RAILWAY COMPANY-TRAFFIC AGREEMENT-REFERENCE TO SINGLE ARBITRATOR JURISDICTION OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS TO DECIDE QUESTIONS IN DIFFERENCE-INJUNCTION PROHIBITION.- In a case of Great Western Railway Company v. Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, before the Master of the Rolls on the 14th inst., a motion was made to restrain the defendants from proceeding upon an application they had made to the Railway Commissioners to arbitrate upon certain points in difference between the two companies under an agreement for the interchange of traffic, entered into in April, 1872, in pursuance of a special Act. By the agreement in question, the plaintiffs contended that all matters in dispute were to be referred to a single arbitrator, and that the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners was thereby excluded. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that he ought not to grant an injunction to restrain persons proceeding to arbitration, on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the arbitrators. If the arbitrators had no authority to act, then their award would be invalid, and that objection could be taken at a later stage, when it became necessary to enforce the award, or a prohibition could be issued against the Railway Commissioners. He did not, therefore, think an injunction was the proper remedy. He accordingly refused the motion, and made the costs costs in the action. As, however, he considered there was a serious question to be tried as to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners, he gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their writ and ask for a prohibition, and he gave them a rule nisi for a prohibition.-SOLICITORS, Nelson; Terrell & Atkinson.

PRACTICE COUNTY COURT PLAINT SOLICITOR AND CLIENT-COSTS TAXATIONIN HIGH COURT OR COUNTY COURT-SOLICITORS ACT, 1843, s. 37-COUNTY COURT ACT, 1856, ss. 33-36-COUNTY COURT ACT, 1875, s. 8. In a case of Re Worth, before the Master of the Rolls, on the 15th inst., an application was made to the Master of the Rolls for his directions as to whether an order of course for taxation should issue in the High Court under the following circumstances: Worth had acted as the solicitor of one Kershaw in an administration action of an estate worth more than £20 in the county court of Saddleworth, in Yorkshire. Kershaw had presented a petition of course for the taxation of his solicitor and client costs in the county court to the High Court, and the question was whether that court had jurisdiction or whether the county court had not exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. By the Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 37, the Chancery Division may now tax any bill "in case the business contained in such bill shall have been transacted in the High Court of Chancery or any other court of equity." By the County Courts Act, 1856, s. 35, as to claims above £20, the registrar, on the application of either solicitor or client, may tax the solicitor and client costs. By section 36 costs for claims under £20 can only be allowed according to section 91 of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, and extra costs on the written certificate of the registrar. JESSEL, M. R., was of opinion that under the Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 37, solicitor and client costs in any court of equity, which this county court was, could be taxed by a judge of the High Court, and that there was nothing to restrict that jurisdiction, which was confirmed by the Judicature Act. The only question was whether that jurisdiction was cut down by the County Court Act, 1856, s.35, which gave the registrar jurisdiction to tax the solicitor and client costs on all claims for more than £20; but there was nothing to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court as to those claims, although as to claims under £20 they must apparently be taxed in the county court. There was a power conferred upon the county court judges by the County Court Act, 1875, s. 8, and the County Courts Act, 1856, to frame rnles for the regu lation of the practice of their own courts, and under that power they had, by ord. 36, r. 1, of the rules of 1875,

PRACTICE-COSTS-ORDER OF COURSE-SPECIAL ORDER -MONEY IN HANDS OF SOLICITOR OVER TWELVE YEARSSOLICITORS ACT, 1843, s. 37.-In a case of Re Horrex, also before the Master of the Rolls on the 15th inst., a motion was made to commit the solicitor for not obeying an order of course, and a cross-motion was made by the solicitor to discharge the order of course. It appeared that the solicitor, in 1868, had received some purchase-money for his client, amounting to over £100, that he had subsequently done business for her in three separate matters, and had ever since retained the whole amount without rendering any account or bill of costs. There was a conflict as to whether any application had been made to him for an account. The client recently obtained a common order to tax without mentioning the fact that the money had been in the solicitor's hands for over twelve years, or that no bill had been delivered. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion, on the authority of Re Hindmarsh (1 Dr. & Sm. 129), and Watson v. Woodman (L. R. 20 Eq. 721), that the solicitor did not hold the moneys in a fiduciary position, and that the Statute of Limitations would run in his favour. He was also of opinion that the order of course was improperly obtained, the petition not having disclosed the fact that the money was so long owing, and therefore that it must be discharged. He said that the motion to commit must, of course, also fail. As, however, he strongly disapproved the conduct of the solicitor, whose duty, he said, was to have handed over the money to his client immediately on receiving it, he discharged the order of course, without costs, and he also declined to give the solicitor any costs of the motion to commit.-SOLICITORS, Parkers; C. P. Pritchard & Marshall.

TRADE-MARK-RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER-DEVOLUTION OF TITLE-LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE-TRADEMARKS ACT, 1875-TRADE-MARKS RULES.-In a case of Re Farina's Trade-mark, also before the Master of the Rolls on the 15th inst., a motion was made for the rectification of the register of trade-marks under the following circumstances. It appeared that a trade-mark belonging to a German firm was entered on the register as the property of one of the firm only, although in his application that member of the firm stated that he made the application on behalf of his firm, to whom the mark really belonged. The member of the firm was now dead, and it was desired to rectify the register by inserting the present firm as the proprietors of the trade-mark. JESSEL, M. R., said he did not see his way to rectify the register in the way suggested, but if a legal personal representative of the member of the firm in whose name the mark was entered were constituted in England, he thought he could then, on an assignment by him to the firm, enter their names as assignees under the Trade-Mark Rules 25 and 26. It would only be necessary to take out a representation limited to the trust interest in the mark, and the application would stand over for that purpose.—SOLICI TORS, Potter & Sandford; Soli.itor to Registrar of Trademarks.

ter.

PRACTICE-JURISDICTION-LANCASTER PALATINE COURT -VACANCY IN OFFICE OF VICE-CHANCELLOR HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-An application was made on the 10th inst., before Vice-Chancellor Hall in an action of White v. Jones, which involved the question of the jurisdiction of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in relation to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of LancasAnother action of White v. Jones in the Palatine Court had been dismissed with costs. Those costs, which were taxed at £714 11s. 7d., not having been paid, a writ of elegit was issued in the action, under which the sheriff took possession of the goods and chattels at the residence of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the present action, being the trustees of the marriage settlement of the plaintiff in the original action, claimed that certain of the goods were subject to the settlement, and accordingly issued a writ out of the Liverpool District Registry of the Chancery Division for

an injunction to restrain the defendants in the first action, and the sheriff, from proceeding under the writ of elegit, so far as concerned certain furniture subject to the settlement. It was in dispute as to what goods were settled. An interim injunction had been granted by Vice-Chancellor Hall on February 5, and the present application was, by motion upon notice, for a continuance of that order until the trial of the action. An objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the court, which was answered by the contention that, inasmuch as, at the time when the interim order was applied for, no appointment had been made to the then vacant office of ViceChancellor of the Duchy, the plaintiff's were, therefore, compelled to come to the Chancery Division in the emergency. His lordship held that upon the point of jurisdiction the application must fail. Had he sufficiently kaown the circumstances, he should never have granted the interim injunction. There must be means of trying the disputed ownership in the Lancaster Court, and, without saying whether an application should have been made under the circumstances to the Chancellor of the Duchy or to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court, it was sufficient to decide that he did not himself, by reason of the vacancy existing, acquire the jurisdiction under which he was now asked to act.-SOLICITORS, W. W. Wynne & Sons, for Forshaw & Hawkins, Liverpool; Pritchard, Englefield, & Co., for Mather, Liverpool.

PROOF IN BANKRUPTCY-PARTNERS-CAPITAL OF DECEASED PARTNER RETAINED IN BUSINESS-PROOF BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE.-In a case of Ex parte Blythe, before the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy on the 7th inst., the question arose whether the administratrix of a deceased partner was entitled to prove in the liquidation of the surviving partners in respect of the deceased partner's share of the capital of the firm, which had been retained by the surviving partners in the business without any authority from him to do so, the business having been carried on without any articles of partnership. When the proof was tendered there were some debts of the old partnership of the three still remaining unpaid. It was contended in support of the proof that the surviving partners had committed a breach of trust in retaining the deceased partner's share of the capital in the business, and tha:, consequently, on the authority of Ex parte Westcott (22 W. R. 813, L. R. 9 Ch. 626), the ordinary rule that a partner, or, as laid down in Nanson v. Gordon (24 W. R. 740, L. R. 1 App Cas. 195), the representative of a deceased partner, cannot prove in bankruptcy in competition with that partner's creditors, did not apply. BACON, C.J., however, held that the case was governed by Nanson v. Gordon, which, he said, was in all respects distinctly applicable. There being creditors of the old firm still unpaid, the deceased partner, had he been alive, could not have proved in competition with them, and his representative could stand in no better position. Er parte Westcott did not conflict with this. There a surviving partner had laid hold of assets of the deceased partner which were not part of the joint estate, and had employed them in the business, and bad thus committed a devastavit, in respect of which a proof was allowed on behalf of the separate estate of the deceased partner. That had no application to the present case.-SOLICITORS, Last & Sons; Sharpe, Parkers, & Co.

PROBATE MARRIED WOMAN-WILL DURING COVERTURE -CODICIL DURING WIDOWHOOD-INCORPORATION-IDENTIFICATION.- In the Probate and Admiralty Division, on the 15th inst., an application was made (In the Goods of Heathcote) for probate of a will and codicil under the following circumstances:-A married woman, having a power of appointment under her marriage settlement, executed a will, which did not purport to have been made in pursuance of any power. After her husband's death she executed a codicil which began with the words, "This is a codicil to the last will and testament of me, Sophia Matilda Heathcote," &c., but which contained no appointment of an executor, and no disposition of the residue. Both the will and the codicil were holograph, and were written upon the same paper. The motion on behalf of the executor named in the will, for probate of the will and codicil, was opposed by certain of the next of kin of the deceased, on the ground that the will did not purport to have been made in pursuance of a power, and was not sufficiently identified by the codicil as to be taken as having been incorporated therein.

HANNEN, P., said that he was not called upon to construe the will. The case was governed by Allen v. Maddock (7 W. R. 825, 11 Moo. P. C. 427), where it was held that the identification must be a question of evidence. There must be an affidavit that no other will of the deceased was known to be in existence at the date of the codicil, and upon that assumption he should hold that the will was sufficiently identified by the codicil, and must be admitted to probate therewith.-SOLICITORS, Jameson; Cree & Son.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY
REGISTRARS.

(Before MR. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.) Feb. 9.-Ex parte Lord, Re Cliff.

In February, 1879, C. presented a petition for the liquidation of his affairs, under which the court appointed a receiver and manager. At the first meeting under the petition the proceedings fell to the ground, no resolution being passed either for liquidation or composition. The receiver and manager did not apply to the court for his discharge.

In January, 1880, C. was adjudicated a bankrupt.

Held, that the receiver and manager under the liquidation petition was not entitled to be paid the amount of his charges in priority to the other creditors of C., either under rule 292 or upon any other ground.

This was an application on behalf of John Lord, the trustee under the bankruptcy of Ernest Richard Cliff, for a declaration that George Monk, the receiver and manager appointed under a petition for liquidation presented by the bankrupt, was not entitled to be paid the balance claimed by him, or any part thereof, in priority to the other creditors of the bankrupt; and that the trustee might be at liberty to treat Monk as an ordinary creditor for such amount as he could legally prove to be due to him from the bankrupt.

On the 19th of February, 1879, the bankrupt, who then carried on business as a grocer and wine merchant, presented a petition for liquidation under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, and George Monk was appointed receiver and manager of the estate and business.

At the first meeting the creditors failed to pass any resolution either for liquidation or composition, and, on the 19th of January, 1880, E. R. Cliff was adjudicated a bankrapt, the act of bankruptcy being the non-compliance with the terms of a debtor's summons issued by one of the creditors.

spondent to furnish him with an account as receiver and The trustee, upon his appointment, applied to the remanager, and, after some correspondence, he rendered three accounts by which he claimed to be entitled to the sum of £95 14s. 4d. in full, in priority to the other creditors. The respondent had never been discharged by order from his office of receiver and manager, nor had he made any application for that purpose.

E. C. Willis, for the trustee. It is submitted that the respondent is not, under the circumstances, entitled to priority, and that the trustee may treat him as an ordinary creditor. The petition for liquidation having been filed so long since as February, 1879, and the bankruptcy occurring in January, 1880, it is impossible to say that the liquidation proceedings were "pending" so as to entitle the respondent to payment of his charges in full: Ex parte Jeffery, Re Hawes (L. R. 17 Eq. 61, and upon appeal, 22 W. R. 287, L. R. 9 Ch. 144); Rule 282.

R. V. Williams, for the respondent.-The debtor, by filing his petition for liquidation, committed an act of bankruptcy, of which the creditors might have taken advantage, and the proceedings were pending at the date of adjudication. There was nothing to prevent the creditors having the benefit of the appointment of the receiver and manager. The adjudication has relation back to any act of bankruptcy committed within twelve months. Ex parte Jeffery is really in favour of the respondent. In that case Mellish, L.J., says, "The object of the rule was that solicitors might know that if they acted properly they would get their costs of a liquidation petition, notwithstanding bankruptcy might ensue, and as far as the words will allow us we must fairly carry into effect the object of the rule." When did the right of the receiver to remuneration cease? It is submitted that he is an officer of the court, and prima facie entitled to be paid; and, until he is discharged, he holds the property for the benefit of the creditors generally.

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY held that, having regard to the dates of the petitions, and to the facts that more than six months had elapsed between the presentation of the liquida. tion petition and the adjudication, and that the adjudication was not made with reference to the act of bankruptcy committed by the filing of the petition for liquidation, there was no authority for allowing the costs claimed by the receiver and manager. It seemed to him that the liquidation proceedings were not "pending" before the court when the adjudication occurred, and that the receiver could not properly make an application for payment of the costs. If he had any special ground for showing that he was entitled to these charges, he ought to have informed the court of the circumstances upon which he rested his claim, and not have left the court in a state of ignorance. For anything that the registrar knew, the amount of the charges might have been satisfied by the debtor. When the liquidation proceedings fell through it was the duty of the receiver and manager to get bis accounts passed and his charges provided for; and he could not allow the charges now, under rule 292, or upon any other ground whatever. The order would be made, without prejudice to the respondent's right to prove under the liquidation.

Solicitors for the trustee, Piesse & Son.

Solicitors for the respondent, Lousada & Emanuel.

(Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.) Feb. 9.-Re Cotton.

At the first meeting held under a petition for liquidation presented by C., the creditors accepted a composition of five shillings in the pound, payable by three instalments. C. paid the first instalment, but made default as to the second, and some of the creditors sued him, and obtained judgment. He then issued notices of a meeting to add to, or vary the terms of, the composition, and applied for an injunction tɔ restrain proceedings by the creditors who were suing him.

Held, that C. was entitled to an injunction until after the meeting of creditors.

This was an application on behalf of Charles Bull Cotton, a debtor, who had presented a petition for liquidation by arrangement or composition, for an order that the injunction granted by the court on the 4th inst., restraining W. C. Cooper, M. Manus, and A. F. Hirsch & Co. from taking any further proceedings in the actions brought by them against the debtor, or upon the judgments recovered, or executions issued thereon, be continued until the further order of the court.

On the 8th of August, 1880, the debtor filed his petition, and at the first meeting the creditors accepted a composition of five shillings in the pound, payable by three instalments, at fourteen days, three months, and six months respectively from registration, and the resolutions were duly confirmed and registered on the 21st of September.

The first instalment of the composition had been paid, but the debtor made default in regard to the second instalment. W. C. Cooper, M. Manus, and F. Hirsch & Co. being creditors of the debtor, thereupon sned him for the balances of their respective debts. Messrs. Cooper and Manus obtained judgment, and leave had been given to Hirsch & Co. to sign judgment in the action, but with a stay of execution for four

days.

On the 24th of January Messrs. Noon & Clarke, the debtor's solicitors, caused notices to be issued of a general meeting of the creditors, to be held on the 14th of February, to add to or vary the resolutions to accept five shillings in the pound, and on the 4th of February the registrar granted an interim injunction to restrain proceedings by the three creditors named.

E. C. Willis, for the debtor, in support of the application. -A meeting having been appointed for the purpose of adding to or varying the resolutions, the court may properly continue the injunction until further order, or, at all events, until the result of the meeting has been ascertained.

Brough, for Cooper and Manus-Default having been made by the debtor in payment of the second instalment of the composition, the creditors are remitted to their original rights, and are entitled to sue for their original debts: Edwards v. Coombe (L. R. 7 C. P. 519). The court has no power in such a case to grant an injunction: Re Hatton (20 W. R. 978, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 723).

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY.-How do you distinguish this case from Ex parte Radcliffe Investment Company, Re Glover (22 W. R. 235, L. R. 17 Eq. 121)?

Brough. There the notices of the meeting were issued! promptly, and before the creditors had obtained judgment... The circumstances of that case were exceptional, and it is submitted that the present application comes too late, and that to allow the debtor to call a fresh meeting, and to obtain an injunction after the creditors have, incurred the costs of an action, will be to open the door to a very mischievous> practice. The power given by section 126 to vary the provisions of the composition is to be without prejudice to any persons taking interests under such provisions who do not assent to the alteration.

H. W. Jones (solicitor), for Hirsh & Co., relied on Re Hatton.

16

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said he was bound by tha decision of the Chief Judge in Ex parte Radcliffe Investment Company, Re Glover. In that case his lordship held that the provision of section 126 enabled the creditors to reduce the amount of the composition previously accepted by them,and to bind a dissentient creditor to the same extent as he was bound by the original resolution, and that the word persons" in the above clause was used in contradistinction to the word "creditors." In that case the first instalment of the composition had been paid, as here, and the Chief Judge affirmed the decision of the registrar restraining an action by a creditor. He could not distinguish the present case from Ex parte Radcliffe Investment Company, and the injunction would, therefore, be continued until four days after the meeting of creditors, to add to vary the original resolution.

Solicitors for the debtor, Noon & Clarke.
Solicitor for Cooper and Manus, Sydney.
Solicitor for Hirsch & Co., Nicol, Sons, and Jones.

OBITUARY.

MR. JOHN MUSKETT.

Mr. John Muskett, solicitor (of the firm of Muskett & Garrod), of Diss, died at his residence at that place on the 25th ult. Mr. Muskett was born in 1809, and was admitted a solicitor in 1834, and he had ever since practised at Diss. He was for a short time in partnership with Mr. Frederick Cross, but more recently was associated with Mr. Henry Edwin Garrod, who is clerk to the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax at Diss. Mr. Muskett was solicitor to the Diss

Gas Company, a commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court, and a perpetual commissioner for the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. He had also a large private practice, and he held several public appointments. He had been for over forty-five years clerk to the county magistrates at Diss, and he was also clerk to the Diss Local Board, and coroner for the liberty of the Duke of Norfolk. Mr. Muskett's health and strength had for a long time been failing.

MR. CHARLES ROSE LUCAS.

Mr. Charles Rose Lucas, solicitor, late of 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, died very suddenly at the Clifton Downs Hotel, Bristol, on the 27th ult. Mr. Lucas was the eldest son of the Rev. Charles Lucas, of Devizes. He was born in, 1808, and was admitted a solicitor in 1833. He originally carried on business at 5, Arlington-street, Camden-town, but afterwards removed to 8, New-square, Lincoln's ion, and went into partnership with Messrs. Charles Meredith and Philip Reeve, the firm being afterwards joined by Mr. Henry Thornton, and he had a very extensive family business. Mr. Lucas withdrew from the firm about ten years ago, and shortly afterwards relinquished practice.

CHIEF JUSTICE MOSS.

The Hon. Thomas Moss, Chief Justice of the province of Ontario, died at Nice, on the 4th ult., at the age of forty. five. The Chief Justice was born in 1836, and was called to the bar in Upper Canada in Micha-lmas Term, 1861. He rapidly obtained a good practice, and was created a Queen's Counsel for the Dominion of Canada in 1872. In the same year he acted as a member of the Ontario Commission on Law Reform, and in the following year he was offered, but declined, an appointment as Vice-Chancellor. In Novem

ber, 1873, he was elected a member of the Dominion House of Commons, and about two years later he was appointed a puisne judge of the Court of Error and Appeal for Ontario. In November, 1877, he became President of that court, and in November, 1878, Chief Justice of the province. He had also been for several years Vice-Chancellor of the University of Toronto.

MR. MATTHEW HENRY MARSH. Mr. Matthew Henry Marsh, barrister, formerly M.P. for Salisbury, died at Bournemouth, on the 26th ult. Mr. Marsh was the eldest son of the Rev. Matthew Marsh, Canon of Salisbury, and was born in 1810. He was educated at Westminster, and at Christ Church, Oxford, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Easter Term, 1835. He formerly practised on the Western Circuit and at the Wiltshire Sessions. He spent several years in Australia, and from 1851 till 1854 he was a member of the Legislative Council of the colony of New South Wales. In 1857 Mr. Marsh was elected M.P. for the city of Salisbury in the Liberal interest, and held the seat for eleven years. He gave a general support to the Liberal party, although in 1866 he joined Mr. Lowe, Mr. Horsman, and others in opposing Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill. He retired at the general election of 1868. A year later he unsuccessfully contested Salisbury, but did not again attempt to enter Parliament. Mr. Marsh was a magistrate for Wiltshire and Hampshire, and a deputy-lieutenant for the former county. He was married to a daughter of the late Mr. Sergeant Merewether, and he leaves three daughters.

SIR RICHARD MACDONNELL.

Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, K.C.M.G., C.B., LL.D., died on the 5th inst. The deceased was the son of the Rev. Richard MacDonnell, D. D., Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and his mother was the daughter of the Very Rev. Richard Graves, Dean of Ardagh. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated B.A. in 1835, and LL.D. in 1862, and he was called to the bar in Ireland in 1838. In Hilary Term, 1841, he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn, and he was Chief Justice at the Gambia from 1843 till 1847, when he was appointed Governor of that colony. He remained in West Africa till 1851, and he was afterwards successively Governor of St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and South Australia. He was appointed Governor of Nova Scotia in 1864, and in the following year he became Governor of Hong Kong, and in 1872 be retired on a pension after nearly thirty years' colonial service. Sir R. MacDonnell received the honour of knighthood in 1855, having been created a Civil Companion of the Order of the Bath in 1852, and he became a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George in 1871. While Governor of the Gambia he commanded a body of colonial volunteers against the King of Keenung in 1849, and against the King of Combo in 1851, and when in South Australia he took a warm personal interest in the exploration and development of the colony. He was married to the daughter of Mr. Francis Skuiray, of Brighton.

MR. EDWARD HOLROYD.

Mr. Edward Holroyd, barrister, many years a commissioner of bankruptcy, died at his residence, Elland Lodge, Wimbledon, on the 29th ult., in his eighty-seventh year. The deceased was a member of a branch of the same family as the Earl of Sheffield, and he was the third son of Sir George Sowler Holroyd, many years one of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. He was born in 1794, and he was educated at the Charterhouse and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He practised for some time as a special pleader below the bar, and he was called to the bar at Gray's-inn in Easter Term, 1826. He originally joined the Northern Circuit, but he shortly afterwards became a member of the Oxford Circuit,. He acted as a bankruptcy commissioner under the old system, and after the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, 1832, he was appointed one of the first commissioners of the new Court of Bankruptcy. He held the office for thirtyseven years, and was for a long time the senior commissioner. His office was abolished on the passing of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, when he retired upon a pension. Mr.

Holroyd served upon two Royal Commissions on the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, and he for many years advocated the abolishment of imprisonment for debt. He was married to the daughter of Mr. Charles Pugsley, of Ilfracombe.

MR. NATHANIEL COBHAM.

Mr. Nathaniel Cobham, solicitor (of the firm of Cobham & Hunt), died at Ware on the 6th inst. Mr. Cobham was born at Ware in 1800. He served his articles with the late Mr. Albany Carrington Bond, of Ware (whose daughter he married, and to whose business he afterwards succeeded), and be was admitted a solicitor in 1829. He was at one period in partnership with Mr. Charles Joseph Asbfield, but more recently he had been associated with Mr. Joseph Hunt, the clerk to the Buntingford Board of Guardians. He had a large local practice, and held several important appointments. He had been for nearly forty years clerk to the county magistrates, and he was also clerk to the Ware Local Board and Burial Board, and to the feoffees of the Ware Charity Estates. Mr. Cobham's death has caused general regret at Ware. He was buried at Stapleford Church, on the 9th inst.

MR. FRANCIS TYSSEN AMHERST.

Mr. Francis Tyssen Amherst, barrister, died on board the steamship Bokhara on the 3rd inst. Mr. Amherst was the second son of the late Mr. William George Daniel Tyssen Amberst, of Didlington Hall, Norfolk, and he was born in 1842. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1965, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1867. He joined the Ho me Circuit, but a few years afterwards went to Australia. He was admitted to the bar at Brisbane, in September, 1875, and he had been for some time a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly as representative of the district of Mackay. Mr. Amherst was a younger brother of Mr. William Amberst Tyssen Amherst, M.P. for West Norfolk. He died on the voyage home from Australia to England.

MR. GROSVENOR HODGKINSON. Mr. Grosvenor Hodgkinson, solicitor, many years M.P. for Newark, died at his residence at that place on the 14th inst. Mr. Hodgkinson was the son of Mr. George Hodgkinson, solicitor, of Newark, his mother having been a daughter of the Rev. John Beevor, rector of Clay pole, Nottinghamshire. He was born in 1818, and was educated at King Edward's Grammar School, Louth, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1839. He practised for about thirty years at Newark, where. he had a large and lucrative business. He was at first in partnership with his father, and then he practised for several vears alone. At a later period he was joined by Mr. Becher Tidd Pratt, and by his son, Mr. Grosvenor Hodgkinson, junior. Mr. Hodgkinson took an active interest in local and political business at Newark, and at the general election of 1859 he was elected M P. for the borough in the Liberal interest. He was a frequent speaker in the House of Commons, and was one of the most prominent speakers in the debates upon the Reform Bill of 1867, especially with reference to the sections relating to compound householders. He finally retired from Parliament at the general election of 1874. He had been for many years a director of the Law Life Insurance Company, and also of the Midland, and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies. He was married in 1845 to the daughter of Mr. Robert Harvey, of Balderton, Notting hamshire.

The Lord Chancellor on Wednesday received at the House of Lords a deputation from the Council of the Incorporated Law Society in reference to the Solicitors' Remuneration Bill. The deputation consisted of Mr. J. M. Clabon, the president, and Mr. C. C. Druce, the vicepesident of the society, and some other members of the council. The Lord Chancellor received the deputation with great courtesy, and gave attentive and very favour. able consideration to the suggestions which were made to him.

SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association took place at the Law Institution, Chancerylane, London, on Wednesday, the 9th inst. Present, Mr. Rickman, deputy-chairman, in the chair; Messrs. Brook, Kays, Keen, Roscoe, Rose, Smith, Walters, Williamson, and Woolbert, with Mr. Eiffe, secretary. A sum of £140 was distributed in grants of relief, six new members were admitted to the association, and other general business transacted.

MANCHESTER INCORPORATED LAW

ASSOCIATION.

The annual general meeting of the members of the association was held on Thursday, the 20th of January, 1881, at their rooms, Cross-street Chambers, Cross-street, when an accounts of the receipts and disbursements (previously audited by two of the members) was submitted and passed, and the officers and committee were elected for the ensuing year, Mr. George Hadfield being elected president.

The following are extracts from the report of the committee :

In presenting the forty-second annual report of the association your committee have again the pleasure of congratulating the members upon the prosperity of the society, and upon a considerable accession of new members during the past year. Civil Assize Arrangements in Lancashire.-This subject has continued to receive the attention of your committee in conjunction with that of the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool. The Liverpool Society, with a view to future action, have prepared a report on the present facilities for the trial of civil causes in Liverpool and Manchester, to which is appended a reprint of the speech of Sir Henry James (the present Attorney-General) in the House of Commons on the 21st of March, 1879, on the administration of justice, and of a leading article from the Times of the 24th of March. In this speech Sir Henry James proposed that courts should be constantly open in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and some town of the Midland Counties, presided over by judges of the superior court". A copy of the report was forwarded to the present Lord Chancellor, with a letter from the president of the Liverpool Law Society asking his lordship to receive a deputation from that society and your association. The Lord Chancellor in reply promised to give his careful attention to the views expressed, but did not think it necessary to trouble a deputation to attend him to express what he was prepared to consider attentively if made in writing. A paper on the subject was read by Mr. F. D. Lowndes, of Liverpool, at the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society at Sheffield, in October. A conference of the law societies chiefly interested took place in Liverpool, on the 22nd of December, to consider the question, at which a deputation from your association attended, and at which the law societies of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Newcastleupon-Tyne were also represented. The resolutions passed at this meeting will be found in the appendix to this report, and it was decided to communicate them to the Associated Provincial Law Societies, with a request that a meeting of the members of that body should be called, at an early day, to consider them.

Chancery of Lancashire.-District Registrar.-A vacancy in the cffice of district registrar, at Liverpool, of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster having occurred in consequence of the resignation of Mr. Winstanley, who had filled the office since the reconstitution of the court, and held the same office in Manchester prior to the separation of the registries, your committee, in support of the action taken by the Incorporated Law Society of Liverpool, passed the following resolution :

"That taking into consideration that the office of registrar of the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster involves the discharge of many duties which are intimately associated with the practice of a solicitor, and with respect to which solicitors have an experience which barristers cannot reasonably be expected to possess, and that the business done by him is principally similar to that which is discharged by the chief clerks in the High Court, who are invariably solicitors,

the committee of the Manchester Law Association are of opinion that a solicitor ought to be appointed to the office of registrar, whenever such office becomes vacant in any registry, if an efficient and suitable solicitor present himself."

A copy of the resolution was forwarded to the Right Honourable John Bright, M.P., Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and to the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine. Notwithstanding the representations of the two law societies, and also of the Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of the Duchy, instead of appointing a solicitor, conferred the office upon Mr. F. W. Taylor, of the Chancery Bar, who was called in June, 1872.

District Probate Registrars. The Incorporated Law Society of the United Kingdom having submitted a report of a special committee of that society with regard to district probate registrars acting professionally in probate business, following resolution was adopted :and invited the opinion of your committee thereon, the

"That in the opinion of this committee no person should be appointed a district registrar of the Probate Court who is not a barrister or a solicitor.

"That it ought to be the duty of the registrars of the Probate Court to receive and return by post papers from a distance in common form business.

"That the employment of an agent in the district registry town is not, in the opinion of this committee, necessary, as a rule, in these cases.'

The subject was considered at a meeting of the Associated Provincial Law Societies, held in London, in the month of May, when the following resolution was passed:

"That the practice of solicitors sending papers to the district registrars by post is most convenient, and should be continued, and that the district registrars should receive and return such papers and settle forms free of charge."

It was also resolved to communicate the above resolution to Sir James Hannen, the judge of the Court of Probate, and to ask him whether any objection exists to the application of this rule to the Principal Registry of the Court of Probate.

The

Professional Remuneration.-The new scale of fees for conveyancing business adopted by the joint committee of the Incorporated Law Society and the Associated Provicial Law Societies, mentioned in the last annual report of your committee, was forwarded by the council of the Incorporated Law Society to Lord Chancellor Cairns, in January last, and on the 3rd of February a deputation from that body submitted to his lordship clauses which they had prepared for giving legal sanction to the proposed change in the system of solicitors' remuneration. Solicitors' Remuneration Bill, when brought in by Lord Cairns, though providing for the establishment of a scale of remuneration in conveyancing and non-contentious business, was not in accordance with the clauses submitted by the council, and it contained a proviso that where remuneration was allowed on a percentage scale a solicitor should not be entitled, under any agreement, to recover any greater amount than that allowed by the scale. This proviso appearing to your committee to be objectionable, they passed the following resolutions on the subject, which were at once communicated to the Lord Chancellor :"That in the opinion of this committee the provisions of the Bill now before the House of Lords, for making better provision respecting the remuneration of solicitors in conveyancing and other non-contentious business, are calculated to effect great improvements in the mode of remuneration of solicitors, and to facilitate improvements in the practice of conveyancing and other non-contentious matters. But while a scale o fees such as is contemplated by clauses 3 and 4 may be devised so as to be almost universally applicable, there will arise exceptional cases, not only in which a lower charge than that of the proposed scale may be fairly accepted, but also in which the scale charge would be quite inadequate, and this committee therefore think that sub-section (7) of clause 8 of the Bill should be omitted. The committee do not see any reason why the matter of special contracts should not be left unfettered, as sub-section (6) sufficiently provides against abuse by way of undue influence or extortion.

"The committee also think it most desirable that before

settling the scale of costs the judges should be solicited to