received during the past year amounted to £1,286,415, against fire losses, after deducting re-insurances, £736,032, or 57.21 per cent. of the premiums. The premiums are less than those of the previous year, which were £1,289,556, against losses £787,089, or 6103 per cent. In 1886 the fire premiums were £1,289,594, and losses £684,534, or 53.08 per cent. The loss ratio in 1885 was 55.95. The actual gain in the past year, compared with previous years back to 1883, must be regarded as a negative one. The commission and expenses of management show a tendency to advance, being £402,639 last year, against £359,352 in 1885, £376,999 in 1886, and £403,456 in 1887. Although about the same as in 1887, they show a considerable jump compared with the previous years. The amount of profit carried to profit and loss is £132,743. The profit and loss account, with the addition of the fire profits and proprietors' proportion of life profits, inclusive of interest on the funds, except those of the life department, but deducting the amounts paid for the Globe 6 per cent. perpetual annuities for 1888, leaves a balance of £659,012. From this amount the sum of 17s. per share, together with a bonus of 8s. per share, and a further bonus of 3s. per share out of the life profits, making in all 28s. per share, has been paid to the shareholders. We hardly consider this increased dividend warranted by the accounts of the year, and consider that the proprietors should be well content with the handsome return

previously yielded on their shares of merely £2 each. Because one or two grasping shareholders have at the last two or three meetings clamoured for an increased dividend, is no reason why the directors should satisfy such greed, especially as the reserves are correspondingly reduced. These reserves are large beyond doubt, but not too large, and are much less than two years' fire premium income, and relatively not nearly so great as those of several high-class companies. It is common history that the company suffered very severely by the great fires some years since in America, and exhausted their reserve entirely. Such a state of things is not at all impossible to occur again, and the directors will act wisely if they bend all their efforts to further strengthening the position of the company. The life business for such an office is ridiculously small, and last year only 732 policies were issued, assuring £407,052, and yielding in new premiums £13,582. This business is less than that of the previous year, but the company appears to have the utmost difficulty in reaching the very moderate sum of half a million in new assurances. The life depart ment is at present in "Sleepy Hollow," and urgently needs development. There ought to be no strain whatever involved in effecting assurances annually for a million and a half, or even two millions. The bonus investigations are every five years, and last year was the closing one of another quinquennium. The bonus system is peculiar, the company agreeing to give a guaranteed bonus, irrespective of profits made. As regards new entrants, the system has been altered, and policyholders now participate in the profits actually realised in the proportion of four-fifths to them and one-fifth to the shareholders.

CAPEL COURT.

The Indianapolis Cabinet Company, Limited.-Where is it going to end? Americans have been so impressed with the fact that the British public are endowed with more money than brains, and that there are so many people in this country who have money that they don't know what to do with, that we are being flooded with applications, now to help a tradesman to carry on his business, now to float some gigantic chimera. But for audacity, commend us to the prospectus of the above company. Here is a cabinetmaker, or firm, asking for £100,000 to carry on his business. It appears that they make good office desks, at least so says the local print. But they will make something better if their estimate of the British public is accurate; they will make a big haul. Here is a neat little problem in rule of three. How many office desks will they require to make, to pay out of the profit on the same an interest, say, of even 3 per cent. per annum on £100,000? Who is going to pay the promotion money? Nothing is said about it, so the company will have to find the coin, and they will discover that a large sum such as that asked for is not got for nothing. A big slice will have to go to someone. Mr. Coffin is the procuration attorney in England of the firm for the purpose of flotation. The name is suggestive.

Schmidt's Brewery of Chicago.-Another Yank. Well, if the B.P. chooses to play at pitch-and-toss with its money, so much the worse for the B.P. We would recommend anyone, however, who has an inclination that way, just to study the prospectus of this company carefully.

"Horseshoe" Hotel and Taverns.-We hear that this well-known hotel and restaurant is to be turned into a company. If this be so, we fancy the shares would speedily rise to a premium. It is astonishing how readily the public take to investments of this class. But after all, when we remember that everybody must feed, whatever else they manage to do without, it is not surprising, in a city of four millions of inhabitants, that hotels and restaurants should be recognised as paying investments. All Londoners know the old-established Horseshoe Hotel and Dining-rooms in Tottenham Court-road, which has long been a rival to the Holborn Restaurant, so far as the known that the following also belonged to the proprietor dining-rooms are concerned. But it was not so well of the Horseshoe, viz.. The Leicester, Leicester-square; the "Old Dover Castle" and the Red Lion, or New Dover Castle (Westminster), and the Flying Horse, adjoining the Oxford Music-hall. There are also some four or five other premises and businesses in good localities which also belonged to the 'proprietor of the Horseshoe, and which are all to be sold to the company. We have not ascertained what the capital is to be, but will make a shrewd guess and say £100,000.

