Dec. 31. JONES, WILLIAM, pig dealer, Pwllheli. Pet. Dec. 14. Reg. & O. A. MARTIN, THOMAS WILLIAM, hair dresser, Tavistock. 3. by three equal instalments, on March 25, June 24, and Sept. 29. Trust. J. M. Brawn, builder, Tavistock MAWDSLEY, HENRY, wine merchant's clerk, Southport. Jan. 12. 24, 67, on Jan 31 Pet. Jan. 20. Reg. & O. A. Wilson. Sol. Busby, Alnwick. Sur. Feb. 6 LEGG, GEORGE WILLIAM, painter, Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 21. Reg. & O. A. Guest. Sol. Parry, Birmingham. Sur. Feb. 19 LEIGH, THOMAS, labourer, Bolton, Pet. Jan. 21. Reg. & O. A. Holden. Sol. Ramwell, Bolton. Sur. Feb. 10 LOCKE, WALTER, britannia metal manufacturer, Sheffield. Pet. Jan. 20. 0. A. Young. Sols. Bateson, Robins on, and Morris, Liverpool; and Smith and Burdekin, Sheffield. Sur. Feb. 17 MAKIN, GEORGE, grocer's assistant, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 22. Reg. & O. A. Hime. Sol. Masters, Liverpool. Sur. Feb. 9 MALLINSON, WILLIAM, woollen draper, Mirfield. Pet. Jan. 21. Reg. & O. A. Nelson. Sol. Ibberson, Dewsbury, Sur. Feb. 11 NEEVES, HENRY, licensed victualler, Rye. Pet. Jan. 19. Reg. & O. A. Butler. Sol. Philbrick, Hastings. Sur. Feb. 2 NEWBURY, WILLIAM, agent, Yarmouth. Pet. Jan. 21. O. A. Chamberlin. Sol. Stanley, Norwich. Sur. Feb. 9 PALING, WILLIAM, tailor, Brant Broughton. Pet. Jan. 21. & O. A. Newton. Sol. Belk, Nottingham. Sur. Feb. 11 PEARSON, RICHARD PARRISH, ground bailiff. Kingswinford. Pet. Jan. 22. Reg. & O. A. Harward. Sol. Stokes, Dudley. Sur. Feb. 8 PENN, SILVESTER, miller, Great Hale. Pet. Jan. 20. Reg. & O. A. Penke. Sol. Harrison, Lincoln. Sur. Feb. 8 PRICE, THOMAS GEORGE, wheelwright, Chatham. Pet. Jan. 22. Reg. & O. A. Acworth. Sol. Hayward, Rochester. Sur. Feb. 5 RAYNOR, JOSEPH, drysalter, Pudsley, near Bradford. Pet. Jan. 16. Reg. & O. A. Robinson. Sur. Feb. 12 RIECHTER, GEORGE, tailor, Hadleigh. Pet. Jan. 11. Newman. Sol. Jennings, Ipswich. Sur. Feb. 8 ROBERTS, HENRY, contractor, Dinas. Pet. Sept. 12. Splekett. Sur. Feb. 6 Reg. & Reg. Reg. & O. A. SLATOR, DAVID, blacksmith, Sutton Saint Mary. Pet. Jan. 20. Reg. & O. A. Caparn. Sol. Sturton, Holbeck. Sur. Feb. 8 SNELLING, WILLIAM FORSTER, tailor, Sittingbourne. Pet. Jan. 20. Reg. & O. A. Hills. Sol. Parsons, King William-street, Charing-cross. Sur. Feb. 6 Pet. Jan. 22. SPREAT, WILLIAM, artist, Alphington, and Exeter. TUZZO, PHILIP, water clerk, Liverpool. Pet. Jan. 21. Reg. & O. A. BANKRUPTCY ANNULled. Gazette, Jan. 22. TUDOR, EDWARD CHARLES BUCHANAN, plumber, Shiffnall. Aug. 21, 1863 Dividends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Boag, W. grocer, first, 8«. 2d. (on new proofs, and second, 144. McNeill, Manchester.-Braithwaite, A. B. clerk in audit office, final, 48. 4d. (making 208.) Stansfeld, London.-Chilton, W. plumber, first, 3. 5d. McNeill, Manchester.-Fairfield, J. corn merchant, first, 6s. 4d. Turner, Liverpool.-Ford, J. P. woollen merchant, first, 2s. 6d. McNeill, Manchester.-Frost, T. oil and colourman, first, 7d. Parkyns, London.-Herschhorn, M. dealer in fancy goods, first, 1s. 103d. Parkyns, London. Hughes, R. grocer, first, 18. Turner, Liverpool.-Hunt, H. optician, first, 1s. 4d. Turner, Liverpool.-Lawson, T. S. joiner, first, 58. Laidman, Newcastle.-Prior, E. S. and Prior, A. S. coal merchants, first, second, and third, 2s. 11d. Parkyns, London.-Sedden, E. leather dealer's assistant, first, 18. 2. McNeill, Manchester.-Wildish, E. lace. dealer, second, 1s. 6d. Parkyns, London. Assignment, MILES, RICHARD, Stourbridge. Jan. 18. 2s. in 2 mos MOOS, DAVID, merchant, Basinghall-st. Trusts. J. R. Clarke, accountant, King-st, and H. Eschwege, merchant, Coleman-st. Sols. Sole, Turner, and Turner, Aldermanbury MORFITT, SETH, farmer, Yeadon. Jan. 19. 68. 84. on May 19, and Sept. 19 next, and Jan. 19, 1870,-guaranteed. Trust. J. Morfitt, flax merchant, Leeds NALL, MARK, joiner, Buxton. Jan. 6. Trust. J. Fletcher, farmer, Wirksworth NORTHOVER, CHARLES, grocer, Andover. Jan. 7. 78. in 21 days, from Dec. 18. Trust. G. Bacon, gentleman, Leadenhall-st PAWLEY, THOMAS, carpenter, Goldsmith-st. Jan. 11. 3. in PEARMAIN, JOHN, brewer, Bassingbourne. Dec. 23, Trust. H. Fordham, banker, Royston, and J. Westrope, farmer, Ashwell POSTHILL, ISAAC, boot maker, Hull. Dec. 18. Trust. N. Easton, auctioneer, Hull WALDER, HENRY, corn dealer, Croydon. Dec. 28. Trust. T. B. WILSON, DAVID, cabinet maker, Kennington rd, Lambeth. Jan. 13. 2s. 6d.-18. 6d.in 2 mos and 1s. in 4 mos ARBON, CHARLES, bailder, Great Yarmouth. Jan. 1. 7s. 6d. on BATE, WILLIAM, and TURNER, HENRY, drapers, Kidderminster. Dec. 7. Trusts. A. Dow, bank manager, Kidderminster, and R. Spencer, merchant, Manchester BERNARD, THOMAS, Cordwainer, Marlborough. Jan. 2. 38, 4d, on or before Feb. 1. Trust. C. B. May, tanner, Marlborough BLOOMER, FREDERICK ARCHER, tailor, Birmingham. Jan. 19. 7. Gd. by three equal instalments, on March 5, May 5, and July 5. Trust. J. Griffiths, gentleman, Birmingham BRIGGS, HENRY DAKIN, plumber, Birmingham. Dec. 29. Trasts. W. Burton, clerk, Birmingham BULLOCK, WILLIAM, and WESTERN, JOSEPH, jewellers, South registration, and on July 1 port. Dec. 22. 10s. by two equal instalments, in 7 days from COHEN, DANIEL, outfitter, Liverpool. Dec. 31. Trusts. P. Williams, wholesale clothier, and A. Lyons, wholesale clothier, both Liverpool COZENS, EDWIN CORBIN, builder, Margate. Dec. 31, Trust. T. D. Reeve, brickmaker, Margate DUXBURY, ELIZABETH, widow, administratrix of the goods, &c., of Henry Duxbury, deceased, Simonstone. Dec. 28. Trusts. G. Duxbury and I. Davies, contractors, both Padiham, and S. Stuttard, contractor, Burnley FORD, HENRY, printer, Newbury. Jan. 13. 58. in 21 days from registration FREEMAN, ANN, bookseller, Framlingham. Dec. 31. Trusts. .J. Whitaker, wholesale stationer, Little Knightrider-st; H. SURTEES-FALLOWS.-On the 21st inst., John G. Surtees, Esq., of York, and View Mount, Hampstead, to Mary Ann, second daughter of Joseph Fallows, Esq., Carlton-chambers, 8, Regent street, solicitor, and Albion-road, South Hampstead. WELLS-NEALE.-On the 21st inst., at St. Sidwell's, Exeter, John Wells, of Percy street, Bedford-square, solicitor, to Emily, the youngest daughter of Mr Thomas Neale, of Dix's-field, Exeter. VAUGHAN COLLETT.-On the 20th inst., at St. Paul's, Dalston, Val. Vaughan, Esq., to Fanny Helen, only daughter of the late R. W. D. Collett, Esq., barrister-at-law. DEATHS. BARNARD.-On the 20th inst., at Norwich, aged 72, Frances Catherine Barnard, relict of Alfred Barnard, late of the same place, solicitor. GRIFFITH.-On the 23rd inst., at 10, Museum-street, York, James Griffith, Esq., formerly of Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn, London, second son of the late John Griffith, Esq., of the city of Durham. KNIGHT.-On the 22nd inst., at Sandgate, Kent, aged 48, Samuel Knight, solicitor, formerly of Sheffield. SCOTT. On the 21st inst., at 24. Oakley-street, King's road. S.W, Eliza, the beloved and affectionate wife of William Pulteney Scott, Esq., of 55, Lincoln's-inn-fields. BREAKFAST-A SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT. -The Cel Service Gazette has the following interesting remarks:"There are very few simple articles of food which can boast so many valuable and important dietary properties as cocoa. While acting on the nerves as a gentle stimu lant, it provides the body with some of the purest elements of nutrition, and at the same time corrects and invigorates the action of the digestive organs. The singular success which Mr. Epps attained by his homeopathic preparation of cocoa has never been sur. passed by any experimentalist. By a thorough know. ledge of the natural laws which govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful application of the fine properties of well-selected cocoa, Mr. Epps has provided our breakfast tables with a delicately flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctor's bills.-[ADVT.] THE MANUFACTURE OF WATCHES AND CLOCKS.-A most interesting and instructive little work, describing briefly, but with great clearness, the rise and progress of watch and clock making, has just been published by Mr. J. W. Benson, of 25, Old Bond-street, 99, Westbourne-grove, and the City Steam Factory, 58 and 60, Ludgate-hill. The book, which is profusely illustrated, gives a full description of the various kinds of watches and clocks, with their prices, and no one should make a purchase without visiting the above establishments, or consulting this truly valuable work. By its aid, persons residing in any part of the United Kingdom, India or the Colonies are enabled to select for themselves the watch best adapted to their use and have it sent to them with perfect safety. Mr. Benson, who holds the appointment to the Prince of Wales, sends this pamphlet to any address on receipt of two postage stamps, and we cannot too strongly recommend it to the notice of the intending purchaser.-[ADVT. ] Knights, publisher of the Ipswich Journal, Ipswich; and H. PARTRIDGE AND COOPER Garrard, grocer, Framlingham GALES, JOSEPH, tailor, Hastings. Dec. 26. Trusts. W. Alger, HALL, ROBERT, tailor, Great Warley. Jan. 7. 2s. 6d. by three HONEYMAN, JOSEPH, steam boat owner, and HONEYMAN, Composition, Jaspectorship, and LAMBERT, ALPHONSE, general agent, Hatton-gdn. Dec. 21. In Trust Deeds. Gazette, Jan. 22. AINSWORTH, JOHN, draper, Over Darwen. Jan. 13. 9s, by three BILLING, ALFRED JOSEPH, and BILLING, CHARLES EARDLEY, BUCKLE, FRANCIS, upholsterer, Westbourne grove, Bayswater. Jan. 1. 11s. by four equal instalments, in 3, 6, 9, and 12 mos from Jan. 1-secured. Trust. R. B. Austin, gentleman, Ashton Tirrold, near Wallingford BUER, HENRY WELLS, grocer, Claremont pl, Brixton - rd. Dec. 31. 54. in two equal instalments, in 14 days and 2 mos CASE, JOHN, furniture dealer, Weymouth, and Melcombe Regis. Dec. 24. 8s. by two equal instalments, by promissory notes, payable April 4 and Aug. 4 CHAPMAN, JOHN, sack manufacturer, Great Driffield. Dec. 28. Trusts. F. C. Matthews, agricultural chemist, Great Driffield, and E. E. Foster, flax merchant. Hull CLARKE, THOMAS, currier, Shiffnall. Dec. 31. 58. by two equal instalments, on Jan. 19 and Mar. 25 COLEMAN, HENRY, builder, Walton-st, Chelsea. Dec. 24. 4s. by equal instalments, on Jan. 1 and April 2. Trust. H. E. Norfolk, accountant, Coleman-st COOP, WILLIAM, victualler, Manchester. Dec. 9. 58.-18. 4d. in 2 mos, 18. 4d. in 4 mos, 18. 4d. in 6 mos, and 1s. in 12 mos-secured. Trust. R. Shaw, cashier, Manchester COWLE, PHILLIP HARRISON, victualler, Dursley. Jan. 12. 48. on Mar. 1 CRAIG, ANDREW, grocer, Newcastle. Dec. 11. Trusts. J. Frazer, boot top manufacturer, Aberdeen, and G. Wilkinson, grocer, Newcastle DODD, THOMAS, carter, Willenhall. Dec. 23. 2s. 6d. in 14 days GREENING, JOSEPH, and THOMPSON, THOMAS ROBSON, coach MARSHALL, GEORGE WILLIAM, tobacconist, Maidstone. Dec. 23. 48.-3s. on execution of deed, and 1s. in 6 mos,-secured. Trust. G. E. Wallis, builder, Maidstone full, by five equal instalments of 48., in 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 mos from Dec. 24 MANLEY, HENRY, surgeon, Ipplepen. Jan. 1. Trusts. J. B. Pinsent, wine merchant, Newton Bushell, and R. Smerdon, gentleman, Ipplepen MARSDEN, RICHARD, woollen spinner, Elland. Dec. 28. 138. by five instalments, 3s. 4. on May 1, 1869; 3, 4d. on Sept. 1, 1869; 38. 4d. on Jan. 1, 1870; 1s. 6d. on May 1, 1870; and 18. 64, on Sept. 1, 1870. Trusts. S. Armitage, shoddy merchant, Dewsbury; T. Chadwick, woolstapler, Dewsbury; J. Armitage, shoddy merchant, Dewsbury; J. Speight, woolstapler, Bradford; and A. Wilkinson, wastedealer, Halifax MOORE, AARON, beerhouse keeper, Leeds. Jan. 14. Trust. J. B. Myers, wine merchant, Leeds Trusts. MOORHOUSE, GEORGE, miller, Rotherham. Dec. 23. W. H. Glossop corn factor, Lathes, near Rotherham, and N. R. Holman, corn factor, Sheffield OGG, GEORGE, schoolmaster, Kilburn. Jan. 5. 3s. in 14 days from registration. Trusts. E. W. Stanley, esquire, Kilburn, and A. Simmons, gentleman, Bedford-row RICHARDS, JOHN PAUL, cabinet maker, Bognor. Dec. 18. Trusts. J. Butt, timber merchant, Littlehampton, and H. Harman, plumber, Bognor SHEEN, WILLIAM, linendraper, Middle-row, Spitalfields-market, and White Lion-st. Jan. 7. 10s. in 14 days from registration SHEPHARD, THOMAS, builder, Brixton-hill. Jan. 2. 10s, by three equal instalments, in 3, 6, and 9 mos VAUGHAN, WILLIAM, jeweller, Bristol. Jan. 4. Trust. T. Fuller, factor, Bristol WEBSTER, HENRY FOGGY, grocer, Darlington. Jan. 7. 10s. on WHITE, JOHN, corndealer, Birmingham. Jan. 20. Trust. J. WHITE, WILLIAM, grocer, Rotherham. Dec. 31. Trusts. W. Booth, wholesale grocer, Sheffield, and G. Appleyard, miller, Rotherham BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. BRANDON.-On the 23rd inst., at Point House, Putney, the wife of RAVENHILL.-On the 23rd inst., at 21, Regent's-park-terrace London, the wife of W. W. Ravenhill, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter. ULCOQ.-On the 25th inst., at 22, Pembridge-gardens, W., the wife of Clement J. A. Ulcoq, Esq., advocate, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. MESSITER-ADAMSON.-On the 23rd inst., at St. George's Church, Everton, Liverpool, Malim Messiter, solicitor, Frome, to Margaret Teresa, widow of the late John Thomas Adamson, of Ashton, Lancashire. (Late PARTRIDGE and COZENS), WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, 92, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E.C. INDENTURE SKINS, Printed and Machine-ruled to hold twenty LEDGERS, DAY-BOOKS, CASH-BOOKS, LETTER OF MINUTE-BOOKS. MANUFACTURING BUSINESS in London for SALE, producing at least 20007. a year nett profit. Article patented, and minimum consumption guaranteed. Business being completely orga nised, requires little superintendence, and no special knowledge on the part of the principal. For anyone pos sessing a capital of not less than 80007, in cash or equivalent available securities, an opportunity of investment is herel y presented seldom equalled. None but principals treated with. Apply to Messrs. TORR, JANEWAY, and TAGART, Solicitors, 38, Bedford-row, London; or to Messrs. DUKE and GOFFEY, Solicitors, 15, Lord-street, Liverpool. AUCTION MART.-The GREAT METRO POLITAN, 26, King-street, Covent-garden, London. Established in 1813 for the SALE by AUCTION of Jewels, Jewellery, Plate, Watches, Clocks, Dressing Cases, Opera Glasses, Woollen Drapery, Silk Mercery, Attire, Furniture, Pictures, Books, Musical and other instruments, and all kind of valuable miscellanies. The Sales are held almost daily throughout the year. Catalogues sent post free. Large or small consignments can be included in these Sales if sent to the Auctioneers, with letter of instructions. DEBENHAM, STORR, and Sons, Covent-garden, London, W.C. Catholic will be the only real Church in Ireland, because it will be the only hierarchy. But this is in strict accordance with the principle now adopted, that Ireland is to be governed according to Irish, and not English, ideas. and address of the writer, not necessarily for publica- INDIVIDUAL economy is most successfully exerted tion, but as a guarantee of good faith. CHARGES FOR ADVERTISEMENTS. Four lines or thirty words. 3s. 6d. Every additional ten words Os. 6d. Advertisements specially ordered for the first page are charged one-fourth more than the above scale. Advertisements must reach the office not later than five o'clock on Thursday afternoon. NOTICE. Subscribers and Advertisers are requested to make their Cheques and Post-office Orders payable to Mr. HORACE Cox, the latter at the Strand Office. The LAW TIMES goes to press on Thursday evening, that it may be received in the remotest parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Advertisements must be transmitted accordingly. None can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday afternoon's post. THE Law and the Lawyers. THE appeal to the Judges which Mr. GILL has instituted against his disbarment by the Benchers of the Inner Temple came on for hearing for the first time on the 28th ult., at Serjeants'-inn, and the Judges proposed to take the appeal de die in diem. Sir ROUNDELL PALMER appeared Election petition-Law and fact-Severance of allegations 703 for Mr. GILL; Mr. COLE for the Benchers of the COURT OF PROBATE. In the Goods of D. F. DE ANGULO Y URRUELAExecutor's oath-Property under estimated In the Goods of JOHN HUTLEY, deceased Will-Probate issued on a compromise 704 701 705 705 COURT OF ADMIRALTY (IRELAND). Appraisement subsequent to sale-Marshal's expenses...... 705 THE QUEEN (No. 2)— COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY Prior diligence-Mariners' wages, precedency of 706 Inner Temple; and Messrs. BRANDON, solicitors, of Essex-street, for the lady at whose instance Mr. GILL was disbarred. A SOLDIER and not a lawyer is the new Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. Colonel HENDERSON was born about the year 1820. Having passed through the ordinary course at Woolwich, he entered the army in 1838, and became lieutenant-colonel in the Royal Engineers in 1862. For some years Colonel HENDERSON was comptroller of the convict department in Western Australia, and in 1863 was appointed to the offices of surveyor-general of prisons and chairman of the directors of convict prisons, vacant by the death of Sir Joshua Jebb. THE EDMUNDS Scandal case, as it is called by the penny-a-liners, has entered into a new phase. The action brought by Mr. EDMUNDS 261 against Mr. GREENWOOD, and which was to have been tried last week, has been referred to arbitrators, who however, by express ment of the parties, are to sit in public. 261 262 Telegraphic Messages 263 Rating 263 Baron Martin on the Duties of Election Judges. Costs of Action after Bankruptcy 203 263 by keeping a tight hand over small expenses. So it is with nations. Stop the little leaks and great will be the saving. This truth appears to be recognised by some, at least, of the new Ministers. They have begun retrenchment in the right way, by looking into the shillings and pence, how they go.. It has been found that, in so simple a matter as using the copying machine instead of copying the correspondence by clerks, a saving may be effected of many hundreds a-year. So with the seemingly trifling article of pens. In most of the Government offices a pen was never mended, but after being once used, became the perquisite of somebody. This waste is to be stayed, and quill pens are to be mended, if the clerks will not condescend to use metal pens. This will effect another considerable saving, and we have no doubt that if the same rule of economy in trifles is rigidly enforced, in all the Government establishments, as a merchant would require in his own office, the aggregate saving will astonish even those to whom belongs the credit of inaugurating it. The example may not be without value to some of our readers, who might possibly find similar economies practicable in their own offices. THE NISI PRIUS SITTINGS. Ir is a great pity that some one in authority cannot be condemned to be first an anxious suitor in our Nisi Prius courts, and in the next case a busy barrister. Take the case of an anxious suitor in the Court of Queen's Bench. He enters his cause before the commencement of the sittings, but he comes in at the tail of over a hundred causes made remanets from the previous sittings. And if the cause is to be tried by special jury and does not, as in all probability it cannot, come on at the present sittings, he is thrown over until June, because there are no sittings to take special jury causes after Easter term. At the time we write, there is a case being heard which is expected to finish the week. The court rises to go to London on the 15th, so that eight days will remain for the trial of causes, and there are thirty-nine to be tried. If there happens to be another case like Star v. get through more than half a dozen cases on the Saurin, the court would in all probability not list, by the time it rises for London. something like thirty remanets and two new Then state of things is not a disgrace to any judicial causes would be thrown over till June. If this agree-system, we have yet to learn in what disgrace IT is said that Lord WESTBURY has undertaken the championship in the House of Lords of the High-Church party. We congratulate them on the acquisition of so powerful an advocate. It is remarkable in one respect. Who does not 268 remember Sir R. BETHELL's wonderful fight for 268 the Divorce Act in the House of Commons, successfully conducted against the energetic and resolute opposition of the High-Church party, 268 led by Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir R. PALMER? He who was then their most powerful opponent will now appear as their most powerful champion, and Mr. GLADSTONE will be at the same time engaged in destroying the Church he then so ably supported. 268 268 200 Notes of New Decisions. Creditors under Estates in Chancery Creditors under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 THE BENCH AND THE BAR: MAGISTRATE AND PARISH LAWYER: 200 WE learn from a well-informed quarter that the scheme for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland is completed in its outlines, and only requires to be embodied in the shape of a Bill or Bills. It does not contain any such proposition as that put forth in Earl RUSSELL's third pamphlet, just published. The ultimate appropriation of the confiscated property will not be determined now, but left for the decision of a future Parliament when a disposable surplus exists, which cannot 277 be for many years. Disestablishment is to be immediate; disendowment is to be by degrees, as benefices lapse by the deaths of the present incumbents. The disestablished Church is to 278 be free to govern itself and to determine its own creed, upon precisely the same basis as any other ............. sect, for a sect it will then become. The Roman 277 277 278 278 278 278 278 consists. Take next the case of the busy barrister. Entrance into any of the courts is a matter of the very greatest difficulty. During the trial of a sensation case the Court of Queen's Bench is simply a crushed mass of humanity. No respect is paid to cloth, and there is every chance that a Judge would be hustled if he ventured without the protection of the bench. The evil is not attributable to the public, but to the ridiculous construction of the courts, and the absence of waiting-rooms for witnesses. We are weary of stating these facts, but the existence of the new courts is still merely matter of conjecture, and present discomfort and inconvenience is galling. The Judges are powerless. Parliament can alone provide a remedy. THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY COURTS. WHAT is now termed the "new" jurisdiction in Admiralty, which has been conferred on the County Courts by the Act passed in July of last year, may be regarded as in active operation. The General Orders for regulating the practice and procedure are published, and appear in another column. They are seventy-seven in number, and to them are appended twenty forms and a schedule of costs. Before examining these rules, we may consider in what respect the jurisdiction is really new; and here we may derive valuable assistance from a letter written by Mr. A. J. JOнnes, the learned Judge of the County Courts of the Midland Wales Circuit, to Lord CAIRNS when Lord Chancellor. He says at page 5 of the printed letter: "I invite your Lordship's attention to the nature of the cases to which the Act extends, the privilege of special courts, and which it dignifies with the name of Admiralty cases,' viz.