Page images
PDF
EPUB

the appeal. They said that if the debtor had been alive the proceedings
could not have gone on without personal service of the petition or sub-
stituted service. Now substituted service meant service substituted for a
possible personal service. There could be no substituted service where
personal service could not by any possibility be effected. In this case,
therefore, neither personal nor substituted service could be effected. The
proceedings could not go on without service, as the court had no power to
dispense with it. Therefore they were of opinion, in the case of a
creditor's petition, that the court could not allow the proceedings to
continue when the debtor died before the petition was served.-COUNSEL,
Sidney Woolf.

WALKER v. THE GENERAL MUTUAL INVESTMENT BUILDING
SOCIETY-C. A. No. 2, 10th August.
BUILDING SOCIETY-DISPUTE WITH MEMBER-ARBITRATION-WITHDRAWING
MEMBER-BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT, 1874 (37 & 38 VICT. c. 42), s 34.
This was an appeal from a decision of North, J. (ante, p. 626). The
action was brought by a member of a building society, who had given
notice of withdrawal, and whose notice had expired, against the society,
claiming to restrain the society from acting upon certain resolutions which
the plaintiff alleged to be ultrà vires. The resolutions had been passed
before the plaintiff gave his notice of withdrawal. One of the rules of the
society provided that "the board shall have power to determine all matters
of dispute arising between the society and any member or person claiming
on account of any member, and if the party shall be dissatisfied with
their decision or shall refuse to abide thereby, the matter shall be referred
to three of the arbitrators of the society." The plaintiff moved for the
appointment of a receiver, and by consent the matter was treated as if
an application had been made by the defendants to stay the proceedings
in the action. The defendants contended that the dispute ought to be
referred to arbitration as provided by the rule. The plaintiff contended
that the rule did not apply, because he had, by his notice of withdrawal,
ceased to be a member, and had become a creditor of the society. North,
J., held that the rule applied, and that the dispute ought to be referred
to arbitration, and he made an order staying the proceedings.

THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, BOWEN, and FRY, L JJ.) affirmed the decision. COUNSEL, Napier Higgins, Q.C., and A. N. Cumming; CozensHardy, Q.C., and Micklem. SOLICITORS, Evans & Batchelor; Flint &

Gardiner.

THE MINERAL WATER BOTTLE EXCHANGE AND TRADE
PROTECTION SOCIETY v. BOOTH & CO.-C. A. No. 2, 9th August.
COVENANT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-VALIDITY.

This was an appeal from a decision of Chitty, J. (ante, p. 626). The plaintiffs were a trade protection society, and one of the rules provided that no member should employ any traveller, carman, or outdoor employé who had left the service of another member, without the consent in writing of his late employer, until after the expiration of two years from his leaving such service. This action was brought by the society and Cox, one of the members, against Booth & Co., who were also members, claiming an injunction to restrain the defendants from employing a carman who had just quitted the service of Cox. The number of the members of the society was limited to 500, and the actual number of members was 179. The members carried on business in various parts of the United Kingdom, and one of them carried on business in New South Wales. Chitty, J., refused to grant an interim injunction, on the ground (inter alia) that the rule imposed an unreasonable restraint of trade, the agreement not being between an employer and his servant, but between employers as against the employed, and the number of the members of the society and its field of business being practically unlimited.

THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, BOWEN, and FRY, L.JJ.) affirmed the decision.-COUNSEL, Romer, Q.C., and J. Bradford; Whitehorne, Q.O., and Hull. SOLICITORS, W. Webb; Smythe & Brettell.

Re TUSSAUD-C. A. No. 2, 12th August.
PRACTICE-APPLICATION TO SINGLE JUDGE OF COURT OF APPEAL DURING
VACATION-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, s. 52.

In this case an application was made to the Court of Appeal on the last day of the sittings for leave to give notice of motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal in the vacation for a stay of the proceedings under an order made by Chitty, J., on the previous day pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. No notice of appeal had yet been given. Section 52 of the Judicature Act, 1873, provides that, in any cause or matter pending before the Court of Appeal, any direction incidental thereto, not involving the decision of the appeal, may be given by a single judge of the Court of Appeal; and a single judge of the Court of Appeal may, at any time during vacation, make any interim order to prevent prejudice to the claims of any parties pending an appeal as he may think fit; but every such order made by a single judge may be discharged or varied by the Court of Appeal or a divisional court thereof."

THE COURT (COTTON, BOWEN, and FRY, L JJ.) said that a single judge of the Court of Appeal could have no jurisdiction under this section until an appeal had been presented. COTTON, L.J., said that an application could be made to him in the country during the vacation. But the parties must previously ascertain by letter the time when he could hear the application.-COUNSEL, Maidlow. SOLICITORS, Lickorish & Bellord.

BOLTON . THE NATAL LAND AND COLONIZATION CO.-
C. A. No. 2, 12th August.

PRACTICE-DISCOVERY-AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENTS-ITEMS NOT SUFFI
CIENTLY LISTINGUISHED.

action was brought by a sharel older in the defendant company, on behalf of himself and all other the shareholders, except the directors, against the company and the directors, claiming to restrain the defendants from paying a dividend which the plaintiff alleged they were about to pay out of capital. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had improperly increased the values at which estates belonging to the company stood in the company's books. The defendants had been required to make an affidavit of documents, and the secretary of the company had made an affidavit, the first schedule to which contained 646 items. Many of these items were described as bundles of letters and other documents and books (such as letter books), each of which comprised a large number of distinct documents. Some of the books were general letter books of the company and volumes of copies of letters. The plaintiff applied by summons to have the affidavit taken off the file, on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the court, because it did not sufficiently distinguish which of the items in the schedule, or what parts of the items, related to the matters in question in the action. North, J., ordered the affidavit to be taken off the the appeal.-COUNSEL, Everitt, Q C., and Decimus Sturges; Cozens-Hardy, THE COURT OF APPEAL (COTTON, BOWEN, and FRY, L.JJ.) dismissed Q.C., and Methold. SOLICITORS, Harries, Wilkinson, & Raikes; Bolton & Co.

file.

BOSWELL v. COAKS-North, J., 9th August.

JUDGMENT DEBT - INTEREST-INTEREST ON COSTS - DATE FROM WHICH
INTEREST RUNS-ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE 24TH OF OCTOBER,
1883-R. S. C., 1883, XLII., 16— APPENDIX H, FORM No. 1,
NOTE.

the R. S. C., 1883, came into operation, and in which judgment was also
The question in this case was whether, in an action commenced before
given before that date, interest on the taxed costs payable by the plaintiffs
was to run from the date of the judgment or from the date of the taxing
master's certificate. The old rule in equity was that the interest ran
from the date of the certificate; at law the rule was that interest ran from
the date of the judgment. In the note to Form No. 1 (writ of fi. fa.) in
Appendix F. to the R. S. C., 1875, it is stated that the interest on the

costs is to run from "the date of the certificate of taxation." But in the

In

note to Form No. 1 (writ of fi. fa.) in Appendix H. to the R. S. C., 1883, it
is stated that the interest on costs is to run from "the day of the judg-
ment or order, or day on which money directed to be paid, or day from
which interest is directed by the order to run, as the case may be."
the present case Fry, LJ., on the 19th of March, 1883, dismissed the
action, with costs (23 Ch. D. 302). The Court of Appeal reversed the
decision (27 Ch. D. 424), but the House of Lords restored the decision of
Fry, J. (11 App. Cas. 232). The taxing master made his certificate as to
the costs of the defendant Bunyon on the 30th of July, 1887.

action which was pending at the time when those rules came into opera-
NORTH, J., held that the provisions of the Rules of 1883 applied to an
tion, and that the interest on the costs must run from the date of the
judgment.-COUNSEL, Cookson, Q.C., and A. G. Langley; Cozens-Hardy,
Q.C., and Methold. SOLICITORS, Whites, Renard, & Co.; Smyth & Brettell.

[blocks in formation]

There were two petitions, by two creditors, for the compulsory winding up of this company, which had resolved on a voluntary winding up with a view to a reconstruction. The main question was whether a compulsory order should be made, or an order to continue the voluntary winding up under supervision. The company and some creditors who appeared desired a supervision order. The second petition was presented with notice of the first, but the solicitors, who were acting both for the first petitioner and the company, had written a letter to the solicitors of the second petitioner, stating in effect that the object of the first petition was only to obtain a supervision order, with the view of carrying out the reconstruction scheme.

In the

NORTH, J., thought that, under the circumstances, a compulsory order ought to be made. In most cases no doubt some expense was saved by making a supervision order; it certainly ought to be so. present case, his lordship thought the creditors had a right to say that the winding up should not be carried on by the present liquidators. No doubt, if a supervision order were made, an application could be made to remove the present liquidators; but, if such an application were made in court, it would go some way to bring the expense up to that of a compulsory order. Moreover, since the voluntary winding up had been going on, actions had been commenced against the company by creditors, and no attempt had been made to check them. With regard to the presentation of the second petition, his lordship saw no reason to doubt that the petitioner acted in perfect good faith, and a statement was very fairly made to him that the object of the first petitioner was to obtain a supervision order. It would have been better if, as was suggested by the late Master of the Rolls in Re Norton Ironworks Co. (26 W. R 92, some inquiry had been made of the first petitioner whether he intended to go on with his petition; and, if the same thing should occur in another case, it might have an influence with regard to costs; but his lordship thought the second petitioner had acted with an honest intention of meeting a difficulty which might arise, and he would not deprive him of costs. The usual compulsory order would be made on the two petitions.-COUNSEL, Solomon; Cozens Hardy, QC., and Levett; C. E. E. Jenkins; Swinfen Eady; Dunn; Swabey. SOLICITORS, Shaen, Roscoe, & Co.; Murray, Hutchins, &

This was an appeal from a decision of North, J. (ante, p. 626). The Stirling; Hicklin, Washington, & Pasmore.

Re MELLER'S WILL-North, J., 11th August.
WILL-CONSTRUCTION-LAPSE-GIFT TO CLASS OR INDIVIDUALS-PERSON.E
NOMINATE.

upon the goods of which the possession had been intrusted to him for sale on behalf of the company. The company had agreed to pay him a weekly salary of £2 103. and also a commission of 7 per cent. on all sales effected by him. The premises in which the local business was carried on were taken in the name of the company, and the business was carried on in their name. The manager did not keep any bauking account of his own, but he paid moneys received by him for the company to their bankers, retaining first his salary and expenees and the rent of the premises, which he paid. He never, in fact, retained his commission, and his claim to a lien was made in the winding up of the company for his commission on sales effected during the whole period of his engage. ment. He did not keep any books of his own, but entered his transactions for the company in their books. It was contended on his behalf that, being intrusted with the possession of the company's goods for sale, he was in the position of a factor, and that he was entitled to a factor's lien or the goods in respect of his commission. Reliance was placed on Robinson v. Rutter (4 E. & B. 954); Stevens v. Biller (25 Ch. D. 31); and Re Pavy's Patent Felted Fabric Co. (1 Ch. D. 631).

The question in this case was whether a gift of a share of residue had lapsed by reason of the death of one of the residuary legatees in the lifetime of the testator. The testator devised and bequeathed all his estate, real and personal, on trust for sale and conversion, and directed them to divide the clear net residue of the proceeds equally between and among nine persons whom he named (describing also two of them as his nephew and niece and the other seven as the children of deceased persons whose names he mentioned) "when and as they shall severally attain the age of twenty-one years or die under that age leaving lawful issue, the share or shares of such one or more who shall die under the age of twenty; one, whether original or accruing, without leaving lawful issue, to go and be divided equally among the survivors, and, if there shall be but one such child who shall live to attain twenty-one, then upon trust for such only child, such child dying under twenty-one as aforesaid to take the share, whether original or accruing, of his, her, or their deceased parent as tenants in common, and to be paid to them on their severally attaining twenty-one." H., one of the nine legatees, died in the lifetime of the testator. She had attained twenty-one, and had married, and she left one child. The other eight legatees survived the testator, and attained twenty-one. The question was whether the gift of the residue had lapsed as to one-ninth thereof, or whether the fund was divisible in eighths among the eight legatees who survived the testator. On behalf of the eight survivors it was contended that the gift, being contained only in the direction to divide, was really a gift to a class-viz., to such of the nine persons named as should attain twenty-one or die under that age leaving issue, and that, according to the ordinary rule applying to class gifts, the gift would not fail in any respect by reason of the death of a member of the class before the testator, and that the whole fund was divisible among such of the nine persons as answered the description and Re PARTINGTON, PARTINGTON v. ALLEN-Stirling, J., 27th and survived the testator-i.e., in eighths. Reliance was placed on Leake v. Robinson (2 Mer. 363); Dimond v. Bostock (10 Ch. 358); and Shiers v. Ashworth (25 Ch. D. 162).

such a case.

[ocr errors]

NORTH, J., held that the gift was to individuals, not to a class,
and that it had lapsed as to one-ninth of the fund. To construe the
words of the gift as a gift to such of the nine persons as should attain
twenty-one or die under that age leaving issue would be to make a great
alteration in the words, and the words which followed were not consistent
with that construction. Those words referred to the "share" of a person
who should die under twenty-one without leaving issue, whereas on the
construction suggested such a person could not have taken a "share" at
all, and yet his "share
Moreover, it was essential to a
was to go over.
gift to a class that the class, when ascertained, should take the whole fund
in any event. That would clearly not be so in this case. Suppose H. had
died under twenty-one, leaving a child, and that child had died before
the testator, what would become of that share? There was no gift over in
The judgment in Leake v. Robinson, taken as a whole, was
not opposed to his lordship's conclusion. In D mond v. Bostock the gift was
to all the nephews and nieces of the late husband of the testatrix who
were living at his death, except A. or B. Two of the nephews died before
the testatrix, and it was held that the gift was to a class, and that there was
no lapse, but that the fund was divisible among those of the class who
survived the testatrix. It was clear that there could be no increase of the
class, and the exception of two persons did not prevent its being a gift to
a class. James, L.J., said that "where there is a gift to a class the rule
of lapse does not apply. In that case the fund is to be divided among
the members of the class living at the time of distribution, unless the
words describing the class are used for mere brevity, instead of
designating the persons by name." That shewed that, if it was plain
that it was merely intended to designate individuals, there was no magic in
the use of words of class description. James, L.J., added, "if this had
been the first occasion on which the point had arisen, there might have
good ground for contending that the legatees in such a gift as the present
were persona designatæ, just as if the testator had mentioned their names."
The case was quite different from the present. In Re Smith's
Trusts (9 Ch. D. 117), the gift was of residue "to be equally divided
between the five daughters of S. and M.," and Malins, V.C., held that
this was a bequest to the five daughters as personæ designate and not as a
class. Malins, V.C., said "if it had been a gift to the daughters simply,
than the three surviving daughters, being only members of a class, would
have taken the whole. Suppose the testatrix had named the five
daughters, could anyone have doubted that they would have been tenants
in common of the fund, and if one had died could it be possible for the
remaining four to take her share? What difference, then, can there be
when she says "the five daughters?" It is precisely the same if she had
named them all, and they take as persona designate." Stansfield v. Stansfield
(15 Ch. D. 84) was another authority to the same effect. The share of
H. had, therefore, lapsed, and would go, as to so much of it as arose from
real estate, to the testator's heir-at-law, and as to so much of it as arose
from personal estate, to his next of kin.-COUNSEL, C. Walker; G. T. J.
Millar; Underhill; B. Fossett Lock. SOLICITORS, Smith, Fawdon, & Low;
Few & Co.; Emmet, Son, & Stubbs; G. R. Hubbard.

Re HERMANN LOOG (LIM.)-North, J., 11th August.
FACTOR-LIEN-COMMISSION-AGENT INTRUSTED WITH GOODS FOR SALE-

DISTRICT MANAGER OF TRADING COMPANY.

The question in this case was whether a district manager of a trading company was entitled, in respect of commission due to him, to a lien

NORTH, J., held that the claimant was not a factor, but only a servant of the company; that his possession of the goods was that of the company; and that he was not entitled to any lien. The receipt of a weekly salary was entirely inconsistent with the relation of principal and factor. In one sense, no doubt, he was intrusted with the possession of the company's goods, but not in the sense in which a factor was intrusted with the possession of his principal's goods. He was intrusted with the possession of the goods in the same way as a company or a large trading body like the Civil Service Association instrusted their servants with the possession of goods for sale. There being no special contract for a lien, he was not entitled to any lien by virtue of his position.-COUNSEL, T. Ribton; Cookson, QC., and Emden. SOLICITORS, T. H. Philpots; Goldberg & Langdon.

28th July and 4th August.

TRUSTEES INVESTMENTS FREEHOLD PUBLIC-HOUSE AND HOUSES
SUFFICIENT SECURITY-LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES.

-IN

W. H. Partington died in the year 1876, having, by his will (among subject thereto, to fall into residue, which was to be divided among his other things), bequeathed £30,000 upon trust for his wife for life, and, defendant G. P. Allen, who had been the testator's partner in the business children. The executors and trustees were the testator's wife and the

of a solicitor. The trustees were authorized to invest the trust funds upon
mortgage of freeholds or leaseholds having sixty years to run; and the
defendant was also authorized to charge for work done by him in connec-
tion with the trusts. The trustees invested £2,500 upon mortgage of a
of lands and houses. The defendants employed a firm of surveyors to
freehold public-house, and £2,400 and £1,500 respectively upon mortgage
value the public-house prior to advancing the money, and, by letter, he
instructed the surveyors to state, "not only the value of the property, but
by way of first mortgage thereon by trustees," and similar instructions were
also the maximum amount which might, in your opinion, be safely lent
sent with regard to the other proposed mortgages. The surveyors ad-
vised that the public-house was worth £4,174, and was a good security for
£3,130, and, with regard to the other properties, that they were respec-
tively worth £3,884 and £2,080, and were ample securities for £2,000 and
£1,500 respectively. The securities turned out to be insufficient. The
the above investments were proper, and, if not, whether the defendant was
testator's widow commenced proceedings to have it determined whether
solely liable for the loss, or whether she was liable jointly with him.
and Whiteley v. Learoyd shewed that a trustee might avail himself of
STIRLING, J., said that Speight v. Gaunt (31 W. R. 401, 9 App. Cas. 1)
the assistance and advice of a valuer or surveyor or solicitor in making
judgment upon it as a prudent man would. With regard to mortgage
his investments, but must not adopt that advice blindly, but exercise his
security there was something further to consider, and the rule was that
trustees should not advance more than two-thirds of the value upon
That was not a hard and fast rule; but if the limit laid down by it
freehold lands, and not more than one-half upon freehold houses.
was exceeded it was for the trustee to justify his conduct. In the
present case that rule had not been observed. The value of the public-
house depended to some extent on the licence and the business, the value
been asked the value of the property apart from its value as a hotel. Nor
of which was of a speculative character, and the surveyors ought to have
was either of the other investments, in his lordship's opinion, proper. The
defendant was, therefore, liable for the loss. The widow was, in his
she had no right to delegate her duty and responsibility as a trustee.
lordship's opinion, as between herself and the beneficiaries, also liable, for
She was, therefore, jointly liable with the defendant, but the decision
was without prejudice to any question between the trustees.

Aug. 9, 11.-This was an adjourned summons in the same matter,
taken out for the purpose of having it determined whether Mrs. Parting-
ton and the defendent Allen were, as between themselves, jointly
the
responsible for loss resulting from the improper mortgage
investments, or whether the whole loss ought to fall on the defendant
Allen.

STIRLING, J., held that the whole loss must fall upon the defendant Allen. He had been the active trustee, and had also acted as the solicitor for the trust, and had made professional profit in that capacity. The improper investments were not the acts of Mrs. Partington to such an extent as to make her liable to make good to the defendant her share of the loss.CoUNSEL in both matters, Robinson, Q.C., and Latham, Q.C.; Everitt,

Q.C., and Howell; Hastings, QC., and Lerett; Pearson, Q.C., and Raw-question was for weighing-machines; the plaintiffs are the owners of lins; Buckley, Q.C., and Starkey. SOLICITORS, Freshfields & Williams; Everitt's machine, and alleged that the defendant, Henry Knight, had a Bolton, Robbins, Busk, & Co.; Woodhouse, Trower, Freeling, & Parkin; Merri- machine at the Arcade, Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, which was an infringeman, Pike, & Merriman. ment of their patent.

BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE. PRACTICE-VOLUNTARY WINDING UP-ACTION IN QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

-TRANSFER-STAY OF PROCEEDINGS-VACATION JUDGE―JURISDICTION-JUDICATURE AсT, 1873 (36 & 37 VICT. c. 66), s. 24, SUB-SECTION 5-RULES OF COURT, 1883, ORD. 49, R. 5.

In the case of Re Shingleton Ice Co (Limited), Bett. Shingleton Ice Co. (Limited), before Kekewich, J., on the 17th of August, the question arose where a company had been wound up voluntarily, and the voluntary liquidation had been continued under the supervision of the court, as to the mode of transferring an action brought by a judgment creditor against the company in the Queen's Bench Division, or of staying the proceedings. The resolution to wind up was confirmed on the 12th of August, 1887, and James H. Green was ap. pointed liquidator. On the same day Thomas Green, trading as the General Ice Co., obtained an order for judgment of the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, against the company, and the solicitors for Bett intimated their intention to proceed. A receiver and manager on behalf of the debenture-holders of the company had been appointed, of which appointment the solicitors of the plaintiff had been informed. The sheriff had entered under the judgment. This was a motion ex parte on behalf of the liquidator to restrain the plaintiff Bett from proceeding on his judgment, and asking that the sheriff might be ordered to withdraw. Under ord. 49, r. 5, when an order has been made by a judge of the Chancery Division for the winding up of any company, the judge has power to order the transfer to such judge of any cause or matter pending in any other court or division brought against such company.

KEKEWICH, J., said that the rule did not refer to a voluntary winding up. He was, however, as Vacation Judge, sitting as a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, and, under section 24, sub-section 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873, he had jurisdiction, sitting as a judge of that division, to stay proceedings in the action in the Queen's Bench Division. He therefore made the order in the action, that Bett be restrained from taking any further proceedings on the judgment debt obtained by him against the company on the 12th of August, 1887, and that all proceedings on such judgment be stayed. The sheriff to withdraw.-COUNSEL, Stroud; A. Beddall; Tennant. SOLICITORS, W. W. Elliott; Benjamin Burton.

INJUNCTION-OBSTRUCTION OF ANCIENT LIGHTS-AGENT.

In the case of Pedder v. Eiloart, before Kekewich, J., on the 17th of August, the question arose as to whether an action was properly brought against a person who was directing building operations so as to obstruct the plaintiffs' ancient lights. The plaintiffs were trustees of St. Luke's parochial schools, and it was contended on their behalf that they could sue either the owner or the builder. The defendant denied having any interest, and said that he was an agent.

KEKEWICH, J., said that the plaintiff had a right to sue the builder, and continued the interim injunction obtained ex parte on the 6th of August.— COUNSEL, C. T. Mitchell; Gaskell. SOLICITORS, Woodbridge & Son; Bury.

TRADE-COVENANT NOT TO CARRY ON WITHIN A MILE-INJUNCTIONINFANT.

In the cases of Munson v. Odiam, Munson v. Jordan, and Munson v. Donald, before Kekewich, J., on the 17th of August, the question arose as to the course the court should pursue where a defendant appeared in person in an action for breach of covenant, and it was apparent to the judge and the registrar that he was an infant. The three actions were brought to restrain the defendants from carrying on the business of dairymen within one mile from specified places. The defendant Odiam entered into the service of the plaintiff, Henry Munson, at 15s. a week, with two months' notice, and signed an agreement whereby he covenanted that he would not, during the continuance of such service, nor after quitting, in any way interfere with the trade or customers served by and from the plaintiff, or endeavour in any way whatever to set up, exercise, or be concerned within one mile of Battersea Park-road, either directly or indirectly, in the trade of a dairyman as servant or master for his own benefit or any other person whatever. The other two agreements were similar. All the defendants were infants when they signed the agreements, but Donald had come of age since. Odiam appeared in person, and was obviously an infant. The plaintiff asked for a perpetual injunction, with no costs.

KEKEWICH, J., said that he was dealing with an infant (Odiam), and could not grant an injunction, the defendant was incapable of consenting. Though the boy had not entered a formal appearance, he and the registrar had seen him and had the evidence of their own eyes that the boy was an infant, the registrar could not draw up the order after becoming aware of the fact. The cases would stand for a fortnight.COUNSEL, A'Beckett Terrell; H. T. Eve. SOLICITORS, Cuddon & Co.; Evans & Batchelor.

PATENT-INFRINGEMENT ACCOUNT-UNDERTAKING.

In the case of Automatic Weighing Machine Co. (Limited) v. Knight, before Kekewich, J., on the 17th of August, the question arose as to whether a defendant who denied any infringement of the patent of the plaintiff should give an undertaking to keep an account. The patent in

KEKEWICH, J., said that there was a serious question to be tried, and matters should be left in statu quo. He would not try the question now, but on the defendant undertaking to keep an account of automatic weighing-machines sold by him he should make no order except costs Burn, & Son; Alexander Colyer. costs in the action.-COUNSEL, Ralph Griffin; Sutherst. SOLICITORS, Adam

PRACTICE-ATTACHMENT-AFFIDAVIT-COPY.

the 17th of August, a question arose as to the reading of copies of In the case of Re Inderwick, Ex parte Hanson, before Kekewich, J., on affidavits on a motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment against a person for disobedience to an order. The office copies were not in court. liberty of the subject was concerned. Fresh notice must be given to the KEKEWICH, J., said that he would not allow copies to be read where the respondent.-COUNSEL, H. T. Eve. SOLICITORS, Blair & Girling.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

Sir MAXWELL MELVILL, K C.I.E., C.S.I., formerly a judge of the High Sir M. Melvill was Court at Bombay, died at Poonah on the 5th inst. educated at Haileybury College. He entered the Bombay Civil Service, and he was for many years engaged in the Revenue and Judicial Departments. In 1866 he was appointed Judicial Commissioner in Scinde, and from 1871 till 1884 he was a puisne judge of the High Court at Bombay. In 1884 he was appointed a member of the Council of the Governor of Bombay, which position he occupied until his death. In 1886 he was created a Companion of the Order of the Star of India, and a few months ago he was created a Knight Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire.

Mr HORATIO MANSFIELD, barrister, died at Liverpool on the 12th inst. from pleurisy, after a short illness. Mr. Mansfield was the fifth son of Mr. John Mansfield, and a younger brother of the first Lord Sandhurst, and of Mr. John Smith Mansfield, magistrate at Marlborough-street Police Court. He was born in 1821, and he was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1853, and he had practised on the Northern Circuit and at the Liverpool and Kirkdale Sessions and the Liverpool Court of Passage. He had for some time acted as deputy-stipendiary magistrate for the city of Liverpool. Mr. Mansfield was married in 1871 to the widow of Lieut.Col. Cumming. He was buried at Totton, Hampshire, on the 17th inst.

Mr. ROBERT SANKEY, solicitor (of the firm of Sankeys & Flint), of Canterbury, died on the 5th inst. in his eighty-eighth year. Mr. Sankey, who was almost the oldest solicitor in Kent, was the son of Mr. John Sankey, and was born in 1799. He was admitted a solicitor in 1823, and he had practised for over sixty years at Canterbury. He was at the time of his death associated with his son, Mr. Herbert Tritton Sankey, Clerk of the Peace for Canterbury, and with Mr. Rest William Flint, Town Clerk of Canterbury. Mr. Sankey was a perpetual commissioner for the county of Kent and the city of Canterbury. He was for several years one of the city aldermen, and he was elected mayor of Canterbury in 1858 and again in 1861. He was buried at Barham on the 12th inst.

Sir RICHARD GREEN PRICE, Bart., late M.P. for Radnorshire, died on the 11th inst., aged eighty-four. Sir R. Price was the son of Mr. George Green, of Knighton. He was born in 1803, and he assumed the additional name of Price by Royal licence. He was admitted a solicitor in 1825, and he was for several years in practice at Knighton. He was for nearly ten years county treasurer for Radnorshire, and he was one of the original members of the Knighton Local Board, of which body he afterwards became chairman. In 1863 he was elected M.P. for the Radnor boroughs in the Liberal interest. He was re-elected at the General Elections in 1865 and 1868, but in 1869 he retired in favour of the Marquis of Hartington, who was at that time without a seat in the House of Commons. He was created a baronet in 1874, and in 1880 he was returned for Radnorshire. He retired in 1885, but in 1886 he unsuccessfully contested the county as a Home Rule Liberal. Sir R. Price was married first in 1837 to the daughter of Mr. Dansey, of Easton Court, Radnorshire, and secondly in 1841 to the daughter of Dr. King, of Mortlake. He was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Radnorshire, and he served the office of high-sheriff in 1876. He was buried at Norton, Radnorshire, on the 14th inst.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. EDWARD ALEXANDER HEELIS, solicitor, of Appleby, has been ap pointed Registrar of the Appleby County Court (Circuit No. 3) in succession to his father, the late Mr. Edward Heelis. Mr. E. A. Heelis was admitted a solicitor in 1879.

Mr. JOHN JAMES WILLIAMSON, Solicitor, of Canterbury and Deal, has been appointed Clerk to the Magistrates for the Borough of Deal in succession to Mr. George Mercer, resigned. Mr. Williamson was admitted a solicitor in 1885.

Mr. CHARLES GEORGE NANTES, solicitor, of Bridport, has been elected an Alderman for that Borough. Mr. Nantes was admitted a solicitor in 1873. He is Registrar of the Bridport County Court and Coroner for the Bridport District of Dorsetshire.

Mr. GAINSFORD BRUCE, Q.C., has been appointed Temporal Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham in succession to the late Mr. James Fleming, QC. Mr. Bruce is the eldest son of Dr. John Collingwood Bruce, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and was born in 1834. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1859, and he became a Queen's Counsel in 1883. Mr. Bruce practises on the North-Eastern Circuit. He has been recorder of Bradford since 1877, and he was Solicitor-General of the County Palatine of Durham from 1877 till 1885, when he was appointed Attorney-General.

He

Mr. WILLIAM GERALD SEYMOUR FITZGERALD, C.S.I., has been created a Knight of the Order of the Indian Empire. Sir W. Fitzgerald is the eldest son of the Right Hon. Sir William Robert Fitzgerald, G.C.S.I., and was born in 1841. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford. was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Trinity Term, 1865, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit. He was private secretary to his father when Governor of Bombay, and he has been political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India since 1874. He was created a companion of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1885.

Mr. CHARLES JOHN PEARSON, barrister and advocate, has received the honour of Knighthood. Sir C. Pearson is the second son of Mr. Charles Pearson, of Edinburgh, and was born in 1843. He was educated at the Edinburgh Academy, and he was formerly scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he graduated first class in Classics in 1865. He obtained the Gaisford Prize for Greek Prose in 1862, and the Gaisford Prize for Greek Verse in 1863. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1870, and he was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland in the following July. Sir C. Pearson is sheriff of chancery, and procurator for the Church of Scotland.

Mr. THOMAS BAYNES, Solicitor-General for the Leeward Islands, has been appointed to act as Attorney-General for that Colony. Mr. Baynes is the third son of Mr. Edwin Donald Baynes. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in July, 1878.

Mr. CHARLES HALMAN BEARD, barrister, has been appointed to act as Solicitor-General for the Leeward Islands. Mr. Beard is the second son of Mr. William Daniel Beard. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in June, 1882.

Mr. TEMPLE LETHBRIDGE Down, solicitor (of the firm of Newton & Down), of Lewisham, has been appointed Clerk and Solicitor to the Lewisham District Board of Works, in succession to the late Mr. Howard Samuel Winnett. Mr. Down was admitted a solicitor in 1881. His partner, Mr. Alfred Newton, is vestry clerk of Lewisham Parish.

PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.

EDWARD ROBERT GRIGSON and RICHARD ROBINSON, Solicitors (Grigson & Robinson), of Watton, Norfolk. All debts due and owing to or by the said partnership will be received and paid by Richard Robinson, by whom alone the business will hereafter be carried on. Jan. 1, 1884.

WINDING UP NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, August 12. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

[Gazette, Aug. 16.]

ROWE & CO. LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Oct 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to James Cooper, Coleman st bldgs, Moorgate st. Friday, Nov 4 at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

UNITED KINGDOM LAND AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION. LIMITED.-By an order made by Chitty, J., dated Aug 8, it was ordered that the association be wound up. Clark & Co, Lincoln's inn fields, solors for petner

UNITED KINGDOM LAND AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.- Chitty, J., as fixed Tuesday, Aug 23 at 12. at the chambers of the Vacation Judge, for the appointment of an official liquidator WEST OF ENGLAND PAPER MILLS CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Aug 10, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge on Wednesday, Aug 24. Bradley, Lombard st, solor for petner

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. ANCIENT NOBLE ORDER OF ODDFELLOWS' BENEFIT SOCIETY, White Hart Inn, Ripponden, York. Aug 4 FORESTERS' FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Lamb Inn, Newchurch-in-Pendle, Lancaster. Aug 8 NORLEY FEMALE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Norley, near Frodsham, Chester. Aug 10 London Gazette.-TUESDAY, August 16. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT CHEMISCHE FABRIK COLOMBIA, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 15, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Edward Goldsworthy James, Lonsdale chmbrs, Chancero lane. Tuesday, Oct 25 at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

A M. WOOD'S SHIPS' "WOODITE" PROTECTION CO, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 11, directed to be heard before Kekewich, J., on Aug 24. Pulbrook, St Helen's place, solors for petners

BRIGHTON MUSIC HALL CO, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Oct 1, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Henry Newson Smith, 37, Walbrook. Wednesday, Nov 2, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

DERBY AND DERBYSHIRE NEWSPAPER CO, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 12, to send their names and addresses and the particulars of

their debts or claims, to Ernest Cooper, 14, George st, Mansion House. Tuesday, Oct 25, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims ELECTRIC PORTABLE BATTERY AND GAS IGNITING CO, LIMITED.-Stirling, J., has by an order, dated June 30, appointed Edwin Collier, 44. Brown st, Manchester, to be official liquidator. Creditors are require 1, on or before Oct 1, to send their names and addresse1, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to the above. Tuesday, Nov 1, at 12, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon EYRE ARMS HOTEL CO, LIMITED. - Petn for winding up, presented Aug 13. the debts and claims directed to be heard before Kekewich, J., on Aug 24. Russell, Coleman st. solor for petner HENDRA ESTATE AND BUILDING MATERIALS CO., LIMITED. Creditors are re

quired, on or before Sept 30, to send their names and addresses and particulars of their debts and claims to Frederic George Painter, 2, Moorgate st bldgs, Friday, Oct. 28 at 1, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims

LONDON OYSTER CULTIVATING CO., LIMITED.-Stirling, J., has by an order. dated July 26, appointed John Peirson, of 2, Gresham bldgs, Basinghall st, to be official liquidator

MOUNT MORGAN (WEST) GOLD MINE, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Aug 12, directed to be heard before Kekewich, J., on Aug 24. Inglis & Son, Chancery lane, solors for petner PLUMBLEY COLLIERY CO. LIMITED.-By an order made by Stirling, J., dated Aug 6. it was ordered that the company be wound up. Page & Scorer, New ien, agents for Page, jun. Lincoln, solor for petner

SUN PORTLAND CEMENT CO, LIMITED-By ad order made by Stirling, J., dated Aug 11, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Johnston & Co, Raymond bldngs, Gray's inn, agents for Winder, Bolton, solors for petner WOOLWICH (OLD BARGE HOUSE) STEAM FERRY. LIMITED.-Stirling, J, has fixed Friday, Sept 2, at 12. at the chambers of the Vacation Judge, for the appointment of an official liquidator

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

ALBION MUTUAL PERMANENT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Chitty, J, has, by
an order dated July 21, appointed Mr. Frederick Augustus Jenkins, Exchange
bldngs, Bristol, to be official liquidator
COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY

DU BEDAD ADAMS & CO LIMITED.-The Vice-Chancellor has, by an order dated
July 27, appointed George Mahon, 26, North John st, Liverpool, to be official
liqui lator
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.
ALEXANDRA LODGE, 483 Society, United Ancient Order of Druids, Old House at
Home, Croft st, Bradford, York. Aug 11
SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS.
KIDLINGTON BENEFIT SOCIETY, King's Arms, Kidlington, Oxford. Aug 11
LONG ROW SAMARITAN FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Queen's Arms Inn, Horsforth, Leeds.
PRINCE RUPERT FRIENDLY BENEFIT SOCIETY, 57, St Anne st, Liverpool. Aug 11
RATLEY NEW SICK AND BENEFIT SOCIETY, Crown Inn, Ratley, nr Banbury,
Warwick. Aug 11

Aug 11

[blocks in formation]

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, August 5.

BANKS, MARIA LOUISA, Stoneycroft, nr Liverpool. Oct 1. Ellison v Banks,
Kay, J. Wynne, Charcery lane

BOLTON, Col Sir FRANCIS JOHN, Knt. Broad Sanctuary, Westminster. Sept 24.
FERREWEST, MARY, Nottingham. Sept 30. Nussey v Featherstonhaugh, Chitty,
Morant & Co. v Bolton, Chitty, J. Treherne, Bedford row
J. Taylor, Batley

ROSENTHALL, GABRIEL, Jewin st. Sept 30. Rosenthall v Hayman, Chitty, J.
Godfrey, Chancery lane

SWALBE, DAVID, Bishopsgate st Within, Cigar Merchant. Sept 7. Klingenstein & Co. v Brighten & another, Stirling, J. Vandamm, Finsbury circus London Gazette.-TUESDAY, August 9.

GOODE, THOMAS, Congleton, Chester. Sept 1. Goode v Goode, Chitty, J. Reade,
Congleton
LANGTON, CHARLES, Bourr emouth, Clerk. Aug 26. Darwin v Massingherd,
Chitty, J. Farrer & Co, Lincoln's inn fields
SLATER, HENRY, Blackburn, Grocer. Aug 22. Housley v Slater, Registrar,
Preston. Entwisle, Blackburn

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

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, August 9.

BARTLET, ALEXANDER HENRY, Ipswich, Doctor of Medicine. Nov 5. Jackaman & Co, Ipswich

BENSON, WILLIAM, Knaresbrough, York, Joiner and Cabinet Maker. Oct 1. Kirby & Son, Knaresbrough

BESWICK, ELIZABETH, Higher Urmston, Lancaster. Sept 9. Killey, Liverpool BIELBY, JOHN, Harrogate. York, Gent. Sept 15. Kirby & Son, Knaresbrough BYERLEY, ALFRED, Portsea, Hants, Gent. Sept 1. Blake, Portsea

BROOKS, JOSEPII, Hyde, Chester, Hat and Cap Dealer. Aug 17. Cooke, Hyde CHAPMAN, HENRY, Chelsea, Gent. Sept 15. James & James, Ely place COLTHURST, GEORGE, Cotham Park, Bristol, Esq. Oct 10. Abbot & Co, Bristol CORDREY, MARY ELIZABETH, Clapham. Sept 20. Hepworth, South st, FinsDAVEY, WILLIAM THOMAS, Leyton, Doctor of Medicine. Aug 27. Timbrell, Church ct

bury

DINSDALE, WILLIAM FREDERICK, Brockley, Kent, Gent. Sept 30. Trinders & Co, Cornhill

ENGLAND, RICHARD, Binham, Norfolk, Esq. Out 3. Watson & Digby, Fakenham

FEILDEN. HENRY ST CLAIR, Shepperton on Thames, Esq. Sept 15. Rawetorne, Suffolk pl

FINCH, JOHN, Barton, Lancaster, Yeoman. Sept 23. Thompson & Craven, Preston FLETCHER, LETITIA, Brighton. Sept 14. Cockburn, Brighton

GOODALL, HARRIET, Knaresborough, York. Oct 1. Kirby & Son, Knaresborough HOLMES, CECIL FREDERICK, Harrow on the Hill, Esq. Sept 9. Cole & Jackson, Essex st. Strand

HOLBOROW, WILLIAM, Upton St Leonard's, Gent. Sept 17. Poole, Gloucester HORSFORD, JAMES, Bedford, Gent. Sept 10. Porter, Bedford

JEAVONS, ELIZABETH SMITH, Wimbledon. Oct 12. Smith, Nicholas lane

[blocks in formation]

st, W.C.

LIVESEY, MARTIN, Liverpool, Stock and Share Broker. Sept 15. Laces & Co., Liverpool

MAYO, JULIA, Maida Vale. Sept 1. Patey & Warren, London Wall

MCKEALE, MARY, Crumpsall, Lancaster. Aug 31. Barrow & Smith, Manchester
MCNAUGHTAN, MARGARET HANNAH, Thornbridge, Warwick. Oct 1. Field &
Sons, Leamington

NICHOLL, DAVID, Northgate, Halifax, Hatter. Sept 1. Jubb & Co, Halifax
PORTER, ESTHER, Nottingham. Sept 13. Thorpe & Thorpe, Nottingham
SAMBELL, MARY JANE, Plymouth. Oct 4. Sole & Gill, Devonport
SANDERS, EDWARD, Devonport. Oct 1. Brickwood-Hutchings, Devonport
SANDERS, JAMES PENGELLY, East Stonehouse, Devon. Oct 1. Brickwood-Hut-
chings, Devonport

STROTHER, WILLIAM, Killinghall, York, Solicitor. Oct 1. Kirby & Son, Knaresbrough

TERRELL, THOMAS, North Perrott, Somersetshire, Yeoman. Sept 3. Alford,
Crewkerne

TOMLYN, WILLIAM GEORGE, Twickenham, Publican. Sept 12. Skewes Cox, Red
Lion sq
WATSON, THOMAS, Guisborough, York-hire. At once. Buchannan & Richard-
son, Guisborough

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, August 12.
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM DOLLIN, Tunbridge Wells, Esq.
Lombard ct

Sept 8. Watney & Co, BALLS, WILLIAM DANIEL CHAMBERLAIN, Tynemouth, Shipowner. Sept 17. Leitch & Co, Newcastle upon-Tyne BENTLEY, JAMES, Pendlebury, Lancaster, Gent. Sept 16. Walker, Manchester BURGOYNE, JOHN CHARLES, Harley st, Gent. Oct 1. Burgoynes & Co, Oxford st DINGLEY, JOSEPH, Knowle, Warwick, Gent. Aug 23. Sale, Solihull, Warwickshire DINGLEY, MARY, Knowle, Warwick, Aug 23. Sale, Solihull, Warwickshire FARMER, FRANCES JANE, St. Peter the Great, Worcester. Oct 10. Woodward, Worcester

FROANE, WILLIAM, Birkdale, Lancaster, Gent. Sept 10. Avison & Co, Liverpool

FROPOS, LOUIS, Thayer st, Manchester sq, Boot and Shoe Maker. Sept 23. Eagleton & Son, Lincoln's inn chmbrs

FROPOS, LOUISE, Chelsea. Sept 23. Eagleton & Son, Lincoln's inn chmbrs

HAIGH, THOMAS, Holmfirth, York, Heald Maker. Sept 9. Heeley & Marshall,

Holmfirth

HARRISON, JOHN HENRY, STEERE, Llanfairfechan, Carnarvon, Esq. Oct 1. Edwards & Co, Denbigh

HOBDEN, JOHN, Clapton, Grocer. Sept 20. Tiddeman, Finsbury sq

HOWKINS, WILLIAM, Frolesworth, Leicester, Yeoman. Sept 29. J. & B. H. C. Fox, Lutterworth

JORDIN, DANIEL, Highley, Salop, Gent. Sept 5. Nichols Marcy, Bewdley LITHERLAND, JOHN BOSTOCK, Liverpool, Glass and China Merchant and Quarry Proprietor. Sept 23. Johnson, Liverpool

LOWE, JOANNA, Ashford Carbonell, Salop. Sept 9. Lloyd & Son, Leominster
MAIN, ROBERT HALL, Birkenhead, Chester, Coachbuilder. Sept 10. Masters &
Rogers, Liverpool

OAKLAND, WILLIAM, Sneinton, Nottingham, Miller. Oct 3. Wing, Nottingham
PARRY, DEBORAH, Worthenbury, Flint. Oct 1. Acton & Co, Wrexham
PARSONS, WILLIAM, Mistley, Essex, Plumber and Glazier. Sept 15. Mustard,
Manningtree

PARTON, HENRY, Ightham, Kent, Gent. Sept 5. Beale & Co, Maidstone PHILLIPS, CHARLES, Newport, Mon, Hotel Keeper. Sept 21. Lyne & Co, Newport, Mon

PORTER, WILLIAM JOHN, Tavoy, British Burmah, Superintendent of Police. Sept 19. Turner & Low, King st, Cheapside

RUSSELL, THOMAS, Hodaell, Warwick, Farmer. Sept 27. Fortescue & Sons, Banbury, Orford

SANDERSON, JAMES, Whitworth, Spotland, Lancaster, Stone Merchant. Sept 1. Roberts, Rochdale

STANTON, ROBERT THOMAS, Dover, Licensed Victualler and Sailmaker. Sept 17. Mowll & Mowll, Dover

STRINGER, JANE, Anerley. Sept 16. May & Co, Adelaide pl, E.C.

[blocks in formation]

WALKER, EDWARD, South Kensington. Oct 1. Radcliffes & Co, Craven st
WALKER, ELEANOR, South Kensington, Oct 1. Radcliffes & Co, Craven st
WALKER, ELIZABETH, Barnet. Oct 3. Richardson, Thirsk

WALKER, JESSELINA, South Kensington. Oct 1. Radcliffes & Co, Craven st
WALKER, MARIA, South Kensington. Oct 1. Radcliffes & Co, Craven st
WOODWARD, Rev THOMAS BENJAMIN, Kemerton, Gloucester. Sept 15. Wood
ward, Worcester
WOOLDRIDGE, GEORGE HENRY, Poplar. Sept 10. Lawrence Heap, Upper
Tooting

WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES. -Before purchasing or renting a house have the Sanitary arrangements thoroughly examined by an expert, from The Sanitary Engineering & Ventilation Co., 115, Victoria-st., Westmirster (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.-[ADVT.] STAMMERERS and STUTTERERS should read a little book by Mr. B. BEASLEY, Baron's Court House, West Kensington, London, price 13 stamps. The Author, after suffering nearly 40 years, cured himself by a method entirely his own.-[ADVT.]

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.
BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.

Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Aug. 16, 1887.

HUGGINS, HORATIO JAMES, Risinghill st, Pentonville, Manufacturer of Bottle
Washing Machines. Aug 10

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, August 12. RECEIVING ORDERS.

ABRAHAM, SOLOMON, Darlington, Draper. Stockton on Tees. Pet July 26. Ord Aug 9

ALLATT, FREDERICK THOMAS, Frizington, Cumberland, Chemist. Whitehaven. Pet Aug 9. Ord Aug 9

ANDREWS, WILLIAM CHARLES, Bournemouth, Corn Merchant. Poole. Pet Aug 8. Ord Aug 8

ARCHER, ALFRED JAMES, Josephine avenue, Brixton, of no occupation. High Court. Pet July 23. Ord Aug 9

ARMSTRONG, THOMAS, Southsea, Furniture Dealer. Portsmouth. Pet Aug 2. Ord Aug 2

BARBER, EDWIN, Albion villas, Tottenham, Builder. Edmonton. Pet July 6.
Ord Aug 9

BATTS, WILLIAM BESANT, Hambledon, Hampshire, Bricklayer. Southampton.
Pet Aug 9. Ord Aug 9
BENNETT, ROBERT, Cheapside, Auctioneer. High Court. Pet June 30. Ord
Aug 9

BEVAN, WILLIAM, St George, Gloucester, Butcher. Bristol. Pet Aug 9. Ord

Aug 9

BIRD, JOHN, Hammerwich, Stafford, Farmer. Walsall. Pet Aug 8. Ord Aug 8
BISHOP, EDWIN THOMAS, Landport, Baker. Portsmouth. Pet Aug 2. Ord
Aug 2
BLOORE, ELIZABETH, Walsall, Grocer. Walsall. Pet July 26. Ord Aug 8
BROMAGE, JOSEPH, and FREDERIC BROMAGE, Birmingham, Manufacturing
Jewellers. Birmingham. Pet July 26. Ord Aug 9
BROWN, EDWIN JAMES, Bath, Printer. Bath. Pet Aug 9. Ord Aug 9

WHINFIELD, SUSAN, Shenfield, Essex. Sept 29. Postans & Landons, New BULMER, HENRY WOOD, York, out of business. York. Pet Aug 10. Ord

Broad st

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, August 16.

BLACKBURN, ALFRED, Forest hill, Solicitor. Sept 20. Sheard, Whitechapel
CHAPPLE, JOHN, St Albans, Architect. Oct 11. Blagg & Edwards, St Albans
CHILVER, LEWIS, Romford, Gent. Sept 12. Stanley & Woodhouse, Abchurch
lane

CLIFT, MARIA, Brighton. Sept 30. Stevens & Son, Brighton
CROOK, EPHRIAM, Margate, Gent. Sept 19. Sankey, Margate

DENHAM, Sir HENRY MANGLES, Maida Vale, an Admiral in the Royal Navy.
Sept 12. Hallett & Spottiswoode, Craven st
FAIRBANK, JOSHUA, Calverley, York, Wollen Manufacturer. Sept 3. Beaumont
& Stephenson, Leeds

GROVER, THOMAS GEORGE, Old Kent rd, Gent. Sept 15. Wyatt & Barraud,
Cannon st

HITCHCOCK, WILLIAM, Moulsham, Essex, Gent. Sept 29. Copland, Chelmsford JORDAN, CHARLES JOSEPH, Kensal green, Monumental Mason. Sept 28. Welman, Westbourne grove

KAY, WILLIAM HENRY, Florence, Italy. Oct 12. Withall & Co, Bedford row LEADBEATER, JOSHUA, Heckmondwike, York, Agent. Sept 2. Oates, Heckmondwike

LEE, JAMES GOODING, Halifax, Painter and Decorator. Sept 12. Rhodes, Halifax
LLOYD, DAVID, Leominster, Gent. Sept 11. Lloyd & Son, Leominster
MITTON, MARY, Cardington. Sept 30. Morgan, Shrewsbury

OGDEN, THOMAS, Halifax, Woollen Draper. Sept 19. Atkinson, Bradford
OWEN, FRANCIS, Sheffield, Silversmith. Sept 12. Binney & Sons, Sheffield
ROBINSON, EDWIN CHARLES, Leicester, Ironmonger. Sept 20. Miles & Place,

Leicester

RUSSELL, THOMAS, Hodnell, Warwick, Farmer. Sept 29. Fortescue & Sons,
Banbury
RUTTER, ELIZA, Surbiton, Sept 14. Ellis & Co, St Swithin's lane

Aug 10

BURNETT, GEORGE THORNE, Stogumber, Somerset, Grocer. Taunton. Pet July 19. Ord Aug 9

CHISHOLM, RALPH, jun, East Allerdean, Northumberland, Farmer. Newcastle. Pet Aug 8. Ord Aug 8

CHITTENDEN, EDWARD JAMES BOURNE, Bermondsey wall, Bermondsey, Potter. High Court. Pet Aug 10. Ord Aug 10

COLLINSON, GEORGE FREDERICK HAMPTON, Chancery lane, Solicitor. High Court. Pet May 17. Ord Aug 9

COOK, ARTHUR, Oxford, Grocer. Oxford. Pet Aug 9. Ord Aug 9

COOTES, JAMES, West Ham, Essex, Contractor. High Court. Pet Aug 10. Ord
Aug 10
DAWSON, SEWELL, Brampton, Huntingdon, Farmer. Peterborough. Pet Aug 8.
Ord Aug 8

DEAR, WILLIAM, Tankerville ct, Southgate, Upholsterer. Edmonton. Pet July
9. Ord Aug 9
DICKINSON, ANNIE A, Pembroke sq, Kensington. High Court. Pet July 20.
Ord Aug 10

EVANS, THOMAS SAMUEL, Matilda st, Thornhill sq, Upholsterer. High Court.
Pet Aug 8. Ord Aug 8

EXLEY, WILLIAM, Wheelgate, Malton, Yorks, Boot Dealer. Scarborough. Pet
Aug 9. Ord Aug 9

FARR, DAVID, Porth, Glamorgan, Bootmaker. Pontypridd. Pet Aug 8. Ord
Aug 8
FAWCETT, SAM, Hightown in Liversedge, Yorks, Currier. Dewsbury. Pet July
29. Ord Aug 8

FAWCETT, WILLIAM, Northampton, Coal Dealer. Northampton. Pet Aug 9.
Ord Aug 9

FORREST, CALER, JOSHUA FORREST, and ELI FORREST, Colley Gate, Cradley, Wor-
cester. Spade Manufacturers. Dudley. Pet Aug 8. Ord Aug 8
HAYMAN, HENRY JAMES, Bristol, Refreshment House Keeper. Bristol. Pet
Aug 10. Ord Aug 10

HESELTON, ALFRED, Bridlington, Yorks, Fellmonger. Scarborough. Pet Aug 8.
Ord Aug 8

HOUGH, THOMAS, Wolverhampton, Bicycle Manufacturer. Wolverhampton Pet Aug 10. Ord Aug 10

« PreviousContinue »