The Metal Recovery Company asks for £90,000 to recover the metal in old sardine tins. As to the rights in the "provisional protection which has been granted to Mr. J. E. T. Woods for improvements in the manufacture of iron wire," we place no importance on this, nor evidently do the promoters, for beyond merely mentioning it, it is not treated at all in the prospectus. We all know what provisional protection means, and they should have known better than to insert it in the prospectus. But the fact is, old sardine tins, they were afraid, did not look well standing alone, it needed to be carried off by something more potential when £90,000 was to be asked for, and so the "provisional protection for improvements in the manufacture of iron wire for telegraph and other purposes was thrown in as a make-weight. We understand there is to be a rival company started for the "Recovery of Old Umbrellas," but they want £100,000, especially as they have a provisional protection from the Patent Office to

THE Nitrate companies should benefit by the arrangements that have been entered into with the Taltal Railway Company for the carriage from the Santa Luiza and Lantaro Companies to the coast. This arrangement, according to the report, places the Nitrate companies in the enviable position of being able to send goods at about half the freight rates charged to the other companies.

THOSE Optimistic persons who still think that there is a big rise in Yankee rails are likely to find themselves rather wide of the mark. Just as they failed to recognise when it was the right time to buy Americans for a rise, so do they seem to miss the only proper opportunity to do the other thing. Yankee rails may, of course, rise. They very often do the unexpected thing. But the chances certainly appear in favour of a decline.

THERE is little doubt that the floods in the Susquehanna district have wrought more damage amongst the railways than they are likely to admit. The Philadelphia and Reading must have suffered extremely, whilst the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad also traverses a large part of the affected district. So far as the ordinary Eries are concerned, it does not appear that the road has been much damaged.

matter of fact, this stock is still cheap on its position. Brighton Preferred, paying 6 per cent., is now quoted at 163, whilst Brighton Deferred, which has already got sufficient to its credit to pay a clear 6 per cent., is quoted at 153. There is no reason why Brighton "A" should not rise to the level of Brighton Preferred, and thos dealers who are selling for the fall are certainly not in an enviable position. They may get the price down by a market manipulation, but the bulls must inevitably come out top.

THE young man in the yellow boots, who received so much attention from the Stock Exchange at the beginning of last week, has gone the round of the provincial papers. They have all had him one after the other, and the youth in question avers that the publicity has done him good, since it has brought him under the notice of several leading members, who had never heard of him before; and he is half inclined to think that he may get the offer of a partnership as a result of it. Here is a "Queer Story for Truth.

IF Trunk Firsts are not good for an advance, then it must be confessed that the sign-posts of the Stock Exchange are getting out of order. If ever it were apparent that a lot of those people who know nothing about it were determined to put the price higher, it is so in the case of Trunk Firsts. It is difficult to fix exact limits, but we should think that all those speculators who see a clear two per cent. on their deals had better take it.

IF De Beers are to receive a dividend of ten per cent. for the half-year ending on the 30th of the present month, they will certainly experience a considerable advance. The confirmation of this apparently over-sanguine estimate has not yet been received, and, judging by the appearance of the price, the market is not inclined to believe in it.

SOME of the happy men say that Egyptian Unifieds are good for a further rise, now that the immediate chances of foreign complications are over. On their merits Unifieds are quite high enough, and we should not advise investors to have anything to do with them on their present basis.

We

SPANISH bonds are attracting much attention. think that there may be a little rise in them, but should not advise speculators to give these the pas over more tempting securities.

GREEKS have been set upon by a number of statistica financiers, who, arguing upon the recently issued consular report, have arrived at the conclusion that Greece is a tremendously overtaxed country, possessing very little chance of future trade development. Greeks, by which the "House" means the 1881 and 1884 issues, 'were kept up for a certain time by the promoters of the conversion scheme, but now that that is over they are being left to take care of themselves. This they initiated by jumping up 1 on Monday morning, and very sulkily consented to slowly recede the same amount, when the dealers would not allow them to retain it.

