section 13, he will not be able to call for the title to the leasehold reversion; but the intending lessor who has a leasehold interest must show his own titlethat is, the title to his own lease, which of course he has, or ought to have, in his own power-contrà as to intending lessor who has a freehold interest. He need not, under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, show his freehold title, this being in accordance with the custom. By way of Parthian arrow, and without shifting my ground, but only citing another out of what seem to me many illustrations of the same thing in the Act, can you fairly say, with reference to the 8th section, for example, which applies to "sales made" after the commencement of the Act, and entitles a purchaser to have the execution of the conveyance attested by his own solicitor, that the section could have any application at all after the completion of the sale? I confess it seems to me that if the section applies to a "sale made," a "sale made" must mean a sale not completed, inasmuch as at the moment of applying the section the sale is ex hypothesi not completed, the conveyance not being as yet executed or its execution attested, and it is conceivable that a sale might never get to completion, and yet be a sale to which the section applies, and therefore a "sale made." JOHN HUGHES. 20, Threadneedle-street, E.C., October 26. [We congratulate our correspondent upon his conversion. With regard to his "Parthian arrow,' we must once more gently point out that he is shooting quite wide of the mark. We declined, so far as regards the meaning of the word sale, to interpret section 3 by reference to other sections of the Act, because section 3 con tains a special interpretation clause of its own specifically dealing with that word, of which the terms seem particularly well adapted to exclude all other sources of interpretation derived from the Act. Instead of referring us to some more of these other sources, which we refused by anticipation to admit, he ought rather to have applied himself to remove the ground of our refusal.ED. S. J.] [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-In the early part of this year your journal contained some very useful and proper observations on Lord Cairns' Conveyancing Act. I think it is only fair to both the professions that you should, by insertion of this letter, point out that the recent criticism on the same Act which you have inserted is not of a similar character. I will give a few instances. Paper No. 1 (p. 859), as to section 17 of the Act, says: "This is emphasised by the crudeness of construction which, having in the first line relied upon the interpretation clause [of mortgagor] in the fourth line, makes specific mention of persons claiming through the mortgagor." The fourth line makes no such mention. The words are, "any person through whom he [the mortgagor] claims." The crudeness appears to be in your critic, who cannot see the difference between "a person claiming through A. " and a "person through whom A. claims.' The further remarks on the same section confound tacking of debts and consolidation of mortgages. It was not intended to abolish tacking, nor could it be safely done as to mortgage debts, and there is no suficient reason for preventing a bond debt being tacked to a mortgage debt. Paper No. 2, p. 871, as to section 15 of the Act, says, "No penalty is provided in case of refusal" [to transfer]. Certainly not. Is there any penalty in case of refusal to reconvey? No. Both are put on the same footing. The amount due is tendered, if not received, interest stops. If received, the mortgagor " [sic.—we suppose our correspondent intended to write "mortgagee "]" is a trustee of the legal estate. Now he is only bouad to reconvey. He may refuse. After the Act he is also bound to transfer. He may, in like manner, refuse, and the money can be tendered with the same result. The remedy in both cases is a vesting order. Your critic need not be so very solicitous about "liberty of the subject." It is not going to be interfered with. Again, p. 871, the section may be "evaded by the mortgagee going into possession pro forma, and immediately going out again." What is going into possession pro formâ? Is it anything else than going into possession simply? And what are the liabilities of a mortgagee who goes out again without consent of the owners of the equity of redemption ?—Bank of Australasia v. Hand-in-Hand Company (L, R. 4 App. Cas. 391). Paper No. 3, p. 885, as to section 4, says, "We may remark that estate means prima facie a legal estate. An equitable estate, so called, was a mere right. Is it certain that an equitable fee, the legal estate being outstanding, would be within this section ?" It is quite certain. It is not within the section, nor is it required to be. A purchaser having a contract, and having paid his money and accepted the title, what your critic calls "a mere right" is immediately, under the ordinary principles of equity, transferred to the purchaser. He can get the legal fee by conveyance from the person in whom it is outstanding. This person and the executor can make a complete title now. There is no necessity to resort to this section. Your critic fails to see that the whole difficulty is to get the legal estate when it is devised in settlement, and this the section provides for. I need not go further, nor describe the rest of the criticism (all of the same sort) by its true name. I have said enough to show that the writer is not perfect either in power of accurately reading the Queen's printers' type or in knowledge of equitable principles, and I think he should not be allowed to mislead your readers. At least he might spare his coarse abuse of others who, with perhaps equal imperfections, have at least devoted an amount of trouble of which he has not dreamt and appears incapable, to compensate for those imperfections. EDWARD P. WOLSTENHOLME. 2, Stone-buildings, October 24. [We have hesitated, from regard to Mr. Wolstenholme's high professional reputation, about printing the last paragraph of his letter, which comes much nearer to the offence of "coarse abuse " than anything which we have written. We utterly deny that there can be adduced a single passage from any of our articles which any rational being, except himself, would think deserving of such an epithet. (1.) With regard to Mr. Wolstenholme's criticisms, we have at the beginning to thank him for having corrected us upon one very elight particular. He must make the most of this solitary admission; for we are not able to make any others of a similar kind. It is quite true that in a verbal criticism of section 17 of the Act we confused together the two expressions "persons claiming through the mortgagor," and "any person through whom he claims;" and Mr. Wolstenholme is entitled to our gratitude for clearing our eyes. Whether there was any confusion or other want of clearness in our account of the two things, styled by Mr. Wolstenholme, "tacking of debts and consolidation of mortgages," we shall leave the readers of our article on that subject to judge. Even granting that those designations are the most proper to describe the things, how can we justly be charged with confusion, when we explained, in the clearest possible language, what was the precise nature of each of the things-giving the cases and stating the principles upon which each doctrine depended? But we do not at all admit that Mr. Wolstenholme's language is so correct as our own. our opinion, the term "tacking" is more properly confined to those cases in which separate charges upon the same property are tacked to the legal estate; and the In 66 term "consolidation" is properly confined to those cases in which the right to redeem is refused to a mortgagor, except upon condition of his performing some duty other than discharging the whole of the sums secured upon the land comprised in his mortgage. What Mr. Wolstenholme calls tacking of debts" comes within this last principle in a manner closely analogous to that in which what he calls "consolidation of mortgages" comes within it. Upon what principle of good faith does he make the mere fact that he likes to use one kind of language, while we like to use another, a ground for pretending that we did not know what we were talking about when we used our own language? (2.) As to Mr. Wolstenholme's remarks about "Paper No. 2, p. 871," we said that, on a refusal to reconvey, the mortgagee ought to have been declared by the Act a trustee, and the court empowered to effect the transfer by a vesting order. Mr. Wolstenholme now says, in effect, that this power does exist. There is not a word about it in the Act, and we could hardly desire stronger evidence that the power ought, as we said, to have been expressly given by the Act, instead of being, at this late hour, established solely by Mr. Wolstenholme's ipse dixit. SHERIFFS AND THEIR OFFICERS. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Although at the last meeting of the Court of Common Council the notice of motion standing in my name relating to this matter was unexpectedly reached and withdrawn in consequence of my not having received all the statistics with which I expect to be furnished, yet, on the same day, I gave notice of a resolution in similar terms, which I shall move at the meeting to be held next week, unless the court should determine to deal with the important question of the Fish Supply of the Metropolis, which cannot be postponed. I have no intention whatever of allowing the matter to drop, and, indeed, the evidence which I have already received of the serious difficulties which some sheriffs' officers place in the way of the recovery of moneys received by them is so serious and extraordinary, that I could not, if I would, abandon the matter, notwithstanding the pressure which in some quarters has been put upon me to do so. One eminent firm of City solicitors informs me that in the country it is the rule rather than the exception for the officer to detain the plaintiff's moneys, or, worse still, to arrange with debtors without authority. They add that in one case the officer detained the proceeds of a sale, under a fi. fa., for nearly three months, and the money was only recovered under pressure; and in another case this same officer deducted the rent from the weeks. W. J. FRASER. (3.) We are always happy to disseminate information; and it gives us great pleasure to tell Mr. Wolstenholme, at his request, the meaning of "going into possession pro forma." It means, going into possession, not for the purpose of acting as mortgagee in possession, but only formally and for the purpose of acquiring the im-levy and kept the landlord out of the money for many munity thereby to be acquired by virtue of section 15, sub-section (2). Our readers will remember our suggestion that section 15, sub-section (1), might be evaded if the mortgage deed contained a stipulation that the mortgagee should be allowed to go into possession and immediately go out again. They may then wonder how Mr. Wolstenholme's inquiry about the consequences of going out of possession without consent of the owners of the equity of redemption, has anything to do with the matter. The very object of our proposed stipulation would, of course, be to secure the needful consent. (4.) The most marvellous part of Mr. Wolstenholme's criticisms is his remarks upon "Paper No. 3, p. 885," which culminate in the observation-" He [i.e., the purchaser of an equitable fee] can get the legal fee by conveyance from the person in whom it is outstanding. This person and the executor can make a complete title now." Are we seriously to understand that, on a contract for the sale of an equitable fee, if the vendor should die before completion, Mr. Wolstenholme would advise a client to accept a conveyance from the trustee of the legal estate and the executor, as the law stands now, without making the heir-at-law a party? We confess that we should not be prepared to advise in this sense; and Mr. Dart seems to be somewhat of the same opinion. "It has been held," he says, "that where the vendor of an equitable estate dies before completion, his heirs are necessary parties to the conveyance" (V. & P. 256). We fear Mr. Wolstenholme must bring himself to "go" a good deal "further," if he wishes the public to believe that he has demolished our criticisms. He has convicted us of nothing but one trifling verbal confusion, not in the slightest degree affecting our argument. And since, in his own letter, he has obviously confused "mortgagor" with "mortgagee," we may hope that he does not look upon such slips, to which all of us are liable, as mortal sins. He will find by the letter which we print elsewhere, that, so far from our "misleading" our readers, a correspondent who was reduced to outer darkness by the study of Mr. Wolstenholme's legislative compositions, has, by our efforts, been brought to a knowledge of the truth.-ED. S. J.]. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-Referring to the letters in your columns, why do not your numerous correspondents do as we do? Directly we know that the sheriff's officer has the money, we write one letter for payment, and at the expiration of two clear days, we issue a writ against the sheriff, not the officer, and, in a day or two at the utmost, we receive the debt and the costs of the writ to our extreme satisfaction. ALSOP, MANN, & Co. October 26. STAMP DUTY. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.]· Sir, I shall be glad if one of your readers can inform me what is the correct stamp duty payable in the following cases:— (a.) A marriage settlement in the form of a covenant by the intended husband, the settlor, to pay to the trustees £5,000 at the expiration of one month from the solemnization of the marriage, to be held upon the trusts of the settlement. (b.) A marriage settlement consisting of a covenant by the settlor to lay out £1,000 in the purchase of household furniture, within one year from the solemnization of the marriage, such furniture, when purchased, to become thereupon subject to the trusts of the settlement. (c.) A settlement similar to (t.), except that the covenant is that the furniture, when purchased, shall be assigned to the trustees upon the trusts of the settlement. INQUIRER. October 24. THE SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ACT. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, The Incorporated Law Society will have a prominent voice in fixing the scale of fees to be allowed under this Act. As the members of the council are chiefly partners in large firms dealing principally with matters involving heavy amounts, in which a small per centage will pay extremely well, may I venture to remind them that there are many general practitioners whose business consists of matters involving small amounts, and to trust that the percentage fixed shall be such as will render these small matters at least remunerative. NEMO. CHANGE OF NAME. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir, I should feel much obliged if any of your readers can inform me what the necessary steps are incidental to changing a person's name by deed poll, and where I can find a form of such a deed. SPERO. October 22. CASES OF THE WEEK. MARRIED WOMAN - TENANT FOR LIFE-CONVEYANCEDISPENSING WITH HUSBAND'S CONCURRENCE-RECEIPT OF PURCHASE-MONEY-FINES AND RECOVERIES ACT (3 & 4 WILL. 4, c. 74), s. 91.-In a case of In re Piper, before Cave and Kay, JJ., sitting as a divisional court, on the 22nd inst., an application was made under section 91 of the Fines and Recoveries Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74), by Mrs. Piper, a married woman, for an order dispensing with her husband's concurrence in the conveyance of certain freehold land of which she was tenant for life. By the will of her father, who died in 1862, the property had been devised to her for life, with remainder to her children. In 1866 Mrs. Piper was deserted by her husband, and she was now living apart from him. A contract having been entered into for the sale of the fee simple of the property by Mrs. Piper and her children, Mrs. Piper moved to have her husband's concurrence in the conveyance of her life estate dispensed with under the above section, which provides that, if a husband shall be living apart from his wife from any cause, it shall be lawful for the Court of Common Pleas (now merged in the Queen's Bench Division), upon the application of the wife, to dispense with the concurrence of the husband in any case in which his concurrence is required by the Act. Evidence in support of the motion having been read, the COURT made the order as asked, observing that Mrs. Piper would be entitled to receive and give a discharge for the purchase money in respect of her life estate.-SOLICITORS, Houghton & Byfield. PRACTICE-APPEAL FROM MASTER-TIME FOR ENLARGEMENT OF-RULES OF COURT, 1875, ORD. 54, R. 4; Ord. 57, R. 6. In an action of Dennett v. Bull, also before Cave and Kay, JJ., sitting as a divisional court, on the 22nd inst., a motion was made by the plaintiff to set aside an order made in chambers by Kay, J., dismissing a summons for appeal from an order by Master Sir F. Pollock. The plaintiff was a sub-contractor under the defendants, Messrs. Bull, the contractors for building the Royal Courts of Justice, and the action was to recover the amount of the sub-contract. An order having been made by the master at chambers on September 13 last, an appeal summons to the judge under Rules of Court, 1875, ord. 54, r. 4, was taken out by the plaintiff on the 17th, but was not heard until the 22nd, the day for which it was made returnable. It appeared that the summons might have been taken out immediately after the decision, and heard by the judge on the 14th. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as the appeal summons had been taken out before the expiration of the four days from the date of the master's decision, under ord. 54, r. 4, the fact of its not being returnable until after the expiration of the four days was immaterial: Gibbons v. The London Financial Association (L. R. 4 C. P. D. 263); Collins v. Vestry of Paddington (L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 368); that the rule should not be applied strictly, and that the court had power to enlarge the time, under ord. 57, r. 6. The COURT said that the rule required the appeal not only to be brought, but to be heard within the four days, unless good ground were shown for relief. The decision having been given on September 13, the appeal summons might have been put into the paper for hearing on the 14th, so that there was no real ground for the plaintiff's delay. If the court were to relax the rule in this case, it would be cited as a precedent for relaxing it in other cases of the same kind. accordingly the appeal was dismissed with costs.SOLICITORS, Taylor, Hoare, & Taylor; Stosken & Jupp. PRACTICE-ACCIDENT-ACTION FOR DAMAGES-PARTICULAR-MANAGER OF BUSINESS-ORDER FOR FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS.-In an action of Varney and Wife v. The North Metropolitan Tramways Company, also before Cave and Kay, JJ., sitting as a divisional court, on the 22nd inst., which was an action for damages through an accident to the female plaintiff on the defendants' line, an order had been made by Master Sir F. Pollock, upon the defendants' application for particulars, "that the plaintiff Varney do deliver to the defendants an account of the particulars of the losses mentioned in the statement of claim." The first particular was for the expenses of nursing and medical expenses, £7 17s. 6d., which was not disputed. Another was, 66 damages for pain and suffering of Mrs. Varney," and loss consequent upon her being incapacitated by the accident from following her avocation as manageress of her husband's business, which was that of a grocer; but no sum was stated, and the defendants submitted that some estimate should be inserted, so that they might judge of the reasonableness of the claim. An application for further and better particulars having been refused by the master, the defendants appealed to Kay, J., in chambers, who refused to vary the master's order. ants then appealed to the Divisional Court. said the defendants were entitled to have better particulars of the losses alleged to have arisen from the incapacity of the female plaintiff to act as manageress of her husband's business. There could be no difficulty in stating such particulars, as, for instance, the actual losses in the business, or the extra expenses incurred in consequence of the plaintiff being deprived of his wife's services. The appeal was therefore allowed. -SOLICITORS, H. C. Godfray; C. F. B. Birchall. The defend The COURT further and PRACTICE-INSPECTION OF BOOKS, ORDER FOR-INSPECTION BY NOMINEE OF BOTH PARTIES.-In a case of Head v. Willey, also before Cave and Kay, JJ., sitting as a divisional court, on the 22nd inst., Kay, J., had made an order in chambers giving the plaintiff leave to inspect the defendant's books "by a person to be agreed upon by the parties, or, if not agreed upon, then by a person to be appointed by the master." The plaintiff then moved to vary the order by striking out the words quoted, on the ground that he should have liberty to inspect by himself or by his own accountant or nominee, with whom he could consult, and that otherwise the order for inspection would be useless to him. The COURT expressed itself unable to see how any reasonable objection could be made to the order as it stood. It would be unreasonable for the plaintiff to send down an accountant or other nominee of his own to inspect the defendant's books without giving the defendant the opportunity of objecting to the person who might be sent. The motion was therefore dismissed with costs.-SOLICITORS, Clarke & Son; Layton & Jaques. JURISDICTION-LORD MAYOR'S COURT-CONFLICTING EVIDENCE-PROHIBITION.-In an action of Druiff v. Wood, also before Cave and Kay, JJ., sitting as a divisional court, on the 22nd inst., which was for the recovery of a sum of £8, being the value of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, the main question in dispute between the parties was as to which of them was liable for the carriage of the goods, and upon this point conflicting affidavits had been filed. Williams, J., having, upon the application of the defendant, granted a prohibition against proceeding with the action in the Lord Mayor's Court, the plaintiff moved before the Divisional Court to set aside the order. The COURT held that there was jurisdiction in the Lord Mayor's Court to decide upon the evidence which was absolutely conflicting, and that jurisdiction could not be interfered with. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the order of prohibition set aside.-SOLICITORS, H. H. Myers; Wright & Pilley. OBITUARY. MR. WILLIAM SALE. was Mr. William Sale, solicitor, the senior partner of the firm of Sale, Seddon, Hilton, & Lord, of Manchester, died at Brighton on the 13th inst. Mr. Sale was born at Atherstone, in Warwickshire, in the year 1808. His father, Mr. George Sale, was a wholesale draper there, and was well known in Manchester, to which fact no doubt bis son's settlement in that city, after his admission, was largely due. It was about the year 1831 that Mr. Sale commenced practice there, and he soon acquired an extensive business. In 1839 he took Mr. Edward Worthington into partnership, and in 1846 Mr. R. M. Shipman, both of whom are now dead. It was as a commercial lawyer that Mr. Sale became chiefly known. He was remarkable for acuteness and rapid perception, and enjoyed a reputation which was not confined to Manchester and the neighbouring districts, or even to England; and he was remarkable for the tact with which he settled disputes without resort to courts of law. The important position of legal adviser to the Anti-Corn Law League during its prolonged agitation was held by him, and the duties of the office were discharged in a manner which tended materially to help the cause for which the League existed. The extension of the county franchise by the purchase of freehold properties, and the sub-division of the same into freehold interests of not less than forty shillings per annum, with the object of controlling the county elections, was a suggestion of Mr. Sale's, which was adopted by the League and advocated with great ability by his brother-in-law, the late Mr. Richard Cobden, and was extensively acted upon, and the votes thus created, though their validity was questioned at the time, were sustained in the revision courts, and in the Court of Common Pleas on appeal. For many years Mr. Sale acted as legal adviser to the Liberal candidates for the city of Manchester, and for the Southern Division of the county of Lancaster, and was able in that capacity to render valuable aid to the Liberal party. He was also solicitor to several of the largest banking houses in Manchester. A severe illness which he had in 1876, when he was in his sixty-eighth year, led to his retiring from the more onerous duties of his practice, and he had lived at Brighton since the early part of 1878. Shortly before he left Manchester Mr. Sale's numerous friends invited him to sit for his portrait to the celebrated artist, Mr. Ouless. The portrait is one of the most successful products of that artist's easel, and largely contributed to establish his reputation. The picture hangs in the Clarendon Club, Manchester, with which Mr. Sale was connected, and of which he was president up to the time of his death. Being considered one of Mr. Onless's best works, it was sent to the Paris Exhibition of 1878 by special request of the Prince of Wales. Mr. Sale was twice married. His wife who survives him, was the sister of Mr. Richard Cobden. Mr. Sale's conspicuous talents and unfailing kindness attached his clients to him with bonds of personal regard and affection. He was esteemed by all more as a friend than as a lawyer, and his death has caused universal regret in Manchester and the neighbourhood, and amongst a numerous circle who, to use the words of an eminent London solicitor, looked upon him as one of the landmarks of the profession. ABBOTT, WILLIAM JOHN, Great College st, Camden Town, Ironmonger. Dec 1. Underwood, Chancery lane BARRON, ELIZA, St. Leonard's on-Sea, Nov 15. Stubbs, John st, Jan 1. By get Bedford row BECKETT, GEORGE, Moston, Chestor, Farmer. BORRINGHAM, Lucy, Louth, Lincoln. Dec 14. Bell and Ingoldby. BOULDEN, JOHN TONGE, Townshend rd, Marylebone, Gent. Nov 28. Fisher and Carter, Old Jewry chmbrs CASS, THOMAS, Laurel villas, Tottenham, Builder. Nov 25. M< and Co, Brunswick pl, City rd CHANDLER, EDWARD HENRY, Albany st, Regent's park, Esq. Dea 1. Burton and Co, Lincoln's inn fields CLAYDON, ANN, Alderney st, Pimlico. Nov 28. Abrahams and Co, Bedford row COWPER, GEORGE, Windsor. Nov 10. Cooper and Walker, Biliter st ESTRIDGE, Rev. JOHN JULIUS, Puncknoll, Dorset. Nov 19. Jones, Trowbridge FARHALL, HARRIETTE PRICE, Maidenhead, Berks. Nov 12. Jarvis and Triscott, Chancery lane FELL, GEORGE, Paulton's square, Chelsea, Gent. Nov 21. Fell, Gray's inn rd HEPWORTH, JOSEPH, Batley, York, Yeoman. Oct 29. Law, Batler JOHNSTONE, ELIZABETH, Heavitree, nr Exeter. Dec 6. Burgoynes and Co, Oxford st JOHNSTONE, WILLIAM, Honiton, Esq. Dec 6. LEWIS, CHARLES TERRELL, Ibsley, Exeter, Esq. Burgoynes and Co, Dec 31. Syms and MARSH, JANE, Chepstow, Monmouth. Nov 12. Wragze and Ca, Birmingham MARSH, JOHN FITCHETT, Chepstow, Monmouth, Gent. Nov. 12. Wragge and Co, Birmingham PARKER, GEORGE JOHN, Sydney, New South Wales, Surgeon. N. 12. Donnithorne and Ewer, Gracechurch st PATRICK, EDWIN, Oxford, Builder. Nov 26. Hazel and Baines, Oxford ROBSON, JOHN, South Shields, Block Maker. Nov 12. Adama KL, North Shields ROME, RICHARD, Skipton, York, Tea Dealer. Nov 1. Cragz. Skipton SEYMOUR, GEORGE, Montpelier rd, Peckham. Nov 25. Müs, Cry rd SMITH, CAROLINE, Ramsbury, Wilts. Nov 17. Rowland, Raze bury UPPLEBY, MARY ANN, Scarborough, Nov 27. Scarborough CHAMBERLAIN, HENRY TAYLOR, Bristol, Hammonds, Bristol Moody and Co, [Gazete, Out. 14 Merchant. Nov COOKE, GEORGE, the elder, Snaith, York, Farmer. Dec 18. Clarke, Snaith DAVEY, CHARLOTTE ESTHER, Canterbury, Newspaper Propriet. ir. Dec 16. Plummer and Fielding, Canterbury DONISTHORPE, ELIZABETH, Prince's Park, Liverpool. Dec 14. Stie and Co, Liverpool DYBELL, ROBERT, Bungay, Suffolk, Gent. Dec 15. Smith, Bangar HAMBLING, THOMAS, East Dereham, Norfolk, Gent. Nov 16 INGE, Rev GEORGE, Thorpe Constantine, Stafford. Nov 12. Whate ley and Co, Birminghain LEES, EDWARD, Waterloo Crosby, nr Liverpool, Gent. Dec 21 A'm and Co, Manchester LOVATT, GEORGE HARRY, New Cross rd, Hop Merchant. N. e Allen and Edwards, Old Jewry LUCAS, ISAAC, Presbury, Chester, Auctioneer. Oct 30. Lucas, Aandra rd, Hill, Southampton MALIN, SOPHIA LYDIA, Banbury, Oxford. Nov 15. Birch, Thame MORRIS, JOHN, Lambeth rd, Gent. Nov 19. Lewis and Si mington sq, Clerkenwell NOBLE, BENJAMIN, Brighouse, York, Silk Spinner. Dec 15, Cha bers and Chambers, Brighouse PACKER, CHARLES, Streatham, Surrey. Nov 18. Lawrance and Co, PITT, JOSEPH, Brixton rd. Nov 7. Parker, Bedford row RYLAND, JANE, Edgbaston, Birmingham. Dec 12. Sanders and SAWREY, JOHN, Broughton in Furness, Lancaster, J.P., D.L. Nov 15. Bowlings and Co, Essex st, Strand SILL, NICHOLAS, Southport, Lancashire, Gent. Nov 19. Jevons and SMITH, ANN, Cambridge st, Pimlico. Nov 17. Fallows and Brown, AGAR, JOHN, Bristol, Gent. Nov 19. Perham, Bristol ASHWORTH, JOSEPH, Stansfield, Halifax, York, Yeoman. Nov 14. ATKINSON, THOMAS, Millom, Cumberland, Yeoman. Nov 14. Butler, Broughton-in-Furness CASSON, ANN, Broughton in Furness. Nov 14. Butler, Broughton in Furness DRINKWATER, ELIZABETH MARIA, Wallington, Surrey. Nov 1. Woodrooffe, New sq, Lincoln's inn DUNN, ROBERT, Potovens, nr Wakefield, Rope Manufacturer. Dec 1. Barratt and Senior, Wakefield EXLEY, GEORGE, Worsbrough Dale, nr Barnsley, York, Saddler. Nov 22. Horsfield, Barnsley GRAY, DANIEL, Ely pl, Southwark, Organ Builder. Nov 22. Castle GREET, FANNY, Leamington, Warwickshire, Milliner. HAES, SARAH, Golborne rd, Ladbroke grove rd. Nov 17. Nov 21. Roscoe HAMNETT, WILLIAM, Little Hulton, Lancaster, Farmer. Nov 14. Marlow and Dixon, Manchester KAWKINS, THOMAS, Bristol, Surgeon. Bristol Nov 30. Salt and Parnell, HAYNES, RICHARD, Tredington, Worcester, Shoemaker. Nov 19. Hancock and Hiron, Shipston on Stour MAY, HERBERT HENRY, Market Harborough, Leicester, Draper. Oct 4. Cave, Market Harborough NICHOLSON, JOHN, Newcastle upon Tyne, Retired Licensed Victualler. Nov 30. Allan and Davies, Newcastle upon Tyne PENFOLD, ANNA MARIA, Preston, nr Brighton. Nov 22. Barker and Son, Bedford row PULLEN, ALFRED, King st, West Hammersmith, Licensed Victualler. Nov 16. Marshal, Hammersmith ROBERTS, ELIZABETH, Redcliffe gdns, South Kensington. Dec 6. Wansey, Bristol ROGERS, ALEXANDER TALLENTS, Penge, Surrey, Esq. Nov 30. Plaskitt, Lincoln's inn fields Ross, ALFRED BARKER, Westgate on Sea, Kent, Gent. Dec 1. MerriIman, King's Bench walk, Temple ROTHWELL, BETTY, Tottington, ǹr Bury, Lancaster. Nov 10. Dodds, Bury SALTER, Rev FREDERICK, Hethe, Oxford, Clerk. Nov 19. Every, Honiton SEAMAN, LAMBERT, Clapham rd, Gent. Nov 30. Plaskitt, Lincoln's inn fields SIMKINS, THOMAS, Sunninghill, Berks, Grocer. Nov 20. Brooks and Co, Godliman st, Doctor's commons SOWTER, EMMA, Derby. Nov 19. Gadsby, Derby SWABY, JAMES SUTTON, Somers Town. Ommanney, Great Winchester st Nov 21. Sutton and SWABY, WILLIAM SUTTON, Japan. Nov 21. Sutton and Ommanney, Great Winchester st WINDER, JOHN, Pennington, nr Ulverston, Lancaster, Gent. Dec 1. Bartlett and Atkinson, Liverpool WYNNIATT, REGINALD, Dymock Grange, Gloucester, Esq. Dec 1. Warry and Co, Lincoln's inn fields YSASI, VICTORIANO GREGORIO DE, Water lane, Great Tower st, Merchant. Dec 17. Robins and Peters, Guildhall chmbrs, Bssinghall st HOUGHTON, CHARLES JAMES, Hastings, Sussex, Carpenter. Dec 1. Ingle and Co, Threadneedle st JOHNSON, JOHN, York, Gent. Dec 28. Atlay Shaftoe, York LEACH, JOHN, Leverington, Cambridge, Gent. Dec 10. Fraser and LOVE, JOHN, Copthill, nr Banstead, Surrey, Gent. MORRIS, HENRY WILLIAM, Rock Island, Skibboreen, Cork, Gent. Jan 1. Minshalls and Parry Jones, Oswestry MOZLEY, CHARLES, Granville pl, Portman sq, Esq. Dec 20. Mozley, Philpot lane NELSON, JOHN, Wallsend, Northumberland, Gent. Nov 19. Mabane and Graham, South Shields ORMEROD, DAVID, the elder, Elland, Halifax, Flock Dealer. Nov 27. Foster and Co, Halifax RAINS, STEPHEN WALTER, Sydenham, Retired Commissary. Dec 1. Chenery, Fish st hill, London RICHES, SAMUEL, Uxbridge rd, Shepherd's Bush, Licensed Victualler. Dec 1. Stollard and Whitting, South Molton st ROBERTS, ISRAEL, Stanningley, nr Leeds, Cloth Manufacturer. Nov 28. Booth and Co, Leeds ROBINSON, PAUL, Sedgley, Stafford, Coal Master. Dec 1. Manby and Son, Wolverhampton SHEPPARD, SAMUEL, Birmingham, Brass Founder. Dec 1. Hawkins, Birmingham SMITH, SUSANNA, Flixton, Lancaster. Nov 22. Wood and Co, Man chester SWANWICK, SARAH, Chester. Nov 30. Darbishire and Tatham, TAYLOR, JOHN, Oldham, Lancaster, Cotton Spinner. Nov 8. [Gazette, Oct. 21.] ARGUS NEWSPAPER COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Oct 19, directed to be heard before Hall, V.C., on Nov 4. Turner, Serjeants' inn, Chancery lane, solicitor for the petitioner. GENERAL PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Oct 17, directed to be heard before Chitty, J, on Nov 5. Flower and Nussey, Great Winchester st, agents for Killick and Co, Bradford, solicitors for the petitioner OIL VARNISH MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED.-Petition for winding up, presented Oct 15, directed to be heard before Bacon, V.C., on Nov 5. Jenkinson and Co, Frederick's pl, Old Jewry, solicitors for the petitioners SWISS UNSWEETENED PURE MILK COMPANY, LIMITED.-By an order made by the Vacation Judge, dated Oct 13, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Talbot. Bennet's hill, Doctor's commons solicitor for the petitioner COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER. UNIVERSITIES CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.-By an order made by the Vacation Judge, dated Oct 19, it was ordered that the company be wound up. Blagden, Fenchurch avenue, solicitor for the petitioner HIGHER EANAM BREWERY COMPANY, LIMITED.-Creditors are required, on or before Nov 14, to send their names and addresses, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to Henry Bolland, 10, South John st, Liverpool. Thursday, Dec 1, at 11, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the debts and claims [Gazette, Oct. 25.] FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED. ROSE OF ENGLAND PROTESTANT BENEFIT SOCIETY, Cocoa Rooms, Gt Homer st, Liverpool. Oct 21 [Gazette, Oct. 25.] |
