Page images
PDF
EPUB

or ought to be, construed as meaning to give the court a discretion to consider whether the nature of the trademark is such as to make it inconvenient that he should exercise the right of property which it is proved he actually has." When the rectification of an existing entry on the register is being sought in a hostile sense, any person interested in the trade with respect to which the mark was registered is entitled to apply for rectification as 66 a person aggrieved": Rose v. Evans (48 L. J. Ch. 618).

To take first the cases in which an application has been made to rectify the register by the insertion of a trademark:-In re Rotherham (L. R. 11 Ch. D. 250, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 585) is a well-known case in which the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of Bacon, V.C., held that a mark consisting of a word in a foreign language was a good trade-mark, and must be registered, notwithstanding that the registrar, in refusing to register it, had simply followed a general instruction on the subject of words in a foreign language, given him by the Commissioners of Patents, to whose instructions he was bound by rule 68 to conform. In re Eastman (which was decided by Bacon, V.C., in 1880) is another case in which the registrar was directed to register a mark which he had refused to register on the ground of the mark being deficient in the characteristics of a trade-mark as defined by the Act, and the question whether the words "Kitchen Crystal Soap are very distinctive may be still reasonably thought to be not free from doubt. In Lucke v. Webster, on the 4th of April, 1879, the Master of the Rolls allowed registration of a monogram in a shield, though it seems that, if the device had been claimed as a new mark, the decision would probably have been different.

[ocr errors]

But the class of case in which the objections of the registrar to register marks have most frequently been overruled is that which includes cases in which the regis trar has not himself raised the objections, but has been compelled to submit the cases for the determination of the court in consequence of the marks, being cotton marks, having been placed by the Committee of Experts at Manchester in the B. list, or second class, as not being, in the opinion of the committee, trade-marks within the meaning of the Act. For a time-that is to say, so long as the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Orr Ewing (26 W. R. 777, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 794), remained unreversed-the opinion of the committee was practically final and conclusive, but the true rule was laid down by the House of Lords in the same case on appeal (Orr Ewing v. Registrar of Trade-Marks) in a way much more satisfactory to the persons interested in such marks. "The rules appear to me," said Lord Cairns, speaking of the special rules as to cotton goods, 57—63, "to provide a rough but useful way of separating, by means of the technical knowledge and judgment of the committee, the cotton trade-marks into two classes. The first class is to consist of those marks which the committee is of opinion are trade-marks within the Act, and proprietors in this class are to have the benefit, arising from this opinion, of being able at once to apply to be registered in respect of those marks. But in doing this they must satisfy the registrar that they are the proprietors, and comply with the conditions of registration as any other applicants would do. With regard to the second class, there is no decision pronounced against them, but the proprietors cannot apply for registration as a matter of course. They must come to the court, and it must be for the court to say whether the registrar shall proceed on their application to register or not. In deciding this, the court will have before it the circumstance that the opinion of the committee was adverse to the claim of a trade-mark; but this would be an opinion only, and not a decision arrived at after hearing both sides, or rendered in any judicial proceeding." The other law lords concurred in this exposition of the law, and the marks there in question were ordered to be registered in a somewhat modified form (see also In re Orr Ewing (2), 28 W. R. 412), and

not only so, but in every case, it is believed, in which it has hitherto been thought advisable to contest the correctness of the committee's decision before the court, the marks have been directed to be registered (see In re Dugdale, 28 W. R. 436; Ex parte Ede Brothers & Co., 28 W. R. 436; In re Sykes, 29 W. R. 235; In re Ward, Sturt, & Sharp, 29 W. R. 395; In re Dickinson, Akroyd, & Co., V.C.H., July 8, 1880; In re Jones Brothers, & Co., V.C.H., July 10, 1880; and other cases. There are, of course, many more cases in which the parties whose marks have been placed in the B. list have acquiesced in the decisions, and contented themselves with a certificate of refusal under the Act of 1876, but the fact remains that in the cases to which reference has been made the refusal to register has been reversed, and registration granted by virtue of the 5th section of the

Act.

In some cases the registration, though not granted in the form in which it was asked, has still been granted in a somewhat modified shape. Thus In re Barrows (L. R. 5 Ch. D. 353), was a case where representative registration was granted to a number of marks for iron, for which application had been made separately, so that the essential particulars which ran through the various combinations were registered, with a note extending the protection to these particulars in combination with the non-essential details; and the same course was followed in other cases, such as In re Brook (26 W. R. 791), with respect to certain marks on cotton goods. In In re Sykes a note was also appended to the entry on the register, but this time with the view of defining the mode in which the marks were to be used, following In re Whiteley (29 W. R. 235).

