facts were shortly these :-In 1876 the Cornwall Minerals Railway Company were in want of money, and their borrowing powers under their Act were nearly exhausted. Negotiations took place between them and the Yorkshire Railway Wagon Company for a loan of £30,000. The railway company were advised that they could not give a valid security for the proposed loan, and it was suggested that the railway company should obtain the money by selling part of their rolling stock to the wagon company for a sum of £30,000, and that at the same time the railway company should agree to hire that rolling stock from the wagon company for the term of five years, at a rent which would repay the £30,000 and interest by the end of that period. This arrangement was carried out by an agreement under seal between the companies, dated the 20th of June, 1876. In case of the due fulfilment of the agreement the railway company were to have the option, at the end of the five years, of repurchasing the rolling stock at a merely nominal price. At the same time three of the directors of the railway company personally guaranteed to the wagon company the payment of the rent. The rent having fallen into arrear the wagon company brought the action against the railway company and the sureties for the amount of the rent due and for damages. Kay, J., held that the professed sale and hiring were in fact a borrowing of £30,000 on the security of the rolling stock, and therefore invalid as a security beyond the powers of the company, and that the transaction was, so far as the railway company were concerned, ultra vires and void, but that the guarantee was valid, and that the sureties were liable on their guarantee. The wagon company appealed, and the sureties had also appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the transaction of sale and hiring was really what it purported to be, and not a loan in disguise, and that it had been bonâ fide substituted for the loan which had been originally intended. The agreement was therefore valid and could be enforced against the railway company. The appeal of the sureties was dismissed.— SOLICITORS, Singleton & Tattershall; Cope & Co.; Morley & Shirreff.

LUNATIC-ALLOWANCE TO NEXT OF KIN.-In a case of In re Evans, before the Court of Luvacy on the 6th inst., a question arose as to granting an allowance out of the income of a lunatic to one of his next of kin. The lunatic had an income of about £1,000 a year, of which only £425 a year was required for his maintenance. His next of kin were first cousins. One of these was an Irish clergyman over eighty years of age, who, in consequence of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, had been reduced to very poor circumstances. He desired to have an allowance made to him out of the income of the lunatic, and the master had made a report by which be certified that he approved of making an allowance of £100 a year to the applicant, if the court should think that it ought to be made. The court (JESSEL, M.R., and LINDLEY, L.J.) refused to grant the allowance. JESSEL, M.R., said that the applicant had no legal claim and no moral claim. The principle on which the court acted was laid down in Ex parte Whitbread (2 Mer. 99). No regard was to be paid to any interest of the next of kin in the lunatic's property. The question was what was for the benefit of the lunatic. If the next of kin was a person whom he was under a legal obligation to provide for, or if he was under some moral obligation to do something for him, by reason of his having given some promise, or having already made some allowance, the court might grant or continue an allowance. Illustrations of this were to be found in In re Blair (1 M. & C. 300) and in In re Frost (L. R. 5 Ch. 699), in the former of which cases Lord Cottenham said that the principle involved ought to be narrowed rather than extended in its operation, and that he would never exercise such a jurisdiction without the greatest possible jealousy and caution. LINDLEY, L.J., said that the grant of the allowance must be, in some way or other, for the lunatic's benefit.-SOLICITORS, Bower, Cotton, & Bower.

PRIORITY OF INCUMBRANCE-NOTICE-ERRONEOUS REFERENCE IN NOTICE. -One of several points which arose upon an adjourned summons in an action of Whittingstall v. King, before Hall, V.C., on the 6th inst., was as to the respective priorities of claimants to a reversionary estate. The question arose under the following circumstances:-The estate being in the hands of trustees of a will, the person beneficially interested in the reversion mortgaged his interest by deed, dated February 27, 1879, having previously put it into settlement by a deed dated June 28, 1875. No effectual notice of the settle ment was given to the trustees of the will until May, 1880, but the mortgagee under the deed of February 27, 1879, gave formal notice to them in April, 1879, of a mortgage deed, stating the parties correctly as they appeared in his security of February 27, 1879, but erroneously stating the date as being November 27, 1878. No deed of that date, in fact, existed, and it was sworn by the mortgagee's solicitor that the date was stated in error, which was, however, never corrected. The trustees of the settlement contended that the notice must be taken to be ineffectual, as it did not, in fact, refer to the alleged mortgage, but HALL, V. C., held that it was sufficient and operated to give the mortgagee priority, and he made a declaration accordingly.-SOLICITORS, Barlee, Burgess, & Cosens; Hepburn, Sons, & Cutliffe.

PRACTICE-TRUST FUNDS-INVESTMENT.-In an action of Braithwaite v. Wallis, which was before Hall, V.C., for trial upon the 3rd inst., the plaintiff sought to have a trust fund invested under the control of the court under the following circumstances:-A testator bequeathed to a female legatee a sum of £5,000, free of duty, for her sole and separate use, and to be invested by trastees to be nominated by her, so that she should have the income for her life and without power of anticipation, and after her death the principal sum to fall into the testator's residuary estate, which he gave to his father, the plaintiff in the action. The testator appointed trustees and executors of his will. The plaintiff desired that some control should be retained over the fund, and, as the legatee had refused to allow any interference, had brought the action against her and the surviving executor of the will, asking for

administration by the court and payment in of the £5,000. Upon the trial he now asked that the money should be invested in the names of the trustees nominated by the legatee, but under the control of the court, claiming such relief as of course. HALL, V.C., however, said that the modern tendency of the court was to leave trust funds in the hands and under the control of trustees, whenever they were properly there, and there was no ground for inferring that they were unsafe, and he therefore refused the relief asked. By consent an order was taken, whereby the legatee undertook to give the plaintiff notice of changes of investment, but the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the action, liberty to apply being reserved.-SOLICITORS, Sewell & Edwards; Bowker, Peake, Bird, & Collins.

PRACTICE-PARTIES BROUGHT IN BY NOTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 16, R. 18-ISSUE BETWEEN SUCH PARTY AND THE DEFENDANT -COSTS-ORD. 16, RR. 17, 18, 20, 21.-In an action of Pilke v. Roberts, before Kay, J., on the 6th and 8th inst., two questions were raised as to the practice under order 16. The action was brought to recover a sum of money said to be due under a building contract. The defendant claimed to have a right of indemnity against a third person, as agent for whom he said he had made the contract. He accordingly issued, and served on such person, a notice under ord. 16, r. 18. The third party got leave to defend, and delivered a defence and counter-clim. No relief was asked by the plaintiffs against the third party, and the defendant did not deny the plaintiff's claim, saying only that the third party was the person to pay. KAY, J., said that proceedings, no doubt, might have been taken under rule 17 to get an order for the trial of the question between the defendant and the third party, but as this was not done, no such question could be tried; therefore, if the court on the facts could give judgment against the defendant, the case was at an end. His lordship, on the facts, gave judgment against the defendant, with costs, the third party's counsel not having opened his counter-claim.

The plaintiff's counsel then asked for the costs occasioned by the third party's intervention. Against that it was contended that the order giving leave to defend ought to have made some terms as to the costs, that it not having done so, no order could now be made.

KAY, J., said that such a direction was not necessary, as a person coming into an action is subject to the judge's order as to costs, equally with other matters. On the opposite contention, even if the third party had succeeded in his counter-claim he could have had no costs.-SOLICITORS, Savidge & Steward; Henry Wickens; Routh, Stacey, & Castle, for George Mitchell Seabroke.

CHARITY-APPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEES AND VESTING ORDERCONSENT OF CHARITY COMMISSIONERS-CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACT, 1853, s. 62.-In the case of Ex parte The Committee of the Western Synagogue, St. Alban's-place, Haymarket, before North, J., for Chitty, J., on the 4th inst., a petition was presented for the appointment of new trustees of the Jewish Burial Ground in St. Luke's, Chelsea, and for a vesting order. The burial ground was, by a deed dated 1817, vested in trustees for the benefit of the members of the Jewish congregation of a synagogue then existing in Denmark-court, Strand, but closed since the year 1826, when the present synagogue was opened in its place. It appeared that the ground was purchased and kept up by voluntary subscriptions of the congregation. The trustees had long since died, and it could not be ascertained who was the last survivor. The question was raised whether the consent of the Charity Commissioners was necessary for the purposes of such an application. NORTH, J., adopting the ruling of the late Master of the Rolls in The Governors of the Charity for the Relief of Poor Widows v. Sutton (27 Beav. 651), and of Hall, V.C., in The Royal Society of London and Thompson (29 W. R. 838, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 407), decided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners was not necessary, as the property in question represented voluntary contributions.-SOLICITOR, Lewis Davis.

COPYRIGHT-RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION-PRIOR PUBLICATION-MUSICAL COMPOSITION-COPYRIGHT ACTS-COPYRIGHT ACT, 1842 (5 & 6 VICT. C. 45), s. 20.-In the case of Chappell v. Boosey, before North, J., sitting for Chitty, J., on the 3rd and 6th inst., the plaintiffs, a firm of music publishers in Bond-street, claimed to be the registered proprietors of the copyright in a musical composition or song, with an accompaniment, called "The Bell-ringer," and also of the sole liberty of performing the same piece, and sued the defendant for having, as one of the directors of the London Ballad Concerts, infringed their rights by permitting the song to be performed, without the plaintiffs' consent, at the St. James's Hall on the 14th of December last. The defence set up by the defendant was that the song in question, with its accompaniment, was, some time prior to its public perform auce, published and sold as a book within the meaning of that term in the Copyright Act, 1842. The plaintiffs demurred to this defence, and the question thus raised for the decision of the court was whether the publication of a dramatic piece or musical composition as a book, before it has been publicly represented or performed, deprives the author or his assignee of the exclusive right he would otherwise have of representing or performing it. NORTH, J., said that in his opinion the law stood thus. Under the Statute of Anne the author of a dramatic piece cr musical composition acquired a copyright in his work so as to be enabled to prevent any other persons from multiplying copies of it, but this did not prevent any one who thought fit to do so from representing or performing it. The privilege of an author of a dramatic piece was extended by the Act of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 15, commonly called Sir Pulwer Lytton's Act, which provides that the author, or assign of the author of any dramatic piece which was not printed or published, whether theu already composed, or thereafter to be composed, should have as his own property, and be proprietor of, the sole liberty of representing the same at any place of dramatic entertainment for a period not clearly defined and not

at present material, and that the author, or assign of the author, of any such piece, which was printed and published after or within ten years before the passing of that Act, should have the like sole liberty of representing the same for the term of twenty-eight years from the passing of the Act, or from the publication of the piece, if it was first printed and published after the passing of the Act, or until the end of seven years after the author's death, which ever should prove the longer. After the passing of this Act the author had, therefore, two different rights, one that of copyright proper, preventing the multiplication of copies of the piece itself, and the other being what may be called the acting or performing right, conferring upon him the power of preventing others from representing the piece without his consent. That Act, however, did not extend or apply to musical compositions, except so far as they came within the category of dramatic pieces or entertainments. By the Copyright Act, 1842, commonly known as Talfourd's Act, the rights of authors were extended, and the authors of musical compositions acquired the double right-namely, first, that of copyright proper in the piece itself as a book; and, secondly, the performing rights, such rights having a somewhat different period of duration. Although there were these two distinct statutory rights, it was said by the defendant that no person would purchase the piece in its book form, unless its sale conferred on the purchaser the right to make any and every use of it he thought fit. But, in his lordship's opinion, this consequence did not follow, for it was only the performance of the piece in public which, under the Copyright Act, 1842, was prevented by the existence of the performing right, and it was obvious that the greater number of sales of musical pieces took place merely for the purposes of private use. In the next place, if the publication of a musical composition as a book before the piece had been publicly performed prevented the subsequent acquisition of any performing right, it must follow that the publication of the same composition as a book at any time after the piece had been publicly performed would, from that time forward, put an end to any performing right in the piece existing prior to such publication, for the reasons existin in the former case would be of equal weight in the latter. If so, the author would be put to his choice either to abstain from publishing the book, and thus be unable to reap that copyright therein which the Act had conferred upon him, in which case he would be confined to the enjoyment of the performing right alone, or he might publish the book, and thereby lose his performing right; in other words, not only could the two statutory rights be not enjoyed simultaneously, but, more than that, the enjoyment of the one would be the destruction of the other. This would be the natural result if the defendant's contention was right, but his lordship was of opinion that the Copyright Act, 1842, showed upon its face that the public tion of the piece as a book did not prevent the continuance of the performing right. Much stress had been laid by the defendant on the Digest of the Law of Copyright appended to the Report of the Copyright Commissioners, 1878, but that was not a binding authority on the court. The demurrer by the plaintiffs was, therefore, allowed.-SOLICITORS, Wilkinson & Howlett; Boulton, Sons, & Sandeman.

CASES BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY REGISTRARS.
(Before Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM.)
May 2.-Ex parte Sadler, In re Hawes.

In this case Hawes was a hosier, carrying on business in the Poultry, Cheapside. He had taken a lease of his premises in 1876 from Sadler, at a rental of £1,000 per annum. He at the same time purchased of the landlord the fixtures and fittings of the shop for £800. In 1881 Hawes was made bankrupt, the above-mentioned fixtures, fittings, and furniture being still on the premises. A trustee was appointed, and in due course disclaimed the lease. The trustee having removed and sold the fixtures, fittings, and furniture, he was held wrong in doing so, and an inquiry was ordered as to which of them were attached to the premises, and the amount of damage which had been caused by the removal. The inquiry was now taken before Mr. Registrar Brougham,

C. L. Chubb appeared for the landlord, and
J. C. Earle for the trustee.

The fittings included (1) gasburners, &c.; (2) show-cases and counters attached to the walls and floors by short nails and screws; (3) counters which had been placed on a floor which was afterwards concreted over, but which were not fixed by any nails or screws; (4) mirrors and clocks attached to the wall in the usual way, so that they could be readily detached by drawing the nails which supported them; (5) furniture which was quite loose and detached.

Witnesses were called on both sides as to the manner in which the things in dispute were attached to the premises, and as to their value, and Mr. Frank Lewis, of No. 95, Gresham-street, City, the auctioneer and valuer, was called, and said that in his opinion, with the exception of the gasburners, the things were fittings which were always regarded as mere chattels such as could be distrained for rent.

Eventually Mr. REGISTRAR BROUGHAM held that the trustee was wrong in removing or selling anything beyond the loose furniture, and that anything which was so attached to the premises that it could not be removed without drawing a nail or a screw was a tenant's fixture, and therefore belonged to the landlord, and not to the trustee; the result of his decision being that the trustee had to pay to the landlord the value of the things he had wrongfully removed in addition to the damage done to the premises in the removal.

Solicitors, Deane & Chubb; William Sturt.

(Before Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY, acting as Chief Judge.)

May 3.-Ex parte Watkin, Re De Fernex Brothers. Whether an agreement can be legally come to between a trustee in bankruptcy and his solicitor that, after deducting their respective disbursements, their "other costs, charges, and remuneration" shall be shared pro rata out of any sum available for that purpose, Quære. Whether, when the terms of an agreement are in dispute, the Court of Bankruptcy can exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties, Quaere.

But in any case, where the trustee fails to establish to the satisfaction taxed costs will be ordered out of the estate. of the court the existence of the agreement, payment of the solicitor's

This was an application on behalf of Mr. Thomas Edward Watkin, the solicitor for the trustee of the property of the bankrupts, for an order that the trustee should, within four days after service of the order to be made thereon, pay to the applicant the sum of £78 33. 9d., being the amount due to him in respect of his costs as solicitor in the matter for the trustee, as appeared by the taxing master's allocatur, dated February 9, 1882.

The applicant, in his affidavit, stated that in the month of May, 1881, his bill of costs as the solicitor for the trustee of the bankrupts was carried in for taxation, and, after many adjournments, the same was ultimately duly taxed and allowed at the sum of £98 153. 10., as appeared by the allocatur of the taxing master (Mr. Higgins), dated February 9, 1882. On the taxation the trustee attended, and claimed to have a former taxation of costs against the separate estate of John Henry de Fernex, one of the bankrupts, re-opened, and to have the applicant's bill of coats, which had been taxed against such estate on the higher scale, re-taxed on the lower scale, and to have the difference between what was allowed and paid to the applicant on the higher scale, and what should be allowed on retaxation on the lower scale, repaid by the applicant to the trustee. The taxing master acceded to the claim by the trustee, and re-opened the previous taxation, and found that, under the circumstances, the applicant had been overpaid the sum of £20 123. 1d. He dedacted the amount, and ascertained that there was a net balance due to the applicant of £78 33. 9d., for which an allocatur was issued.

The trustee stated, with regard to a sum of £110 received by him as a part of the joint estate, that he considered it as applicable towards payment of the costs and disbursements of the applicant and of himself in connection with the joint and separate estates of the bankrupts. The only money received by him in respect of the joint estate other than the £110 amounted to £47 8. 2d.

he was introduced to the applicant, and requested to appoint him his soliOn the 7th of May, 1878, he was appointed trustee, and at the same time oitor in the matter. He had never previously, to his knowledge, either seen or heard of the applicant. The amount of the assets under the bankruptcy was extremely uncertain, and it was a matter of importance to him (the trustee) that he should secure his own position when entering into business relations with an unknown solicitor. He therefore took the precaution of making an agreement with him previously to his so acting, upon the terms "that he should incur no personal liability to the applicant, but that, after deducting their respective disbursements, the other costs, charges and remuneration of the applicant and himself should be shared between them pro cant denied the existence of the agreement in question, and the trustee rata out of any sum available for or towards their discharge." The appli admitted that he had received sufficient assets to pay the amount of the applicant's claim.

Terrell, for the applicant. Yate Lee, for the trustee.

Mr. REGISTRAR MURRAY said the solicitor was duly appointed with the fectly clear, and the order for payment of his costs would be made as a mere sanction of the committee of inspection, and prima facie his right was permatter of course. But in this case the trustee had set up by way of defence a special agreement between the solicitor and himself. [His honour referred to it.] The first question, which was open to considerable doubt, was whether that kind of agreement could be legally come to between a trustee in bankruptcy and his solicitor, however clear and precise it might be in its terms, and whether such an agreement was one which the court ought to regard or recognize in any shape or way in the administration of the estate. Being, moreover, an agreement outside the bankruptcy, could it be said, when the terms of the agreement were in dispute, the case was one which came within the functions of this court to determine or adjudicate upon between the parties? He should certainly hesitate before coming to any such conclusion, or deciding that it was expedient, or even proper, that this court should exercise any jurisdiction in the matter. Assuming, however, the affirmative of both those propositions to be tenable in law, then how did the case stand in regard to the question of fact? On the one side the trustee deliberately stated upon oath a positive agreement between himself and the solicitor. On the other the solicitor as deliberately and as positively denied the trustee's statement and the existence of any agreement at all. Toe evid ence was all on affidavit, and there was no cross-examination. How was it the truth? There were positively no materials before him which could enable possible for the court, sitting as a jury, to say which of the two is speaking him to arrive at a verdict. His honour then referred to the auxiliary affidavits filed on behalf of the trustee, which, in his opinion, amounted to nothing, and trustee who had set up the defence had failed to establish it to his satisfaction, to the correspondence between the applicant and the trustee, and held that the and, that being so, the only course he could take was to make the order asked for, with costs out of the estate.

Applicant in person.

Solicitors for the trustee, Field, Roscoe, & Co.

SOLICITORS' CASES.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Sittings in Banc, before GROVE and LOPES, JJ.)
May 8.-In re Pruen.

This was the case of a solicitor, Frederick Langford Pruen, who had been convicted of forgery, and against whom a rule had been granted to show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.

The COURT, upon the motion of Murray, for the Incorporated Law Society, and no one appearing to ahow cause, mede the rule absolute.-Times.

HENRY MARRIOTT RICHARDSON and CHARLES FREDERIC MARSHALL (Richardson & Marshall), solicitors, Bolton, Lancashire. April 4. The business will be carried on by the said Henry Marriott Richardson.

[Gazette, May 9.]

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 inst., the following being present-viz., Mr. Tylee (chairman), and Messrs. Bodle, Burges, Lucas, Desborough, jun., Parkin, Sidney Smith, and A. B. Carpenter (secretary), grants of £45 were made to three members, one member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted. The annual general court was fixed for the 25th inst., at three o'clock.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

new

LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Tuesday, May 9.-The society discussed the question-"Is it desirable in the interests of England that a tunnel should be constructed between England and France?" Mr. Kirk opened the question in the affi mative, and was supported by Messrs. Mallam, Strickland, W. F. Barry, and Austin, while Messrs. E. Robinson, Whitehead, Nicholls, Waller, Lloyd Jones, Hood, C. E. Barry, and Lemon, spoke in favour of the negative. The question was, on a vote being taken, negatived by a majority of ten votes. Thirty menbers were present.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

At a meeting of this society, held at Clement's-inn Hall, on Wednesday, May 3, Mr. E. F. Spence in the chair, Mr. Jenks moved-"That the power married women now have over property ought to be curtailed." The opener was supported by Messrs. Bartram and Spence, and opposed by Messrs. Parsons, Tillotson, Sutcliffe, Dawbarn, Eiloart, and Harvey-Samuel. Mr. Jenks then replied, and the motion, on being put to the meeting, was lost by thirteen votes.

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

The usual fortnightly meeting of this society was held on Tuesday evening, May 9, at the Law Library, W. Fowler Carter, Esq., B.A., B.L., in the chair. New members having been elected, and other special business disposed of, a debate took place on the following subject :-"1. Is there any valid distinction between 'set-off' and 'counter-claim ?' 2. If so, should the distinction be abolished for purposes of procedure?" The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Barrow, A. Hebbert, E. C. Rogers, Ryland, and Restall, and on the negative, Messrs. G. T. Edwards and Swarbrick. The chairman summed up, and put each question separately to the vote, when both were carried by large majorities in favour of the affirmative. A vote of thanks was then passed to Mr. Carter for presiding.

COMPANIES.

WINDING-UP NOTICES.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

SANKEY BROOK AND ASHTON'S GREEN COLLIERIES COMPANY, LIMITED,-Creditors are required, on or before June 5, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Richardson, Preston. Monday, June 19, at 11, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

STRAHAN AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order of Chitty, J., dated April 29, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Phelps and Co, Gresham st, solicitors for the petitioner

VASA MURBHINA GLASS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented April 25, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on May 13. Snell and Co, George st, Mansion House, solicitors for the petitioner

WEST FRONTINO AND BOLIVIA GOLD MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 2, directed to be heard before Chitty, J., on Saturday, May 13. Davis and Co, Coleman st, solicitors for the petitioner

WHITE OAK COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 4, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on Saturday, May 13. Clarke and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitors for the petitioners

[Gazette, May 5.]

ALYN BANK COAL AND CANNEL COMPAOY, LIMITED.-Hall, V.C., has, by an order dated April 6, appointed Robert Cockburn Miller, India st, Edinburgh, to be official liquidator

COTTON WASTE CLEANSING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 3, directed to be heard before Fry, J., on Friday, May 19. Greene, Bedford row, solicitor for the petitioners

GRAND DUCHESS SILVER, LEAD, AND BARYTES MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before June 3, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Martin Winter, Market st, Newcastle upon Tyne. Friday, June 16, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims INDUSTRIAL OPERATIVE BRICKMAKING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 4, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on May 26. Powell, Essex st, Strand, solicitor for the petitioner

KEIGHLEY HERALD NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by North, J., dated April 29, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Sharpe and Co, New ct, Carey st, agents for Weatherhead and Burrs. Keighley, solicitors for the petitioner LONDON JUTE WORKS, 1871, LIMITED.-By an order made by Fry, J., dated April 23, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the works be continued. Harwood and Stephenson, solicitors for the petitioner

PLYMOUTH PIER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented May 4, directed to be heard before Fry, J., on May 19. Chamberlayne, Lincoln's inn fields, solicitor for the petitioners

SANKEY BROOK AND ASHTON'S GREEN COLLIERIES COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has, by an order dated April 1, appointed William Richardson, Preston, to be official liquidator UPLEES BRICKFIELDS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has, by an order dated Feb 27, appointed Horace Woodburn Kirby, Coleman st, to be official liquidator [Gazette, May 9.]

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. ROBERT BENSON, solicitor, of Wigton, has been appointed Clerk to the Wigton Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the district. Mr. Benson was admitted a solicitor in 1866.

Mr. CHARLES EVELYN WELLBORNE, solicitor, of 17, Duke-street, Southwark, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. FREDERICK JAMES BLAKE, solicitor, of Wotton-under-Edge, has been appointed Clerk to the County Magistrates at that place, in succession to Mr. Osborne Dauncey, deceased. Mr. Blake was admitted a solicitor in 1864.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

CHARLES HEATON HINDE, JOSEPH FARMER MILNE, and JOHN SUDLOW (Hinde, Milne, & Sudlow), solicitors, Manchester (as regards John Sudlow). Jan. 1.

HORACE PHILBRICK and SANDERSON CORPE (Philbrick & Corpe), solicitors, 18, Austin Friars, London. May 2. The business of the late firm will in future be carried on by Horace Philbrick solely, at 18, Austin Friars. [Gazette, May 5.]

CREDITORS' CLAIMS.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

LAST DAY OF PROOF.

BIRCHALL, THOMAS, Swansea, Grocer. May 25. Birchall v Brown, Fry, J. Stevens, Swansea

MANNING, JOHN, Madeira villas, Twickenham, Secretary. May 18. Stone v Manning, Chitty, J. Lewis, Ely place, Holborn

MUSGROVE, Sir JOHN, Speldhurst, Kent, Baronet. May 18. Tyer v Waters, Chitty, J. Layton, Budge row, Cannon st

SHAW, FRANCES MARY, Hyde park terr. May 8. Hughes v Evans, Hall, V.C. Surr and Co, Abchurch lane

SIBBERING, WILLIAM, sen., Swansea, Grocer. May 25. Birchall v Brown, Fry, J. Stevens, Swansea

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

DAVIES, ELIZA MARY, Brighton rd, South Hornsey. May 27. Llewellyn and Ackrill Furnival's inn

DICKINSON, ANN, Durham. May 12. Mawson, Durham

DOWKES, THOMAS, Beadlam, York, Farmer. June 1. Jackson and Jackson, Middlesbrough

DOWLING, FREDERICK, Hartley Wintney, Southampton, Gent. June 1. Eagleton,
Chancery lane

GARLAND, ELIZA, Colchester, Essex. May 31. Wittey, Colchester
HANCOCKE, WILLIAM MORTIMER, Fishguard, Pembroke, Tanner.
Co, Frederick's pl, Old Jewry

May 19. Davies and

HARRIS, CHARLES BILLITER, Kennington Park rd, Gent. June 8. Drake and Co, Rood lane

HARVEY, WILLIAM, Plymouth, Merchant. May 31. Curteis and Pearse, Plymouth HENRY, ELIZA, Princes sq, Bayswater. June 2. Coburn and Young, Leadenhall st HILL, HENRY THOMAS, Felton Rectory, Hereford, Clerk in Holy Orders. June 1. Beddoe, Hereford

HOWELL, THOMAS, Birmingham Heath, Gent. May 28. Duke, Birmingham

HUTTON, HENRY, Colnbrook, Buckingham, Esq. June 1. Stoneham and Co, Philpot lane, Fenchurch st

KELLY, JOHN, Wells st, Oxford st, Professor of Music. May 26. Barker, Bedford row KINGSFORD, Rev BRENCHLEY, Shadwell Rectory, Clerk in Holy Orders. July 1. Wightwick and Co, Canterbury

KITCHING, ALFRED, Darlington, Durham, Esq. May 31. Hutchinson and Lucas, Darlington

MARRIOTT, GEORGE PHEASANT, Leamington, Warwick, Gent. May 31. Wright and Hassall, Leamington

MILLER, MARY, Waverley rd, Paddington. June 3. Wright, Walbrook

MOIR, ROBERT, West Teignmouth, Devon, Esq. July 1, Whidborne and Tozer, Teign

mouth

OTTAWAY, GILLETT JONATHAN, Haringay pk, Hornsey, Gent. May 30. Pearce, Essex st, Strand

PEARSON, Rev JOHN, Suckley Rectory, Worcester, Clerk. June 24. Curtler and Davis, Worcester

RAE, GEORGE, Liverpool. May 31. Thompson and Shatwell, Liverpool

SPEDDING, THOMAS, Southport, Lancaster, General Agent. May 27. Coppock, Stockport

TAYLOR, ROBERT, Derby, Hotel Manager. June 10. Flint, Derby
WHITE, JOHN, Leighton Buzzard, Bedford, Wine Merchant. June 10. Newton, Leighton
Buzzard

WILCOX, MATTHEW, Handsworth, Stafford, Jeweller. May 30. Fowke, Birmingham [Gazette, April 28.]

OBITUARY. JARY

SIR THOMAS ERSKINE PERRY.

The Right Hon. Sir Thomas Erskine Perry, knight, died at his residence, 36, Eaton-place, on the 22nd ult., after several months' illness. The deceased was the son of Mr. James Perry, many years editor of the Morning Chronicle, and was born in 1806. He was educated at the Charterhouse, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and afterwards studied at the University of Munich. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1834 (having previously been a pupil in the chambers of the late Mr. Justice Patteson), and he practised for several years on the Home Circuit. He became known as a law reporter, in connection with Neville and Perry's, and Perry and Davison's, series of Queen's Bench Reports. In 1841 he was appointed paisne judge of the Supreme Court at Bombay, and he received the honour of knighthood, and he held that office for eleven years. He was very highly esteemed by both the European and the Native community at Bombay. He was for some years President of the Indian Board of Education, in recognition of his services in which capacity he was, on his return to England, presented with a testimonial of £5,000, which was, at his request, applied to the foundation of a law professorship. Sir E. Perry was at all times an active member of the advanced Liberal party. In 1831 he was honorary secretary to the National Political Union of London, and he was for some time one of the proprietors of the Examiner. He was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate for Chatham in 1832, and for Liverpool in 1852, and he represented Devonport from 1854 till 1859. He was a frequent speaker in the House of Commons, especially on Indian subjects. In 1859 he was appointed by Lord Halifax to a seat on the Council of the Secretary of State for India, and he held that post for nearly twenty-three years. He retired on account of failing health about four months ago, when, in recognition of his long public services, he was created a Privy Councillor. Sir E. Perry had been twice married, his second wife being a daughter of the late Sir John Johnstone, Bart.

MR. FRANCIS MCDONOGH, Q.C.

Mr. Francis McDonogh, Q.C., died at his residence, 41, Rutland-square, Dublin, on the 18th ult., at the age of seventy-seven, after a few weeks' illness. Mr. McDonogh was born in 1805. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and he was called to the Irish bar about the year 1828, and he practised until within a few weeks of his death. He was a bencher of the King's Inns, and almost the oldest Queen's Counsel in practice, and the length of his professional career may be illustrated by the circumstance that he was one of the counsel for the defence in the O'Connell trial in 1843, while he also defended some of the accused persons in the prosecution of the Land League in the early part of last year. He was one of the leading advocates of the Irish bar, being gifted with great eloquence and readiness, and he had considerable influence with juries. Mr. McDonogh's political career was a somewhat varied one, and he had more than once changed his politics, but in 1865 he was elected M.P. for the borough of Sligo in the Conservative interest, though he failed to secure re-election at the general election in 1868. He had frequently been engaged in Irish appeals before the House of Lords. Early in February he was opening the appeal in Niel. The Duke of Devonshire before the House when he was seized with illness, and the further hearing of the case was

adjourned. He was, however, unable to resume his argument, and although he returned to Dublin he did not afterwards recover. Mr. McDonogh_was buried at the Mount Jerome Cemetery, Dublin, on the 21st inst. Lord O'Hagan and many members of the Irish bench and bar attended the funeral.

LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

May 4.-Bills Read a Second Time.

PRIVATE BILLS.-Northampton Corporation; Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers). Bills Read a Third Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Greenwich and Millwall Subway; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway. New Bill. Bill to alter and amend the law relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister (EARL of DALHOUSIE). May 5.-Bill Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILL.-Millwall Dock.

Bills Read a Third Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Limehouse Subway; Bristol City Corporation of the Poor. May 8.-Bill Read a Third Time. PRIVATE BILL.-Queenstown Water.

May 9.-Bills Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Dixie's Estate; Cyfarthfa Works; Metropolitan Markets (Fish, &c.); Horncastle Water. Union of Benefices (London); Pluralities Acts Amendment; Militia Storehouses. Bill Read a Third Time. PRIVATE BILL.-Birkenhead Borough.

Private Bills.—Abbotsbury Railway; Bromsgrove Gas; Ipswich Tramways (Extensions); King's College, London; Liverpool Improvement. May 8.-Bills Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

Bills Read a Third Time. PRIVATE BILLS.-Todmorden Water; Local Government (Highways) Provi. sional Orders. May 9.-Bills Read a Second Time. PRIVATE BILL.-Carnarvon (Morfa Seiont Common). Settled Land; Consolidated Fund (No. 2); Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment; Copyright (Works of Art).

Bills in Committee.

Municipal Corporations (passed through Committee); Documentary Evidence (passed through Committee; Military Manoeuvres (passed through Committee) Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices).

On the 5th inst., in the House of Commons, Sir H. Giffard asked the Attorney-General whether he could give any assurance that the rules about to be promulgated in relation to trial by jury, pleadings, and appeals would be laid upon the table of the House soon enough to enable a full discussion to take place upon them. The Attorney.General said that these rules were made under the Judicature Act of 1875, and would come into operation as soon as they were promulgated. All that was required was that forty days after coming into operation they should be laid upon the table of the House. Sir H. Giffard said that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act in that respect. In introducing this Bill on Tuesday last, he said that among other questions whieh had been brought to the attention of the Government were those of trial by jury and the operation of the rules under the Judicature Acts. Under those Acts the judges had it in their power, if they chose, by the mere publication of rules, to abolish trial by jury in several cases, and the only check on that power was that, within forty days after the rules had been laid upon the