the contrary was shown. No defence to the landlord's claim had, however, been suggested. Another point raised was that the right to re-enter arose only on the company being "wound up"-i.e., completely wound up-and not upon the making of a winding-up order. As to this JESSEL, M.R., said thot the object of the clause must be regarded, and the right of re-entry obviously must arise when an order to wind up the company was made. When it was fully wound up all its property would have been sold, of course the lease could not be sold while the lessor's right to re-enter existed, and on that construction the proviso would have no meaning at all.-SOLICITORS, Worthington Evans; T. C. Russel.

PRACTICE

INJUNCTION-NUISANCE-DISCONTINUANCE OF NUISANCE BEFORE TRIAL. In a case of Slack v. The Midland Railway Company, before the Court of Appeal on the 31st ult., the question arose whether an injunction ought to be granted to restrain a nuisance, when the nuisance, though it existed when the writ was issued, has ceased before the trial of the action. The action was brought to restrain the defendants from fouling a stream by discharging into it gas-tar from some gasworks belonging to them, and for damages. The action was commenced early in the year 1879. The defendants had constructed a wall and a drain to prevent the escape of tar from their gasworks into the river, and these alterations were completed on the 30th of May, 1879. When the action was tried by Fry, J., in November, 1880, there was evidence that, shortly after the completion of the new wall, tar had ozed through it into the stream. Fry, J., held that the pollution of the stream had been caused by the defendants' works, and he granted an injunc. tion and an inquiry as to damages, and ordered the defendants to pay the costs of the action. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M. R., and BRETT and HOLKER, L.JJ.) discharged the injunction, but did not otherwise vary the judgment, and they gave no costs of the appeal. JESSEL, M.R., said that the principal object of the action was to obtain an injunction. There was no evidence that between the 8th of June, 1879, and the trial in November, 1980-that is, during a period of nearly eighteen months after the completion of the defendants' new works-there had been any escape of gas-tar into the stream. The nuisance must have been effectually put a stop to for nearly eighteen months. There was, therefore, no continuing nuisance at the time of the trial, and his lordship could see no reason in the world why the injunction should have been granted at the trial, or why it should be now continued. It could not be said that it would do the defendants no harm if they had put a stop to the nuisance, for, if the injunction remained in force, and there was the slightest escape of gas-tar into the stream from whatever cause, the plaintiffs would be able at once to come to the court with an application for a sequestration against the defendants' property, on the ground that they had committed a breach of the injunction.-SOLICITORS, Beale, Marigold, & Co.; Field, Roscoe, & Co.

or for

MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE-FORECLOSURE OR REDEMPTION ACTIONORDER FOR SALE-JURISDICTION-CONVEYANCING ACT, 1881 (44 & 45 VICT. C. 41), 8. 25.-In a case of The Union Bank of London v. Ingram, before the Court of Appeal on the 1st inst., a question arose as to the extent of the power given to the court by section 25 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, to make an order in a foreclosure or redemption action for the sale of the mortgaged property-viz., whether such an order can be made after judgment for foreclosure or redemption has been given at the trial. Section 25 provides (inter alia) that, "(1) Any person entitled to redeem mortgaged property may have a judgment or order for sale instead of for redemption in an action brought by him either for redemption alone sale alone, or for sale or redemption in the alternative. (2) In any action, whether for foreclosure, or for redemption, or for sale, or for the raising and payment in any manner of mortgage money, the court, on the request of the mortgagee, or of any person interested either in the mortgage money or in the right of redemption, and notwithstanding the dissent of any other person, and notwithstanding that the mortgagee or any person so interested does not appear in the action, and without allowing any time for redemption or for payment of any mortgage money, may, if it thinks fit, direct a sale of the mortgaged property on such terms as it thinks fit, including, if it thinks fit, the deposit in court of a reasonable sum, fixed by the court, to meet the expenses of sale, and to secure performance of the terms. (3) But in an action brought by a person interested in the right of redemption, and seeking a sale, the court may, on the application of any defendant, direct the plaintiff to give such security for costs as the court thinks fit, and may give the conduct of the sale to any defendant, and may give such directions as it thinks fit respecting the costs of the defendants or any of them. (4) In any case within this section the court may, if it thinks fit, direct 8 sale without previously determining the priorities of incumbrancers." By section 48 of the Chancery Amendment Act of 1852 (repealed by the Act of 1881) it was provided that it should be lawful for the Court of Chancery, "in any suit for the foreclosure of the equity of redemption in any mortgaged property, upon the request of the mortgagee, or of any subsequent incumbrancer, or of the mortgagor, or any person claiming under them respectively, to direct a sale of such property instead of a foreclosure of such equity of redemption, on such terms as the court may think fit to direct." The action was brought by second mortgagees against the first mortgagee, other mortgagees subsequent to themselves, and the mortgagor, claiming to redeem the first mortgagee, and to foreclose the other mortgagees and the mortgagor in default of redemption. At the trial judgment for foreclosure was given in the ordinary form. Afterwards the plaintiffs paid the first mortgagee what was found due to him on taking the account under the judgment, and the first mortgagee transferred his security to thep laintiffs. There was then due to the plaintiffs more than £23,000, and the property was worth only £14,000.

The amount due to a third mortgagee was £4,000. The plaintiffs presented a petition in the action asking that, instead of working out the judgment in the ordinary way, an order might he made for the sale of the property. Kay, J., thought that there was no jurisdiction under section 25 to order a sale after a judgment for foreclosure or redemption had been given, and he refused the application. In the Court of Appeal reference was made to Girdleston v. Lavender (9 Hare, App. 53), in which Turner, V.C., held that, under section 48 of the Act of 1852, there was no power to order a sale after a foreclosure decree had been made, and to Laslett v. Cliffe (2 W. R. 536, 2 Dr. & Sm. 278), in which Stuart, V.C., was of a contrary opinion. The subsequent mortgagees did not oppose the application. The Court of Appeal (JESSEL, M.R., and BRETT, and HOLKER, L.JJ.) held that there was jurisdiction to make the order. JESSEL, M. R., said he thought that, according to the true construction of section 25 of the Act of 1881, there was nothing to prevent the court from making an order for sale until the foreclosure had become absolute, when, of course, there would be an end of it. Why should the court cut down the meaning of the section and say that it did not apply after judgment for foreclosure as well as before? No time was limited by the Act. It allowed a mortgagor who could not find the money to pay off the mortgage to have the property sold, and it gave the same liberty to the mortgagee. It brought our law more into accordance with that of continental nations, which did not allow foreclosure at all. He thought the Legislature had intrusted the court with the discretion to make an order for sale at any time during the action, and the court could impose terms. As to the cases which had Therefore, the order asked for might be made. been referred to, they arose under another Act, which differed materially in its terms from the Act of 1881; and, moreover, the two decisions were opposed to each other, and they were not binding on the Court of Appeal, which could adopt either of them. But it was not necessary to rely on authority, inasmuch as the two Acts differed in their language. BRETT, L.J., said that the Act was an enabling and remedial one, and he saw no reason for cutting down its large words. The order would be made "in the action," and the words of the section were wide enough to justify the court in making an order for sale at any stage of the action before it was finally concluded. He thought this was the true construction of the section, construing it according to the ordinary rules for the construction of an enabling statute. Section 48 of the Act of 1852 words, and he thought that they had been designedly omitted from the present contained the words "instead of a foreclosure," which were very pregnant

Act.

ordered to be sold out of court, either by public auction or by private contract as The petitioners asked by their petition that the property might be the petitioners should think fit, and that they might be authorized to receive and give receipts for the purchase-moneys, and to convey the property to the purchasers, and to retain the amount due to them, they undertaking to pay any surplus into court. The Court held that this might be done as the other mortgagees did not object, and the order was accordingly made in that form.SOLICITORS, Bolton & Co.; Makinson & Carpenter.

PRACTICE-ADMINISTRATION ACTION-MINUTES OF JUDGMENT-JUDICATURE ACT, 1875, s. 10.—In an action, In re Murray, Woods v. Greenwell, before Hall, V.C., on the 28th ult., being an ordinary administration action by creditors, it was proposed to include in the minutes of judgment a declaration of the debts and liabilities, the rules in force under the law of bankruptcy as that, in case the estate should prove to be insufficient for the payment in full observed (following the statutory words in the Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10). to the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors, &c., should be The declaration was in the form inserted in the judgment in a similar action, In re Hildich, Hipkins v. Hildich (29 W. R. 733), and had in that case been directed to be included in the minutes as necessary and proper. In the present case, however, counsel submitted to the Vice-Chancellor whether such a declaration was correct, being merely the expression of the statutory provision, and HALL, V. C., directed that it should be omitted from the minutes as being altogether unnecessary. -SOLICITORS, Dangerfield & Blyth; J. & E. Scott; Cunliffe, Beaumont, & Davenport; Phillips.

PRACTICE-SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-SOLICITOR REPRESENTING PARTIES WITHOUT AUTHORITY-COSTS.-In an action of De Senger v. Waller, and In the Matter of X. Y., a Solicitor, before Hall, V.C., on the 26th ult., a motion was made on behalf of parties having liberty to attend the proceedings for liberty to be granted them to attend the proceedings by a new solicitor, that X. Y. might be ordered to refund certain moneys which he had received out of court, and might pay the applicants their costs as between solicitor and client, and the other respondents on the motion their costs as between party and party. The circumstances were briefly as follows:-X. Y., who was a defendant to the above action, and a trustee of the settlement, for the execution of the trusts of which the action had been instituted, was a solicitor who, for a number of years, had acted as the solicitor to several of the parties interested under the trusts. One of the objects of the action was to charge the trustees with certain balances. The applicants upon the present motion were persons resident abroad, who were interested under the trusts in two-fifths of the trust properties, and were near relatives of the family for certain members of which, including the applicants' father, X. Y. had acted as solicitor. X. Y. had, without retainer or other authority, constituted himself solicitor for the applicants, and obtained leave for them to attend the proceedings in the action, and had acted therein in their behalf; and under the order on further consideration certain moneys had been paid out of court to him for the costs so incurred by him on their behalf, and for part of their shares in the trust fund. These facts baving come to the applicants' knowledge, they served the present notice of motion upon X. Y. and the plaintiff and defendants in the action, instead of applying for the usual order to change solicitors. X. Y. justified his conduct by explaining that he had considered himself to be acting

for the family generally, and had, in fact, by his exertions, greatly benefited the applicants. HALL, V.C., considered that, however bond fide his conduct, X. Y., having, in fact, acted without authority, had done so at the risk of his proceedings not being adopted, and the order must be made as asked.-SOLICITORS, Gard, Corbin, & Hall; Hores & Pattison; C. M. Hotson.

SUB-PURCHASER

con

VENDOR'S LIEN FOR UNPAID PURCHASE-MONEY NOTICE THROUGH AGENT-CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE-LAND IN REGISTER COUNTY-PURCHASER FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE.-ONUS PROBANDIIn a case of Kettlewell v. Watson, before Fry, J., on the 30th ult., some important questions arose as to the effect of the registration of a conveyance of land situate in a register county upon of the vendor to enforce his lien for unpaid purchase-money against the right sub-purchasers from the original purchaser, and as to imputed and constructive notice. Some land situate in the suburbs of Leeds, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, was sold to some estate agents, who bought it with the intention of selling it again in lots for building purposes. The purchase deed contained a receipt signed by the vendors for the whole purchase-money, but in fact only a part of it was paid. The deed was retained by the vendors in order to protect their lien, but, at the request of the purchasers, they registered a memorial of the deed in the West Riding Registry. The purchasers then sold the property to various sub-purchasers in small lots, and the sub-purchasers built on their respective lots. The balance of the original purchase-money was not paid, and the original purchasers became bankrupt. The original vendors brought the action against a number of the sub-purchasers, alleging that they had bought their lots with constructive notice of the plaintiffs' lien, and claiming to enforce the lien by sale of the defendants' plots respectively. On behalf of all the defendants, it was tended that, the land being in a register county, there was an obligation on the vendors to have some evidence in writing of their lien which could be registered, and that their allowing the deed to be registered in the ordinary way, without any notice of the lien, amounted to a representation by them that the purchasers were entitled to the land free from any lien, and that by their conduct the plaintiffs had lost their lien as against the sub-purchasers. FRY, J., refused to adopt this view, but held that the registration of the deed did not amount to any notice to third parties that the purchasers were entitled to the property free from a vendor's lien, and that the vendors were under no obligation to procure any written evidence of their lien. Some of the sub-purchasers had, on purchasing their lots, employed no solicitor, but had (to use their own words) left it to the original purchaser "to manage the business for them." In these cases FRY, J., held that the sub-purchasers had made the original purchasers their general agents to carry out the transaction, and that, consequently, it was the duty of the agents to communicate to their principals the existence of the vendor's lien, and in such a case the presumption was irrebuttable that the communication was made, and, consequently, notice of the lien must be imputed to the principals, and the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the lien as against them. In other cases the sub-purchasers had authorized the original purchasers to employ their solicitor to prepare the conveyances to them, paying the original purchasers a small charge for the purpose, but they had not in any other way employed a solicitor or other agent in the matter. In these cases FRY, J., held that the duty of the solicitor being only to prepare the conveyance, it was no part of his duty to communicate the lien to the sub-purchasers; consequently, notice of the lien could not be imputed to the sub-purchasers through the solicitor. These were cases of purchasers for very small sums, such as £40 or £50, and the purchasers in no way investigated the title or made any inquiries about the deeds. FRY, J., said that in such cases, having regard to the small amount of the purchasemoney, and to the fact that the employment of a solicitor to investigate the title would have cost probably more than the value of the property purchased, he could not hold that the persons who had thus omitted to make inquiries had wilfully shut their eyes in order not to acquire information, and unless he could come to this conclusion, he could not hold that they had constructive notice of the lien. In these cases, therefore, he held that the plaintiffs could not enforce their lien. It was proved that the original purchasers had, with the plaintiffs' consent, sold two lots to persons not parties to the action free from the lien, and it was argued that by so doing the plaintiffs had in effect given up their lien as against the other sub-purchasers. It was not, however, shown that, when the plaintiffs did this, they had any notice of the sale of other lots, and for this reason FRY, J., held that the plaintiffs could not be taken to have waived their lien. A question also arose as to the onus probandi of a purchase for value of the legal estate without notice. A purchaser of one lot afterwards mortgaged it. Both the mortgagor and the mortgagee were made defendants to the action. The plaintiffs alleged that both the mortgagor and the mortgagee had, when they acquired their interests, notice of the lien, and adduced evidence to prove this. It was proved that the mortgagee had notice, but the plaintiffs did not succeed in proving that the mortgagor had any notice. And, on behalf of the mortgagee it was then urged that, inasmuch as he derived title through a purchaser for value without notice, he was protected, though he himself had notice. To this it was replied that the onus was on the mortgagee, when it was shown that be had taken his security with notice, to prove that his mortgagor was a purchaser for value without notice, and that he had adduced no evidence of this. FRY, J., held that, inasmuch as the plaintiffs had by the allegations in their pleading and by adducing evidence in support of them, taken on themselves the onus of proving that the mortgagor had notice, the mortgagee was not bound to prove that he had none.-SOLICITORS, Paterson, Snow, & Bloxam; Ridsdale, Craddock & Ridsdale; Layton & Jaques; J. W. Hickin; Ashurst, Morris, & Co.; Torr & Co.

COUNTY COURTS.

MANCHESTER.

(Before JOHN ARCHIBALD RUSSELL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) January 5.-Denton West End Permanent Building Society v. Tilzey. This was an action brought by the landlords of a dwelling-house at Marple against the defendant, the trustee under resolutions for liquidation by arrangement of the affairs of one G. F. Robinson, to recover £6, one quarter's rent of the premises accruing between June 24 and September 29 last.

A. L. Stocks (Parker & Stocks), solicitor, for the plaintiffs.
T. Davy (Sale & Co.), solicitor, for the defendant.

The facts were as follows:-In May last the debtor, being yearly tenant of the premises, filed his petition for liquidation, and in the following month the furniture which was on the plaintiffs' premises, and, pending negotiations for defendant was appointed trustee. He had a valuation made of the debtor's sale to a person on behalf of the debtor, allowed him to remain in possession. 24, and being unable to obtain payment threatened a distress, whereupon the Plaintiffs' agent repeatedly requested the debtor to pay the rent due on June trustee (the defendant) on September 21 paid such rent to preserve the proptember 28, the goods were sold by auction, removed, and the key given up. erty. The negotiations for sale to the debtor's friends went off, and, on SepStocks, relying on the case of Wilson v. Wallani (28 W. R. 597), contended that the trustee was personally liable.

opinion that the decision in Ex parte Davies, Re Sneezum (25 W. R. 49, L. R. His HONOUR dissented from the ruling in Wilson v. Wallani, and was of 3 Ch. D. 463), was the better law. He wished to express no opinion as to what the defendant's position would have been had he been called upon to disclaim and had not done so, but the payment by the defendant, he considered, was made by him as trustee and not as tenant. The mere making of a valuation and selling the furniture on the premises was not such a taking possession or adop tion of the tenancy as to make the defendant responsible for rent, and he accordingly nonsuited the plaintiffs, with costs.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION ON THE STATE.

AT the annual dinner of the Birmingham Law Students' Society on Tuesday Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., M.P., in proposing the toast of the evening, called attention to the fact that in nothing was the Anglo-Saxon character and the practical good sense of the nation more conspicuous than in the growth of our jurisprudence. It was not fettered by mere verbal definitions, but was a principle susceptible of growth. The very principles upon which our law was founded were still in full vigour and life amongst us. It had been a system of voluntary and spontaneous growth with the law as with the lawyers. If anyone looked at the earlier history and saw in what way the great profession had grown up, it would be observed that it was not upon the patronage of any great personages, but by the voluntary association of persons taking an interest in the study and practice of the law. They had formed their influences, they had made themselves a place in the State, so that in time to come the governing bodies of the State remitted the discipline and education of the professors of the law to those who were in their origin mere volunteers associated together without the anthority of Government, very much after the manner of the London Guilds, who were granted privileges from the State because of the influence they had themselves acquired by their spontaneous co-operation. He was anxious to point out that that principle, considering what our national life was, ought to exist now. Speaking of the lawyers as a body it did not. Considering the extent and degree of the profession to which they belonged, their position in the State, their education and intelligence as individuals, there was no body in the country who had so little influence upon the matter with which they were immediately connected as the profession of the law. He saw every kind of association listened to with respect, and when their views were put forward in Parliament or elsewhere, if they were applicable to the particular calling with which they were concerned, they were regarded with infinite deference; but when he cast his eyes upon the legal profession it was rather put as a sneer that this or that view was the view of a lawyer, rather than as a view which ought to prevail when the amendment or alteration of the law was under discussion. He thought retribution had come upon the country for that neglect of one of its most intelligent classes. He not only referred to such subjects as bankruptcy, joint-stock banks, limited liability companies, for there was hardly one technical subject with which the Legislature had thought fit to deal that it had not made an extraordinary and clumsy muddle of. So from time to time we had the repeal, the partial repeal, the amended repeal, and finally the whole mass of rubbish was swept away to give rise to a new era of amendment in which the same process was repeated over and over again. He was amused sometimes when he heard the phrases he did hear in a certain place with reference to the suggestions of lawyers. A lawyer was not entitled to respect, for some reason which those who were not lawyers were able to explain, but which those who were lawyers were unable to do. Perhaps the most commonly urged reproach was that lawyers knew nothing about politics. What magic influence it was which invested everybody but a lawyer with political associations he did not know. He thought they had to some extent got rid of the old dramatio notion of the writers of fiction who, as a matter of course, made the villain of their plot a lawyer. He believed it had got to be recognized in these later days that it was possible a lawyer might be an honest man. If he were not, he (the speaker) was bound to say a lawyer was much worse than other men,

for it was the function of the law to strip off that hazy view of their own rights which occasionally prevented people seeing what they were doing. According to his own experience, the shabby thing, the sharp practice, the technicality that defeated justice, and the evasion which delayed it, came in nine cases out of ten from the laity, and not from the lawyer. It had occurred to him more than once that the influence of the legal profession upon the State was not what it should be, and he thought one reason for this was that there was no authoritative exposition of what was the opinion of the profession. He was, of course, not insensible to the fact that of his own branch of the profession the Attorney-General was the official exponent, but he was simply the official exponent, while with respect to the other branch there was no authoritative exponent. There was besides no union between the two branches which enabled them to learn each other's common opinion upon proposed changes or alterations in the law. It seemed to him a serious matter, gravely pressing for the attention of every lawyer, that while every kind of industry in the country was able to express its opinion their own profession was absolutely silent, or if there were faint echoes of sound from different parts of the country, they were like those jarring sounds from distant points whic reduced into a confused hum that which ought to be a definite and certain sound. He would like to suggest-and he should be only too proud if the germ of such a movement were to arise from that meeting that there should be an association of all members of the profession and the law, not confined to any locality, not dedicated necessarily to change, but something in the nature of those institutes-the Iron and Steel Institute, for example-which recognized as peculiarly belonging to themselves the preservation of the interests which they respectively represented. This was certainly not the time in which the lawyers should remain behind in the race of true progress. If they had this position they would not have upon the Statute-book a hasty, ill-considered jumble of words. Nothing could be a greater contrast to the principles of common law than the mass of sometimes wholly unintelligible words heaped together, of course by gentlemen of great intelligence in their line, but not lawyers, and who would decline to receive the assistance of lawyers, and who from time to time put reason, logic, and even grammar at al solute defiance. He challenged the learned judge (Mr. Motteram) to deny the truth of his words. If the influence of the law were in that way brought to bear upon legislation we should hear less of the mode in which Acts of Parliament were manufactured in the House of Commons, because, as Lord Coke had said, in that event it would be remitted to the learned to prepare the statutes; the laity having pointed out the evil they suffered from, the learned would find the remedy.

SOCIETIES.

LAW ASSOCIATION.

At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, 2nd inst., the following being present-viz., Mr. Sawtell (chairman), and Messrs. Desborough, jun., Hedger, Parkin, Sidney Smith, Styan, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary)-grants of £45 were made to the daughters of non-members, one new member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

WORCESTER AND WORCESTERSHIRE LAW SOCIETY. The annual meeting of this society was held at the Law Library, Pierpointstreet, Worcester, on Tuesday last. Present-Mr. T. G. Hyde, president; Mr. W. P. Hughes, vice-president; Messrs. F. Parker, S. M. Beale, H. G. Goldingham, E. A. Davis, G. Clarke, G. W. Bentley, W. W. A. Tree, J. H. Whalley, H. Goldingham, jun.; W. Allen, hon. treasurer; and F. Ronald Jeffery, hon. secretary. The report of the committee having been adopted, and the treasurer's accounts passed, Mr. W. P. Hughes, after referring to the special services rendered by Mr. T. G. Hyde to the society as their president during the past year, and to the fact that he had been elected an extraordinary member of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society for the year ending November next, moved: "That in recognition of such services he be re-elected as their president for the ensuing year," and this proposition, having been seconded by Mr. S. M. Beale, was unanimously carried. Mr. W. P. Hughes was re-elected vice-president, and Mr. W. Allen hon. treasurer, and Mr. F. R. Jeffery hon. secretary. The following gentlemen were elected members of the committee, in addition to the ex-officio members: Messrs. S. M. Beale, F. Parker, E. A. Davies, T. Southall, and H. Goldingham, jun. A unanimous resolution was passed that it was desirable that the society should be incorporated, and other resolutions were agreed to for the purpose of carrying such incorporation into effect. The sum of £5 was also voted for the purpose of providing two prizes to be competed for by members of the Worcester and Worcestershire Law Students' Society, under regulations to be framed by the committee. At this meeting Mr. Edward Nevinson, of Malvern, solicitor, was elected a member of the society; and the meeting concluded with the usual vote of thanks to the chair.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee:The present number of members is fifty-nine as against sixty last year. Soliciting proofs and proxies in bankruptcy.-The committee's attention having been drawn to a practice adopted by some members of the profession of soliciting proofs and proxies in bankruptcy proceedings, a resolution was passed by the committee that such a practice was contrary to professional etiquette, and was to be deprecated.

London agents' charges.-The Liverpool Incorporated Law Society having drawn attention to theictice of many London agents charging in certain

cases for work actually done in the country, your committee concurred in the soundness of the principle that as a general rule London agents should only charge for work actually done by them, and intimated to the Liverpool Law Society that they would be prepared to take any steps in conjunction with other societies which might be considered desirable for obtaining the general recognition of the principle. Services of notices of incumbrances on solicitors of trustees and the case of Raynor v. The Saffron Waldon Building Society.-The effect of this case on the practice of solicitors accepting services of notices of incumbrances on behalf of their clients was considered by your committee, and they resolved that having regard to the decision in that case such practice could not safely be continued. They however recommended that, in all cases where the parties to be served were known to have a solicitor, service of any notice should be effected through such solicitor, and suggested that the most convenient course would be to request such solicitor to attend upon his clients and obtain their acceptance of service by a memorandum indorsed on the duplicate notice. A copy of the resolution passed was sent to each member of the society, and to all solicitors practising in this city.

The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881.-Tois Act, which came into operation on 1st of January, effects a radical change in the law and practice of conveyancing. Its aim is to simplify the law of property, and by diminishing the length of deeds, to lessen the expense of dealing with land. Your committee hope that the profession will give this important Act a fair trial, and make use of its provisions as far as practicable. Your committee at the same time feel that it is of the utmost importance in relation to this Act that the charges to be allowed under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act should be framed on a just and remunerative basis; otherwise the Conveyancing Act cannot fail but to operate injuriously to the profession. As soon as the General Order under the Solici tors' Remuneration Act has been issued it may be desirable to have a special meeting of the society to consider both these Acts, and the practice to be adopted thereunder by members of this society.

Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881.-The question of remunerating solicitors in conveyancing business by an ad valorem scale has been before the profession for some years, and various scales have been considered by this society. The committee have now before them for consideration the draft order suggested by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society to be adopted under the above Act. Your president attended a meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, held in London, on the 15th and 16th of December last, when the whole question was discussed, and the views of the country societies upon the proposed draft order were communicated to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, and an amended draft proposed order more in accordance with such views has since been issued by the council of such society.

Report of the Legal Procedure Committee.-This very important report has had the careful consideration of your committee, and they have communicated their views thereon to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, and also to the Associated Provincial Law Societies. They cordially approve of the efforts therein made to simplify the existing procedure, and which they think will, that in the large majority of actions pleadings may be dispensed with, but they if carefully worked out, tend to expedite proceedings in actions. They believe think that where it is found necessary or desirable to have pleadings there shall be power for a master to allow them without going to a judge as provided by the report. They also agree that the ordinary mode of trial should be by a judge without a jury. If shorthand writers are to be appointed under suggestion 13 they consider they should be public officers paid out of the public funds, the suitors paying for such copies only of the shorthand writers' notes as they may require; they also consider that in actions where less than £200 is involved (suggestion 20) there should be no appeal without leave of a judge, and no right to a special jury, but, in such cases, the present scale of costs ought not to be reduced, though a rule might be made that fees of only one counsel should be allowed unless the judge certified for two. A large committee appointed at a meeting of the Incorporated Law Society on the 18th of November last is still sitting, and, when it has reported, the subject will be further considered by the Associated Provincial Law Societies.

WOLVERHAMPTON LAW ASSOCIATION.

The annual general meeting of this association was held at the Law Library, on Tuesday afternoon. H. C. Owen, Esq. (Mayor of Wolverhampton), presided over a good attendance of members, amongst those present being Mr. H. H. Fowler, M. P. A proposal to concur with the Birmingham Law Society in adopting a uniform set of common form conditions of sale by public auction was negatived, and the present conditions of the Wolverhampton Law Association were directed to be referred to counsel for re-settlement with reference to the new Conveyancing Act. The annual report, read by the secretary (Mr. Alfred Whitehouse), showed that the committee had most carefully considered various Bills for the amendment of the law, particularly the Bankruptcy Bill, Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, and made suggestions for the amend ment of the same, which were transmitted to the Incorporated Law Society and others interested therein. The treasurer's report was also read, and showed a very satisfactory balance in favour of the funds of the society. On the proposition of the Mayor, seconded by Mr. H. Brevitt, Mr. S. Wells Page was elected president for the ensuing year; Mr. W. H. Colebourn was elected vice-president, and Messrs. Alfred Whitehouse and Henry Stanley, jun., were respectively re-elected secretary and treasurer. Messrs. T. Walker, W. A. Green, T. Dallow, and R. W. Rutter retired from the committee pursuant to rule 18, and Messrs. Walker and Green being eligible for re-election, were, together with Mr. H. C. Owen (the retiring president), and Mr. F. T. Langley, elected to fill the vacancies on the committee. The customary complimentary votes of thanks having been passed to the officers for the past year, the proceedings terminated. The annual dinner took place at the Star and Garter Hotel in the evening.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.

The following list of scholarships for Hilary Examination, 1882, has just been issued:-Common and Criminal Law-William Clark (a), first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; Robert John Newell (b), second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. Real and Personal Property-Robert E. Partridge (a), firstclass scholarship of 50 guineas. Equity-R. D. Sethna (a), first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; George M. Ballon (b), second-class scholarship of 20 guineas. International and Constitutional Law-Robert Francis Harrison

(a), first-class scholarship of 50 guineas; Valentine J. Hussey-Walsh (b),

second-class scholarship of 20 guineas.

CALLS TO THE BAR.

The undermentioned gentlemen were last week called to the bar :INNER TEMPLE.-Charles Coombe Tennant, B.A., Oxford; Henry Cornish, Associate of King's College, London; Herman John Falk, M.A., Oxford; Arthur Evans, B.A., Cambridge; Henry Milly Beevor, B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; Charles Henry Cook, B.A., Cambridge; Alfred Standring, B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; Albert Joel Ellis, B. A., Oxford; Charles Frederick Goss, B.A., Cambridge; Malcolm William Searle, B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; Henry Frederick Amedroz, London; Victor Beare Fitz-Gibbon, B. A., Dublin; Thomas Henry Russell, LL.B., Cambridge; Walter Cranley Ryde, B.A., Oxford; Thomas Alexander Martin, B. A., Oxford; William John Lee (holder of a Pupil Scholarship in Equity awarded by the Inner Temple, July, 1881), B.A., Cambridge; Samuel Frederick Smithson, Cambridge; Arthur Watkin Williams Wynn, B.A., Oxford; Henry Francis Herbert Thompson, B.A., Cambridge; William Henry Cross, B A., Oxford; William Radcliffe, Oxford; the Hon. John William Mansfield, B. A., Cambridge; William Fielden Craies, M.A., Oxford; George Latham Davis, B. A., Cambridge; Henry Edmund Simonde, B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; Henry Lawrenee Prior, B.A., Oxford; Arthur Brooke Lloyd, B.A., Oxford; William James Noble, M.A., Oxford; George Elliott; George St. John Mildmay, B. A., Cambridge; John Forrester M'Ewen, B.A., Cambridge; Henry Herbert Browell, B.A., Cambridge; Herbert Burgess Barrett, Cambridge; and John Overend Evans, Esqs.

MIDDLE TEMPLE.-Archibald Christie; Charles White Burroughs, Trinity College, Dublin, LL.D.; Charles William Imrie; Dolatray Surbhai Desai, London University, LL.B.; David Fowler Burton; Alfred Victor Blumberg, St. John's College, Oxford, B.A.; William Bold Hurry, Downing College, Cambridge, B.A.; Charles Simon Davson, Trinity Hall, Cambridge, B.A., LL.B.: John Lithiby, University of London; James George Frazer, M.A., and Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge; Charles Francis Barrow; Roger William Wallace, University of London: George Charles Frames, B.A., LL.B., Christ's College, Cambridge, and B.Sc., University of London, Esqs., and Major Richard Thomas Higgins. LINCOLN'S-INN.-Walter Ivimey Cook, University of London; Robert Stewart Menzies, B.A., Oxford; Herbert Henry Child, B.A., Cambridge; Thomas Rees Jones, B.A.. Cambridge; George William Tallents, B. A., Oxford; William Robert Sheldon, B.A., Oxford; Arthur Allen Wickens, Balliol College, Oxford; Arthur Moss Lawrence, University of London; Samuel Moore, B.A., Cambridge; Ho Kai (Lincoln's-inn Scholarship in Equity, 1881), of Hongkong, China (M.B., C.M., Aberdeen); and John Wanklyn M'Connel, M. A., Cambridge, Esqs.

GRAY'S-INN.-Henry Albert Alcazar, and Henry Loder Beddy, Esqs.

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, January 17.-Mr. Kirk in the chair.-Mr. T. T. Trotter was elected a member. The following question was appointed for debate: "S., a Portuguese woman by birth and domiciled in Portugal, marries in Eugland B., also a Portuguese by birth, but at the time of the marriage domiciled in England. S. and B. are first cousins, and by the law of Portugal first cousins are, except by dispensation from the Pope, incapable of contracting marriage. Is the marriage of S. and B. valid by the law of England?" (Sottomayor, otherwise De Barros, v. De Barros, L. R. 2 P. D. 81, 3 P. D. 1, 5 P. D. 94). The debate was opened in the affirmative by Mr. J. W. Mills, and, after some discussion, the question was put to the meeting and decided in the affirmative by a majority of six votes.

Tuesday, January 24.-Mr. W. Bartlett in the chair.-Mr. F. de B. Strickland was elected a member. The debate appointed to take place was upon the question, "Has the Irish policy of the Government been satis. factory ? Mr. W. A. Bilney opened the discussion in the affirmative, and was supported by Messrs. Radford, Stevenson, Rhys, and Payne. The negative view was supported by Messrs. Hutton, C. E. Barry, Striok land, Neale, and Pope. On a division the question was decided in the negative by a majority of three votes. There were thirty-four members present. Tuesday, January 31.-Mr. F. J. Green in the chair.-It was announced that at the next meeting, to be held on the 7th of February, the society would proceed to elect a secretary in the place of Mr. Napier, who resigns. The subject appointed for debate W88 the following:-"A. has exclusive use of a 103m in a house for which he pays 8 weekly rent ing to less than £10 8 year. The landlord lives on the premises but renders no service. B. occupies a room in 8 house under similar circumstances, except that the landlord does not reside in the house. (1) Is A. entitled to a parliamentary vote as a householder? (2) Is C. so entitled? (Bradley. Bayliss; Morfee v. Novis; Kirby ▼. Biffen; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, ss. 3, 4, 7, 61; 32 & 33 Vict. c.14, ss. 3, 4, 19; 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, ss. 5, 14.) Mr. Pope opened the discussion in the affirmative and Mr. Sargent in the negative. In the debate which followed Messra, Dees,

amount

Vanderpump, Barry, Trotter, and Kirk took part. At the conclusion of the debate both questions were put to the meeting, the former being decided in the negative, the latter in the affirmative.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

rent should be abolished."

At a meeting held at Clement's-inn on Wednesday, January 11, Mr. Kains. Jackson in the chair, Mr. Richardson moved "That the law of distress for The opener was supported by Mr. Spence and Mr. Richardson having opposed by Messrs. Edlin, Shirley, and Jenks. replied, the chairman sommed up, and, upon being put to the meeting, the motion was lost by five votes.

January, Mr. Francis O. Edlin in the chair, Mr. C. Kains-Jackson moved, At a meeting held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wednesday, the 25th of "That the case of the persons imprisoned for bribery is a fitting one for the exercise of her Majesty's clemency." The opener was supported by Messrs Maclaren and Tillotson, and opposed by Messrs. W. C. Owen and Rundle. Levey. Mr. Kains-Jackson having replied, the chairman summed up, and the motion upon being put to the meeting was declared carried.

At the Law Institution on Monday, the 30th of January, Mr. C. Parsons opened the moot, which was as follows:-"Are the persons who go to a prize fight to see the combatants strike each other, and who are present when the combatants so strike each other, guilty of an assault?" Mr. Parsons contended that, in the absence of evidence of actual incitement, the question should be answered in the negative, and in this contention he was supported by Mr. Barham and opposed by Messrs. Baker and Colyer. Mr. Parsons having replied, the chairman summed up, and upon the vote the meeting was equally divided. The chairman gave his casting vote against Mr. Parsons.

The usual weekly meeting of this society was held on Wednesday, the 1st inst., at Clement's-inn Hall, Mr. D'A. B. Collyer in the chair, when Mr. H. H. Richardson moved, "That the exigencies of parliamentary debate require the institution of the clôture." Mr. Mott Whitehouse seconded the motion, which was supported by Messrs. Joel, Parker, Parsons, and Bartrum, and opposed by Messrs. Broun, Rosher, Kains-Jackson, Dennis, and Tillotson. The chairman summed up and put the question to the meeting, when the motion was lost by a majority of four. The house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

The annual meeting and dinner took place on Tuesday evening at the Grand Hotel, under the presidency of Sir Hardinge S. Giffard, Q.C., M.P. The vice-chair was occupied by Mr. Edwin Parry, registrar of the Birmingham The toast of "The Queen and the Royal Family" having County Court. been proposed by the president, the annual report of the committee was reed It showed that during the year 3 honorary members by the hon. secretary. had joined the society and 19 had ceased to be members. The total number of honorary members was 220, against 227 at the close of last year. Thirtythree new ordinary members had been added to the society during the year, 2 had been called to the bar, 21 were admitted solicitors, thus becoming honorary members, while 13 had ceased to be members of the society. The number of ordinary members was now 82, as against 81 last year, 87 in 1879, 84 in 1878. The total number of the members of the society was 302-viz., 15 barristers After referring to and 205 solicitors, and 82 bar students and articled clerks. the events of the year, the committee stated that they had reason to believe the scheme for the appointment of a reader and lecturer to hold classes in Birmingham for the benefit of the students of the town and neighbourhood would soon be in active operation. The subject of the Union prize for 1880, offered annually by the United Law Students' Society in London for competition by members of the law students' societies throughout the country, was "The Marriage Laws of England and Scotland, and what steps, if any, should be taken to assimilate them." The first prize, of £5 59., was awarded to Mr. F. W. Steer, a member of the Birmingham Society. The subject of the prize essay of the society awarded annually for the past session, upon some legal or jurisprudence subject, was "The Law of Master and Servant," and the first prize was awarded to Mr. E. C. Rogers.

On the motion of the President, seconded by Mr. Deakin, the report and statement of accounts were adopted.

The President proposed, "The Birmingham Law Students' Society." Mr. G. Huggins responded, and stated that the general opinion was that the society was in a most flourishing state. "The Bench and Bar" was proposed by Mr. E. O. Smith, and acknowledged by Mr. Motteram, Q.C., and Mr. Hugo Young. "The Birmingham Law Society" was given by Mr. E. Parry, and replied to by Mr. H. Lakin Smith. "The Health of the President," proposed by Mr. H. M. Barrows, terminated the proceedings.

MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

The sixth meeting of the session of this society was held at the Law Library, Cross-street, on Tuesday week, at half-past six-o'clock, when the chair was taken by Mr. James Cottingham, B. A., barrister-at-law, the question for discussion being as follows:-"Was the expulsion of Mr. Bradlaugh from the House of Commons justifiable ?" The affirmative was opened by Mr. Brooks, and he was supported by the hon. sec. and Messrs. Read and Rowland. The negative was argued by Mr. Abell, who was followed by Messrs. Rayner, Winser, Batty, and Rycroft. The chairman summed up the arguments, and the question was ultimately decided in the A vote of thanks to the chairman closed negative by a majority of seven. the proceedings.

The number of "fair rent" applications by Irish tenants under the Land Act sent in up to Wednesday is 68,100.

OBITUARY.

MR. JOHN MARRIOTT DAVENPORT. Mr. John Marriott Davenport, solicitor and notary, clerk of the peace for Oxfordshire, died at Oxford on the 31st ult., after a long illness. Mr. port was born in 1809. He was admitted a solicitor in 1830, and had practised for over half-a-century at Oxford, having a large number of clients among the gentry and clergy in the district. He was a notary public and a perpetual commissioner for Oxfordshire and Berkshire, and be had held several important public appointments. He had been for many years clerk of the peace and clerk to the lieutenancy for Oxfordshire, and since the passing of Court of Probate Act he had been registrar of the Oxford District Probate Registry of the High Court of Justice. He was registrar of the diocese of Oxford, and secretary to several successive bishops of Oxford, but about three years ago he was succeeded in the latter office by his son, Mr. Thomas Marriott Davenport, M.A., of Pembroke College, Oxford, who was admitted a solicitor in 1867. Mr. Davenport was for many years in succession appointed undersheriff of Oxfordshire, and he was one of the proctors in the Vice-Chancellor's court. His death has caused universal regret at Oxford.

UNQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS.

AT the Birmingham Police Court on Tuesday, before Mr. Kynnersley (stipendiary), and Mr. J. D. Goodman, Frederick Charles Cooke, of Broadstreet, Bristol (formerly a solicitor's clerk at Monmouth), was summoned under the Solicitors Act, 1874, for wilfully pretending to be a solicitor on the 24th of August last. Mr. G. Lee (of the firm of Horton, Lee, & Lee) prosecuted on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society. Mr. Butcher (deputyregistrar of the county court) was in attendance to give evidence as to the procedure of the court. In reply to Mr. Hebbert (the magistrates' clerk), defendant said he had only once represented himself as a solicitor. Mr. Lee said that prisoner was charged under section 12 of the Solicitors Act, which stated that, "any person who wilfully and falsely pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description, implying that be is duly qualified to act as an attorney or solicitor, or that he is recognized by law as so qualified, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and be liable to a penalty not exceeding the sum of £10 for each such offence. Mr. Lee, continuing, said that this was one of the first cases which had occurred in the district, but last year a man was summoned for a similar offence at the Guildhall, London, and found guilty. The facts of this case were rather peculiar. The defendant, who had formerly been a solicitor's clerk at Monmouth, sent instructions in August last to the registrar of the Birmingham County Court against a debtor in Birmingham, he (defendant) representing himself to be a solicitor and the plaintiff's lawyer. On summonses of this kind a fee of ten shillings is allowed to the solicitor, and the debtor was charged with it by the court; but before the summons was heard the imposition was detected and the case dismissed. Offences of a similar nature occurred all over England, but they were difficult to discover. Since the iesue of the magistrates' summons the defendant had written to him, stating that he was sorry for what had taken place, but the plaintiff in the action was an old friend of his, and it had only been done in a friendly way. The stipendiary remarked that the society was quite right in instituting the proceedings. However, as they only wished publicity given to them, and as defendant had pleaded Guilty, he should only order him to pay a fine of £2 and costs, although the full penalty of £10 might have been enforced

On the 26th ult., before the Queen's Bench Division sitting in Banc, Mr. W. Murray, on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, moved for a rule to show cause why a writ of attachment should not issue against Samuel Symons, an accountant, for a contempt of court. The offence alleged was having acted as a solicitor, or as a solicitor sued out a writ out of the High Court in the case of Dockings v. Vickary without being duly qualified to act in that tehalf, contrary to the provisions of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 2, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 26. The learned counsel referred to a similar case of In re Hunt, decided by Mr. Justice Grove and Mr. Baron Huddleston. Their lordships granted a rule.

A deputation from the legal bodies on the same subject was received, and the Lord Advocate expressed himself to the same effect as he did to the first deputation.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. HENRY HALLIFAX WELLS, solicitor, of 8, Paternoster-row, and Barnet, has been appointed Solicitor to the Barnet Licensed Victuallers' Protection Association. Mr. Wells was admitted a solicitor in 1871.

Mr. JOHN PAYTER, solicitor, of Kington and New Radnor, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. WILLIAM ST. JAMES WHEELHOUSE, Q.C., has been elected Treasurer of the Society of Gray's-inn for the current year.

Mr. GEORGE PETER MARTIN, barrister, has been appointed Secretary to the Committee nominated by the Admiralty to inquire further into the cause of the loss of the Doterel. Mr. Martin was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Hilary Term, 1872. He is deputy judge advocate of the Fleet

at Portsmoutb.

Mr. THOMAS ATKINSON, solicitor (of the firm of Shirley, Atkinson, & Donner), of Doncaster and Scarborough, has been elected Coroner for the Borough of Dcncaster, in succession to his partner, the late Mr. Arthur James Shirley. Mr. Atkinson was admitted a solicitor in 1857. His senior partner, Mr. William Edward Shirley, is town clerk of Doncaster, and registrar of the Doncaster County Court.

Mr. BASIL FIELD, solicitor (of the firm of Field, Roscoe, Francis, & Osbaldestou), of 36, Lincoln's-inn-fields, has been appointed Honorary Solicitor to the Parkes Museum. Mr. Field is the son of the late Mr. Edwin Wilkins Field, solicitor. He is a B.A. of the University of London, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1860.

Mr. FIELDING CLARKE, barrister, has been appointed Attorney-General for the Colony of Fiji. Mr. Clarke is an LL.B. of the University of London. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in May, 1876, and has practised on the North-Eastern Circuit, and at the West Riding, Leeds, and Sheffield Sessions.

Mr. EDWIN WOOD, solicitor (of the firm of Blachford, Riches, Kilsby, & Wood), of 21, College-hill, London, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

SCOTTISH DEFENDANTS IN ENGLISH COURTS.

On Tuesday four deputations waited on Lord Rosebery and the Lord Advocate at Edinburgh. The first deputation consisted of representatives from the Edinburgh Town Council, the governors of the Merchant Company, and the directors of the Chamber of Commerce and Trade Protection Society, and had reference to the assumed jurisdiction of English courts over domiciled Scotchmen. Lord Provost Sir Thomas Boyd introduced the deputation. He remarked that the practice seemed to be in direct violation of the Act confirming the Treaty of Union, and said it inflicted hardships on the people of Scotland. Treasurer Harrison said that the amount of costs was very much greater when an action was taken to England. Other members of the deputations having expressed their views,

The Lord Advocate said he wished to assure the deputation that they were quite satisfied that here there was a genuine Scotch grievance. It was not the intention of the framers of the order of 1875, or the amended order, that it should be worked in the way in which it was done. His own experience bore out what had been said of the hardships

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

CHERAMBADI (WYNAAD) DISTRICT GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 25, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

FOREIGN PROVISION, WINE AND SPIRIT TRADING ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Feb 6, at 11, at chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator

LA CONCEPCION GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Kay, J, has fixed Saturday, Feb 4, at 12, at chambers of Chitty, J, for the appointment of an official liquidator SOUTH ESSEX EQUITABLE INVESTMENT AND ADVANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J., dated Jan 18, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Storey and Cowland, Theobald's rd, Gray's inn, agents for Crick and Freeman, Maldon

SOUTH GARSTON DOCK AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 26, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 4. Sharpe and Co, New ct, Carey st, agents for Harvey and Co, solicitors for the petitioner UPLEES BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J, dated Jan 19, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Longeroft and Myers, Clement's inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioner [Gazette, Jan. 27.]

FOREIGN PROVISION, WINE AND SPIRIT TRADING ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J, dated Jan 19, it was ordered that the association be wound up. GERMAN DATE COFFEE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Jan 30, MacColla, Cheapside, solicitor for the petitioner directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Feb 11. Longcroft and Myers, Clement's inn, Strand, solicitors for the petitioners

LA CONCEPCION GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by Kay, J, dated Jan 19, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Montagu, Bucklers. bury