the timidity of some of the ancient common lawyers, who clung very closely to precedent, applying general principles to well-defined and ordinary cases. The attempt to apply to novel or extraordinary circumstances rules too nicely strict according to the individual reason of the judge, and without any real assent of the Legislature, is one perhaps of doubtful expediency.

Lord Blackburn then proceeds to apply the principles he has enunciated to the case of a hospital, which is, of course, an a fortiori case, for if it be illegal to remove one infected person to a neighbourhood other than that where he falls sick, still more would it be illegal to cause the removal of large numbers of infected persons for treatment to a hospital. We are not convinced that the case of a hospital stands on the same footing as that of the individual infected person. It may do so, but it seems to us safer to deal with it on its own merits. The case differs largely in degree from that of the single patient, and considerations of degree enter very largely into the law of nuisance. For the inhabitants of a neighbourhood to be subject to the percentage of removals thereto of infected persons which the ordinary course of individual convenience and necessity would occasion, and to be subject to have large numbers of patients assembled from all neighbourhoods for the purposes of treatment, are obviously very different things. In the one case each neighbourhood probably stands about an equal chance; as the learned law lord says, it is questionable whether it is not one of the ordinary risks necessarily incident to the use of property for habitations. In the other case a most unequal burthen is thrown upon the particular neighbourhood. The case of the hospital, therefore, appears to us a very clear one. The question of the liability for mischief occasioned by the removal of the individual patient is a very difficult one. There are, no doubt, many instances in which an action would lie in such a case as between particular persons between whom a relation exists arising out of contract or of representation. But when no such relation exists, we find a difficulty in seeing the exact basis of a legal liability, and we doubt the expediency of creating one, unless indeed the whole question of the treatment of infected persons could be dealt with by the Legislature and proper provisions made with respect to such treatment.

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

VII.

In our last article we sketched the provisions for determining the tenant's interest in the first instance which seem to us desirable, not less in the interest of the landowners themselves than of the tenantry whose rights are to be defined. Those of our readers who know anything, either by report or otherwise, of "Judge Longfield's scheme" will have little difficulty in seeing that it is essentially reproduced in our proposal; the only differences, indeed, are in two points of minute detail, in both of which we should prefer the original scheme to our own if only it were equally applicable to all possible cases.

taken as the divisor in determining the tenant-right, and this would probably not be unfair in Ulster, where the custom has practically settled the rent in all but a few very exceptional cases: but throughout the rest of the country (if it be true, as alleged, that the rents are not fair) it would work manifest injustice, because, wherever the rent is too high it would make the divisor too large, and therefore the quotient (the tenantright) too small, and vice versa in cases of rents at present too low in other words, it would operate for the benefit of grasping landlords, and against easy ones, being the very reverse of the result to be aimed at. We have therefore thought it necessary to empower the court to fix, for this time only, a "fair rent," not necessarily for adoption by the parties, but as the proper divisor for our sum in arithmetic. As this rent may differ from the rent at present payable, and it is very desirable that the ascertainment of the statutory tenant-right should not necessitate any immediate alteration in the conditions of tenancy (for thus only cau hostile litigation be avoided), it becomes necessary to add to the scheme a provision regulating the position of the parties in case neither of them chooses to require an actual adoption of the judicially fixed "fair rent." Thisis done by our proposals 9 and 10. By (9) we secure the tenant a statutory term at the existing rent (whether above or below the "fair rent") if neither party give the required notice: and by (10) we make it, in many cases at least, the interest of the parties to acquiesce in the existing rent, although it may differ, either way, from the "fair rent." For, if the rent payable be above the "fair rent," the actual amount of the tenant-right is correspondingly increased; if below, proportionately diminished, and it may well be the interest of the party (whichever it might be) in whose favour the question of fair rent had been decided, to submit to a present loss, within reasonable limits, for the sake of this prospective advantage. For example, let us suppose that a farm of thirty acres is at present let at twenty shillings an acrei.e., £30 a year-and that the present value of the tenant's interest has been agreed or ascertained at £240 [we give figures not unlikely in actual practice]. Now let us further suppose that, the parties differing on the question of "fair rent," this is settled by the court at (a) £25 a year, or (8) £35 a year. In case (a) the statutory tenant-right would be 240÷25=9}-i... ten years' purchase; in case (8) it would be 240÷35= 7 years. Now in case (a), if the tenant gives notice that the rent should be lowered, and is afterwards evicted for breach of some statutory condition, his compensation will be £250 (ie., ten years of the lowered rent), whereas if he continues to pay the £30, the landlord cannot evict him without paying £300 (ten years of the actual rent payable), and the extra security thus obtained may be worth more to the tenant-who had previously agreed to £30-than the abatement of £5 in his rent. So in case (8), if the landlord requires the payment of the fair rent of £35, he raises the tenant-right from £210 (seven times £30) to £245 (seven times £35), and it may be better worth his while to leave the rent alone than to increase the tenant-right. It will be ob

According to the scheme in question the statutory tenant-right is to be of a fixed number of years' purchase (seven being the number recommended), and the tenant is, if his improvements, &c., do not, at the time of settlement, reach to the necessary amount, to make up the difference by a payment in hard cash. But there are thousands of tenants to whom an immediate payment of this nature would be simply an impossibility, and who, therefore, could never obtain a statutory tenant-right unless either (1) they were made a present of the difference, which would be obviously unjust, or (2) they are enabled to obtain just so many years' right as their existing interest will pay for, which is what we propose to give them. Again, under the scheme the existing rent is in every case

served that in either case the result will be different from what it would have been had the existing rent been taken as a fair one, in which case the statutory tenant-right would have been eight years, the actual value of the tenant's interest, £240, unchanged, but this value is enhanced in case (a), as it ought to be, because he has been paying too much heretofore, and diminished in case (B), as it equally ought to be, and for the corresponding reason. So that this proposal would, if it became law, enure for the benefit of the liberal landlord, and the punishment of the "rack renter," whereas both the Act of 1870 and the present Bill act in precisely the opposite direction.

Having thus fixed the statutory tenant-right and the rent for the first term (a term which would be a legal term of years, and assignable as such), it only remains to

regulate the renewal of the tenancy at the expiration of that or any succeeding term. And this would be simple. At any time within the last twelve months of the term, and not less than six months before its expiration, the landlord should be at liberty to serve a notice on the tenant, stating the rent he demanded for the next term, and he should not be permitted to resume possession unless the tenant refused to pay the rent so demanded. If no notice is served within the time specified, the landlord should be deemed to have offered to renew the term at the then existing rent. The tenant, within three months after the receipt of such notice, may do either of three things

(1) He may accept the terms, and thus acquire a fresh statutory term at the new rent-his statutory tenantright being accordingly enhanced.

(2) He may refuse the terms and give up the farm, and in such case he shall be paid his tenant-right, not in terms of the existing rent, but of the increased rent demanded. Thus if, in the case already put, the landlord, at the end of the first term were to require £40 a year, the tenant, if he thought that too high, would be entitled to go out, and receive in case (a) £400, and in case (8) £280, instead of his original £240.

(3) He may serve a counter-notice stating the rent he is willing to pay for the next term (this he may also do within three months after the last day on which the landlord might have served his notice, in cases where no such notice has been served). In this case the landlord must, within three months of the receipt of the counternotice, either accept the rent offered, and thereby create a new statutory term, or refuse the offer, and buy out the tenant the tenant-right being in this case calculated in terms of the reduced rent offered by the tenant. Thus, to return to our example, the tenant might reply, I will not give you £40, but I am willing to pay £37; in which case the landlord must either accept the rent, or buy out the tenant by paying (a) £370 or (8) £259, in lieu of the original £240; or the tenant might say, The land has fallen in value, I can't pay you more than £20; in which case the landlord might get back his land by paying in (a) £200, or in (8) £140, instead of the original £240. If neither party serves any such notice as aforesaid within the time prescribed, a new statutory term will ipso facto arise at the old rent: and so toties quoties as long as the tenancy subsists. Thus it is made the interest of the landlord not to ask more, and of the tenant not to offer less, than the true value of the land, because he can only do so at the risk of being taken at his word, and having to pay or accept an unduly inflated or diminished sum in lieu of tenant-right accordingly.

These provisions, if accepted, would practically supersede clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, save that clause 8 might, with a few verbal amendments, be framed so as to enable the court to fix with the costs of ascertaining the tenant's interest, or the "fair rent" either party whom it considered to have acted unreasonably: but, after these had once been fixed, all the rest of the work would consist merely in enforcing the statutory contract thus entered into, which would not require any machinery other than that at present existing in the ordinary courts of law.

Part 3 of the Act would, if the amendments we have suggested were made in the earlier parts of the Act, become superfluous; if those parts remain as at present framed, part 3, though it will probably be nugatory, is, at any rate, harmless. We do not think that any landlord and tenant, who would not have made a corresponding agreement if the Act had not passed, will be induced by anything in the Act to avail themselves of these provisions.

It is stated that Sir W. Charley (the Common Serjeant) is making satisfactory progress, although it will probably be several weeks before he will be able to resume his duties. He is suffering from a very mild attack of smallpox.

CORRESPONDENCE.

CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF A

FELONY.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-In Osborn v. Gillett (L. R. 8 Ex. 88) a plea was held bad on demurrer which alleged that the acts complained of amounted to a felonious act, and that the Strangely enough, this case does not appear to have been person committing them had not been prosecuted. Smith, to which you drew attention last week. cited in the case of The Midland Insurance Company v. THOS. F. LEADBITTER. 144, Leadenhall-street, London, June 14.

CASES OF THE WEEK.

RAILWAY COMPANY-DIVERSION OF ROAD-LEVEL CRossING-CONVENIENCE-RAILWAYS CLAUSES ACT, 1845, ss. 16, 46-62.-In an information and action of Attorney-General v. South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Joint Committee, before the Master of the Rolls on the 14th inst., a motion was made to restrain the company from erecting certain gates and posts at a level crossing upon a public highway, and not on the land of the defendants, and also from diverting a public highway. The defendants contended that, under the combined effect of their special Act and the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, they were entitled to do the acts complained of. junction claimed, that section 47 of the Railways Clauses Act JESSEL, M.R., was of opinion, as to the first part of the ingave the companies no power to place their posts upon the public high road. The gates themselves might, of course, swing upon the public highway, but their right to make a level crossing did not authorize them to place the posts upon the public highway, and such posts must be upon their own land. As to the other point, section 16 of the Railways Clauses Act gave the company certain powers of diverting roads, but subject to the provisions in that Act and also their special Act. According to the general Act, s. 46 and fullowing sections provided how roads and bridges were to be constructed and were restrictive of the right of diverting, and section 56 required any road interfered with to be restored ally. Looking at the special Act, all he could find was a as nearly as possible to the condition in which it was originprovision allowing the companies to cross a particular road by a level crossing. There was no power in the special Act to divert the road as it had been here diverted, and, in his opinion, the case of Attorney-General v. The Ely, Haddenham, and Sutton Railway Company (L. R. 4 Ch. 194), was not an authority in the defendants' favour to authorize them to make the diversion made by them. He must, therefore, grant the injunction asked for, but he would give the company two months before enforcing the latter part as to the road.-SOLICITORS, Sharpe, Parkers, & Co., for W. Knocker, Dover; W. R. Stevens, for G. Wilks, Hythe.

SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. The usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancerylane, London, on Wednesday, June 8, Mr. John Lewis (Wrexham) in the chair; the other directors present were Messrs. Brook, Francis (Cambridge), Hunter, Rickman, and Roscoe; Mr. Eiffe, secretary. A sum of £230 was distributed in grants of relief among necessitous solicitors and their families; six gentlemen were admitted members of the association; and other general business was transacted.

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. TRINITY EXAMINATION, 1881. GENERAL EXAMINATION of STUDENTS of the INNS of COURT, held at Lincoln's-inn Hall, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th of May, 1881.

The Council of Legal Education have awarded to Charles Francis Bastable, of the Middle Temple, a studentship in jurisprudence and Roman law, of one hundred guineas, to continue for a period of two years.

The council have also awarded to Nathaniel Micklem, of Lincoln's-inn, the Barstow Law Scholarship; and to Nathaniel Micklem, of Lincoln's inn, and Percy Ferdinand Wheeler, of Lincoln's-inn, certificates of honour of the second class.

The council have also awarded to the following students certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination:-Herbert Burgers Barrett, Francis Douglas Blake, John Brailsford Bright, Henry Herbert Browell, Henry Jacob Canekeratne, Rennell Coleridge, William Henry Cross, Eben William Wynn Edwards, George Elliott, Victor Beare Fitz-Gibbon, Ralph Hare Griffin, Sir John Alexander Hanham, Charles Moon Kennedy, George Somes Layard, Arthur Brooke Lloyd, James Challenor Lynch, Hon. Alfred Lyttelton, William Henry MacGeorge, Hon. John William Mansfield, Gilbert Metcalfe, George St. John Mildmay, Alexander Fraser Morrison, Arthur Edgar Gravenor Rhodes, Thomas Arthur Roberts, Malcolm William Searle, James Arthur Percival Stephens, and Edward Fairfax Studd, of the Inner Temple; Robert Walter Clifton, Charles Simon Davson, Arthur Mountjoy Dunne, Hugh Owen Edwards, William Grant Ellis, George Charles Frames, James George Frazer, George G. Gray, John Carey Hall, Charles Valentine Hickie, John Cunningham Leupolt, Thomas A. Meates, Charles Henry Lawrence Neish, Robert Roy, Edmund Selous, Roger William Wallace, and Benjamin Whitehead, of the Middle Temple; Matthew Henry Box, Edward Broadwood, Charles Sandwith Campbell, William Lewis Comrie, Vincent Waldo Calmady Hamlyn, Edward William Jones, John Wanklyn McConnel, Robert Stewart Menzies, Samuel Moore, William Laurence Wemyss Pearson, Henry William Hayes Redwar, Lorence Ralph Ryland, Alexander Campbell Tiley, and Arthur Allen Wickens, of Lincoln'sinn; and John Overend Evans, Licnel Ferneaux Knipe Hill, and Ernest Chester Thomas, of Gray's-ian, Esqs.

The following students passed a satisfactory examination in Roman law:-James Edward Hamilton Benn, Charles Thomas Beresford-Hope, John McLeavy Brown, Christian Frederick Cole, Lionel Crosskey, George Tatham Davis, Clayton Louis Glyn, Hugh Hall, Peregrine Propert Lewes, Henry Ernest Milne, Harry Rose Pugh, Leicester Morgan Reed, Edmund Russborough Turton, Edgar Vincent, Robert Woodfall, and Robert Blake Yardley, of the Inner Temple; Blayney Reynell Townley Balfour, Tom Boothman, Thomas Rawling Bridgwater, James Alexander Beresford Barwick Bruce, Alfred Greenland, Frederick Laing, John Marshall, John Montefiore, Henry Edwin Pears, John Rutherford, John Thomas Beadsworth Sewell, and Charles Unwin Simson, of the Middle Temple; and William Wycliffe Barlow, Hon. William Napier Bruce, Charles Hayward Izard, John Morris Stone, George William Tallents, and Montagu Couch Wood, of Lincoln's-inn, Esqe.

By order of the council, (Signed)

S. H. WALPOLE, Chairman. Council Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, June 13.

UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY.

A meeting of this society was held on Wednesday evening, the 15th inst., Mr. Kains Jackson in the chair. The society resumed the consideration of Mr. D.'A. B. the debate was maintained by Messrs. Symes, Collyer, Collyer's Bill for the Regulation of the Public Press, and Rundle Levey, Harvey, Samuel, Barr, Gamble, and Maclaren, and ultimately the Bill was passed by a majority of one vote. On Wednesday evening, June 22, at eight o'clock, this society will hold a joint debate at Clement's. inn, with the members of the Somerville Club. The subject of debate is, "That the present position of women in England, political and social, is injurious to the interests of the nation."

BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. An ordinary meeting of this society was held in the Law Library on Tuesday evening last, T. Horton, Esq., in the chair. After the ordinary business had been disposed of, moot point No. 648 was discussed, namely:-" Does the trustee of a bankrupt lessee estop himself from disclaiming the lease by severing and selling the fixtures? The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Platnauer and Cockrane, and on the negative Messrs. E. C. Rogers, G. T. Edwards, W. S. Rogers, and Lawden. The chairman, having summed up the arguments on either side, put the question to the meeting, when the majority declared themselves in favour of the negative. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the proceedings.

OBITUARY.

MR. EDWIN JOHN HAYES.

Mr. Edwin John Hayes, solicitor, of Birmingham and Handsworth, town clerk of the borough of Birmingham, died at his residence, Ashley House, Handsworth, on the 30th ult. Mr. Hayes was born in 1824, and was admitted a soli citor in 1850, and he had practised for about thirty years at Birmingham. He had for several years been town clerk of the borough, the duties of which office he discharged with great zeal and efficiency, and in such a manner as to ensure the respect and esteem of all the members of the corporation. He had a good private practice, and he was a perpetual commissioner for Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and Worcester shire. Mr. Hayes had been for a long time in bad health, and he had recently submitted to a very painful operation, but without obtaining relief.

MR. WILLIAM SALT.

Mr. William Salt, solicitor, died at St. Mary's Court, Shrewsbury, on the 22nd ult. Mr. Salt was the third so of the late Mr. George Salt, soliciter, of Shrewsbury, his mother having been a daughter of the Rev. George Moultrie, vicar of Cleobury Mortimer, and he was born in 1830. He was educated at Shrewsbury School, under Dr. Kennedy, and he served his articles with his father. He was admitted a solicitor in 1854, when he went into partnership with his father, and with his elder brother, Mr. George Moultrie Salt, who was for many years clerk to the Shrewsbury Town Improvement Commissioners, and he was in partnership with the latter until his death. He had a very extensive private practice, and he was also a partner in the Salop Bank. He was for many years clerk to the magisseveral times filled the office of under-sheriff of the county. trates for the Condover Division of Shropshire, and he had Mr. Salt was one of the earliest members of the 17th

Shropshire Rifle Volunteers, of which corps he was for daughter of Mr. Thomas Sutton, surgeon. Mr. Salt was s many years captain-commandant. He was married to the most accomplished musician, and he was very highly esteemed by a large circle of professional and private friends

MR. WILLIAM FRANCIS.

Mr. William Francis, solicitor (of the firm of Francis & Collins), of Liverpool and Birkenhead, died at Frankville, Rock Ferry, Cheshire, on the 3rd inst. Mr. Francis was born in 1822. He was admitted a solicitor in 1848, and he had practised for over thirty years at Liverpool, having been for several years associated in partnership with Mr. Alexander Collins. He had an important and lucrative business, and was a commissioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Francis took an active interest in local and municipal busiCourt, a perpetual commissioner for Lancashire and Cheshire, and a commissioner for taking bail in Admiralty. Mr. the incorporation of the borough. He was buried at the ness at Birkenhead, and he had been an alderman ever since Bebington Cemetery on the 6th inst., many professional friends and most of the members of the Corporation of Birkenhead being present at the funeral.

MR CHARLES SPRENGELL GREAVES, Q.C. Mr. Charles Sprengell Greaves, Q.C., who died at his residence, 11, Blandford-square, on the 3rd inst., in his eightieth year, was the son of Mr. William Greaves, of Mayfield, Staffordshire, and was born in 1801. He was educated at Queen's College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in classics in 1824. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1827, and he formerly practised on the Oxford Circuit, and at the Gloucestershire Sessions. He became a Queen's Counsel in 1850, but he had for many years ceased to practise. Mr. Greaves was a well-read criminal lawyer. He was one of the secretaries to the Criminal Law Commission, and he assisted in drafting the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861. He was a bencher of Lincoln's-ion, and a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Staffordshire. Mr. Greaves was married to the daughter of Mr. William Tyson.

MR. HARRY CALDICOTT.

Mr. Harry Caldicott, solicitor, of Worcester, died on the 7th inst., after a short illness. Mr. Caldicott was the son of Mr. William Caldicott, of Worcester, and was born in 1848. He was articled to Mr. Richard Woof, of Worcester, and he was admitted a solicitor in 1872. He shortly afterwards went into partnership with Mr. Woof, upon whose death, three or four years ago, he succeeded to the office of clerk to the Worcester City Magistrates. He was also solicitor to the Worcester School Board. Mr. Caldicott was extremely popular in the city. He was an active member of the Worcester Rowing Club, and he occupied an influential position among the local Freemasons. He was buried at the Worcester Cemetery on the 10th inst., many of the magistrates, the corporation, and the Masonic body being present at the funeral. His premature death has caused general regret. At the sitting of the magistrates held the day after his death, Mr. Alderman Barnett alluded to Mr. Caldicott's high personal character, and to the valuable assistance the bench had always received at his hands. The Worcester Town Council have unanimously agreed to a vote of condolence with his family.

MR. JOHN HAYWARD.

Mr. John Hayward, solicitor, died at his residence, Brooklands, Dartford, on the 13th inst., at the age of Beventy-eight. Mr. Hayward was born in 1803, and was admitted a solicitor in 1825, and he had practised for more than fifty years at Dartford. He had a large practice in the town, and he was solicitor to many of the leading gentry in the district. He had been for several years in partnership with his son, Mr. John Camden Hayward, who was admitted a solicitor in 1865. He was a perpetual commissioner for the county of Kent, and he held several important appointments. He was registrar of the Dartford County Court (Circuit No. 48), clerk to the Dartford Board of Guardians and Assessment Committee, superintendent-registrar, and clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes. He was also clerk (jointly with his son) to the Dartford Sewers Commission, and to the county magistrates.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. YORKE H. BIRD, solicitor, of 17, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, has been appointed a Commissioner administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

to

Mr. WILLIAM ALLITT CANNING, solicitor, of Leamington, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Warwickshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Mr. JOHN CORRIE CARTER, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the Borough of Stamford, in succession to the Hon. Edward Chandos Leigh, Q.C., who has been appointed recorder of Nottingham. Mr. Carter is the son of the late Mr. Samuel Carter, solicitor, M.P. for Coventry. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1865, and he practises on the Midland Circuit, and at the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Birmingham Sessions.

Mr. JAMES CHAMBERS, solicitor, of Durham, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women for the County Palatine of Durham, and for the City and County of the City of Durham.

The HOD. EDWARD CHANDOS LEIGH, Q.C., has been appointed Recorder of the Borough of Nottingham, in succession to Mr. Richard Wildman, resigned. Mr. Leigh is the second son of the first Lord Leigh, and was born in 1832. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, where he graduated second class in law and modern history in 1855, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of All Souls' College. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1859, and he practises on the Midland Circuit and before Parliamentary Committees. He was for several years a revising barrister, and he was appointed recorder of Stamford in 1864. Mr. Leigh was created a Queen's Counsel a few weeks ago. He is the author (in conjunction with the present Mr. Justice Cave) of a volume of Criminal Law Reports.

Mr. ARTHUR GRIFFITHS HILL, solicitor, of Crewe, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Hill was admitted a solicitor in 1878.

Mr. WALTER WILLIAMS (of the firm of Messrs. Hadfield & Williams, of Manchester, Altrincham, and Bowdon, solicitors), has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to be a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

EDWARD WILLSON CROSSE, ARTHUR WILLSON CROSSE, REGINALD WILLIAM CROSSE, and MORETON JOHN RILEY (Crosse, Sons, & Riley), solicitors, Lancaster-place, Strand. June 9. Edward Willson Crosse, Arthur Willson Crosse, and Reginald William Crosse will carry on the said business under the style of Crosse & Sons.

FREDERIC WILLIAM WILSON and JOHN FRANCIS WHITELOCK CLAYTON (Wilson & Clayton), solicitore, Sheffield. April 8. Each of the said partners will hereafter carry on business separately. [Gazette, June 10, 1881.]

tors for the petitioners

SKEGBY COLLIEBY LIME AND BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented June 8, directed to be heard before the M.R. on June 18. Torr and Co, Bedford row, agents for Wells and Hind, Nottingham, solicitors for the petitioner.

[Gazette, June 10.] COFFEE PUBLIC HOUSES NATIONAL SOCIETY, LIMITED.-Vice-Chancellor Hall has, by an order dated May 13, appointed James Waddell, 1, Queen Victoria st, to be official liquidator. The creditors are required, on or before July 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims to the above. Friday, Nov. 4 at 2.30 is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims. HORNSEA STEAM BRICK AND TILE WORKS, LIMITED.-By an order made by Bacon, V.C., dated June 3, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Maude, Gt Winchester st bldgs, agent for Webster and Styring, Sheffield, solicitors for the petitioner. MORAY FIRTH MINING COMPANY, LIMITED.-The M.R. has fixed Thursday, June 23, at 12, at his chambers, for the appointment of an official liquidator.

ONLLWYN AND DULAIS COLLIERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up presented June 11, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C. on July 1. Ditton, Ironmonger lane, solicitor for the petitioners. PENARTH, SULLY, AND BARRY RAILWAY COMPANY-Petition for winding up presented June 8, directed to be heard before Fry, J., on Friday, June 24. Ingledew and Ince, Fenchurch st, solicitors for the petitioners. [Gazette, June 14.] COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. ASCSOFT, ROBINSON, AND WILSON, LIMITED.-The V.C. has fixed July 1 at 2, at the District Registrar's office, Municipal bldgs, "Dale st, Liverpool, for the appointment of an official liquidator. [Gazette, June 14.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. ALBION DIVIDEND SOCIETY, Marquis of Granby Inn, Hanley, Stafford. June 7.

[Gazette, June 14.]

LORD JUSTICE JAMES.

Ar the sitting of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Lord Justice BRAMWELL said: I am senior of those who were in the habit of sitting with him, and I think expression ought to be given to the great, and, in my judgment, irreparable loss which the public have sustained in his death. He possessed every quality and accomplishment that a judge needed. He had a very great intellect, at once keen and profound. He was a consummate lawyer, thoroughly imbued with legal principles. He was a man of vast experience, not merely in the law, but in those things which make a man what is commonly called a man of the world, fitted to deal with the affairs of the world. He had but one desire when he took his seat upon the bench-that was, that justice should be done according to right. It was said of him, and truly, that he was rapid in the formation of his opinions and confident in the expression of them, and so he was, and so a man of his ability had a right to be; but I can say this of him, that a more candid man never lived, nor one more ready to renounce an opinion, though he had given expression to it in the most confident way, if he thought it was wrong. I should like to read a letter written to me by one of my brethren, and I read it because, inasmuch as it is certain that he never thought it would be published, it is a genuine expression of his opinion, an opinion in which we all agree. He says:-"When I learnt to know what a grand old man he was, what a gigantic memory he had, what a large and comprehensive talent, what a freedom from all technicality and prejudice, what a firm knowledge of principles of law, what an intense resolution that justice should be done, and what a firm, generous mind he had, I esteemed him and respected him as much as ever was in me. I suffer great pain from his loss." And so do we all. We have lost a valuable friend and an invaluable associate.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (the whole of the bar rising with him) said: My Lorde, it is a sad reflection that within the last few months-since the commencement of the legal year-I have bad on four occasions to express, on behalf of the members of the bar, their deep regret for the loss of eminent judges, and now a fifth name is added to that roll which records the list of the distinguished dead. It is just fifty years since Sir William James entered upon our profession. During those fifty years he stood conspicuously among us; at the bar and on the bench he passed his life surrounded by eminent men and gifted colleagues, and from them all he ever gained the acknowledgment that his duty had been right well done. During that time many changes have been effected in our legal procedure. In conceiving most of them and administering the law under many of them Sir William James took share and part. Thirty years ago he was a member of that Commission whose labours effected great and beneficial changes in the proceedings of the Court of Chancery. One of your lordships-Lord Justice Bramwell -can bear witness to the strength of the colleague who mainly shared with him the responsibility of framing that report on which the Judicature Act of 1873 was based. And others of us can tell how the last days of health left to him were employed in framing suggestions for the still

these others stand, and for them (I mean the members of the bar) I desire to give expression to the deep sense of the loss all sustain by the death of so great a judge and so good a man.

I

In the Rolls Court the MASTER OF THE ROLLS said:-I cannot proceed with the business of the day without expressing the deep grief which I feel at the misfortune which has fallen upon the profession and the public by the death during the last short vacation of my friend and late colleague in the Appeal Court, Lord Justice James. cannot say the event was to me wholly unexpected. I have been for a long time aware that his valuable life hung upon a thread which might snap at any moment; but when it did occur it came upon me with a feeling of painful surprise. Only about a fortnight ago, when I sat with him in the Appeal Court, he appeared to me to be in his usual health and spirits, and when I left him I did not think that that was the last time he would sit in a court of justice. He was, no doubt, in many respects fortunate in his death; he suffered but for a short time from illness; he died in harness and in full possession of all his faculties. Notwithstanding his advanced age, his eyes were not dimmed nor his hearing dull, bis attention never flagged, nor did his memory fail him. Of his eminent qualities as a judge it is difficult to speak too highly. He had a large liberal mind, unfettered by pedantry and untrammelled by technicalities. His intellect was clear and powerful, and he was distinguished alike by quickness of perception and rapidity of decision. His mastery of equitable principles was thorough. His long and wide experience, and his rapid apprehension of every argument addressed to him, enabled him almost always to lay down the law with fal ness and precision, and all who ever listened to one of his judgments in a heavy and important case could fail to be impressed with the remarkable ease with which he unravelled the most complicated facts, and the lucidity with which he expounded the principles of law which applied to the case the part which he took in relieving us from the vast and before him. We owe to him a debt of gratitude, also, for intricate, though refined, network of rules of pleading and practice which for so many years in the Court of Chancery obscured and impeded, and sometimes altogether stopped, the course of justice. And I may mention that almost up to his last hour he was engaged in devising further improve ments in our procedure and in endeavouring to diminish inseparable from all legal procedure. In short, I may truly the delay and expense which are to some extent, no doubt, say that in deploring his decease we lament the loss of a consummate lawyer and a good judge.

Mr. ROXBURGH, Q.C., as the leader of the bar in this court, said:-I believe there is not a member of the bar who does not fully appreciate and reciprocate the sentiments which your lordship has expressed. No one who has witnessed the career of the late Lord Justice as I have done for so many years can fail to be indeed struck with the truth feel the loss most sensibly, and I am quite sure that not of every remark which your Lordship has made. We all only the profession but the public has sustained in the death of the late Lord Justice a very grievous loss.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

JUNE 13.-BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. Skipton and Kettlewell Railway (Extension to Aysgarth), PRIVATE BILLS. - Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, tion, Exeter Tramways, Whitland and Cardigan Railway, Rotherham and Bawtry Railway, Barrow-in-Furness Corpora Woking Water and Gas, South Metropolitan Gas, Potteries, Shrewsbury, and North Wales Railway, Metropolitan Board of Works, Charnwood Forest Railway (Deviation, &c.), Birkenhead Corporation (Improvement, &c.) (No. 2), Medway Conservancy, Bristol Docks, Great Western Railway.

BILLS READ A THIRD TIME.

PRIVATE BILLS.-London City Tithes Act, 1879, Ex tension (St. Botolph Without, Aldgate), Swansea Corpora tion Loan, Metropolitan District Railway.

JUNE 14.-BILLS READ A SECOND TIME. PRIVATE BILLS.-Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Rail