« PreviousContinue »
If he intended to appeal he ought to have asked the judge to take a note of Obitty, he held that the proposed lease was within the power. HOLKER, the oral evidence, or to have had some note of it taken. If, by some accident, L.J., said that it seemed to bim that “necessary repairs" meant that the the note of the evidence had been lost, the court would have bad power by lessee was to do all the repairs. And as to the power, he thought the way of indulgence to allow the evidence to be taken again. But the Chief settlor meant that the property was not to be lot to anyone unless be sbould Judge was not entitled to decide the case in the absence of the evidence upon agree either to improve it or to repair it. The reasonable construction of wbich the county court judge had based his decision. In the Court of Appeal the word "repair" was that when the lease was made the lessee should the parties agreed to admit a newspaper report of the oral evidence, and this be under an obligation to do or to covenant to do something whioh ho was read to the court. And Jessel, M.R., said that it would require a very would not otherwise have been obliged to do. The power required thisbtrong case to induce the Court of Appeal, in a case of conflicting testimony, that the lessee should either do repairs or enter into a covenant to do to overrule the decision of the judge who had seen and heard the witnesses. repairs generally-tbat ig, all repairs that were needful. And his lordship
A tbird point in the case was this :-There was some evidence tending to thought that the agreement imposed this obligation on the defendante. show that the goods comprised in the deed were not in the apparent possession SOLICITORS, G. R. Pilgrim; Norton, Rose, & Co. of the bankrupt at the time when the bankruptcy petition was filed, and, if this was so, the Bills of Sale Act would have had no application. This point, however, was not raised in the county court. It was raised before the Chief
COURT OF BANKRIPTCY-PRACTICE-EVIDENCE-CROSS-EXAMINATION Judge, but not much insisted on, because he was in favour of the grantee on
Right TO WITHDRAW AFFIDAVIT.-In a case of E. parle Child, before the the other point. In the Court of Appeal the grantee's counsel endeavoured to
Court of Appeal on the 26th inst., an important question of bankruptoy raise the point, but the court held that, as it had not been raised in the
practice arose-viz., whether, when the respondent to a motion has filed county court, it could not be raised afterwards. JESSEL, M. R., said that if a
an affidavit, the moving party bas an absolute right to cross-examine point was not taken before the tribunal which heard the evidence, and
the witness who has made it, wbether the respondent intends to read evidence might have been adduced there which, by any possibility, would
tbe affidavit or not. The applicant insisted that he had this right, and have prevented the success of the point if it had been raised, it could not
before the respondent's case was opened he asked his counsel to give be raised afterwards. The party was bound to raise the point in the first
an undertaking that he would use an affidavit made by the respond. jostance, so as to enable his adversary to meet it by other evidence. The
ent. This the counsel declined to do, though he had no objection 10 evidence in the present case fell far short of conclusively proving that there
the respondent being called by the applicant as a witness on his behalf. The had been a change in the apparent pogsession of the property before the filing
applicant's solicitor then insisted that he had a right to cross-examine the of the petition, and therefore the point could not now be raised.-SOLICITORS,
respondent on his affidavit at once. The respondent was called, and, by W. & J. Flower & Nussey ; Hamlin f Grammer.
The advice of his counsel, he refused to answer. Mr. Registrar Hazlitt held that the respondent was bound to submit to the cross-examination. The Court
of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT and HOLKER, L.JJ.) inquired of the POWER OF LEASING_CONSTRUCTION — REPAIRING LEASE LIn a case of registrars in bankruptcy what is the practice in that court, and Mr. Registrar Truscott v. The Diamond Rock Boring Company, before the Court of Appeal
| Murray gave the following certificate, in which all the other registrars, after on the 18th inst., a question arose as to the construction of a power of leasing
fully considering the matter, concurred :-“As a general rule, and in the contained in a settlement. The deed empowered the trustees to demise the
absence of objection, all the affidavits which may have been filed in due property to any person who gbould "improve or repair the same, or covenant
time (as regulated by the General Rules, No. 50, &c.), wbether filed on behalf or agree to improve or repair the same." The trustees entered into an agree.
of the applicant or respondent, including those (if any) filed in reply, are, ment to demise the property for seven years to the defendant company. The
on the opening of the case, read to the court, and if notice to cross-examine any agreement provided (inter alia) “lessee to do necessary repairs." The action
of the witnesses on the one side or the other has been given, the cross-examina. was brought by the trustees for the specific performance of the agreement. On
tion of the applicant's witnesses is taken first and concluded, and then the behalf of the defendants it was contended that a lease upon the terms of the
cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses, after which the advocates for agreement would not be within the power. It was said that the power
the respective parties are heard on the whole case. If, however, on the required that the lessee should do something in the nature of an improve. | opening, the respondent alleges that there is no case, and objects to his ment to the property, something which would add to its value. Ordinary affidavits being read until that question has been disposed of, such objection is repairs would not be sufficient, but the property must be in such a state asalo
always allowed, and it frequently happens that, by reason of the applicant's that the putting of it into tenantable repair would result in a substantial evidence failing to establish his case, the respondent is not called upon to read improvement in its value, and it was not in that state. An ordinary repairing
his affid+vits, or to enter as all on his defence.
The result would be analogous lease would not do. Obitty, J., acceded to this view, and held that the to a nonsuit. I bave never known & case in which & party has been held plaintiffs could not show a good tiile to grant the proposed lease. This
compellable to read an affidavit (which he desired to withdraw) merely because decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and
it had been filed; but this would not preclude the opposite party from being BRETT and HOLKER, L.JJ). JESSEL, M.R., said that the ques
allowed to examine the deponent as his own witness. The question sometimes tion really arose on the words, “covenant or agree to improve or
arises in this way. An affidavit having been filed, the opposite party gives repair." It was proposed that the lessees should covenant to “do necessary
notice to cross-examine. By acoident, or otherwise, the deponent is not repairs." Was that a covenant to “repair" within the meaning of the
present for cross-examination. On objection taken that the affidavit cannot be power ? His lordsbip had no doubt that it was. It was within the literal read, one of two alternatives happens. Either the party on whose behalf it has meaning of the worde. The word “necessary” could peither add to nor take
been filed elects to withdraw the affidavit, which the court invariably holds away from the meaning; if repairs were not necessary they were not wanted.
him at liberty to do; or, if he desires to use it, the court, on application, will The power was, therefore, literally complied with. Was there any reason for
(upon terms as to costs) adjourn the further hearing, that the deponent may saying that it had not been complied with in substance ? A covenant on the
atiend for cross-examination.” The certificate added that the particular point part of the legsee was necessary only to compel him to do that which otherwise
which had arisen in Er parle Child had never before arisen in practice, so the lessor would have to do, and if he covenanted to do the necessary repairs,
far as the registrars were aware. JESSEL, M.R., said that, under the Judica. that was all wbich could be wanted. Did the power mean to put in repair or
ture Rules, the applicant would, on a motion in the High Court, have had the to keep in repair ? The latter would include the former, His lordship thought
right which he claimed. But those rules did not apply to the Court of Bauk. it meant that there should be a general covenant to repair-.e., a covenant to
ruptoy, and the registrar's certificate settled conclusively what the practice in do the repairs for all time during the continuance of the lease. If so, a
that court was. The appeal must be allowed, and the order of the registrar covenant to do necessary repairs must mean a covenant to repair during the
discharged. But the costs of the appeal would be costs in the matter. The continuance of the term, and would be, both literally and substantially, within applicant wo
applicant would be at liberty to give such further evidence as he might be the power. As to the case of Doe v. Withers (2 B. & Ad. 896), whatever might be
advised. BRETT and HOLKBR, L.JJ., concurred.-SOLICITORS, Eady : A. G. thought of some of the dicta there, it was not an authority binding on this court.
Ditton. The case of Easton v. Pratt (2 H. & C. 676) to a great extent governed the present case. The power there was differently worded, and, therefore, it was not
CHOSE IN ACTION-POLICY OF ASSURANCE - ASSIGNMENT-NOTICE exactly in point; but the power was stronger against the lease. In the present PRIORITY_SOLICITOR'S LIEN-30 & 31 Vict. c. 144 -JUDICATURE ACT, case there was no power to grant an ordinary lease at a rack-rent, and, if the | 1873. s. 25. SUB-SECTION 6.-In a case of The West of England Bank v. respondents were right, no lease could be granted if the property was in good
Batchelor, before Fry, J., on the 24th inst., & curious question arose as to & repair. In Easton v. Pratt the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided that a
solicitor's liep. B., who held a policy of insurance on his own life, in 1872 covenant to repair and keep in repair would comply with a power which re.
mortgaged it to O., and notice of the assignment was given to the insurance quired that a repairing lease should be granted. It was a decision that a
company. In 1875 the mortgage was paid off, and 0. executed a re-assigoment corepant to repair and keep in repair made a lease a repairing lease. It covered
of the policy to B., and handed back the policy. Notice of the re-assignment rather more than had to be decided on the present occasion. In his lordship's I was given to the company. B. left the re-assignment and the policy in the opinion, the agreement in the present case was entirely within the power. | bands of his solicitors to whom he then owed some costs. In 1878 he BRETT, Lodi, said that every document must be construed according to tbe executed a mortgage of the policy to his bankers. On this occasion he told ordinary meaning of the English language, unless the words used had the bankers that he had lost or mislaid the original policy, and, upon his acquired some technical meaning, and some meaning must be given to all statement that he had done so, and that he had not assigned it, the iosurance the words. This power was not expressed in any technical language. He company gave him a certified copy of the original. The bankers were satisfied could not agree that the words “improve ” and “repair ” were equivalent with this. They made inquiries of the company, and were informed that they worde. He thought the meaning was that the tenant was to take on had received no notice of any assignment of the policy, except that to 0., himself all repairs which a landlord would ordinarily dome., to put the and the bankers ascertained tbat o.'s claim had been satisfied. B.'s solicitors premises in ordinary tenantable repair at the beginning of the term, if they knew nothing of this transaction. Notice of the assigninent to the bankers were out of repair, and to keep them during the term in such repair by was at once given to the company, and acknowledged by them. It was ad. doing all which a landlord would ordinarily do during the term, and his mitted that B. had not been guilty of any fraud, but tbat he had forgotten lordship thought that the agreement imposed this obligation on the tenant. that the original policy was with his solicitors. In 1880 the bankers were Therefore, though with some hesitation after the decision of Mr. Justice about to sell tho policy, and they asked B. to make a fresh search for the
original, and he thereupon communicated with his solicitors. They then informed the bankers that they had held the policy since 1875, and that they
COUNTY COURTS. claimed a solicitor's lien on it for costs due to them by B. They also gave
MANCHESTER notice to the insurance oompany, to whom they had given no previous potice. Tbe action was brought by the bankers against B. and ihe solicitors, claiming
(Before Jouin A. Russell, Esq., Q.C., Judge). a declaration that they were entitled to priority over the solicitor's lien ; an
January 6.-Ex parte Gillibrand, Re Frith and West. order for delivery up of the original policy; and the ordinary foreclosure
Right to distrain-Use and occupation. judgment against the defendants. B. did not defend the action. The solicitors insisted on their lien. It was contended that they had lost their priority
Tbie was an application by T. W. Gillibrand, as trastee of the property by omitting to give notice of their claim to the insurance company in ihe first
of Frith and West ander resolutions for liquidation of their affaire, for an instance. FRY, J., said that the assignee of a chose in action took it sub
| order declaring that 0. Robinson and others (the respondents) were not, at ject to all equities affecting it, and he thought that this role bad been in no
the date of the levying by them of a distress for rent, amounting to way altered by the Act 30 & 31 Vict. 0. 144, or by section 25, sub-section 6,
£3,358 188. 3d., opon the effects of the debtors on premises ocoa pied by of the Judicature Act, 1873. A prior equity might be lost by negligence in
them, entitled so to distrain for any sum whatever, or, in the alternative, not giving notice of it. The question, therefore, was whether the solicitors,
that they were only entitled so to distrain for £1,860 or some lesser eum, in order that they might retain their lien, should have given notice to the com
or, in the further alternative, that they were entitled so to distrain for a pany. What was the nature of a solicitor's lien? It was a merely passive
legger som tban £3,358 183. 33., and to deolare for what sqm they were riebt, a right to hold a piece of paper or a parchment until be was paid his costs. | entitled to distraip, and for an order in accordance therewith. It gave the solicitors in this case no right to be paid out of the fund; it was
By indentare, dated 28th of September, 1869, the Chamber Mill and merely a rigbt to embarrass the plaintiffs. It was necessary that the assignee premises at Hollinwood, Dear Manohester, were demised to John Frith for of a fund in the hands of a trustee should, by notice to the trustee, make
the term of three years from 30th of September, 1869, at the searly rent himself a cestui que trust of the fund, and also, that by means of the notice,
of £852 10s. At the expiration of that term the lessee continued the he should prevent the possibility of a fraud being committed. In the present tepanoy from year to year, the rent being raised at sundry times to case the solicitors had no right to convert the insurance company into trustees £874 14s. per annum. In January, 1876, John West joined Frith in for them. They had only a right to the policy itself, the piece of paper ; they partnership. In Maroh, 1878, Frith gave written notice to quit in September had no right to the policy money. The mere fact that B. did not hold the paper following. In the month of September negotiations were entered into was notice to all the world that it was beld by some one other than B., and between Frith and the landlords, and on the 11th of that month the that they held it was the only thing of wbich the solicitors could be bound landlord's solicitors wrote Frith's solicitors as follows:-"We yesterday had to give notice. No fraud could be committed by their not giving notice. an interview with our clients, tbe trustees of the late George Barlow, Esq., The bankers chose to ron the risk of the paper being in the hands of some who (since our last commanication with you have been in cunsultation person otber than B. who might bave a lien on it. On this ground the with their beueficiaries, and have now come to a final decision. They are plaintiffs' case failed as against the solicitors. Another ground was that the prepared to grant to your client, Mr. John Frith, a lease of the Chamber plaintifis bad not used due diligence. They knew that a re-assignment had Mill and premises now in his ooca pation on the following terms :-(1) That been executed by O. They should have asked for it, and, if they had done so, all arrears of rent and accruing rent to the termination of the tenancy on aod it had not been produced, its absence wculd have suggested to a prudent the 30th of September instant be paid in cash; or otherwise that additional person to ask whether it bad not been executed in the presence of a solicitor, goods be deposited by Mr. Frith of adequate value to cover the amount. and who that solicitor was. This would have led to the discovery of both the (2) That the lease commence from the 1st of Votober next and be for a re-assignment and the policy. The action must be dismissed as against the term of either five or seven years (at the option of Mr. Fritb), solicitors, but the ordinary foreclosure judgment must be pronounced as at a yearly rent of £550, payable quarterly in advance." The against B.--SOLICITORS, Clarke, Woodcock, & Ryland; Cunliffe, Beaumont, letter also contained stipulations as to the covenants to be entered into by & Davenport.
the lessors and lessee, respectively, and concluded, “On the unconditional acceptance of, and compliance with, the foregoing terms (but not otherwise),
our clients (acting upon the report of Mr. James Hardman) consent to make WILL-CONSTRUCTION - GIFT OF RESIDUE – BENEFICIAL INTEREST - an allowance to Mr. Frith of the sum of £335 17s. 5d. 'in respect of his APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTOR-11 Geo. 4,AND I WILL. 4, c. 40.-In a case of Re claim for improvements ; but Mr. Frith will please distinctly to understand Sto ey, Storey v. Jones, before Manisty, J., on the 23rd inst., a question was that this allowance must be treated as an act of grace, and is entirely condi. Taised as to whether an executor took a gift of residue beneficially or pot under tional upon the foregoing terms being carried out in tbeir integrity.” Oa the following will. The testatrix gave a'l she had in the world to the the 23rd of September the landlords' solicitors again wrote Frith's solicitors, fxecutor, thereout to pay her funeral and testamentary expenses and debte, as follows :-"Our clients will not make any concession or deviate in any She then gare certain specific legacies and appointed the defendant executor.way from the terms of the proposed new lease, as indicated in our letter of the For the plaintiff it was contended that there was a trust to pay the debts, | 11th inst., beyond this-namely, that on your clients making to their satis. funeral and testamentary expenses, which bad partially failed, and therefore faction the repairs and improvements suggested by him, they will allow him ibat the executor took the residue subject to a resulting trust in favour of the sum of £179 183., being his estimate of the cost of such repairs and the testatrix. For the defendant it was contended that the effect of the first improvements.” On the 25th of September Frith's solicitors wrote the landlords' gift was merely to charge the property with the debts, and that there was solicitors as follows:“Mr. Frith will be prepared to accept a lease for five nothing to prevent the defendant taking beneficially as any other legatee. years on the terms proposed as modified in your letter of the 23rd instant." MANISTY, J., said that there were two classes of decisions applicable to the The arrears of rent owing by Frith on the 30th of September, 1878, amounted case, one where the property was given on trust, which partially failed, and the to £2,117 16s. lld., for which the laodlords held security which afterwards second, wbere the property was merely given charged with and subject to realized £1,000 12s. 4d. The debtors did not pay off those arrears or doposit certain things, in which case the executor took beneficially what rex ained any further security. They from time to time paid sums of money on after satisfying the charge, and that these rules had been laid down in King account whicb, with the £1,000 realized from the security, reduced the v. Denison (1 V. & B, 261), which he considered good law. The present, he arrears to £79 17s. No lease was ever given. Only one rent-note was sent considered, fell within the second class of cases, and there was no trust | in-piz., in May, 1880-in which the debtors were debited with rent at the which partially failed. The executor, therefore, took the residue beneficially. old rate of £874 14s. The evidence of the debtors was that, after the --SOLICITORS, Combe & Wainwright; Peacock f Goddard.
termination of the tenancy in September, 1878, they never agreed to pay any more than the reduced rent of £550 per annum, and repudiated any liability
for anything more. On the other hand, the landlords stated that they only RAILWAY COMPANY-SUPERFLUOUS LAND-CONVEYANCE TO OTHER Cou
agreed to accept such reduced rental conditional on the debtors complying PASV_PREEMPTION LANDS CLAUSES ACT, 1845, 88. 127, 128.-In the
with the letter of September 11, 1878, and claimed rent at the old rate from
hor date in default of such compliance. On the 17th of October, 1881, the case of Hobbs v. Midland Railway Cumpany, also before Manisty, J., on the 23rd lost.. an impoi tant point was argued as to whetber certain land was super
landlords distrained upon the debtors' premises for £3,353 188. 3d. for arrears
of ont colouated at iha higher rate on the 24th of the same month the flaons land under the 128th section of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. The lands were taken under their compulsory powers by the Midland
debtors filed their petition for liquidation, and Gillibrand was appointed Company, and within the period of ten years they had conveyed a part away
receiver. Sale under the distress was postponed by consent uotil the appoint. to anther railway company. The plaintiff had thereupon required the lands
ment of a trustee, which took place at the first meeting of creditors on the to be sold to him, as the defendants had not given him any offer of pre-emption,
11th of November, Gillibrand, the receiver, being appointed trustee. On the and on the defendants' refusal to convey to him he brought this action to
| 17th of November, the trustee tendered to the landlords £1,860 (the balance Lave it declared that be was entitied to have the laods conveyed to him. It
owing calculated on the basis of the letter of the 11th of September, Appeared th:t the lan's were occupied by sidings which were used by both the
1878), and £100 for costs, which was refused. The value of the property railway companies, and that they had been sold under a bond fide belief that the
seized was about sufficient to cover the amount distrained for, and if the Midland Company were authorized to do so by two special Acts. MANISTY, J.,
landlords succeeded in their contention they would take the whole of the *as of opinion that the mere fact of a conveyance having been executed of
estate with the exception of about £150 of book debts. By arrangement, the lands was not conclusive as to their being superfluous lands, and that
the property was being realized by the trustee, the proceeds to be held over such evidence might be rebutted. In the precent case there was evidence
to abide the result of the application, and consent was given to the county that the lands were used by the Midland Company, although jointly with
court exeroising jurisdiction to determine the matter. another company, and therefore he could not say that they were now S. Taylor, for the trustee, in support of the application. There never was superfluous, although they might become so before the expiration of the any agreement or contract for tenancy after the expiration of the notice to ten years fixed by section 127. In his opinion, however, the Midland quit in September, 1878. There was not that consensus ad idem necessary to Company bad no right to convey away the lands without first offering constitute an agreement; consequently, although the landlords had a right to them to the plaintiff ; and, therefore, there must be a direction setting aside remuneratiou for use and occupation, they bad not a right of distress. With the conveyance by them. -SOLICITORS, Sawbridge; Beale of Co.; Tuisden, regard to balance of old rent, the statute 8 Anne, c. 14, gives a right of distress Parker, & Co.
only during six months after the expiration of the tenancy. He cited
Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 411; Alford v. Vickery (C. & M. 280);
MR, ARTHUR JAMES SHIRLEY.
Mr. Arthur James Shirley, who died under melancholy circumstances at Q. B. 97).
Dorcaster on Thursday, January 19, was the youngest son of Mr. W. E. A. Hopkinson, for the respondents. - Where a lessee holds orer after the
Shirley, town clerk of Doncaster; the eldest son being Mr. W. Shirley expiration of his lease be continues as yearly tenant on the terms of the loase
Shirley, barrister-at-law. He was born in 1853 ; and was educated at Ragby so far as they are applicable. Any act of the parties recognizing that one is
Scbool godor Dr. Temple, the present Bishop of Exeter. In 1876 he was tenant and the other is landlord is sufficient to create a yearly tenancy. It is not necessary that that recognition should be by payment of rent. He cited
admitted a solicitor, and became a member of his father's firms, Shirley,
Atkinson, & Shirley, of Doncaster, and Shirley, Atkinson, & Donner, of Platt ou Leases, 2ad vol., 521; Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 10th
Scarborough. In 1879 he was elected by the corporation to the office of ed., 553; Robinson v. Hayward (3 C. & P. 432); Digby v. Atkinson (4
coroner for the borough of Doncaster, a very important post for so young & Camp. 275); Thomas v. Packer (1 H. & N. 669).
man. He had, however, satisfactorily filled the office of deputy-coroner for a His HONOUR. — With regard to these cases it strikes me that they are not
couple of years before this appointment. His discharge of the duties of applicable to what we are dealing with bere, which is not a bolding over after
coroner answered the bighest expectations of his friends; tact, temper, and expiration of the lease but after notice to quit. The lease expired in 1872.
common-sense being displayed in an eminent degree. In addition to holding The tenancy was determined on notice to quit in September, 1878. I apprehend
the office of coroner, he was clerk to the School Attendance Committee ; and that immediately the 29th of Septeinber arrived the tenant was there under
one of the last acts of his life, performed, indeed, only a few hours before his such circumstances that the landlords could turn him out if they liked, as he
death, was to draw up the annual report of that committee. He was one of was a trespasser. By no process of distress cao the amoqot of reot be settled
the church wardens of the Doncaster parish church, and joint honorary secrebetween the parties. In order to entitle the landlords to distrain there must
tary of the Young Men's Christian Association. In addition to public usefulbe some fixed rent,
ness, Mr. Arthur Shirley was much esteemed in private life. . Of a kiodly Hopkinson.—The rent is not uncertain because, sweeping away the agreement
heart, and genial unpretending manners, be secured the attachment and of September, 1878, the old terms remain.
confidence of all with whom he came in contact ; and his funeral at tbe His HONOUR.-If you sweep away the agreement there is no defined rent,
Doncaster Cemetery on Monday, January 23, was one of the largest ever seen and that being so, there is no right to distraio. Toe landlord is entitled to sue
id that town. Men felt generally that, short as was bis career, and clouded and get compensation, because there is a non-adjusted rent.
its close, he had left bebind him a bright example of usefulness and innocence. Hopkinson.—The acts of the parties show that there is a relation of landlord
Mr. Arthur Shirley was a member of the Incorporated Law Society, and took and tenant.
an intelligent interest in all subjects relatiog to his profession. He was also His Hoxdur. Assuming that it should turn out that the tenant is correct,
| attached to the Great Northern Railway Company, with a considerable knowand that he is liable for £550 instead of £870, there is no means of adjustiog ide of the
1og ledge of the works of the undertaking. Politics did not much interest him, that by process of distress. The facts are ihese :--In September, 1878, ibis
but he was a member of St. Stephen's Club, and gave an independent support negotiation takes place. It is perfectly evident that the debtors considered
lect that the debtors considered
to the Conservative parte.
Fes careers that after the 29th of that month they were in possession of the property under
suddenly and so sadly. the terms of the agreement. It is equally clear that the landlords looked upon the agreement altogether as void, and that they were entitled to hold the tenants upon the old tero.s of rent. Now I offer no opinion upou what the
MR. HENRY CHILD. rights of the parties were, but it is abundantly plain that that was the conten Mr. Henry Child, solicitor, of 2, Paul's Bakehouse-court, Doctors'-com. tion on one side and the other, and that being so, the man was a mere occupier mons, died at his residence, Downs Park-road, Hackney, on the 21st inst., at of the premises-he iosisted upon his right to occupy 'under this agreement, the age of seventy-nine. Mr. Child was born in 1802, and was admitted a which might or might not constitute him a tenant. The other side say, “No, solicitor in 1837, and he had practised for over forty years in the city of we set this aside altogether, and until you pay the arrears of rent we will have Loodon, bis private practice beiog very extensive. He was for many years in nothing at all to do with the agreement”; and, therefore, they appear to me to partnership with the late Alderman David Wise, M.P. (who was Lord Mayor be wide as the polus asunder. One says, We will recognize you as our tenant of London in 1858), and more recently he was associated with his sons, Mr. provided you do so-and-so, wbich the other side never complies with, and the Jobn Child, who was admitted in 1868, and Mr. Theophilas Child, who was relationship of landlord and tenant was never recognized by one side or the other admitted in 1869. Mr. Child had an extensive practice before the licensing except on those conditions. I am perfectly satisfied that the relation of land. magistrates for the various districts in and round the metropolis, and he had lord and tenant did not exist between these parties. There is no fixed rent | been for many years solicitor to the Metropolitan Licensed Victoallers' Associa. agreed upon, and therefore the landlords could not distrain.
tion. He was formerly returning officer for the Tower Hamlets, and on the Hopkinson.--My second point is that the tenancy which existed on the division of tbat constituency by the Reform Act of 1867, he became returning expiry of the old lease never determined at all: Kelly v. Paterson (L. R. 9 officer for the borough of Hackney, but he resigned the latter office in 1874, C. P. 681).
His HONOUR.-All that class of cases I perfectly admit. I don't know what tbe effect might have been (sapposing we had been dealing with what took place, not in September, 1878, but in September, 1872, when the lease expired. The only difference to my mind is this, which is fatal to the
LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. respondents' case, that on the notice to quit in September, 1878, expiring, the relation of landlord and tenant absolutely determined. The reversion came back into possession of the landlords, and from that time forth the parties had
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. pot the relation of landlord and tenant, but landlord and trespasser, and that
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION IN LAW8, 1882. relation could only determine by some arrangement, which arrangement was
EXAMINATION FOR HONOURS.
Jurisprudence and Roman Law. relationship continues.
First Class, His HONOUR.--You put the matter in a very fair and intelligible way. You Wilberforoe, Herbert William W. (Exhibition). - University College. say that there being so agreement the old state of things continues. I should
Second Class. be perfectly willing to listen to that, supposing there were nothing more, but it is shown from the facts that not only did the old agreement not con.
( Adler, Elkan Natban, B.A.-University College. tinde, but tbat a new arrangement was contemplated between the parties, J Clarke, Peroy.- Private study. wbich arrangement itself came to nothing, and that whilst that was in a
Goodwin, Frederick.- Private study. state of uncertainty this distrees took place, and holding as I do that you can.
(Symmons, Israel Alexander.-University College. not distrain unless the amount of reot is adjusted between the parties, eit ber
Labbook, John Birkbeck.-Balliol College, Oxford. by implication or agreement, and there being no implication here, because it
Third Class. is repudiated, and there being no fresh arrangement between the parties,
( Pemberton, Artbor.-Private study. because they could not agree, therefore you have no right to distrain. There
| Webb, William Fisher.-Private study. was no agreement, and there, it seems to me, is the weakness of your case. If
Macopacbie, James Robert, B.A. - Private study. things had gone on and nothing had taken place it would have been different,
(Ritter, Frederick.–Private toition. but that is not so. The parties were sufficiently active to destroy the old state of tbings, and not sufficiently active as to make a new agreement. I will
Brownson, Thomas, B.A.–Owens College and private study. make a declaration that tbe respondents had no right to distrain.
| Wood, Arthur Francis. —Private tuition. Order accordingly, with costs.
LL.B. EXAMINATION, 1882. Solicitors for the trustee, Sale, Seddon, Hilton, d: Lord, Manchester.
EXAMINATION FOR HONOURS. Solicitors for the respondents, Wrigley & Morecroft, Oldham.
Common Law and Equity.
Evans, Jobn William, B.So.-University College and Lincoln's-inn. The South-Eastern Railway (Channel Tunnel) Bill, the object of wbich was
Bowen, Henry Storer, B.A.-Private study. to construct a short railway near the commencement of the Channel Tunnel,
Second Class. was before the House of Commons examiners of private Bills on Wednesday, / Hart, Isaac Jobn.- Private study. and was thrown out for non-compliance with the standing orders.
Stable, Daniel Wintringbam.- Private study.
Third Class. Derai, Dolatray Surbbaj. Private study. (Piper, Jobo Edwin.—University College.
LL.D. EXAMINATION, 1882.
Pass List. Gray, George Godiroy.- Private study. White, Sidney, B.A.-Private study.
N.B.—The bracket indicates equality of merit.
STAXXARIES OF CORNWALL.
Warden of the Stannaries, dated Jan 19, it was ordered that the above company bo
[Gazette, Jan. 24.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. MIXERS' PROVIDENT BENEFIT SOCIETY, Wheat Sheaf Inn, Rainford, Lancaster. Jan 17
[Gazette, Jan, 20.1
NEW ORDERS, &c.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
CHANCERY Division. Mr. FRANCIS FLEMING, berrister, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Regulations of his lordship the Vice-Chancellor Sir Charles Hall as to Sapreme Court of the Colony of British Guiana, in succession to Mr. Hugh attendance before his lordship in obambers. Reilly Semper, who has been appointed Chief Justice of Gibraltar. Mr. The Vice-Chancellor directs that cases be called in the order in whiob Fleming was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, they appear in the list. 1866. He has been for several years Attorney-General of Barbadoes.
That all parties in two cases only be admitted into the room at the Mr. JAMES INSKIP, solicitor (of the fira of Brittan, Press, Inskip, & Crewd. same time. son), has been elected Chairman of the Taff Vale Railway Company, in suc
That notice in writing of attending by counsel be left at obambers as ceesion to bis partner, the late Mr. Heory Brittan. Mr. Ioskip was admitted
follows, viz.:-In the A. to F. division on Thursday for the following a solicitor in 1862.
Monday; in the G. to N. division on Monday for the following Wednesday;
and in the 0. to Z. division on Wednesday for the following Friday. Mr. ANDREW RUTHERFORD, advocate, has been appointed Sheriff Depute
And that in default of such notice as aforesaid being given no precedence for the County of Midlothian.
be allowed to cases attended by counsel. Mr. HOWELL THOMAS, solicitor, of Neath and Maesteg, has been elected January, 1882. Clerk to the Maesteg Local Board. Mr. Thomas was admitted a solicitor in 1877.
ORDER OF COURT. Mr. JOHN JAMES EDGECOMBE VENNING, solicitor, of Devonport, bas been
Wednesday, the 25th day of January, 1882. appointed Admiralty Law Agent for Plymouth and Devonport, in succes
Whereas, from the present state of the fusiness before the Vice-Chancellor sion to Mr. William Eastlake, deceased. Mr. Venning is town clerk of the
Sir Obarles Hall and Mr. Justice Kay, it is expedient that a portion of the borough of Devonport. He was admitted a solicitor in 1858.
causes and matters assigned to Vice-Chancellor Hall should for the purpose Mr. WILLIAM Ramsden, solicitor (of the firm of Ramsden, Sykes, & only of trial or bearing be transferred to Mr. Justice Kay. Now I, the Right Ramsden), of Huddersfield, bas been appointed a Commissioner to administer Honourable Roundell Baron Selborne, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Mr. Ramsden was admitted in do hereby order that the several causes set forth in the schedule bereto be 1878.
accordingly transferred from the Vice-Cbanoellor Sir Charles Hall to Mr. Mr. THOMAS WILLIAM PAYNE, solicitor, of 9, John-street, Bedford.row,
Justice Kay for the purpose only of trial or bearing, and be marked in the London, bas been appointed & Perpetual Commissioner for taking the
cause books accordiugly. And this order is to be drawn op by the registrar Acknowledgments of Deeds to be executed by Married Women in and for
and set up in the several offices of the Chancery Division of the High Court of
In re Bennett, decd Icke v Podmore
Hills v Reeves 1881 H 1,793 | Floyd v Ioglefield 1881 F 1.228 WINDING-UP NOTICES.
Hawkes v Holland 1881 H 2.261 Widdop v Pearson 1881 W 186 Joint Stock COMPANIES.
Gregory v Seaton 1880 G 0,733 Clement v Hanson 1881 01 323 UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.
Roche v Roche 1880 R 817 Woodgate o Thomson 1881 W BUTE Docks Loax SOCIETY.--Petition for winding up, presented Jan 14, directed to be
Grover v Robinson 1881 G 683 2,348 heard before Chitty, J., on Feb 4. Wooler, John st, Bedford row, agents for Morgan and Scott, Cardiff, solicitors for the petitioner
[Gazette, Jan. 20.1
Kuhliger v Bailey 1879 K 101 Carter v White 1880 C 115 LIMITED IN CHANCERY.
Williams v Williams 1881 W 3,544 In re Sterry, decd Sterry v Paddon ANGLO-AMERICAN CATTLE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Hodges v Newport 1880 H 1,491 1881 S 3,193
Jan 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Heritage and Co, Clement's Adams v Madox 1881 A 11 Tebb v Edwards 1881 T 566 lane, solicitors for the petitioner ARGUS NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has, by an order, dated Jan 19, ap.
Hickman v Say 1880 H 3,837 Jackson v Clark 1880 J 1,493 pointed Edmund Culpeper Weston, 74, Great Queen st, Lincoln's' inn fields, to be Warren Le Marchant 1880 W 2,150 Foster v Logge 1880 F 865 official liquidator
Koowles v Clark 1878 K 124 Hett v Collier 1881 H 4,437 CARDIFF SILICA FIRE BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.
Davies v Davies 1878 D 129 Learoyd v Mayor, &c, of Halifax dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the company be wound up, Warry and Co, L coln's inn fields, agents for Burges and Co, Bristol, solicitors for the petitioners
In re Rewcastle, decd, Nicholson v 1881 L 1,692 COOMBE SLATE QUARRIES, LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it Thompson 1881 R 1,088 Nickels v Reeves 1881 N 24 was ordered that the Quarries be wound up. Rogers and Chave, Queen Victoria st, Io re Turner, decd, Turner v Barwell Joliffe v Eden 1879 J 189
solicitors for the petitioner DITTOX BBOOK IRON COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 19.
1880 T 0,327
In re Denton, decd Bunting v Dendirected to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Crowdy and Co, Serjeants' inn, Fleet Macdonald v Paterson 1880 M 2,177 ton 1880 D 0,208 st, solicitors for the petitioners
Ashburner v Preston 1880 A 0,284 Baylis v Hewkeley 1878 B 515 GENERAL FINANCIAL BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 23, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Crump and Son, Philpot lane, solici.
In re Buxton, decd Farmer v Buxton Foster v Gates 1881 F 903 tors for the petitioner
1878 B 128
SELBORNE, C. GEISWOLD AND HAINWORTH, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 23,
directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Ashurst and Co, Old Jewry,
At the Stock and Sbare Auction Company's sale, held on the 20th inst., at at the chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator
their sale-room, Crown-court-buildioge, oid Broad-street, the following were NILGHERRY AND SOUTH INDIAN GOLD MINING SYNDICATE, LIMITED.--By an ord er amongst the prices obtained :-Rhodes Reef Gold Mining £1 shares, 128. 6d.; made by Hall, V.C., dated Jan 13, it was ordered that the syndicate be wound up. | Confederate States of America 100dols. Bonde, 3s. 4d.; Oriental Telephone fi
Eastwood, Gt St Helen's, solicitor for the petitioner
shares, 103. paid, 98. 9d.; Spanish Three per Cente., 26 11-16; Indian dated Jan. 14, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company bé Trevelyan Gold Mijping $1 shares, fully paid, 12s. 60.; Peruvian Six per continued. Heritage and Co, Clement's lane, solicitors for the petitioners
Cepts., 18; Hornachos Silver Lead Mining £10 sbares, £5 10s.; Egyptian Unified, CXITED SERVICE PROVISION MARKET, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 20, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Feb 3. Bolton and Co, Lincoln's inn
66} ; New Zealand Kapanga $1 shares, 108. ; Great Eastern Railway, 72 fields, solicitors for the petitioner
per cent. ; Rio Tinto £10 shares, 241 ; and other miscellaneous securities Vrox COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Bacon, 7.C., dated Jan.
fetcbed fair prices. At their sale held on the 24th inst., the following were 14, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Kennedy and Co., Clement's inn, Strand, agents for Jones, Wrexham, solicitor for the petitioner
amongst the prices obtained :- London Road Car £10 sbares, £9; New Wye WIITWORTX PARK GRAND STAND COMPANY LIMITED.-By an order made by Hall, V.C., Valley Lead Mining 31 sbarer, 98.; Old Owlacombe mines # shart S, 93. i dated Jan. 13, it was ordered that the said company be wound up. Harvey and Co., | Wheal Jewell Mining, 78. ; Oriinial Telephone £1 shares, 10s. paid, 4d. dis. Chancery lane, agents for Marshall, Durham, solicitor for the petitioner
count ; Belgium Date Coffre Company $5 shares, £2 103. paid, par ; West [Gazette, Jan 24.]
Craven Moor Lead, 7%. 6d. ; and other miscellaneous securities fetched fair COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. FIRST CEESVIRE PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding
prices. presented Jan 18, directed to be heard at the Vice-Chancellor's Chambers on Jan 30. Danger, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioner
NO MORE DARK Rooms in DAYTIMB.-Use Chappuis' Daylight Reflectors. 30,000 are
1 Gazette, Jan, 20.] fitted in London alone. They supersede gas or lamp light in daytime, and promote WALLASEY BRICK AND LAND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented health, comfort, and economy. They are also used as screens or blinds, and at the Jan 21, directed to be heard before the V.C. at his chambers on Monday, Feb 6. same time as daylight diffusers. For prospectuses, send two stamps to (S. J.) Chappuis, Mather, Liverpool, solicitor for the petitioners
Gazette, Jan. 24.) Patentee, 69, Fleet-street.-[ADVT.
POSTGATE, JOHN, Edgbaston, Warwick, Surgeon. Mar 1. Price and Co, Birmingham
Copthall ct, Throgmorton st
theroe CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
SWABY, WADHAM, SUTTON, Glasgow. Feb 15. Sutton and Ommanney, Great Winches.
ter st LAST DAY OF PROOF.
WELLUM, JOAN, New Shoreham, Oyster Merchant. Feb 25. Williams, New Shoreham DUNN, MARY SELINA, Plympton, Devon. Feb 10. Heinert v Dunn, Chitty, J. Green- | WILLIAMS, JAMES JOIN, Lawn Bank, Sutton, Surrey, Gent. Mar 1. Pidcock and Sons, way, Plymouth
Worcester Evans, John, Llangadock, Carmarthen, Miller. Feb 25. Jones and Co v Thomas, WROUT, HORATIO VERDEN, Long Sutton, Lincoln, Gent. Mar 1. Mossop and Mossop Hall, v.C. Maybery, Brocon
Long Sutton RICHARDSON, CAROLINE, Hartlepool, Durham. Jan 31. Wigan v Scally, Hall, V.C.
[Gazette, Jan. 13.) Maddock, Liverpool
[Gazette, Jan. 13.]
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
ROTA OF REGISTRARS IN ATTENDANCE ON
COURT OF Colchester
v.o. Badon, V.C. Hall,
Monday, Jan. ......... Mr. Merivale Mr. Pemberton Mr. Leach BUSH, THOMAS, Honing, Norfolk, Farmer. Feb 16. Wilkinson, North Walsham, Nor.
Wednesday, Feb. ..
Pemberton Leach CHABOT, CHARLES PHILIP, Queen's gdns, Gent. Mar 16. Thomas, South sq, Gray's inn
Ward CHASE, GEORGE, Hamstead cottage, Great Barr, Stafford, Commercial Traveller. Mar
Latbam 1. Allen, Birmingham
Pemberton Leach COLE, GEORGE, Hereford, City Surveyor. April 1. Humfrys, Hereford
Latham Evans, WILLIAM, Cornwall gdns, Kensington, Esq. Feb 28. Janson and Co, Finsbury
Mr. Justica Mr. Justice Mr. Justice circus
CHITTY. Fry, SAMPSON JOHN, Stoke Trister, Somerset, Manure Manufacturer. Jan 28.
Monday, Jan............ 30 Mr. Cobby Mr. Clowes Mr. Farrer Messiters and Bennett, Wincanton HOPWOOD, JOHN, Ardwick, Manchester. Mar 6. Storer and Lloyd, Manchester
Teesdale Inglis, WILLIA, Newgate st. Feb 15. Anderson and Sons, Ironmonger lane, Cheap. Wednesday, Feb. .....
Teesdale JORDISON, ROBERT BIxks, South Ockendon, Essex, Surgeon, Feb 11. Hunt and Friday
Farrer Williams, Lombard st
street, Adelphi, Mr. Richard B. Martin, M.P., in the chair, two papers STEPIEN, HASTINGS FITZEDWARD MURPHY, St Kilda, Melbourne, Victoria, Surveyor.
dealing with this subject were read and discussed. The first, “On the Bank. Feb 6. Wadeson and Malleson, Austin Friars STEPHEN, the Hon JAMES WILBERFORCE, Victoria parade, Fitzroy. Feb 6. Wadeson ruptcy Law, with a view to Legislation in the coming Session," w is by Mr. and Malleson, Austin Friars
James Motteram, Q.C., judge of the Birmingham County Court; the second, WAINWRIGHT, HARRIET, Wargrave, Berks. Feb 18. Whatley and Son, The Forbury, " Bankruptcy and Liquidation," by Mr. Harold Brown, a solicitor. Mr.
Motteram, whose paper was read for hire by Mr. Denny Urlin, said the WILTON, HENRY HOOPER, Gloucester, Esq. Feb 13. Wiltons and Riddiford, Gloucester problem was to frame a law which, while it should be effectual to deter dis.
[Gazette, Jan. 6.] honest men from dishonesty, should at the same tine not bear with suverity BURGASS, WILLIAM, Nottingham, Managing Director of the Nottingham Patent Brick | upon men whr, though unfortunate, were yet honest. Pointing out that Co. Feb 20. Wells and Hind, Nottingham
some of the difficulties arose from temptation to fragd which bestt many of CALLAGHAN, THOMAS FITZGERALD, Esq., C.M.G., Bahamas. Mar 25, Arnold and Co,
those interested in the property of an insolvent debtor, he remarked that there
the creditors to do was as a rule left undone. There must be a sufficient elemen; ham, Exeter
of officialism, but the less the better. Criticising certain provisions of the EVANS, WILLIAM, Cornwall gdns, Kensington, Esq. Feb 28. Janson and Co, Finsbury Bill introduced last session, which he feared might possibly lead to collisions circus
between the Board of Trade and courts of law, he defined the duties he would GOUBEAUX, MARIE THERESE HORTEUSE, Charrington st, St Pancras. Feb 15. Argles
impose on the official receiver in the interest, not of a few, but of the whole and Argles, Gracechurch st GUEST, EMILÁ Ann, Birmingham. Feb 18. Cottrell and Son, Temple row, Birmingham body of creditors. Among other suggestions for the amendment of the law, HARRIS, Rev HERBERT, Great Malvern, Worcester. Feb 28. Richards, Weekday cross, Mr. Motteram, speakiog from his experience of the hardships suffered by small Nottingham
det tors, sail he would let county court judges have power to give relief in HAWKESWORTI, JOHN, Treboyir rd, South Kensington, Esq. Feb 21. Skewes-Cox, Red Lion sq
certain cases to poor persons who ought not to be compelled to carry their debts HEWITT, PRISCILLA, Connah's Quay, Flint. Feb 6. Moss and Sharp, Chester
about with the for a lifetime. Mr. Harold Brown, in his paper, urged that HUNTER, DAVID, Greek st, Soho, Tailor. Mar 30. Allen and Son, Carlisle st, Soho sa
the insolvent debtor should be made to feel that he was on his trial, and that KEDGE,' Robert, Middleborough, Colchester, Essex, Licensed Victualler. Feb 10. Laundy and Son, Cecil st, Strand
the burden of justification should be thrown upon him and not (as too oftea LEGGE, EDWIN GILLINGHAM, Philpot lane, Solicitor. Feb 28. Stokes, Chisenhale rd, it seemed to be at present) upon the creditor. Bankruptcy should be Victoria pk
made a disgrace, inst:ad of a mers whitewashing and introduction to a new OSBORNE, JOHN WILLIAM WILLOUGABY, Gwalior, East Indies. May 10. Shoubridge and May, Lincoln's inn fields
career of happy-go-lucky speculation or deliberate brigaodage. QUENNESSEN, FRANCOIS ADRIEN, Boulevard Eugene, France, Merchant. Feb 15.
Argles and Argles, Gracechurch st
SALE OF ENSUING WEEK.
Feb. 1.-Mr. F. Ellis MORRIS, at the Mart, at 2 p.m., Roversion (see advertise. WOODALL, William, Kingston upon Hull, out of business. Mar 1. Goy and Cross, Barton upon Humber, Lincoln
ment, Jan. 14, page 4).
[Gazette, Jan. 10.) AULDJO, THOMAS Rose, Torquay, Devon, Esq. Feb 11. Berkeley, Gray's inn sq BATHURST, Sir FREDERICK HUTCHISON HERVEY, Clarendon pk, Salisbury, Wilts, Bart,
Feb 25. Warrens, Great Russell st
FRIDAY, Jan. 20, 1882.
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. FARRAR, JAMES, Holly Bank, Whitefield within Pilkington, Lancaster, Gent. Jan 31.
Creditors must forward their proofs of debts to the Registrar. Grundy and Son, Manchester
To Surrender in London, GREEN, HENRY, Pemberton, Lancaster, Licensed Victualler. Feb 7. Taylor and Sons,
Austin, Henry Joseph De Bruno, jun, Queen Victoria st, Commission Agent. Pet Dec Wigan
19. Murray, Feb 3 at 11 GREEN, ROBERT, Attleborough, Norfolk, Farmer. Mar 1. Wilkinson and Slann, Attle. borough
Barton, Harry Augustus, Queenhithe, Match Manufacturer. Pet Jan 17. Murray.
Feb 3 at 11.30
Claridge, D , Upper Canton pl, South Lambeth rd, Provision Dealer. Pet Jan 17. HODGSON, CHARLES, Southend. Mar 1. Gibson and Co, Newcastle upon Tyne
Murray. Feb 3 at 11 Hurst, Rev Joux, shakeham, Sussex. Feb 13. Walker and Co, Theobald's rd, Gray's
Herrmann, Edward, Leyton rd, Stratford, Cheesemonger. Pet Jan 18. Brougham. inn
Jan 31 at 12.30 JENKIN, JOAX, Stowting, Kent. Feb 25. Sharpe and Co, New ct, Carey st
Renaud, Louis Gilbert, Wigmore st, Cavendish sq, Dress Maker. Pet Jan 18. Jonssox, JANX, Bolton rd, Pendleton, Jan 3. Gaunt and Grainger, Manchester
Brougham. Feb 1 at 12 NUTTING, THOMAS Saul, Camden avenue, Peckham, Gent. Feb 20. Johnson, St
To Surrender in the Country. Mildred's ct, Ponltry
Bartlett, Caroline, Weston-super-Mare, Hotel Keeper. Pet Nov 19. Lovibond. Bridg. POND, CHRISTOPHER, New Bridge st, Blackfriars, Mar 1. Jones, Crosby sq
water, Feb 1 at 11