Page images
PDF
EPUB

8. 1.

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the donee, has either bond fide assumed possession immediately upon
the gift, or has thenceforward retained the possession and enjoyment
of the property contained in the deed of the 19th of October, 1885, to the
entire exclusion of the late earl, the donor, or that he has done so without
any benefit by contract or otherwise accruing to the donor, the late earl?
That the present earl, the donee, has contracted with the late earl, the
donor, to pay him £4,000 a year as well as to bear the other liabilities of
the late earl, as appears by the deed of the 19th of October, 1885, for the
benefit of the late earl cannot be disputed; and, whichever limb of the
sub-section be taken, in my judgment this case comes within it, and
therefore falls within the description of property deemed to pass within
section 2 (1) (c) of the Act of 1894, and consequently estate duty is pay-
able. It was argued by the Crown that the case also falls within sub-
1881, and that under this sub-section the property was chargeable with
estate duty as being property which was deemed to pass within section 2
(1) (c) of the Act of 1894. This may well be so, but as in my opinion
section 38 (2) (a) of the Act of 1881 is fatal to the appellant, the present
earl, it is unnecessary in this case to give a judgment as to the meaning
of sub-section (c), and I therefore say nothing about it. In my judgment
the Crown succeeds, and the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.
RIGBY and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L JJ, read judgments to the same
effect. Appeal dismissed.- COUNSEL, Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., and Bremner ;
Sir R. Webster, A.G., Sir R. Finlay, S.G., and Vaughan Hawkins. SOLICI
TORS, Flux & Leadbitter; Solicitor to Inland Revenue.

[Reported by E. G. STILLWELL, Barrister-at-Law.]

REFORMATORY

Re STOCKPORT RAGGED, INDUSTRIAL, AND
SCHOOLS. No. 2. 11th August.
CHARITY-MORTGAGE OF PROPERTY OF-JURISDICTION OF CHARITY COMMIS-
SIONERS" CATHEDRAL, COLLEGIATE, CHAPTER, OR OTHER SCHOOLS-
WORDS EJUSDEM GENERIS-ENDOWMENT-CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACT,
1853 (16 & 17 VICT. c. 137), s. 62.

This was an appeal from a decision of Stirling, J. (reported 46 W. R. 455). The facts were as follow: The trustees of the Stockport Ragged Schools presented a petition under Sir S. Romilly's Act (52 Geo. 3, c. 101) asking the sanction of the court to a proposed mortgage of part of the property vested in the trustees. The sanction of the Charity Commissioners was not obtained, the petitioners maintaining that they were exempt from the jurisdiction of the commissioners by virtue of section 62 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1852. The income of the charity was derived from a Government grant and contributions from school boards, boards of guardians, and other public bodies, subscriptions of residents in the neighbourhood, and earnings of school children in their industrial occupations. In 1888 the trustees procured a piece of land at a rent of £20 per annum, and erected thereon a girls' school. The proposed mortgage was a mortgage of this girls' school. Stirling, J., held that the institution was exempted from the jurisdiction of the commissioners under section 62 as being wholly supported by voluntary contributions, and was not within the proviso, at the end of the section, that the exemption should not extend to any cathedral, collegiate, chapter, or other schools. The commissioners appealed.

be chargeable with a graduated estate duty, shall be deemed to include property which would be required on the death of the deceased to be included in an account under section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, if those sections were herein enacted and extended to real property as well as to personal property, and the words "voluntary" and voluntarily " and a reference to a "volunteer" were omitted therefrom. Section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, provides (inter alia): (1) Stamp duties at the like rates as are by this Act charged on affidavits and inventories shall be charged and paid on accounts delivered of the personal or movable property to be included therein, according to the value thereof; (2) the personal or movable property to be included in an account shall be property of the following descriptions -viz., (a) any property taken as a donatio mortis causd made by any person dying on or after the 1st of June, 1881, or taken under a voluntary dis-section (c) of section 38 (2) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of position, made by any person so dying, purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos, whether by way of transfer, delivery, declaration of trust, or otherwise, which shall not have been bona fide made three months before the death of the deceased. (c) Any property passing under any past or future voluntary settlement made by any person dying on or after such day by deed or any other instrument not taking effect as a will, whereby an interest in such property for life or any other period determinable by reference to death is reserved either expressly or by implication to the settlor, or whereby the settlor may have reserved to himself the right, by the exercise of any power, to restore to himself or to reclaim the absolute interest in such property.' Section 11 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, amends section 38 as follows: "The description of property marked (a) shall be read as if the word 'twelve' were substituted for the word three' therein, and the said description of property shall include property taken under any gift, whenever made, of which property bona fide possession and enjoyment shall not have been assumed by the donee immediately upon the gift and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the donor, or of any bencfit to him by contract or otherwise." The Divisional Court (Grantham and Channell, JJ.) held that a sufficient interest and a sufficient power of revocation were reserved in the property to bring it within the description of property contained in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, s. 38 (2) (c), and that on the death of the third earl in October, 1894, the whole of the property became chargeable with estate duty under the Finance Act, 1894, From this decision the fourth earl now appealed. On the 10th of August THE COURT (A. L. SMITH, RIGBY, and VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, L.JJ.), in a considered judgment, dismissed the appeal. A. L. SMITH, L.J., read the following judgment: In my opinion the Crown succeeds in this case, and the appeal by the present Earl Grey fails. By the Finance Act of 1894, not only property which passes upon death, but also property which shall be deemed within the meaning of the Act to pass upon death is made liable to estate duty; and the question is, whether the property upon which the Crown claims duty in this case is property which is deemed to pass within the meaning of the Act upon the death of the late Earl Grey, which took place on the 9th of October, 1894. [His lordship then set out the facts of the case, and proceeded as follows:] The question is whether the property contained in the indenture of the 19th of October, 1885, was property which is deemed to pass upon the death of the late earl within the meaning of the Finance Act of 1894 so as to be liable to estate duty. That brings me to section 2 (1) (c) of the Act of 1894. By it "property passing on the death of the deceased shall be deemed to include property which would be required on the death of the deceased to be included in an account under section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, as amended by section 11 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, if those sections were herein enacted and extended to real property as well as personal property, and the words 'voluntary' and 'voluntarily' and a reference to a 'volunteer' were omitted therefrom." In Attorney-General v. Beech (46 W. R. 44; 1898, 2 Q. B., at p. 147) I commented upon this class of legislation, and I have nothing further to say thereon. Now, what is it that section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1881, as amended by section 11 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1889, as amended by the Finance Act of 1894, has enacted? Section 38 (2) of the Act of 1881 so amended must for the present purpose be read as follows: Any real, personal, or movable property to be included in an account shall be property of the following descriptions-viz., (a) any property taken under a disposition made by a person dying after the 1st of August, 1894, purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos which shall not have been bond fide made twelve months before the death of the deceased"-this clause does not apply to the present case-" or property taken under any gift whenever made"-this means whether made within or without twelve months before death-" of which property bond fide possession and enjoyment shall not have been assumed by the donee immediately upon the gift and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise." In my judgment the meaning of this section is that, if there be a gift, no matter when made, of property inter vivos, then that property must be included in an account and therefore liable to estate duty, unless the donee has bona fide assumed possession and enjoyment of the property immediately upon the gift and has thenceforward retained the possession and enjoyment thereof to the entire exclusion of the donor, or, if he has taken and retained the possession to the entire exclusion of the donor, then that this possession and enjoyment has been without any benefit by contract or otherwise to the donor. To escape estate duty both these events must concur. This being my opinion as to the true construction of section 38 (2) (a) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1881 as it now stands incorporated into section 2 (1) (c) of the Finance Act of 1894, how upon the facts of this case can it be said that the present earl,.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

THE COURT (LINDLEY, M.R., and CHITTY and COLLINS, L.JJ.) allowed the appeal.

LINDLEY, M.R.-This case turns on section 62 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, upon what was treated in the court below as the main point, and is the most important point in the case-namely, whether the proviso at the end of section 62 taking out of the exemption from the operation of the Act "any cathedral, collegiate, chapter, or other school" applies to all schools or only schools of a like character to those specified. I think the decision of Stirling, J., is absolutely right. Though the court hesitates to press too far the doctrine of construction that a phrase is to be cut down by its context-the maxim noscitur a sociis-there are cases in which that maxim must be applied to carry out the obvious intention of an Act, and if ever there was a case to which the maxim is applicable this is one. If all schools are to be taken out of the exemption, there is no possible use in referring particularly to cathedral, collegiate, and chapter schools; on the other hand, the words of the earlier part of the section shew that it was the intention of the Legislature to exclude all Roman Catholic institutions, including Roman Catholic schools. This institution is a charity within the meaning of the Act; but if it comes within the operative part of section 62, as it is not within the proviso, the decision of Stirling, J., is right. The circumstances of this case, however, differ from Re Clergy Orphan Corporation (43 W. R. 150; 1894, 3 Ch. 145), which Stirling, J., relied on. The Act provides only for two cases-the case where there is an income wholly from voluntary contributions, and the case where there is an income partly from voluntary subscriptions and partly from endowment; but in this case there is also income from a Government grant and payments by boards of guardians and school boards, and on this ground I hold the case to be outside the section altogether. The section is, however, so obscure that I decline to do more than decide each case as it arises. I will not decide, contrary to the spirit of the Act, that the Charity Commissioners have any jurisdiction over the income arising from voluntary subscriptions. I hold that the school building cannot be mortgaged without the consent of the commissioners. CHITTY, L.J., delivered judgment to the same effect.

COLLINS, L.J., concurred.-COUNSEL, Vaughan Hawkins, for the Charity Commissioners; Ingle Joyce, for the Attorney-General; Grosvenor Woods, Q.C., and H. Johnson, for the petitioners. SOLICITORS, J. M. Clabon; Solicitor to the Treasury; Andrew Wood & Purves, for J. W. Johnson Stockport.

[Reported by J. I. STIRLING, Barrister-at-Law.]

JOHN v. JOHN. No. 2. 10th August.
RECEIVER-EJECTMENT ACTION-DISPUTED TITLE-DEFENDANT IN RECEIPT
OF RENTS-JUDICATURE ACT, 1873 (36 & 37 Vicr. c. 66), s. 25, SUB-
SECTION 8.

The plaintiff in the action claimed to be entitled, as tenant in tail male, to some real estate in Cornwall under the will of his great-grandfather, George John, who died in 1847. From 1850 until his death in January last another great-grandson of the testator, George Dennis Trevelyan John, was in possession or in receipt of the rents of the property. The plaintiff's contention was that George Dennis Trevelyan John was tenant for life only of the property. The defendant, the mother of George Dennis Trevelyan John, on the death of her son entered into receipt of the rents of the property, and induced the tenants to attorn to her. Her contention was that her son was absolutely entitled to the property under the will of the testator, and that he (the son) had devised it to her. On motion by the plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver in the ejectment action, North, J., made the order appointing a receiver of the rents. The defendant appealed, and urged that the court should not interfere with the beneficial possession of the defendant, and relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Foxwell v. Van Grutten (1897, 1 Ch. 64, 45 W. R. Dig. 127).

THE COURT (LINdley, M.R., and CHITTY and COLLINS, L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal.

LINDLEY, M.R.-I do not think we shall be introducing any revolution in practice if we affirm the decision of North, J. We must first of all look at the Act of Parliament. Section 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, sub-section 8, says that a receiver may be appointed by an interlocutory order of the court in all cases in which it shall appear to the court to be just or convenient that such order should be made. That applies to ejectment actions, and the court has to consider in each particular case whether it is just or convenient to appoint a receiver. It must also look at any other circumstances which may be material, such as the risk of the tenants, and the title of the defendant if he chooses to disclose it. Knowing the title of the plaintiff, it would be wrong in this case to refuse to appoint a receiver. Those are the short grounds for die missing this appeal.

The tenants

[ocr errors]

took out this summons for a declaration that a title in accordance with the
contract had been shewn by the vendor, and that the purchaser on paying
the purchase-money into court to a proper account under the provisions
of the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, would obtain a good discharge for
the same.
ROMER, J., said that it appeared that the purchaser had notice before
the date fixed for completion that there were no trustees for the purposes
of the Settled Land Acts, and this being so he did not think the vendor
could call on the purchaser to pay the purchase-money into court under
the provisions of section 22 of the Settled Land Act, 1882. That section
presupposed the existence of trustees, as was pointed out by Kay, J., in
Hatten v. Russell (36 W. R. 317, 38 Ch. D. 345), and in Mogridge v. Clapp
(1882, 3 Ch. 382). If the purchaser had paid the money into court under
that section in the belief that there were trustees for the purposes of the
Settled Land Acts, he would no doubt have got a good title; but the case
was different when he had notice before completion that there were no
such trustees, and at best he would only get a doubtful title, and not one
that the vendor could compel him to take. There was an Irish case of
Hughes v. Fannagan (30 Ir. R. C. L. 111) to shew that a title taken under
similar circumstances was considered doubtful, and having regard to this
and other authorities, the application by the vendor would be dismissed
with costs.-COUNSEL, W. B. Coltman; H. D. Grazebrook. SOLICITORS,
Currie, Williams, & Co.; Peard & Sons.
[Reported by RALEGH B. PHILLPOTTS, Barrister at-Law.]

High Court-Queen's Bench Division.

Re THE MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD AND THE ASSESS-
MENT COMMITTEE OF BIRKENHEAD. Div. Court. 12th August.
PRACTICE-FILING OF SPECIAL CASE-EXTENSION OF TIME-CROWN OFFICE
RULES, R. 34.

had obtained an order for a special case raising an appeal from an
This was an application by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, who
assessment made on them in respect of their lairages used for the importa-
tion of foreign cattle. The order for the special case was made on the
24th of March, but owing to a difficulty in getting the case settled, the
assessment committee having given notice that they desired it to be
settled on their behalf by the recorder-Clement Higgins, Esq, Q.C., who
stated he could not attend to the matter until October or November-the
time for filing the case under the rules would be passed. By rule 34 of
the Crown Office Rules "no special case stated by a court of general or
quarter sessions for obtaining the judgment or determination of the High
Court upon any order or other determination by a court of general or
quarter sessions shall be filed at the Crown Office Department after the
expiration of six calendar months from the making of such order or
determination, except by leave of the court on special circumstances
being shewn either before or after the expiration of six calendar months."
HAWKINS, J.-The time for filing this case expires on the 24th of
the time for filing the case might be extended until the 20th of December.
September. What extension is asked for ?] The application was that
The question raised was one of considerable monetary importance, and
the delay arose from the fact that counsel engaged in the case were unable
to get it settled before the Long Vacation.

CHITTY, L.J.-I am of the same opinion. The appointment of a receiver is a discretionary matter, and the court must exercise its discretion judicially and not arbitrarily. It is just and convenient that in the circumstances of this case a receiver should be appointed, and that is what the Legislature casts upon the court to say in each case. have not asked for protection, but they are exposed to a double claim at this moment. I do not decide this case on that ground alone. North, J., looked at the will and arrived at the conclusion that the defendant could not make out a title at all. The defendant is not in possession of any mansion-house, and will not be turned out of any house; she is a person of small means, living in furnished lodgings. The rents are in jeopardy, and the tenants are exposed to risk. On these grounds I think a receiver ought to be appointed. COLLINS, L.J.-I am of the same opinion. The defendant's possession is safeguarded by the Judicature Act. The court has to exercise a discretion, and that must be on the facts. Though our conclusion is not final, it is convenient to act on our view of the facts. If the defendant were a person of substantial means, that would be one reason for considering the position of the tenants as not so serious, but if she is impecunious, then the position of the tenants is a very important factor. Therefore having the duty cast THE COURT (HAWKINS and LAWRANCE, JJ.) granted the application.— upon us of exercising our discretion, we are bound to uphold North, J., COUNSEL, Horridge. SOLICITORS, Rowcliffes, Rawle, & Co., for 4. T. Squarey, in interfering for the protection of the tenants. Birkenhead. Appeal dismissed.COUNSEL, Haldane, Q.C., Macnaghten, Q.C., and T. Ĥ. Carson; Swinfen Eady, Q.C., and Stock. SOLICITOR, Collyer-Bristow, Russell, Hill & Co., for J. W. Tyacke, Helston; Coode, Kingdon, & Cotton, for Borlase, Milton, & Borlase, Penzance. [Reported by W. SHALLCROSS GODDARD, Barrister-at-Law.]

High Court-Chancery Division.

Romer, J.

Re FISHER AND GRAZEBROOK'S CONTRACT. 4th and 10th August. VENDOR AND PURCHASER-TENANT FOR LIFE-NO TRUSTEES FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLED LAND ACTS-NOTICE-PAYMENT OF PURCHASE-MONEY INTO COURT-SETTLED LAND ACT, 1882 (45 & 46 VICT. c. 38), s. 22. This was a summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, for the determination of a question arising under section 22 of the Settled Land Act, 1882. In March, 1898, Fisher entered into a contract with Grazebrook for the sale of a freehold house known as Caenwood Grange, Beulah-hill, Norwood. The said house formed part of the residuary estate of William Hayes, and Fisher was entitled thereto in fee subject to an executory gift over in the event of his death without issue. He had contracted to sell the house as a person having the powers of a tenant for life, but on examining the title the purchaser's advisers took the objection that there were no trustees within the meaning of, and for the purposes of, the Settled Land Acts, and that the purchaser was bound to see that at the time of completion at least there must be such trustees duly appointed. The vendor's advisers contended that whether there were such trustees or not, and even if the purchaser knew there were no such trustees, yet if the purchase-money was paid into court in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Settled Land Act, 1882, the purchaser would get a good title, and insisted on his carrying out the purchase without trustees being appointed. The purchaser objecting, the vendor

[Reported by ERSKINE REID, Barrister-at-Law.]

JONES & SONS v. SCULLARD. Lord Russell, L.C.J. 9th August. MASTER AND SERVANT-NEGLIGENCE-LIABILITY OF MASTER TO THIRD

PERSONS-HIRED COACHMAN.

This action was tried before Lord Russell of Killowen, C.J., and a special jury. The claim was for damages for injuries to the plaintiffs' shop and business stock caused by the negligence of the defendant or his coachman. The defendant was a public-house proprietor. On the Diamond Jubilee Day, the 22nd of June, 1897, he was driven in his brougham to view the procession. On his return and as he came to Holloway-road the horse bolted and ran into the plaintiffs' shop at 368, Holloway-road. The coachman was a man named Loveday. He was supplied to the defendant by a man named Walker. Walker was the tenant of the stables of one of the defendant's public-houses. Loveday had been employed regularly since the 10th of May, 1897, to drive the defendant, that gentleman paying £1 a week to Walker for his services. The defendant supplied Loveday with a livery to wear while driving him. The horse, the brougham, and the harness belonged to the defendant. At the trial evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiffs of negligence on the part of Loveday, which was contradicted by the defendant's witnesses. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiffs. A further legal defence was set up that Loveday was not the defendant's servant and that the defendant was consequently not liable. for his lordship's decision. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended This question was reserved that the test of liability was the ownership or legal possession of the horse and that where a man was in the possession of property, he had to take care that it was so managed as not to cause injury to other persons. Laugher v. Pointer (5 B. & Č. 547), Brady v. Giles (I M. & R. 494), Randleson v. Murray (8 A. & E. 109), and Quarman v. Burnett were cited. It was further argued that if a servant was lent by one person to another for a particular employment, he was, for the time being, the servant of the person to whom he was lent. On this point Rourke v. White Mose Colliery Co. (2 C. P. D. 205) and Donovan v. Laing (1893, 1 Q.B. 629) was cited

On behalf of the defendant it was argued that, inasmuch as the defendant did not select the coachman, he was not responsible for his negligence. Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., in delivering judgment said that the facts of the case were these: The plaintiffs were jewellers. On Jubilee Day a brougham, in the shafts of which was a horse, ran into their shop, causing damage to the window and its contents. The plaintiffs at once cast about to see whether they had any remedy. They themselves were entirely blameless. They discovered that in the brougham was the defendant and a lady friend; that the brougham belonged to the defendant; that the horse belonged to the defendant; that the harness belonged to the defendant; and that the boots, breeches, waistcoat, and hat worn by the driver had been supplied to him by the defendant; but that the person who was enveloped in all this had been supplied to the defendant by a man with whom he had placed his horse and carriage at livery. The plaintiffs thereupon brought an action against the defendant. To this action the defendant replied: "I am not the person responsible, because the man did not represent me, nor was he my servant, but he was the servant of another." The plaintiffs alleged generally that the occurrence was caused by the negligence of those responsible for the brougham, horse, harness, &c., and they gave as particulars of the alleged negligence that the reins were fastened to the cheek of the bit, and not to the bar, the horse being a hard-mouthed horse and a puller, as the defendant and his servant ought to have known by inspection of the horse's mouth, which showed unmistakable signs of hardness caused by pulling; that the curb chain was not sufficiently tightened; that there was no brake on the carriage; and that the horse had recently been brought out of the country, was unused to London streets, and ought not to have been driven in London on such a day as Jubilee Day. The only question left to the jury was whether there was negligence, and they found that there was. The other questions were left to be decided by his lordship, who was to have liberty to draw such inferences of fact as a jury could do so far as was necessary. The defendant's horse and carriage were liveried with a man named Walker, who was his tenant. The defendant was a publican, and Walker's stables adjoined one of his public-houses. The arrangement between the defendant and Walker began on the 3rd of January, 1897. The accident took place on Jubilee Day. On the 10th of May Loveday began to drive for the defendant and continued to do so up to and including the day of the accident. Loveday was not selected by the defendant, but the proper inference was that the defendant told Walker that he required a man to drive and that Walker sent Loveday. Though it must be taken that there was no original choice by the defendant of Loveday, it was not unimportant to observe that there was evidence that the defendant shewed satisfaction in, and approved of, Loveday. Though he had no power to dismiss Loveday from Walker's employment he could have said to Walker, "You must not send me this man any more," and to Loveday, "I dismiss you from the occupation of driving my carriage." He did not, however, do so. About the 4th of May he ordered Loveday to be supplied at his own charge with a suit of clothes. One other date was material. The horse which was driven in the brougham was brought to London from Yorkshire on the 16th of June. Between that day and the 22nd of June it was driven two or three times by Loveday. Those were all the material facts. In support of his particulars the plaintiff called a witness named Bowden, who described the pace at which the horse was going, suggesting that the driver had lost control, and then proceeded to describe the occurrence. Mr. Marcus Stevens, a veterinary surgeon, was called. He also described the pace of the horse and how the driver had lost control. He said, further, that the curb was loose and was not fastened on one side; that the reins were fastened to the cheek of the bit; and that, on examination, he found that the horse had a rank, hard mouth, with tumours growing. He also stated that the brougham had no brake, but then in London it was not always found necessary to have a brake upon a brougham. That was the plaintiffs' case, and it was met by the defendant by denials of all this evidence. The main contest was as to negligent driving by the driver, but it was impossible to say how far the other evidence might, or might not, have affected the minds of the jury. The question now was, Were the circumstances such that it must be inferred that Loveday was the defendant's servant? It was impossible to say that there was not evidence of that to go to the jury. It was clear from the authorities that a man might be, in spite of the Scriptural proposition, in the position of serving two masters. While serving Walker generally, Loveday might still have been in the particular employment of the defendant. But for the leading authorities on the subject, his lordship would not have felt the perplexity he had felt about this case. But not one of the cases cited was on all fours with it. In no one case did there occur the same conjunction of facts—namely, that the ownership of the horse, carriage, harness, and livery was in the defendant; nor did it come into the consideration of any one of these cases that the horse was one to which the driver had not been previously accustomed, nor that part of the negligence alleged was the manner in which the horse was bitted, looking to the hardness of its mouth. His lordship then referred at considerable length to Laugher v. Pointer, Brady v. Giles, and Quarman v. Burnett. The latter case, he said, presented great difficulty. Two old ladies hired a carriage and horses from a jobmaster. Whenever they went out in the carriage the same man drove them. This man was dependent for payment upon the tips which the old ladies bestowed on him, which were 5s. for each drive. The old ladies wishing him to present a respectable appear

[ocr errors]

responsible, but the court held not. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, which was afterwards set aside on the ground that there was not even evidence to go to the jury. That was a strong authority in favour of the defendant. Yet the defendant's case differed from that in a marked degree. Here the horse was the defendant's horse, and it had only recently been acquired by him. Why was the fact that the horse belonged to the defendant material? Because so long as the hirer merely said to the livery stable keeper "Supply me with an equipage complete for an hour, a day, or a week" he had no kind of control over the driver except in one particular-he could indicate to what point he wished to go. He could not order the man to go fast or slow, for the driver might say, "I am not your servant. I know my master's wishes with regard to the horse, and I will go accordingly." But the case was different where the horse belonged to the hirer. He could say, "I am late; drive fast up hill or down." If the man refused to obey he could say to the livery stable keeper, "I will not have that man any more." Again, in the present case the horse had just been brought from Yorkshire. There were the peculiarities of the horse to be known and attended to and the best manner of harnessing it to be learnt and adopted. All these were elements shewing what was the position of the driver with regard to the management of that horse and carriage and shewing that he was in that particular servant of the defendant. His lordship then referred to Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., in which it was held that contractors who agreed to do the sinking of a shaft for a colliery company were responsible for the negligence of the engineer of the engine at the mouth of the shaft belonging to the colliery company, such engineer and engine having been placed under the control of the contractors for the purpose of the work only, and to Donovan v. Laing, the facts in which were similar. His lordship found it difficult to reconcile these two cases with the other cases referred to. Continuing, he said it was time that a comprehensive and intelligible principle was laid down. If the livery stable keeper supplied a vehicle for a fixed time, the hirer ought in no sense to be responsible, but where the carriage, horse, harness, and livery were the property of the hirer, especially where the horse had peculiarities and the driver had only driven it for a short time, and where the driver had been approved of by the hirer-in all this aggregation of circumstances if the question had been put to the jury, whose servant was this man? would they not have said, not the servant of the livery stable keeper, but of the hirer? In his lordship's judgment the defendant was liable either singly or jointly with the driver. -COUNSEL, Hammond Chambers, Q.C., and Woodin;_ Witt, Q.C., J. Watson Moyses, and E. E. Humphrys. SOLICITORS, John H. Mote & Son; P. J. Gordon & Son. [Reported by C. G. WILBRAHAM, Barrister-at-Law.]

NEW ORDERS, &c.

THE PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1891.

Notice is hereby given that, after the expiration of 40 days from the date hereof, it is proposed to submit to her Majesty in Council, in pursuance of the above-mentioned Act, the draft of an Order in Council making Rules of Court touching the practice in prize proceedings to be observed in her Majesty's High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division. And notice is hereby further given that, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, copies of the proposed draft Order in Council can be obtained by any public body, within 40 days of the date of this notice, at the Privy Council Office, Whitehall.-(London Gazette of 16th August.)

[blocks in formation]

Thursday, the 11th day of August, 1898.

I, Hardinge Stanley, Earl of Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby order that the actions mentioned in the Schedule hereto shall be transferred to the Honourable Mr. Justice Wright. SCHEDULE.

Mr. Justice Romer (1897-C.-No. 1,638).

Mr. Justice Romer (1898-C.--No. 762).

ance supplied him with a coat and hat, and, as they wished to guard John Whitaker Cooper and Others v The General Railway Syndicate Limited against his using these garments elsewhere, they directed him to come into the house and change before and after each drive. On one of these occasions, while the man was in the house changing his coat and hat, the horses ran away and did damage, for which the ladies were sued. One would have thought that, considering the particular occupation in which the man was engaged at the time, the old ladies would have been

In re The Cox Thermo Electric Company Limited Francis Joseph Webster v The Cox Thermo Electric Company Limited

HALSBURY, C.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

Mr. WILLIAM SWIFT, solicitor, of Liverpool, died on the 12th inst. He was admitted in 1870, and for many years had a large practice in Liverpool and the district. He was one of the clerks to the county magistrates of the Kirkdale Petty Sessional Division, and this position Mr. Swift occupied up to the time of his death. He was an authority on licensing and rating matters, and was a very prudent adviser to the justices, who placed a very high value upon his opinions. He, with Superintendent Baxendale, was mainly responsible for the preliminary proceedings in connection with the arrest and prosecution of Mrs. Maybrick. Mr. Swift was also clerk to the Huyton Local Board from the time of its formation, and to the urban district council which superseded that board. He was, says a local journal, of a most kindly disposition, and was held in great esteem in Liverpool and Huyton, where he long resided.

The death is announced, at the age of seventy-five, of Mr. CHARLES LOCOCK WEBB, Q C. He was the eldest son of the late Mr. S. Webb, of Chard, Somerset, and was called to the bar in 1850. He was appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1875, and was elected a bencher of the Middle Temple in 1879.

Mr. JOHN SHAW, solicitor, Mayor of Tamworth, died on the 11th inst., in his seventy-seventh year. Mr. Shaw was admitted in 1844, and held the office of Registrar of the County Court.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. FREDERIC HANNAM-CLARK, solicitor, of Gloucester, has been appointed by the Bishop of Gloucester to be Diocesan Registrar and Bishop's Secretary, in succession to the late Mr. B. Bonnor. The new registrar, who is a son of the late Rev. John Perkins Clark, M.A., minor canon and precentor of Gloucester Cathedral, was admitted a solicitor in 1875. Mr. INDERWICK, Q.C., has been elected a Member of the Council of the Selden Society in succession to the late Judge Meadows White, Q.C. Mr. F. A. JONES, solicitor, of Southport, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner. Mr. Jones is the deputy-coroner for Lancashire, and is a member of the firm of Brighouse, Brighouse, & Jones, solicitors, of Ormskirk and Southport.

Mr. THOMAS AMBROSE NELHAM, solicitor (honours), of 75, Princessstreet, Manchester, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner under the Fines and Recoveries Act for the counties of Lancaster and Chester.

INFORMATION WANTED.

HENRY EUSTACE.-Any person in possession of or knowing the whereabouts of the will of the late Henry Eustace, of Greenanstown, County Tipperary, who died at San Fruttuoso, near Genoa, on the 12th day of August last, is requested to communicate with Messrs. Sutton, Ommanney, & Rendall, solicitors, 3 and 4, Great Winchester-street, London, E C.

GEORGE DERING, deceased.-Any person possessing a will or other testamentary document of George Dering, formerly of Barham-court, Canterbury, in the county of Kent, who died (it is believed at Paris) on or about the 19th of May, 1820, is requested to lodge the same at the Principal Registry of the Probate Division of High Court of Justice, or to communicate thereon with J. N. Mason & Co., solicitors, of 32, Greshamstreet, London, E.C. Any person bringing in any such will or testamentary document, or giving such information as shall lead to the same being brought in, will be rewarded.

CHANGES IN PARTNERSHIPS, &c.

DISSOLUTION.

Sir GEORGE HENRY LEWIS, GEORGE JAMES GRAHAM LEWIS, HARRY REGINALD LEWIS, and REGINALD WARD EDWARD LANE POOLE, solicitors (Lewis & Lewis), Ely-place, Holborn, London, so far as regards the said Harry Reginald Lewis, who retires from the firm. Aug. 1. [Gazette, Aug. 12.

GENERAL.

The condition of Judge Parry, who we shot recently in the Manchester County Court, has improved.

Mr. Leach and Mr. Beal are the two Chancery Registrars on the rota for attendance during the Long Vacation, but it is stated that Mr. Church will act for the former gentleman during the first half of the vacation.

Viscount Esher, says the St. James's Gazette, attained his eighty-third year on Saturday, the 13th inst., having been born at Lenham, Kent, in 1815. Both he and Viscountess Esher are in the best of health, and have left town on a holiday trip.

A correspondent of the Times says that the Attorney-General has submitted to the Lord Chancellor the name of Mr. J. A. Rentoul, Q.C., M.P., for the position of Judge of the City of London Court, which Mr. Commissioner Kerr is expected shortly to resign.

At a meeting of Birmingham magistrates on Wednesday, says the Times, a warm discussion took place with reference to the payment of a deputystipendiary. A year or two ago the magistrates passed a resolution recommending the city council to pay £40 for a deputy-stipendiary to sit in the absence of the stipendiary on holiday. The council refused to do

this, and now the stipendiary has gone for his holiday without appointing anyone. The result is great delay to business, and master and servant cases cannot be dealt with at all until Mr. Colmore's return. The meeting passed a resolution reaffirming the decision previously arrived at, placing the responsibility for the present magisterial deadlock on the city council, and calling upon them to pay for a substitute for the stipendiary during his holiday.

Shortly after the commencement of the first sitting of the Vacation Court on Wednesday in Queen's Bench Court III., says the Times, Mr. Justice Phillimore said it seemed to him that, very reluctantly, he should bave to sit in the Lord Chief Justice's Court next week. He said very reluctantly because he disliked that court very much, both on account of its size and because it contained alcoves and recesses in which it was difficult to keep order, but he was not prepared for the inconvenience he was afraid he was inflicting upon the bar. He did not know whether there would be so many learned counsel attending the next sitting of the court. Mr. Mulligan, Q.C., said he had been requested to ask his lordship, on behalf of the Junior Bar, to remove to the Lord Chief Justice's Court. Mr. Alexander, Q.C., said that in the Lord Chief He hoped his Justice's Court a great strain was imposed upon the voice. lordship would try another sitting in Queen's Bench Court III. Mr. Justice Phillimore said he would order both courts to be prepared, and in the event of there being as great a crush next week as at the present sitting he would sit in the Lord Chief Justice's Court.

The London Gazette of Tuesday last announces that the Queen has been pleased to issue a warrant declaring "with respect to all of the surviving children of the undernamed persons, all of whom either were formerly or are now Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, namely-Colin Blackburn, Lord Blackburn, deceased; Edward Strathearn Gordon, Lord Gordon of Drumearn, deceased; John David Fitzgerald, Lord Fitzgerald, deceased; William Watson, Lord Watson; Edward Macnaghten, Lord Macnaghten; Michael Morris, Lord Morris; James Hannen, Lord Hannen, deceased; Charles Synge Christopher Bowen, Lord Bowen, deceased; Charles Russell, Lord Russell of Killowen (now Lord Chief Justice of England); and Horace Davey, Lord Davey; as also with respect to the children of any Lord of Appeal in Ordinary hereafter to be appointed and created a Lord of Parliament for life; that such children shall have and enjoy on all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of hereditary barons of these our realms, together with the rank and precedence next to and immediately after the younger children of all hereditary barons now created or hereafter to be created, and immediately before all baronets."

WINDING UP NOTICES.

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

BRITISH COLUMBIA VENTURE SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before
Sept 24, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims,
to Ernest Edward Collins, Winchester House, Old Broad st. Milner & Bickford, Gt
Tower st, solors for liquidator

BETTISFIELD COLLIERY CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Jackson, Bank chmbrs, Cook st, Liverpool. Oliver Jones & Co, Liverpool, solors for liquidator

CONCESSIONS DEVELOPMENT CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 30, to send in their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr James Drayson Austin Norris, Suffolk House, Laurence Pountney hill. Voules & Co, Eastcheap bldgs, solors to liquidator

DERBYSHIRE CHEMICAL CO, LIMITED - Creditors are required, on or before Sept 20, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Frederic Lennard, 70, Gracechurch st

FRANK GILES, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 12, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to John Macdonald Henderson, 2, Moorgate st bldgs

IMPROVED CYCLE SADDLE SYNDICATE, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 26, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr Edgar William Pidgeon, 90 and 51, Queen st Simmons, solor to liquidator

NORTH OF IRELAND MINERAL CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 17, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Philip Gibbons Swanwick, 64, Cross st, Manchester. Doyle, Manchester, solor for liquidator ORMROD, HARDCASTLE & CO, LIMITED-Creditors are requested, on or before Aug 31, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to William Forrest, Flash st, Bolton. Bailey, Bolton, solor

PHENIX PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO, LIMITED-By an order made by Wright, J, dated Aug 3, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Pettitt & Valentine, St Martin's lane, solors for petners

REGINA GOLD MINING CO, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to George Richard Statham, 358, Mansion House chmbrs

THORNCLIFFE LAUNDRY CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Greaves & Greaves, 5, Charles st, Bradford, solors to liquidators

TH THORP, LIMITED - Creditors are required, on or before Saturday, Sept 10, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Henry Gaskell Blackburn, 2, East parade, Leeds Day, Leeds, solor for liquidator TUPHOLME, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 19, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mortimer Lancaster, 10, Ironmonger lane

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

BALTIC MUTUAL INVESTMENT AND MONEY SOCIETY, Highgate Tavern, Moseley rd, Bir-
mingham Aug 3
BEEHIVE IMPROVER BIRMINGHAM BENEFIT SOCIETY, Earl Russell, Pancras rd Aug 3
SPRING ROSE LODGE FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Heywood, Lancaster Aug 3

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Aug. 16.
JOINT В Т ОСК COMPANIES.
LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL SYNDICATE, LIMITED-Petn for winding up, presented Aug 9, directed to be heard on Oct 26 Edward Betteley, 25, Surrey st, Victoria embankment

Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6 o'clock in the afternoon of Oct 25

BROWNHILL GREAT SOUTHERN, LIMITED-Petition for winding up, presented Aug. 8, directed to be heard Oct. 26. Courtenay & Co., Gracechurch st, petnr's solors. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than six o'clock in the afternoon of Oct. 25 GUARICO GOLD MINING CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept. 24, to send their names and addresses, with particulars of their debts or claims, to Tansley Witt, 40, Chancery lane. Dixon & Co, Lancaster pl, Strand, solors for the liquidator JAMES & WAINWRIGHT BELLHOUSE, LIMITED (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 9, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Walter Bellhouse, Mynshull Mills, Charles st, Manchester. Boote & Co, Manchester, solors to the liquidator LEATHER SHOD WHEEL CO, LIMITED-Peta for winding up, presented Aug 10, directed to be heard before Phillimore, J, on Aug 21. Osborn & Osborn, Copthall avenue, solors for petner. Notice of appearing must reach the above-named not later than 6'o'clock in the afternoon of Aug 23

ST. JAMES'S RESIDENTIAL CHAMBERS CO, LIMITED-Creditors are required on or before Sept 30, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr Thomas Francis Woodhouse, 2, Ryder st, St James's. Wilde & Co, College hill, solors to liquidator

STRUCTURAL AND SANITARY INSURANCE SCCIETY, LIMITED-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 15, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr. A. S. Everett, 14, Homefield rd, Wimbledon. Donaldson, Bedford row, solor to liquidator

UNLIMITED IN CHANCERY.

WHITGIFT STEAMSHIP CO-Creditors are required, on or before Sept 13, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Mr. W. E. Bunclark, 8 and 9, Great St Helens

FRIENDLY SOCIETY DISSOLVED. GRAND UNITED ORDER OF ODDFELLOWS (BURY FIRST DISTRICT) JUVENILE FICK AND FUNERAL SOCIETY, 48, Edward st, Bury, Lancaster. Aug 3

THE PROPERTY MART.

RESULT OF PERIODICAL SALE No 625.

Messrs. H. E. FOSTER & CRANFIELD, at the Mart, E.C., on Thursday, August 18: Lot 1.-Absolute Reversion to One-thirtieth of about £22,560.

SOLD, £500. Lot 2.-Absolute Reversion to Cne-fourth of valuable Freeholds producing £159 2s. 2d. per annum, and to One-half of about £2,984. POSTPONED.

Lot 3.-Absolute Reversion to One-sixth of Freehold and Leasehold Property producing £257 10s. per annum. SOLD, £330. SOLD, £325. NOT SOLD. WITHDRAWN.

Lot 4.-A similar Reversion.

Lot 5.-An Annuity of £50 and Endowment Life Policy for £600. Lot 6.-Life Policy for £1,000 in the United Kent; life 42.

WARNING TO INTENDING HOUSE PURCHASERS AND LESSEES.-Before purchasing or renting a house, have the Sanitary Arrangements thoroughly Examined, Tested, and Reported Upon by an Expert from Messrs. Carter Bros., 65, Victoria-street, Westminster. Fee quoted on receipt of full particulars. (Established 21 years.)--[ADVT.]

CREDITORS' NOTICES. UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.

LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
London Gazette-FRIDAY, Aug 12.

ALLFREY, SIDNEY REGINALD, Kirkley, Suffolk Sept 8 Kersey, Ipswich
AMONS, MARGARET, Warrington Sept 30 Browne, Warrington

APPLEBY, Mrs GERTRUDE MARY, Streatham Sept 10 Layton & Webber, St Helen's pl
BARON, ROBERT, Poulton le Fylde, Lancs, Yeoman Aug 29 Clarke & Symes, Duncan st,
Islington

COOPER, MARY ANNE AUGUSTA, Worcester Sept 3 Coren & Son, Gloucester

COUPLAND, JESSIE ELIZABETH, Bayswater, Dressmaker Sept 9 Venn & Woodcock New inn, Strand

CRUTCHLEY, General CHARLES, Sunninghill park, Berks Sept 15 Dawson & Co, New sq, Lincoln's inn

CURZON, NATHANIEL CHARLES, Leicester Sept 5 Taylor & Co, Derby

DIXON, CATHERINE, Morpeth Sept Webb, Morpeth

DOVE, ALEXANDER JAMES, East Grinstead Sept 15 Bramall & Co, Leadenhall st
DOWNES, EDWARD, Keswick, Cumberland, Hatter Sept 20 Fearon, Victoria st
DYER, HENRY STEPHENS, Plymouth Oct 12 Wilson, Plymouth

FRANCE, WILLIAM CLIFFORD, Liverpool, African Trader Sept 16 Hannah Hunter, 28,
Esmond st, Liverpool

GEACH, THOMAZINE, Tywardreath, Co rnwall Aug 31 Littleton-Geach, St Agnes, Scorrier
GOULD, JOSIAH, St Peter's rd, Mile End Sept 15 Harris, Leadenhall st
GRATTAN, ALBERT O'DONNELL, York Sept 30 Ware & Sons, York

[blocks in formation]

inn fields

NORRIS, Rev HENRY ROBERT, M.A., Bishop Auckland Sept 12 Andrew Orrell, Man-
chester
PACKER, CHARLES ROSE, Hollington, or Hastings Oct 1 Stevens & Co, Norwich
PARAMORE, ELIZABETH PEART, Llandudno Aug 29 Pugh & Bone, Llandudno
PEARPOINT, ALFRED HENRY, Haverstock hill Oct 15 Lock, Craven st, Strand
PEDDER, RICHARD HENRY, Hitchin, Herts Sept 1 Passingham, Hitchin
PERKS, ROSA, Newton Solney, Derby Sept 21 Small & Talbot, Burton on Trent
POOLE, HENRY ROBERT, Beaumaris, Anglesey Sept 1 Roberts & Kershaw, Luton, Beds
RIDDELL, JOHN, Hebburn, Durham, Cashier Sept 21 Swinburne, Gateshead
ROBERTS, HENRY, Uxbridge Sept 24 Gardiner & Son, Uxbridge
ROBERTS, JAMES, Perranzabuloe, Cornwall, Miner Aug 31 Littleton-Geach, St Agnes,
Scorrier
RUDMAN, JAMES, Clifton, Bristol, Oil Merchant Sept 30 Sibly, Bristol
SMITH, JAMES ANDREWS, Hammersmith rd, Auctioneer Sept 29
Hammersmith

Marshal & Co,

TROWER, ERNEST, Mount st Sept 9 Leman & Co, Lincoln's inn fields
WARBURTON, JANE, Otley, York Aug 27 Oddie, Pateley Bridge
WHEATLEY, ROBERT, Bracebridge Asylum, Lincs Sept 20 Storer Manchester
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Aug. 16.

Sheffield

ASHTON, WILLIAM, Dukinfield, Chester Sept 30 Buckley & Co, Stalybridge
BOULTBEE, SUSANNAH, Gnosall, Stafford Sept 20 Morgan & Co, Stafford
BRAILSFORD, JOHN ARMITAGE, Sheffield, Printer Sept 24 Parker & Brailsford,
BROOKS, GEORGE WILLIAM, Oxford, Bursar's Clerk Sept 20 Galpin, Oxford
BUCKLEY, JAMES, Rumworth, nr Bolton Sept 10 Fielding & Fernihough, Bolton
BUDDLE, Caroline, North Finchley Sept 14 Stevens & Drayton, Queen Victoria st
CHADWICK, MARTHA, Stalybridge Sept 12 Gordon, Dukinfield

DAVIES, Sir WILLIAM GEORGE, KCSI Sept 20 Sutton & Co, Gt Winchester st
ELLIDGE, GEORGE, Oxton, Chester, Builder Sept 16 Lamb & Kyffin-Taylor, Birkenhead
GEE, WILLIAM, Gorton, Manchester, Musician Sept 20 Heywood & Co, Manchester
GELLIBRAND, EDMUND, Camden Town, Tobacco Merchant Sept 17 Goring Thomas & Co,
Finsbury-pavement
HAND, FREDERICK JAMES, Hammersmith, Solicitor Nov 30 Dowse, New inn, Strand
HARRIS, JOSEPH, Worcester, Moulder Sept 28 Corbett, Worcester
HUDSON, MARIA, Paris Sept 30 Beattie, London wall

JENKINS, THOMAS, Bryncelyn, nr Ruthin, Denbigh Sept 9 Parry & Co, Denbigh

LENA, ESTHER MORGAN, Woollahra, nr Sydney, New South Wales Sept 12 Blyth & Co, Gresham House

LYMATH, WILLIAM, Oxford, Blacksmith Oct1 Mace, Chipping Norton

MAGGS, Mr CLEMENT, Sunderland Oct 7 Pearce, Bath

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Pet Aug 9 Ord Aug 9

GEE, JOHN WOOD, Walsall, Glass Dealer Walsall Pet Aug 8 Ord Aug 8

BROADHURST, JOHN, Warrington, Wholesale Confectioner | FRYE, JOSEPH HENRY JAYE, Dalston, Surgeon High Court
Warrington Pet Aug 10 Ord Aug 10
CALVERT, ALBERT FREDERICK, Lothbury, Mining
Engineer High Court Pet June 4 Ord Aug 9
COBBETT, F M, Ashley gardens, Victoria st High Court
Pet June 2 Ord Aug 9

COHEN, EDWARD, Birmingham, Boot Dealer Birmingham
Pet July 20 Ord Aug 9

COOK, DIANA, Bridgwater, Grocer Bridgwater Pet Aug
10 Ord Aug 10

DOURICK, JOHN HAYS, St Austell, Cornwall, Builder
Truro Pet Aug 10 Ord Aug 10
DYSON, ALFRED, Evesham, Worcs, Boot Maker Worcester
Pet Aug 8 Ord Aug 8

ELING, FREDERICK HARRY, Bradford, Confectioner Brad-
ford Pet Aug 10 Ord Aug 10

EVANS, GEORGE, Newport, Corn Merchant Newport, Mon
Pet Aug 9 Ord Aug 9

FISHER, GEORGE, Keynsham, Somerset, Butcher Bristol
Pet Aug 8 Ord Aug 8

FORSTER, MAX SAMUEL, Leeds, Tailor Leeds Pet Aug 10
Ord Aug 10

GRAY, JOHN WILLIAM, Bristol, Tailor Bristol Pet Aug S Ord Aug 8

GREENBURY, CHARLES, Whitby, Painter Stockton on Tees Pet Aug 9 Ord Aug 9

HALMSHAW, GEORGE ALFRED, Doncaster, Bookseller
Sheffield Pet Aug 10 Ord Aug 10

HARDY, WILLIAM JOSEPH YORKE, Cheltenham, Bokseller
Cheltenham Pet Aug 8 Ord Aug 8
HARRISON, JOHN, Leeds Leeds Pet July 16 Ord Aug 10
HESELTINE, THOMAS, Earlsheaton, nr Dewsbury, Teamer
Dewsbury Pet Aug 10 Ord Aug 10

HIND, THOMAS, Milford, Surrey, Cattle Dealer Guildford
Pet July 9 Ord Aug 9

HOLMES, THOMAS, Folkestone, Boarding house Keeper
Canterbury Pet July 27 Ord Aug 6`

HOPKINSON, JAMES, Glodwick, Oldham, Shoemaker Old-
JEFFS, JAMES, Low Eskrigg, nr Wigton, Farmer Carlisle
ham Pet Aug 8 Ord Aug 8
Pet Aug 10 Ord Aug 10

« PreviousContinue »