others, before the Common Pleas Division action in the court of Malins, V.C., to restrain the pro

on the 8th inst., was a case, in which a rule had ceedings in the Palatine Court, on the ground of their

been obtained calling upon a revising barrister to show solvency, and that the petitioner's debt was disputed, but

cause why he should not state a case under 41 & 42 Vict. Malins, V.C., refused the motion, being unwilling to inter

c. 26, s. 37, which provides that, if any person feels agfere with the proceedings in the Palatine Court. JESSEL,

grieved by a revising barrister neglecting or refusing to state M.R., said he should have been glad to refer the proceedings

à case, he may, within one month after suck neglect or to the Palatine Court, but he did not consider he had any

refusal, apply to the High Court of Justice, upon affidavit of power to do so. As all the advertisements for the petition

the facts, for a rule calling upon the revising barrister to show had been issued, and the other necessary steps taken for a cause why a rule should not be made directing the appeal to *winding-op petition in his court, he did not think he should

be entertained and the case to be stated. An affidavit was be justified in refusing the petition, and he should therefore

produced in court made by the revising barrister, and also make the usual compulsory order to wind up the company.

contradictory ones made by solicitors acting for the voters concerned. The following were the points involved in the

case :-(1) Whether the application for a rule calling on the MORTGAGE_POWER OF SALE-SALE AFTER PAYMENT OF ravising barrister to show cause was made within one month MORTGAGE DEBT, BUT BEFORE TRANSFER.-In a case of after the alleged refusal, as required by section 37 of last Hash v. Eads, before Fry, J., on the 8th ingt., the action year's Registration Act. (2) Whether the above-mentioned

& case.

case.

ОР

conflicting affidavits between the revising barrister and the different solicitors should be admitted or not. (3) Whether a written notice of appeal against the revising barrister's

Societies. decision, mentioned in 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, 8. 42 (but admitted not to bave been given in this case), was a condition precedent to the revising barrister being called upon to state

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The court (GROVE and LOPES, JJ.) rested their The usual monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of judgment chiefly upon the first point, and dismissed the this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery. appeal, with costs, upon the ground that the application for lare, London, on Wednesday, the 10th inst., the following a rule was made too late-ie., more than a month after the directors being present:-Messrs. Sidney Smith (in the ch air) neglect or refusal of the revising barrister to state a case. Asker (Norwich), Brook, Hedger, Mellersh (Godalming), As to the second point, the court refused to allow the con- Paterson, Pennington, Rickman, Roscoe, and Veley ficting affidavits. Such a course, they said, would bring (Chelmsford); Mr. Eiffe, secretary. A sum of £215 was the office of revising barrister into contempt, and shake distributed in grants of relief to necessitous members of the confidence in one who was in the position of a judge, and profession and their families ; eleven new members were whose mere word should, therefore, suffice. The third point admitted, and other general business transacted. was not necessary to the determining this case, but the court gave an extra-judicial opinion upon it, on account of its importance. They held that, on the proper construction of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 42, a written notice of appeal was a

LAW ASSOCIATION. condition precedent to the revising barrister stating a At the usual_monthly meeting of the direotors, held at

the ball of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, December 4, the following being present,

viz., Mr. Desborough (chairman), and Messrs. Boodle, PRACTICE_WRIT SPECIALLY INDORSED-DEMAND Burges, Burt, Clabon, Finch, Hedger, Scadding, Stya De PARTICULARS BY DEFENDANT.-Godden v. Corsten, before Tylee, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary), two new members the Common Pleas Division on the 8th ingt., was were elected, and the ordinary general business was appeal from obamberg. The amount alleged to be due was transacted. specially indorsed on the writ, and credit was given for £61 odd for work, and £180 odd for materials. The defendant demanded partioulars of these amounts to enable him to include a connter-claim in his statement of defence. Law Student's Journal. A master decided that the plaintiff need not give the par. ticulars asked for; Lopes, J. reversed this decision, and ordered particulars to be given. The court (LORD COLE UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. RIDGE, Č.J., and LINDLEY, J.) affirmed the decision of Lopes, J., bolding that the cases on the subject decided A joint debate between the members of the above society belore the Jadicature Act did not now apply.

Companies.

WALTER JAMES SCOTT and EDWARD WILKINS, solicitors, Appointments, Etc. North Walsham (Scott & Wilkins). November 29.

(Gazette, December 9.) Mr. JOHN DUNNINGTON FLETCHER, barrister, has been appointed Deputy-Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions, in succession to the late Mr. Serjeant Cox. Mr. Fletcher is an M.A. of Christ's College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1845. He practises on the Northern Circuit, and is a magistrate for

WINDING-UP NOTICES. Middlesex.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. Mr. BENJAMIN HARFIELD, solicitor, has been appointed

LIMITED IN. CHANCERY. Deputy-Coroner for Southampton, bis father, Mr. Robert

BRITISH MINING AND MILLING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for wini

ing up, presented Dec 3, directed to be heard before thy M.R.. on Harreld, being coroner for the borough.

Dec 13. Musgrave, Queen Victoria st, solicitor for the petitioner Mr. THOMAS FREDERICK IVENS, solicitor (of the firm of ELGAR SILVER LEAD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.--Petition tor wind.

ing up, presented Nov 29, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Ivens & Morton), of Kidderminster, has been elected Clerk

Dec 13. Jones and Co, Lincoln's ion fields, agents for Hughes and to the Kidderminster Burial Board, in succession to Mr. Sons, Aberyst with, solieitors for the petitioner Henry Saunders, deocased. Mr. Ivens was admitted a TINEMOUTH AQUARIUM AND WINTER GARDEN COMPANY, LIMITED.

V.O. Hall has fixed Dec 15, &t 12, at his chambers, for the appointsolicitor in 1859.

ment of an official liquidator Mr. FREDERICK ARTHUR LITTLE, solicitor and notary, of WRECK RECOVERY AND SALVAGE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for wind

ing up, preserted Dec 2, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins, on Bombay, bas been appointed to act as Government Solicitor

Dec 5. Hewlett, Essex st, Strand, solicitor for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the Bombay Presidency.

[Gazette, Dec. 5.)

CROYER WATERWORKS COMPANY, LIMITED.--Petition for winding up, Sir CHARLES SARGENT, Knight, one of the judges of the

presented Dec 5, directed to be heard before V.C. Hall, on De: 19. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, has been appointed to

Carritt and Son, Fenchurch st, agents for Hansell, Norwich, solicitor act as Chief Justice of Bombay, during the absence of Sir for the petitioners Michael Roberts Westropp. Sir C. Sargent is the youngest | SLATE COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. Sas fixed Dec 19, at 12, at his son of the late Mr. William Sargent, and he was born in

chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

[Gasette, Dec. 9.) 1821. He was formerly fellow of Trinity College, Cam

COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. bridge, where he graduated as fifth wrangler in 1843. He was

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

| WHOLESALE STORES, LIMITED.--By an order mad by the V.C., dated and he practised for several years in the Court of Chancery.

Dec 1, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the abova

stores be continued, and that James Eckersley, Hanging D.toh, He was appointed & member of the Supreme Council of

Manchester, de appointed to act jointly with Charles Fairclough, as Justice of the lopian Islands in 1858, and Chief Justice of additional liquidator. Halne aud Co, Manchester, solicitors to the the Ionian Islands in 1860, when he received the honour of petitioner knighthood. He has been a Puisne Judge of the Bombay

(Gazette, Dec. 9.] High Court since 1866.

Mr. WILLIAM M. SCHARLIEB, barrister, has been appointed & Police Magistrate for the Town of Madras. Mr. Scharleib was called to the bar at the

Solicitors' Cases.
Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1865, and has been
for several years assistant secretary to the Judicial and
Legislative Departments of the Madras Government.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
MR. LEOFRIC TEMPLE, Q.C., succeeds Mr. Fletcher as
Deputy Recorder of Liverpool. Mr. Temple is the son of

(Before GROVE and LOPES, JJ.) the late Mr. Christopher Temple, Q.C., Chancellor of the

