equally vague." The Bohemia of Frank Danby is a grim and ghastly place-a charnel-house of dead hopes and spoiled lives, yet with just the one consolatory suggestion, that self-sacrifice and purity of motive are not quite unknown even in that brutal and depraved nether world. The Real Macbeth, by the Real Macduff, London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Price 1s.-A clever caricaturist has in this amusing brochure given to the public a highly diverting version of "Macbeth," whether judged by the outcome of pen or pencil. The caricature sketches are extremely funny-so funny that even the most ardent Irvingite can afford to laugh at this exaggerated satire, and the manipulation of the letterpress has been done with considerable humour. Altogether the little volume is an entertaining shilling's-worth. Dod's London County Council. By the Editor of Dod's Parliamentary Companion. London: George Bell and Sons. Price 1s. This nicely printed and carefully compiled little volume has been published with the view of giving personal information about the members of the London County Council, much of which will no doubt prove both interesting and valuable to the public. The greatest care has, of course, been taken to ensure the absolute accuracy of the details given in the book. Baily's Magazine for May duly reached us from Messrs. Vinton & Co., and we hasten to record that its pages are, as usual, rich in all sorts of interesting matter relating to the great and growing world of sport, and that an admirable portrait of Mr. Townley-Parker adds to the interest of the present number. a The Sportsman's and Tourists' Time Tables and Guide, by Mr. J. Watson Lyall, 15, Pall Mall, has reached us, and we congratulate Mr. Lyall upon the production of one of the most useful and comprehensive guide-books which was ever published for the modest sum of one shilling. Mr. Lyall's work is no new thing. Countless tourists and sportsmen have had to thank him for many a pleasant trip, conducted with the greatest possible amount of ease and pleasure, and at the minimum of trouble and expense, thanks to the wealth of information imparted so clearly and so pleasantly in his pages. The book is evidently compiled in no mere perfunctory spirit, but is labour of love, and the result is that a host of details which could only be the fruit of personal experience, are added to the mass of statistical and other formal information. As a matter of fact it is not the sportsman alone who can consult Mr. Lyall's pages with advantage. His guide is certainly one of the best ever published for the general tourist in Scotland, and we cordially recommend it to our readers, whether disciples of the angle, followers of the deer, or merely holiday-makers in search of health on the breezy moors and lovely lakes of bonnie Scotland. A special feature of the new issue of the work is an admirable coloured map showing all the deer forests, and an index to the same, and which has been prepared in accordance with the result of the investigations of the Crofters' Commission. In a word, Mr. Lyall's book is comprehensive, clear, and up to date, and should be in the hands of all who want to obtain the greatest amount of pleasure and of sport with the least possible trouble and expense. LEGAL HONOURS. MR. FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET, Q.C., has been appointed to act as a Commissioner of Assize. He was educated at Eton, and he was formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated in the first class of the classical tripos, and also as a senior optime in 1860. Called at the Inner Temple in Trinity 1863. He was junior counsel to the Admiralty from 1875 till 1880, when he was created a Queen's Counsel. He is Recorder of the City of Worcester, and he was a member of the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Board of Works. Dr. THOMAS Clifford AllBUTT has been appointed a Commissioner in Lunacy. Mr. FREDERICK DANBY-PALMER, solicitor, has been created a Deputy-Lieutenant for the County of Norfolk. Admitted in Michaelmas Term, 1861. Mr. Palmer is the present mayor of Great Yarmouth. MR. WILLIAM JOSEPH FRASER, solicitor, has been re-elected Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Westminster Union. Admitted in Michaelmas Term, 1866. Mr. Fraser is a member of the Corporation of London. MR. LLEWELLYN HUGH JONES, solicitor, has been appointed Official Receiver in Bankruptcy for the Chester and North Wales District. Admitted in 1885. MR. HENRY SACHEVEREL SHERRY, solicitor, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Dorsetshire to be UnderSheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Admitted in 1868. Mr. PETER EDWARD HANSELL, solicitor, has been appointed by the High Sheriff of Norfolk to be Under-Sheriff of that county for the ensuing year. Admitted in 1855. NORTHERN CIRCUIT-SPRING ASSIZES, 1889. THE commissions for holding these assizes will be opened at Manchester on Saturday, May 11th, and at Liverpool on Saturday, May 18th. Business will commence at each place on the Monday following the commission, at 11 a.m., unless otherwise ordered. In pursuance of Order xxxvi., rule 22в, and by leave of the judges appointed to go the above circuit, causes can now be entered with the associate, at his office, 1, Chapel Street, Preston, or at the district registries, during office hours, at any time not later than 4 p.m. of the day next but one before the commission day. On entering a cause, two copies of the pleadings must be lodged, one for the use of the judge, and the other for the associate. The necessary £2 stamp must in all cases accompany the pleadings. Money will not be received. pleadings, e.g., "slander," "goods sold." The notice of trial The nature of the action must be shortly indorsed on the must not be indorsed. The trial of special jury causes will commence at Manchester on Wednesday, May 15th, and at Liverpool on Wednesday, May 22nd, at the sitting of the court, unless otherwise ordered." A list of causes for trial each day (except the first), at Manchester and Liverpool, will be posted in the corridor of the court and in the library. The associate's fees must be paid in Judicature stamps. To avoid correspondence and delay, solicitors are requested to apply to Mr. Arthur Shuttleworth, the deputy associate, for their certificates during the assizes, and afterwards to him at his office in Preston. No certificates will be given out unless the proper £1 stamp is provided. Money will not be received. N.B. Where a cause in the list has been settled, immediate notice thereof must be given to the deputy associate by the party who entered it. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. No notice can be taken of anonymous letters. The name and address of the writer should always be enclosed on a card or otherwise, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. We commend this to the attention of "Investor," "A Reader," "A Solicitor of Ten Years' Standing," "St. Stephen's Club," and all others whom it may concern in the future. KENSINGTON. You can do no better than transact your business with Mr. John Shaw, of Wardrobe Chambers, who is the most well-known outside broker in London. We have never heard the slightest complaint of him. Quite the contrary, so far the reports we have always received are highly satisfactory. You may go further and fare worse. A READER.-See the remarks we have made above to another reader. R. N.-The Russian Agricultural Company was one of what we believe we called at the time Vicker's unfortunate companies. We don't know whether they went to allotment or not, but in any case we should not for our part advise you to invest in it. H. W.-Yuruari. It all depends whether you bought for delivery to hold as an investment, as seems probable from the general tenor of your letter, though you are not very clear, or merely intended a speculation, and to sell before delivery. In the former case, the liability is 2s. per share beyond the purchase money. In the latter case, you would of course have no liability. As a speculation, we certainly think there is money to be made if you know when to sell. The shares had risen from 2s. to 2s. 44d. since you wrote. G. S.-(1) Yes. (2) Have nothing to do with him. We will write you confidentially or through your bankers. NEMO. The company is, or rather for a long time was, the operator himself and six irresponsible nominees. One or two flats, as you very nearly proved being, have since been caught. There will be a big burst some day. Strangely enough, G. S. was on the same track, and we will communicate with you in the same way if you wish. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN wife the opportunity to obtain a divorce under the AMERICA. THE striking absence of uniformity in the laws of the different states, governing marriage and divorce, and the resultant evil consequences, have given rise to much recent discussion in the public press. Two remedies are suggested. One contemplates concerted action on the part of the legislatures of all the states in the adoption of uniform marriage and divorce laws. Such a proposition, however, is manifestly impracticable. The other remedy proposed is to place these subjects, by constitutional amendment, under the control of the general government a more practicable plan, perhaps, but one calculated to arouse the opposition of those who dread the present evident tendency in our country towards centralisation of power. There can be no question that the existing condition of affairs is both absurd and demoralising. A recent number of the "Standard of the Cross and the Church,' one of the leading weeklies of the Protestant Episcopal Church, published at Philadelphia, contains an ingenious story, entitled "A Yankee Bluebeard, or Marriage According to the State Statutes," intended to illustrate possibilities which might result from the present laws. The hero of the tale, at the age of fourteen, is married in New Hampshire by a justice of the peace to a wife aged twelve, having forged the consent of their respective father and guardian. This marriage was valid under the New Hampshire statute. After three years of wedded life the young husband, then under eighteen, deserts his wife and goes to Michigan, where he marries a second time, the new wife being also eighteen, a justice of the peace again performing the ceremony. Under the Michigan statute this marriage is perfectly valid, no license being required, and the law providing that, where a boy is married when under eighteen, and does not live with his wife after reaching that age, the marriage shall be deemed void. This second marriage does not prove a happy one, and in less than four years the wife obtains a divorce on the ground of her husband's failure to maintain her. The latter goes further West, but finally drifts back to Ohio, where he falls in love with his first cousin. As the Ohio statute forbids marriages between first cousins, the lovers, accompanied by the bridal party, cross the river to West Virginia, where no such obstacle exists. Here, however, they find themselves confronted by another difficulty. In West Virginia a marriage can be legally sol eшnised only by a regularly ordained clergyman. But both bride and groom are conscientiously opposed to being married by a clergyman. Both obstacles are at last overcome by continuing their journey to Pennsylvania, where first cousins are permitted to marry and where they may marry themselves, in the presence of witnesses, without the aid of clergyman or officer of the law. The third wife dies in about four years, and soon afterwards the hero finds himself in Virginia, where he becomes acquainted with an aunt of his late wife, who soon wins his affections. About the same time, however, the aunt is visited by another niece, who is both first cousin and sister-in-law of the already much-married widower. With her he also falls in love, and, while hesitating between aunt and niece, he makes an examination of the Virginia marriage laws. He finds that in that State he cannot legally marry his aunt-in-law, but there is nothing to prevent a marriage with his sister-in-law or cousin. He is advised that the West Virginia law is the same, but that a lawful marriage might be contracted with the aunt in either Maryland or North Carolina. But he concludes at last to marry the niece, and, in order to escape marriage by a clergyman, designates a friend to perform the ceremony, who is required to give bond in 1,500 dollars before he is qualified. This marriage also proves unhappy, the wife having a quick temper, and the trouble culminates, soon after the removal of husband and wife to Kentucky, in an accidental encounter with the divorced wife from Michigan. The husband, by absenting himself for a year, gives his case. Kentucky statute. But she does not avail herself of it, and he returns to her. They continue to live unhappily and finally locate in Delaware. Here the husband makes a careful examination of the divorce legislation of the various states and territories, with a view to finding a law which suits his case. He finds over thirty causes of divorce specified in the statutes, every state, save South Carolina, permitting divorce upon some ground. The extreme of laxity is reached in Utah, where a divorce is allowed if it is "made to appear to the court that the parties cannot live in peace and union together." But he does not care to go so far West, and finally selects Florida as best suited to his There a divorce may be obtained because of "the habitual indulgence of a violent and ungovernable temper." So he buys an orange plantation, to which he beguiles his wife, and, as soon as their two years' residence has expired, begins proceedings for a divorce, which is soon obtained. He at once returns to Deleware, but his joy turns to sorrow when he discovers that his divorce is without force in that state, as he had left the state to obtain a divorce upon grounds not recognised by the Delaware statute. He therefore flees to Tennessee. But his susceptibilities are not blunted He soon conby this last unfortunate experience. tracts another marriage in Tennessee with a woman whose husband had gone to Mexico two years before and had not since been heard from. By the Tennessee statute, under these circumstances she is permitted to marry again. This marriage is abruptly terminated, while the couple are residing in Louisiana, by the reappearance of the husband who was supposed to be dead. By the same statute which permitted the marriage he can reclaim his wife, which he forthwith proceeds to do. After a trip to Europe, during which an attempt to marry a German maiden is frustrated by the complicated German marriage registry laws, the sorrowful grass widower is married in Rhode Island to a woman who proves to be the divorced wife of his own son, the child of the Michigan wife, No. 2, now grown to manhood. The divorce had been obtained in Washington territory, on the ground that husband and wife could no longer live together. In order to legalise this marriage the couple are obliged to cross the state line and celebrate their nuptial rites in Connecticut. Not proving congenial, however, they soon agree to separate, and, in order to obtain a divcrce, are obliged to recross the line and make their application in Rhode Island, where the divorce laws are less stringent. The last marriage of this expert in marriage laws is with his own step-mother. As she resides in Massachusetts, where such a marriage is not legal, they go to New York, where the knot is tied by one of the famous aldermen. Their marriage, while valid in New York, is void in Massachusetts. This diverting history leaves its hero in the following extraordinary situation: In New Hampshire, husband of wife No. 1; in Ohio and other States, where the Michigan divorce would not be recognised, husband of wife No. 2; in Delaware, husband of wife No. 4; in New York, husband of wife No. 7; in Massachusetts, unmarried; and in Tennessee legally married to another man's wife. r TEMPLE CHURCH.-MAY, 1889. May 12.-Third Sunday after Easter.-Morning Service: Te Deum Laudamus, Attwood in A; Jubilate Deo, Attwood in A.; Anthem, "O give thanks" (Purcell). Evening Service: Cantate Domino, Attwood in D; Deus Misereatur, Attwood in D; Anthem, "Sing ye praise" (Mendelssohn). May 19.-Fourth Sunday after Easter.-Morning Service: Te Deum Laudamus, Smart in F: Jubilate Deo, Smart in F; Anthem, "O rest in the Lord" (Mendelssohn). Evening Service Magnificat, Smart in F; Nunc Dimittis, Smart in F; Anthem, "O sing unto the Lord" (Purcell). May 26.-Fifth Sunday after Easter-Morning Service: Te Deum Laudamus, Hopkins in F; Benedictus, Hopkins in F; Anthem, "Rejoice in the Lord alway (Purcell). Evening Service Magnificat, Hopkins in F; Nunc Dimittis, Hopkins in F; Anthem, "Praise the Lord" (Goss). LOOKING over the file of PUMP COURT we find, in our issue many years back, that our memoir of Sir Richard Webster needs no alteration, and, if we except the doings before the Commission, we may say no material additions. All we have to record is that our prediction was verified, and that as soon as he obtained a seat at St. Stephen's he was appointed Attorney-General. We therefore reproduce the original biography ipsissima verba, merely remarking with respect to the portrait that since that period Sir Richard has aged very much in appearance. He retained his youthful appearance for a longer time than most men, but quite suddenly a change took place, and he now looks his years:-"Richard Everard Webster, Q.C., although he has only just reached his fortieth year, is known to be in possession of one of the largest, if not the largest, and most lucrative practice of any counsel at the Bar. He is the son of a well-known Queen's Counsel of the past generation, and from an early age was destined for the profession in which he has proved so successful. He was educated at the Charterhouse, where he obtained fair distinction as a classical scholar and mathematician, and made a great and stillremembered reputation as an athlete. Upon leaving school he proceeded to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he afterwards obtained a scholarship. At the University he rapidly became recognised as the best long distance runner known up to that time. For three years he competed for his university against Oxford, winning more than once the mile and two mile races. It was during this portion of his career that he became acquainted with Mr. Lawes, the sculptor, himself an athlete, whom he represented so ably as counsel in the recent cause célèbre of. Belt v. Lawes. Before he left college Mr. Dinow a vinezitermseidon t Webster was elected Pre- wwnlot ni! 0% ative sident of the University Athletic Club, but he managed to perform his duties in this office without neglecting his academical work, and at the end of his University career he took a creditable degree as 35th Wrangler and Third-Classman in Classics. After three years' hard work as a student, he was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn in the Easter Term of 1868. His father's late connection and some influential help from the railway interest secured Mr. Webster a lucrative practice almost from the first. If the anecdotes related of him as the typically successful junior be true, he must be credited with earning three hundred guineas in his first and a thousand guineas in the second year of his practice. Certain it is, at any rate, that during the short period of ten years which elapsed between his call and his taking silk he made an immense reputation as a sensible lawyer and as a wonderfully concise and lucid expositor of a case. It is difficult in surveying his career to recollect any very celebrated case in which he has been engaged, with the exception of the recent and still, perhaps, unfinished Belt v. Lawes ; but there is not a lawyer in the kingdom to whom Mr. Webster's face and figure are unfamiliar, and to whom he is not a proverb as a remarkable instance of succcess at an early age in a career where youth is still known to be generally regarded with suspicion. In 1868 Mr. Webster took silk, but instead of his suffering any diminution of work for this step he was at once recognised, and retained universally as the leading counsel in great railway and commercial cases, and all other matters where an unwearying industry are required. At the present time Mr. Webster is universally recognised as the leading common-law counsel of the day in all cases but those before juries, where Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and others are the favourites. Indeed, Mr. Webster has never achieved any particular success with a jury. He is not remarkably eloquent nor persuasive, nor does he possess any peculiar mastery of the art of crossexamination. His success is due to other qualities. The chief of these, as we have stated above, are a power of lucid and concise ex 14 position and great patience and industry. There is yet another of his qualities which we must mention-a remarkable independence with judges and arbitrators, and a power which he possesses of compelling them to hear him out. When struggling to convince a hostile judge of his view of the case Mr. Webster is the very embodiment of resolution and self-possession. Before concluding our sketch of him as a lawyer we may mention that he has earned considerable reputation in patent cases, and is often to be seen in the Equity Courts. Like Sir Henry James and some other of the present leaders of the Common Law Bar, he was, before taking silk, first Tubman and then Postman of the Court of Exchequer. Mr. Webster still takes a keen interest in the athletic sports in which he was so successful in his younger days. He is rarely absent from the Oxford and Cambridge sports, and invariably attends the dinner which is held after that gathering. On more than one occasion he has taken the chair at that dinner and presented the prizes to the successful competitors. In his post-prandial speeches, however, he finds it difficult to throw off his forensic style; but his bonhomie and the evident interest he takes in the rivalries of the youthful athletes make him very popular amongst them. Mr. Webster has already bid unsuccessfully for a seat in Parliament. In 1880 he contested Bewdley; but at the next election he will stand for the Isle of Wight in which place he owns considerable property. He is a staunch Tory, and it is a foregone conclusion from the position he occupies at the Bar that when he obtains a seat in the House it will not be long before he fills the office of one of the legal advisers of a Conservative Government." IS TAXATION A FAILURE? III. THE worst evil of the present system, however, is to be found in the fact that a solicitor is better paid for bad advice than for good. At every sittings of the High Court there are actions to be found in the list which the judges declare should not have been brought to trial at all. These are either cases where one side is so clearly in the right that the opposing counsel can hardly find anything to say, or where the points in dispute are so trifling as to be hardly discoverable. Why, then, are these actions fought? Simply because, in many instances, this forms the only process by which a solicitor can recover what he considers to be an adequate remuneration for his services. Let us imagine the case of a dispute between two merchants as to the amount due upon a particular contract. Each side consults a solicitor, and the two professional men, if they be both shrewd and honest, soon succeed in effecting a compromise on just terms. Such a compromise can only be purchased by mutual concessions, and each party grumbles hugely at having to pay his solicitor four or five guineas for having given up (as he considers) a part of his "rights." But let the case be taken into court, and each solicitor will be able to pocket £50 to £100 clear profit, not for the exercise of any tact or diplomacy, but for the performance of mere routine work which gives him hardly any personal trouble. A few instances taken from cases that have actually occurred will make this more clear. A legacy of £200 less duty is left to a married woman. The solicitors to the executors advise their clients that it must be paid to the trustees of the legatee's marriage settlement, by virtue of a clause in that instrument bringing into settlement all sums of money, &c., "amounting to £200 or upwards" coming to the wife at any one time after her marriage. The lady's solicitor exhausts himself in the attempt to convince the executors that the payment of the duty reduces the legacy below the fatal £200. They say that they must abide by their solicitor's advice, and the opinion of the court is taken. In six months the lady receives her legacy, less £70 for costs, including those of the solicitors whose advice has been proved to be wrong. Again. A man of wealth and position is being driven to a dinner at a friend's house. He finds that he is late, and urges his coachman to greater speed. The coachman, in his hurry, gets on the wrong side of the road and runs into a tradesman's cart. The diner-out goes to his solicitor the next morning, and is told that the best way of avoiding heavy damages is for him to bring an action against the owner of the cart. He does so, and the case goes merrily on to trial. When the case is in court, the plaintiff's counsel, having the fear of the judge before his eyes, suggests a compromise. This is agreed to, and the plaintiff pays £40 for compensation, and £120 to his own solicitor instead of the 13s. 4d. to which that gentleman would have been entitled had he advised his client to pay the £40 at their first interview. Or, again. A clerk is slightly injured in a railway collision. His solicitors (who have reasons for candour) go to the Railway Company's solicitor, state frankly the amount that the accident has cost their client, and also their ideas as to compensation. The solicitor admits "without prejudice " the justice of the claim, but advises the Company to make no immediate offer. At length the injured party, fearful that he may be prejudiced by further delay, issues a writ. Pleadings on both sides are delivered, particulars of the amount of damage done are ordered and given (they being already in the knowledge of the Company), and the Company are interrogated and answer as to the state of their rolling-stock. Then, and not till then, when all things are ready for trial, the Company is advised to "knuckle down," and does so, paying not only the compensation originally asked, but also costs on both sides, which come to more than double the amount of the compensation. It is true that in contentious business the solicitor who persistently gives bad advice is exposed to a certain amount of risk. Judges, and even counsel, occasionally make rude remarks, which, if they come to the ears of the client, may lead to shaken confidence, or even to the death of the goose that lays the golden eggs. In non-contentious business the solicitor is exposed to no such risk. The following cases are illustrative of this: A millionaire testator leaves legacies of large amount to over a score of relatives. These legacies are of the description known as "settled," i.e., the legatees are only to receive the income for their lives, and the capital is to descend on their death to their children. Under ordinary circumstances, these legacies would be held by the executors of the will until the persons ultimately entitled to receive them became entitled to possession. The will, however, in this case contains a clause of which the effect is briefly that the executors can rid themselves of the trust of any of the legacies by paying them over to special trustees appointed ad hoc. On the death of the testator, the executors seek the advice of the solicitor who drew the will. He repre sents to them the bother that they will incur by undertaking the trusts of so many legacies, and, acting under his advice, they disclaim the trusts of the will. solicitor then sends a circular letter to each of the The legatees asking them to name the persons which each would like appointed to act in the trusts of his or her quest, without imagining that they are thereby making particular legacy. The legatees comply with this rea handsome present to the ingenious author (or rather, editor) of the will; but when the legacies are transferred, each legatee receives a neat little bill of nearly £20 for the "appointment of trustees of your legacy under the will of deceased." The remaining case for which there is space is even worse. A young professional man fell into pecuniary difficulties. A wealthy relation instructed his own solicitor to look into his affairs, with the promise that he would settle the liabilities unless they were of enormous amount. Now, the course of the solicitor in these searching investigation into the debtor's affairs; if they circumstances was plain. He should first have made a disclosed liabilities to an unmanageable amount he should have reported at once to his client, and should have advised him to allow the debtor to extricate himself in his own way. If, on the other hand, it had appeared to him that the situation was not desperate, he should have devoted himself to buying up or conpromising the debts on as cheap terms as possible, and might then have suggested means by which the considerable business of the debtor might be carried on to greater profit in future. In either case his costs could hardly have come to more than 50 guineas. Instead of taking any such steps, he adopted the easier policy of doing as little as possible. He made none but the most superficial examination into the books, and he encouraged the debtor in carrying on an expensive business at a loss. Some of the most pressing creditors he paid in full; to others he gave either by himself or through the debtor promises which in some cases were unfulfilled, and in others were only performed after much irritating delay. He allowed heavy interest, executions, and distresses to accumulate on the head of the unlucky debtor, and then paid not only the debts of those creditors who had refused to allow further time, but also the costs of the proceedings taken by them to enforce payment. But, after two years of struggles, the debtor drifted into bankruptcy, having committed, in its most aggravated form, the bankruptcy offence of trading after he knew himself to be insolvent, it was discovered that while he had received little or no benefit from the large sums that had been expended on his behalf, the solicitor had succeeded in amassing a bill of costs exceeding considerably in amount the few hundreds for which the claims against the debtor two years before could have been, com-pounded. CAUSE LIST FOR EASTER TERM, 1889. (continued). COURT OF APPEAL. SPECIAL NOTICE.-Queen's Bench Final Appeals in COURT 1., and Chancery Appeals (General List) in Court II, will probably be taken on Wednesday, May 1, and afterwards on the usual days during Easter Sittings. Queen's Bench Interlocutory Appeals in Court I, and Chancery Interlocutory Appeals in Court II., will be taken on the first day of the Sittings, viz., Tuesday, April 30, and afterwards on every Wednesday during the Sittings. Bankruptcy Appeals, as usual, on Fridays, in Court 1. Appeals from the Lancaster Palatine Court (if any), which have been passed over in the General List, will be taken in Court II, on Thursday, May 2, and Thursday, June 6. Admiralty Appeals (with Assessors) will be taken in Court I., on days specially appointed by the Court. APPEALS FOR HEARING. (Set down to Thursday, April 18th, inclusive). From the Chancery Division, the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division (Probate and Divorce), and the County Palatine and Stannaries Courts. For Judgment. For Hearing,-General List. 1888. Re The Norwich Town Close Estate Charity and Charitable Trusts' Acts 1853 to 1869. Re The Oriental Bank Corporation; Ex parte Walsh, Hall and Co. Re The Missouri Steam Ship Company Limited and Companies Acts Ex parte A. N. Munroe 1889. Chamberlyn v. Allen and Sons-Chamberlyn v. Allen and Sons-Chamberlyn v. Allen and Sons Brown v. Burdett Combined Weighing and Advertising Machine Company Limited v. Automatic Weighing Machine Company Limited Automatic Weighing Company Limited v. Combined weighing and Advertising Machine Company Hancock v. Smith (London and Westminster Re C. E. Bullock's Trusts Re F. N. N. Beckett's Zuccani v. Nacupai Gold Mining Company Re J. F. Stevens (deceased); Stevens v. Stevens Nichol and others v. Eberhart Co. Limited and others The Great Tower Street Tea Company R Rev. J. B. Deane (deceased); Bridger v. R C. Blanton (deceased); Lawrance v. Williams Quartermaine v. The London, Windsor, and Greenwich Hotels Company Limited and others; Re the London, Windsor, and Greenwich Hotels Company Limited and Companies Acts Edward r. Hunter and others Re F. Chifferiel (deceased); Chifferiel v. Watson Guy and Co. v. Churchill and anotherFord v. Churchill and another Re Anne Rowe (deceased): Jacobs r. Hinde Re W. Medland (deceased); Eland v. Medland Re Cawley and Co. Limited and Company Weston r. The New Guston Co. Limited Re John Watkins (deceased); James r. Scadding and another v. St. Pancras Burial Board Re Catherine Greaves's Will Trusts and Trustee Acts; Er Parte Holland and others. FROM THE COUNTY PALATINE COURT OF LANCASTER. FROM FINAL ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS. Re Blackburn and District Benefit Building Re Contract for Sale between William Cropper and W. H. Anthony and V. and P. Act 1874, and Lancaster Acts 1850, 1854 Re Contract between W. D. Mackenzie and James Thompson, and V. and P. Act and Lancaster Acts Re D. Bailie's Estate; Ex parte Agnes Gilmour, residuary legatee Johnson v. Rawcliffe, N.B.-The County Palatine Appeals, as the dates of setting down are reached in the General and Separate lists, are set aside and taken on the first Thursday in every sittings, and afterwards on the first Thursday in the following months during the sittings. N.B.-During Easter Sittings Palatine Appeals (if any reached) will be taken on the following days, viz: Thursday May 2; Thursday, June 6. FROM ORDERS MADE ON INTERLOCUTORY MOTIONS. Separate Interlocutory List. 1889. Jenny v. Mackintosh. FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY (ADMIRALTY) DIVISIONS. For Judgment. Vagliano Brothers v. Bank of England Ship Apollo; Little and others, owners of For Hearing. 1888. The Scotch Whisky Distillers Limited v. The Scotch Whisky Distillers Limited v. Williams v. The Association for the Protection of Commercial Interests as respects Wrecked and Damaged Property The Scotch Whisky Distillers Limited v. Elborough and Co. The Scotch Whisky Distillers Limited v. Elborough and Co. Sadler v. South Staffordshire and Birming ham District Steam Tramways Co. Ridge and another v. Midland Railway Co. Eden v. Ridsdale's Railway Lamp andLighting Company Limited Broxholm v. Smith Brown v. Bedford Pantechnicon Company The Salford and Irwell Rubber Company Jones and others v. Jones R. D. King v. The London Improved Cab Goolden v. The Conservators of the River W. B. Smith v. The Churchwardens, &c., of Parish of Birmingham. Wade v. The South of England Marine Insurance Association Limited Ship Westbourne; Owners of Howick and others v. Owners of Westbourne cargo and freight Cobb v. The Neath and Brecon Railway Goslings and Sharpe v. Blake, Surveyor of Taxes Field and another v. Manlove and another Crapp and others v. Local Board of Health Bryant, Powis, and Bryant v. Macdonald Smith v. Baker and Sons Potts and others (Trustees of East Bolton The Guardians of the Poor of Dartford Chapman, Morsons, and Co. v. Guardians of Auckland Union acting as Auckland Union Sanitary Authority, Durham Cornish v. The Accident Insurance Company Limited Warder v. Richardson Armour and others v. Marshall The Faure Electric Accumulator Company v. Philippart Walker v. Wilsher Chandos-Pole v. Cook Butcher and another v. Davies and another The Halifax Commercial Banking Company Limited v. Crowther and others Buller v. Hobart Swaby v. The Port Darwin Gold Mining The School Board for London and another The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Riddick v. Marsh Edwards v. Williams A. E. Cross, by next friend, v. Gray, Dawes, and Co. |