ILLEGAL ENTRY UNDER THE

5 RIC. 2, C. 8.

Ir is somewhat curious that a statute of the reign of Richard 2 should twice during the present year have come under the consideration of Mr. Justice Fry. The 5 Ric. 2, c. 8, provides (section 1) "that none from henceforth make any entry into lands and tenements but in cases where entry is given by the law, and in such case not with strong hand nor with multitude of people, but only in peaceable and easy manner." In one of the recent cases this enactment was discussed with reference to the question of damages, in the other case an arrangement between the landlord and tenant was held to be void, as well as voidable, within it.

In Beddall v. Maitland (29 W. R. 484, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 174) the plaintiff claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering as manager of a nursery, the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had been the manager of the business, while the latter claimed an interest in it as a partner, and put in a counter-claim for (inter alia) damages for the forcible ejectment of himself and his effects from the premises, and for injury to his furniture. The learned judge admitted the counterclaim, but found that the defendant was only the manager of the nursery, and was in possession of the house as a tenant at will, a forcible eviction having taken place after a notice to quit. In respect of this Act he held that no damages could be recovered, because the statute which made it unlawful had only provided a penalty, but had not given any civil remedy; but he allowed damages for the injury to the furniture, because this resulted from an act for which no lawful right could be alleged.

Edwick v. Hawkes (29 W. R. 913) was an action by the lessee of a beer-house in respect of a forcible ejectment for an alleged breach of a covenant to buy all beer of the lessor which was contained in the lease, but which was held by Mr. Justice Fry not to have been broken. On the 9th of September, 1880, one of the defendants, who was a solicitor, told the defendant that he had com.

mitted a breach of covenant, and induced him to sign a "letter of licence" in the following terms:-"In consideration that you will not take immediate steps to eject me from 'The Dells,' of which I have forfeited the lease, I undertake to give you quiet possession on the 29th inst., and you may use this letter as leave and licence to eject me without any process of law on that date." The plaintiff then consulted his solicitor, who at once repudiated the agreeement on his behalf. On the 30th of September he refused to give up possession, and on the 4th of October he was put out. He twice re-entered and was turned out, no great force being used, and on the 6th of October, his wife and children were turned out, there being then some use of violence on this occasion. The defendants relied upon the licence to evict, which, they contended, was perfectly legal, and was binding as an agreement for the compromise of a right which was bona fide in dispute, while the defendant's agents had come upon the premises without any resistance. Mr. Justice Fry, however, held that the undertaking was not only voidable, but void. It was voidable because it had been obtained under pressure of an authoritative, but mistaken, statement as to the plaintiff's rights, and as soon as he consulted his solicitor it had been repudiated. The 5 Ric. 2, c. 8, rendered the entry on the premises illegal, notwithstanding the existence of any right of reentry, and therefore the document must be held to give permission to do that which the statute rendered illegal, and to be void as being a licence to commit a crime. He also held that the absence of resistance to the actual

entry on behalf of the defendants could not legalize any of the subsequent forcible acts, for the thing contemplated by the statute was not the mere getting over the boundary of the property, but the forcible assertion against another person of the right of re-entry. He treated the whole proceedings until the plaintiff's wife was turned out of the premises as one continued act, and he awarded £250 as damages to the plaintiff, and £200 to his wife. It is probable that very few tenants are aware of the existence of the Statute of Richard, but Mr. Justice Fry expressed his opinion that "it is important that there should be no misunderstanding as to what the rights of persons who have the right of entry are; their rights are to enter in a peaceable and an easy manner, and if they cannot do so they must apply to the courts." Since a license which practically authorizes the ejectment of the lessee, in certain events, without any legal process is sometimes inserted in leases, by way of a proviso for re-entry, Mr. Justice Fry's decision in Edwick v. Hawkes may possibly lead to the question being raised in another form.

CASES OF THE WEEK.

TRESPASS-INJUNCTION-BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.— In a case of Adams v. Army and Navy Hotel, before Kay, J., Vacation Judge, on the 25th ult., a motion was made for an injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing upon a piece of freehold land, the property of the plaintiff and his mortgagees. The contractor for the erection of the defendants' hotel was now using the land for the deposit of his building materials, and for the purposes of the works. The plaintiff had offered by letter to let the land to the defendants for three months, for such purpose, for a sum of £200, the defendants to give up possession in case of sale by the plaintiff within fourteen days after notice, and on the expiry of the three months upon receiv ing seven days' notice. The plaintiff alleged that no binding agreement had been come to, as such agreement was dependent upon a formal agreement being executed and sealed by the company, and further that the defendants had insisted upon the second mortgagee giving his consent to the letting, which he had not done. The defendants, on the other hand, alleged that a binding agreement had been come to several months ago, and they had, in reliance upon such agreement, taken forcible possession of the land, and handed over the

same to their contractor, who had deposited a quantity of materials thereon. The writ in this action had then been issued, and the notice of motion given, but in consequence of negotiations for a purchase by the defendants of the plot in quest ion, the motion had not been proceeded with until now. It appeared from the affidavit of the contractor that there was no other plot of land obtainable in the neighbourhood suitable for the deposit of the building materials, and that it would cost him about £7,000 to remove the same. It was submitted for the defendants that on the balance of convenience an injunction should not be granted, and that at all events there was a good binding contract on the plaintiff, whatever the case was as against his second mortgagee. KAY, J., was of opinion, on the balance of convenience, that no injunction should be granted. He ordered the motion to stand to the trial, the defendants undertaking possession of the land, in case of a sale by the plaintif, with to pay the £200 into court within a week, and to give up in seven days after written notice.-SOLICITORS, Lewin & Co.; Ashurst, Morris, & Co.

TRUST ESTATE SALE DIRECTIONS TO TRUSTEES URGENCY.-In a case of March v. Swinburne, before Cave, J., Vacation Judge, on the 26th ult., a motion was made by the trustees of a certain trust deed to secure the leased line bonds of an American railway. The trustees had had the whole of the share capital of one of the leased lines transferred to them by the American company as security for the loan, bat the American company had not completed the leased line as they had agreed to do. A creditor of the leased line in America threatened a sale of the line on the 1st of September, and the committee of bondholders had written to the trustees request

ing them to take action in the matter by means of a fund

under their control in America, and stating that otherwise the trustees would be held personally responsible. Upon this the trustees took counsel's opinion, who advised that, although in his opinion they need not do anything, they should, nevertheless, apply to the court for directions. CAVE, J., after hearing the facts, directed the trustees to authorize (by telegram if necessary) their agent in America to take such steps in reference to the fund over there as he might consider best in the interests of the bondholders, and either to compromise or pay off the claim of the creditor of the leased line out of such fund, or otherwise as he should think best.SOLICITORS, Munns & Longden; Allen & Edwards; Trinders & Curtis-Hayward.

SETTLEMENT RECTIFICATION-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT -VACATION Business.—In a case of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, before Cave, J., Vacation Judge, on the 31st ult., an application was made for the rectification of a settlement in cousequence of the common mistake of the parties. There was ample evidence of such mistake, and the matter was now brought by special leave upon motion for judgment. For the trustees and infants interested under the settlement the matter was left to the court, and the trustees did not object to an order provided the court were satisfied as to the sufficiency of the evidence. CAVE, J., thought the evidence strong enough to justify the rectification, and made an order on the terms of that made in the case of Harley v. Pearson (L. R. 13 Ch. D. 545).-SOLICITORS, Ridsdale & Son; Hopwood & Co.

TRUSTEES

ADMINISTRATION DISAGREEMENT - RE CEIVER OF ESTATES IN JAMAICA. In the case of In re Harvey, Harvey v. Lambert, a motion was made by one of three trustees that he might be appointed receiver and manager of certain estates in Jamaica, or otherwise for a reference to chambers to appoint such receiver. Toe applicant was appointed trustee on his attaining twenty-five. He had attained that age, but was unable to agree with the other two trustees as to the management of the property. He further alleged that one of the other trustees had involved the trust estate in a loss of £700. CAVE, J., said he could not appoint the applicant receiver and manager, tut he would direct the usual reference to chambers for that purpose. Each of the parties would have leave to nominate himself, and the carriage of the order should not prejudice the appointment.-SOLICITORS, Tilson & Byrne-Jones; Tucker & Lake.

SOCIETIES.

THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE REFORM AND CODIFICATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. The ninth annual conference of this association was opened on the 16th inst., in the Hansa Hall, in the Stadthouse of Cologne, by Oberburgermeister Dr. Becker. The attendance, owing to the unpropitious weather, was not large. Among those present were Judge Field, Judge Peabody, Mr. David D. Field, Professor Birkbeck, and Sir Travers Twiss.

Dr. BECKER, in his introductory adddress, pointed to the extreme usefulness of a society formed to study and promote international law-a subject of great importance in our days, when the interourse of races was assuming a vast and international character. Five centuries and fifteen years ago, in the very hall in which they now had met, their forefathers discussed those international agreements resulting in a treaty of the German States and those of the Netherlands for the suppression of piracy, which had rested on the northern races like a blight. In those days international compacts needed armed forces for the protection of life and property. The association that had assembled that day resorted to other means to effect its object; it sought by the force of public opinion to induce the civilized races to agree to common international rules, and by awakening an interest in the question it had undertaken to cement nations together. They now only needed to cultivate a knowledge of what was right to arrive at a successful result in their endeavour to build up a complete system of international law. Pointing to the cathedral, Dr. Becker said that all great works needed time and perseverance, but by those means success was certain.

Mr. H. H. Meier, chairman of the North German Lloyd Steamship Company and of the German branch of this association, having been elected president of the conference, replied to Dr. Becker in a few appropriate words. Sir Travers Twiss then presented to the Burgomeister two copies of a charter granted by the Bargrave of the Drachenfels to the Chapter of Cologne to quarry stones, dated A.D. 1285, and laid upon the table a brochure, giving an account of this charter, which, by some unexplained means, found its way into the archives of the British Museum some fifty years ago. This concluded the reception ceremony. The meeting then adjourned, and on re-assembling at two p.m. the conference elected four vice-presidents -Damely, Mr. D. D. Field, of New York; Dr. E. Wendt and Sir Travers Twiss, of London; and Judge Peabody, of New York; and Dr. Syndicus Marcus, of Bremen, and Mr. H. D. Jencken, of London, were appointed secretaries of the conference.

The SECRETARY read the report of the council for the past year. After referring to the decease of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, the former president of the association, to that of Dr. Bonhardt, of Berlin, to whose energetic support the movement towards codifying the law on bills of exchange was in a great measure due, and to that of Mr. C. Clark, Q.C., who took so active a part in framing the York and Antwerp Rules for adjustment of general claims, he mentioned the progress made in the adoption of the York and Antwerp Rules, and the action taken in England to introduce a Bill for codifying the law on bills of exchange, a regret being expressed that the draft Bill laid on the table of the House of Commons last session should have almost wholly ignored the international character of the question, and that no attempt was even made to amend the defective features of our law in that respect. After the perusal of a letter from Sir Robert Phillimore to Dr. Wendt, expressing his regret at his inability as president of the associa tion to attend this meeting, the secretary submitted numerous letters, and the reports of the different committees, of which those on negotiable securities to bearer, international copyright, and the law of affreightment were of

greatest interest.

The President then called upon Sir TRAVERS TWISS, who read a paper he had prepared "On the Early Charters granted by the Kings of England to the Merchants of Cologne." The fact of these charters being signed at Northampton enables us to fix a date to them; they were granted either in the year 1157 or 1164. In both of those years the King held a Council meeting at that place, but the latter date is the more probable. Henry II. sought to favour the Archbishop

of Cologne, who had opened negotiations for the marriage of one of the King's daughters with a son of Emperor Frederic Barbarossa. The marriage of the Emperor's son to the King's daughter was not successful; but the negotiation of the marriage of Princess Matilda to Henry the Lion was effected, and from this marriage sprang William of Winchester, the progenitor of the line of Brunswick Princes-a line which, after an interval of five centuries, succeeded to the throne of the Plantagenets. This charter, which owed its existence to the animosity of King Henry to Archbishop Becket, the inveterate foe of the Archbishop of Cologne, whom our King hoped to wound by favouring his enemy, is the first authentic trading charter on record in this country, and marks a period in the history of commercial treaties. The next charter in point of time was that granted by King Richard I. at Louvain, in the fifth year of his reign, prompted by strong motives of gratitude for the friendly assistance of the then Archbishop of Cologne. The charter is dated February 16, 1194. The romance attached to the name of Richard I., his captivity and ultimate release on payment of 100,000 marks (ad pondus Colonia) are matters of history. Throughout the period of his captivity and final release the Archbishop of Cologne proved an unwavering friend to the King of England. A fifth charter was granted by King John on the 24th of July, 1210. This charter was granted to the citizens of Cologne as a reward for their faithfulness to Otho IV., while pressed by the Ghibelin Emperor Frederick II. These charters continued in force to the days of Henry III. and Edward I. and II., constituting an interesting record of the friendly relations between the citizens of the city of Cologne and the Kings of England. The measures and weights used by the merchants of that great commercial centre of German trade were in international use over the greater part of Europe, and more especially the Northern States. The desire to encourage intercourse with the sturdy merchants of that city may be traced back even as far as the days of King Ethelred, Lappenberg inclining to that view in speaking of the homines imperatoris.

The next paper submitted was the report of the Committee on Negotiable Securities. It may be recollected that at Berne last year five rules were agreed to, which subsequently the Institute of Bankers adopted, and which it is believed the Chambers of Commerce contemplate discussing at their next meeting in October. The principal points touched upon in these rules were unfettered negotiability and inviolability of the document, which cannot be affected by any numbers or notice written on its face, placed on it to hinder negotiability.

Dr. MARCUS then submitted a short treatise on Negotiable Securities to Bearer, explaining certain proposals respecting international regulations of the laws on securities to bearer. A discussion arose on the sixth resolution, which endeavoured to limit the time within which to bring an action on a coupon to four years, and on the principal sum to thirty years, in which Mr. R. Lowndes, representing the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Judge Field, of Washington, Mr. H. H. Meier, and others took part. Finally it was agreed to name a committee to consider the question, and a resolution was passed, to be submitted at the re-assembling of the meeting.

The SECRETARY then gave a short account of what had been done in the question of an international law on bills of exchange. He referred to the success that had attended the endeavours of the association in awakening an interest in the question of establishing a code on bills of exchange in England. The Bill brought in by Sir John Lubbock would barely answer the requirements of the day,

which needed that the laws on these instruments should in all their main features be uniform.

The SECRETARY then laid on the table a paper on the Scandinavian laws on bills of exchange, by Mr. Alfred Kirsebom. These laws are based on the general law on bills of exchange of Germany (all genuine Deutsche Wechselordnung), and Mr. Kirsebom has placed in public. In the year 1876, at the Bremen Conference brief treatise the new code before the English of this association, twenty-three principles or were agreed to by an international commission which met on that occasion. Subsequently four additional rules were

rules

agreed to. These rules, with some slight exceptions,

were adopted by the International Royal Commssiion, and in the year 1880, the new code, embodying the alterations suggested by these rules, but based otherwise on the German Code, received the Royal sanction, having been

passed unanimously by the Diets of the three kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The laws of the three Scandinavian countries not only differed widely, but presented a mixture of conflicting customs and positive law, which, with sound practical sense, the Legislatures of these kingdoms, without hesitation, changed and consented to codify into one system. A translation of the ninety-six articles of the code was appended.

The meeting then appointed a committee, composed of Dr. Wendt, Sir Travers Twiss, and Mr. H. D. Jencken, with instructions to place themselves in communication with the British Government, in the hope that their attention might be directed to the importance of the international character of bills of exchange, and the desirability of considering that aspect of the question in framing a code of bills of exchange.

In the evening the local committee gave a dinner to the members in the great banquet-hall of the Gürzenich, at which the Burgomaster, Dr. Becker, presided.

THE COURT OF APPEAL. Mr. Justice Watkin Williams has addressed thə following second letter to the Times :

"B." asks me 66 to name a few instances-say, half-adozen to begin with"-of miscarriages of justice in the Court of Appeal, and also "whether any of them have been set right by the House of Lords, and, if not, why not." From this question I perceive that "B." has carried away a different impression from my letter to that intended to be conveyed, and has, therefore, not unnaturally misquoted me by severing a sentence from its context.

"Half-a-dozen to begin with, and why they have not been set right by the House of Lords"! I am astonished. I was referring to certain very exceptional appeal cases, not by any means excluding House of Lords cases, as illustrating what would be liable to happen in the event of the alteration in the constitution of the Court of Appeal proposed by "W. B." being carried into effect. Permit me here to repeat the words of my letter. After pointing out the greater exactness and more limited nature of the former appeals to the Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, I proceeded to say"Now, on the other hand, every appeal is a re-hearing of the whole cause on its merits; and points and questions of fact as well as law that may have been overlooked, or neglected, or even abandoned, and not thoroughly investigated at the trial are liable to be raised and seriously relied upon for the first time in the appellate court; so that without a thorough practical acquaintance on the part of the appellate judges with the course and incidents of trials the grossest miscarriage of justice is liable to take place, and in fact does take place, even when unexceptionable law and admirable legal principles are laid down." I neither retract nor qualify a word of this. What I intended to convey by this language was that in an appellate court, where the whole matter is brought under review in the form of a re-hearing, a miscarriage of justice is liable to take place where the tribunal is not thoroughly at home in all the practical and detailed working of the original proceedings, and that such miscarriages did in fact occur in practice. My statement was not confined to a particular appellate court, as "B." assumes; and, in fact, the principal case that was present to my mind was a House of Lords case, in which the decisions of all the inferior courts were reversed. I am willing to furnish "B." with the referenees to the cases that were present to my mind when I come within the reach of books; but I am bound to say that, from my point of view, it would not advance the discussion which I entered upon to embark upon, possibly, a controversial examination of decided cases within the cramped limits of such a correspondence as this. Such an expression of opinion as I have ventured upon must, I think, be left to the general verdict of the legal and professional public, including the solicitors, the bar, and the whole judicial body, and to that I am content to leave it.

I will only add that the whole aim of my letter, which I must now assume to have been badly expressed, was to question the wisdom and expediency of the proposed change in the constitution of the Court of Appeal, which, as now constituted, has given such general satisfaction to the suitors, to the public, and to the legal profession.

OBITUARY.

MR. WILLIAM HENRY HODGSON. Mr. William Henry Hodgson, barrister, formerly assistant solicitor to the Treasury, died at Carlisle on the 19th ult. Mr. Hodgson was the second son of Mr. William Hodgson, solicitor, of Carlisle (many years clerk of the peace for the county of Cumberland), and was born in 1815. He was formerly fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, and he was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Michaelmas Term, 1848. He was for about thirty years one of the staff of the Solicitor to the Treasury, and he was subsequently one of the assistant solicitors to that department, but a year or two ago he was compelled by ill health to resign his office. He had had the conduct of many important Government prosecutions, including the Tichborne case and the City of Glasgow Bank case in both of which the evidence was prepared under his directions. Mr. Hodgson was a magistrate for the county of Cumberland. He was unmarried.

MR. JOHN JAMESON.

Mr. John Jameson, solicitor, of Penrith, died at Cirencester, on the 21st alt., in his ninety-first year. Mr. Jameson was born in 1791. He was admitted a solicitor about the year 1813, and he practised for many years at Penrith. He had a good private business, and be was also for several years treasurer for the county of Cumberland. After his retirement from practice he was placed in the commission of the peace, and he was most assiduous in his attention to his magisterial duties, his long professional experience adding greatly to his efficiency. He was also a deputy-lieutenant for Cumberland. Mr. Jameson was a strong Conservative and had never abandoned his objections to the introduction of Free Trade, and he took an active interest in all matters relating to agriculture. Notwithstanding his great age, Mr. Jameson retained all his mental powers. He died while on a visit to his sonin-law, Mr. Capel Croome, at Cirencester. He was buried at Brougham on the 26th ult.

MR. RICHARD WILDMAN,

Mr. Richard Wildman, many years a judge of county courts, died at Lucerne, on the 29th ult. Mr. Wildman was the youngest son of Mr. James Wildman, of Chilham Castle, Kent. He was born in 1802, and he was educated at Harrow and at Christ Church, Oxford. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in Michaelmas Term, 1829, and he practised for many years on the Midland Circuit. He had a good criminal business, and he held a brief for the defence in the celebrated prosecution of the Sutton-in-Ashfield Chartists in 1839. In 1837 he became recorder of the borough of Nottingham, and he held that office until within the last few months. Mr. Wildman was for some years judge of the old Derbyshire Court of Request, the jurisdiction of which was absorbed in that of the county courts, and after the passing of the County Courts Act, 1836, he received from Lord Cottenham the appointment of judge of county courts for Circuit No. 18, comprising Nottingham and the surrounding district. He discharged his judicial duties for over thirty-four years, but in the spring of the present year he was compelled by failing health to resign both his judgeship and his recordership.

A certain manufacturer, who had made a composition with his creditors, was under cross-examination at the assizes. "Now, sir," cried Mr. Bagwig, ferociously, "attend to me! Were you not in difficulties a few months ago?" "No" "What, sir? Attend to my question. I ask you againand pray be careful in answering, for you are upon your oath, I need hardly remind you-were you not in diffienities some months ago?" "Noa-not as I knows of." "Sir, do you pretend to tell this court that you did not make a com position with your creditors a few months ago?" "Oh, ab," a bright smile of intelligence spreading over the ingenuous face of the witness, "that's what you mean, is it? But, ye see, it were my creditors as were i' difficulties then, an' not me."-Central Law Journal.

LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. THOMAS JOHN BROAD, solicitor, of Watford, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Mr. EBENEZER JOHN BUCHANAN, barrister, has been appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Cape Colony, on the resignation of Mr. Justice Jacobs. Mr. Justice Buchanan was called to the bar at Lincoln's-inn in Hilary Term, 1873.

Mr. WILLIAM DIXON, solicitor (of the firm of Dixon & Syers), of Liverpool, has been appointed a Perpetual Commissioner for Lancashire and Cheshire for taking the Acknowledgments of Deeds by Married Women.

Mr. ALBERT GIBSON, solicitor, of 35, Southampton-buildings, and St. Mary Cray, has been appointed a Commissioner to administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judi. cature.

Mr. WILLIAM ALFRED PITT, solicitor, of Bristol, has been appointed Clerk to the Bedminster School Board. Mr. Pitt was admitted a solicitor in 1874.

Mr. THOMAS RIGG. solicitor, of Wigton, has been appointed Clerk to the Magistrates at that place. Mr. Rigg was admitted a solicitor in 1979.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ARMY AND NAVY PROVISION MARKET, LIMITED.-Cave, J., has, by an order dated Aug 18, appointed John Young, 41, Coleman st, to be official liquidator

ENFIELD STUD AND RACE COURSE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R., dated May 28, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Rumney, Walbrook, solicitor for the petitioner

INDUSTRIAL BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 26, directed to be heard before Cave, J, on Sept 7. Durant, jun, Guildhall chambers, Basinghall st, solicitor for the petitioner JOSEPH WRIGHT AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for continuing the voluntary winding up, presented Aug 24, directed to be heard before the Vacation Judge on Sept 7. Warmington, Gresham bldgs, Basinghall st, agent for Warmington and Thompson, Dudley, solicitors for the petitioners

SUTTON PARK CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY, LIMITED.-Cave, J, has fixed Sept 6 at 11.30, at the chambers of the M.R., for the appointment of an official liquidator

[Gazette, Aug 26.] ASTON HALL COAL AND BRICK COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 23, directed to be heard before Cave, J, on Sept 7. Lickorish and Bellord, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

IMPERIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the M.R., dated Aug 5, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Ramskill, Union ct, Old Broad st, solicitor for the petitioner

INDUSTRIAL BANK, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 26, directed to be heard before Cave, J, on Sept 7. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner PATENT AUTOMATIC KNITTING MACHINE COMPANY, LIMITED. Petition for winding up, presented Aug 22, direated to be heard before Cave, J, on Sept 7. Lickorish and Bellord, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner

WATSON, KIPLING, AND COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 27, directed to be heard before Cave, J, on Sept 7. Crowder and Co, Lincoln's inn fields, agents for Ward, Middlesborough, solicitor for the petitioners

WHEAL ELIZABETH, LIMITED.-By an order made by Cave, J, dated Aug 17, it was ordered that the above company be wound up. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner WORKING MEN'S MUTUAL SOCIETY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Aug 26, directed to be heard before Cave, J, on Sept 7. Beall and Co, Queen Victoria st, solicitors for the petitioner [Gazette, Aug. 30.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.

LIVERPOOL CUSTOMS' WATER GUARD BURIAL SOCIETY, Custom House, Liverpool. Aug 23

NORTH MARSTON FRIENDLY SOCIETY, Sportsman's Arms Inn, North Marston, Bucks. Aug 23

YSPYTTY IFAN SOCIETY, Yspytty Ifan, Denbigh. Aug 23 [Gazette, Aug 26.]

CREDITORS' CLAIMS.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF.

BARTH, GEORGE, Government Contractor, and EMMA BARTH, Rectory place, Woolwich. Nov 1. Barth v Sutherland, V.C. Hall. Whale, Queen Victoria st

HALL, THOMAS, Farnham Royal, Bucks, Gentleman. Oct 3. Clark v Hall, M.R. Walsh, Bicester

MARTIN, AUGUSTINE PHILIP, Manor rd, St John's, Deptford. Oct 1. Boisset v Martin, V.C. Hall. Taylor and Co, Great James st, Bedford row

METCALF, HENRY CHRISTOPHER, Hawstead, Suffolk. Oct 1. Metcalf and another v Blencowe and another, V.C. Hall. Tamplin and Co, Fenchurch st

MURRAY, JOHN, Morten House, Maida hill, Gent. Creditors in England, Oct 1; elsewhere than in England, Jan 2. Dickson v Murray, V.C. Hall. Hodgson, Salisbury st, Strand

[Gazette, Aug 19.] LAMB, THOMAS, Sale, Chester, Plumber. Sept 30. Lamb v Lamb, District Registrar, Manchester. Boote and Edgar, Manchester SMITH. EDWIN, Globe rd, Mile End, Debt Collector. Sept 20. Smith v Smith, M.R. Sorrell, Gt Tower st TURNER, THOMAS, Thornton Heath, nr Croydon, Veterinary Surgeon. Oct 1. Sherriff v Gover, Fry, J. Chester, Newington Butts [Gazette, Aug 23.1

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. CAP. 25. LAST DAY OF CLAIM.

ANDREW, JAMES, Compstall, Chester, Gent. Scpt 15. Brooke, Hyde BIRKETT, JONATHAN, Louth, Lincoln, Wine Merchant. Oct 9. Bell and Ingoldby, Louth

BORMAN, THOMAS JOHNSON, Swallow, Lincoln, Gent. Oct 11. Bell and Ingoldby, Louth

BURGESS, SARAH, Witton cum Twambrookes, Chester. Sept 16. Green and Dixon, Northwich

CAMFIELD, JOHN, Tonbridge, Kent, Tailor. Sept 24. Gorham and Warner, Tonbridge

CLARKE, JAMES, Queen's sq, Bloomsbury, Licensed Victualler. Oct 1. Yarde and Loader, Raymond buildings, Gray's inn CRITCHLOW, JOHN, Litherland, Lancaster, Gent. Sept 15. Brabner and Court, Liverpool

DENNISON, MATTHEW, Wordsley, Stafford, Gent. Oct 1. and Co, Dudley

Sanders

FLEMING, JOHN NICHOLSON, South Lodge, Champion Hill, M.D.
Sept 29. Garrard and Co, Suffolk st, Pall Mall East
FORD, ANN ELIZABETH, St Alban's, Herts. Oct 1. Emanuel and
Simmonds, Finsbury circus

FROGGAT, NANNY, Bradwall, Sandbach, Chester. Oct 10. Bygott,
Sandbach

HOLMES, WILLIAM, Doncaster, York, Gent. Sept 1.
KEARSLEY, JANE, Salford, Lancaster. Sept 12.
Chester

Barker, Leeds Walker and Co,

KENT, JACOB, Middleton, Lancaster, Grocer. Aug 20. Tweedale and Co, Oldham

MARTIN, JAMES, Manchester, Hemp Spinner.
Smith, Manchester

MOUNT, JANE, Stratford, Essex, Sept 29.
Fenchurch bldgs

Sept 30. Barrow and

Hillearys and Taylor, Oct 1.

York, Gent.

OLDHAM, JAMES NAISI, Bridlington Quay,
Burton and Co, Nottingham
PHIPPS, HENRY, Marsh Gibbon, Buckingham, Horse Dealer. Sept 1.
Kirby, Bicester

RAY, WILLIAM, Clare, Suffolk, Gent. Sept 17. Jackson and Vincent,
Clare

SUMMERS, WILLIAM ALLTOFT, Kingston upon Hull, Gent. Oct 1. England and Co, Hull

TYRRELL, EDWARD, Horton, Bucks, Esq. Sept 30. Spyer and Son, Old Broad st

WALTON, CHARLOTTE, Marlbrook, Bromsgrove, Worcester. Sept 30. Morgan, Birmingham

[Gazette, Aug. 16.]

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »