Page images
PDF

Dec. 25, 1886. THE SOLICITORS’ JOURNAL. 143

[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This was a case stated by the Income Tax Commissioners for the purpose of determining whether the appellants were rightly assessed to income tax under5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, s. 41, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34, s. 2, schedule D. The appellants, Pommery 8: Greno, are wine merchants and shippers, having their chief office for business at Rheims, in France, whereihey reside. They are in the habit of shipping champagne to England for the purpose of sale. They have an agent in London who employs travellers who seek for orders for the appellants’ wine. Small orders are supplied by the agent from a stock of wine kept in London: larger orders are sent by him direct to the appellants at Rheims, and they ship the wine to the customers. The amounts due are collected by the agents on behalf of the appellants, who keep a banking account in London. Drafts given in payment are sent to the appellants for indorsemcnt. The agent receives a commission on all wine sold by the appellantsin lilngland. He is duly assessed to income tax on all profits made by hin in respect of his agency, and pays income tax thereon. The appellants were assessed to income tax, in the name of the agent, at the sum of £6,000, and they appealed to the commissioners, on the ground that the profits were made in France and not in England . The commissioners confirmed the assessment, subject to this case. On behalf of the appellants it was argued that there was no trade exercised in England within the meaning of the Act. _TiscIiler v. Aptlimpe (33 W. R. 548) and Erichseri v. Lust (30 W. R. 301, 8 Q. B. D. 414) were distinguished; and Sui/ey v. Allorney-General (8 W. R. 472, 5 H 8: N. 711) was relied on.

Ti-is Cociir (Daxusx and HAWKINS, JJ.) dismissed the appeal. The question was whether the appellants carried on a trade in this country. They thought they did. There was no serious distinction between this case and the two cases which the appellants tried to distinguish, though, perhaps,‘ the circumstances in those cases were more obviously conclusive at first sight. And in SuIIcy's case the only point which seemed to be in favour of t_he appellants was the remark of Coclrburn, C.J., that a man exercises his trade where his profits come home to him. But that meant where he got his money; and here the appellants got their money in London through their agent. The commissioners were right in confirming he assessment.—Coi':vsaL, Pollard and J‘. E. Spencer‘ ; Sir B. Chml-e, S.G., lid Dicey. Souclroiis, Tippetts 4* Son ,- Solicitors for Ute Inland Rcvxenue.

BANKRUPTCY CASES.

Experts THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, Re MORRl'I"l‘—C. A. No. 1, 21st December.

[ocr errors]

In this case, which was argued before the Court of Appeal No. 1 in August last, and was re-argued before the full Court of Appeal on the 11th of November, some important questions arose as to the application of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, to bills of sale which are governed by the Bills of_Sale Act, 1882, and as to the implication of a power of sale in such bills of sale. Section 19 of the Conveyancing Act confers on a mflrtgagee by deed (and by section 2 this includes a mortgagee of personal chattels) “a power, when the mortgage-money has become due, to sell the mortgaged property, to the like extent as if the power hnd been in terms conferred by the mortgage deed." But section 20 provides that the mortgagee shall not exercise tho power of sale, unless and until notice Yfqlllrlflg payment of the mortgage-money has been served on the mortBBEQI, and default in payment has been made for three months after the service,_ or interest is in arrear for two months. Sub-section 2 of section 19 provides that the provisions of the Act relating to the powers conferred by_1t. Comprised either in that section or in any subsequent section regulating the exercise of the powers, may be varied or extended by the mortgage deed, and sub-section 3 provides that the section shall apply °111.V If and so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the mortgage deed, and shall have efiect subject to the terms of the mortgage deed and the pmVlSl0DB therein contained. Section 7 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1882, P\0'1de8_ that personal chattels assigned under a billof sale shall notbeliable to be seized or taken possession of by the grantee for any other than the causes therein mentioned, one of whichis if the grantee shall makedefault in the payment of the mortgage-money at the time appointed for payment. Section 9 provides that a bill of sale given as security for money shall be void unless made in accordance with the form in the schedule to the Act And! by section 13, “ all chattels seized, or of which possession is taken under or by virtue of any bill of sale . . . shall not be removed or sold until after the expiration of five days from the day they were so seized or so taken possession of." The form of bill of sale in the schedule the Act does not contain any power of sale, but it authorizes the insertion of other terms “ which the parties may agree to for the Iiiaintenance or defeasance of the security." The bill of sale in the present case was given as a security for the payment of money. It gave the mortgagee power at any time or times after its date, for any of the causes specified in section 7 of the Act of 1882, but for no other cause, 31h°“F Elmlg Buy previous notice to the mortgagor, to take possession of

9 B-ifllgned chattels, and for that purpose, if necessary, to break open

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

the doors and windows of the premises in which the chattels might be. And it was declared that the power of salc conferred upon the mortgagee by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, should be exercisable by him as if section 20 of the Act had not been enacted. There was also the ordinary proviso contained in the statutory form, that the chattels should not be liable to seizure or to be taken possession of by the mortgagee for any cause other than those specified in section7 of the Act of 1882. No express power of sale was given. It was contended, on behalf of the otficial receiver (as trustee in the bankruptcy of the grantor), that the hill of sale was void, under section 9 of the Act of 1882. by reason of the clause excluding section 20 of the Conveyancing Act and by reason of the provisions as to seizure. The judge of the Leeds County Court decided that the hill of sale was void, but his decision was reversed by the Divisional Court (Manisty and Cave, JJ.).

Tits Coirur 01-‘ APPEAL (Lord Esiinn, llI.R., and Cori-ox, LXNDLBY, BOWEN, Fur, and Loras. L.JJ.), Far, L.J., (dissenting, afllrmed the decision of the Divisional Court. Cor-ros, L J., delivered the judgment of himself and LIXDLEY and Bowss, L.J J . He said that the clause which referred to the Conveyancing Act assumed that the power of sale given by that Act applied to bills of sale, and, on that assumption, attempted to regulate its exercise, but did not by contract introduce the power of sale given by tho Act. It was contended that, if the power of sale conferred by section 19 of the Conveyancing Act was given to mortgagees under a bill of sale to which the Act of 1882 applied, the clause which removed the restrictions contained in section 20 of the Act of 1881 would impose on the mortgagor ii liability different from that which would result from a bill of sale in the statutory form, and that, therefore, the bill of sale would, in accordance with Ea: p/irlv Slanford (17 Q. B. D. 259, 30 So1.rcrrons' Joiimmn, 418), be void. Having regard to the definitions of “ mortgage " and of " property " in the Act of 1881, and to the fact that. before the Act of 1881, powers of sale were usually inserted in bills of sale, his lordship was of opinion that, unless there was something in the Act of 1882, or in the particular bill of sale, which was suificient to lead to a different conclusion, the power of sale given by section 19 of the Act of 1881 would, by force of that Act, be given to mortgagees under a bill of sale. But that Act did not malie it compulsory on mortgagors and mortgagees to adopt the power of sale given by section 19 ; it left it optional to parties having power to contract to vary or to exclude altogether the provisions as to sale contained in section 19. Therefore his lordship thought that this power would not be given to a mortgages when the nature of the security or the provisions of the instrument shewed that thc power of sale given by the Act was unnecessary. Yvhat were the exact rights of sale which a mortgagee of personal chattels possessed? A pledge of personal chattels, as a rule, was and must be accompanied by delivery of possession, and it enabled the pledgee in possession (though he had only a special property in the thing pledged) to sell on default in payment, and without notice to the pledgor, although the pledgor might redeem at any moment up to sale. A mortgage of personal chattels involved in its essence, not the delivery of possession, but a conveyance of title as a security for tho debt. Such_ a mortgage, however, might be accompanied with a transfer of possession, and mortgages of personal chattels. in cases in which possession was retained by the mortgagor, might, and commonly did, provide that, in default, the mortgagee might take that possession which. until default, was withheld from him. There was very little, if any, authority on the p0int,_ but his lordship was of opinion that a mortgagee of personal chattels which were in his possession was not in a worse position than a pledgee, and, when there was no express power given by the mortgage, he had, after default in payment, and when he had given the mortgagor a reasonable time to pay the money due, a power to sell and give a good title_to the purchaser, though, of course, the mortgagor had, at any time before sale, a right, on payment of the money due, including expenses, prevent the sale and redeem the chattels. The forrn Of bill of sale scheduled to the Act of 1882 allowed provisions_ to be added for the “maintenance of the security,” and this, m his_lordship’s opinion, enabled provisions to be ndded_ giving_or regulating a power to enter and seize the chattels comprised in tne bill of sale. The present bill of sale contained such provisions, and, assuming those provisions to be valid, the mortgagee, when he had taken possession of the chattels, had, in his lordship's opinion, a power of sale after a reasonable time had been allowed to the mortgagor for payment. That time was, he thought, fixed by sections 7 and 13 of the Act of 1882 at flvedays after possession taken There was, therefore, under the bill of sale (independently of, and without introducing, the power given by the Act_of 1881) a power to sell, which would arise on possession being t.akc_n_—i.e., before thetime previous to which the Conveyancing Act of 188.1 prohibited any sale being made. It would, therefore, in his lordsh1_p's opinion, be nnreasonahle to give to the mortgagee a power of sale “ as if it had been in terms conferred by the mortgage deed,” when the power could not, under the provisions of the Act of 1882, be exercised before the mortgagee Would, without the provisions of the Act of 1881, have a power of sale. _It had been suggested that, by section 7 of the Act of 1882, ii power to seize the chattels mortgaged was impliedly given, and that this rendered it unnecessary to rely on the express power to seize given by_thc _present bill of sale. His lordship thought it unnecessary to decide this point. In his opinion the clause re ating to the power of sale. ell‘°11°?l1§ Y "mmed t° be given by the Act of 1881, did not make void the security. It had begn urged that the provisions as to seizure contained in the bill of sale inizde it void. His lordship thought that this ob_iection_ could not be sustifllri He would assume that there were in these provisions many stlpufBtl'z]lJ1B which could not be enforced. But the whole provision was one Qfi “B maintenance of the security," and, though some part Of the ‘:0? might not be capable of being enforced, the mere introduction 0 e P

[graphic][graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

visions did not, in his opinion, render the'deed void under section 9. In his opinion, the mere fact that provisions were inserted which were not contrary to any express provisions of the Act of 1882, though, ll1'COI1S_6quence of the general law applicable to contracts, they were i_nvali_d, did not make the bill of sale voi . Those provisions might be invalid and superfluous, but, as they were introduced for the “maintenance of the security," they did not, in his lordship's opinion, make the deed void. Loi-as, L.J., delivered a judgment (in which Lord Esiiizn, M.R., concurred). He was of opinion that, by the statutory form of bill of sale, a power of sale was given by implication to the grantee, and that the Leg_is_laturc, when they enacted that statutory form, did not intend the provisions of another Act to be imported. The enactment of the express form negatived, and was inconsistent with, such a conclusion. The mortgagee did not require the aid of the Conveyancing Act. \Vhen it was said by section 7 of the Act of 1882 that the chattels assigned by a bill of sale should not be liable to be seized or taken possession of by the grantee for any other than the specified reasons, and when subsequently it was said that, within five days after seizure, the grantee might be restrained from removing or selling the chattels, it must mean that he was to have a power to scll. There was no occasion to insert in the form a power to take possession of, to sell, or to redeem; these powers were given by the Act itself, and need not a pear in the form. And, when section 13 said that the goods should not be removed or sold until after the expiration of five days, it surely meant that they might be sold after that time. It gave a power to sell five days after the goods were taken possession oi. At any rate the mortgagee could get a power to sell in another way. A power to seize might clearly be inserted in the deed, because it was a provision for the maintenance of the security; the mortgagee could seize under that power, and, having) the possession of the goods, he might, as assignec of t em, sell them, su jcct to any right of the grantor to redeem; a right which must be exercised within five days to prevent a sale. If that right was not exercised within five days, the mortgagee had at law and in equity a right to sell, and he could give an unimpeachable title to a purchaser. The provisions of the present bill of sale did not alter its legal effect so as to make it not in accordance with the statutory form, and they did not, therefore, invalidate it. Far, L.J., differed. He said that a mortgage of chattels was essentially different from a pawn or pledge. A pawnee had a power of sale on default in payment at a time fixed for payment. A mortgagee having the whole legal title to the chattels could, of course, sell them at law, ut the equitable right of the mortgagor to redeem could, in his lordships opinion, be excluded only by the presence of an express or implie power of sale. A careful examination of all the authorities cited had not disclosed a single clear authority for the existence of an implied power of sale in a mortgage of chattels. The conduct of the Legislature was opposed to its existence. By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, they conferred by express enactment such a power on the mortgagee of a ship. His lordship knew of no authority and no analogy for the notion that a power of sale, which did not exist at the creation of the mortgage, and while the mortgagee was out of possession, would arise on his taking possession. This question was, however, now of comparatively little importance. By the definition clause (section 2) of the Conveyancing Act t e word “ mortgage " included and was intended, he thought, to includo a bill of sale of personal chattels, and it was plain that the Legislature did not contemplate that bills of sale carried with them any implied power of sale, whether before or on possession, which made it undesirable to apply to them the express power given by the Act. Moreover, it was the practice of conveyancers to confer an express power of sale on mortgagees of chattels. If, however, there was an implied power of sale at law or in equity in ablll of sale before the Act of 1881, the power of sale introduced by that Act would, for the future, exclude by implication that implied power. When the Act of 1882 was passed the Legislature must have had the Act of 1881 in their contemplation, and if th h d '

, ay a intended to exclude the operation oi the Act of 1881, they would in all probability have don . b - ' '

_ e so. y express terms. When section 13 of the Act of 1882 implied the existence under the statutory form of apowcr of sale, it was diiilcult to resist the_conclus_ion that the power of sale referred to was that given in express terms by_the_Aci_: of 1881. There was nothing in the statutory form which, by implication or reasonable inference excluded the power of sale given by the Act of 1881. Sections "l and 13 of the Act of 1882 were negative and prohibitory; they did not give powers to the mortgagee, but they fettercd the exercise of powers where they existed, and t ey were not inconsistent with t e power of sale given by the Act of 1881 The new fetters th '

[ocr errors]

' g im a o_iis on the power of contracting for the loan of money on chattels as against the lender, and to_ disqua ify the borrower from bestowing on the lender many powers which he had been in the habit of demanding, and this object was furthered, not frustrated, by the importation into the statutory form of the fetters on the power of sale contained in section 20 of the Act of 1881. In his lordsliip's opinion the effect of section 9 of the Act of 1882 was to take away the power, given by sub-section of section 19 of the Act of 1881, to remove the fetters imposed by section 20 on the exercise of the power of sale conferred by section 19. The scheduled form of a bill of sale, in his lordship’s opinion

imported both the power of sale given by section 19 and the iettet imposed by section 20, and, if tha fetter was by express stipulation struck 01% tlllie power oi sale was liberated and might be exercised, though no one o t e contin encies mentioned in sectio '

then the instrumcntgso drawn would h in 20 had happened' and

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

lordshi could not concur in the argument which had been usedthat the creation of a power of sale would be the insertion of a “ term for the maintenance of the security," though that argument derived countenance from C@n,wI{¢Ii:!.~vZ Cmli! (Di,-_;>.i;-ii/ioai v. Gl/~m-_»/ (ll) Q. B. D. 21). In his lordship's opinion a power of sale was a collateral power, neither, strictly speaking, in maintenance or in defeasauce of the security. If a power of sale were within those words, he did not see what other provision would not be, and so to interpret the words would be to repeal section 9. In his opinion the present bill of sale was not in accordance with the statutory form, and was, therefore, VOid.—C0!.'.\’sEL, Muir rllav/i'¢n:ie,' Georya Banks. Soniciroiia, W. dlurton; Williamson, lli/1, Q Co.

[graphic]

THE BAR COMMITTEE AND THE CIRCUITS.

Tris following is the report of the Bar Committee, recently forwarded to the Lord Chancellor and the judges, with respect to circuit arrangements and proposed alterations :-— _ _

1. Your committee report that the practice of sending one Judge only to a circuit town during the ast few years for the holding of assizes has caused rent inconvenience, gelay, and expence, is incompatible with the pro er disposal of business, and affords no counterbalanoiiig advantage. It has created great discontent and inconvenience among suitors, Jurymen, solicitors, and others, and the result has been that suitors have been deterred from entering causes at the assizes. H "

2. We believe that a careful and well-considered system of grouping of counties together, coupled with. the presence of two Judges at each assize town, would remedy the existing evils. I _

3. We propose so to group the counties _that each county twith _some possible exceptions) may have assizes during the year held within its limits, so that the privilege of holding assizes at the county town, which the inhabitants of each county undoubtedly value, shoul notbe taken awa .

-4.yWe subjoiii schemes by which the above proposal may be carried out. These plans may admit of amendment in detail, ut they are the result of considerable discussion and inquiry.

5. The advantages to be gained under the proposed system of grouping are as follows :— _ J

(/1.) The doing away with a number of commission days. There is also involved in this a saving with respect to first business days, which are little more than half days. _

(b ) The saving of time and expense where a long trial blocks one court. Where there are two courts shorter cases may disposed of before the other judge, thereby enabling parties to have their cases tried and witnesses, &c , to be set free. _

(0.) The prevention of much waste of time arising from theuncertsinty of the number of days required in a county where the business may or may not be very rapidly disposed of. It is obvious that where two counties are joined the average of the joint business may be more readily

ua ed. g ((5) The loss of time and the unnecessary waste of money arising from not knowing when the one judge will be able to open the commission, and when (if at all) he will be able to try causes. This may frequently, under the present system, amount to an absolute denial of justice.

(e.) The great decrease in the length of time during which the judge! who go circuit will be absent from town.

( f.) The advantage oi two judges consulting on difficult matters.

6. We are aware that the scheme we propose will necessitate the absence from town of fourteen judges, leaving only one common law Judge in London, whose services would be required in chambers. Your committee wish to point out that during the last Summer Circuit the Lords Justices of Appeal assisted the common law judges, and it it should appear mall! desirable (as it seems to us it would be) to have a. divisional court sittinfl from time to time in London during the circuits, or a judge sitting 11981‘ any matter of urgency, arrangements could be made y and with the approval of the Lords Justices by which such courts could be held. ll 6 are of qpinion that the attempt to transact the ordinary Nisi I’riu.i busineflfl in Lon on during the circuits is of dollbtflll benefit to anybody, and causes great inconvenience in many cases to suitors and all other! concerned in the trials at Mai Prilcs.

7. The above suggestions are made on the supposition that the system of holding civil assizes in each county is to be maintained; but 1°“ committee adhere to the view expressed in the following paragrBPh °f their report of March 1885 :—

" We think that a s,aving of judicial time may be effected by diminishing the number of places at which the assizes shall be held. Looking merely at the interests of the bar, the most desirable plan would be to select 11 limited number of the principal assize towns at which the civil bllSll1€55 should be taken for the surrounding districts.”

8. hour committee are strongly of opinion that on no account should assizes be appointed to be held contemporaneousl at two laces on 111°

same circuit. y P NORTH-EASTERN CIRCYIT. tbigvgprcjliliidges are required at Newcastle. No grouping is possible 011

[merged small][ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

'tSalisbury Eight days (working).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

OXFORD CIRCUIT.
Lasr Suiiiii-:11 Assiza.

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

' Carmarthen business could not be taken conveniently to Haverford or Morris Roupell, one of the olficial referees.

Cardigan, but the business from those two counties might be taken at

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the summer at Carniarthen and Cardigan. H

dmitted a solicitor in 1830. He was formerly a member of the firm of

1' F * 0! the counties of Brecon and Radnor. Lamb, Son, 6: Stewart, but he had been for several years associated in

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.
LAST Smmzn. Assizr. c

sf \‘Vakefield) and Mr. Martin Stewart. Mr. Stewart was a_perpetual

artnership with his eldest son, Mr. William Henry Stewart (late Mayor

ommissioner for the West Riding of 1 orkshire, and he had an important rivate ractice He was for some time an alderman for the borough of

[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

for the City of Worcester in the Liberal interest from April, 1880, till November, 1885.

Mr. THOMAS Bruno, solicitor, of 10, Basinghall-street, has been appointed by Alderman Stone to the otfice of Deputy for the Ward of Bassishaw. Mr. Deputy Beard has served the ofiice of Under-Sheritf of London and Middlesex. He was admitted a solicitor in 1858, and he is in partnership with his sons, Mr. Walter James Westcott Beard and Mr. Thomas George Beard.

Mr. JAMES FORREST FULTON’, barrister, M.P., who has been appointed Junior Counsel to the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court in succession to Mr. Montagu Williams, who has been appointed a metropolitan pclice magistrate, is the youngest son of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Fulton, and was born in 1846. He is an LL.B. of the University of London. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Easter Term, 1872, and he practises on the South-Eastern Circuit and at the Central Criminal Court, and the Essex, Hartford, and St. Albans Sessions. Mr. Fulton is prosecuting counsel to the Mint for Hertfordshire, and at the General Election of July last he was elected M.P. for the Northern Division of the Borough of West Ham in the Conservative interest.

Mr. EDWARD Rinmzr, barrister, who has been appointed an Ofllcia Referee of the Supreme Court of Judicature on the resignation of Mr. James Anderson, Q,.C., is the second son of the late Sir Matthew Ridley, Bart., and was born in 1843. He was educated at Harrow, and he was formerly scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in Classics in 1866, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of All Souls College. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, I868, and he has practised on the North-Eastern Circuit and on the Durham, Northumberland, Newcastle, and Berwick Sessions. Mr. Ridley was M.P. for South Northumberland from 1878 till 1880, and in the latter year he was a commissioner foi inquiring into corrupt practices in the City of Oxford.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[graphic]

LAVV SOCIETIES. THE INCORPORATED LA\V SOCIETY.

The following notice has been issued to members :—In pursuance of the resolution passed at the annual general meeting, held on the 15th of July, 1881, to the effect that meetings of the society should be held in January and April, a special general meeting of the members of the society will be held in the hall of the society on Friday, the 28th of January, 1887. Members who may wish to move resolutions should send copies of them to the secretary not later than the 3rd of January. Notice of the proposed motions will afterwards be sent to each member of the society.

Law Society's Hall, Dec. 11.

[graphic][ocr errors]

Mr. Justice Grantham will be the Vacation Judge from Friday, the 2-lth of December, 1886, until Monday, January 3, 1887, both days inclusive.

His lordship will sit in the Queen's Bench J udges’ Chambers on Tuesday, the 28th of December and Friday, the 31st of December.

On other days during the vacation urgent chanccry applications may be made to his lordship at llarcombe Place, near Lewes, Sussex.

Mr. Justice Stirling will be the Vacation Judge on \Vednc-sday, the 22nd of December and Thursday, the 23rd of December, and from Tuesday, the 4th of January, 1887, until Monday, the 10th of January, 1887, both days inclusive.

His lordship will sit in Queen's Bench Judges’ Chambers on Tuesday, January 4, Thursday, the 6th, and Saturday, the 8th. _

On other days during the vacation urgent chancery applications may be made to his lordship at 51, Great Cumberland Place, Hyde Park.

In any case of great urgency the brief of counsel is to be sent to the judge by book-post, or parcel prepaid, accompanied by oflice copies of the affidavits in support of the application, and also by a minute, on a separate sheet of paper, signed by counsel, of the order he may consider the applicant entitled to, and also an envelope, sufliciently stamped, capable of receiving the papers, addressed as follows : —“ Chancery Ofllcial Letter: To the Registrar in Vacation, Chancery Registrars‘ Chambers, Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.C."

On applications for Injunctions, in addition to the above, a copy of the writ, and a certificate of writ issued, must also be sent.

The papers sent to the judge will be retumed to the registrar.

The chambers of Mr. Justice Stirling will be open on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, in every week, from ll to l o’clock.

[graphic]

At the annual general meeting of the Gresham Life Assurance Society, held at the otiices, 26, Poultry, E.C., on Monday last, the repopt stated the new premiums for the year at £75,923, the annual income £142,328, and the assets £3,776,326.

WINDING UP NOTICES.

London Gasem.-Fainar, Dec. 17.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Lunran IN CIIANCEBY.

EASTERN COITNTIEB Lawn arm INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Lnrrri-:n.—By an order made by Chltty. J ., dated Dec 6, it was ordered that the corporation be wound up. Layton 81 Co, Bud e row, solors for petner

J ONES Lnov n. Lim'rEn.—I’ctn for winding up, presented Dec 17. directed 'to_ be hem-d before North, J ., on Saturday, Jan 15. Taylor & Co, Field ct, Gray sin", solors for petners

Conn? Panarma or L/moss'i'r:a.

[ocr errors]

Homes CHAPEL arm CRANAGE Fauna Fnrsxnix SOCIETY, Schoolroom. Cm"agc. Chester. Dec I3

RINGSTEAD INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, Lnuran, Ringstead, Northampton. Dee ii

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
London Gase!ie.——FBlDAY, Doc. 17.
RECEIVING ORDERS.
Arrcnrsorw. Jossru. and Ton AITCHISON, Kingston upon Hull, Auctioneers.
Kingston upon Hull. Pet Dco 13. Ord Dec 13

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »