nlt, a motion was made under ord. 36, r. 26, that, notwith. standing the notice of trial by a jury given by the defendant, the action might be tried before his lordship according to the plaintiff's notice of trial. The action was for a trespass upon certain property of the plaintiff, and for detinue of certain building materials. The defendant put in a counterclaim for specific performance of a contract for building the houses where the trespass had occurred, and he alleged that the time for completing such buildings had been extended by the plaintiff. The defendant's counsel admitted that his counter-claim for specific performance would be very difficult to establish, and that it would probably only result in a claim for damages, that the questions to be tried were really only questions of fact, and were, in fact, only old common law matters. JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion that, although there was a question raised on the claim whether the plaintiff could have obtained an injunc tion at law before the Judicature Acts, to his mind the whole action was really a common law action for trespass and detinue. He also was of opinion that the counter-claim for specific performance, which, it was alleged, would compel him to try the action in the Chancery Division, could not be sustained, and the counter-claim really resolved itself into a claim for damages. He saw no reason why he should deprive the defendant of the right given him by the rules to have a trial by jury, and he, therefore, refused the motion, making the costs costs in the action, on account of the counter-claim for specific performance having been raised.

INJUNCTION-LIGHT AND AIR-SITE OF OLD BUILDING WITH ANCIENT LIGHTS-INJURY TO SALEABLE VALUE.— An application, which raised a novel point with respect to the law of injunctions in light and air cases, was made on the 26th ult. to Hall, V.C., in an action of The Eclesiastical Commissioners for England v. Kino. The facts of the case, briefly stated, were as follows:-By virtue of the joint operation of the Act for the Union of Contiguous Benefices (23 & 24 Vict. c. 142, s. 29) and an order of her Majesty in Council of October 23, 1876, the site of the church of Saint Dionis Backchurch, in the city of London, became vested in the Ecclesiastical

Commissioners as trustees for sale. The church which formerly stood upon that site was pulled down in August, 1878, but the positions and dimensions of its ancient lights and windows were previously taken and duly placed on record, and for the purpose of this action were represented by apertures in a hoarding erected to correspond with the former wall. There formerly stood upon the southern boundary of the church-yard, along Fenchurch-street, and at the junction of that thoroughfare with Lime-street, some old buildings, of low elevation, in no part reaching higher than twenty feet, which were the property of the defendant. The defendant had recently pulled down these old buildings, which stood about sixteen feet from the site of the old wall of the church, and was erecting in their place houses which were planned to reach an elevation of at least thirty-eight feet. The plaintiffs now moved upon notice to continue an injunction which had been obtained ez parte to restrain the defendant from "erecting or raising on the site of the old buildings any erection or buildings so as to darken, injure, or obstruct any lights of any building to be erected on the site of the church, so far as such lights might occupy the same positions as the ancient lights of the plaintiffs' premises, as the same were enjoyed previously to the taking down of the said old buildings." It was urged, as the chief argument in support of the motion, that the obstruction of light which would result from the increased height of the defendant's buildings would be most prejudicial to the saleable value of the plaintiffs' property, having regard to the former positions of the lights in the building which previously stood there. HALL, V.C., after remarking that the case raised a point which had never before been presented to the court, said that the possible interference with the saleable value of the site did not afford any ground upon principle or authority for the granting of an injunction at the present stage of the action, and that, as he would not be the creator of such a new jurisdiction as that sought to be imputed to the court, the application would be refused. The costs to be costs in the action.

LEAVE TO WITHDRAW DEFENCE-TERMS-Costs-Order 23. In the case of The Real and Personal Advance Company v. McCarthy, before Fry, J., on the 25th ult., the question arose on what terms as to costs a defendant should be allowed to withdraw his defence. The action was brought to recover possession of some land against McCarthy, and Smith, who was in possession of part of the property as tenant to McCarthy. After the case had been in the paper for trial, and had stood over by the consent of the parties till another cross-action relating to the same property should be ready for trial, the defendant Smith, who had then relinquished possession of the property, took out a summons in chambers for leave to withdraw his defence on such terms as to the court should seem fit. The terms proposed before the chief clerk were, payment of all that should be due to the plaintiffs by way of mesne profits, and payment of the costs occasioned by the defence, and the costs of the summons. The chief clerk was of opinion that these terms were proper, but the plaintiffs were not satisfied, and desired to have the summons adjourned into court. It was urged on their behalf that the defendant Smith ought to be liable for the whole costs of the action, and that the effect of what was proposed would be only to make him pay the extra costs occasioned by his statement of defence, leaving the plaintiffs to recover their costs of the action from the other defendant, who, it was alleged, was insolvent. FRY, J., said that it would have been better if the summons had stated the terms which the defendant intended to offer. But that was not a matter of substance. He thought that the terms offered in chambers were sufficient, and gave leave to withdraw the defence on those terms, and that, thereupon, all farther proceedings against Smith should be stayed. And his lordship ordered the plaintiff's to pay the costs of the adjournment into court.

ATTACHMENT-LEAVE OF COURT-NOTICE-SERVICEORD. 44, R. 2.-In a case of Davis v. Davis, on the 26th ult., FRY, J., held that it is sufficient to serve notice of a motion for leave to issue an attachment against a party upon the solicitors of the party on the record. In so holding, his lordship followed the decisions of Jessel, M.R., in Browning v. Sabin (L. R. 5 Ch. D. 511), and of Bacon, V.C., in Richards v. Kitchen (25 W. R. 602).

Societies.

LAW ASSOCIATION.

At the usual monthly meeting of the directors, held at the hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, on Thursday, the 4th of March, the following being present, viz., Mr. Boodle (chairman), Messrs. Desborough, jun., A. Drew, H. S. Styan, Sidney Smith, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary), two new members were elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

charged the office of honorary secretary from the commencement of this society.

The chairman then, in the name of the society, presented to Mr. Herbert Harry Hickmott, who obtained the Clement'sinn Prize in the November sittings examination in 1879, being the first among 206 candidates, the prize of the society of the value of ten guineas. The books chosen were "Hallam's Constitutional History of England," 3 vols. ; "Hallam's Middle Ages," 3 vols.; "Hallam's Literature of Europe," 3 vols.; and "Merival's Romans under the Empire," 8 vols, handsomely bound. Mr. Hickmott suitably responded.

4. That Mr. William Wake be re-elected the president, Mr. Wm. Sunith be re-elected the vice-president, Mr. Broomhead be re-elected the treasurer, and Mr. Bramley be re-elected the secretary of the society.

5. That the following gentlemen be hereby appointed to act with the officers mentioned in the last resolution as the committee for the ensuing year, namely: Messrs. T. W. Badger (Rotherham), Joseph Binney, Branson, C. S. B. Busby (Chesterfield), W. B. Esam, Hodgkinson (Rotherham), Hughes, Moore, Pye-Smith, C. M. Smith, Thomas, Webster, A. Wightman, D. Wightman, and Yeomans.

6. That Messrs. Watson and Fretson be appointed the auditors of the society for the ensuing year, and that Messrs. Watson and Moore, the latter as auditor pro tem., be and are hereby thanked for their kindness in auditing the accounts for the last year.

7. That the thanks of the society be given to A. J. Mundella, Esq., M.P., for his attention to the matters laid before him by the committee, and for prints of the public Bills brought into Parliament during the last session, which he has forwarded to the committee.

A report from the committee respecting the arrangements for entertaining the Incorporated Law Society of England on their visit to Sheffield next autumn having been read, it was resolved :

8. That the necessary arrangements for the visit be left in the hands of the committee.

10. That the thanks of the meeting be given to the chairman for presiding.

The following are extracts from the report:— The attention of the committee has been chiefly directed to the following matters :

Winter Assize. On the question of a winter assize, your committee have to report that the assize for civil cases at Leeds has been fixed for January, the previous one being simply a gaol delivery. This is not all that is needed in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and the inconvenience of waiting for the trial of civil cases, from July to January, is very great. It is to be hoped this want will be remedied.

Provisional Entry of Causes. -Owing to the thoughtful care of Mr. Marshall, the registrar, at Leeds, and secretary of the law society there, and with the consent of the Lord Justice Bramwell, a provisional entry of causes was commenced at the summer assize, in 1879, at Leeds, and persons entering causes were thus enabled to judge with greater precision when their cases were likely to be reached. Following this good example, the plan was tried in other assize towns, and by the 4th of the further rules of the Supreme Court, issued in December, 1879, and which came into operation on the 22nd of December, 1879 (repealing ord. 36, r. 15), it is provided that this continuous entry of causes shall be carried out in all the assize towns where there is a district registry, and if none, then in certain specified towns near to assize towns. Your society had presented a memorial in favour of this course.

The same rules (No. 3, repealing part of ord. 35, r. 1a) now permit actions in the common law divisions to be entered for trial in the district registries.

Land Registry.-Mr. Osborne Morgan's committee reported to the House of Commons, and in the appendix will be found the resolutions of your committee referred to in their last report. It is satisfactory to find that the Parliamentary Committee, whose report is also in the appendix, has followed in some degree the recommendations of your committee. If the report of the Parliamentary Committee be followed by legislative action, a system of registry of assurances somewhat similar to that at Wakefield, but brought nearer to the properties affected, will be established.

Affidavits of Service.-It having come to the notice of various members of this society that differences existed in the district registries respecting affidavits of service, and that certain forms that were satisfactory in some registries were rejected in others, the secretary was directed to make inquiries in the different registries on the point, and the following four questions were put to each registry :

1.-How is the description of the solicitor's clerk, who serves a writ, inserted in the affidavits passed in your registry? Is it sufficient to describe him as "A. B, clerk with Messrs. C. D., of Sheffield, solicitors ?"

2.-In what way is the service on one of the partners of a firm sued as-e.g., "C. Smith & Co." shown on an affidavit accepted in your registry?

3.-The like question when the writ is served on a manager ?

4. Do you consider it necessary to insert the words, "within the jurisdiction," when the action is brought in the usual way, not under the Bills Act?

The circular was sent to seventy-one registries, and answers were received from forty. It was found from these answers that hardly any one of the registries agreed with any other registry in giving the same answers to the circular. The method in which the Sheffield Registry would require the affidavit to be worded was shown on the circular, and the answers showed that on question 1, eighteen registries agreed with, twenty-two differed from, Sheffield; on question 2, twenty-eight agreed with, six differed from, Sheffield; on question 3, twenty-seven agreed with, five differed from, Sheffield; and on question 4, eight agreed with, thirty-two differed from, Sheffield. A greater uniformity of practice seems very desirable.

Appointments, Etc.

Mr. JOSEPH BARRETT, solicitor, of 5, Leadenhall-street and Upton, has been appointed Solicitor to the Licensed Victuallers' Protection Association for the half hundred of Beacontree, in Essex.

Mr. ALFRED SYDNEY CLARK, solicitor, of Stonehouse and Plympton, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

appointed by the High Sheriff of Devonshire (Mr. Reginald Mr. BRUTTON JOHN FORD, solicitor, of Exeter, has been Kelly) to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing

year.

Mr. Ford was admitted a solicitor in 1846.

Mr. HENRY JAMES BURFORD HANCOCK, Attorney-General of the Leeward Islands, has been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Leeward Islands. Mr. Hancock is the son of the late Mr. Henry Hancock, F.R.C.S. He was educated at Eton, and was for several years a captain in the 45th Regiment. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1866, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit. He was a judge of the District Court in Jamaica from 1876 till 1878, when he was appointed Attorney-General of the Leeward Islands. Mr. Hancock is also chancellor of the diocese of Antigua.

Mr. HENRY HICKS HOCKING, Attorney-General of Western Australia, has been appointed Attorney-General of the Island of Jamaica, in succession to Mr. Edward Loughlin O'Malley, who has been appointed Attorney-General of Hong Kong. Mr. Hocking is a B.C.L. of St. John's College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in law and modern history in 1864. He obtained the Vinerian Law Scholarship in 1866, and he was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1867. Mr. Hocking was formerly a member of the Home Circuit, and he has been Attorney-General of the colony of Western Australia since

1872.

Mr. EVAN WYNNE JONES, solicitor, of Chester, has been elected Clerk and Treasurer to the Carnarvonshire Turnpike Trust.

Mr. MAURICE HARRIS LEVIRTON, of 14, Devonshiresquare, Bishopsgate-street, E., has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. GEORGE WARD NAUNTON, solicitor, of 58, Cheapside and Swaffham, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. ALEXANDER MILLER WHITE, solicitor, of Colchester, has been elected Clerk to the Colchester Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the district. Mr. White was admitted a solicitor in 1849, and was for several years treasurer for the borough of Colchester.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

ROBERT HARDING MILLWARD and SPENCER WHITEHEAD, solicitors, 40, Chancery-lane, London (Whateley, Milward, & Whitehead). December 31. (Gazette, February 27.)

Companies.

WINDING-UP NOTICES. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

OAR PITS COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the
M.R., dated Feb 20, it was ordered that the company be wound up.
Venn and Son, Finch lane, Cornhill, solicitors for the petitioner
[Gazette, Feb 27.]

ALCAZAR COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb
28, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins on March 12, Hewlett,
Essex st. Strand, solicitor for the petitioner
BROCKLEBANK SHIPPING COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed
Mar 11 at 11, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official
liquidator

HULL DISTRICT BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb 28, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins on Mar 12. CollyerBristow and Co, Bedford row, agents for Roberts and Leak, Kingstonupon-Hull, solicitors for the petitioners

LONGTON HALL HOTEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed Mar 11 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

METROPOLITAN FURNACE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED.Petition for winding up, presented Feb 28, directed to be heard before the M.R. on Mar 13. Pettiver, College st, College hill, solicitor for the petitioner

MISS LILA CLAY'S COMPANY OF LADY MINSTRELS, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Bacon, dated Feb 21, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Woodfin and Wray, Tower chambers, Moorgate, solicitors for the petitioners

NATIONAL TEMPERANCE BEVERAGE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Apr 2, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts and claims to Arthur James Hill, 1, Finsbury circus. Apr 12 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudieating upon the debts and claims

STUART AND BROTHER, LIMITED.-By an order made by V.C. Hall, dated Feb 20, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the above company be continued. Marsland, St Swithins lane, agent for Addleshaw and Warburton, Manchester, solicitors for the petitioners

TRANSVAAL GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed Mar 9 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

VICTORIA MANSIONS, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb 21, directed to be heard before V.C. Malins on Mar 12. Bolton and Co, Temple gardens, Temple, solicitors for the petitioners [Gazette, Mar. 2.] UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY. SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA PIER COMPANY.-Creditors are required, on or before Apr 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Christopher Simpson, Saltburn-bythe-Sea. Thursday Apr 15 at 12 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

[Gazette, Feb. 27.] SPURN VIEW BUILDING SOCIETY.-Petition for winding up, presented Feb 27, directed to be heard before V.C. Bacon on Mar 13. Hicks and Son, Gray's inn sq, agents for Daubney and Bates, Gt Grimsby, solicitors for the petitioner [Gazette, Mar. 2.]

Obituary.

MR. THOMAS HENRY TRAVIS.

Mr. Thomas Henry Travis, barrister, police magistrate, Mr. died at Penzance, of apoplexy, on the 17th inst. Travis was the son of Mr. William Travis, surgeon, of Scarborough, where he was born in 1810. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple, in Trinity Term, 1835, when he joined the Northern Circuit and settled at York. He obtained a good share of local practice, and attended for several years the North Riding, City of York, and Scarborough Sessions. He was for some time judge of the old Court of Record for the city of York. In 1854 he was selected by Sir George Grey as the first stipendiary magistrate for the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, an office which he held for nearly twenty-six years. Mr. Travis was universally respected in the town and neighbourhood of Hull. He liberally supported all the local charities, and in particular the Foreigners' Aid Society, and the Hull Industrial Schools. He also took a great interest in the measures introduced by Mr. Plimsoll for the protection of the lives of merchant seamen, and addressed most of the meetings which were held at Hull in support of that movement. At the Hull Police Court on the 18th inst., Aldermen Fountain and Flint, and Messrs. Torry and Jackson, solicitors, spoke of Mr. Travis's high personal character and legal attainments, and of the efficient manner in which he had discharged his magisterial duties.

MR. WILLIAM HUNGERFORD HOLDICH.

Mr. W. H. Holdich, solicitor, of Sleaford, Lincolnshire, died on the 30th ult., after a long illness. Mr. Holdich, the third son of the Rev. Thomas Holdich, rector of Maidwell, Northamptonshire, was born in 1809, and was educated at Harrow School. He served his articles with Messrs. Pearson, solicitors, Sleaford, and was admitted in 1831. He joined the firm shortly after his admission, and carried on business, in partnership with Mr. Charles Pearson, until the year 1847, when Mr. Pearson retired, and since that time he has practised in partnership with his brother, Mr. C. W. Holdich. Mr. Holdich's eldest brother assumed the name of Hungerford on inheriting the Dingley Estates, and one of his younger brothers is General Sir Edward Holdich, K.C.B. Mr. Holdich, who had an extensive private practice, was greatly respected by his brother professional men, and had the confidence of a large number of influential clients.

MR. HENRY SHEPHARD LAW.

Mr. Henry Shephard Law, solicitor (of the firm of Law & Hardy), of 13, Bush-lane, Cannon-street, died at his residence 5, Champion-park, Camberwell, on the 29th ult., after a painful illness of several months, at the age of seventy-six. Mr. Law was born in 1804. He was admitted a solicitor in 1828, and had practised for about fifty years in Bush-lane. He was originally in partnership with Mr. Joseph Fitzwilliam Vandercom (formerly solicitor to the London Institution), Mr. Edward Richard Comyn, Mr. David Cree, and Mr. Fitzwilliam Comyn. Since becoming the head of the firm he had been associated with Mr. John Charles Hardy, who is vestry clerk of the parish of Allhallows-the-Less. Mr. Law had a very large private practice, and his firm were formerly solicitors to the General Board of Health. He was solicitor to the Commissioners of Lunacy, in which capacity he had conducted several important prosecutions. He had also been for several years ward clerk of Dowgate Ward.

New Orders, Etc.

COUNTY COURTS.

By Order in Council, dated February 26, 1880 (published in the Gazette of February 27), it is provided that from and after February 28, 1880, the county court of Derbyshire holden at Chapel-en-le-Frith and Buxton shall be holden at New Mills as well as at Chapel-en-le-Frith and Buxton.

ORDER OF COURT. INDIA £5 PER CENT. STOCK.

Wednesday, Feb. 25, 1880. Whereas, by a notice dated the 22nd of December, 1879, the Secretary of State for India in Council has given notice that he is willing to grant in exchange for India £5 per Cent. Stock a like amount of India £4 per Cent. Stock, upon terms mentioned in the notice; and that the holders of India £5 per Cent. Stock who may be desirous to convert their stock upon those terms must signify their assent to the Secretary of State for India in Council, and that such assents must be delivered at the office of the chief accountant of the Bank of England on or before Monday, the 1st of March, 1880: And whereas a large amount of India £5 per Cent. Stock is now standing to the credit of the Chancery Pay Office Account at the Bank of England, and it is for the advantage of the persons interested in that stock that it be converted into a like amount of India £4 per Cent. Stock upon the terms men. tioned in the said notice:

Now I do order that the Paymaster-General do signify in the manner directed by the said notice his assent to the conversion into India £4 per Cent. Stock on the terms mentioned in the said notice of all such India £5 per Cent. Stock as shall on the 1st day of March, 1880, be standing to the credit of the Chancery Pay Office Account at the Bank of England, and do cause such assent to be delivered at the office of the chief accountant of the Bank of England on the said 1st of March, 1880.

And I do further order that when such India £4 per Cent. Stock shall have been transferred to the Chancery Pay Office Account the Paymaster-General do place such stock to the credit of the several causes, matters, and accounts on which such India £5 per Cent. Stock shall be standing, and do write off such India £5 per Cent. Stock from such causes matters, and accounts.

And I do further order that after the 1st of March, 1880, the Paymaster-General do, as far as may be practicable, report, or certificate made in Chancery, or in the Chancery give effect to all directions contained in any order, fiat, Division of the High Court of Justice, or in Lunacy, and to all powers of attorney and other instruments which shall be in force on that day, and shall refer to any stock to which this order applies, as if they referred to India £4 per Cent. Stock instead of to India £5 per Cent.

Stock.

We concur in this Order,

CAIRNS, C.

G. JESSEL, M.R.
W. M. JAMES, L.J.
HENRY COTTON, L.J.
RICHD. MALINS, V.C.
JAMES BACON, V.C.
CHARLES HALL, V.C.
CRIGHTON.

ROW. WINN.

Solicitors' Cases.

COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.
(Before LINDLEY and LOPES, JJ.)
March 2.-Re James Pettengill, a Solicitor.

In this case, the liquidator of two companies, the "Commercial Guarantee Society," and the "Star Accident Society," had obtained a rule calling on the solicitor to show cause why he should not be struck off rolls. The solicitor was solicitor to both companies, and, when they were being wound up, he received from the liquidator certain sums of money by cheques to divide between the creditors. The solicitor paid these cheques into his own banking account, and distributed only a portion of the money among the proper recipients of it, leaving a sum of about £1,400 unaccounted for.

Clare (Talfourd Salter, Q C., with him), showed cause and read an affidavit of the solicitor in which he stated that he had no intention of appropriating the money to his own use; that certain sums of money due to him from clients not having been remitted to him, he was induced, through temporary embarrassments, to draw against the

money at his bankers, intending to replace it as soon as bis remittances came to hand; that he had offered to pay the amount, together with interest and costs, by three equal instalments, at two, four, and six months; that £585, the amount of the first instalment, had already been paid; and that the greater part of the second was guaranteed. M'Leod, for the liquidator, offered no opposition to this arrangement being carried out.

LINDLEY, J.-In this case Mr. Pettengill, the solicitor, has not really offered anything like an answer to the grievance which is laid against him. He confesses, in fact, that he has done everything which Mr. Thompson alleges; he gives certain reasons why he did it, and makes certain excuses, which I will allude to presently; but there is really no controversy at all about the facts, and the facts are, in outline, and BO far as they are material, as follows:-Mr. Thompson was the liquidator of two companies, which are mentioned in the affidavit; those companies were being wound up voluntarily. It was his duty as liquidator to collect the assets of those companies, and turn them into money, and distribute them amongst the creditors and shareholders according to their respective rights, and he was accountable to the court for the application of those assets, and if he had done that which this solicitor has done, and which I will allude to presently, the Chancery Division would have removed him, and made him pay the costs of the application, and he would have been put into a position of very serioas difficulty. Mr. Thompson's duty was to take care and pay over all moneys which came to him to some separate account. If this had been a compulsory winding up, it would be his duty so to do pursuant to certain rules which have been published under and since the Act of 1862. Those rules do not apply to a voluntary winding up, and the liquidator has a great deal of discretion; but still I cannot help thinking that the person whose duty it is as trustee for others to collect their money and to disburse it, and in the case of a compulsory winding up the money has ought not to put those moneys in his bank account at all, but ought to take care to place it to a separate account; to be paid into the Bank of England pursuant to the orders. That is not the case with a voluntary winding up; still the principle is the same, and Mr. Pettengill, the solicitor, ought to have known that perfectly well. The liquidator not being a solicitor might not know that, or might not even think of it. The solicitor's first duty is to tell him that, and that he had no business to mix these moneys with his private moneys; still less excuse is there for the solicitor himself to do it pursuant to an arrangement which might or might not be convenient I say nothing about that. There nothing wrong that I can see in this, that the liquidator should hand over the assets to the solicitor to enable him to distribute them amongst the creditors and shareholders, and it appears that he handed over to him two sums amounting together to £2,250 with instructions to apply them properly. Now what was the duty of that solicitor? Certainly not to pay them into his own account. It was the first step which was utterly wrong. I do not say it was dishonestly done, or that he intended to do anything wrong at this time, but he was exposing himself to temptation; the money had no business there, it ought to have been paid into a separate account. Well, it remained where it ought never to have been, and then we find that which always does happen in these cases, it is made use of for improper purposes. I do not suppose Mr. Pettengill, the solicitor, ever intended to steal the money; I express no opinion upon that. He has made an affidavit in which he says he intended nothing of the kind, and he drew upon his money more or less hoping that he would get funds from other sources to keep up his account; but in point of fact when it was his duty to pay some of the creditors who had claime against this liquidator, he draws cheques for their payment, the Dummers' cheque for £80, and another cheque for £240, and those cheques were dishonoured, and that was as early as the 6th of May. Well, now he says in his affidavit that he told Mr. Thompson that the Dummers had been paid, and that they were amongst the people who had been paid. I confess I think that was extremely suspicious because the total number of persons paid had not been paid very much more than the united amount of those

is

two cheques, but I pass that over. I do not mean to say that Mr. Pettengill really intended to steal this money, I think he intended to do that which people do when they pay money to their private account which does not belong to it, they put it there hoping that they will be able to meet the cheques, be they what they may, that they may have to draw, but at the same time it is conduct which is very wrong, and very wrong indeed on the part of a solicitor whose duty it is to advise a client in the position of the liquidator. The solicitor knew very well that these were trust moneys, and without saying that was fraudalently done, he knew very well that they were not his own private moneys; but that he was accountable to other people, and he was liable himself to very hostile proceedings, to which he had no answer at all, at the suit of the creditors and shareholders of these companies, and it was quite impossible to overlook this matter or to treat it as a light matter. It is, to say the least of it, a very serious misappropriation of trust moneys, and I have considered with my brother Lopes as to what should be done, and we think that simply to make the solicitor pay the costs would be taking too lenient a view of it. It is a very serious matter, and what we propose to do is to make him pay the costs of this application, and be suspended for eighteen months.

LOPES, J., concurred.

HARRISON, ROBERT, Friday st, Silk Manufacturer. March 27. James Ely pl, Holborn

HEAP, JOHN BENNETT, Rugeley, Stafford, Innkeeper. March 13. Barnes, and Russell, Lichfield

HOLMES, FRANCIS, Cartworth, York, Farmer. March 13. Ives in and Mellor, Holmfirth

HUDSON, HENRY, Portslade, Sussex, Farmer. March 17. Verrall, Brighton

JONES, THOMAS, Aberystwi h, Cardigan, Merchant. Apr 6. Hughes and Son, Aberystwith

LOCKWOOD, FRANCIS, Askern, York, Farmer. March 20. Horner, Wakefield

LONG, JANE, South View ter, Carlisle. March 2. Saul, Carlisle MANASTERIOTTI, ANTONIO GIUSEPPE, Brighton, Lodging-house Keeper. May 10. Upperton and Bacon, Brighton

MANN, HENRY, Phillimore gardens, Esq. March 30. Miller and Co, Salters' Hall ct

MARKHAM, LUCY ANNE, Henley-on-Thames. March 27. Davidson and
Co, Spring gardens

MATHEWSON, ADAM, Gateshead, Durham, Commission Agent.
Mather and Co, Newcastle-on-Tyne

Apr 5.

MCGREGOR, HUGH, Whitby, York, Superintendent of Police. March 1.
Buchanan and Sons, Baxtergate, Whitby

MEDDINS, RICHARD, Newtown, Montgomeryshire, Gent. March 25.
Williams and Co, Newtown
MIDDLETON, GEORGE, City rd. April 19. Story and Cowland, Theo-
bald's rd, Gray's inn

PARRY, JAMES, Bromsgrove, Worcester, Gent. April 30. Sanders,
Bromsgrove

PLUMPTRE, LOUISA FRANCES, Cambridge ter, Hyde Park. Mar 20. Palmer and Co, Trafalgar sq

ROUPELL, FRANCIS POOLEY, Bryanston st, Portman sq, Clerk in Holy Orders. Mar 26. Futvoye and Co, John st, Bedford row

SALMON, MARY ANN, Kelvedon, Essex. April 30. Howard and Co, Colchester

SLACK, GEORGE WILLIAM, Liverpool, Chemical Manufacturer. Mar 31. Rogerson and Co, Liverpool

SMITHIES, JAMES, Saddleworth, York, Stone Dealer. Mar 31. Toy and Broadbent, Ashton-under-Lyde

STAINTON, ANN, Doncaster. May 14. Parkin and Co, Doncaster STEWART, THEOPHILUS, Leamington Priors. Apr 15. Field and Sous, Leamington

TAYLOR, JOHN TERTIUS, Birmingham, Jeweller. March 1. Turner, Birmingham

TRIBE, HERMAN HENRY, Chatham, Surgeon. March 18. Stephenson, Kochester

WEAVER, HARRIETT, Hereford. April 6. James and Bodenham,

Hereford

WHITE, GEORGE, Ironville, Derby, Wheelwright. March 11. Owen, Derby

WOOLLATT, SAMUEL, Aston Bury, Hertford, Farmer. March 31. Spence and Co, Hertford

[Gazette, Feb 17.] ATKINSON, CHARLES JOHN, Lorbottle House, Northumberland, Lieutenant 24th Regt. March 22. Trotter and Co, Bishop Auckland BOSWORTH, DANIEL, Park lane, Upper Baker st, Corn Dealer. Apr 7. Willoughby and Cox, Clifford's inn

BRADY, CHARLES, Tunstall, Stafford, Medical Practitioner. March 1. Llewellyn and Ackrill, Tunstall

BUSWELL, JOHN, Litchborough, Northampton, Plumber. March 3. Reche, Daventry

CAMERON, Rev ARCHIBALD ALLEN, Hurst, Berks, Clerk. Apr 15. Mackey, Paper buildings, Temple

Mar 20. Bassett v

CAVIE, WHARTON DOWNES, Westbourne pk rd, Gent. March 18. Somerville, Lincoln's inn fields

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25. LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

BLACK, WALLACE BRUCE, Rochester, Kent, Manufacturer. March 25. Pratt and Son, Rochester

FLAKE, GEORGE, Norwich, Gent. March 31. Coaks and Co, Norwich BLASTOCK, THOMAS, Normanton, Leicester, Retired Farmer. Apr 1. Argyle and Sons, Tamworth

BOURDIN, FRANÇOIS HIPPOLYTE, Bryanston st, Hyde park, Esq. Apr 2. Cutler and Co, King st, St James's

BRIGGS, SENTLEY, Nottingham, Licensed Victualler. Apr 20. Speed, Nouingham

BRIGHT, EDWARD, Brighton, Jeweller. March 25. Hill and Co, Brighton BULL, JOHN, North Cadbury, Somerset, Yeoman. March 25. New naa and Co, Yeovil

CHEAL, CHARLES, Brighton, Carrier. March 30.
CLAYTON, JEAN HENRIETTA, Cedars rd, Clapham.
Bedford row

Verrall, Brighton March 25. Nuna, COLES, MARY, Sidney st, Brompton. March 31. Elgcomb and Co,

Portsea

CROSS, ERNEST, Pickering, York, Wine and Spirit Merchant. March 25. Harrison, Kirby Moorside

DANDRIDGE, ANNA MABIA, Cheltenham. Apr 6. James and Bodenham, Hereford

DAVIES, DAVID, Yspytty Evan, Carnarvon, Licensed Victualler. March 20. Griffith, Llaurust

GOLDTHORP, HENRY, Shepley, nr Huddersfield, Gent. March 25. Heeley, Holmfirth

GRATTON, JOSEPH, Timberfield, Derby, Gent. March 12. Gratton and Marsden, Chesterfield

HARDY, MITCHELL CHARLES, The Terrace, Upper Norwood, Esq. Apr 1. Vandercom and Co, Bush lane

HARMAN, MATILDA, St Alban's ter, Hammersmith. March 31. Burgoynes and Co, Oxford st

DIXON, THOMAS, Walsall, Stafford, Sadlers' Tool Miker. Apr 2. Cotterell, Walsall

GARNER, WILLIAM, Malden rd, Kentish town, Liceased Victualler. March 14. Nevett, Warwick ct, Gray's inn

GILLENDER, ROBERT, Gateshead, Gent. March 25. Swinburne GOOLD, WILLIAM JAMES, Durant st, Hackney rd, Doll Manufacturer. March 31. Scott, Gresham buildings, Basinghail st

GREENFIELD, ANN, Wilcote, Oxford. Apr 1. Kuby and Mace, Chipping Norton

HARDING, RICHARD, Cuddington, Chester, Gent. Apr 1. Bradburne Northwich

HARRIS, LUCY, Brading, Isle of Wight. March 26. Poole and Hughes, Chancery lane

HEATH, COMFORT, Martha st, Cambridge heath, B icklayer. Apr 1. Heathfield and Son, Lincoln's inn fields

HOULT, DANIEL, Clay Cross, Derby, Engine Tenter. Aor 1. Black, Chesterfield

JAGGER, JOSEPH HORATIO, Stratford-upon-Avon, Bank Manager. March 31. Blewitt, Birmingham

NADIN, NATHANIEL GUY, Stapenhill, Derby, Colliery Proprietor. May 1. Jennings and Burton, Burton-on-Trent

OXENDEN, Rev MONTAGUE, Eastwell Rectory, Kent, Cerk. Apc 1. Wightwick and Co. Canterbury

PERCY, MATTHEW, Etruria, Stafford, Furnas Manager. Apr 14. Challinor, Hanley

POTTER, RICHARD, Nettlebed, Oxford, Sack Manufacturer. May 1. Cooper and Son, Henley-on-Thames

RICHARDSON, THOMAS, St Leonard's rd South, Bromley, Geat. March 24. Marsh, Feu ct, Fenchurch st

RICHARDSON, WILLIAM, Georgiana st, Camden town, Gent. March 31. Millman, Southampton buildings

STEPHENS, ARCHIBALD JOHN, Chancery lane, Barrister-at-Law. March 20. Hopgond and Co, Whitehall pl

THOMAS, BENJAMIN, Trillocott, Devon, Retired Farmer. March 25. White and Dingley, Launceston

THOMAS, JULIA, Reading, Berks. Apr 5. Bailey and Co, Berners st WANSTALL, THOMAS, Lynsted, Kent, Farmer. March 31 Tassell and Son, Faversham