WE have had plenty of scarifying telegrams from Central Europe during the last few days, but they do not appear to have resulted in much of a stir-up in Foreign Stocks. They went a little flat towards the end of last week, but with the beginning of the present they improved their quotations to a sensible degree.

PUMP COURT ACROSTIC.

SOLUTION OF SPECIAL ACROSTIC.

Eddy.

LIGHTS: 1. E meral D.

2. D ail Y.

MERCATOR.

Correct answers from "Syriga," "Corisande,' Corisande," "Lady Clara;' "Thistle."

My hand 'gainst everyone. Everyone's hand 'gainst me.

1. For my rights, my duties See PUMP COURT.

2. A part of speech.

VOL. VIII.

PUMP COURT.

The Temple Newspaper and Review.

No. 141.

virtue of sec. 25, sub-sec. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873. That sub-section, it will be remembered, provides that any absolute assignment, by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only), of any debt or other legal chose in action, of which express notice in writing shall have been given to the debtor, trustee, etc., shall be effectual at law (subject to all equities, etc.) to transfer the legal right to such debt or chose in action from the date of such notice, and all legal and other remedies for the same, etc. In the present case Sir Thomas Tancred had assigned certain claims to recover a sum of £31,000 odd, alleged to be due to him under an award to his bankers, Messrs. Goslings and Sharp. This assignment, though purporting on its face to be absolute. was in fact, as the bankers admitted, given by way of security for sums advanced or overdrawn on Sir Thomas Tancred's account with them. Was this assignment, then, an absolute one within sec. 25, sub-sec. 6, of the Judicature Act, 1873? A Divisional Court, consisting of Denman and Charles, JJ., after referring to the conflicting decisions of the National Provincial Bank v. Harle, L.R., 6 Q.B.D.

De Lege; de Omnibus Rebus et Quibusdam Aliis.

AN interesting question was brought before the Court of Appeal in Mason and Barry, Limited v. La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux. The plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendants, a French association, for the sale to defendants of copper at certain prices during the years 1888, 1889, and 1890. On March 21st, 1889, the defendants, as plaintiffs alleged, had failed to pay for a cargo of copper, the price of which was £42,000. The plaintiffs issued a writ to recover the amount, and notice of the writ was duly served on the defendants in France. On April 4th plaintiffs signed judgment in the action in default of appearance, and on April 8th obtained an order ex parte appointing a receiver of the interests of defendants in certain cargoes of copper in the hands of two copper companies in England. The order stated that defendants were to be at liberty to apply to a Judge in Chambers within ten days to discharge or vary it. Meanwhile, the defendants took proceedings in France for the purpose of being wound up, and on April 15th an order was made declaring the association to be in liquidation and appointing a liquidator. The liquidator, on April 16th, applied to have the order appointing a receiver discharged, and the Judge in Chambers referred the matter to the Divisional Court (Mathew and Grantham, JJ.), who dismissed the application. On behalf of the liquidator affidavits were filed, made by two French avocats, to the effect that by French law liquidation related back ten days prior to the liquidator's appointment, and that by Article 446 of the Code de Commerce all transactions in relation to the association's property during these ten days were void. The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ.), dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court had jurisdiction to make the order for the receiver, and that even if the liquidator had a title to the interest in respect of which the receiver had been appointed, it was not so clear as to justify the Court in discharging the order, while the case of ex parte Charrington, 22 Ch. Div. 187, was no authority in favour of such title.

IN the case of Sir Thomas Tancred and others v. The Delagoa Bay and East African Railway Company, amongst other questions an important point arose with reference to the right of an assignee to sue at law in his own name, by

not consider reconcilable, followed the later decision, being of opinion that the distinction between an absolute assignment and a charge lay not in its liability to redemption, but in the question whether the property was conveyed or not.

THE Court of Appeal, consisting of Cotton, Bowen, and Fry, L.JJ., had before them in re Salmon Priest v. Uppleby, a point of great importance to trustees. The case came by way of appeal from the decision of Kekewich, J., and the claim in the action arose upon the following facts: In 1881 the defendant Uppleby, the sole surviving trustee under a will, invested £1,300 trust monies upon a first mortgage of some freehold cottages, which had been valued by a valuer at £1,750. The will authorised the investment on mortgage of freehold houses. The cottages were at the time unlet, not completely finished, and intended for letting to weekly tenants. They were, however, afterwards let, but depreciated in value in consequence of some docks in the immediate neighbourhood not proving a success, and the demand for dwellings for working men in that neighbourhood greatly diminishing, In 1884, Uppleby retired from the trust, appointed new trustees, and assigned amongst other trust property the mortgage in question. In 1887 the new trustees sold under the power of sale contained in the mortgage, and obtained only £800 for the property. In the action now brought it was sought to make Uppleby liable as trustee, on the ground that the investment was, in the circumstances, an improper one, and that he was liable to make good the loss occurring on the sales. Kekewich, J., at the trial before him, without deciding whether the investment was an improper one, dismissed the action, holding that plaintiff was a party to the sale of the property in 1887-that, assuming the investment was an improper one, Uppleby had the right to take the mortgaged property, on making good to the trust fund the amount advanced on the security, and that, the sale having been made without notice to him, he had been deprived of that right. The Court of Appeal overruled the decision, and in giving judgment Cotton, L.J., after referring to the judgment of Lord Watson in the case of Learoyd v. Whiteley, 12 Ap. Cas. 733, as to the degree of diligence to be exacted from a trustee, came to the conclusion that it was not a prudent act on his part to have made the advance on the property in question. He pointed out that the case was clearly distinguishable from an investment

upon property not within the terms of the trust. The cestui qui trust could not dissent from the investment until it had been ascertained that the trustee had not acted with reasonable prudence in making it, and that could not be ascertained until the investigation involved in the present decision had taken place. The realisation of the property by the new trustees was merely the carrying out by them of the authority Uppleby conferred when he transferred the property to them, and his lordship therefore held, though he was of opinion independently of the question of law that plaintiff had nothing to do with directing the sale, that defendant Uppleby was liable for the deficiency arising on resale, notwithstanding no notice of the intention to sell had been given to him either by the trustees or plaintiff. It will be necessary in connection with this decision to bear in mind the provisions of sects. 4 and 5 of the Trustee Act, 1888, which did not apply to re Salmon.

THE TEMPLE

pay Watts's costs of defending the action up to the time of discontinuance; but that there having been no demand on plaintiff to pay the bill of costs in respect of which defendant had counterclaimed, and the bill being unsigned, defendant was not entitled to costs of the counterclaim.

COURT OF APPEAL.

LAW REPORTS.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

REICHEL (PAUPER) v. BISHOP OF OXFORD ET AL.-REICHEL v. MAGRATH.-Resignation of Benefice-Ecclesiastical LawDeed of Resignation, whether Execution before Notary Public Requisite-Power to Revoke before Acceptance Publicly Declared by Bishop.-Appellant, on 20th May, 1886, then being vicar of Sparsholt, wrote to the Bishop of Oxford as follows: "I desire herewith to place in your hands my resignation of this benefice of Sparsholt-cum-Kingston Lisle, conformably with your lordship's wish, and at the same time I gratefully accept your kind proposal to postpone acceptance of my resignation until a date to be agreed on, your lordship meantime permitting me to be absent." The Bishop's secretary, by desire of the Bishop, replied: "The Bishop of Oxford desires me to send you a deed of resignation, and to inform you that his lordship proposes to date his formal acceptance of it on the 1st October next, and not to declare your benefice vacant until that date, if the deed is at once executed by you, and remitted to me, and if his lordship also receives in the meantime an assurance of satisfactory arrangements for the care and duties of the parish during your absence." On 2nd June Mr. Reichel enclosed the deed of resignation, executed in the presence of two witnesses, but not before a notary public, which purported to absolutely resign into the hands of the Bishop all right, title, and possession in the vicarage of Sparsholt. On the 10th June Mr. Reichel executed another deed, purporting to withdraw his resignation. Grave charges of immorality had been made against Mr. Reichel, and the Bishop had informed him that he must either submit to such an inquiry as the Bishop should be advised to institute, or resign. Held (by Lord Halsbury, L.C., Lords Watson, Fitzgerald, Herschell, and Macnaghten) affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, and North, J., in the Court of first instance, that the deed of resignation did not require to be executed in the presence of a notary public, was a valid and absolute revocation, and in no sense conditional, and that it was not competent to the appellant to revoke it.

COURT OF APPEAL.

SPINCER v. WATTS ET AL.-Practice-Costs-R.S C. Order

xxii., rr. 7 and 9, Order xxvi., r. 1-Costs of Action-Costs of Counterclaim-Counterclaim for Amount of Unsigned Bill of Solicitor's Costs-Notice of Discontinuance-Validity of.Plaintiff was endorsee of a bill of exchange for £23, and brought an action on it against Watts, a solicitor, as drawer and endorser, and against Welsh as acceptor. On December 1st, 1888, Welsh admitted liability, and paid the amount into Court; and on the same day Watts, who was acting as solicitor for Welsh, put in a defence, denying liability, and counterclaiming for £26 for work done as solicitor for plaintiff. No signed bill of costs had been delivered by Watts to plaintiff. On December 5th plaintiff gave notice, accepting the amount paid into Court by Welsh. On December 10th plaintiff paid the amount of the counterclaim into Court. On December 11th Watts wrote asking whether plaintiff intended to go on with the action or to discontinue. Plaintiff wrote in reply, on December 12th, that he did not propose to prosecute the action further. Watts then took the money out of Court, and brought in his bill of costs for taxation. The district registrar considered Watts was not entitled to any costs, and refused to tax the bill. The Judge in Chambers and a Divisional Court upheld this decision. Held (by Lindley ard Lopes, L JJ.) that as to the costs of the action, the letter of the 12th December from plaintiff was a good notice of discontinuance, and that the plaintiff had not taken any proceedings after receipt of the defence within the meaning o Order xxvi., rule 1, so as to invalidate it, and that plaintiff must

to plaintiffs. With regard to the claim for dishonouring the cheques, it was shown that a garnishee order nisi had been served on defendant, attaching the monies standing to the credit of the plaintiffs with defendant, to satisfy a judgment against plaintiffs for £6,000. At the time of dishonouring the cheques the amount standing to the credit of plaintiffs with defendant on deposit and current account was £6,870, the amount on deposit account being under notice of withdrawal. Plaintiffs contended that the amount standing to their credit with defendant was attached only to the amount of the judgment debt, and that the balance, which was sufficient to answer the cheques dishonoured, was free to be drawn against. Pollock, B, gave judgment for defendant, and a Divisional Court (consisting of Mathew and Grantham, JJ.) refused a new trial. (by Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ.) affirming the decision of the Divisional Court, that the plaintiffs' reason for refusing to give up the receipt was wholly insufficient, and that the defendant was therefore justified in refusing to give up the bond until he obtained the receipt in exchange; also that even assuming the whole of the £6,870 was capable of being drawn upon by cheque, as a current account, yet the garnishee order nisi operated under Order 45, rule 1, to prevent the person served therewith from parting with any of the money until further order of the Court, and therefore the defendant could not be liable for dishonouring the cheques.

Held

In re THE BLACKBURN AND DISTRICT BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY-EX PARTE GRAHAM-Companies Act, 1862-Windingup-Right to Prove for Arrears of Rent-charge Accrued due since Commencement of Winding-up-Liquidators not in Possession during the time.-The society, an incorporated building society, was being wound up under the Companies Acts, the winding-up having commenced in July, 1881; and pursuant to section 203 of the Companies Act, 1862, the usual order vesting the assets in the official liquidators had been made. P. G., deceased, had granted land subject to a rentcharge reserved thereout in his favour, and the land so granted had been assigned, subject to the rent-charge, to the society, and the rent-charge and right to receive judgment in respect of it vested on death of P.G. in the executors and trustees of his will, who now claimed to prove in the winding-up in the Palatine Court against the estate of the society for arrears of the rent-charge accrued due from 1st May, 1885, up to 9th September, 1887. Vice-Chancellor Bristowe disallowed the claim. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Cotton and Fry, L.JJ.) affirming the decision of Vice-Chancellor Bristowe, that inasmuch as the arrears were not due at the commencement of the winding-up, and inasmuch as the liquidators had not remained in possession of the property during the time the arrears had accrued due, the appellants were not entitled to prove for the arrears in the winding-up.

CHANCERY DIVISION.

In re THE THURSO NEW GAS COMPANY, LIMITED.-Company Winding-up-Action against for Damages Proceeding to Judg. ment — Right of Judgment Creditor to prove for Amount and Costs-Priority or Proof.-Voluntary Winding-up-Subsequent Supervision Order.-The above company had been registered in England, but carried on its trading business at Thurso in Scotland. In February, 1887, one of the company's employés was killed at their Thurso Works, and in June, 1887, his widow and children commenced an action in Scotland against the company for damages. On August 22nd, 1887, the company passed a resolution for voluntary winding-up, and appointed liquidators. On October 17th, 1887, the plaintiffs in the Scotch action obtained letters of inhibition, restraining the company from dealing with their assets, to prejudice of the plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs, at trial in November, 1887, obtained a verdict for £850 damages, and on January 20th, 1888, judgment for that sum in the Scotch

On

action. On April 20th, 1888, letters of arrestment had been issued against the company's personal estate in Scotland. June 6th, 1888, a petition for winding-up the company was presented, and a supervision order was made on the 16th June, 1888. On June 20th, 1888, an order was made in the Scotch action for the costs, amounting to £138. The plaintiffs in the Scotch action took out a summons for leave to proceed and enforce their judgment against the company's assets. Held (by Kay, J.) that the action had rightly proceeded to trial, and that the plaintiffs must have liberty to prove for debt and costs in the winding-up, but that they were not entitled to priority over the other creditors of the company.

PROPERTY AUCTIONS.

Crede experto is a good old saw, which we may paraphrase by saying that it is well to let the huntsman talk of hounds. And so following out this idea, and treating as we are doing the law relating to auctioneers and estate agents in a series of articles not by any means yet complete, we thought we should like some eminent auctioneer to have his say in his own words, and to represent the law as he feels it to be. Accordingly we have pleasure in printing the following article ipsissima verba from the pen of an estate agent of the highest note and repute, standing aside ourselves the while that we may see with his vision. The last paragraphs of the article, with respect to the need of another mart, deserve special attention :

There is no statute law which regulates auctioneers' and agents' commissions. The decisions of legal tribunals or case law, founded sometimes upon the "custom of trade," sometimes derived in an arbitrary way from the inner recesses of the minds of those who sit in judgment, or from a mixture of both, have hitherto formed precedents of an unsatisfactory and indefinite character, and there is no instance of late years before the Courts that may be claimed as settling conclusively either the amount of an agent's remuneration, or defining absolutely the rights of two or more claimants for one commission.

Without any enactment of Parliament as a guide, commission is charged by expressed or implied agreement the former as reduced to writing, and acted upon to the satisfaction of principal and agent, begotten of a complete and confident understanding, the latter in accordance with printed terms of business, upon which leading firms of auctioneers and estate agents do their work, and with which it is understood that employers are acquainted in the absence of any inquiry for it on business being given. In other words, when an employer presents himself he may make a bargain, as he generally does in the case of a property where the purchase-money is large in amount, or he may trust to the agent, whose scale of commission is drawn to encourage business, and it is therefore moderate. The adjective is used in a relative sense, for where a property is placed in the hands of an auctioneer for private sale no fee for professional services or for time to be expended is usually charged under ordinary circumstances, therefore it is but reasonable that a properly liberal remuneration should be made where business be effected, and like a cloud of arrows shot from a thousand bows a percentage only gets home, so it is that in many attempts and much exertion it is only in the minority of cases are buyer and seller brought successfully together.

But in the case of a property given into the hands of an auctioneer for sale by auction a different state of things exists. Here there is to be no professional competition, and the chance of earning a commission is greater by the absence of other agents. A fee for professional services in the event of non-sale is paid; thus the auctioneer derives a benefit under any circumstances, besides the enjoyment of the publicity in the advertisements. A smaller commission is therefore given on a sale being made. The amount is purely a matter of previous arrangement, and the principle of paying a fair and reasonable sum for the services rendered is admitted. When it is remembered that an equivalent is given in brains and everything else needful (and what solicitor with the patronage or gift of a sale in his hands would not in his duty to his client seek the best man for the article to be sold?), the man who has been trained to the business, and with a ripened experience-an auctioneer with a knowledge of the market, and with a special acquaintance with the methods of developing and working a sale. I speak of a class, and have no individual in my mind when I sketch such an auctioneer who is able in the rostra, and a master of the arts and practices of the auction-room, one who is capable by his mode of selling, and his power of adaptation to the circumstances as they arise, of seizing opportunities, of exciting competition, and of creating a sympathetic audience. A good auctioneer, like a true poet, must be born-that is, should have natural qualities; but here the simile ceases; his training and experience must be efficient and large.

Neither should he be deficient in the literary art; at least, he should be able to write clearly and favourably what he sees, and bring to the front salient points and features in proper form and style in his advertisements and particulars of sale, all of which may seem easy to the uninitiated, but is by no means so if the employer's interests are to be safeguarded, and his property presented to the public in its most attractive form.

At the present time, when land and real property are down in price, and the supply exceeds the demand, when property is no longer so much sought after as in the last decade, and prices are still falling, it is all the more necessary to retain the services of an able auctioneer, so that no chance shall be thrown away of making a sale, or of preventing a doubt from arising as to the true value for reserve price-so far, indeed, as that result may be arrived at from the opinion of an expert. Then, again, as the payment of a deposit on a sale is necessary, the auctioneer acts in a fiduciary capacity, and such position and reputation he possesses are factors in the transaction to give confidence to the public. His connection among buyers and his power of placing properties with purchasers, and suiting them with their requirements, are also not to be disregarded.

How long and in what manner should the retainer of an auctioneer last and apply is a question which may be profitably inquired into-whether it should obtain from the time of instructions up to the day of sale and beyond (in the event of a non-sale in the room). This obviously may be regulated by special arrangement, and his commission secured to him in any event; in the absence of which it is only fair and reasonable that he be left with a free hand, and that he shall not be placed in an invidious position by the risk of having the property he has to handle sold over his head either before the sale or within a reasonable period after the auction day; not only in his interest, but for the employer's benefit also, is such a course desirable, for such competition means in many cases a wish to secure a purchaser at a lower price than might otherwise be obtained if such an element were left out. What is a reasonable period under the circumstances may be arrived at from the nature of the property dealt with, and it will be found better, in the interests of all parties, to agree upon a period of one, two, three, or even six months in which the auctioneer is allowed the opportunity of making his commission as against all comers, whether they be competing agents or anyone else. At any rate, such a course would prevent the complications, vexations, and confusion arising from the employment of more than one agent and their claims.

The subject of disputed commissions is a large one, and it occurs more frequently in private sales, for where a property has been placed in the hands of an auctioneer for sale by auction it is generally assumed (or should be) that if any other agents have previously been employed, they withdraw from offering notify such a course to them. In private sales it frequently the property, and it is the duty of the owner or his solicitor to happens that several agents have the same property on their books, and very often more than one has honestly been instrumental in bringing about the sale. It may be that one has given the first notification of the property to a buyer, and another has carried out the sale, or it has not gone quite so far; he, we will say, without a knowledge of any previous efforts in the same direction, has only assisted materially in bringing a sale off. This is a delicate question to handle, and very difficult to adjudicate on. It appears to me that a division of the commission between the agents is the only safe judgment to give, and it is a pleasure to know that the Council of the Institute of Estate Agents is willing to decide any question of this and a kindred nature that may be brought before them, not only by its members, but by anyone outside its ranks who may appeal to them.

Nevertheless it is easy to avoid the dangers of such claims by employing one agent only, or two at the most, for in this case they agree to act jointly and mutually in selling the property and charge one commission only; thus the full benefit of a wider market will be obtained with a freedom from outside claims. This is more frequently done in the case of country properties, by the conjunction of the local agent with a London firm; or a city with a West-end house of business. The indiscriminate employment of agents is a fruitful source of trouble, and should

be avoided.

no

It has always been a source of wonder why there is only one mart in London for the sale of property, and the anomaly should exist that the metropolis, to which everything saleable is brought to has be sold, mart in the West-end. Surely there is room for two auction marts, and it does seem absurd to offer a house in Grosvenor Square at the City Auction Mart. Surely it would be good policy to conduct such a sale nearer its locality. Buyers for West-end property living in the neighbourhood would attend and bid, and in a general way purchasers residing in the fashionable quarters are more likely to come forward if a West-end auction mart were opened for their benefit.

The West-end auctioneers are sufficiently well-to-do to establish such a mart at once, and those in the City would no doubt support them when they havo West-end property to dispose of,