Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

every manufactory of margarine must be registered by the owner or Occupier with the local authorities authorized to appoint analysts under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Prosecutions for offences against the Act are encouraged and supported by the directions (1) that samples for analysis may be taken under that Act without any form of purchase being gone through; (2) that any dealer is to be liable to conviction “unless he shews, to the satisfaction of the court before whom he is charged, that he purchased" the margarine as butter, and with a written warranty or invoice to that effect, that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was other than butter, and that he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it" (these words are copied from section 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875); and (3) that any part of the penalty recovered may be paid to the prosecutor by order of the court. The penalties are for the first offence not more than £20; for the second not more than £50; and for the third or any subsequent offence not more than £100. The Act does not come into operation until January, 1888, prior to which date the Local Government Board may be expected to prepare general regulations as to registration of manufactories, though there is no express authority to that effect in the Act.

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-A clause, of which I send a copy below, of the nature of that suggested by you at p. 732, has to some extent been introduced into trust instruments during the last few years. In using such a clause it seems to me that an alteration should be made in the investment clause; instead of specifying the securities in which trustees may invest, give them an absolute discretion to select any securities they think fit, exclusive of any which the creator of the trust may name. Can, however, such a wide indemnity clause as that now given and the one suggested by you be made effective as regards the trustees, and at the same time a power to consent to investments be given to the life

tenant?

The following is the clause referred to :—

B.

"And it is hereby lastly agreed and declared (and the trustees or trustee acting under this settlement for the time being are to be taken as accepting office upon this express condition independently of, and in addition to, any other protection or indemnity provided by law) that no trustee under this settlement shall be in any way obliged to enforce or see after the performance of, or be in any way responsible for the non-performance of, the aforesaid covenant on the part of the said A. and B., or either of them, for payment of the aforesaid sum of and interest, nor shall any trustee under this settlement, or his representatives, be in any way liable or accountable for anything in connection with this settlement, or the trusts, powers, or provisions thereof, or the trust funds or property subject thereto, or otherwise relating thereto respectively, short of his or her individual actual

£

fraud.'

[See observations under the head of "Current Topics." We may hereafter refer to the suggestions of our correspondent not noticed this week.-Ed. S.J.]

THE TRANSFER OF LAND BILL, 1887.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-In a previous letter I commented upon the registration scheme. The Bill then proceeds with "Amendments of law of real property." Real estate is to vest in the personal representatives and is to be dealt with, subject to certain exceptions, as personalty. This important alteration has no reference to the rights of creditors, since real estate is now liable to payment of debts of all kinds. In the order of administration of assets for the payment of debts, real estate has the advantage over personalty. But surely the present is not the time to withdraw this benefit. Agricultural land during the last few years has fallen at least 40 per cent. in value; it is still falling, and unfortunately is rapidly becoming actually unsaleable. A farm worth £5,000 to-day may, three years hence, not be worth £1,000. On the other hand the public funds, railway shares, and other kinds of personal estate have maintained their value. If the proposed assimilation should take place, a devisee of a farm valued at death at £5,000, and a legatee of £5,000 Consols would be liable to contribute equally for payment of the debts of a deceased owner. But in a short time it might prove that the devisee had been compelled to pay very much more, in proportion to respective values, than the legatee.

Extensive powers are proposed to be given to personal representatives. Under clause 41 land might, with the assent of the legatee, be appropriated in satisfaction of a legacy. If this appropriation took place, and the land decreased in value, the legatee would not obtain the benefit intended for him by the testator. On the other hand, if, by the lifting of the cloud of existing depression, the land rose in value, those interested in the residuary estate would suffer. And under clause 42, sub-clause 4, the personal representatives for the purpose of administration might value the real estate "in such manner as they think fit and the valuation shall be conclusive save as otherwise directed by the court." This valuation, however, is to be in accordance with "the prescribed provisions"; but in the absence of the rules, which are so necessary for giving form and substance to the Bill, it cannot be known what restriction would be placed on the arbitrary discretion which the representatives would possess. Then take the case of an intestacy, with young children entitled to real estate. The administrator might consider that his wisest course was to sell at once. He sold, and land having recovered something like its former value (which let us hope is a possibility), the children, when they came of age, would find that their property had been sacrificed. But, large as these proposed powers seem to be, personal representatives would soon find that they would have to act with the utmost caution, and ever keep in view the dread severity of the Chancery judges. The present position of trustees is uncomfortable enough, and they know to their cost that "powers" prove too often to be mere pitfalls; but were the Bill to pass into law their perplexities, anxieties, and responsibilities would be largely increased. The assimilation of land with personalty is in no way called for, and it would be unlikely to serve any useful purpose. It seems to be devised to assist the symmetry of the registration scheme, by enabling personal representatives to appear as Owners on the register.

This

The Bill provides that in case of intestacy of the husband the wife shall take a life interest in the whole of his real estate. would be a very mischievous alteration, since it would place children completely at the mercy of the mother. A man might leave little but real estate, his widow might marry again, and his children might be reduced to actual beggary.

The Bill would do away with primogeniture. Such a change is a matter for the consideration of the politician rather than the lawyer. It may, however, be observed that the importance of the principle of primogeniture is greatly exaggerated. Cases of intestacy, where there is real estate, are infrequent; and a quite unnecessary noise is made about the hardship of one son succeeding to an estate, to the exclusion of other sons and daughters. Where any such hardship occurs, the fault lies with the owner who negligently omitted to make a suitable testamentary disposition of his property.

It is further proposed to abolish estates tail. The advantage to be gained by this abolition is far from obvious; and the alteration savours of an arbitrary interference with the wishes of owners of estates. No practical general result would be obtained, for the alteration would not prevent an estate, or the proceeds of its sale, being tied up during a life in being, and for twenty one years afterwards. Experience shows that entails, as a rule, do not extend beyond such a period. Existing entails, where there is a protector of the settlement, are not to be affected by the Bill; but no estate tail is to be created in future. Such a prohibition would involve a result which is not without importance. It is possible that some of the noble lords who voted for the Bill this session may, without their knowing it, owe a good deal to the existing law of entail; for it may have saved their estates from the money lenders. These accommodating people do not lend on a base fee, and the interposition of a protector has saved many an estate from their clutches. This class would rejoice should the alteration be effected, as it would add largely to their gains. It will be said that it is no part of the duty of a Government to protect improvident remaindermen. That may be, but still it is a question whether, if the existence of an aristocracy be beneficial, it is wise unnecessarily to remove one of the props which maintains it. No evil effect from the entail system can be shewn. The Settled Land Act got rid of the only objection that could be alleged-namely, that it tied up land unduly. If the system cannot be proved to work harm, it ought not to be interfered with. Even should entails be abolished, the love of change would not be satiated. Law "reform" is always a safe and popular cry. The next move would be to do away with every kind of settlement; for already there are those who urge that life estates should be prohibited, and only absolute ownerships permitted. So we might expect that before long a settlement of land on marriage would be impossible. That might be followed by a prohibition of settlements of personalty, for this would not be more unreasonable than the abolition of land settlements.

Referring once more to the registration scheme, and in concluding my remarks, let me say that it would be well if our legislators gave due attention to the following weighty passage in the report of the strongly constituted committee which was appointed by the House of

Commons in 1878, to inquire into the causes of the failure of the Act of 1875:-"Upon the whole, therefore, the position of the question appears to your committee to be as follows:-On the one hand, they are informed on the authority of Mr. Follett and Mr. Holt (the registrar and assistant-registrar under Lord Westbury's and Lord Cairns' Acts) that no system of registration of titles can be devised which will be voluntarily adopted; and, on the other hand, they are told by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns) that he has not yet seen any way in which the registration of titles could be made compulsory; Without expressing any final opinion on the latter question, and without discussing the practicability of the schemes which have been propounded for the compulsory or quasi-compulsory registration of titles, your committee think it sufficient to observe that it would be very difficult to force on every purchaser or mortgagee in this country a mode of dealing with his property which not one purchaser or mortgagee in 20,000 at present adopts of his own accord. Your committee feel that in arriving at the above conclusion they are only acting upon the axiom which is laid down by the Royal Commissioners of 1868 in their report, and which they believe to be perfectly sound, that for an institution to flourish in a free country it must offer to people they thing that they want." J. B. 9th September.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

[To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-The plaintiff's claim is for five guineas. The defendant gives to the plaintiff a cheque for half the above amount, with the words "In settlement of account to date" indorsed. This cheque the plaintiff indorsed and paid into his bank. The cheque is returned dishonoured.

Can the plaintiff, in the face of his having indorsed the cheque for half the sum given "in settlement," successfully sue the defendant for the full amount claimed ?

Is there any case bearing on the point?

SUBSCRIBER.

the company on the 24th he should think it right to reconsider the petition. On behalf of the petitioner, a holder of 800 shares of £5 each, counsel consented that the petition, after the statement of counsel for the company, must be reconsidered. On the merits, however, it was contended had not yet commenced business; the assets were being wasted. The mills that the company had been incorporated more than twelve months, and were situated near Bristol, but no persons of consideration in Bristol were concerned in the company, and it was unlikely to be successful. It was just and equitable that the company should be wound up. On behalf of the company it was said that shareholders holding 1,800 shares of £5 each out of 3,300 issued opposed the petition. Though the company had not commenced business, capital was forthcoming to complete the works; and but for the petition the company was likely to succeed. The case was not within section 79 of the Companies Act, 1862: see the Middlesborough Assembly Rooms Co. (14 Ch. D. 104), Buckley on Companies (4th ed.), p. 189. The company was not a bubble company, and it would not be for the benefit of the shareholders that it should be wound up.

KEKEWICH, J., said that he thought it a proper case to reconsider, but upon hearing the evidence on behalf of the company he still thought it was a proper case for a winding-up order, which he made that day. It was the practice to take no notice of adjournments; the petition would, therefore, not be taken as part heard, but the order would be drawn up as if made that day. There would be the usual order as to costs.-COUNSEL, Edward Ford; Marten, Q.C., and Pochin. SOLICITORS, Rogers & Chave; A. M. Bradley.

TRADE-MARK-InfringemenT-TIME OF DISCOVERY OF- -DEFAULT OF ArPEARANCE-INJUNCTION.

In the case of Jay v. Ladler, before Kekewich, J., on the 9th inst., the question arose whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restrainin the affidavits in support of the motion at what time the plaintiff dising the defendant from infringing his trade mark, where it was not stated covered the infringement. This was a motion on behalf of Mr. Jay, the registered owner of No. 31,350 Trade-Mark, in Class 38, for sealskin mantles, being a picture of a lady and a bear, for an injunction against the defendant for publishing a similar trade-mark of a lady and a bear. The plaintiff alleged that the trade-mark was infringed in a newspaper called the Queen of the 1st of October, 1885, when the defendant agreed

[How can a dishonoured cheque be an accord and satisfaction? to withdraw his block of the lady and the bear, and not to publish it any See Simon v. Lloyd (2 Cr. M. & R. 187).--ED. S. J.]

CASES BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGE. PRACTICE-ORDER TO EXECUTE CONVEYANCE-REFUSAL-ABSENCE OF CHIEF CLERK JUDICATURE ACT, 1884 (47 & 48 VICT. c. 61), s. 14.

In the case of Hoare v. Gray, before Kekewich, J., on the 9th inst., the question arose as to who, in the absence of the chief clerk on his holiday, should be nominated to execute a conveyance in pursuance of section 14 of the Judicature Act, 1884. That section provides that where any person neglects or refuses to comply with a judgment or order directing him to execute any conveyance, the court may order that such conveyance shall be executed by such person as the court may nominate for that purpose; and in such case the conveyance so executed shall operate and be for all purposes available as if it had been executed by the person originally directed to execute it On the 17th of August last Kekewich, J., made a foreclosure order in the action, and ordered the defendant, within seven days, to execute a conveyance to the plaintiff. The seven days had expired, the conveyance had been prepared and engrossed, but the defendant refused to execute it. It was said, on behalf of the plaintiff, that it was the practice of the court to nominate the chief clerk, but he was out of town. It was suggested that the registrar should be nominated to execute the conveyance.

KEKEWICH, J., said that he had consulted the registrar in court, and he had consented to execute the conveyance; he, therefore, nominated him for that purpose.—COUNSEL, George Henderson. SOLICITORS, Hunters & Co.

[ocr errors]

COMPANY-PETITION-WINDING-UP ORDER-RE HEARING-JURISDICTIONCOMPANIES ACT, 1862 (25 & 26 VICT. c. 89), s. 79.

In the case of the West of England Paper Mills Co. (Lim.), before Kekewich, J., on the 9th inst., the question arose as to whether a petition, on which an order had been made on the 31st of August last to wind up the company, should be re-heard, or proceedings stayed, pending an appeal. The application for a re-hearing of the petition, or stay of proceedings, was made on the ground that the company was not represented when the petition was mentioned on the 24th of August, and that the judge, on the 31st of August, under the belief that the company were represented on the 24th, refused to allow the company to adduce evidence in answer to the petition. On behalf of the company it was said that the order was not drawn up, and, as it was made under a mistake as to the facts, it was competent for the court to reconsider the matter: Re St. Nazaire Co. (12 Ch.D. 88) was cited.

KEKEWICH, J., said that from what counsel stated to him he thought he had been peremptory in hearing the petition on the 31st of August, under the belief that the company was represented on the 24th of August. He must have the matter cleared up; if someone unauthorized appeared for

more; the plaintiff only discovered that the defendant was still publishing his picture on the 28th of August, 1887. The plaintiff asked for an injunction, and, as the defendant could not be found, that service on his wife should be deemed good service. The time of the plaintiff's discovery of the infringement was not stated in the affidavits.

KEKEWICH, J., said that if the defendant had been there he should have taken the objection that it was not stated in the affidavits in support of the motion at what time the plaintiff discovered the infringement, but as the defendant did not appear he should assume everything against him. He granted an injunction until trial or further order.-COUNSEL, Fischer,

Q.C., and Edward Ford. SOLICITORS, Taylor, Hoare, Taylor, & Box. LIGHT AND AIR-VACATION BUSINESS-SHORT TENANCY-WAnt of Interest. In the case of Plake v. Hall, before Kekewich, J., on the 9th inst., the question arose whether a cane blind manufacturer paying £20 a year rent, whose tenancy expired at Christmas next, was entitled to an injunction restraining persons from erecting a booth or tent so as to darken his ancient lights. This was a motion on behalf of Plake, a cane blind manufacturer, carrying on his business at 54, Whitfield-street, Tottenham-court-road, to restrain the defendants, Hall & Beach, from erecting or permitting to remain a booth or tent on a disused burial-ground at the back of 54, Whitfield-street, so as to darken the plaintiff's ancient lights. For the defendants it was said that it was not à case for the Vacation Court, that the plaintiff's tenancy expired at Christmas, and he only paid an annual rent of £20. There had also been delay in bringing the action. The case was too trivial for the court to interfere. In mercy to the blindmaker, who probably was not so well off as the defendants, the court should refuse the motion.

KEKEWICH, J., said that, in mercy to the blind maker, he should_mak e an order to enable him to carry on his business as he had carried it on before. It was an impudent attempt to interfere with a man because he was poor, and lived in a small house, and paid a small rent. The plaintiff was as much entitled to protection as a rich man who lived in a large house, and paid a large rent. He made an order restraining the defendants from permitting to remain a booth or tent or other erection so as to darken the plaintiff's ancient lights after Monday, September 12.- COUNSEL, Eustace Smith; C. H. Turner. SOLICITORS, S. B. Abrahams; W. W. King. ADMIRALTY-VACATION-RECEIVER AND MANAGER-MAJORITY OF OWNERSMORTGAGEES.

In the case of Re Ship Edderside, Bell and Others v. Edderside Shipowning Co. (Lim.), before Kekewich, J., on the 9th inst., the question arose four shares in a ship from interfering with a receiver and manager whether an order, restraining a mortgagee of thirty-four out of sixtyappointed on the 12th of August by Butt, J., should be discharged or varied or not. It was said on behalf of W. D. Lloyd, the applicant, that according to the practice in the Admiralty Division a majority in value had a right of management. It was said on behalf of the plaintiffs, the owners of twenty-four shares, that mortgagees had no prior rights. The applicant, on the 10th of August, had written to the person appointed

receiver and manager, saying that he had heard of his appointment, and giving him notice that he was a mortgagee and intended to take possession.

KEKEWICH, J., said that the appointment appeared to have worked well for four weeks of the Vacation, and he did not see why it should not work equally well for six weeks more; he therefore adjourned the motion to the first sittings of the Admiralty Division.-COUNSEL, Marten, Q.C., and F. Sims Williams; Hemming, Q.C., and Edward Ford. SOLICITORS, R. Greening; Pritchard & Sons.

PRACTICE-COMMITTAL-ATTACHMENT.

In the case of Cone v. Rimell, before Kekewich, J., on the 14th inst., the question arose as to whether the judge should make an order for committal or give leave to issue a writ of attachment. This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff to commit the defendant Charles James Rimell for breach of an interim injunction restraining him from removing sand from, or shooting rubbish upon, the plaintiff's land; in the alternative the motion asked for leave to issue a writ of attachment. The motion stood over from Friday, September 9, to enable the defendant to file an affidavit. On behalf of the plaintiff it was said that the defendant continued to disobey the order, and an order should be made to commit him-committal was less expensive than attachment. The defendant in person asked for further time; he had not made an affidavit, he had no money. KEKEWICH, J., said that he had no doubt that the defendant was defying the order of the court, and that could not be allowed. He should not commit the defendant, though that might be less expensive. He considered it a better practice to give leave to issue a writ of attachment.COUNSEL, Boome; Defendant in Person. SOLICITORS, G. & W. Webb.

[blocks in formation]

In the case of Timson v. Wilson, before Kekewich, J., on the 14th inst., the question arose as to the granting of an interlocutory injunction in the case of fouling a stream with sewage. This was a motion on behalf of Captain Henry Timeon to restrain the defendant Mr. Courtenay F. Wilson, a neighbour, from permitting sewage or noxious matter in a dead well or cesspool to overflow into a watercourse running from the defendant's land through the plaintiff's land, and into a pond on the plaintiff's land, and from otherwise causing a nuisance. On behalf of the plaintiff it was said that he had recently cleaned out his pond and found it full of matter from the defendant's cesspool. £20 would remedy the mischief. On behalf of the defendant it was said that the overflow from the cesspool had gone on for years; it was not a case for an interlocutory injunction.

KEKEWICH, J., said that, on the balance of convenience and on the plaintiff giving an undertaking in damages, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction until the trial or further order. The motion went too far. There would be an order restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, and workmen, from causing or permitting the sewage and noxious matter in the dead well or cesspool at, or adjacent to, the defendant's residence to overflow or flow or escape into the watercourse or ditch running from the land of the defendant through the land of the plaintiff, and into a pond on the plaintiff's land to the injury of the plaintiff.-Counsel, Marten, QC, and W. H. Horsley; Latham, Q.C., and B. J. Leverson. SOLICITORS. Barlow & James, for Coxwell & Pope, Southampton; Upton, Atkey, & Upton.

ACTION-PARTIES-PLAINTIFF OUT OF JURISDICTION-CO-PLAINTIFF-CONTRACT-MOTION TO STRIKE OUT NAME OF PLAINTIFF.

In the case of Field & Co. v. The American Exhibition (Lim.), before Kekewich, J., on the 14th inst., the question arose as to whether, in an action on a contract brought by persons residing out of the jurisdiction, the name of a co-p o-plaintiff, residing in the jurisdiction, but not a party to the contract, should be struck out. This was an action brought by C. W. Field & Co. and C. R. Beswetherick to restrain the defendants from interfering with the exclusive privilege granted by the defendants to the plaintiffs Field & Co. to sell certain machines at the Exhibition. The case came on on motion on behalf of the defendants to strike out the name of the plaintiff C. R. Beswetherick, and asking that the plaintiffs Field & Co. might be ordered to give security for costs. There was a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs for an injunction, but the motion of the defendants was heard first. For the defendants it was said that the plaintiffs Field & Co. were resident out of the jurisdiction of the court, and, therefore, another gentleman, Mr. Beswetherick, their agent in this country, was joined with them as co-plaintiff to carry on the action. But the contract (if any) was made between the American Exhibition (Lim.), and Field & Co.; there was no contract with Beswetherick. His name should be struck out; he was not a partner; he had no right to sue any more than one of the attendants at a stall. . R. Beswetherick, in person, said that he was entitled to fifty per cent. on the sales made under the contract between Field & Co. and the Exhibition.

KEKEWICH, J., said that he might be doing a great injustice in striking out Beswetherick's name. The application could be made at any stage of the action. When the pleadings were delivered the defendants could see better the state of affairs, and could renew their application. It would be a harsh proceeding to make an order now. The plaintiffs Field & Co., however, must give security for costs-£100-and proceedings would be stayed, including the motion for injunction, until September 21.-COUNSEL, Butcher; Marten, Q.C., and Lawrence F. Jenkins. SOLICITORS, Ullithorne & Currey; Brasseur & Oakley.

COSTS STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL.

In the case of Bray v. Gardner, before Kekewich, J., on the 14th inst., the question arose, where a defendant moved to stay an injunction pending an appeal, as to the order as to costs. It was said on behalf of the plaintiff that, as it was a matter of indulgence to stay an injunction, the defendant should pay the costs.

KEKEWICH, J., made an order staying the proceedings, the defendant to Terrell. pay the costs.-COUNSEL, Carpmael; A'Beckett SOLICITORS, Wilson, Bristow, & Carpmael; H. R. Gill.

LEGAL NEWS.

OBITUARY.

the 20th ult. from congestion of the lungs. Mr. Witchell was the son of Mr. EDWIN WITCHELL, F.G.S., solicitor, of Stroud, died suddenly on Mr. Edwin Witchell, of Nymhsfield, and was born in 1823. He was admitted a solicitor in 1847, and he had for nearly forty years conducted an extensive practice at Stroud. He was at the time of his death associated in partnership with his sons, Mr. Edward Northam Witchell and Mr. Percy Witchell. He was a perpetual commissioner for Gloucestershire and clerk to the local boards at Stroud and Bisley. He was also solicitor to the Stroud Association for the Prosecution of Felons. Mr. Witchell devoted all his leisure to geological and other scientific studies. He was a fellow of the Geological Society, and treasurer of the Cotswold Field Club, and he had published several works on the geology of the district. He was buried on the 24th ult.

Mr. THOMAS FISHER, solicitor (of the firm of Unett, Page, & Fisher), of Birmingham, committed suicide on the 26th ult. He was found in his office in a dying condition, with a revolver beside him. At an inquest held on the following day it was shewn that he had for some time been in a state of depression, caused by ill-health, and a verdict of temporary insanity was returned. Mr. Fisher served his articles with Messrs. Ryland & Martineau, of Birmingham. He was admitted a solicitor in 1874, and time of his death in partnership with Mr. George Page. Mr. Fisher was he shortly afterwards joined the firm of Unett & Page. He was at the married to the daughter of Mr. Alfred Hickman, of Birmingham. He leaves two children.

Mr.

Mr. EDWARD HENRY JOHN CRAUFURD, barrister, many years M.P. for Ayr, died suddenly on the 30th ult., in his seventy-first year. Craufurd was the eldest son of Mr. John Craufurd, of Auchenames, Ayrshire, and was born in 1816. He was formerly scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated as a senior optime in 1841. He was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1845, Sessions and the Central Criminal Court. and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit, and at the Middlesex He was for many years prosecuting counsel to the Mint for Middlesex and the City of London. He was M.P. for the Ayr Boroughs from 1852 till 1874, and he was a steady supporter of the Liberal party. Mr. Craufurd was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Ayrshire and Buteshire.

Mr. JOHN HAWKESFORD, solicitor, of Wolverhampton, died on the 3rd inst., in his eighty-first year. Mr. Hawkesford was born in 1807. He was admitted a solicitor in 1840, and he practised at Wolverhampton for about forty-five years. He was formerly in partnership with Mr. William Manley, and more recently with Mr. Herbert Charles Owen. He was for many years connected with the Wolverhampton Town Council. He be1863. Mr. Hawkesford leaves a widow and three sons. came an alderman in 1861, and he was elected mayor of the borough in He was buried on

the 7th inst.

Sir CHARLES LAWRENCE YOUNG, Bart., died at Hatfield Priory, Essex, on the 11th inst. His death was sudden, although he had long been out of health. Sir C. Young was the third son of Sir William Lawrence Young. He was born in 1839, and he succeeded to the baronetcy on his brother's death in 1854. He was educated at Winchester and at New College, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1865, and he formerly practised on the Home Circuit, and at the Essex, Hertford, and St. Albans Sessions. Sir C. Young was a member of the Copyright Commission. He was well known as an accomplished amateur actor, and he was the auther of the well-known drama, "Jim the Penman," and of other plays. He was married first in 1863 to the second daughter of Mr. Henry Heyman Toulmin, of Childwickbury, Hertfordshire, who died in 1870, and secondly in 1871 to the third daughter of the Rev. William Serocold Wade, vicar of Redbourne, Hertfordshire. He is succeeded in the baronetcy by his eldest son, Mr. William Lawrence Young, who was born in 1864. Sir C. Young was buried on the 15th inst.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. JAMES WINTER BOTTOM HAMILTON, barrister, has been appointed Recorder of the Borough of Oldham. Mr. Hamilton was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Trinity Term, 1875. He is a member of the Northern Circuit, practising locally at Manchester.

Mr. THOMAS CROSSLEY Rayner, barrister, has been appointed a District Commissioner for the Gold Coast Colony. Mr. Rayner was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in May, 1882. He is a member of the Northern Circuit, practising locally at Manchester.

Mr. HORACE EDMUND AVORY, barrister, has been appointed Prosecuting Counsel to the Mint for the County of Middlesex and City of London, in succession to the late Mr. Edward Henry John Craufurd. Mr. Avory is the son of the late Mr. Henry Avory, clerk of arraigns at the Central Criminal Court. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Hilary Term, 1875, and he practices on the South-Eastern Circuit and at the Surrey Sessions and the Central Criminal Court.

WINDING UP NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, September 9. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

A. M. WOOD'S SHIPS "WOODITE" PROTECTION CO. LIMITED.-By an order made by Kekewich, J., dated Aug 31, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Pulbrook, St Helen's place, solor for petners

Mr. SEPTIMUS BURT has been appointed a Queen's Counsel for the GRADUATED COUNTY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-Kekewich, J.. has, by an Colony of Western Australia.

Mr. PERCY WITCHELL, solicitor, of Stroud, has been appointed Clerk to the Bisley Local Board and Secretary and Solicitor to the Stroud Society for the Prosecution of Felons. Both appointments were held by his father, the late Mr. Edwin Witchell.

Mr. WILLIAM LLEWELLYN LEWIS, barrister, has been appointed a Stipendiary Magistrate for the Island of Trinidad, in succession to the late Mr. Robert Dawson Mayne. Mr. Lewis was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in January, 1876.

PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.

GEORGE CATTELL GREENWAY and BRABAZON CAMPBELL, Warwick, solicitors (Greenway & Campbell). Sept. 7. Mr. Brabazon Campbell will carry on the business. [Gazette, Sept. 9.]

GENERAL.

Mr. Arthur Charles, Q.C., was sworn in as one of her Majesty's judges of the High Court of Justice on the 8th inst. He will be in attendance at Queen's Bench Judges' Chambers on Tuesday next, and will take his seat in open court for the first time on the following day, Wednesday, the 21st.

Mr. Robert J. Block (Lord Justice Bowen's clerk) has recently published an exceedingly useful "Table of the Judges of England during the Fifty Years of the Reign of Queen Victoria" (W. Clowes & Sons, Limited). The table is so arranged as to shew the succession of the judges and those who were contemporaneous in any given year; and an alphabetical list is added containing the dates of the appointments, resignations, and deaths of the judges. A further table gives a list of the law officers during the fifty years.

A curious dispute is stated to have arisen at Dorchester between the Corporation and the Western Counties Telephone Co. It appears that the latter erected wires without obtaining permission from the municipal authorities, and was at once requested to remove them. This the com. pany has refused to do, claiming a right to erect the wires with the permission of the owners of property, and demanding to know the right of the corporation to enforce the removal. In reply, a letter was received insisting on the "obstruction" being removed, the corporation, under an old charter, claiming the freehold of the entire borough. The company has announced its intention of contesting at law this novel claim.

It appears from the address of the President of the American Bar Association, printed in the Albany Law Journal, that the Legislature of Kansas has passed an Act of an unusual description:-"It is made unlawful to introduce into the State any substance which in the opinion of the Board of Health may produce a liability to contagion or infection of any disease among the people, whether the same shall be in the form of bacteria germs, microbes, virus (vaccine virus excepted), or any other substances, claimed to contain the elements of any infectious or contagious disease, whether introduced for the purpose of inoculation or otherwise, without permission of the Board of Health. By this Act the Legislature intended to prevent an irruption from the tropics of a number of persons, some of them no doubt charlatans, who proposed to inoculate the people with yellow fever or cholera germs. One man proposed to introduce into the City of New Orleans yellow fever microbes, sufficient to inoculate ten thousand persons; it was apprehended he might in this way produce a yellow fever epidemic."

The Institut de Droit International has been holding its eleventh session at Heidelberg. The meetings commenced on the 5th inst. The first subject discussed was the conflict of laws with regard to marriage. With reference to formalities, it was, of course, resolved that compliance with the forms of the lex loci is sufficient, and it was held to be also necessary, with reservations in favour of diplomatic and consular marriages. After a long debate, it was resolved that such marriages are admissible only when both parties belong to the nation represented by the consul. It was resolved that capacity in point of age depends upon the personal law of the husband, and not upon the local law. With respect to the prohibited degrees, it was held that compliance with both laws is necessary, and so also as to the necessary consents and the previous publication of banns. [By the "personal law" of the parties is meant the law of the nation to which they belong, not the law of their domicile.] Other subjects discussed were railways in time of war; "pacific blockade "; the draft of code of existing law of Prize Courts.

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., Westmírster (Estab. 1875), who also undertake the Ventilation of Offices, &c.-[ADVT.]

order dated Aug 24, appointed Richard Booth, 11, Stone bldgs, Lincoln's inn, to be official liquidator GREENSIDE GLAZED AND FIRE BRICK Co, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 7, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge on Sept 21. Speechly & Co, New inn, agents for Mumford & Johnson, Bradford, solors for petners PATENT VENTILATING GRANARY CO, LIMITED -By an order made by Kekewich, J., dated Aug 31, it was ordered that the voluntary winding up of the company be continued. Druces & Attlee, Billiter sq. solors for petner COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY

FORMBY BATH BRICK AND SILICIOUS CIAY WORKS, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 6, directed to be heard at the Chancery Office, Winckley st, Preston, on Sept 20. Jones & Co. Liverpool, solors for petners INDUSTRY COTTON SPINNING CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 7, directed to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor on Thursday, Oct 27. Sale & Co, Manchester, agents for Wrigley & Claydon, Oldham, solors for petners LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BANKING CO, LIMITED.-By an order made by the Chaucellor, dated Aug 16, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Wilson & Co, Liverpool, agents for Mawdsley & Hodson, Southport, solors for petner FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. BRICKFIELD ALBION SICK AND BURIAL SOCIETY, Co-operative Stores, Brickfield, Rochdale. Sept 2

CHURCH OF ENGLAND BENEFIT CLUB, No. 1 SOCIETY, Blue Boar Inn, Stone st,
Dudley. Sept 7

LOYAL GENERAL SCARLETT LODGE, Brierfield. Lancaster. Sept 6
MILLGATE WORKMEN'S CLUB, Heys bldg, Millgate, near Rochdale. Sept 3
STAFFORD WORKING MEN'S CLUB, 114, Wyndham rd, Camberwell, S.E. Sept 3
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, September 13.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.

LIMITED IN CHANCERY.

BRITISH DINNER CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 12, directed to be heard before Kekewich J., on Sept 21. Langlois & Biden, Leadenhall st, solors for petner

BRITISH AND COLONIAL AGENCY, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up. presented Sept 6, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge, Sept 21. Goodchild, Greɛham house, London, solor for petners

GENERAL ICE FACTORY CO, LIMITED.-Petn for winding up, presented Sept 8. directed to be heard before Stirling, J., Sept 21. Gadsden & Treherne, Bedford row, solors for petners

CREDITORS' NOTICES.

UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Sept. 6.

SOUTHWELL, LYDIA, King's rd, Teddington. Oct 20. Nicholl v Mulberry, Kay, J. Fairfoot & Co, Clement's inn

UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 35.
LAST DAY OF CLAIM.
London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Sept 6.

BEDDOE, WILLIAM, Bourton. Oct 10. Morris & Sons, Shrewsbury
BEECHER, JAMES WILLIAM. Richmond, Retired Butcher. Nov 1. Faithfull &
Owen, Westminster chbrs
BOLTON, FELIX PALMER, Hastings. Nov 19. Stilwell, Dover
BOON, HENRY, Marlesford, Suffolk, Farmer. Oct 15. Welton, Woodbridge
GALLIERS, ANNE, Hedley, Salop. Oct 10. Morris & Sons, Shrewsbury
GAWLER, ROBERT, Harrogate, Tailor. Nov 1. J. B. & J. A. Brooke, Leeds
GREGORY, ELLEN, Westhoughton, Lancaster. Sept 30. Hughes, Bolton
HOLLOWAY, MARY ANN, Uley, Gloucester. Sept 19. Francillon, Dursley
HOWARTH, WILLIAM. Hindley, Lancaster, Colliery Manager. Oct 4. Woodcock
& Walmesley, Wigan
HUTCHINSON, DIXON, Sunderland, Cabinet Maker. Sept 17. Bentham, Sunder-
land
JARVIS, WILLIAM, Bournemouth, Bookseller. Oct 15. Roberts & Roberts,
Bangor
JONES, WILLIAM OWEN OSWALD, Blomfield rd, Paddington. Nov 24. Griffith,
Holyhead

KEATING, CATHERINE, Bruce grove, Tottenham. Nov 1. Hyde & Co, Ely place
KING, SAMUEL SLATTER, Brompton sq, Gent. Oct 12. Proudfoot, John st
MORRIN, DAVID, Great Wakering, Essex, Esq. Oct 1. Stoneham & Son, Philpot
POULTER, MARY, Wolverhampton. Nov 8. Riley & Kettle, Wolverhampton

lane

PROBERT, ELIZABETH CHARLOTTE, St Donatt's rd, New Cross. Sept 30. Lockyer & Dinn, Gresham bldngs PROBERT, WILLIAM FRANCIS. St Donatt's rd, New Cross, Gent. Sept 30. Lockyer & Dinn, Gresham bldngs PROSSER, ROGER, Stoke Prior, Worcester. Oct 31. Sanders, Bromsgrove ROGERS, WILLIAM HINDS, Yealmpton, Devon, Surgeon. Nov 1. Rooker & Co, SAUNDERS, ELIZABETH, Rhymney Iron Works, Bedwellty, Monmouth. Sept 9. Plymouth SAUNDERS, JOHN, Rhymney Iron Works, Bedwellty, Monmouth. Sept 9. MorSAUVARY, HENRY RICHARD, Wincott st, Kennington rd, Waiter. Sept 12. gan, Cardiff

Morgan, Cardiff

Plunkett & Leader, St Paul's churchyard

SHEWELL, Rev FRANK, Loddiswell Vicarage, Devon. Nov 1. Hyde & Co, Ely pl
SIMMONITE, HANNAH, Sheffield. Oct 6. Watson & Co, Sheffield

STEDMAN, FRANCES, Donington, Newbury. Oct 12. Few & Co, Surrey st
TRIGG, HENRY, High st, Wandsworth, Butcher. Oct 6. Wilkins & Fanshawe,
Coleman st

TRILL, MATHEW HENRY, Maidenhead, Draper. Sept 14. Algernon S Poyser, Gt
James st

[blocks in formation]

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, Sept 9.

AVERY, RICHARD, Tenterden, Kent, Wine and Spirit Merchant. Sept 30. Mace
& Sons, Tenterden
BLAIR, ELIZABETH CATHERINE, Portman sq. Oct 30. Few & Co, Surrey st
BLYTH, ANTHONY, Holme next the Sea, Norfolk, Solicitor. Oct 1. Blyth, Serle st
CARTER, JOHN, Rattington, Cumberland, Farmer. Oct 7. Webster, Whitehaven
Cox, MARY ANN, Balsall Heath, Worcester. Oct 3. Cartland, Birmingham
DICKINSON, CECIL, Marquise DEL MORAL, Bucharest, Roumania. Nov 9. Merri-
man & White, King's Bench walk
DEVALL, MARY, Claybrook rd, Fulham. Oct 31. Keen & Co, Knight Rider st
DURSTON, JANE, Pawlett, Somerset. Sept 20. Chapman, Bridgwater
FIELD. SARAH JANE, York rd, Wandsworth. Oct 31.
Wandsworth
Corsellis & Mossop,
FIELD, LEONARD, York rd, Wandsworth, Gent. Oct 31. Corsellis & Mossop,
Wandsworth
FRANKLIN, JOHN, Burroughs, Hendon, Parish Beadle. Oct 22. Tilley, Kilburn
GRIFFITH, EMMA MARIA HERBERT, Heyope, Radnor. Oct 10. Cookson & Co,
GRIFFITH, ReV WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Heyope, Radnor, Clerk. Oct 10. Cookson
& Co, Lincoln's inn fields
HEWLETT, FREDERICK CHARLES, Bread st hill, Vellum Binder. Sept 30. Oliver,
Coleman st
Cookson & Co, Lincoln's inn
KENNEDY, DANIEL, Gosforth, Cumberland, Grocer. Oct 5. Mason & Thompson,
Whitehaven

Lincoln's inn fields

JACOMB, WILLIAM, Wimbledon, Esq. Oct 24. fields

LORRIMAR, FRANCIS, Birmingham, Advertisement Contractor. Sept 30. Smith, Birmingham

PARRY, ANN, Blaenavon, Mon. Nov 20. Watkins, Pontypool

PUFLETT, WALTER JOHN, Sabine rd, Battersea, Licensed Victualler. Oct 31.
Corsellis & Mossop, Wandsworth

ROOKE, JESSY, Scarborough. Nov 9. Turnbull & Co, Scarborough
SAYER, CAROLINE, Norwich. Oct 9. Goodchild, Norwich

SCOTT, CHARLES APPLEBY, Birmingham, Metal Agent. Nov 1. Scott, Blac
Bromsgrove

SHAW, JAMES, Ardwick, Manchester, Surgeon. Oct 12.

Wright & Co, Liverpool SLADEN, JOSEPH, Bareilly, Rohilkund, India, Bengal Civil Service.

Freshfields & Williams, Bank bdgs

SMITH, HENRY, Herne Bay, Gent. Oct 31. Loyd, Queen st

Oct 12.

SMITH, WILLIAM, Castle Bar Hill, Ealing, Builder. Dec 1. Collisson & Co,
Bedford row
SNOWDEN, JAMES, Devonshire rd, Holloway, Gent. Nov 9. Nevill, Furnival's inn
STEPHEN, ANN, Pemberton, Lancaster. Oct 10. Mayhew & Co, Wallgate,

Wigan

VAUGHAN, WILHELMINA CHRISTIANA, Surbiton Hill, Surrey. Oct 21. Jackson
& Wright, Lincoln's inn fields
VICKRIDGE, JAMES ALEXANDER, Faringdon, Berks, Upholsterer. Nov 7. Loyd,
Queen st

WALLS, WILLIAM, Bishopwearmouth, Durham, Draper. Oct 25.
Sunderland

Ritson,

WARREN, ELIZABETH, Bridge rd, Battersea. Oct 20. Wood & Wootton, Fish et bill

WILKINSON, WILLIAM, Leighton rd, Kentish Town, Esq. Oct 12. Gush & Co, Finsbury circus

London Gazette.-TUESDAY, Sept 13.

ANDERSON, ROBERT, Cainsborough, Lincoln, Coachbuilder. Nov 8. Burton &
Dyson, Gainsborough

BENNETT, JESSE, Oatley hill, Hooknorton, Oxford, Farmer. Nov 1. Kilby &
Mace, Chipping Norton'
BURGESS, GEORGE, Trengove, Illogan, Cornwall, Yeoman. Oct 17. Daniell &
Thomas, Camborne

CLAYTON, GEORGE, Longsight, Manchester, Carrier's Canvasser. Sept 29. Bee,
West Gorton, Manchester

DIXON, DAVID N., Walesby, Lincoln, Wheelwright. Sept 30. Page & Padley,
Market Rasen

DRAKE, HUGH JAMES, Portsea, Gent. Oct 1. Besant & Wills, Portsea
FIELD, JAMES, Castle Green, Sandgate, Esq. Nov 1. Bennett & Co, New
FLETCHER, ANN, Charringworth, Ebrington, Gloucester. Nov 1. Kilby & Mace,
Chipping Norton
GILMAN, PHŒBE, Bingham, Nottingham. Oct 22. Hunt & Williams, Nottingham
GINESI, SAMUEL, Rotherhithe, Stone Merchant. Oct 14.
Austinfriars
G. & W. Webb,

Accrington

HARLING, CHRISTOPHER, Oakenshaw, Clayton-le-Moors, Grocer. Oct 14. Sharples,
HOMEWOOD, ISAAC, Headcorn, Kent, Farmer. Oct 8. Mace & Sons, Tenterden
HUDSON, ROBERT JAMES, Liverpool, Watch Manufacturer. Oct 15. Grace &
Smith, Liverpool

KEERL, AUGUST, Augsburg, Bavaria. Nov 25. Bradley & Son, Liverpool
MELLIER, CHARLES LOUIS, Marlborough hill, St John's Wood, Art Decorator.
Oct 19. Rundle & Hobrow, Coleman st
NAYLOR, WILLIAM, Leeds, Maltster. Dec 1. Middleton & Sons, Leeds
READ, ARABELLA, Woodlands, Isleworth. Oct 15. Brougham, Isleworth
ROTHWELL, EMMA FOX, Castle pk, Lancaster. Oct 10. Maxted & Gibson, Lan-

caster

SALE, RICHARD, St Lawrence, Kent, Gent. Oct 24. O. & A. Daniel, Ramsgate
SHERLOCK, THOMAS BARNETT, Birkenhead. Oct 13. Sandys, Liverpool
SHEWELL, EDWARD LEWIS LUCY, Gosport, Esq., M.A. Oct 21. Winterbothams
& Gurney, Cheltenham
STOCK, THOMAS, Sibford Gower, Oxford, Yeoman. Nov 1.
Banbury
Kilby & Mace,
TAYLOR, HANNAH, Batley Carr, Dewsbury. Sept 23. Mitcheson, Heckmondwike
WELLENSTEIN, VICTOR AUGUST, Koningsplein, Batavia, Java, Merchant. Oct 24.

Crump & Son, Philpot lane

WILLIAMS, GEORGE BARNES, Frederick's pl, Old Jewry, Architect. Oet 15. Pedley & Bartlett, Bush lane

BANKRUPTCY NOTICES.

London Gazette.-FRIDAY, September 9. RECEIVING ORDERS.

BANCROFT, FREDERICK, Haworth, Yorks, Farmer. Bradford. Pet Sept 7.
Sept 7
BARGER, THOMAS JOHN, Rhyl, Flint, Hotel Keeper. Bangor. Pet Sept 6. Ord
Sept 6

BIRD, HENRY, Coventry, Watch Manufacturer. Coventry. Pet Aug 22. Ord
Sept 7

BIRD, JOHN, Lorton. nr Cockermouth, Farmer. Cockermouth and Workington.
Pet Aug 22. Ord Sept 7
BOUGHEY, JAMES BALL, Hanley, Stafford, out of business. Hanley, Burslem,
and Tunstall. Pet Sept 6. Ord Sept 6

BOWLES, WILLIAM, address unknown, Gent. High Court. Pet July 29. Ord
Sept 5

BROMLEY, ROBERT BELL, Goole, Yorks, Gent. Wakefield. Pet Aug 23. Ord
Sept 5
BUTT, BENJAMIN, Frome, Oil Dealer. Frome. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5
CHARLTON. ALEXANDER, Greasbrough, nr Rotherham, Licensed Victualler.
Sheffield. Pet Sept 6. Ord Sept 6

CLARKE, CHARLES, Ipswich, Baker. "Ipswich. Pet Sept 7. Ord Sept 7
CLARKE, JAMES ARTHUR, New Quay, Cornwall, Harbour Master. Truro. Pet
Sept 5. Ord Sept 5
COCKERILL, ELEANOR, Lawford, Warwick, Plumber. Coventry. Pet Aug 25.
Ord Sept 7

Sept 5
Ord Sept 5

DA COSTA, ALFRED, Piccadilly, Gent. High Court. Pet July 29. Ord Sept 5
DAWE, ROBERT, Portloe, Cornwall, Fisherman. Truro.
DORWARD, DAVID, Chepstow, Mon, Coal Dealer. Newport, Mon. Pet Sept 5.
Pet Sept 5. Ord
DOUGLAS, CHARLES, Salford, Lancs, Draper. Salford. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5
DRY, MARY GRIFFITHS, and JANE DRY, Brentwood, Essex, School Proprietors.
Chelmsford. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5
EVANS, WILLIAM RODERICK, Aberdare, Draper. Aberdare. Pet Sept 7. Ord
GRIFFITHS & Co, Blaenau Festiniog, Merioneth, Grocers. Bangor. Pet Aug 19.
Sept 7
Ord Sept 6

HOBBS, EDWARD JAMES, Hartham rd, Tottenham, Traveller. High Court. Pet
Sept 7. Ord Sept 7

KEMP, SAMUEL, Winterwell, nr Wath upon Dearne, Yorks, Shoemaker. Sheffield. Pet Sept 6. Ord Sept 6

KING, THOMAS CHARLES. Lamberhurst, Sussex, Grocer. Tunbridge Wells. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

LORD, RICHARD, Coventry, Builder. Coventry. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

LOWE, WALTER, Irlam, nr Warrington, Chemist. Manchester. Pet Sept 7.
Órd Sept 7
MILES, SIMON LEWIS, Pentre, Glamorgan, Grocer. Pontypridd. Pet Sept 5. Ord
MCMILLAN, JAMES, Manchester, Draper. Manchester. Pet Aug 6. Ord Sept 7
Sept 5

MILNER, PETER BERRIMAN, Scarborough, Butcher. Scarborough, Pet Sept 6.
Ord Sept 6
MITCHELL, WILLIAM, Eccleshill, Bradford, Tin Plate Worker. Bradford. Pet
Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

MOORE, JOHN, Mileham, Norfolk, Baker. Norwich. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5
MORRELL, GEORGE, Leeds, Pork Butcher. Leeds. Pet Aug 10. Ord Sept 6

MUDDITT, MARIA. Southtown, Suffolk, Smackowner. Gt Yarmouth. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

PEARSON, BENJAMIN, Brettell lane, nr Brierley hill, Engine Fitter. Stourbridge. Pet Aug 13. Ord Aug 26

PENGELLY, HENRY, Ottery St Mary, Devon, Farmer. Exeter. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

ROBERTS, JAMES, Haverfordwest, Butcher. Pembroke Dock. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

ROGERS, EDWIN, Highworth, Wilts, General Dealer. Swindon. Pet Sept 7. Ord Sept 7

RUSSELL, THOMAS, Scarborough, Carriage Proprietor. Scarborough. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

SARSONS, JABEZ, Birmingham, Baker. Birmingham. Pet Sept 6. Ord Sept 6 SHARPE, FREDERIC, Baldry gdns, Streatham Common, Clerk. High Court. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

SHEPHERD, WILLIAM, Seven Sisters' rd, Holloway, Carcass Butcher. High Court. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

SHEPHERD, THOMAS, Bootle, nr Liverpool, Ship Broker. Liverpool. Pet Sept 5. Ord Sept 5

SMITH, ARTHUR WILLIAM, St James rd, Sutton, Clerk. Croydon. Pet Aug 31. Örd Aug 31

SMITH, THOMAS, Chalford, Gloucestershire, Builder. Gloucester. Pet Sept 6. Örd Sept 6

STEEL, EBENEZER, Gt Bealings, Suffolk, Wheelwright. Ipswich. Pet Sept 5. Órd Sept 5

Sept 5

TAYLOR, THOMAS HARGREAVES, Manchester, Stationer. Manchester. Pet Sept
WALE, ALFRED, Nottingham, Yarn Agent. Nottingham. Pet Aug 25. Ord
5. Ord Sept 5
WHEATER, WILLIAM, Headingley, nr Leeds, Land Agent. Leeds. Pet Sept 6.
WARDLE, ROBERT, Leeds, out of business. Leeds. Pet Sept 7. Ord Sept 7
Ord Sept 6

WILKINSON, FREDERICK WILLIAM, Liverpool, Furniture Broker. Liverpool.
Pet Sept 7. Ord Sept 7

WILLIAMS, DAVID, Aberdare, Tin Plate Manufacturer. Aberdare. Pet Aug 29. Ord Sept 7

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »