Page images


grouped into two classes—(1) cases relating to rent in arrear at the com- other in America, involving claims identically the same as those sought to be mencement of the winding up; (2) oases relating to rent accruing sub.enforced in the action before his lordship. It appeared that the actions were sequently to that date. As to rent in arrear at the commencement of the all representative ones brought against the defeodants, as trustees of a scheme winding ap, if the landlord was a legal creditor of the company in respect of for reconstructing the Atlantic and Great Western Railway Company, in rent in arrear at the commencement of its winding up he was not allowed to respect of alleged breaches of trust in their carrying out the scheme. The distrain for the arrears of rent, but must prove bis debt like any other defendants offered to give undertakings with the object of enabling the ques. creditor. Moreover, in cases of this kind the circumstance that the liquidator tions in the action to be determined in the American action. CHITTY, J., said bad retained Bsession and carried on the company's works had been held that the two actions in England were not, in his opinion, precisely identical, not to entitle a landlord, or a mortgages with a power of distress as for rent, and there was no authority for holding that the pendency of a foreign action to distrain for rent in arrear. If, however, the landlord was not a legal was sufficient ground for staying an action in this country. None of the creditor of the company, by reason of the company not being his tenant, he actions had yet been brought to å hearing, and it was not usual in the case of was permitted to distrain even for rent in arrear at the commencement of the representative actions like the present-for instance, in a creditor's administrawinding up. And in such a case he would be allowed to distrain, although tion action-for the court to stay proceedings ia a second action until judg. the liquidator offered to allow the arrears to be proved as a debt in the wind. ment had been obtained in the first and similar action. Although the ing up. Next, as to rent accruing after the commencement of the winding American action was more comprehensive than the English, yet bis lord. up. If the liquidator bad retained possession for the purposes of the winding ship did not consider that the offer of undertakings by the defendants to have up-i.e., if he had used the property for carrying on the company's business, the questions at issue between the parties tried in the American action was any or bad kept the property in order to sell it or to do the best he could with it ground for acceding to this motion. His lordship, therefore, resased the the landlord would be allowed to distrain for rent wbich had become due motion, but, taking into consideration the allegation of the trustees that they since the commencement of the winding up. But, if he bad kept po-session were being harassed by a multiplicity of actions, made an order that costs of by arrangement with the landlord, and for bis benefit as well as for the the motion be costs in the action. -SOLICITORS, Trinders ; Hores d Palli. benefit of the company, and there was no agreement with the liquidator that be should pay rent, the landlord was not allowed to distrain.' When the liquidator retained the property for the purpose of advantageously disposing of it, or when he continued to use it, the rent ought to be regarded as a debt

PRACTICE-TRIAL BEFORB A JUDGE AND JURY-RULES OF COURT, 1875, contracted for the purpose of winding up the company, and ought to be

ORD. 36, RR. 3, 4.-In the case of The Oldbury Local Board V. Baker, paid in full, like any other debt or expense properly incurred by the

before Chitty, J., on the 12th inst., a motion having been made by the defendliquidator for the same purpose ; and in such a case it appeared to his lordship ant for the trial of the action before a judge and jury, his lordship held that it that the rent for tho whole period during which the property was so

was not the usual practice for the court to settle the actual issues of fact to be retained or used ought to be paid in full, without reference to the amount tried, and that it was sufficient for the party moving to state in his notice of which could be realized by a distress. This was the view taken by James, motion that he required that this action shall be tried before a judge and L.J., in In re The Lundy Granite Company (19 W. R. 609, L. R. 6 Ch.462), and jury;", without referring to the issues of fact.-SOLICITORS, Wilkins & Co.,

for by Fry, J., in Ex parte Roberts and Wright (L. R. 18 Ch. D. 649), and by Kay, Wright & Co., Oldbury ; F. Needham. J., in the present case. But no authority had yet gone the length of deciding that a landlord was entitled to distrain for, or be paid in full, rent accruing

PAYMENT OUT OF COURT-PRESUMPTION AGAINST CHILDBIRTI-SPINS. sioce the commencemeot of the winding up, when the liquidator bad done nothing except abstain from trying to get into possession of the property which the 13th iost., a petition was presented praying that á sam paid in under the

TER AGED FIFTY.—In the case of In ne Howard, before Chitty, J., on the company beld as lessee. If the landlord had endeavoured to re-enter, and

Lands Clauses Consolidation Act might be paid out on the joint receipt of the the liquidator had objected, the case might be different ; but, baving regard petitioners. Part of the fund represented real estate settled under & will upon to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1862, bis lordship was of opinion that in the case now supposed the landlord must rely on his right, if any; to petition, a spinster and within a fortnight of attaining the age of fifty years,

one of the petitioners for life, who was, at the date of the bearing of the re-enter, and prove for the arrears due to him, and that he was not entitled with remainder to uses in favour of her children, and in default of her having to anything more. In the present case the only facts the landlord bad to rely any children entitled to take, with remainder to uses in favour of the peti. opon were-1. The fact that the liquidator left the company's plant and

tioners. It was submitted that the court would make the order prayed, machinery where he found them until he sold them in July, 1881 ; 2. The

as the lady was of an age which rendered maternity improbable, and the fact that he had them valued in May, 1880, with a view to a sale which was

more so because sbe had never been and was not married. The case of not carried out ; 3. The fact that he took no steps to surrender the company's Millner's Estate (20 W. R. 823, L. R. 14 Eq. 245). was referred to, where interest in the colliery and the 163 acres to the landlord. In his lordship’s Malios, V.C., made an order similar to that prayed'in the present case, upon opioion these facts were not sofficient to entitle the landlord either to distrain or the presumption that a lady, aged forty-nine years and nine months, who to be paid in full. He could not regard the rent ordered to be paid as a debt or had been married twenty-six years to a husband then living, and had never oost, charge or expense inourred by the liquidator in the course of or for the bad any children and would not have any by him. Caitty, J., decliaed to purpose of the winding vp, and in bis opinion the order appealed from ought make the order. It might be said that the spinsterhood of the lady did not to be discharged and the summons dismissed with costs.-SOLICITORS, Venn & decrease the likelihood of children being born if she married. There were, Co.; Simpson, Hammond, g Co.

moreover, cases on record of maternity at an age certainly exceeding that of

this lady. The usual order for investment would be made.-SOLICITORS, Dower-DIVORCED WIFE.-In a case of Frampton v. Stephens, before Alfred Howard ; W. R. Stevens. Fry, J., on the 11th iost., the question arose whether a wife, who had obtained a divorce on the ground of hor husband's cruelty and adultery, was DIVORCE-CRUELTY-SEPARATION Deep-Covenant NOT TO SUE_SUB. after his death entitled to dower out of bis real estate. The wife and ber SEQUENT ADULTERY-Revival.-In the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty second husband sued the beir-at-law of the first busband for dower out of Division, on the 11th iost., the case of Rose v. Rose, which was a wife's suit real estate, which had descended from the first husband. The defendant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's adaltery aod demurred, and Fry, J., allowed the demurrer. He said that in Coke on cruelty, was tried before the President of the Division without a jury, The Littleton, 32a, it is laid down that for a wife to have dower “it is necessary parties were married in 1861, and, in 1877, owing to repeated quarrels, they that the marriage doe continue, for if that be dissolved the dower ceaseth; executed a deed of separation, which contained a covenant on the part of the ubi nullum matrimonium, ibi nulla dos. But this is to be understood when the wife that she woull not avail herself of any previous act on her husband's part. husband and wife are divorced à vinculo matrimonii, as in the case of pre- After the execution of the deed of separation, the respondent committed adultery, contract, consanguinity, affinity, &c., and not a mensa et thoro only, as for and the petitioner alleged acts of cruelty both before and after the date of the adalterié.” It had been contended that the role in reference to the right deed. The adultery was admitted, but the respondent failed in proving any to dower ceasing on a divorce a vinculo only referred to the cases specified by act of cruelty

after the separation. In giving judgment, Sir J. Hansen, P., Lord Coke, and not to divorces obtained by the wife on the ground of said that the covenant in the deed had estopped the petitioner from obtaining adultery, which was then only a mensa et thoro. It was, perhaps, enough relief in respect of any cruelty committed before the date of the dead. Accord that the language of Lord Coke was general and meant what it said, but on examining the older authority of Bracton, to whom reference was made in the separation deed would have revived the previous cruelty, but in Gandy :

ing to the old practice of the Division, the adultery committed after the date of Coke, the same rule was laid down, and under the old law the divorce was a Gandy (26 SOLICITORS' Journal, 385), the Court of Appeal had held that the vinculo, and it was only in 44 Eliz. that opinion changed and the new practice was introduced. His lordship thought, therefore, the law well eslab- wise. He could not, therefore, decree a dissolution of marriage, but only a

commission of adultery after a deed of separation was no offence against . lished that a divorce a vinculo was a bar to dower. It was said that it would judicial separation.-SOLICITORS, Hunt; Willis. be a great hardship on the wife if, through no fanlt of her own, but on account of the misconduct of her husband, she were to lose her right to dower. The answer was that in pronouncing its decree the Divorce Court had power to provide alimony for the wife, and in doing so would no doubt take into

COUNTY COURTS. account the legal effect of the divorce. It was also said that it was the practice, when a husband obtained an Act for divorce, to provide expreesly

BRADFORD. ihat the right to dower should cease. That, however, was merely declaratory

(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) of the law.-SOLICITORS, Saunders, Hawksford, & Bennett.

May 2, 9.--Ex parte Freeman, Re Berry.

Under an elegit the execution creditor cannot have the benefit of PRACTICE- STAYING PROCEEDINGS— CONCURRENT ACTIONS — LIS ALIBI

equitable execution ; that must be obtained by appointment of a receiver PENDENS. - In the case of N'Henry v. Lewis

, before Chitty, J., on the 13th in the action in which the judgment on which the elegit issues is obtained. inst., judgment was delivered apon a motion made by the defendants that all Where the sheriff seized goods in the possession of the debtor, the legal future proceedings in the acion might be stayed, on the ground that there were title to which was in the grantee under a bill of sale, and the sheriff's pending two other actions against the same defendants, one in England and the officer, as agent of the bill of sale holder, sold the goods, and after pay. ing the bill of sale holder his debt and costs, there was & surplus, that Upon the merits, it was contended by Mr. Ringmead on behalf of surplus was not bound by the elegil, and did not belong to the execu. Freeman that the actual seizure by the sheriff on the 16ib of November tion creditor, but constituted assets of the debtor, and, on his becoming

was effectual to bind the interest of the debtor in the goods seized, whether tankrupt before sale, would pass to the trustee : Salt v. Cooper (L. R. that interest was legal or equitable, and that therefore, on the 16th of 16 Ch. D. 544).

November, by force of that seizare, Freeman became a secured creditor

within section 16, sub-section 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. No Ringmead, instructed by Gush & Phillipp, London, for the execution credi- authority was cited by Mr. Ringmead in support of that contention. tors.

The authorities he cited were confined to cases which establish that an West, instructed by Peel, Stanford, & Harris, Bradford, for the trustee. equitable execution may be obtained by the appointment of a receiver on an In delivering judgment in this case,

application founded on the judgment, whether an elegit has been issued or His HONOUR said :- This was an application made in the matter of proceed. Dot, and that such an application may be made ex parte. An elegit, it must ings for liquidation by arrangement of the afftirs of John William Berry, manu- be remembered, is a common law writ, and empowers the sheriff to seizs facturer, by or on behalf of George Scott Freeman, op 103, Cannon-street, the lands or goods of the debtor within bis bailiwiok which are at law the London, secretary of the General Life and Fire Insurance Company, for an lands or goods of the debtor, bat none other. If in this case the sheriff order that the som of £54 49. 6d., being the surplus proceeds arising from bad seized and extended the goods of the debtor, and completed all the the sale of the goods and chattels of the above-named debtor, which were seized proceedings necessary for giviog Freeman the right to acquire them ander in execution by the sheriff of Yorkshire, under a writ of elegit issued upon a libe elegit, the aots of the sheriff would have been wrougful as agaiost judgment recovered by the said George Scott Freeman in the Queen's Bench Washington, who was the legal owner of the goods, and he might bave Division of the High Court of Justice against the said debtor, and which said sum recovered from the sheriff the value in trover. And so if, after the sheriff of £54 49. 60. has been paid into court, pursuant to an order made in this baving had notice of Washington's title to the goods under the bill of sale, matter by this court on December 13, 1881, may be paid out to the said G. Freeman bad ruled the sheriff to return the writ, the sheriff would have S. Freeman, and that such farther order as to costs or otherwise may be made returned, and rightly retarned, nulla bona. The attempt to treat the sheriff's as this court may seem fit.

seizare under the elegit as equivalent to equitable execution is an extension The facts, which do not appear to be disputed, were as follow :

of the doctrine whicb, as judge of an inferior coart, I have do authority to 1. On August 20, 1881, a judgment was recovered by Freeman against make. In the reply to the telegram of the 8th of December the solicitors carethe debtor in the Qucer's Beach Division of the High Court of Justice for fully reserved their rights and remedies; bot as the aot of bankraptog bad £74 175.

been already com nitted by the debtor, of which they had notice, and a 2. On October 13, 1881, a writ of elegit founded on the said judgment was receiver had been appointed, any attempt to obtain equitable execution by issued by Freeman, and sent to the sheriff of Yorkshire, under which he an application founded on the judgment would have been fatile, and thereseized the goods and chattels of the debtor; but on October 15, 1881, the sheriff fore was prudently, as I conceive, not made. The case of Salt v. Cooper withdrew from such possession on receipt of a letter from the solicitors of (L. R. 16 Ch. D. 544), a more recent decision than any cited by Mr. RingFreeman authorizing the sheriff so to do.

mead, is an authority which clearly and most usefully states and illug. 3. On November 15, 1881, a second writ of elegil was issued and lodged trates the law opon the novel and somewhat pazzling questions which with the sheriff to recover £53 195. due on the said judgment, and £2 23. have arisen out of the recent exhumation of the long-buried and gapcosts, and on November 16, 1881, the sheriff seized the goods and chattels of posed to be defunct and obsolete writ of elegit used as an execution by a the debtor under the said writ of elegit, and remained in possession until theoreditor of the goods and obattels of a debtor. 28th of November, 1881.

Mr. West's contention upon the merits was that, quoad any interest of the 4. On the said 28th of November, the sheriff received notice from Mr. George debtor in the goods seized by the sheriff which might remain after satisfy. Washington, of Halifax, wool and waste dealer, that he claimed to be the ing the debt and costs recoverable under the bill of sale, the execution owner of the said goods and chattels under and by virtue of an assignment

was a nullity, and that such equitable interest as the debtor might have thereof, dated February 1, 1881, executed by the debtor for securing to

could only be reached by the appointment of a receiver, to be made opon Washington the repayment of £400, money lent, and interest, and which was dnly registered as a bill of sale, and Washington claimed that the sum of

an application under the judgment for that parpose, and I think that con

teption right. £320 or thereabouts, on November 28, remained due to him on the said bill

The mction will therefore be refused, and the costs will follow the event, of sale, in payment of which default bad been made by the debtor. And on that day Washington entered and took possession of the goods and chattels anless the parties have arranged otherwise. wbich had been seized and taken possession of by the said sheriff, and the sheriff retired. 5. The right of Washington under the said bill of sale to the legal owner

SALIABURY. ship of the said goods and chattels was not disputed, and was not questioned

(Before Mfr. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON, Judge.) on this motion. The origioal bill of sale, and an office copy thereof, were

Dec. 5.- West v. South-Western Railway Company. produced on the hearing of this motion, and no objection to the validity of the bill of sale was raised.

Delay on delivering goods--Absence of special contract-Reasonable 6. The sheriff's officer who bad seized and remained in possession up to the

time in for delivery. 281h of November, upon production of the bill of sale arranged with Wash. His Honour, in gising judgment in this case said :ington to sell the goods and chattels of the debtor as the agent of Washing. The plaintiff in this action carries on the basiness of a gardener in Salisbury, ton, and not as the officer of the sheriff, and proceeded to make arrangements for and be seeks to recover from the defendants the sum of £15, for damages the sale by public auction on December 9, 1881.

resulting from a breach of their duty as common carriers, in delaying the 7. On November 29, 1881, the debtor filed a petition for liquidation, and on delivery of four boxes of potatoes intended for competition for a prize to ba December 1, Henry Packett was duly appointed receiver of the debtor's estate given at the

International Exhibition held at the Crystal Palace, Sydenham, and effects, and manager of bis business. On December 17, at the first in May of this year. The facts proved at the hearing were that one King, general meeting of creditors, resolutions were duly passed for liquidation by a carrier, was employed by the plaintiff to forward the potutoes to the exhibi. arrangement, and Packett was duly appointed trustee.

tion, and that for that parpose he made inquiries at the office of Messrs. 8. On December 6, an interim order was made, on the application of the Chaplin & Horne, who carry on the business of carriers and agents to railway debtor and receiver, restraining further proceedings under the sale until after companies, on Saturday, the 17th of September, when, if the packages were December 14.

sent that day, they would reach the Crystal Palace, and was told by a clerk 9. On the 8th of December Freeman's solicitors received from the solicitor in their office that they would arrive on Monday morning following. On this of the debtor and receiver a telegram as follows:-“ Bill of sale holder assurance King delivered them on the part of the plaintiff, on the Saturday sells tomorrow. Will you consent to an order that the whole of plant morning, saying at the same time that the potatoes were for the exhibition, be sold and the money paid into court without prejudice ? If so plant can be and that it took place on the Tuesday following. The defendants admit the sold as going concern and it will benefit all parties greatly. Reply paid.” To delivery on the Saturday, and that the packages did not arrive at the show this telegram the following reply was sent by Freeman's solicitors: "We have until nine o'clock on Tuesday moruing. The mode of forwarding goods no objection to the sale if it is more beneficial and the proceeds are paid into by the defendants to stations on the Brighton and South Coast Rail. court. But it must be distinctly understood that this is without prejudice to way, of which the Crystal Palace is one, is when they arrive at the all our client's rights and remedies.”

defendants' central goods station at Nine Elms, in London, to 10. Tbe arrangement thus assented to was carried out in good faith between convey them by cart to the Brighton Company's station at' Bar, the parties. The sale was held, the property sold, and after paying Washing: mondsey to be forwarded. In the present instance the plaintiff's ton his debt and costs (including costs of sale) there remained the sum of packages reached London late on Saturday night, and Sunday intervening, £54 49. 6d. as the net proceeds of the sale, and wbich was duly paid into they were taken to the Brigbton Company on the Monday morning, and court, remains there, and has now to be disposed of upon this motion,

Wtra by that company delivered on the Tuesday morning at nine o'clock, bu: Mr. West, on behalf of the trustees, took a preliminary objection to the validity too late for the purpose for which the plaintiff had sent them. Upon these of the eligit issued on the 15th of November, on the ground that, it appearing facts, Mr. Powning contended, at the hearing on the

part of the defendants, that the original judgment was for £74 178., and the elegit only for £53 19!., that the contract for carriage being made with Chaplin & Horna, the the elegit ought to show on its faca how the difference between £74 178. and action had been wrongly brought against the present defendants and that £53 19s. has been satisfied, and cited as his authority the case of Sherwood v. the plaintiff must be non-suited, but this is answered by the fact that the Clark (15

M. & W.764). The answer was that, as appears from the second defendants bave made out and delivered a debit note against the plaintiff's paragraph of Molony's affidavit, the £53 193. was described as the balance due agent, King, in their own name and have received the money for the carriage, on the judgment. But the original writ was not produced, and the amount their way-bill also describing him as the consignor, the fact being, as is lodged with the sheriff, which was produced, described the writ as indorsed to extensively known, that Chaplin & Horne act as collecting agents for most of lovy £53 199. and £2 28. costs, without more. I did not decide this technical the large railways. No special contract was made for the carriage in this case, question, preferring to hear and decide upon the morits. Of course the objec. and the only question in the ease is—was there annecessary delay on the part of tion remains open to the trustee,

the defendants in the transit? It must be observed that a carrier is not, in the




absence of a special contract, bɔuod to deliver the goods intrusted to him 24th of Juve were then in the custody of the law, and not distrainable by within any given time, but only within a time which is reasonable, having the landlord (Peacock v. Purvis, 2 B. & B., Wharton v. Naylor, 12 Q. B.). regard to all the circumstancas of the case. Taylor v. The Great Northern Whatever rigbts the landlord has with reference to goods seized in exeontion Railway Company (L. R. 1 C. P. 385. In giving judgment, Erle, C.J., in are determined by the statate 9 Anne (and Adno o. 14, s. 1), which ontitles that case said: "I think a common carrier's duty to deliver safely has him to the payment of rent doe not exceeding in the whole a year's rent nothing to do with the time of delivery: that is a matter of contract, and before they are removed. It is diffioalt to decide whether sub-section 7 when there is no express contract there is an implied contract to deliver within of section 15 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 inclades a landlord's à reasonable time, and that I take to mean a time within which the carrier distr 88, and if it does bow far the landlord's right onder the Statate of rap deliver using all reasonable exertions.” In the same case it was said by Mr. Anne is affected by the provisions of tbat sub-section. The Legislatore has Justice Montague Smith, “Common carriers do indeed insore to this extent, left these points in the greatest possible vagueness, and I have been able to that they will

safely and securely carry the goods, but not to the extent of find do authority throwing any light upon them, but in this case I need guaranteeing their arrival at any particular time." A specified time of not consider them, as I am clearly of opinion, on the first two grounds, that delivery, according to the decision in the above case, and by which decision I the plaintiff is not entitled to sucoeed in this action. I give judgment for am, sitting as a judge in an inferior court, governed, must be the subject of the defendants with costs and with solicitors' fees. contract; and whether there was, or was not, a special contract to carry the four packages to the exhibition by the Monday following the delivery on the Saturday, is the question the answer to which must govers the present inquiry. With regard to wbat was the real contract entered into by the carriers' clerk with King, the agent of the plaintiff, what actually took place

SOCIETIES. is of importance. It must be assumed tbat the clerk was not aware, beyond the mere fact of the exbibition being held at the Crystal Palace as an agri

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, cultural show, of the special circumstance that prizes were to be awarded to the successful competitors, and, unless it was distinctly brought home to his

The usual monthly meeting of the board of direotors of this association knowledge that the goods were purposely sent for that object-that is, the

was held on Wednesday, May 10, at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, chance of obtaining a prize-there is no contract by the defendants to carry

the following directors being present:-Mr. Rickman in the chair; Meggrs. the goods sent within a given time, but only with the ordinary practice Asker (Norwich), Brook, Harris (Leicester), Ledger, Hanter, Keen, Mel. and course of the defendants' business. The assurance of the clerk when lersh (Godalming), Pennington, Roge, Smith, Styan, Walters, and Woolthe inquiry was made by the plaintiff's agent on the Saturday that the bert (Mr. Eiffe, secretary). A sum of £350 was distribated in grants of packages would reach the exhibition by the Monday morning was, it relief to pecessitons solioitors and their widows and families, fourteen appears to be, only the expression of a belief on bis part that they would do so, dow members were added to the association, and other general basiness and although he was told that the contents of the packages were intended transacted. for the exbibition on Tuesday, no intimation was given that the object of sendi them

to compete for prize, and that unless they arrived there the Monday the plaintiff would

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. le deprived of his chance. " The law it is to be found in the reported cases bas fluctuated," says Cockburn, C.J., in giving judgment in Simpson v. North-Western Railway Company (I Q. B. D. 274), but the prin.

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY. ciple is now settled that whenever either the object of the sender is specially

INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION, APRIL, 1882. brought to the zotice of the carrier, or circumstances fare known to the The following candidates were evocesa fal at the Intermediate Examination carrier from which the object ought in reason to be inferred, 80

held on the 27th of April, 1882: that the object may be taken to bare been within the contemplation of both parties, damages may be recovered for the natural consequences of the Adkins, Frederick William

Devonshire, Robert Llewellya failure of that object.”. I am of opinion that the special circumstances of Allerton, Albert Charles

Dion, Alfred George prizes being given at the exbibition to successful competitors was not known Anderson, Herbert Simpsou Edward Dobinson, William, B.A. by the clerk of the carrier, or that it could fairly be inferred he did know the

Atkinson, William Ernest

Duckworth, Hepsley Crabtree

Durell, James Philip, M.A. facts so as to make it part of a special contract to deliver the goods on the Avery, Arthur Robinson Monday for that purpose, and the only question that remaivs is, was there an

Baddeley, Thomas Webh, B.A. Eland, Frederic Ernest udreasonable delay ? Looking at the facts as a jury, I cannot come to the con

Baldwin, Percy

Ellis, Julian Augustus clusion that in this case there was. The goods were delivered on the Saturday

Barker, William

Eltoft, Harry and forwarded to London on the same day, and delivered on the Monday to

Barningham, Thomas

Foll, Francis James the Brighton Company, and by them delivered on the Tuesday morning, and

Barnes, Arthur William

Fisher, Herbert John it is olear that in the absence of a guarantee or a contract to deliver within a

Bell, John Corrin

Fisher, William, B.A. specified time that a carrier is not bound to neglect all other business to deliver

Bennetts, John Messer

Fletcher, John Lowther a parcel out of the ordinary course of his business, and a delay in the delivery

Benson, Harry

Foster, Walter of a parcel, in the absence of a special contract, of twenty-four hours oan

Berrie, Charles Henry

Fowler, Joba scarcely be said to be unreasonable. In this case the verdict must be entered

Birkeit, Alexander Watson

Franklia, Francis Sydney Herle-t for the defendants, bot inasmuch as the plaintiff's agent was misled by the

Bishop, William

Freeland, Francis George clerk's assurance that the goods would be delivered by the Monday, I think i

Boone, Edward Hugh

Fry, Charles is a case in which he should not be visited with coste.

Bowen, Alfred Edward

Gandell, Tbomas Pearse Nodder, for the plaintiff.

Bowen, Frederick Shorthouse Gardiner, Douglas William Pouning, for the defendante.

Bradbury, Jobn Abraham

Garner, Thomas
Bradshaw, Honard

Gasquet, Louis
Brooke, James Lane

Geach, George Chambers
Burch, Horace Ralph, B.A.

George, David Arthur Scale

Bargh, Alexander Averil Hassey de Gibson, Edward James
(Before B. T. Williams, Esq., Q.C., Judge.)

Burnicle, James Fleck

Goodden, John F[eory March 14.-Jones v. Hugglestone and Others (The Trustees of the W.E.

Calley, Henry Jerse

Gorton, Walter Frederick
Gladstone" Lodge of Ancient Order of Shepherds.)

Calman, Samuel James Whitaker Graham, Arthur Lionel
Carr, Edward Robert

Greenwood, John
Davies (Evado & Davies), for the plaintiff, ani

Cather, John

Gyles, Charles Sidney George 7. Broin Richards, for the defendants.

Catterall, Frederic Peter

Hall, John Roberts As Honour, in giving judgment, said :-This action las been brought by Checkley, William Camwell

Harrod, Henry Dawes the plaintiff to recover the sum of £17, the value of bousehold furniture, and Clarke, Percy

Harrison, Frank Ormerod oiher goods, alleged to have been illegally converted by the defendants. Clementson, Herbert

Hay, William Thomas Thomas Merriam was the treasurer of a ragistered friendly society, and he as Cliff, Roland Benjamin

Haynes, John such treasurer had in bis hands money belonging to the society to the amount Colebutt, George William

Hellier, Edward William of £25 198. 844. Thereupon proceedings were taken against him under the Compton, James

Hennels, Walter Friendly Societies Act, 1875, s. 20, to recover this sum, and a warrant to raise Cook, Sam

Henson, John Rossell, B.A. it by a seizure and sale of his goods was issued by the stipendiary magistrate Cooke, Philip Barrett

Hertslet, Frank of Swansea. The warrant was dated on the 16th of June, and it was put into Coppock, Joseph Stoyle

Hewison, Arthur Edward execution on the 17th. On the 24th of June, while the officers of the law were Coward, Charles Grafton

Hill, Arthur Norman in possession, the plaintiff , who was Merriam's landlord, distrained for rent Crawford, Robert Payne

Hirst, Edward Theodore, B.A. due apon the goods that were then in their custody. The goods were after. Crosfield. Sydney Morland

Hockin, Philip Roe wards sold under tbe magistrate's warrant, and the plaintiff, the landlord, Cross, Charles Bedford

Holdich, Thomas White seeks in this action to recover damages in trover or for the conversion of these Cunliffe, Robert Ellis, B. A.

Holdway, Geoffrey Fynes goods. Even assuming that he had made a legal distress, it is Cutts, George Wintringham

Hooper, John Edmond perfectly clear that he is not entitled to succeed. It is well Daintrey, Ernest Charles

Hosking, Edgar established that & landlord who has distrained upon goods cannot Dale. Charles Alfred

Howell, Alexander Nathaniel Yatman maintain trover for them, for he has no property in them, but has the Dale, James Osmondo

Hughes, Percy Hamilton only as å pledge with a power to sell by statute (Mouceux v. Goreham, Darby, James Joseph

Hurlston, Harold James Selwyn's Nisi Prins, 1303, and other cases collected in 2 W. Saund., 89, Davidson, Allen Herbert

Jacok, Edward James in the note to Wilbraham v. Snow). In addition to that there was in this Dean, Arthur Henry

Jelf, Richard William gaso no legal distress, The goods when they were diatrained upon on the Dennis, Robert

Jenkins, Charles Bevan

John, Thomas

Prior, Henry Granger Jonas, George John Beynon

Pritchard, Thomas William, B.A. Jones, Thomas Baker

Rhodes, Sydney, B.A. Jones, William Thornton

Ricbards, John Richards Jobb, Herbert Samuel

Rickards, Samuel Wortley Keith, Angus Cecil

Robinson, George Thomas Presion Kent, Benjamin

Robinson, Thomas Wallace Kent, Robert

Robson, George Potts Kingdom, Frederick William Worth- Rudd, John William, B.A. ington

Ryall, Frederick Kindeir, Walter Henry

Salaman, Ernest Seymour Kinsey, Thomas Evans Morris Soutts, William Nicholas Mercer Lamb, Arthur

Seddon, Thomas Lancaster, Turoer

Sefton, John Langtam, Arthur Cuthbert

Seldon, Willia in Edward Lawton, George Fearns

Sbortt, Walter Charles James Lazarus, Edward

Shute, James Ashley Binford Leader, George Gardner

Simpson, Harry Edward Lee, Turner

Smith, Charles Janes Lendon, Frederick Dickes

Smitb, William Joseph Lewis, Walter Lauriston

Smith, William Thomas Arundel Lilley, Arthur Palmer

Spink, Albert Henry Linnell, William Arnold

Spink, Frederic Walter Little, Henry James

Sprigge, John Joshua Lowe, Sydoey Armeria

Stepbenson, William Mainwaring, Charles Agnew Stewart, Charles James, B.A. Maitland, Edward

Stokes, Reginald Sewell Marcus, Herbert Joha

Taylor, Frank Marcus, Herman William

Taylor, Gerald Markland, Tbomas Wild

Taylor, Reuben Prica Mason, George Stewart

Thomas, John Llewelyn Pugh Mattocks, Edward Richard

Thompson, Arthur Holt Mayoard, Edmund Gregory

Thompson, Simon Frederick McAnulty, Bartholomew

Timbrell, Andrew William McGuire, George

Tuckett, Richard Clapson Mearns, John Patrick

Turner, Arthur Mercer, Edmund

Tarner, Charles Hastings Miller, Hubert William

Tyrrell, Harry Richard Minett, Charles Ferdinand

Uuderhill, John Edward, B.A. Mirang, Arthur

Upton, Edmund Mitchell, Joba Hanson

Urmston, Arthur Brabazon Morgan, Fitzroy John

Waddington, James Charles Morrison, Frank Cecil

Wallis, Arthur Thomas
Nalder, Charles Nelmo

Walsh, John Ernest
Newenham, Frederick George Ward, Arthur Egerton Neville
Nerwich, Edward Philip

Warner, John
Nicholson, John Spours

Waters, Stanley Edward Oakshott, Leigh Hunter

Watson, Edgar Henry Onslow, Artbur Herbert

Watts, Walter Owen, Daniel

Webb, Robert Hervey Peacock, Anthony Fawcett

Webber, Alexander Herbert, M.A. Pearce, George Samuel

Wilks, George Stringer Pellatt, Daciel

Willcocks, George William Hamilton Pemberton, Cyril Warner Lee Williams, Frank Harold Pethy bridge, Heory Modge

Williams, Laurence Gardner Phillips, Charles, B.A.

Wilson, Thomas Watson Plat!s, Arthur

Winder, Reuben Pollitt, James Burton

Wood, Edwin Pope, Walter Henry

Woodforde, Herbert Chamberlaine Powles, Arthur Henry, B.A. Wray, George Aaron Pratt, William

Harrison, William Robert
Harvey, Frederick
Harward, Lionel
Havers, Daniel
Hill, George Murray, B.A.
Hodgkinson, Thomas Mather
Hooper, William Frederick
Hudson, John William
Huff, Richard William Wolley
Hunt, Edward Allen
Jackson, Thomas Ormandy
James, Harold Bee
Lane, Arthur Bruce
Leake, Richard Henry
Lomas, George Edward
Lord, Arthur Drummond
Loxdale, Reginald James Raca
Loxley, John Wakefield
Low, Frederick Percy
McKenna, Joseph P.
Macmaster, Robert McCheyne
Male, Henry, B.A., LL.M.
Marsland, John
Martin, James
Nash, Foster Harry Okey, B.A.
Neild, William Edward
Nelham, Thomas Ambrose
Owen, Hugh Beauchamp
Paul, Nicholas
Paxon, Gerard
Phillips, Charles
Phil pin, John Ostler
Phythian, John Ernest
Plummer, Joseph William

Preston, Richard
Price, Thomas
Radcliffe, Frederick Morton
Ramsbottom, William
Randolph, Francis Sherlock
Reece, Charles Howard Augusting
Richardson, William
Robinson, Andrew
Rodyk, Alexander Percy
Rowbotham, Edward
Siyer, William Latimer
Simpson, Francis Delafosse, B.A.
Smith, William Burberow
Spalding, Herbert Etheridge, B. A.
Spreat, Sydney George
Steed, Josha: George
Stunt, Alfred
Symes, Gustavus Phelps, B.A.
Taylor, Edward Kemp
Thomson, William
Thorp, Sepimus James
Vince, William Bernard
Walker, Charles Robert
Wansborongh, Henry Reginall
War 1, Arthur John Flanslig
Ward, John Beroar1
Ward, John Wesney
Ware, John Tathan
Williams, Reynold
Williams, Roderic Lloyd
Wilson, Henry
Wilson, John
Woods, Herbert
Young, Henry Julian Warin;


UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. At a meeting of this society, held at Clement's-inn Hall, on We Inesday, May 10, Mr. H. J. Brown in the obair, the following motion was brought forward by Mr. RuodleLovey :-" Tbat legislation providing for the pleasures of the people is needed." He was supported in the affirmative by Mesgrs. Brown and Eiloart, and opposed by Messrs. Tillotson, Shirley, Smith, and Collyer. The opener then replied, and on the motion being pat to the meeting the votes were equal. Tbe ohairman then gave his casting voto against the motion.


MR. HENRY WOODFORDE, Mr. Henry Woodforde, solicitor, died at his residence, Ansford Villa, Clevedon, on the 23rd ult., at the age of seventy-four. Mr. Woodforde was born in 1808, and was admitted a solicitor in 1829. He had carried on business for very many years at Clevedon, his practice being one of the largest in the town. He was a perpetual commissioner for Somersetshire and Bristol, and he had been for several years clerk to the Clevedon Local Board. He took an active part in all schemes for the improvement of the town, and he was for many years churchwarden of Clevedon Parish.

MR. TASWELL THOMPSON. Mr. Tagwell Thompson, solicitor, late of Salters' Hall, died at Southampton on the 18th ult. in his eighty-first year. Mr. Thompson was the youngest son of Mr. Ebenezer Thompson, and was born in 1802. ' He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1824, and practi:ed for about fifty years at 3, Salters' Hall.court, Cannon-street. He was formerly in partnership with Mr. William Veniris Field (now a judge of the Queen's Bench Division) and with Mr. George Debenham. His practice was a large and important one, and his firma have been for many years solicitors to the New River Company. Mr. Thomp. son was also for a long time clerk to the Salters' Company. He retired from practice about eight years ago, and bad since been resident at Southampton,

FINAL Examination, 1882. The following candidates were successful at the Final Examinatio held on the 25th and 26th of April, 1882 :Abdale, John George

Colyer, William Alexander Barclay, John

Dale, William Halsted Barrett, Sydney Blen karne

Danby, Edward Thomas Baces, Stuart Frederick

Daniel, Henry Rowland Betham, Alfred Albert Arthur, B.A. Dawbarn, Thomas Richards Bennett, Charles Frederick

Deano, Edgar Ernest Beresford, Edward Aden, B.A. Elliott, Joseph, B.A. Berry, Walter Graham

Emmett, Edward Frederick Peter Bird, Oswald

Etheredge, Edward Robert Porter Boase, Edward

Farlow, John Ring Boddeley, Rowland Frank

Fearn, William Frederick Bond, Henry Kendall, B.A. Fincb, Henry Aales Boorman, Frederick Wm.

Foster, Walter Henry Boynton, Walter Griffith

Frearson, William Brain, Sydney

Gamble, John Buchanan, Frank

Gardner, Edgar Frederio Bockley, Geoffrey Joseph Balkeley, Gissing, Algernon Frederick B.A.

Gough, George Isaac Ballough, John George

Granger, Edward Henry Caon, George Dunning, B.A.

Greenwell, William Frede:ick Carr, Frank Joseph

Griffiths, Arthur Edward Chadwick, Lloyd

Gatteridge, Albert Cleaver, Arnold Jeffries

Hall, Frederick William Colborse, George Francis, B.A. Hannaý, William Charles Collier, Alfred

Harling, Fred Collyer, Frederick Charles

Harnett, Alfred Otho


MR. EDWARD BILLETT JENNINGS. Mr. Edward Billett Jennings, solicitor (the head of the firm of Jennings, Son, & Burton), of 17, Gracechurch-street, and Burton-upon-Tren', died at Burton on the 6th inst. Mr. Jennings was born in 1830. He was admitted a solicitor in 1852, and he had been for many years in partnership at Barton. upon-Trent with his son, Mr. Francis James Jenoings (who was admitted å solicitor in 1880), and with Mr. George Burton, the firm having also a Lon. don office. He was a notary public, and perpetual commissioner for London, Westminster, Middlesex, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire.

[ocr errors]

MR, HERBERT BROOM, LL.D. Mr. Herbert Broom, barrister, LL.D., died at The Priory, Orpington, Kent on the 2nd inst. He was the son of Mr. Herbert Broom, of Kidderminster He was born in 1815, and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where

he graduated as a wrangler in 1837. He was called to the bar at the Ioner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1840, and was formerly a member of the Home Circuit. He is best known to the profession as having hold for very many

COMPANIES. years the post of Reader in Common Law at the Inner Temple. His work on “Legal Maxims" has a very wide circulation, having long been an established

WINDING-UP NOTICES. text-book for students. He was also the author of " Commentaries on the

Joint Stock COMPANIES. Common Law.” Mr. Broom was married to a daughter of the late Mr. Jobn

LIMITED IX CHANCERY. Thomson, of Halifax.

ALYN BANK COAL AND CANNEL COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or

before June 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Robert Cockburn Millar, 32, India st, Edinburgh, June 22 at 12 is

appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims MR. JOHN CLEAVE.


for winding up, presented May 11, directed to be beard before Bacon, V.C., on May Mr. John Cleave, solicitor, of Hereford, who was one of the oldest 20. Hodding, Chancery lane, solicitor for the petitioners Bolicitors in England, died at Hereford, on the 7ih inst., in his ninety- GERMAN DATE COFFRE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before June

29, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, first year. Mr. Cleave was born in 1792. He was educated at Tiverton

to Horace Woodburn Kirby, 4, Coleman st. July 20 at 12 is appointed for hearing School, and he was articled to the late Mr. Heory Karslake, of Regent- and adjudicating upon the debts and claims street. He was admitted a solicitor in 1813. He was associated with

KEIGHLEY HERALD NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Chitty, J., has fixed May 22 at 12, the firm of Bissett & Woollaston, of Hereford, first as & clerk and

at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator

STANDARD CREDIT COMPANY, LIMITED.—By an order made by Hall, V.C., dated May 5. then as a partner, but for many years he had carried on business alone. it was ordered that the company be wound up. Solomon, Finsbury pavement, He bad a large and important practice in Hereford and the surrounding

solicitor for the petitioner district. He was & perpetual commissioner for Herefordshire, and in 1836

(Gazette, May 12.]

STRAHAN AND COMPANY, LIMITED. --Chitty, J., has fixed May 24 at 11, at his chambers, he was appointed, by the late Lord Somers, Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire, for the appointment of an official liquidator to be clerk of the peace for that county, and he held that office until his death.

[Gazette, May 16.] He was also clerk to the lieutenanoy for that county. He was formerly a

UNLIMITED IN CHAXCERY. member of the Hereford Town Council, and in 1835


May 26 at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator city. Mr. Cleave was buried at the Hereford Cəmetery on the 11th

[Gazette, May 16.] inst.


May 4

MITCHELDEAN BENEFIT SOCIETY, George Hotel, Mitcheldean, Gloucester. May 5
WEST COWES BRITISH WORKMAN, High st, West Cowes, Isle of Wight. May 6

TGazette, May 12.]
Mr. William Jones, solicitor, late of 7, Crosby.square, died at Glandwyr, FRIENDLY SOCIETY, the School, Stanton under Bardon, Leicester. "May 11
Dolgelley, on the 8th ult., in his ninetieth year. Mr. Jones was born in SOCIETY OF Good FELLOWSHIP, Wheatsheaf Inn, Ailsworth, Northampton. Yay 12
1792. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1814, and he was for over

í Gazette, May 16.] fifty years in practice at 7, Crosby-square. He had a good private business, and he was for a long period vestry clerk of the parish of St. Helen, Bishops. gate, For several years he set in the Court of Common Council, and be was subsequently deputy of Bishopsgate Ward. He was one of the oldest

CREDITORS CLAIMS. members of the Court of Assistants of the Turners' Company, of which body be was master in 1861. Mr. Jones finally retired from practice about ten years ago. His son, Mr. William Halse Gatty Jones was admitted a solicitor


CULLIFORD, Tuomas, Woolston, Southampton, Hotel Keeper. May 31. Barford

Culliford, Fry, J. Paris, Southampton

DALLISSON, JOHN, Warwick pl, St Luke. June 8. Dalliseon v Howitt, Hall, V.C.

Lewis and Sons, Wilmington sa Mr. William Hewett Manley, solicitor, died at Bridport, on the 9th inst. FABLEY, JANE, Ramsgate. May 30. Covenes v Sondes, Chitty, J. Gray, Ludgate hill

FORSTER, THOMAS, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Solicitor, May 26. Brownlow v Forster, after a somewhat long illness. Mr. Manley was born in 1828. He was Chitty, J. Cotton, St Martin's-le-grand admitted a solicitor in 1850, and he had a very large practice at Bridport. He HOLLIER, ALICE, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, Hotel Proprietor. May 18. Coles v Wheeler, had been for many years registrar of the Bridport County Court (Circuit No. Jones, John, Caron, Cardigan, Gent. June 1. Jones v Lewis, Bacon, V.C. Lloyd, 55), and he was formerly a town councillor, in which capacity he took a warm Lampeter interest in all municipal business. Mr. Manley was well known for a long time MARKWICK, Mark, Fernhead rd, Harrow rd, Esq. May 23. Ives v Markwick, Chitty, as the leading Conservative agent at Bridport. His death was caused by cancer

J. Christmas, Walbrook of the tongue, and his last illness was an extremely painful one.

[Gazette, May 2.] BAKER, GEORGE, Cranbourn st, Leicester sq, Dealer in Fine Arts. June 6. Baker v

Baker, Hall, V.C. Yarde and Loader, Raymond bldgs, Gray's inn
BARROW, MARY, Grange rd, Bermondsey. June 19. Poole v Barrow, Hall, V.C. Mote,

BIRCHALL, ELLEN, Swansea. June 17. Garland v Bath, Fry, J. Budd, Austin Friars
CAMP, EDWARD, Blenheim st, Oxford st, Carman. June 2. Camp v Camp, Chitty, J.

Powell, Old Burlington st

CLUBB, WILLIAM, Colchester, Hatter, June 15. Cattermole v Clubb, Hall, V.C. Wittey,

Collins, SARAL Ann, Chippenham terrace, Paddington. June 2. Lloyd v Head,

Bacon, V.C. Lamb, Old Jewry Mr. JAMES FREDERICK SYMONDS, solicitor, of Hereford, has been appointed FAITHFULL, MARGARET, Brighton, and GeorGE FREDERICK PRINCE Sutton, Coleman by Lord Bateman, Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire, to be Clerk of the Peace st. June 2. Hardwick v Sutton, Chitty, J. Etherington, Lincoln's inn fields for that county, in succession to the late Mr. John Cleave. Mr. Symonds is

HAWKINS, CHARLES, Brighton, Photographic Artist. May 23. Hawkins v Hawkins,

Hall, V.C. Woods and Dempster, Brighton a magistrate for the city of Hereford. He was admitted a solicitor in 1841, LYALL, JOHN, Les Terres, Guernsey, Esq. May 30. Lyall v Fraser, Chitty, J. Sumand he is also clerk to the lieutenancy for Herefordshire.

merhays, Gresham House, Old Broad st Mr. Thomas Joyce, solicitor, of Minehead and Danster

, bas been appointed Nede Farners, Yacoton Rivers, Wilts, Gentleman. May 27. Neale v Deadman, Bacon, Clerk to the Magistrates for the Williton Division of Somersetshire. Mr. Joyce

REDFERN, WILLIAM, Findern, Derby, Gentleman. May 20. Redfern v Moore, Hall, was admitted a solicitor in 1877.

V.C. Argyle, jun, Tamworth

RYDER, HENRY ROBERT, Hove, Devon, Shipwright, and ELIZABETH RIDER, May 24. Mr. EDWARD PAUL TOLLER, solicitor, of Kettering and Uppingham, has

Ryder v. Avent, Hall, V.C. Wilson, Plymouth been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of

[Gazette, May 6.] Judicature.

FLEMING, ARTHUR CECIL, Berwick st, Pimlico, Gentleman. June 6. Fleming v Mac

donald, Chitty, J. Simpson, Tunbridge Wells Mr. William Dawes, solicitor, clerk of the peace for the borough of Rye, GerHIN, WILLIA, Frantwell, Shrewsbury, Builder. May 28. Gethin v Thomas, Hall, has been elected Clerk to the Rye Harbour Commissioners, in succession to Mr

V.C. Nntsey, Shrewsbury George Slade Butler, deceased.

SLOCOMBE, WILLIAM, St John's villas, Upper Holloway, Gentleman. June 1. Deacon

v Harbison, Bacon, V.C. Sandeman, Northampton sq, Clerkenwell Mr. Thomas FFOOKS, solicitor, of Sherborne, has been elected President

HARGREAVE, JOHN, Barnsley, York, Master of the Grammar School. June 1. Har.

greave v Stanley, Bacon, V.C. Bond, Barnsley of the new Dorsetshire Law Society. Mr. Ffooks was admitted a solicitor KING, WILLIAM, Bexley, Kent, Baker. June 7. King viKing, Chitty, J. Haywood, in 1841. He is clerk of the peace and clerk to the lieutenancy for Dorset. LLOYD, MARY Jang, Bath. May 27. Hodgens v Wilton. Bacon, V.C. Adams, Lincoln's shire. Mr. Henry JOHN GIDNEY, solicitor, late of 46, Finsbury.circus, has been

Moore, FIELDING, Leicester, Contractor. June 12. Moore v Hallam, Fry, J. Place,

Leicester « lected Clerk to the Ay Isbam Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, and PIGGIN, WILLIAM, Hose, Leicester, Gentleman. June 15. Swift v Smith, Hall, V.C. Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the district. Mr. Latham and New, Melton Mowbray Gidney was admitted a solicitor in 1878.

Royston, THOMAS, Howden, York, Farmer, June 3. Green y Cogan, Chitty, J.

Green, Howden. Mr. CHARLES BROWN Suth, solicitor (of the firm of Thorne, Smith, &

| Gazette, May 9.] Thorde), of Wolverhampton, has been appointed solicitor to the Wolverhamp- ANDREW, JOSEPI, Germoe, Cornwall. June 9. Andrew v Nicholls, Chitty, J. Tyacke, ton School Board, in succession to Mr. Heory Underhill, deceased. Mr. Smith Helston was admitted a solicitor in 1866.

Clarke, FANNY, Stony Stratford, Buckingham. June 9. Sedding v Revill, Chitty, J.

Parrott, Stony Stratford Mr. Samuel LEWIS, barrister, has been appointed a Member of the Legis- CLARKE, WILLIA», Stony Stratford, Buckingham, Innkeeper. June 9. Sedding v lative Council of the Colony of Sierra Leone. Mr. Lewis was called to the bar CUXXINs, Joux, Leeds, Innkeeper. June 12. Lumb v Osburn, Fry, J. Braithwaite, at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Torm, 1871.


inn fields

« PreviousContinue »