and the trusts are declared by a separate deed, what clauses should the conveyance in trust for sale contain? 32. Can a security on land be effected in any other way than by a mortgage-deed? 33. What does "tacking a security mean? 34. A., by deed, settles land on B. for life, remainder to A.'s right heirs. A., by will, settles the reversion on C. for life, remainder to C.'s first and other sons in tail male, and dies leaving B. and C., and D. (C.'s eldest son) of age living. C. and B. wish to disentail. Is B. a necessary party? State your reasons. 35. Land is settled to A. for life, remainder to B. in fee; B. dies in A.'s lifetime before the Succession Duty Act, and devises the reversion to trustees in trust for sale; money to be in trust for B.'s wife for life, and after her death for his children A. dies after the passing of the Succession Duty Act. Is the life interest of B.'s wife liable to succession duty, or not? State your reasons. : QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION. HILARY TERM, 1869. I. Preliminary. Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. II. From Chitty on Contracts. 6. Give a definition, and state the requisites of a simple contract, as distinguished from a contract under seal. 7. What is the meaning of a good, and a valuable consideration respectively, and state the effect of each as regards its being available to support deeds and simple contracts respectively? 8. What are implied contracts? and give instances of them. 9. In what cases is it necessary that a simple contract should be in writing? 10. For what contracts is an infant liable, and what is the liability of others who contract with infants ? 11. Does the sale of a specific chattel pass the property to the vendee without delivery? is there any difference when the sale is on credit? and upon whom does the loss fall, in the case of the destruction of the thing sold, by accidental fire, after a sale, and before delivery? 12. What is the law as regards recovering back money paid on an illegal contract, first, whilst it is executory, and second, after it has been executed? III. From Williams on the Principles of the Law of Real Property. 13. What was the object of limiting estates to trustees to support contingent remainders; and why are such limitations now discontinued? 14. What is "waste," and what are the remedies of the remainderman against the life tenant for the commission of waste? 15. What is a valuable consideration? 16. What is the longest period for which land can be settled, supposing it to be incumbered with debt? 17. What is the meaning of the word "Executory," and by what instrumentality can an executory interest arise? 18. How do you frame the will of a copyholder so as to enable his trustees to sell his copyholds without taking admission; and in such a case who may the lord require to be admitted? 19. Does an estate, held for 1000 years, if A. and B. so long live, pass to the next of kin, or to the heir at law of an intestate? IV. From J. W. Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence. 20. If executors by mistake pay legatees before all the testator's debts are paid, in what position do the legatees stand towards the creditors? 21. If an advowson be mortgaged, and the living becomes vacant prior to a foreclosure of the mortgage, who is entitled to present the living? 22. If, after a decree to account has been made in a creditor's suit against an executor, other creditors take proceedings at law against the executor, what is the proper course of proceeding by the executor? separation, on the rights of a married woman to property? V. Book-keeping. 27. Describe, briefly, the uses of the following books, used by traders for keeping their accounts by single entry :-Day book; invoice book; cash book; bill book. 28. The like question as to ledger; account book; stock book; warehouse book. 29. A. B., a wholesale trader, sells to C. D. goods at two months credit, and at the end of this time receives the price. Give, in detail, the entries which A. B., should make in his day book, invoice book, cash book, ledger and warehouse book. 30. What is the meaning of debtor and creditor at the head of the cash book? 31. What is the meaning of debtor and creditor at the head of each account in the ledger? COUNTY COURTS. WARWICK COUNTY COURT. (Before F. DINSDALE, Esq., Judge.) The Leamington Chronicle, to recover the amount due for inserting sundry advertisements in his journal. The defendant pleaded a deed of composition, and that the instalments had been tendered and refused by the plaintiff. Overell appeared for the plaintiff. Egan (instructed by C. Abbott) for the defendant. Overell called the plaintiff, who proved the claim, and, on cross-examination, admitted the tender; but on the deed being produced, Overell objected that the plea did not contain correct particulars of the parties to the instrument. Egan submitted to his Honour, that a plea of a composition-deed having been duly executed, was, with the production of the deed and proof that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Acts had been complied with, a good defence to the action; and that the objection was untenable. the court must not be wasted by technical objec own statement, was beaten and kicked severely. Eventually the professor was got out and business was proceeded with. It appears that the secretary of the Hall Company had omitted to mention the fact of the County Court sittings having to be held in the hall at the time he let the hall to the professor. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. UNITED CHAPELRIES CHURCH IN EACHDUTY OF INCUMBENT AS TO SUNDAY SERVICESRECONSTRUCTION OF CHURCH.-Two ancient chapelries, each being a separate parish for civil purposes, and each having a church of its own, were united into a separate parish or benefice under the provisions of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, and 2 & 3 Vict. c. 43, on a scheme approved of by the Queen in Council. The incumbent of the benefice so formed closed one of the churches, and held both services on Sunday at the other church; when ordered by the bishop of the diocese to resume the service in the former, the incumbent refused to comply. On proceedings instituted by the bishop under the Clergy Discipline Act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 106): Held, that the Act of Uniformity (13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4) cannot apply to such a case, for that Act must mean by the words "Every church, chapel, or other place of worship within the realm of England," each church, &c., in and for which there is a distinct minister, and does not impose a duty upon an incumbent, who has two churches within his parish, to perform divine service in both of them. But the incumbent is bound by the common ecclesiastical law to perform, service in every consecrated church or chapel of or provide for the performance of public divine the parish or benefice of which he is the incumbent, and his wilful neglect of this duty, and wilful disobedience to the order of the bishop, constitute an offence against the common ecclesiastical law. Proceedings for such an offence are rightly taken under the Church Discipline Act. Quare, whether the shutting divine service is required to be performed in up one of two churches in a parish, where both, comes within sect. 77 of stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, as an "inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties." Quere, whether reconsecration is necessary, where a church is pulled down for the purpose of being rebuilt, and is rebuilt on the lines of the old structure: (Rugg v. The Bishop of Winchester, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 578. Priv. Co.) His HONOUR said it was very proper that these composition-deeds should be most vigilantly inquired into, as many frauds had been committed upon creditors by means of them; but the time of tions, and the other numerous suitors in attendance unnecessarily kept waiting. Overell. The objection is not technical, the plea does not actually set forth the deed. Egan. Conflicting decisions have been given on the subject; but whenever appealed from, the defendant obtain judgment here, the Bankruptcy deeds, if not invalid, have been upheld, and should Court would stay execution. It was justly ob-INDUCTION.-The islands of Bermuda were STATUS OF COLONIAL BISHOPS-INSTITUTION served in Ex parte Spurr, by Commissioner Goulbourn, that "The court is bound to give effect to the intention of the Legislature in allowing deeds of composition, which intention is, that the estate of the debtor may be divided rateably as in, but without the expense attending, a bankruptcy," 17 L. T. Rep. N. S. 124, Bank. Cas. Overell.-Commissioner Goulbourn's decision did not settle the point. Egan.-Another case in the Exchequer decided that, "The Court of Bankruptcy under sects. 197 and 198, has jurisdiction over all parties to the deed, that all the creditors are bound by it, and that the Court of Bankruptcy has power to stay any dissenting creditor's execution," 7 Co. Cts. Chron. Rep. N. S. 117. His HONOUR said the discussion of the matter would occupy a long time. It had better be adjourned, and perhaps the parties would, in the interim, come to some arrangement. The case was then adjourned. PROFESSOR ANDERSON AND THE JUDGE.-The judge of the Aberdare County Court, Mr. Falconer, began his monthly court on Monday. As usual, his sittings were held in the Temperance Hall. In the afternooon of Monday, while the court business was going on, noises of various kinds were 23. If part of the property of a partnership firm heard on the platform, and behind a lofty green consist of a freehold estate, and one of the part- curtain. These noises were made by two men ners dies intestate, will his share of the real estate belonging to Professor Anderson, who is at present belong to his heir at law, or personal representa-exhibiting nightly in the hall. They were pretive? paring for that night's entertainment. The judge ordered them to be brought before him, and fined them 5s. each. The professor, informed of this, came to remonstrate with the judge, who refused to listen, and ordered him to leave the court. Professor Anderson refused, stating that the hall was his, that he had engaged it for a whole week without any condition or reserve, and had paid a deposit to ensure it. He had exhibited on Saturday night. Judge Falconer declined to listen, and commanded his bailiffs to remove him. A struggle ensued between the bailiffs and Anderson; the latter had his clothes torn, and, according to his 24. On the termination of an executorship, or trusteeship, is the executor or trustee entitled to have a release under seal from the cestuis que trust? 25. If a mortgagee becomes the absolute owner of the equity of redemption of the mortgaged estate, what is the effect upon the mortgage debt, -i.e. does the equitable merge in the legal estate, or is the mortgage still kept alive as an incumbrance on the estate, distinct from the ownership of it? 26. What is the effect of a decree of judicial attached to the see of Newfoundland in 1839. The letters patent authorised the Bishop of Newfoundland to exercise episcopal functions, and among them to institute to benefices by himself or his commissary. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Newfoundland was recognised by various Acts of the Legislature of Bermuda. The commission or instructions to the governor directed him, on the vacancy of a benefice, to present a clerk to the bishop for institution. A clerk was so presented by the governor to the bishop's commissary (in the absence of the bishop), and the commissary issued a mandate for induction. The induction was prevented by force, and applications to the Court of Chancery in Bermuda for a writ de vi laica removenda were refused. On appeal against this refusal: Held, that the presentation and institution were by lawful authority and valid, and that the clerk has a right to be inducted: that the question as to the bishop's exercise of episcopal functions, and particularly that of institution, in the Bermudas was set at rest conclusively by the repeated recognition of his status and functions by the colonial Legislature: that the cases of Long v. Bishop of Capetown and Re Bishop of Natal do not affect such a case be reconciled with that of the Bishop of Natal v. as the present: quare, whether those cases can Gladstone: that the writ de vi laica removenda is not a necessary incident of Chancery jurisdiction, and it is doubtful whether such a writ is issuable from the Court of Chancery in Bermuda: and therefore that it was not ex debito justitiæ that the appellant should have this particular remedy. Semble, that institution is not a judicial but only a ministerial act: (Ex parte Jenkins, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 583. Priv. Co.) THE ST. ALBAN'S JUDGMENT.-Canon Trevor, having always understood that the Lords of Her 66 Majesty's Privy Council are precluded from revealing their discussions, wondered at the confident assertions which have been circulated with respect to the opposing votes, the neutrality, and the casting votes of certain members of the Judicial Committee at the recent sitting. Writing upon the subject, therefore, to the Archbishop of York, he has received the following reply: Bishopsthorpe, York, Jan. 9. My dear Canon Trevor, I suppose your question refers to a letter of Dr. Littledale's in the Daily News, quoting an averment of the mode in which the judgment of the Privy Council in the Mackonochie case was arrived at. The whole story is an invention, with no ground of truth. More you will not expect me to say. If I said less you might, perhaps, infer assent from my reserve.-I am, my dear Canon Trevor, ever yours truly, W. EBOR. The Rev. Canon Trevor." THE NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PLEDGE BY FACTORS OF SECURITIES IN THEIR HANDS, AND SALE BY PLEDGEES (BROKERS). H., T., and Co. were the factors in London of A., S., and Co., who were coffee planters in Ceylon. The course of business between them was for A., S. and Co. to consign coffee to H., T., and Co. for sale on account of A., S., and Co.,a nd to draw bills on H., T., and Co., against the consignments, which bills, H., T., and Co. accepted on the security of the consignments, and H., T, and Co. applied the proceeds of sale of the consignments in taking up their acceptances, and remitted the balance or accounted for it, to A., S., and Ca. In July 1866 H., T., and Co. stopped payment and executed a deed of arrangement with their creditors. Previously to brokers, T. and R., five bills of lading, reprethis H., T., and Co. had deposited with their senting consignments of coffee in respect of which H., T., and Co. had accepted bills for A., S., and Co., to secure a debt due from H., T., and Co. to T. and R. H., T., and Co., at the same time deposited with T. and R., for the same purpose, other securities in which A., S., and Co. had no interest. After the stoppage of H., T., and Co., T. and R. sold the coffee represented by the five bills of lading for a sum of money more than enough to pay off the debt due from A., S., and Co. to H., T., and Co., but not enough to pay off the debt due from II., T., and Co. to T. and R.: Held, that A., S., and Co. were entitled to have the securities which had been pledged with T. and R. marshalled, so as to throw the debt due from II., T., and Co. to T. and R. primarily upon those securities in which A., S., and Co. had no interest, and that A., S., and Co. were entitled to be recouped the surplus proceeds of the sale of the coffee out of the surplus proceeds of the sale of the other securities: (Ex parte Alston, re Holland, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 542. Ch.) OVERDRAWN ACCOUNT-GUARANTEE-BANKRUPTCY.-M., being a customer of the M. bank, and wishing to overdraw, procured T. to guarantee 3001, which guarantee, it was declared, should extend to all future sums due on the general balance of account; no indulgence or time given to M. to discharge the surety's liability; all dividends, compositions, &c., received from M. to be treated as payments in gross, and the guarantee to be a running and continuing one. M., owing the bank 410l. 4s. 10d. on the overdrawn account, executed a deed under the B. A. 1861, and having given a counter security to T. T. (being a trustee of the deed) realised it, and paid the bank the 3007. On a bill filed to carry out the trusts of the deed, and raising the question whether the bank was entitled to receive a dividend on the whole sum overdrawn, or only on the balance, it was held that they were entitled to a dividend on the whole sum until the debt was satisfied: (The Midland Banking Company v. Chambers, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 548, V. C. M.) PRINCIPAL AND SURETY-QUALIFIED RELEASE BY CREDITOR-B. A. 1861, s. 192.-By a mortgage-deed a third party joined as surety to pay the interest on the sum advanced. This was secured by a covenant by the mortgagee and the surety to pay such interest. The mortgagor (the debtor) afterwards filed a composition-deed under the 192nd section of the B. A. 1861, whereby he assigned all his property upon trust for his creditors who thereby released him from all his debts. This deed contained a proviso that nothing therein contained should affect any mortgage held by any creditors, or any right or remedy which any creditor might have against any other person in respect of any debt due by the debtor (the mortgagor), either alone or jointly with any other person: Held (on bill filed by the surety to restrain an action at law for interest due), that the effect of the deed gave a qualified release only, and did not extinguish the debt; consequently that the remedy against the surety for the interest was not barred: (Green v. Wynn, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 553. V.C.G.) ACT OF BANKRUPTCY MORTGAGE OF A TRADER'S ENTIRE PROPERTY--EQUIVALENT-been obtained against a trader, and his goods 24 & 25 VICT. c. 134, s. 73.—A judgment having seized in execution, the trader executed to the judgment-creditor a mortgage of what was in effect the whole of his estate and effects in consideration of the withdrawal of the execution. At the time of the seizure the trader had ceased to carry on his trade, but the jury found that the mortgage was bonâ fide, and executed to save expense and to make the most of the property: Held (affirming the judgment of the court below), that the execution of the mortgage constituted an act of bankruptcy on the pert of the trader, and was void as against his other creditors, there being nothing in the transaction which could be regarded as an equivalent for the mortgage: (Woodhouse v. Murray, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 570. Ex. Ch.) DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE-DESERTION.-A wife instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage, but failing to prove her case, her petition was dismissed. Neither party made overtures for reconciliation, and they continued to live separate. In a second suit, instituted by the wife, the court held that the mere non-resumption of cohabitation by the husband did not constitute drawal from a state of cohabitation which exists, desertion: Desertion implies an active withand where it has actually ceased either by an adverse act of husband or wife, or by the mutual agreement of both parties, desertion becomes impossible until a common life and home have been resumed: (Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 575. Div.) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. (Before Mr. Commissioner WINSLOW.) Re SMITH. B. A. 1849, s. 112-Judgment for debt and costs Brough for the petitioning creditor. Mr. Commissioner WINSLOW was of opinion that the debt was proveable under the bankruptcy adjudication, were dependent on the debt, and and that the costs, though ascertained after the that the bankrupt having obtained his protection, his arrest was improper. The bankrupt's release was granted on condition that he should undertake to bring no action in respect of his arrest or detention. Saturday, Jan. 16. Re DARK (an insolvent). Counsel-Equity draftsman and conveyancer-Fees for drawing. Bagley, for Mr. Elderton, of the Chancery Bar, sought to prove for fees for drawing conveyances and equity pleadings. Proof admitted. LIVERPOOL COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Monday, Jan 11. (Before Mr. Registrar YATE LEE.) Re WREN. Removal of creditors' assignee-Who are entitled to vote?-Registrar's right to act for commissioner. assignee, and the appointment of a new one, in The meeting of creditors for the removal of the this case, reported in the LAW TIMES of Jan, 9 (page 196) was held to-day. Pemberton appeared for the assignee sought to be removed and Raper (from the office of Hull, Pemberton objected to his right to appear for the creditors, he not being their attorney, but only the clerk of the creditors' attorney. He cited the case of Ex parte Broadhouse, 17 L. T. Rep N. S. 126. Raper, on the authority of the dictum of Bovill, C. J. in Bookham v. Potter, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 479, maintained that he was entitled to be roll of attorneys kept by the registrar of the court. heard. He was an admitted attorney, and had obtained his certificate to practise, and was on the He further urged that he was the person ap pointed by letters of attorney from the creditors to act on their behalf. Pemberton, in reply, argued that a letter of attorney might be given to a non-legal person and he surely could not be heard as an advocate for his principal. The person, he submitted, who alone was entitled to be heard was the actual solicitor of the client, and the person who had a right to debit the client for his services. The REGISTRAR said that any person might tender a proof of debt for another, although he could not be heard in its support. In the case before him he was disposed to think that Ex parte solicitor on the record being heard; but he should Broadhouse precluded the right of any except the prefer the question being settled by the commissioner, and would suggest that Mr. Raper, on the present occasion, procured the attendance of his principal. W. Stone (one of the principals) shortly afterwards appeared, and was heard in support of the proofs, and they were, after some discussion, admitted. Pemberton thereupon claimed the right to appeal illness, but had, by a written request under Rule to the commissioner, when he was informed that the learned commissioner was absent through 44 of the General Orders of Oct. 1852, deputed the registrar to act for him. took exception to it on the ground that it was not Pemberton, upon the request being produced, an express authority to act in the particular matter before the court, but one of a general character. He further submitted that the meeting of creditors was one appointed to be held before the registrar, and it would be an anomaly for him to act one moment as registrar and the next as commissioner. The REGISTRAR overruled the objections, and remarked that by virtue of the request, he could exercise all the power vested in the commissioner except that of commitment, hear a disputed adjudication, or an opposed application for order of discharge, and, therefore, as he had power to depute a person to preside at a meeting of creditors, he could surely exercise that function himself. The proofs of debt tendered by Stone, constituting a majority in number and value of the creditors who had proved debts, he submitted a resolution on their behalf, by which they agreed to the removal of the assignee. Pemberton, in opposition to the validity.of the resolution, contended that the 124th section of the B. A. 1861 required a majority of all the creditors to vote in the removal of an assignee, and not simply of those who had proved. He referred to the subsequent part of the section, which particularised creditors who had proved as distinguished from those mentioned in the first part of the section. In Ex parte Wilmot, re Thompson and Fryer, 16 to be a person who had a debt proveable against L. T. Rep. N.S. 650, the term "creditor" was defined the estate, and in the case of Ex parte Moss, re Cooper, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 279, Lord Cairns stated that the 124th section referred to a majority of "all the creditors.' Stone submitted that Ex parte Moss was an anthority in his favour, as the observations of Lord Cairns there merely pointed to the anomaly of creditors under 101. being precluded from voting in the choice of assignee, and yet being vested by the 124th section with the power of voting in the removal of an assignee. He referred to other sections of the Act as confirmatory of his view that the majority of the creditors who had proved had the right of removal, and argued that if it were not so the insuperable difficulty would arise of having to ascertain who were the creditors of a bankrupt entitled to prove debts. The REGISTRAR said he had no doubt as to the right of the creditors entitled to vote being limited to those who had proved their debts, and he could not conceive that it was intended that the 124th section should be inoperative unless a majority of down as creditors proved and voted in the reall the persons a bankrupt might choose to put moval of the assignee. Until a creditor had proved his debt it had never been the practice in bankruptcy to consider him as before the court for any purpose, and until there was some decision to the (Q. 39.) WILL.-The mortgage money would pass by the bequest, but not the legal estate in the mortgaged hereditaments; because it only disposes of residuary personalty. The devise could not have any operation on the mortgaged property, because the trusts for sales are inconsistent with the dealing with property subject to an equity of redemption. It would ,, authority to sell only and no estate in the lands will pass (Howell v. Barnes, Cr. Cas. 382; Yates v. Compton, 2 P. Wms. 308; Lancaster v. Thornton, 2 Bur. 1028), and, subject to the power of sale, the lands descend to the heir; and the law in this respect does not appear to have been altered by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), which only mentions the case "where any real estate shall be devised to any trustee," &c.: (sects. 30 & 31). For the reasons above specified I think the legal estate in the mortgage did not pass by the devise of real estate contained in G. C.'s will. With reference to the second question, "Does the legal estate in the mortgage pass under the bequest of personalty? It has been held that the legal estate will pass under a gift of "mortgages or "securities for money" (Re King's Mortgage, 5 De G. & S. 614; Knight v. Robinson, 2 K. & J. 503; Rippon v. Priest, 13 Scott, 308.) And in Doe d. Guest v. Bennett, 20 L. J. 323, Ex.; 6 Ex. 892, it was held that, in an absolute gift to the testator's wife, the words "all moneys upon mortgages" passed the legal estate in a mortgage in fee. In this case Parke, B. observed that, "It must be assumed that the testator intended his wife to receive the money, and to possess the powers necessary for the purpose of recovering it, and therefore that she was entitled to bring ejectment for that purpose." In Re Cautley, 22 L. J. 391, Ch.; 17 Jur. 124, Kindersley, V. C. dissented from the views expressed by Parke, B. in Doe d. Guest v. Bennett, and held that the legal estate did not pass by a gift of "money in the funds and on securities, and all other personal estate." Now, the words in G. C.'s will, "all the residue of my ready money, money at the bank, and in the stocks, funds, railway shares, and other securi EMPLOYMENT OF ARTICLED CLERKS.-The LAW TIMES of the 2nd inst. contained an inquiry as to whether an articled clerk could be agent for a fire and life assurance company without endangering his admission as an attorney. No reply appear that the testator died intestate as to estates ties, and all other my personal estate whatsoever and has appeared hereto; and as the question may affect a good many articled clerks, perhaps some of your experienced readers may be induced by a second insertion to favour us with their opinions. H. BANKRUPTCY STATISTICS.-It may be an interesting inquiry to the compiler of your valuable articles under the above title, and perhaps useful to the public, if he would endeavour to explain the proximate causes for the great distinction in the various districts with regard to the number of adjudications and amounts realised by assignees, e. g., Birmingham, number of adjudications, 332; amount realised, 27,9071. Manchester, number of adjudications, 332; amount realised, 11,8371. I cannot make it out. MERCATOR. 42. SUCCESSION DUTY.-A., seised of freehold property, conveys it for a valuable consideration to the use of B. in fee, as from his, A.'s, death. Is B. on A.'s death liable to succession duty? Though the conveyance, as it is one "conferring an interest expectant on death," and also one carrying out "a bona fide sale," does not, as it appears to me, create a succession by virtue of section 7 of the Succession Duty Act, it seems to be such a disposition as, by virtue of section 2, confers "a succession." I should be glad to have the opinion of any of your readers upon the point, and a reference to any authorities they can quote. E. Y. in mortgage to him at the time of his death. Norwich, Jan. 16, 1869. A MANAGING CLERK, - I think it is clear that the wife has no interest Thacker, 12 Sim. 182), irrespective of which decision, in the mortgage estate of the testator (Lindsell v. the subsequent direction to the trustees to pay the rents (simply) of his said real "estates," after his wife's decease to A. B., seems sufficiently to manifest the intention to confine the devise to those estates only of which the testator was beneficial owner. The question then is, whether the legal estate passed to the trustees under the bequest of "money at the bank and in the stocks, funds, railway shares, and other secu rities." If it did not, G. C. died intestate as to his mortgage estates. There have been many cases similar to the present one before the courts, and the various decisions may at first sight appear to be conflicting. commenting upon these decisions, drew the following But in Er parte Cautley, 22 L. J. 391, Kindersley, V. C., distinction: "If a testator having money secured on mortgage of real estate bequeaths the money so secured, that will not pass the legal estate; but if he bequeath the securities upon which the money is invested, that is sufficient to pass the legal estate in the mortgaged premises." This is a clear and definite distinction, and, applying the same principle to the case in question, the legal estate did not pass under the above clause, and I think I am justified in coming to the conclusion that therefore that the testator's heir-at-law must be sought for to reconvey to the mortgagor. M. E. S. In reply to your correspondent "A. R. V.," I would offer the following observations. Assuming that G. C.'s will contains no express devise of mortgaged estates, the matter may be conveniently considered under the two following questions: (1) Does the legal estate in the mortgage pass under the devise of real estate? or (2) does it pass under the bequest of personalty? If it is included in neither of these dispositions, it, of course, descends to G. C.'s heir-at-law, who would consequently be the proper person to reconvey. First, then, "Does the legal estate in the mortgage pass under the devise of real estate ?" It is quite clear that a general devise will carry estates vested in the testator as mortgagee, unless a contrary intention be evinced by the nature of the limitations, or by the purposes to which the devised property is subjected, as where it is disposed of in a manner inappropriate to mortgaged estates. (See Ex parte Sergison, 8 Ves. 147; Bainbridge v. Lord Ashburton, 2 Y. & C. 317; Langford v. Auger, 4 Hare 313; Greenrood v. Wakeford, 1 Beav. 576; Re Finney's Estate, 3 Gitt. 465; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 12 Jur. 598.) In G. C.'s case, although there would seem to be no crpress devise of real estate to the trustees, there is, I think, a devise to them of such estate by implication, and in fee simple; for where a testator directs any acts to be done which a less estate might be insufficient to accomplish, or where trusts are to be exercised, the devisee will take in fee simple: (See Beezeley v. Westerhouse, 4 T. R. 89; Bateman v. Roach, 9 Mod. 101; Villiers v. Villiers, 2 Atk. 71; Gibson v. Montjord, 1 Ves. 485; Challenger v. Sheppard, 8 T. R. 597.) And here the trustees are directed, " after the death of the testator's wife to pay the rents of his real estate to A. B. for his life, and upon his decease to convey to C. D. and E. F., their heirs or assigus the whole of his real estate." The devise by G. C. of real estate "to his wife and her assigns for her life" is, of course, wholly insufficient for the purpose of enabling her to dispose of the legal estate in a mortgage in fee. And the 28th section of the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), relating to the fee simple passing without words of limitation, does not apply to a devise with any words of limitation, which, if inserted, must operate by their own force: (See Hayes and Jarm, 6th ed., p. 68.) The estate of the trustees is not a fee simple in possession, but in remainder expectant upon the determination of the life estate previously limited in express terms to the testator's wife. Therefore, the right of the trustees to reconvey the legal estate in the mortgage would be in abeyance, and this fact appears to me to show that it was not the intention of the testator that mortgaged estates should pass by the devise; or, if such was his intention, that the disposition is wholly insufficient or inappropriate for the purpose. And the trustees are empowered, after the decease of the tenant for life, to sell the real estate, and apply the proceeds "as therein directed," which clause seems to be also inappropriate to mortgaged estates. The cases of Wall v. Bright, 1 J. & W. 494, and Ex parte Marshall, 9 Sim. 555, show that where the devised estate is directed to be sold, a general devise will not carry mortgaged estates. And it has been held that where lands are simply directed to be sold, but are not directly devised to the trustees to be sold, an wheresoever," are so similar in many respects to the expressions made use of in the will in Re Cantley, that, if the decision in that case is to be considered as setting forth the law upon the subject, it would seem that the bequest of the personalty. There are several cases legal estate in G. C.'s mortgage would not pass by the showing that the mere fact of mortgages or securities being mentioned or classed with pure personalty will not be sufficient to exclude the fee. And in the recent case of Re Arrowsmith's Trusts, 27 L. J. 704, Ch. ; 4 Jur. N. S. 2123, Knight Bruce, L. J. "took occasion to express his entire concurrence in the judgment of Parke, B. in Doe d. Guest v. Bennett. The weight of authority, therefore, would appear to uphold the position that the legal estate in a mortgage will pass by the words "money upon mortgage." And this being so, I cannot see any reason why the words "money at the bank and in the stocks, fands, railway shares, and other legal estate in his mortgage. But there is something securities occurring in G. C.'s will should not pass the more than these words to be considered in arriving at a couclusion upon the subject. The personalty contained in the bequest is so fettered by trusts and directions, that I incline to the opinion that, as in the case of the realty so with the personalty, the property is directed to be dealt with in a manner inappropriate to mortgaged estates. Nevertheless, it may be that the due execution of the trusts require that the trustees should have complete dominion over the estate, and that the mortgagor would not be prejudiced in any way, and that therefore the bequest of personalty carries the legal estate in the mortgage. The matter is not free from doubt; and, being without an express decision on the subject, I would suggest that the best course is to join both the trustees and the heirs-at-law in the reconveyance. W. O. C. Liverpool, Jan. 18, 1869. LEGAL OBITUARY. R. B. ARMSTRONG, ESQ., Q.C. THE late Robert Baynes Armstrong, Esq., Q.C., who died at his residence in Chester-square, Pimlico, on the 15th inst., in the eighty-fifth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late John Armstrong, Esq., of Lancaster, by Deborah Ann, daughter of the late Robert Baynes, Esq., of Cockermouth. He was born in 1785, and was educated at Clitheroe and Sedbergh Schools and afterwards at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1807 and proceeded M.A. in 1810. He was called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of the Inner Temple in 1814, and went the Northern Circuit. He was appointed a Q.C. in 1840, and in the same year was elected a Bencher of the Inner Temple. In 1836 he was appointed Recorder of Hull, but resigned that post in the following year on being made Recorder of Leeds. In 1848 he was appointed to the Recordership of Manchester and Bolton, both of which he continued to hold for many years. In May 1848 Mr. Armstrong was elected M.P. for the borough of Lancaster, which he continued to represent in the Liberal interest till 1853; he was a strong supporter of the Russell Administration, was in favour of the ballot, and an extension of the suffrage, and was also for shortening the duration of Parliament. The deceased gentleman, who was a magistrate for the county of Lancaster, married, in 1842, Frances, youngest daughter of the late Richmond Blamire, Esq., of Thackwood, Cumberland, and by her, who died in 1862, he has left issue. LAW SOCIETIES. THE JURIDICAL SOCIETY. The members of this society held a meeting on Wednesday night at 4, St. Martin's-place, Trafalgar-square; Mr. J. R. Quain, Q.C., in the chair. Mr. G. H. Hopwood read "Extracts from the LEGAL NEWS. Spanish Order of Charles III., who died at his reports of the Marriage Law Commission," with Mr. Vernon Lushinton, Q. C., Mr. T. C. Anstey, and Mr. C. Clark discussed the matters of the report, and the chairman subsequently brought the debate to a close in an interesting review of the subject and its difficulties. ARTICLED CLERKS' SOCIETY. At a meeting of this society, held in the hall of the Honourable Society of Clement's-inn, on Wednesday evening, Mr. Hubbard in the chair, the following question was brought before the meeting and discussed: "That the proprietors of proceedings for inserting letters not signed with newspapers should be made liable to criminal the real names of their authors." After a very animated debate the motion was lost. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES HEAD ARTICLED CLERKS' SOCIETY. THE WILL OF A DECEASED ENGLISHMAN IN FRANCE.-The Civil Tribunal of Marseilles has just had to decide on the interpretation to be given to the will of a wealthy English merchant of that city, named Robert Gower, and on which depended a considerable fortune. The deceased, who was unmarried, after leaving a valuable gallery of pictures to different museums in England and France, disposed of the remainder of his property in the following terms: "I name and institute as my heirs, my brother George Henry Gower or his children, and my other nephews and nieces who shall exist at the date of my death, or their representatives." The court, in its judgment, decided that the construction of the phrase in the will indicated two different ideas; the designation of the brother by name to the exclusion of all others, and the inference from the word "or," which implied that, in case of pre-decease, his children then would be merged in the category of nephews and nieces mentioned in a general manner; that Mr. George Henry Gower, being living, was the universal legatee. A verdict in accordanc with that view was in consequence given. a as а London experience, but would confine itself to considering whether any of the provisions of the measure should be limited or extended with reference stances of India, Mr. Maine then argued that to the special contemporary facts and circumthere was urgent necessity for a codified law of evidence. Outside the Presidency towns, and therefore over the bulk of the country, a customary law of evidence had once been supposed to prevail, but it was of the lowest description, and in the course of the last fifteen or twenty years it had come to be assumed that the English law of evidence was in force, vi propria, in the Mofussil. The tendency was now-a-days to insist on the English rules in all their strictness. This, he pointed out, was a considerable evil. He expressed his entire agreement with the commissioners that parts of the English law of evidence were unsuited to India. That law laid claim, with some reason, to be on the whole a model of good sense; but it did not, as did some Continental systems of evidence, make any pretension to be a patent process for the discovery of truth. It had its origin entirely in one peculiarity of the English judicial system, the separation of the judge of law from the judge of fact; and it consisted almost entirely of rules of exclusion, intended to keep out of the sight of the judge of fact certain kinds of evidence which, though they might be incidentally valuable, were found on the whole to make an impression on the mind out of proportion to their real weight. Some necessary modification of such a system might reasonably be looked for in a country where the judge of law was invariably identical with the judge of fact. The Law Commissioners had wisely relaxed the English rules of exclusion. They were certainly too severe for India, and there was much danger that if excessively strict rules of admissibility were insisted upon, the materials for a decision would the most common fault of those courts would be constantly fail the Indian courts altogether, and with comparative neglect, and to guess at the facts aggravated-their tendency to treat the evidence the country would gain a great advantage through upon probabilities, There could be no doubt that the adoption of the Commissioners' proposals; but the Government of India was compelled to dissent from one of them which involved a financial documents required to be stamped by the stamp question. It would appear from one of their reports that the comissioners were of opinion that law, but improperly stamped should, nevertheless. be admissible in evidence, but that improper stamping should entail a penalty. From the purely judicial point of view there was much to be said for this. proposal, but the practical effect would be that the regarded by the people, would have to be given up. stamp duties, which were, on the whole, favourably The Government had recently laid before it a great law, and there was little doubt from this of the heap of information on the working of the stamp consequences of giving effect in India to the comevasion of the duties on an enormous scale, and missioners' proposal. There would at once be this could only be put down by using the criminal which would discredit the Indian Government. courts for the infliction of penalties to an extent There was already a penalty for improper stamping, but the only effectual check was found by greater number of cases of the improperly stamped document.-Times. PUBLIC AUCTIONS IN THE STREETS.-An interesting case came before the magistrate at the Clerkenwell Police-court, on Saturday. Walter Prince, the proprietor of a caravan placed opposite to Rufford's-buildings, High-street, Islington, was summoned by the parish authorities of Islington for having sold by public auction goods, wares, and merchandise, in a public place close to and in front of houses near the public highway of the parish, without the leave of the vestry or local within the parish, contrary to the Islington Local authorities, and for committing a public nuisance Act (5 Geo. 4, c. 125). These proceedings were taken upon a requisition signed by fifty-seven tradesmen and inhabitants of the parish. The defendant, an itinerant vendor of articles from describes himself caravan, auctioneer. Just before Christmas last he took possession of a piece of ground near the highway opposite houses in High-street, and placed thereon a caravan, 23 feet long, resembling a house, having a fireplace in it, and being used as a residence. At seven in the evening the caravan is lighted up inside and outside, and all kinds of articles are there sold by auction. Mr. Barker having taken time to consider his judgment, now said he had no doubt the defendant had committed an offence within the meaning of the summons by causing a public January 26.-Address by J. D. Sibree, Esq. he had himself been to view the place, and could Since the adjournment Honorary Member. Subject: "Outlines of a Suit entertain no doubt as to the character of the experience to be the non-admissibility in the nuisance. It might not be the defendant's object to create a nuisance according to the words used PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS in one of the authorities, but it was the inevitable The usual weekly meeting of this society was held on Monday evening, the 18th inst. The subject of debate being, "That it is expedient to allow persons charged with crime to give evidence in their own defence, when on their trial." Mr. A. Chater supported the affirmative, and Mr. H. S. Sewell the negative. After an animated discussion the meeting was equally divided on the question. HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. in Chancery." [N. B.-Announcements of appointments being in the nature of advertisements, are charged 2s. 6d. each for which postage stamps should be inclosed.] nuisance or annoyance. result of his conduct. In his opinion anything April 21, 1868.-The Right Hon. Sir Alexander Edmund Cockburn, Bart., and Sir James Hannen, Knt., two of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, at Westminster, have appointed LAW REFORM IN INDIA.-Christians in India Sydney Clulow Child, of No. 53, Victoria-street, are likely to have a complete divorce law after all. Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, gentle-A recent decree of Lord Westbury's, which is said man, to be a London Commissioner for administering Oaths in Common Law in the said court. April 22, 1868.-The Right Hon. Sir William Bovill, Knt., and Sir Henry Singer Keating, Knt., two of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, at Westminster, have appointed Sydney Clulow Child, of No. 53, Victoria-street, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, gentle man, to be a London Commissioner for administering Oaths in Common Law in the said court. April 21, 1868.-The Right Hon. Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Knt., Lord Chief Baron of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, at Westminster, has appointed Sydney Clulow Child, of No. 53, Victoriastreet, Westminster, gentleman, to be a London Commissioner for administering oaths in common law in the said court. The following appointment has been made in the Civil Service: Cavendish Charles Boyle to a clerkship in the Court of Probate, without competition. THE GAZETTES. Gazette, Jan. 8. neys and solicitors, Manchester. Dec. 31. Debts by Crowther EDMUND CRESSWELL, solicitors, Shrewsbury, as regards E. C. PEARCE, JOHN MERISCOE; PHILLIPS, JAMES PERCY; PEARCE, Bankrupts. Gazette, Jan. 15. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. COVE, STEPHEN HENRY, painter, South-st, Kensal New-town. to have taken the legal world by surprise, as to DEBNAM, JOSEPH (trading as Triboulet and Co.), manufacturer, DINSDALE, JAMES THOMAS, lately photo-lithographer, Catherine- wards. Sols. Stocken and Jupp, Leadenhall-st. Sur. Jan, 2 GARDINER, JONATHAN, out of business, Stradbrooke. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Pepvs. O. A. Graham. Sol. Storey, Kings-rd, Bedford-row. Sur. Jan. 29 GIBLING, WILLIAM HENRY, carpenter, Ease India-rd, Poplar. GREGORY, GEORGE, contractor, Teddington. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Sur. HENDEY, LEON, carpenter, George-yd, Princes-st, Soho. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Roche. O.A. Parkyns. Sol. Biddies, South sq, Gray's-inn. Sur. Jan. 27 HOWELL, EBENEZER WARWICK, builder, Crosier-ter, Homerton. Pet. Jan. 12. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Pittman, Guildhall-chambers, Basinghall-st. Sur. Jan. 27 JOHNSTONE, JOHN, formerly clerk in holy orders, Everett-st, Russell-sq. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Kimberley, Scott's-yd, Bush-la, Cannon-st. Sur. Jan. 29 LAMPE, JOHANNES LOUIS, and CHRISTIE, MARGARET, proprietors of a school, Woodford. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Pepys. Ö. A. Graham. Sol. Stacpoole, Pinners-hall, Old Broad-st. Sur. Jan. 29 LANGRIDGE, JOHN THOMAS, victualler, Northfleet. Pet. Jan. 11. LARAMAN, THOMAS EDWARD, victualler, Rochester. Pet. Jan. 13. LEONARD, WILLIAM, timber merchant. Kilburn. Pet. Jan. 9. MAGARIGLE, JOHN (trading as James Power Macdonald), formerly warehouseman, Victoria-rd, Peckham. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. Roche, O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Kimberley, Scott's-yd, Bushla, Cannon-st. Sur. Jan. 27 MILES, WILLIAM BROWN, manufacturer's agent, Monkwell-st. Jan. 25 PINDER, FREDERICK, grocer, Tottenham. Pet. Jan. 11. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Stacpoole, Pinners-hall, Old Broad-st. Sur. Jan. 27 PITT, WILLIAM HENRY, comedian, Wood-st north, King's-sq. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Steadman, London-wall. Sur. Jan. 27 RANWELL, WILLIAM CHARLES, packing case maker, Cowper-st, Finsbury. Pet. Jan. 4. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Doble, Gresham-st. Sur. Jan. 27 REDFERN, CHARLES, coal factor, New Bridge-st. Blackfriars. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sols. Stephens and Langdale, Bedford-row. Sur. Jan. 25 RICHARDSON, WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, out of business, Clarence. st. Islington. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Rigby, Basinghall-st. Sur. Jan. 27 RUSSELL, JANE ANNE CATHERINE, widow, Upper Porchester-st, SIMMONS, JOHN, milliner, Southsea. Pet. Jan. 9. O. A. Edwards. Pet. Jan. 12. To surrender in the Country. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER, out of business, Totterdown. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. Wilde. O. A. Acraman. Sols. Benson and Elletson, Bristol. Sur. Jan. 27 BALDWIN, SHARPE, and CORKER, WILLIAM, shoemakers, Armley and Leeds. Pet. Jan. 8. O. A. Young. Sol. Simpson, Leeds. Sur. Feb. 1 BEALE, JOHN, grocer, Skewan, near Neath. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Wilde. O. A. Acraman. Sols. Thomas, Neath; and Abbot and Leonard, Bristol. Sur. Jan. 27 BIGGIN, JOSHUA, cutlery manufacturer, Sheffield. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. & O. A. Wake and Rodgers. Sol. Micklethwaite, Sheffield, Sur. Jan. 27 BLISSETT, JAMES, plumber, Dudley. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. Tudor. BLOSSOM, JOHN, late hosier, Sheffield. Pet. Jan. 8. Reg. & O. A. Sur. Jan. 25 CHAMBERS, ROBERT, veterinary surgeon, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 12. COUNSELL, SAMUEL, contractor, Pendleton and Blackpool. Pet. CULLEY, JOHN PRESTON, assistant draper, Saxilby. Pet. Jan 11. DE SANTA MARTHA, IGNATIUS AUGUSTUS, midshipman, Ply. Jan. 27 EATON, THOMAS, fishdealer, Bolton. Pet. Jan. 5. Reg. Macrae. FARRALL, PATRICK, publican, Cardiff. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. & O. A. FUKE, JOHN, builder, Torquay. Pet. Jan. 12. O. A. Carrick. Sur. GALE, SIMEON, beerhouse keeper, Netherbury. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Sur. MORTON, THOMAS, commission agent, Coleshill st, Eaton-sq. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. SoL Watson, Businghall-st. Sur. Feb. 4 PALMER, EDWARD RICHARD, builder, Durham pl, Holloway. Pet. Jan. 16. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Plunkett, Gutter-la. Sur. Feb. 1 POLAK, JAMES ALEXANDER, carver, Queen's-bldgs, Tottenhamct-rd. Pet. Jan. 14. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Biddles, South-sq, Gray's-inn, Sur. Feb. 1 PRICE, JOSEPH, tailor, Church-st, Camberwell. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Mott, Paternoster - row. Sur. Jan. 29 REEVES, WILLIAM FRANCIS, marble mason, Dulwich-rd, Brixton. Pet. Jan. 11. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Ed.nunds, St. Bride'savenue, Fleet-st. Sur. Feb. 3 RICH, HARRY, wheelwright, Cheshunt. Pet. Jan. 16. Reg. SALE, JOHN, earthenware dealer, Lamb st, Spitalfields, and KEMP, JOHN CAREY, timber dealer, Exeter. Pet. Jan. 14. O. A. MADELEY, WILLIAM, grocer, Walsall. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. & O. A. MANN, HENRY BARONS, commission traveller, Leamington Spa, MERTENS, HENRY, formerly innkeeper, Leeds. Pet. Jan. 4. Reg. Reg. STEVENS, JOHN, publican, Bottisham Lode. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. &O. A. Button. Sol. Bye, Soham. Sur. Jan. 27 STOCKWELL, MARK, grocer, Cheriton. Pet. Jan. 11. Reg. & O. A. Brockman. Sol. Minter, Folkestone. Sur. Jan. 27 STOREY, JOHN BOLAM, farmer, Barmpton, near Darlington Pet. Oct. 15. Reg. Gibson. O. A. Laidman. Sol. Hoyle, Newcastle. Sur. Jan. 26 TELLEY, JAM28, flour miller, Windlesham. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. WALSH, JOHN, hosier, Halifax. Pet. Jan. 11. Gazette, Jan. 19. Pet. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street ABBOTT, JOHN, cheesemonger, Marlborough-rd, Chelsea. Jan. 15. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Pullen, Cloisters, Temple. Sur. Feb. 1 ABURROW, ADOLPHUS HENRY, commercial clerk, Lancaster-rd, Westbourne-pack. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Brougham. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Biddles, South-sq, Gray's-inn. Sur. Feb. 8 ALLINSON, WILLIAM SAMUEL, out of business, Prince of Wales. rd, Kentish town. Pet. Jan. 12. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Green, Ironmonger-la. Sur. Feb. 8 AYERS, THOMAS, chair maker, Pelham st, Spitalfields. Pet. BRAY, HORATIO JOHN, out of business, Nelson-pl, Kew-bridge. FISH, FREDERICK, working jeweller, Saint John-st-rd, Clerken- HAMES, GEORGE, coal agent, Roman-rd, Mile End. Pet. Jan. 12. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Goatley, Bow-st, Coventgarden. Sur. Jan. 29 HEMSLEY, JOHN, glove manufacturer, Melbourne, and Monkwell- To surrender in the Country. ADAMSON, GEORGE, brickmaker, Dartmouth. Pet. Dec. 15. Reg. BRODRICK, WILLIAM WALE. and BRODRICK, EDWARD, earthen- BROOKS, WILLIAM, fruiterer, Coventry. Pet. Jan. 14. Reg. & CHADDESTON, JOSEPH, farmer, Limes Farm, near Newcastle- Pet. Sur. COLLIER, JOHN, out of employment, Monks Coppenhall. COUPE, THOMAS HENRY, music seller, Salford. Pet. Nov. 19. CO. HENRY, stockbroker, Cheltenham. Pet. Jan. 15. Rez. FAIRBROTHER, GEORGE, lithographer, Manchester. Pet. Jan. 7. Pet. Jan. 13. Reg. & O. A. HODGKIN ON, JONATHAN, grocer, Westn ughton, Pet. Jan. 16. LAWRIE, ROBERT, stonemason, Birkenhead. Pet. Jan. 14. Reg. |