Dec. 11.-Re a Solicitor. County Palatine of Dorham, and judge of county courts in In this matter a rule had been granted, at the instance of Lancashire. He was called to the bar at Lincoln'e-inn in the Incorporated Law Society, calliog upon the solicitor to Easter Term, 1843, and is a member of the Northern show cause why he should not be struck off the roll, upon Circait. He was, for several years, one of the revising the ground that he bad been convicted at the Birmingham barristers for Lancashire, and became a Queen's Counsel Quarter Sessions for obtaining money by false pretences, in 1872. Mr. Temple is a bencher of Lincoln's-inn. He and sentenced to three months hard labour. is the author (jointly with the late Mr. Tompson, Chitty) of a Murray now moved that this rule should be made abso work on “The Law of Carriers," and he was one of the lute, and stated that the solicitor had written to Mr. Justice editors of the last editions of “Chitty's Precedents of Plead. Grove asking that the case might stand over until he was

released frodi prison in January next. This application he Mr. JOHN CHARLES WARNES, solicitor (of the firm of (Mr. Murray) was instructed to oppose. Lawton & Wardes), of Eye, bas been appointed Clerk to GROVE, J.-If such a precedent were once established, the Hartismere Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, solicitors who are sent to prison for a criminal offence would Rural Sanitary Authority, and School Attendance Com. practically have an indefinite time for showing cause. mittee, and also Saperintendent Registrar for the district I Murray.--and there is no precedent for such an applicaof Hartismere.

tion ; in fact, there is authority against it. *. In our issue of the 15th ult., Mr. Thomas Stephenson,

LOPES, J.-And there would be this inconvenience, that solicitor, is stated to have been chosen Mayor of Beverley.

| a solicitor wbilst he was in prison could carry on his proThe gentleman elected to the above office is Thomas Stepben.,

|fession by means of a clerk. son, Esq., of Beverley, who is no: connected with the firm of

Murray.-Many inconveniences would arise from this Eldridge & Stephenson.

course being adopted, and, further, it should be remembered that formerly a conviction against a solicitor was sufficient

for at once granting a role absolute. DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIP.

GROVE, J., thought that this role should be made absolute. RICHARD HUNTER, JOHN HUNTER, EDMUND CHILD

It was an irregular thing for this solicitor to write to a judge ;

and besides be did not say what his defence would be, but only HAYNES, ARTHUR JOHN CAMPBELL GWATKIN, and ROBERT that when out of prison he would have more time to prepare LEWIN HUNTER, solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln's-inn his defence. If they were to permit the delay asked for, it (Hanters, Gwatkin, & Haynes). October 1. (Gazette, would lead to this, that a solicitor convicted of an offence December 5.)

would not be struck off the roll until the time of bis MASKELL WILLIAM PEACE, HENRY ACKERLEY, and punishment had expired. Such a practice would lead to WILLIAM APPLETON, solicitorg, Wigan (Peace, Ackerley, & I great inconvenience. Appleton), so far as the said William Appleton is concerned. I Rule absolute.-Daily Telegraph. November 7. Maskell William Peace and Henry Ackerley for the fotore will carry on the business on their own accoort onder the firm of Peace, Ackerley, & Co. (Gazette, December 5.)

ing."

HABRILL, Yhomas, Weston-super-Mare, Gent. Dec 31. Chapman,

Weston-super-Mare
Creditors' Claims.

HIRD, HARRY, Bradford, York, Merchant. Feb 1. Dubois, King st,

Cheapside
HOWARD, JOSEPH, Calcheth, Lancaster, Farmer. Dec 31. Nicholson

and Co, Warrington CREDITORS UNDER 22 d 23 VICT. CAP. 25.

HUISSGEN, MARIA AGATHA TAERESE, Eastbourne, Sussex. Jan 1. LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

Saxton and Morgan, Somerset st, Portmın sq

HUTCHINSON, FRANCIS, Thirsk, York, Nursery Gardener. Jan 15, ADAMS, ALLAN NOBLE, Union grove, Clapham, retired Lieutenant West, Thirsk Colonel. Dec 20. Saunders and Co, King st, Cheapside

ILLINGWORTH, WILLIAM, Halifax, Gect. Jan 7. Craven, Leeds BARNES, DENNIS GEORGE, Coventry, Gent. Dec 31. Davis, Moss, BET Y, The Groves, York. Dec 31. Dent, York Coventry

Nelson, HORATIO, Pendleton, Manchester, Beerhouse K eper. Dec 22. BEALING, JOHN, Lichfield, Brewer. Dec 25. Bower and Co, Birming Potter and Lowe, Manches'er ham

NEWPORT, WILLIAM GEORGE, Bristol, Hotel Keeper. Jan 3. Stone BUNN, WILLIAM, Ipswich, Gent. Jan 7. Westhorp, Ipswich

Dix, Bristol DAVY, JOHN HENRY, Long Acre, Printer. Jan 15. Gole, Lim: st OGLESBY Samuel, Llandudno, Carnarvon, Lithographer. Dec 31. DEEDES, JULIUS, Thé Vicarage, Marden, Kent. Jan 14. Philpott and Chamberlain, Llandudno Wood, Cranbrook

PHILIPPS, JOAN PALLIPP3 ALLEN LLOYD, Dale Castle, Pembroke, Esq. GIBSON, HENRY JAMES, Mincing lane, Chemical Merchant. Dec 31. Feb 1. Evans, Haverfordwest Tippetts and Co, Great st Thomas Apostle, Cheapsida

PHILLIPS, Watt, St. Clears, Carmarthen, Innkeeper. Des 31. Curtis, GRADY, GEORGINA LUCY, Elton, Limerick. Dec 31. Manning, Great

Neath George st, Westminster

Price. HENRY NEWELL PRICE, Union Grove, Clapham, Gent. Feb 4. GRAY, SAMUEL, sen, Harborne, Staff srd, Farmer. Jan 1. Rowley, Nickinson, and Co, Chancery lane Birmingham

RIMMER, ROBERT, Birkdale, Lancaster, Gent. Feb 25. Ramwell and Gilson, HENRY, Timperley, Chester, Gent. Jan 5. Whitworth. Man Co, Bulton chester

ROBERTS, JOIN, Leeds, out of business. Jan 1. Hill, Halifax GREEN, ANNE Eliza, The Mount, Hadley. Jan 7. Wilde and Co, ROGERS, HENRY, St Martin's ct, St Martin's lane, Miscellaneous College-hill

Dealer. Dec 27. Ikin, Lincoln's-inn-fields LARRIS, HENRY, Leadenhall st, East India A gent. Jan 31. Holbrook, Thompson, John, King st, West Hammersmith, out of business. Cheapside

Jan 26. Foster, Queen st pl HARRIS, WILLIAM, Croydon, Surrey, Builder. Jan 23. Drummonds WALSH, Tuomas SELBY, Halifax, Card Maker. Jan 1. Wavell and Co, and Co, Cros don

Halifax HARRISON, JOHN VICKERS, Steward's-terrace, Battersea Park, Painter. WILLIAMS, CLEMENT, Rangoon, British Burman, Surgeon. Jan 10. Dec 31. Whately and Co, Chancery-lane

Williams, Laurenca Pountney Hill HEADINGTON, WILLIAM, White Waltham, nr Meidenhead, Farmer, WILLIAMS, THOMAS, Wrexham, Wine and Spirit Merchant. Jan 1. Dec 26. Clutton and Haines, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet st

Hughes, Wrexham HENDERSON, Rev. JAMES HENRY, Ipswich, Clerk. Jan 7. Westhorp, WIL-on, Thomas, Northwingfield, Derby, Yeoman. Dec 31. Jones and Ipswich

Middleton, Chesterfield HIRST, WILLIAM, Woodhouse, Leeds. Jan 1. Middleton and Sons, WOODWARD, GEORGE, Hartham rd, West Holloway, Wholesale Grocer. Leeds

Dec 31. Carter and Bell, Eas cheap Hole, EMANUEL, Broadwoodwidger, Devon, Retired Farmer. Dec 31. WOODHAMS, JOIN, Littlehampton, Sussex, Corn Merchant. Jan 31. Wbite and Dingley, Launceston

Stevens and Son, Brighton HOGHE3, JAMES WILLIAM WYNNE, Henblas, Denbigh, Gent. Jan 1

[Gazette, Dec 2.] Lloyd and Roberts, Ruthin KEARSLEY, Taomas HARVEY, Green st, Grosvenor sq, Esq. Jan 1. Pars.

and Co, Essex t, 8 rand
KIDD, Róbert, North Shields, Solicitor. Feb 1. Ingledew and Dagget,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne

County Courts.
MA SON, EDITA, Lee, Kent. Jan 15. Gole, Lime st
MCLACHLAN, ARCHIBALD, Hatherley Hall, Cheltenham, Esq. Dec 31.

Rose aud Fry, Great George st, Westminster
MILLS, CHARLES, Plumstead, Kent, Farmer. Dec 20. Hudson and Co,

WAKEFIELD.
Bucklerebary
NEWSON, ELIZABETI GOSxall, Ipswich.

(Before Mr. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.)

Jan 7. Westhorp, Ipswich

Nov. 6.– Foster v. Bentley and others. NUTTALL, JAMES, Todmorden, York, Cotton Spioner. Jan 6. Stansfield and Sager, Todmorden

Master and Servant-Agreement-Mutuality. 2TON, JAMES, Sherboro rd, Stamford Hill, Brushmaker. Dec 31. Elwes

His Honour, in giving judgment, said that the defendants, and Sbarpe, Furnival's-ion "BEYNOLD: JUDITA ELIZABETH, Newbold, nr Chester. Jan 16. Davies,

who are entensive brewers and wine merchants at Oalton Denbigh

and Leeds, were desirous in the early part of 1878 to RowE, JANE, Rotherfi-ld st, Islingtor.

Dec 31. Tippe:ts and Co, sapply military officers' messes and regimental canteens Great St Thomas Apostle, Cheapside RUSSELL, SU-AN, Park si, Grosvenor sq. Dec 31. Western and Sons,

with ales and spirits, and with this view advertised for a Essex et, Strand

suitable traveller. The plaintiff, who had formerly beld & Schell, Paul, Kentish Town rd, Cabinet Maker. Jan 25. Smith, commission in the army, but had retired from the service,

Staple-ion
SCOTT, MARY, Newport, Salop. Dec 26. Heane, Newport

replied to the advertisement, and on the 25th of May the SMITH, FRANCE: ANNE, Gloucester terrace, Hyde Park. Jan 15. defendants wrote to the plaintiff offering a salary of £150 a Bromley, Bedford-row

year to commence with. To this on the 31st the plaintiff SMITII, JANE, Eaton sq. Jan 1. Freshfields and Wiliiam", Bank buildings

replied asking whether the engagement was to be for any SYMOND, Joux, Balshan, Cambridge, Farmer. Jan 17. Francis and

fixed time. He asked this because he wonld have to give Fiancis, Cambridge

up his house and remove his family to a long distance, and [Gazette, Nov 28.) were the engagement to be for only a few months, it

would be hardly worth his while to take it. On the 3rd ARCHER, HENRY, West Hill, Putney, Tobacco Manufacturer. Dec 9.

of Jane the defendants wrote, “We propose that you Keene and Mareland, Mark-lane AUSTIN, THOMAS, Brighton, Timber Merchant. Jan 31. Stevens and should come to as for twelve months certain, and for å Son, Brighton

continuous engagement if your labours meet with any B.NKA, AMELIA, Leghorn, Italy. Jan 15. Peacock and Goddard, South sq, Gray's-inn

success." On the following day the plaintiff wiote to the BELL, James, Liverpool, Grocer. Dec 30. Bellringer and Cunliffe,

defendants saying, “I beg to say I am quite satisfied with Liverpool

the proposals you make.” On the 26th of June the deBENNETT, ELIZABETE,Priory House, Dudley. Jan 13. Coldicott and Co, Dad'ey

fendants wrote, “When will you be able to come down BLAKE, GARSON, Great Yarmouth, Merchant. Jan 1. Palmer, Great

here?” On the 16th of September the plaintiff replied, Yarmouth

apologising for the delay and stating that he trusted to make BOYD, CORDELIA ANNA MARIA, Sussex gardens, Hyde Park. Feb 1. up for lost time by increased exertions and diligence. In

Domville and Co, New sq. Lincoln's-inn
BRADY, PATRICK, Barrow-on-Soar, Leicester, Gent. Jan 1. Stone

answer to this the defendant H. Bentley replied, “I cerand Co, Leicester

tainly thought, not hearing from you, that you had given BURGOYNE, Thomas, Stratford pl, and Urford st, Esq. Jan 8. Bur up all idea of coming to us, and I am glad to hear this is

gaynes and Co, Oxford st CHALMERS, JOAN FRANCIS, Ham, Surrey, Esq. Jan 15. Burrows and

not the case.' I expect to be at home on Monday or Tuesday Barnes, Jermyo s

when I shall be glad to see you and make arrangements for CHARLTON, MARK, Priory House, Dudley. Jan 13. Coldicott and Co, your commencing work for us." An interview took place

Dudley
COOPER, Rev. HENRY, Nunnington, York, Clerk.

between the plaintiff and Mr. Bentley on the 25th of Sep

Jan 9. Ware, York

tember, when it was arranged that the plaintiff should at DIPNALL, SIDNET SMITH, Lewisham High rd, Esq. Jan 14. Reyroux once commence travelling for the defendants, The plaintiff and Co, Cannon st

entered upon his duties, and matters went on until the month FRASRR, WILLIAM COBBETT MACLEOD, Gosport, Hants, Outfitter. Jan l. Blake and Reed, Portsea

of February, 1879, when the defendants made some comGILLMAN, ANDREW, Sherland pl, Twickenham, Law and Parliamentary

plaints of the amount of travelling expenses charged by Agent. Sherry, Chapel st, Bedford-row

the plaintiff. Some correspondence on this subject took

place, and in May the defendant, Mr. H. Bentley, told telling them be had been offered a partnership in an the plaintiff that he bad determined to give up the army engineering firm that intended to manufacture American business, as it was not paying. The 3rd of June was not presses and dies, and other kinds of manufacture for which far off, and when it arrived the plaintiff's engagement the defendant had been specially engaged by the plaintiffs. would expire, and it would not be continued. On the 10th On the defendant's return to Wakefield a discussion took of May the defendants' clerk or manager, R. J. Hudson, place which ended in his giving a month's notice to leave the wrote to the plaintiff, saying—“Following the conversation service. Shortly after-namely, on the 22nd of November, Mr. Bentley had with you last Monday, he bas this morn the defendant, accompanied by his present partner, Mr. ing instructed me, on his behalf, to write, and say that he Bradley, went to the works of a machine maker, Mr. George will not require your services after the 3rd of June, being Broadbent, wbo had been employed to make some lathes the completion of your year's engagement." In reply the designed by the defendant, and intended for the special plaintiff urged that the engagement did not terminate till work in which he was engaged, and after inspecting them, the 25th of September, that being the date in 1878 when he Bradley gave Broadbent an order for others of the same kind, commenced work. He had received salary up to the 3rd of which have since been supplied to the defendant's firm; and June, and claimed his accruing salary to the 26th of Sep on the same day the defendant offered to Frederick Crowcroft, tember. It was contended by Mr. Warren, for the defend the plaintiff's foreman, who had been in their service thirteen ants, that the letters which had passed between the parties years, " extra pay” if he, when the defendant left, would showed an agreement on the part of the defendants to come to bim. Crowcroft took time to consider, but ultiemploy the plaintiff as their traveller for twelve months. mately declined the proposal. At an early part of the There was no agreement on his part to serve for that period, defendant's engagement an order had been given by Mr. and therefore the contract of service was bad for want of Newborg, on behalf of a company of which he was manager, mutuality of obligation. The answer to this objection, it for machinery amounting to £800. At the time when the appears to me, is fouod in the language used by the defend notice to quit the plaintiffs' service was given, a part of ants in their letter of the 3rd of June, “Wo propose that the order had yet to be completed, and on Mr. Newyou should come to us for twelve months certain," and the burg coming down to the plaintiff's' works on the 30th reply of the plaintiff, “I am quite satisfied with the pro of October, the defendant, on the Sunday following the posal you make ; that is, I accept your offer to enter into 2nd of November, waited upon him, and communicated the your employment for twelve months certain."

It was

fact that he was about to establish himself in the same difficult to see how the mutuality of obligation to serve for

kind of business as the plaintiffs. He proceeded to say that period could be more clearly expressed by the that the plaintiffs would not be able to complete the order plaintiff. In all cases of contract it was the intention after he had left them, and it would be convenient for him which had to be ascertained from the language used, (Mr. Newburg) to let him (the defendant) do it. This and in tbis case the engagement to employ and to be ofer was not acted upon, but other orders bave been given employed for twelve months was clear and distinct. to the defendant's firm since. It is admitted by the With regard to the date at wbich the employment should defendant that at this interview he told Mr. Newborg that commence, the interview in September clearly showed that the plaintiffs had not got the drawings for the machinery the salary and work of the plaintiff were to commence from necessary to complete the £800 order, and when asked how that time. The defendants' letter of the 3rd of June it was, he said the reason was that the plaistiffs did not mentioned no time at which the service was to be com understaud the machinery, and woald not be able to menced, and it was in the nature of things and the intention make it from the drawings ; that one of the plaintiffs of the parties that the plaintiff should have a reasonable time (W. Rhodes) bad the day before distinctly asked him to to make arrangements for the removal of his family; and finish the drawings, and that he had as distinctly told the defendants' letter of the 28th of June clearly pointed to him he would not, alleging as a reason that he did not the defendants' knowing that the 3rd of June was not the wish to leave a lot of machinery unfinished in their date at which the employment was to commence, because in bands. Evidence was offered to prove that the defendtheir letter of the 26th, that is three weeks afterwards, they ant was dismissed from Bliss & Williams' employment ask, “When will you be able to come down ?" From the for taking drawings from the works and copying them at facts and the correspondence in this case his Honour was his house, a practice expressly forbidden, as was also unable to come to any other conclusion than that there was a evidence of a number of failures in the work intrasted valid agreement on the part of the defendants to employ the to the defendant's hands, on which the counsel for the plaiotiff for a year, terminating on the 25th of September, plaintiffs relied as showing either incapacity or a wilfal and that by discharging him from their service on the withholding of the skill and knowledge he had contracted 3rd of June they committed a breach of their contract, and to supply. These are the main facts as they came out that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount be at the trial. With regard to the first claim in the parclaimed-namely, £45 4s., with costs. E. Tindal Atkinson, barrister, for plaintiff.

ticulars, namely, the £10 advanced by the plaintiffs for Warren, solicitor, for defendants.

the journey to Paris, I am of opinion that it is not recoverable. It cannot be said to be money received by the defendant upon a consideration which has wholly

failed. The defendant was sent to the Paris Exhibition to (Before Mr. Serjeant TindaL ATKINSON, Judge.) inspect and inform bimself of any improvements that preNov. 18.-Rhodes and another v. Taylor.

sented themselves in the special branch of machinery Master and servant-Wrongful dismissal—Money had and

wbioh the plaintiffs manufactured. He made drawings, received.

some of which are in the plaintiffs' possession, and a perIn giving judgment his Honour said :- This is an action

forating machine was made from memoranda and obserbrought to recover two separate sums of £10 and £15 alleged vations

collected by him during his visit to the exbibition, by the plaintiffs to have been paid by them to the defendant

and upon a settlement of these travelling expenses under circumstances which entitle them in law have

there is an allowance in the handwriting of Mr. Wm. them repaid. The facts, as proved at the hearing, were that

Rhodes of this £10, made after a full inquiry into the the plaintiffs carry on an extensire and old-established

facts. I am tberefore of opinion tbat the claim for the business in Wakefield as machinists, and being desirous in

repayment of this £10 cannot be sopported. With reJane, 1878, to secure the services of a manager in their

gard to the second item of £15, the right to recover this works skilled in the manufacture of American dies and tools, by the plaintiffs depends upon whether

the plaintiffs were after some negotiation and inquiries from the defendant jastified in dismissing the defendant from their service on whether he bad left the service of Bliss & Williams, of New

the 9th of December. In my view of the facts of this York, honourably, which the defendant assured them he had, case I do not think it necessary that the fact of the they engaged the defendant at a salary of £300 a year. The defendant having been dismissed from the service defecdant entered into their employment, and in June of that

of Messrs. Bligs & Williams for the cause alleged, year he was sent to the Paris Exhibition, to inspect the

that he was incapable to perform the work machinery department, and take, where practicable, drawings he was employed to do, or that, if capable, he withheld and copies of machines which were either new in principle or of his skill and knowledge to the detriment of his ema character likely to be useful to the plaintiffs in their busi- ployers, should form part of my consideration in coming Dess. On the defendants return from Paris and reaching to a decision in this case. Nor do I think that what took London, he wrote to the plaintiffs on the 19th of October, place on the 22nd of November, when the defendant met

or