his proper course as a professional man was to inform his clients that they ought to make known the existence of the will, and unless they gave him authority to do so he should decline to act further for them in the matter. It was stated that after receiving this advice the respondent did nothing further in respect of the property affected by the will. The committee reported that the charges of fraud and conspiracy on the part of the respondent had not been made out, but that his conduct in continuing to act for Mrs. Williams and R. N. Williams with knowledge that they were postponing the disclosure of and, therefore, in fact, keeping back the will and so depriving the claimant of the benefits to which if it were valid he was entitled, and in allowing Mrs. Williams to make the affidavit above referred to without disclosing the will was extremely reprehensible. Having regard, however, to all the circumstances appearing in the report and to the high character given to the respondent, the committee reported that they were able to accept the respondent's explanation and to come to the conclusion that he acted bond fide though very unwisely and improperly, and they therefore did not find him guilty of professional misconduct. The complainant now applied to the court to hold that the respondent had been guilty of professional misconduct and to strike his name off the roll. WRIGHT, J.-I think we have jurisdiction to deal with the respondent's conduct, even though the committee have not convicted him. In the case of Re Crowdy (11 T. L. R. 406) Lord Russell, C.J., says that he there thought it necessary, in reading the report of the committee, to go into those matters in which the committee had not found an adverse finding, as well as into those matters in which they had found an adverse finding. And he then goes on to give his reasons—namely, that though the court would treat with great deference the findings of the committee, it was not bound by those findings, and if therefore there were facts on which the respondent ought to be found guilty, the court may find him guilty, though the committee has acquitted him. In this case we have therefore now to form our own opinion whether we ought to impose any punishment upon the respondent. I can well understand the view the committee have undertaken. The respondent is a man who hitherto has been possessed of an honourable record, and no doubt it did not appear at first that his conduct would lead to anything wrong, but he fell into a false position which became worse as time went on. I do not think that he had any personal interest or wrong motive in following the line of conduct which has been detailed in the report before us, but that is not sufficient to exonerate him. I have come to the conclusion that the committee were too lenient in the decision they arrived at. It would be a great slur upon a very honourable profession if it might be thought that a solicitor might, in any possible event, advise and assist his client to commit perjury, and especially in cases where property is involved. A solicitor may not advise a client to omit a material document in an affidavit of documents. It is the solicitor himself who settles what documents are to be mentioned, and he cannot shelter himself behind his client. Then comes the other point. The respondent was engaged in actively concealing this will. The effect of his doing so was that for three years the claimant was kept out of an income of about £1,000 a year. Then in October, 1895, the respondent took counsel's opinion, and from that time he did nothing that was not correct, and I think we must take cognizance of that. I think on the whole that the proper sentence is that the respondent be suspended from practice for two years, and that he pay the costs of the inquiry and of this motion. DARLING, J.-I am of the same opinion. I do not think that we can possibly take a more lenient view than my learned brother has done. The respondent's responsible and respectable position is rather an aggravation than otherwise of the matter. The fact that the dishonest course pursued by his clients was not at once denounced by a person in the respondent's position may well have encouraged them to act as they did. respondent not only concealed the fact that there was a flaw in his clients title, but also took active steps to enable them to dispose of their property. But he went further than this, for he also prepared what he knew would be a perjured affidavit. It is true he pointed this out to his clients, but when they insisted upon the affidavit remaining in that form he did not refuse to act for them. This conduct on the part of the respondent the committee described as reprehensible. I think these acts merit punishment. It is our duty to see that the officers of this court do not enable persons to commit crimes. Then we come to the other matter-namely, the will. For two whole years the respondent conceals this document and then he takes opinion of counsel. I should have thought that a person holding the position of the respondent would have known at once what was his duty and would have no need to consult counsel what he ought to do. He should have adopted a more straightforward policy; The moment he found the will and any intention to conceal it he should have refused to be a party to it at all. I think his conduct amounts to professional misconduct. Appeal allowed with costs. The order of the court was that William Robert Davies, solicitor, of Dolgelly, in the county of Merioneth, be suspended from practice for two years and pay the costs of the inquiry and the motion, the order to run from the 1st of March next.-COUNSEL, Carson, Q.C., and Foote, Q C.; Asquith, Q.C., and S. T. Evans. SOLICITORS, Clayton, Sons, & Fargus; T. D. Jones. [Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.] The Re WHITE, PENNELL v. FRANKLIN. Kekewich, J. 13th Jan. SOLICITOR EXECUTOR - POWER PROFESSIONAL CHARGES CREDITOR'S ACT ON-INSOLVENT ESTATE. This was a summons on the further consideration of a creditor's action against the estate of a deceased testator for the determination of the question whether a solicitor who was sole executor and trustee of the testator's estate was entitled to his profit costs of the action which he had defended in person. A clause in the testator's will appointed the executor solicitor of the estate and empowered him, notwithstanding his executorship, to make professional charges, but the estate was insolvent and the creditors therefore contended that the power to charge was in the nature of a legacy and could not take effect against the creditors. KEKEWICH, J.-It is not my duty to consider whether my decision may or may not be hard upon the solicitor, neither can I consider whether the estate would be better off by his acting and charging or whether it would not. I must consider only the facts. A solicitor, by a clause in this will, which is very common, is allowed to charge profit costs not withstanding that he is executor and trustee of the will. He is the sole executor, and the estate is insolvent, and the question is whether he is entitled to charge his profit costs against an insolvent estate. This power in the will s really a gift by the testator upon a condition. It is a gift to the solicitor of the power of charging for costs which he would not otherwise have if he chooses to act as executor. It is for him to say whether he will or will not act. He does act and must therefore take the risks of getting paid out of the estate. It seems to me it must be a matter of bounty, for but for this clause he could not charge at all for profit costs. It is a gift by the testator to the solicitor which the law does not give. The testator in fact says I give to my trustee and executor the right to act as solicitor and charge therefor. That is just as much a legacy as a gift of £100 would be. There is no difference between giving profit charges and giving a sum of money. It is a legacy chargeable with legacy duty, and unless I am at fault, legacy duty has been charged as against solicitors by the Revenue department. If it is a legacy the whole question is settled, because a legatee cannot compete with a creditor, he can only come in after a creditor. A legacy can only come out of such part of the estate as is left after paying the debts and testamentary expenses. This is not a debt, but a bounty, and therefore fails as against the creditors. It may seem hard upon the solicitor, but he must take his risk. The law is as I have said, and I have nothing to do with the propriety of it.-COUNSEL, Church; Í. G. Wood. SOLICITORS, Maitlands, Peckham, & Co.; S. Franklin, [Reported by C. C. HENSLEY, Barrister-at-Law.] Re A SOLICITOR; Ex parte THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. Application on the part of the Incorporated Law Society to strike off the roll of solicitors the name of a solicitor on the ground that he had already been struck off the roll of solicitors by the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope on the ground of professional misconduct in having there misappropriated the moneys of a client. The solicitor was personally served with notice of the application, but was not represented on the present hearing. The solicitor was admitted in this country in the year 1880 and practised in this country until 1894, when he proceeded to the Cape, and was there admitted a solicitor. In the beginning of 1896 a rule was made absolute striking him off the rolls of the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope on the ground that he had collected and received_cn behalf of a client a sum of money which he had misappropriated. The application now made to strike the solicitor off the rolls in this country, on the ground that he had been struck off the rolls by the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope, was a novel one, and one for which no precedent could be cited, and the application was based merely on the order of the Supreme Court striking the solicitor off the rolls, there having been no inquiry here by the statutory committee, and the question now was whether the court ought, merely upon production of the order of a colonial court striking a solicitor off the rolls, also strike the solicitor off the rolls in this country. In support of the application it was urged that, although there was no precise precedent for the application, the case ought to be decided according to the old practice, that where an application of this kind was made to the Court of Common Pleas, for instance, the Court of exercised their discretion in striking a solicitor off the rolls, abstained Common Pleas, on being informed that the Court of Queen's Bench had from going into the facts, but made the order on the mere presentation of the order of the Queen's Bench: Re John Collins (18 C. B. 272), that according to that practice the solicitor ought to be struck off the rolls in this country merely on the production to the court of the order of the colonial court striking him off for professional misconduct, and that in fact the solicitor in this case had personal notice of the application, and there could not be any hardship upon him as he couid attend and explain the circumstances; whereas, if the court refused to act upon such order the result would be that a person so struck off by the Court of the Colony could come to this country and practise here as a solicitor; and that in facts in this country. most cases it would be extremely difficult to have an investigation of the THE COURT (WRIGHT and DARLING, JJ.) dismissed the application. WRIGHT, J.-It seems to me that no one can complain in any way of the Incorporated Law Society in having sought the help of the court on a point of this importance; but, in my judgment, the application is not one we can properly grant. It is entirely without precedent, because the suggested precedent of the comity which existed between the various branches of the common law courts before they were united by the Judicature Acts is not one that can guide us at all. Although having separate provinces to some extent, they were courts mostly of co-equal jurisdiction; all of them deriving their power practically from the same sovereign and acting in close harmony with each other, and having to do with a body of solicitors who were, generally speaking, officers of each of these courts, and it was only natural that, when any court had pronounced on the conduct of a solicitor, the other courts would feel them selves bound to follow it. But this case goes far beyond any case of that kind. There must have been numerous instances, one would suppose, in which persons who are on the roll of solicitors in this country, have committed offences in their capacity of solicitors in colonies or other parts of the Queen's domi ions, as well as in foreign countries, and it must often have been desirable that they should be punished here, if possible, for offences of that kind, but no such case has been shown. The difficulties appear to me to be quite insuperable. How are we to say what description of court we are to treat with such respect that we are to accept their decision as enough to justify us in acting here? I do not know whether it is suggested that we ought to take that view of the decisions of strictly foreign courts, or whether the decision of every small clony ought to be acted upon by this court, without inquiry by this court on its own account. We do not know what the procedure may be in these cases; we do not know what their rules of evidence are, and here we know absolutely nothing of the facts of the case. The only evidence before us is an affidavit of the president of the Incorporated Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, who says that an action had been tried, and that from the facts proved in that action it appeared that the offence was committed. Of course that is the merest hearsay. We are quite unable to judge for ourselves what the real gravity, or what the real nature of the facts alleged against the solicitor, may have been. There is nothing to guide us to form our judgment as to whether the sentence of the court there was properly pronounced, or whether the punishment was too severe or not severe enough, or was the right punishment. I certainly cannot bring myself to think that simply because a court in a colony has struck a solicitor off the rolls, therefore we ought to accept their decision as guiding us, not merely as to the fact of the misconduct, but as to the degree of punishment to be inflicted. I do not at all say that there may not be cases in which the court ought to act, and probably would act, if the facts were brought up in a proper way, on evidence which was legal evidence; and if it could see clearly what it was that the solicitor had done and that the sentence or punishment inflicted by the colonial court was such as we should, according to our own practice, be inclined to inflict here. I do not think in this case we have sufficient information even to raise these questions. DARLING, J.-I agree, and I only say this. I desire to speak with every regard for the decisions of the courts of the colonies; but at the same time I cannot see that there is any real analogy between the Court of the Cape of Good Hope, or any other distant colony, and the Court of Queen's Bench, or the Court of Common Pleas, or the C. urt of Exchequer, which were not only courts sitting in this country, but sitting within a very few yards of one another-all in the same building at Westminster Hall; and therefore the procedure of the judges of one court was necessarily thoroughly understood by the judges of the others, and the kind of evidence on which they would act was thoroughly understood. There was this other fact, that they could easily, if they were in any doubt as to whether they would act simply on decisions of the other court with regard to the discipline of its officers, ascertain what was the evidence in any particular case. Therefore I can very well imagine that they would apply a rule to the decisions with regard to officers of any of those courts which they would not apply to decisions with regard to their officers come to in very distant courts. If there were any evidence at first hand-not merely hearsay, which is all there is in these affidavits-of what it was that this solicitor had done, then I think this court would regard the decision arrived at by the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope, or any court holding a similar position, with great deference, and would give it its proper weight in coming to a decision; but I do not think that, having no evidence whatever but a mere statement that the court has struck a solicitor off the rolls, this court ought to say without further inquiry that they will simply do the same thing.-COUNSEL, Hollams. SOLICITOR, E. W. Williamson. [Reported by Sir SHERSTON BAKER, Bart., Barrister-at-Law.] SOLICITORS ORDERED TO BE STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS. 14 January.-RICHARD TUCKER, the younger (Bridport, Dorset). 14 January.-DAVID THOMAS PHILLIPS. SOLICITOR SUSPENDED FOR A YEAR. 14 January.-WILLIAM HOLLOWAY BOTT (Oswestry). This was a summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, in the Manchester district registry by the purchasers of certain freehold hereditaments forming part of the estate of William Hampson, of Brightmeet Hall, Brightmeet, in the county of Lancaster, who died on the 12th of October, 1851, for a declaration that the respondents, the vendors, were not entitled to convey the hereditaments in fee. The facts of the case were as follow: William Hampson, by his will dated the 19th of June, 1850, devised all his real estate unto and to the use of his wife, his daughter, Mary, and his sons, William, Richard Hamer, John, and Daniel, their heirs and assigns, upon certain trusts. And the will empowered the "trustees for the time being" thereof to sell all or any part or parts of the said real estate. Richard Hamer, the last surviving trustee, died on the 13th of May, 1892, having by his will appointed the respondents his executors, who, after his death acted as trustees of the estate of William Hampson, and, as such, entered into a contract with the applicants for the sale of the hereditaments in question. The question was whether the respondents as executors of Richard Hamer Hampson could, under section 30 of the Conveyancing Act, 1880, sell and convey the real estate of W. Hampson in fee. BYRNE, J., held that the power of sale contained in the will of William Hampson was exercisable by the respondents under section 30 of the Conveyancing Act. - COUNSEL, Milne; Stewart Smith. SOLICITORS, Thomas Ward, Manchester; Ashwell, Browning, & Tutin, for Thomas Hughes, Bolton; Ashwell, Tutin, & Co., Manchester. [Reported by J. ARTHUR PRICE, Barrister-at-Law.] HENDERSON'S TRANSVAAL ESTATES (LIM ) v. BARNATO BROTHERS. This was an action for specific performance of a contract to purchase claims in the Transvaal. There was originally a counter-claim, but it was abandoned. The facts were as follow: By an agreement of the 10th of April, 1895, the plaintiffs agreed to sell to the defendants "100" "claims or their equivalent" on a farm known as Palmietfontein in the Transvaal Republic. The word "claim" has in Transvaal law a definite meaning, and it is not lawful to dig or prospect for precious metals until a farm has been proclaimed for public digging. The defendants submitted that there had been no proclamation of the right of public digging on the plaintiffs' land, and that the plaintiffs had no right to dig or prospect for precious metals. Questions of South African law were also raised. BYRNE J., held that this was a case in which the English Courts had jurisdiction. If the words in the contract had only been "100 claims" there might have been some force in the defendants' contention. But the words were "claims or their equivalent." On the evidence his lordship held that the defendants were aware that the farm had not been proclaimed, and that the words "or their equivalent" had been inserted at their suggestion. His lordship held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance and costs.-COUNSEL, Astbury, Q.C., and L. M. Richards; Eve, Q.C., and Leonard. SOLICITORS, Hepburn, Son, & Cutliffe; Ashurst, Morris, Crisp, & Co. [Reported by J. ARTHUR PRICE, Barrister-at-Law.] LAW SOCIETIES. INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. In pursuance of the resolution passed at the adjourned 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 inst., at two o'clock precisely, to consider the subjects hereinafter mentioned. Mr. ARTHUR MIDDLETON will move: "That having regard to the action of the council of the society during the passage of the Land Transfer Bill through the House of Commons last year, in not only withdrawing opposition to, but approving such Bill, and taking into consideration the unmistakable position assumed and action taken subsequently by the Yorkshire law societies, this meeting regrets that the council, before sending in their reply to the circular letter of the county council deprecating the first trial of the Act in London, did not first consult with and consider the wishes of the provincial members through their provincial law societies." Mr. W. MELMOTH WALTERS will move, with reference to the Law Society's Club : (1) That the following addition be made at the end of rule 3: but the committee shall have power at their discretion to suspend or reduce the entrance fee for any period or for any class of members, and also to reduce the annual subscription payable by members or any class of members.' (2) That the following addition be made at the end of rule 4: 'but such subscription may be reduced by the committee as before mentioned.' (3) That the words 'if any' be inserted in rule 6 after the words 'entrance fee,' and in rule 7 after the words' entrance fees.' 999 Mr. C. H. MORTON will move: "That the present system under which retrospective regulations as to stamp duties are issued is unsatisfactory and should be amended." LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETIES. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY.-Jan. 18.-Chairman, Mr. Archibald Hair.-The subject for debate was: "That the case of Penton v. Barnett (Times L. R. 11) was wrongly decided." Mr. A. W. Watson opened, and Mr. F. H. Birdseye seconded, in the affirmative; and Mr. James Brennan opened, and Mr. J. H. Bate seconded, in the negative. The following members also spoke: Messrs. Jolly, Dickson, W. B. King, and Berryman. The motion was lost by 8 votes. LEGAL NEWS. OBITUARY. Mr. RICHARD GIBSON, solicitor, senior partner in the firm of R & W. & J. Gibson, of Hexham, who died at his residence, St. Wilfrid's, Hexham, on the 9th of January last, at the advanced age of eighty-three, was one of the oldest practising solicitors in the north of England, having carried on business at Hexham for sixty years. Mr. Gibson's family have been connected with Hexham and the district for between 300 and 400 years. Richard Gibson, one of his ancestors, appears in the Muster Rolls of the year 8 Henry VIII. (1531) as able to support the king with horse and harness. The deceased gentleman was born on the 24th of June, 1814, and after being educated at Sedgely Park and Ushaw College-the latter being founded by his great uncle, Bishop William Gibson-he was articled to his brother, Jasper Gibson, who was carrying on an oldestablished family business in Hexham. Mr. R. Gibson was admitted in 1837, and, after spending a short time in London in the offices of Messrs. Bell & Brodrick and Messrs. Chisholm, Hall, & Gibson, he, in 1838, went into partnership with his brother in Hexham. The firm acted as stewards of the extensive manors of Hexham, Anick Grainge, Henshaw, Melcridge, Redley, and Thorngrafton; and they were the managers of Messrs. Lambton & Co.'s Bank in Hexham. Mr. Gibson was on many occasions under-sheriff for the county, and also agent for several large estates. In 1857 he was appointed clerk to the county magistrates for Tindale Ward Division, and in 1874, upon its formation, was appointed clerk to the county magistrates for Bellingham Division. Upon the formation of the Tyne Salmon Conservancy Board in 1865, he was elected clerk and treasurer; and he held all these appointments till his death. In 1871, his nephew, Mr. Wilfrid Gibson, was taken into partnership, and in 1872 Mr. Jasper Gibson died. Mr. Gibson married on the 12th of April, 1864, Miss Sparrow, a daughter of John Sparrow, Esq., of Puddington Hall, Chester. This lady died on the 10th of March, 1865, leaving one son, Mr. Jasper Gibson, LL B. (Lond.), who joined the firm in 1887. Mr. Gibson took a great interest in the volunteer movement, and was largely instrumental in raising the local corps, of which he was for some years captain. He was also an ardent sportsman, and for a period of thirty years was honorary secretary to the Tynedale Hounds. On the occasions of both his marriage and retirement, the members of the hunt made him very handsome presentations of plate. He was able to attend his office until October last. Universal sorrow was felt at the news of his death. Mr. EDGAR FRANCIS JENKINS, solicitor, who died on the 18th inst. at the age of 48 years, after ten days' illness, from influenza, was the head of the firm of Messrs. Brooks, Jenkins, & Co., proctors and notaries, of Godliman-street. He was admitted in 1872. His firm were concerned in most of the ecclesiastical suits of the past quarter of a century, the last being that of Read and Others v. The Bishop of Lincoln, in which he appeared for the Bishop. From 1880 to 1893 he was a member of the Corporation of London and was chairman of many of the important committees. On leaving the Common Council, he was appointed ward clerk of Castle Baynard Ward. He was also one of her Majesty's lieutenants for the City of London. APPOINTMENTS. Mr. J. C. LEWIS COWARD, barrister, a Bencher of Gray's-inn, has been appointed a Member of the Council of Law Reporting. Mr. GEORGE BELOE ELLIS, of 55 and 56 Chancery-lane, London, solicitor and chartered patent agent, has been enrolled on the Register of Attorneys permitted to practise before the United States Patent Office at Washington. CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS. DISSOLUTION. EDWARD WOODHOUSE VEALE and WILLIAM GEORGE VEALE, solicitors (Veale Bros.), Bristol. Dec. 31. [Gazette, Jan. 14. INFORMATION WANTED. FRANCES MATILDA UNWIN.-£100 Reward.-A reward of £100 will be paid to any person giving such information as will lead to the recovery of the last will of Mrs. Frances Matilda Unwin, widow, deceased, who since 1890 chiefly resided in Kensington, London, but before that date, and occasionally afterwards, at Brighton and Bath. Information to be given to Messrs. Pontifex, Hewitt, & Pitt, solicitors, No. 16, St. Andrew-street, Holborn-circus, London. ANNA MARIA ESTHER CROOKSHANK.-A reward of £50 will be paid for the last will of Miss Anna Maria Esther Crookshank, late of No. 30, Hawley-square, Margate, recently deceased. Apply to Messrs. G. F. Hudson, Matthews, & Co., solicitors, 32, Queen Victoria-street, London, E.C. RICHARD GREENHALGH.-Any solicitor or other person having knowledge or possession of any will or testamentary disposition made by Mr. Richard Greenhalgh, of 1, Temple-gardens, London, during the last four years is requested to communicate at once with Messrs. Merriman, White, & Thomson, of 3, King's Bench-walk, Temple, London. GENERAL. Circuit have been altered by the judges (Justices Lawrance and Ridley) as follows: Newcastle, Monday, February 21; Durham, Monday, February 28; York, Monday, March 7; Leeds, Friday, March 11. Mr. Justice Gorell Barnes, Mr. Justice Lawrance, Judge Lumley Smith, Mr. Littler, Q.C., and Mr. Warmington, Q C., will be present at the Article Club dinner on the 2nd prox., on which occasion there will be a debate on the subject of "Commerce and the Law." Mr. Herbert S. Syrett, a son of Mr. Alfred Syrett, of 45, Finsburypavement, solicitor, was amongst the successful candidates at the recent examination of the University of London for the degree of LL.B, being placed in the first division. letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom The London Gazette announces that the Queen has been pleased to direct earl of the said United Kingdom unto the Right Honourable Hardinge of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignities of a viscount and an Stanley, Baron Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the names, styles, and titles of Viscount Tiverton, of Tiverton, in the county of Devon, and Earl of Halsbury, in the same country. At the Devizes Assizes on the 13th inst., before Mr. Justice Bigham, the grand jury made the following presentments: "(1) That, in the opinion of the grand jury for the county of Wilts, the criminal law should be so amended as to allow judges of assize and magistrates at quarter sessions, in their discretion, to inflict the punishment of flogging, in addition to imprisonment, in all cases of rape, attempted rape, and indecent assaults on women and children; (2) that the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 should be amended so as to include the offence of obtaining goods by false pretences.' At the meeting of the St. Pancras Vestry on Wednesday Mr. J. W. Dixon moved the adoption of a report which recommended that the London County Council be informed that in the opinion of the vestry the administrative county of London is not the best place to try the experiment of the operation of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, as regards the compulsory registration of land." Mr. G. Bernard Shaw, in proposing, as an amendment, the omission of the word "not," referred to the fact that the vestry had taken the opinion of solicitors on the subject of the adoption of compulsory registration, an opinion which was adverse. Mr. Shaw held that to consult solicitors about this matter was like consulting a butcher on the merits of vegetarianism. The Land Transfer Act in practice would be a bad thing for lawyers, no doubt, but London vestries were not elected to serve the interests of lawyers. He thought London local authorities should be the first to urge compulsory registration of land titles, instead of, as in a donkey race, trying to be last. The amendment was carried by 37 votes to 17. At the Bow-street police-court, on the 14th inst., says the Times, before Mr. Lushington, Henry Cook, solicitor's clerk, appeared to two summonses charging_him with having, on the 5th of October and on the 15th of October, 1897, respectively, falsely pretended to be a solicitor, contrary to the provisions of the Solicitors Act (37 & 38 Vict. c. 68), s. 12. Mr. C. O. Humphreys supported the summonses on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society; Mr. D. Warde defended. Mr. Humphreys said that the defendant acted as clerk to Mr. H. E. Edmonds, solicitor, of Lincoln's inn-fields. The charges against him were that on the 5th of October last he appeared for the complainant in a summons for wilful obstruction heard at this court, and, a verdict being given for the complainant, applied for costs and was awarded 123. The charge on the second sum. mons was that on the 15th of October, when a cross-summons between two cabmen was called, he stated that he appeared for one of the parties. On that occasion Mr. H. Wilson, a well-known solicitor, objected, in the name of the profession, to him as an unqualified practitioner, and the magistrate refused to hear him and subsequently told him to leave the court. Evidence to this effect was given by Mr. Seth G. Hales, managing clerk to Messrs. Crawshaw & Caldicott, solicitors, and by Mr. Harry Wilson, senior partner in the firm of Wilson & Wallis, solicitors. For the defence Mr. Warde said that the defendant had served his time as an articled clerk, but it was not suggested that he was on the rolls. He had attended on these two occasions, by direction of his principal, merely to obtain an adjournment of the cases for a short time to allow of the latter's being present to conduct them. It could not be said that in either case any one was defrauded. Mr. Lushington said that if these were the defendant's instructions it was plain that he had not kept to them, but had acted as a solicitor. He would be fined £5 for each offence, with £3 33. costs; in default, 14 days' imprisonment. Mr. Humphreys said that he wished to add that the Incorporated Law Society interested themselves in these cases, not for the benefit of solicitors, but for the protection of the people who were liable to be defrauded by unauthorized practitioners. 99 FOR THROAT IRRITATION AND COUGH.-" Epps's Glycerine Jujubes' to all suffering from cough, soreness, or dryness of the throat. Sold only always prove effective. They soften and clear the voice, and are invaluable in labelled tins, price 74d. and 18. 13d.-James Epps & Co., Ltd., Homœopathic Chemists, London.-[ADVT.] WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house, have the Sanitary Arrangements thoroughly Examined, Tested, and Reported Upon by an Expert from Messrs. Carter Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full The Commission days for the Winter Assizes on the North-Eastern particulars. (Established 21 years.)—[Advт.] HUNTON-YEOMAN.-Jan. 18, at St. Mary's Parish Church, Whitby, J. R. Elstob Hunton, DENISON-Jan. 15, at Londesborough, Malwood-road, Balham-hill, S.W., Charles Marsh THE PROPERTY MART. SALES OF ENSUING WEEK. Jan. 27.-Messrs. FAREBROTHER, ELLIS, EGERTON, BREACH, GALSWORTHY, & Co., at the Mart, at 2 p.m., a valuable City Freehold Property, being No. 25, Crutched Friars, situated in the centre of the wine and corn trades. Solicitors, Messrs. Bedford, Monier-Williams & Robinson, London. Freehold Property next to King's College, Strand, let for 10 years at £300 per annum, with reversion to increased rental. Solicitors, Messrs. Wadeson & Malleson, Londen. Long Leasehold Investments at Clapham, held for 99 years, let at £203 per annum, ground-rents £36 15s. Solicitors, W. Sanders-Fiske, Esq., London, and Messrs. Knight & Sons, Newcastle-underLyme. (See advertisements, Jan. 8, p. 4.) Jan 27.-Mr. HENRY HENDRIKS, at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham, at 2 p.m., very important Rolling, Wire, and Tube Mills, situated in the centre of Birmingham, together with goodwill, plant, and machinery, with beneficial tenancy of 134, Great Hampton-street, with option of the tools, &c., at valuation; also a three-story manufactory occupied by the Shark Manufacturing Co. at £100 per annum, an underlease will be granted to purchaser for 22 years at a peppercorn rent; Leasehold Ground-rents and Reversions amounting to £279 per annum. Solicitors, Messrs. Nicholson, Patterson, & Freeland, Messrs. Trinder, Capron, & Co., of London, and Messrs. Ryland, Martineau, & Co., of Birmingham. (See advertisement, Jan. 8, p. 4.) RESULTS OF SALES. At Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD's Property Auction on Wednesday last, at the Mart, E.C., the following Properties were disposed of at the prices named : 10, Beauchamp-place, Brompton-road, £550; Profit Rental, £27 per annum, secured upon 40, Fulham-road, £210; Leasehold Ground-rent, £8 8s. per anaum, arising out of 20 and 22, Church-road, Battersea, £150; 29, 30, and 31, Harcourt-street, Marylebone, and Builder's Yard in rear, £300. The same firm held their uusal Fortnightly Sale of Reversions and Life Policies, at the Mart, E.C., on Thursday last, the following Interests being among the lots sold: ROYAL HOTEL, SCARBOROUGH, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Jan 31, to send their names and addresses, together with full particulars of their debts or claims, to Tasker Hart, 44, Queen st, Scarborough, solor for liquidator SELF ADJUSTING BICYCLE SUPPORT CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 28, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Rowland Beevor, Norfolk House, Norfolk st, Strand. Williams & James, Norfolk st, solors to liquidator TALISMAN MINES, LIMITED-By an order made by Wright, J, dated Dec 20, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Vallance & Co, Lombard House, solors for liquidators TURNER PNEUMATIC TYRE CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before March 10, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Basil Gee and John Robie Whamond, 3, Crown ct, Old Broad st. Lumley & Lumley, Old Jewry chbrs, solors to liquidators WILLIAM TOPLEY & SONS, LIMITED-By an order made by Wright, J., dated Dec 20, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up be continued. Deacon & Co, 9, Great St Helen's, colors for petners WINCHESTER SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 23, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr. Charles H. Tindal, 19, Gt Winchester st. Andrew & White, 27, Clement's lane, solors to liquidator FRIENDLY SOCIETY DISSOLVED. CLAYTON-LE-MOORS WORKING MEN'S CLUB AND INSTITUTE, Sparth rd, Clayton-le-Moors Accrington, Lancs. Dec 15 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Jan. 18. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. ALKALI REDUCTION SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Barclay Peat, 3, Lothbury. Munns & Longden, 8, Old Jewry, solors to liquidator ANDREWS HAWKSLEY PATENT TREAD CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 14, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Ward & Co, 85, Gracechurch st, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan 25 ARGENTINE CONCESSIONS, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 26, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Parker Owen, 3-5, Queen st, Cheapside. Keddey & Co, 9, Fenchurch st, solors to liquidator EDWIN BRAY GOLD MINING Co, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before March 14, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to LJ Langmead, 23, College hill GLOBE ENGINEERING CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 28, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to George Edward Haworth, Duchy chbrs, Clarence st, Manchester INGAMASONGA REEF, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Louis Charles Alexander, Broad st avenue. Chave & Chave, Broad st avenue, solors to liquidator GUY FAWKES REEF, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Louis Charles Alexander, Broad st avenue. Chave & Chave, Broad st avenue, solors for liquidator KENSINGTON CO-OPERATIVE STORES, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 14, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Sutton & Co, Great Winchester st, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the after noon of Jan 25 LONDON SEWING MACHINE SYNDICATE, LIMITED-By an order made by Byrne, J., dated Dec 16, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the syndicate be continued. Scott, Bishopsgate st Within, solor for petners LUX PATENT VENETIAN BLIND CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 13, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Campion & Simmons, 90 and 91, Queen st, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan 25 MACK SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Tuesday, Feb 22, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Isaac Kircheim and Richard Thalmann, 15, Ängel ct, Throgmorton st. Dawes & Sons, solors for liquidators MASSI KESSI REEFS, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and claims, to Louis Charles Alexander, Broad st avenue. Chave & Chave, Broad st avenue, solors for liquidator MORTGAGE AND SECURITIES CO, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 15, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Beal & Payne, 22, Budge row, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan 25 PARDY'S RANGE, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Louis Charles Alexander, Broad st avenue. Chave & Chave, Broad st avenue, solors for liquidator SELF-ADJUSTING BICYCLE SUPPORT CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 28, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Rowland Beevor, Norfolk House, Norfolk st, Strand. Williams & James, Norfolk st, solors to liquidator FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. LILY OF THE VALLEY LODGE OF THE ORDER OF DRUIDS, Bridge Inn, Colne rd, Huddersfield, Yorks. Jan 12 OLD KING'S HEAD KITCHEN CLUB, King's Head Inn, South Ockendon, Romford, Essex. Jan 12 STREET CO-OPERATIVE BOOT AND SHOE MANUFACTURING SOCIETY, LIMITED, 176, High st, Street, 8 O, Somerset. Jan 12 WINDING UP NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Jan. 14. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY. AFRICAN GOLD PROPERTIES, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 11, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Edwards & Cohen, 3, Coleman st, solors for petners. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan 25 BAMBOO CYCLE CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 26, to send in their Dames and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Joseph Henry Nolan, 59, Holborn Viaduct BROWNFIELDS GUILD POTTERY SOCIETY, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Dec 10, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Bentwich & Co, Corporation chmbrs, Guildhall yard, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan 25 EUNSON & SCUBR, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Feb 14, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Percy Farbridge Ward, 32, Grainger st W, Neweastle upon Tyne. Maughan & Hall, Newcastle on Tyne, solor to liquidator GREAT HORSELESS CARRIAGE CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before March 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Ward & Co, 7, King st, Cheapside, solors for liquidator H. S. NICHOLS, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Jan 13, directed to be heard on Jan 26. Leadam & Young, 28, Austinfriars, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Jan 25 BOOTH, DAVID HENRY, Ipswich Feb 19 Westhorp & Co, Ipswich BROOMHALL, JOHN, Hanley, Beerhouse Keeper Feb 5 Bell, Newcastle DRAKE, JOHN ALEXANDER, Lowestoft Feb 9 Kingsford & Drake, Ashford, Hent GRAHAM, KATHARINE, Barnstaple, Devon Feb 8 Lee & Pembertons, Lincoln's inn HILL, MARY FRANCES STAVELEY, Kensington March 1 Guscotte & Co, Essex st, Strand Feb 22 G Lyus & Sons, Diss London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Jan. 14. AITKEN, ROBERT, Holland Park avnue, Notting hill gate Feb 12 Belfrage & Co, John st, Bedford row Halse & Co, Cheapside Daniel & Oldfield, Macclesfield AVIS, JAMES, Stoke Bardolph, Notts, Farm Manager Feb 11 Dowson & Wright, Not- HODGSON, WILLIAM, Kensington March 1 Tatton, Kensington IVIMEY, HENRY, East Molesey Jan 31 Peacock & Goddard, South sq, Gray's inn MCGINTY, DENNIS, Bradford, Beerseller Feb 14 Westwood, Bradford MARSH, RICHARD, Sandwich, Kent, Manure Merchant Jan 31 Emmerson & Co, Broad st NOUAILLE, ANNE, Sevenoaks, Kent Feb 1 Lingard, Finsbury circus PANKHURST, HENRY, Stroud Green, Commercial Traveller Feb 28 Dade & Co, London RAMSAY, Hon ROBERT ANDERSON, Ryder st, St James Feb 5 Martineau & Reid, MAUND, WILLIAM FRANCIS, Upper New Inns, nr Claverley, Salop, Faimer Feb 5 Under- MORYOSEPH, ABRAHAM, Leadenhall st, Drug Merchant Feb 15 Longbourne & Co, Old circus Feb 8 Doyle, Manchester RANDALL, HARRIETT, Nottingham Feb 14 Barlow, Nottingham RICHARDSON, MARY, Munich, Germany Feb 17 St Barbe & Co, Delahay st, West- VINES, EMMA ANN EDMUNDS, Nottingham March 15 Carter, Nottingham WHITE, SAMUEL MONCKTON, St Albans, Hertford, Brewer Feb 26 Dumville, St YATES, HENRY EDWIN, Handsworth, Stafford Feb 19 Pointon, Birmingham BANKRUPTCY NOTICES. London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Jan. 14. RECEIVING ORDERS. ALLEN, ROBERT CATLEY, Bridlington Quay, Yorks, Jan 10 BAUGHAN, JOHN, Shipton under Wychwood, Oxford, Far- DYER, HERBERT HENRY, Winterbourne Stoke, Wilts, Baker FRANKLIN, SAMUEL JAMES, High Easter, Essex, Grocer JAQUES, JOHN, Wandsworth, Fruiterer Wandsworth Pet JONES, THOMAS LEWIS, Cwmbach, Aberdare Aberdare LUMB, SHADRACH, Hailfax, Slater Halifax Pet Jan 12 MATHEWS, WILLIAM HENRY, Cardiff, Grocer Cardiff Pet MAY, ALBERT EUGENE, Leeds, Clerk Leeds Pet Jan 8 MAYSTON, JOHN HENRY, jun, Great Yarmouth, Ship MOODY, THOMAS ARTHUR, Southsea, Tailor Portsmouth NEIL, JAMES, Gillingham, Dorset, Farmer Salisbury Pet NICHOLLS, JOHN JAMES, Ashford, Middlesex, Insurance Wakefield WAYMOUTH, WILLIAM HENRY, Ellacombe, Torquay, Baker WESTACOTT, WILLIAM LEVER, Newport, Mon, Baker New- YATES, JOHN LEEMAN, New Crofton, Yorks, Grocer Wake- YATES, OWEN, Bardsley, nr Ashton under Lyne, Farmer FIRST MEETINGS. CHANDLER, CHARLES, Bunwell, Norfolk, Builder Jan 22 DIGGLE, SAMUEL, Manchester, Draper Jan 21 at 3 Off GOBLE, JOHN EDWARD, Brighton, Coal Dealer Jan 21 at 12 avenue |