-claims for salvage, damage to cargo, or by collision, and for towage, necessaries, or wages. Now I may state that hitherto, up to the amount of 501., I have exercised at my ordinary courts the jurisdiction which the Act proposes to confer. The limits of the Admiralty and common law jurisdictions are obscure. But the suitors have never raised any question as to my power to try them, when cases such as are described in the Act have come before me, and I have never raised any." There are five towns named on this circuit for Admiralty sittings, and Mr. JOHNES says that they have been in his circuit ever since 1847, when County Courts were first established; and he adds: "With my long experience I feel quite unable to understand on what ground it can have been inferred that special courts should or could be given to the so-called 'Admiralty' cases in every small maritime district. I have never heard that it has ever entered into the minds of the seafaring people of the towns alluded to to ask for them. Possibly it may be thought that the cases referred to are pressing, but they are not more commonly so than cases connected with the land." From this we see, therefore, that on one circuit at least the jurisdiction conferred is not new, and that any extension of Admiralty process was not required. The appointment of special courts is, indeed, as pointed out by Mr. JOHNES, more likely to be a cause of failure than of success, not only injurious in itself, but creating mischief as regards the ordinary jurisdiction. He says, All County Court Judges alike have engagements fixed three months beforehand. By imposing upon them obligations inconsistent with their ordinary duties, this Act will expose them to continual dissension with suitors entitled to apply for special courts." And he concludes that to give special courts or special sittings to the less important maritime districts will be impracticable. Speaking of the infliction of increased labour upon the Judges, and of his own case in particular, he says: "It must be obvious that to require me, as this Act does, in addition to the discharge of my ordinary circuit duties, to hold a special court whenever what it describes as an Admiralty case' may arise, is to throw upon me more trying labours than would be cast upon me were I compelled to hold monthly courts in every court town in which it was arranged that I should sit once in two months only. No such task as the Act was meant to impose upon me could be performed by one Judge. It would be simply impossible. This will be plain from what I have already stated. It may be doubted whether, if my circuit were confined to the five towns above mentioned, I could fulfil the requisitions of this Act, although my labours would consist almost entirely in travelling. But it will be seen that these towns do not include more than between a fifth and a sixth of the mileage of my entire circuit of 550 miles." Facilities are given for the removal of suits, rule 12 being to the effect that " any person claiming to have an interest in the vessel or property, "whether cognisable by the court or not," may intervene for the purpose of having the case transferred to the High Court of Admiralty. If a vessel has been seized under an execution, and the suit is transferred, the vessel is to remain in the custody of the high bailiff until the marshal of the court shall, by order of the High Court of Admiralty, take possession of it. By the 49th rule, "Where, in suits for damage by collision, the defendant intends to set up as a defence that the vessel was by compulsion of law in the charge of a pilot, he should give notice thereof to the adverse attorney as soon after the service of summons as may be, and if he shall fail to give such notice, the Judge shall, in exercising his discretion as to costs, consider what effect the nondelivery of the notice has had in the suit." The last rule says that the rules, orders, practice, and forms in the County Court shall, subject to the Admiralty orders, be adopted with reference to Admiralty suits, so far as they may be applicable. The schedule of fees is satisfactory. As Mr. Serjeant WHEELER said at the Liverpool County Court on Monday, "Whilst duly protective of the pockets of suitors, the fees to which attorneys and the Bar are entitled in this court, are, as they ought to be, fairly remunerative." And he very properly and courteously adds, "For in intricate questions either of law or fact, all Judges must be deeply indebted to the skill and judgment of able and honourable practitioners; and it is necessary, in order to insure efficient services, that they should be adequately requited." Mr. Serjeant WHEELER does not express complete satisfaction with the jurisdiction as it stands, for he says, "It will probably happen, with reference both to the Act itself, and to the general orders which have been issued for the regulation of their practice in suits of that nature, that the new system thus inaugurated may require for its satisfactory working, both legislative amendments and changes in the details of procedure." should be entertained in Liverpool and in Wales It is easy to understand that different views as to the utility of the new jurisdiction. THE OVEREND AND GURNEY CASE. A certiorari has been granted for the trial of this great case by a special jury in the Queen's Bench. What will be the form of indictment? The defendants have been committed for the common law offence of a conspiracy to defraud, and not, as commonly supposed, for the statutable offence, under the Joint Stock Companies Act, of publishing a prospectus false in some material particular, with intent, &c. It may be assumed, therefore, that they will be tried for the alleged conspiracy to defraud. To sustain this it will be necessary to prove that the defendants, or some of them, conspired together for a fraudulent purpose, and proceeded to carry that purpose into execution by some act in furtherance of it. The conspiracy being proved, each one of them is responsible for all the acts of either of the others of them done in pursuance of the common design. The prosecution will therefore be required to prove against each of the defendants: 1st, the fraudulent design; that is to say, a deliberate intention to defraud somebody; not merely an intention to obtain somebody's money, but to obtain that money, with the same purpose to deprive the owner of it which, in a larceny, would be termed a felonious taking with intent to convert it to his own use. The crime charged against the defendants is in its main ingredients identical with the crime of obtaining by false pretences, the essence of which crime is the intent to defraud. The Overend offence differs from the everyday offence of obtaining a few shillings' worth of goods from a shopkeeper, by the false pretence that the defendant had been sent by a customer, only in the magnitude of the sum alleged to have been fraudulently procured, and the elaborate character of the false pretence. Were they to be indicted simply for obtaining money by false pretences (which is the real charge preferred), the difficulty of framing an indictment specifying the false pretence in such a manner that it could be supported by evidence, would be so great that probably it would not be attempted. The escape from this difficulty is found by resort to the elastic law of conspiracy. But, although the prosecution is thus relieved from the almost insuperable difficulty of laying in the indictment a good false pretence and proving it, as laid by positive evidence, it will not escape entirely from this obligation. It must prove a fraud and a fraudulent intent; and the fraud must be precisely of the same character as would be necessary to sustain an indictment for obtaining, &c., by false pretences. The conspiracy must be to do an unlawful act; a fraud being the unlawful act they are accused of conspiring to do, we must look to the law of criminal fraud for the definition of the term, and that will be found in the multitudinous decisions on indictments for false pretences. Thus viewed, it is at once apparent that there are very great differences in the cases of the several defendants. In the first place, there is a manifest distinction between the cases of the members of the old firm and those of the new directors; and in both classes the cases of the various defendants differ considerably. It may be said of the old firm that they knew their position, standing upon the brink of bankruptcy; that the then popular practice of getting up a company to buy off an old business at a large price, presented the only chance of escape; that the company was promoted with this object: that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by it, and thus an obvious motive might be assigned for resorting to any stratagem that offerred the one chance of escape from otherwise certain ruin. But with the new directors there is no such motive for committing the alleged offence. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain. It may have been an error of judgment in them to hazard their own fortunes and the fortunes of others upon a doubtful speculation, but that is not a crime, nor is that the nature of the charge against them. They are accused of intending to defraud the shareholders--that is to say of procuring the money of the shareholders, intending, at the time they put forth the false pretence by which they sought to procure it, to defraud the shareholders of that money. The question for the they obtained the money of the shareholders, jury, so far as these are concerned, will be, whether knowing that the speculation was a bad one, and designing to use it for their own profit, or if they bona fide believed it to be merely a speculation in which they had faith, into which they were willing to enter with others equally willing to join them, and to play together for the chances of great profits, knowing also, as all ought to have known, and were bound to know, that great profits cannot be made without risk of great losses. Their answer to the charge will be-we proved our bona fides by our conduct; we believed in the speculation; we thought, erroneously as it has turned out, that the debts were not so bad as they proved, that the company was secured against loss by the mortgage of the private property of the vendors, and that any margin of liability that would remain would be recouped in a reasonable time by profits then amounting to 200,000l. a year, and which might fairly be expected to increase with the enlarged connec tions of the company. It the jury should be of opinion that this is a truthful answer to the charge, they must be acquitted, and this is the shape in which it will doubtless be presented to the consideration of the jury by the Judge who tries them. But it has been urged, in reply to this, that, a conspiracy being proved, each is answerable for every act of the other, and therefore the new directors are compromised by the acts of those who were members of the old firm, even though they had not their knowledge or did not directly participate in their proceedings. True; but the responsibility begins only from the moment of the company being formed. The question as to this will be, at what time was the alleged conspiracy completed? If they had met together, the old firm and the new directors, and the former had told the latter their true position, and then they had agreed together to get up a company to relieve the firm of its difficulties, and to do so by deceiving the public and defrauding the shareholders, the responsibility of each for all would have commenced from that moment. But such was not the case; the conspiracy will not be laid before the time when active steps were taken for the formation of the company, and that the new directors were not then cognisant of any fraudu lent design will be argued from the fact, that they invested their own fortunes in the speculation, and stood by it to the last, when they might have sold their shares at a premium, and got out of it with a profit. Moreover, in judging them, this also must not be forgotten. If, when the company was formed, they had announced to a single shareholder any one of the bad debts that the panic produced, instant ruin would have overwhelmed the concern, and then they would have been still more angrily assailed by the shareholders, by the newspapers, and by the public for having brought about the ruin of the company by their imprudent revelation, than now they are abused for not pro claiming it. If, by keeping it secret, they had ELECTION JUDGES. jury system to the trial of petitions; but that something ought to be done is clear. succeeded in riding through the storm and pre- BARON MARTIN ON THE DUTIES OF before pointed out the difficulty of applying the serving the magnificent income of a quarter of a million, loud and long would have been the applause bestowed upon their prudent reticence. The act that would have been lauded, had it been successful, and which every shareholder would have applauded had it brought him a profit, is prosecuted when it proves to be a loss. But its true character is not changed by the result. TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES. MR. JUSTICE KEOGH, trying the Dublin Petition, has compelled the manager of the Magnetic Telegraph Company to produce the messages that were despatched during the election by the various persons engaged in it. In strict law this is permissible. Telegraph messages are not privileged communications, even in the hands of the Telegraph Company. But it is a very important question whether they ought not to be made such. What are they, after all, but letters without an envelope? The same communication sent through the post office would be practically privileged in the transit. If the postmaster where to break the seal and read it, he would not be permitted to give evidence of its contents. The telegraph clerk is only as a postmaster to whom a paper is confided, which the necessity of the case demands that he should read and preserve. It is as necessary to the public security that messages should be held in as strict confidence by the officials as letters. No harm could possibly come of conferring upon them, when delivered to the company, and while in the possession of the company, the privilege of strict secresy; or, if an occasional inconvenience should arise, the benefits would vastly exceed the evil of such a provision. RATING. NEARLY two years have elapsed since we directed the attention of our readers to the rapid growth of the local rates, and the extreme injustice by which the entire maintenance of the poor is thrown upon one kind of property, to the exemption of other kinds of property, equally liable in reason and justice to share the burden. We are pleased to see that the subject is beginning to be seriously treated in all parts of the country, more especially by the Chambers of Agriculture which have been established in most of the counties. The land was originally burdened with the maintenance of the poor, through the lingering in our legislation of the old feudal notion of the labourers being adscripti glebæ. Freedom of locomotion was not permitted to him; and even now the law of settlement, based upon the same extinct past, sends him back to his parish if he becomes a pauper. The consequence of this is that the labourer born in the country migrates to the town, devotes his youth and strength to town work, enriches manufacturers and tradesmen, and, when he is worn out, the parish of his birth is charged with the support of his old age. Recent laws, creating irremovability in certain cases, have very much modified this injustice; but still the law of settlement remains, to do partial wrong, alike to the labourer compelled to go and to the parish compelled to take him. All the causes for the existing law of settlement and of rating being removed, the law should cease also. There is now no reason whatever why the land alone should maintain the poor, much less bear all the new local burdens that have been imposed, notably the police, and the still greater burdens with which it is threatened. An education rate is coming: is that also to be paid by one species of property only? BARON MARTIN availed himself of an opportunity afforded him at the trial of the Bradford petition of expressing his opinion of the Parliamentary Elections Act in imposing upon the Judges the duties of trying election petitions. Mr. FORSTER, the validity of whose return was under consideration, had, it appeared, been particularly energetic in passing this Act. For that Baron MARTIN had little to thank him. "It is," he said, "perfectly well known that it was against the unanimous wish of all the Judges, and they unanimously protested against it, it was imposed upon them as much against their will as any duty could possibly be imposed, but when the Act was passed the Judges considered it their duty to obey it. The objections to it which were held by the judges were embodied in a letter written by the Chief Justice to the then Lord Chancellor, and I believed then, and I believe now, that those objections were such as ought to have had weight with the Legislature." The objections of the learned Baron may not be such as some of the public expect. They are not that the duties are unbecoming a Judge, and by their political character calculated to imperil his independent position. But they are meet satisfactorily in one man. that the functions of judge and jury cannot The language of the learned Judge is very emphatic. He says of the Act, "My own personal objection to it was that I was called upon to do exactly what I am now compelled to do. It is to denude myself of my real office, and instead of sitting as a common law Judge of England, and to the best of my judgment sitting to decide matters of law, and leaving it to juries to decide matters of fact, I am compelled by this Act of Parliament to sit here and to decide on a pure matter of fact as if I were a jury. I protested against that being imposed upon me, and, as far as I can, I protest against it now. It is a duty which I think ought not to be imposed upon a Judge, and for the simplest possible reason.' This reason is undoubtedly well based. It is rested upon the fallibility of individual human judgment. "There is no one," says the learned Judge, whether lawyer or not lawyer, who knows anything about mankind that don't know that different men take a most different view with regard to facts; I am confident that there are many men, and many men quite as competent as I am, who might take a different view of evidence proved in this case from what I take." And his Lordship illustrates the peculiar fallibility of a person trained to advocacy by reference to an eminent personage who we cannot help thinking must be Lord WESTBURY. "Within my own experience as a lawyer," says Baron MARTIN, "I have known men who would take widely different views of matters. I have known one man who is particularly familiar to my mind, one of the ablest advocates I ever knew, and who eventually attained the highest office that could be held dear by a man connected with the law, and that man had in his mind the idea that every person against whom he had held a brief was a fraudulent man. It was only necessary to deliver a brief to that man and his mind instinctively went in this way, 'My opponent, whoever he may be, is a fraudulent man,' and it was idle to say that that man apparently acted right and proper, and that there was nothing that you could put your finger upon-that in his mind was only a way of cloaking the truth." 66 And yet this man, according to the learned Judge, was able and honest. Another person whom his Lordship has come in contact with, would take quite a contrary view. "Then," he said, suppose you take these two men, both equally desirous of doing what is right, but having each this different frame of mind, how can you expect them to arrive at the same conclusion? They cannot-in fact they won't, and they never will, and that is one of the evils of these trials." This is, undoubtedly, a serious evil. It is an evil that any persons of dignity should be compelled to perform a duty which is repugnant to them, and repugnant in the higher sense as being opposed to their confidence in the capacity of any one man to perform it efficiently. A serious question is hereby Mr. GOSCHEN, the new President of the Poor Law Board, some time ago, expressed an opinion that some of the items of local taxation ought to be borne by the State. But these are comparatively insignificant, certainly not more than sixpence in the pound. The poor rate is the great and growing tax, and it is to that the country people should direct their attention. The support of the poor is a personal, not a local, obligation; every man is bound to contribute to it according to his means. Income is the proper subject of taxation for such a purpose, and agitation should be directed every-raised for the consideration of the next Parliawhere to the one object of levying all local rates on income and not on occupation. ment, whether Judges should not be assisted by some body in the nature of a jury. We have Baron MARTIN lifts the veil upon the proceedings of the Judges when the intention of the Legislature was made known to them. He says: "A sort of protest was made after this Act under which I sit was passed. I saw it written in the writing of a very eminent person-that the Judges were not bound to sit in these courts; that Parliament had made three men Judges, and that they had taken the position with the knowledge of what they must undertake, and that it was no hardship upon them because they accepted office knowing that it was imposed upon them. It is said I saw that in writing and so did all the other Judges. And it became matter of consideration with them what ought to be done, and we were unanimously of opinion that the Legislature having passed this Act of Parliament, it was the duty of the senior Judges to undertake it; that they would act in derogation of their duty to the public if they, because it was unpleasant duty to them, should cast it upon the three gentlemen who were just lately appointed, and that it was their duty to submit to the Legislature. They therefore undertook a duty which is as unpleasant to me as it is possible any duty can be, that is to decide not upon a matter of law, which I am willing enough to do to the best of my ability, but to sit here as a juryman deciding upon matter of fact." The learned Baron then hints at the probability that in future the Judges will not take the trouble of stating the grounds of their decisions. The matter being of paramount interest at the present time we give his Lordship's view in his own words. He says:-"Another matter connected with this is that it would be more worth the while of the three Judges engaged in these election petitions to consider whether or not upon a question of fact they should not simply say-such is my opinion, and leave the question there. But in the cases that have occurred-this is the fifth I think-the Judges have gone at considerable length into showing their reasons why they have or have not arrived at certain conclusions upon the evidence given. I have, as I have already stated, very great doubt whether upon consideration the system of a simple decision will not be adopted. We are sitting, as I have said, in this position of jurymen, and the jurymen say-Here is the summing up of the Judge, which prevents any improper evidence being left upon our minds,' and they are left to give their verdict for the plaintiff or the defence, or to find guilty or not guilty, and there the matter ends. You do not interrogate a jury, you do not require them to explain why is this, or why is that, but there the matter lies, and I really very much doubt whether it would be found to conduce to the public interest that people who are now called upon to decide matters of fact, as a jury, should go into the whole of their reasons. It would be more satisfactory-perhaps more unsatisfactory, according as persons look at it from different views-and I very much doubt whether it would be a difficult course. I myself do not say that the reasons should not be given for arriving at certain conclusions, but simply that the Judge should exercise the functions of jurymen, and say: 'I am of opinion that the facts are proved, or that they are not proved,' and that there should be no reasons at all, upon matters of fact or observations, which one man may confirm and another not.” COSTS OF ACTION AFTER BANKRUPTCY. WE remember replying with some hesitation to a question put by a correspondent some little while since, whether a plaintiff who had not notice of the bankruptcy of the defendant at the time of action brought, could recover his costs when the bankruptcy was relied upon for release from custody. This indeed resolves itself into the question whether costs are so inseparable from a judgment debt as to be irrecoverable where the debt is barred. This identical question came before the Court of Queen's Bench on the 25th ult., in the case of Simpson v. Mirabita. That was an action commenced on the 2nd of October 1868, on a promissory note by plaintiff as indorsee against the defendant as maker, both being then resident in London, The plaintiff obtained a verdict for 677. 17s. 6d. on the 10th of December; the costs TRAVELLERS. were taxed at 34l. 15s. 10d., and judgment signed LICENSED VICTUALLERS AND SUNDAY on the 8th of January; and on the 13th of January the defendant was taken in execution on a ca. sa. for the debt and costs. The defendant had been adjudicated a bankrupt in Ireland on the 20th of November 1868, and passed his last examination on the 12th of January, and obtained a certificate of conformity on the same day. On the arrest of the defendant, the plaintiff, for the first time, had notice of the bankruptcy. Mr. Justice Blackburn made an order, on the 15th of January, for the discharge of the defendant out of custody, unless a rule was obtained to rescind the order within four days. The plaintiff obtained a rule accordingly, but it was discharged. In support of the rule, Maughan v. Vinesberg, L. Rep. 3 C. P. 318, was relied upon. There the head-note is "An order of discharge in bankruptcy does not protect from arrest for the costs of an action in which judgment has been signed after the bankruptcy, even if the debt recovered in the action has been proved for under the bankruptcy." That was an action on a bill of exchange. On the 18th Nov. 1867, the defendant became bankrupt, and gave notice of it to the plaintiff, and the cause was tried the same day as undefended, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff for 25, and on the 27th Nov. judgment was signed, and the costs taxed. The plaintiff subsequently proved under the bankruptcy the amount of the judgmentdebt, but not of the costs. On the 8th Feb. 1868, the defendant obtained his certificate of discharge in bankruptcy, and on the 17th he was arrested at the instance of the plaintiff on a ca. sa., indorsed with the amount of the costs only. Bovill, C.J., said, "the order of discharge protects only from arrest for debt proveable under the bankruptcy, which these costs were not." 66 a The Court of Queen's Bench refused, however, to follow this decision, but adopted those rereferred to in the notes at page 590 of Griffiths and Holmes' work on Bankruptcy. The effect of those cases is thus stated in the text. The authors refer to the distinction between actions sounding in debt and actions sounding in mere damages. "In the former case," they say verdict which found costs, annexed those costs and all costs de incremento as they are called, to the original debt, and in all such cases, if the defendant becomes bankrupt after verdict for the plaintiff, though final judgment might not be signed till after the bankruptcy, the plaintiff was held entitled to prove for the costs as well as the original debt, even independently of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16. In the latter case, as no debt existed until judgment, there was, until judgment, nothing to which the costs could be annexed as a debt, and, consequently, in such case, neither costs nor damages could be proved unless final judgment was signed before the bankruptcy, except, indeed, as was held in some cases, it was signed in the same term as the bankruptcy took place, when the judgment related to the first day of term, and so by relation became a debt due at the bankruptcy without notice of it, and before adjudication. Then it comes within sect. 165 of the Act of 1849, and the similar clauses in other Acts, as a protected transaction, and is a debt proveable. This distinction, however, seems to have been overlooked by Mr. Commissioner Evans in a late case (Ex parte The Assignees of Maurice, 3 L.T. Rep. N. S. 633), which, for this reason seems not reconcileable with the other authorities on the point. If verdict and judgment were both after the bankruptcy, then (subject to the objections just mentioned) if the action were one sounding in debt, the debt would be proveable as of course, but not the costs, unless there had been a contract to pay them, liquidating them either immediately by agreement or by other means, as by submission to arbitration, or the like, and they have so become in fact a debt by relation to the contract, &c. Yet the costs are in such case barred by the certificate; but, it would seem if the costs in such a case or damages and costs in case of an action sounding in damages be rendered binding by agreement, and be liquidated in amount either by the agreement or by reference to arbitration, or other means before the bankruptcy, then when the award is made or the sum otherwise liquidated, they would be held to be a debt proveable under the bankruptcy, though the award, &c., be not made till after the bankruptcy." In a case at Nisi Prius recently we heard it contended that the uncertain state of the law as to who are and who are not travellers to whom licensed victuallers may supply refreshment during prohibited hours on Sunday should be taken into consideration in awarding damages claimed for misrepresentation of the value of a public-house, such value having been enhanced by illegitimate Sunday trading. It is much to be regretted that our case law should have given room for even the ghost of such a suggestion, and the fact that it does so shows that an amendment of the statute law is desirable. Most appropriately, therefore, has Mr. Russell, the Secretary of the Mercantile Law Amendment Society, now published a little pamphlet on the question, in which he deals intelligently with the various decisions which have been given. We can usefully summarise his small treatise. He divides the subject into three parts: 1. What is the meaning of the word "traveller?" 2. What steps ought the innkeeper to take to satisfy himself that a person demanding refreshment during prohibited hours is really a traveller? 3. Whether, in the case of an information for serving during the prohibited hours, the burden of proof that the persons so supplied were really travellers is on the innkeeper, or the complainant must prove that some of the parties were not travellers? authorities, deduces the following answers:- 1. That any person who has travelled a short distance, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or has arrived at a railway-station for the purpose of commencing a journey, either on business or pleasure, is entitled to demand reasonable refreshments. 2. That if the innkeeper asks any stranger who applies for refreshments during the prohibited hours on a Sunday if he is a traveller and is answered in the affirmative, he is privileged to serve him with a moderate amount of refreshment. 3. That whatever doubt might be entertained as to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer on the subject, it is absolutely certain that the Court of Common Pleas, on the authority of its own decision in Taylor v. Humphries, 17 C. B., and Peache v. Colman, 35, L.J., N. S., 118, M. C., is bound to decide that the complainant must prove that persons served during the prohibited hours were not travellers, and that the innkeeper need not prove they were travellers. uent case of Taylor v. Humphries, 17 C. B., the main argument relied upon by Mr. Keane, the counsel for the respondent, was this very point, and the decisions in the cases of Tennant v. Cumberland, and Atkinson v. Sellers were cited in its support. The question was ably argued by counsel on both sides, and, instead of an off-handed opinion being given, the Court took time to consider its judgment, and then deliberately and unanimously overruled the opinions of the Judges in the two former cases, and decided "that as the exception of refreshment for travellers is contained in the clause which creates the prohibition, the burthen of proving that the prohibition has been infringed, and that the case is not within the exception, is cast upon the informer." This judgment was subsequently adopted and confirmed in the case of Peache v. Colman, in which the conviction was quashed because there was no evidence before the magistrates that the persons served with refreshment during the prohibited hours were not travellers. But Intimately connected with this matter is the question, what is a "sale" of liquor to bring a victualler within the statute? say that a frequent plea on the part of the We need hardly victualler is that the persons in his house were N. S. 366, it appeared that a publican gave a sup "friends." In Overton v. Hunter, 1 L. T. Rep. per at his own expense, at which one glass of whisky was supplied, but no beer sold. the justices themselves found that no spirits had been sold, and the court said that there was not the shadow of a pretence for the conviction. In Petherick v. Sargent, 6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 48, the facts were somewhat stronger. A landlady refused to supply beer, but offered to give the applicant a drop of beer, and told him that he might bring her some greens which he did. Mr. Justice Wightman said that the evidence did not justify a conviction. Whether or not it was a gift, no fraud was intended, and there was nothing which amounted to a selling. Each case therefore must depend upon its own facts. JUDICIAL STATISTICS FOR THE YEAR 1867. (Continued from page 206.) COURT OF CHANCERY. The returns furnished by the different officers of the High Court of Chancery show in the usual form the proceedings in the different branches of ber 1867, with the same details as the returns for the Court during the year ending the 1st of Novem preceding years, additional information being given as to the number of suits and petitions on the higher and on the lower scale of court fees. In the following abstract the total number of the proceedings under each heading for disposal and disposed of, with the remanets, Nature of Proceedings. The first proposition is supported by Atkinson v. Sellers, 5 C. B. 446, where Cockburn, C. J., said that an innkeeper is justified in supplying a person on a journey although the object of the journey is pleasure only. And following this is the case of Taylor v. Humphries, 17 C. B. 429, where the conviction of an innkeeper for supplying three persons who, for pleasure, had walked four miles out of a town, was quashed. Pleas Lastly, Fisher v. Howard, 10 C. B. 429, esta-Demurrers blished that persons waiting in a refreshment- Exceptions to pleadings room at a station until the departure of a train were entitled to refreshment as travellers. Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213, where the Judges said The second proposition is based upon Rex v. that it was difficult to see how an innkeeper could do more than ask the question of an applicant. And, upon the third point, Tennant v. Cumberland, 1 Ell. & Ell. 401, Atkinson v. Sellers (supra), and Taylor v. Humphries (supra) are cited, and fully support the proposition. And these cases were followed in Peache v. Colman (supra). "It will be seen, therefore," says Mr. Russell, "that Lord Campbell and Mr. Justice Crompton, in the case of Tennant v. Cumberland, and Chief Justice Cockburn in the case of Atkinson v. Sellers, appear to have entertained the opinion that under the 14th section of the Summary Conviction Act, the innkeeper, if he served during the prohibited hours, and claimed to be exempted on the ground that the persons he supplied with refreshment were travellers, must prove that fact affirmatively. It is important, however, to observe that in neither of these cases was that point material for the determination of the case under the consideration of the court, the judgments were pronounced upon other grounds, and on different points. In the subse Motions for decree Causes Special cases Causes, claims, and causes and matters for further directions and further consideration.. Rehearings and appeals.. Appeal motions.. Appeal petitions Appeals from County Courts Appeals from County Palatine of Lancaster Appeals from Vice-Warden of the Stannaries Trials with a jury Trials without a jury Total is shown. The number of matters set down for hearing in the year 1866-7 shows an increase of 18 above the number in the preceding year; the number in 1865-6 having exceeded the number in 1864-5 by 128. The total number for hearing during the year was greater by 135 in 1866-7 than in the preceding year. The number heard during the year was greater by 176. The number remaining at the end of the year shows a decrease of 41. The proportion borne by the number of proceedings disposed of during the year to the number for dis posal was 79'8 per cent.; in the preceding year this proportion was 77.5 per cent. Registrars' return.—The registrars' return shows |