Presbyterian himself, could not be supposed to intend to support the Free Church. The Vice-Chancellor, however, held that, the tenets being almost identical, differing only in questions of church government, if it was necessary to apply the doctrine of cu pres it must be applied; at all events, the gift was valid. and was The next case, a most extraordinary one, which has been noticed on a former occasion, was that of Pronjé v. Matthews, in which a Frenchman, who married an English lady, on which occasion a French settlement was made, claimed the whole of certain property which she had acquired in trade during a separation from her husband of thirty-one years, spent in great vicissitudes by her in France and India, where she was one of a mercantile firm. The facts were shortly these. Marrying in 1829, a few years after Madame Pronjé commenced an intrigue with one De Neuilly, with whom she went to London, followed by the plaintiff who was induced to forgive her; she returned with him to Paris, but, renewing her intrigue, they separated, and although she made several attempts towards a reconciliation, writing letters indicative of great ability and in the French language, they never again lived together. A child, Léon, had been born, which she admitted was not the plaintiff's, and she took him to Calcutta in company with one M. Chevrot, with whom she lived till his death: Léon coming back to France and being brought up, and educated, and provided for (by obtaining him a situation) by the plaintiff. Léon met at a students' ball a woman, alleged to be living an unchaste life and the wife of another man, and carried on an illicit intercourse with her, and Léonie (a defendant) was the issue of that connection. Léon subsequently took his paramour to London and went through the ceremony of marriage with her at St. James's Church, Piccadilly, took her to India and died there. Ultimately Mdme. Pronjé or Chevrot came back from India, bringing Leonie with her, and died at Bordeaux, being possessed of about 10.0001. realised by her trade in India, and saved by her; her husband was sent for, but she died before he arrived. He took proceedings in the French courts under his settlement, and obtained possession of a great part of her savings, as the "surviving consort," and now sought to recover the remainder, some of which was at the death at Bordeaux in a casket, and some in England, and formed the subject of an arrangement for a settlement, not carried out, but agreed upon, between Madame Pronjé or Chevrot, and the defendants Messrs. Matthews, whereby she provided for her grand-daughter Leonie, the heads of this settlement being set forth in the bill, and sought to be declared void, as contrary to the French settlement. The opinions of eminent French avocats had been taken; and upon those the plaintiff, on the one hand, sought to have the whole set aside, and the defendants insisted that, according to French law it constituted a moral obligation, a don manuel, or a will, and the money came within the words "the small properties of life," referred to in the code. The Vice-Chancellor, having reserved his judgment until the present time, now referred to the facts in detail, and was of opinion on the question of French law, that it was clearly the right of Madame Pronjé to do what she had done, as coming within the reasonable limit of a natural obligation. The conduct of the defendants had been perfectly correct, and the bill was a most unrighteous one, considering that the plaintiff had already obtained nearly 60001. from his wife's anxious labour. The bill must be dismissed with costs. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Upon the grand jury coming into court to be discharged, they made the following presentment: "That a respectful memorial be presented through, and by favour of the Lord Chief Justice, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, representing the serious inconvenience and manifest inutility of perpetuating the practice of empanneling a grand jury when it is known that there is no case to bring before them, or any business to be transacted; that with few and rare exceptions all the criminal cases are now disposed of at the sessions of the Old Bailey; that those exceptional cases could be provided for under the existing arrangements; that it is unadvisable and needless to continue a complicated onerous practice, when a simpler, more satisfactory, and equally efficient arrangement can be adopted; and that, in conveying the views of the grand jury upon the subject to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the jury desire to express an earnest hope that an Act may be passed by which the evil so frequently and justly complained of may be removed." The Lord Chief Justice informed the grand jury that their presentment should be duly handed to the Home Secretary. They were then discharged. A novel and an interesting application was made to the court on the 11th instant, at the instance of Mr. Surenda Narth Banergia, a native of India, for a rule for a mandamus to be directed to the Civil Service Commissioners, commanding them to take evidence of his age, with the view to his entering into the Civil Service of India. It appeared that this gentleman, having studied in the University of Calcutta, came to England, and studied here for a twelvemonth, and then presented himself for examination. By regulations which the Civil Service Commissioners were entitled, under the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, to make, it was necessary that a certificate of birth should be proved, showing that on the 1st of last March the candidate was between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one. The applicant presented the required certificate, and went successfully through his examination. It was, however objected that he had exceeded the prescribed age, and was therefore disqualified. He offered to prove that he was within the age, the difficulty arising from the different mode of computing age in India. The court granted a rule. On the same day the court adjudicated upon an application to strike an attorney off the roll for misconduct in his profession. Upon showing cause against the rule, the matter was referred to one of the masters, (Master Manley Smith) who having entered very fully into the matter, made a very circumstantial report to the court. It appeared that a Mr. Chitto, who was a tradesman carrying on business at Wolverhampton, being in pecuniary difficulties and anxious to compromise with his creditors, he consulted Mr. Barrow, the attorney, against whom the present application was made who (as it was alleged) advised him to get some friends to hold fictitious promissory notes for debts not really owing, and then to offer 7s. 6d. in the pound. Although this was denied by Mr. Barrow, it was not disputed by him that the notes were actually given, nor that he was afterwards aware of that fact; that he went with Chitto before the creditors and endeavoured to induce them to accept the composition. These facts coming to the knowledge of the creditors, the present application was made. The master's report having been read and counsel heard, the learned judges delivered their judgment through the Chief Justice, who said that the case was one of a very serious character and of great delinquency, and if they had been quite satisfied that Mr. Barrow had concocted the scheme, they would have felt it to have been their duty to have struck him off the roll. It was a matter of every day experience that frauds were perpetrated by dishonest debtors upon their creditors by means of fraudulent dispositions of property or of fictitious debts, the result of either process being that the assets were not truly and fairly distributed, and so the creditors were defrauded. They were, however, not perfectly satisfied that the attorney actually originated the fraud; but still he had been guilty of a very serious offence in what he had actually done. He knew well that the fraud had been concocted and the notes were fictitious, and, notwithstanding this, he tried to uphold the fraud and to carry it successfully out. No doubt an attorney, when asked by a client to take part in the perpetration of a fraud ought not to betray him, but he was, nevertheless, bound to refuse to be any party to it, or to do anything towards assisting in carrying it out, for that one of the greatest securities provided against the perpetration of such frauds was the necessity they involved of the co-operation of attorneys, and happily in the great majority of cases this operated as a very great protection against such frauds. The Chief Justice further said that it would be most lamentable if this valuable security should be diminished, and that if parties had reason to be less confident of the honour and character of attorneys to whom necessarily so much was confided, and in whom so much reliance was now placed. He thought the case, therefore, was exceedingly serious, and one which, although it did not appear to require the most severe sentence, demanded, at least such a sentence as would be sufficient to mark the sense which the court entertained of it. The sentence must be one of suspension for a certain period: for the payment of costs (though the amount would, probably, be considerable) would not be a sufficient punishment. Taking, therefore, all the circumstances into consideration, the court were of opinion that Mr. Barrow must be suspended as an attorney for a year, and in addition to pay the costs of the proceedings. In King v. Kelk, an action by a workman against the defendant for injuries sustained in consequence of the falling of a chain owing, as was alleged, to the negligence of a person in the defendant's employ, the jury, after a long deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant, the person by whose alleged negligence the injury was occasioned not having been called as a witness by either party at the trial. This person having since come forward and given testimony in favour of the plaintiff's version of the cause of the injury, an application was made by Mr. Gibbons, on affidavits, for a new trial on the ground of surprise, and of the discovery of this new evidence, and a rule nisi was granted. On the argument of the rule the court (consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Mellor, Lush, and Hayes), were equally divided, the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Hayes thinking that under the circumstances of the case there should be a new trial, chiefly on the ground that the person whose testimony was obtained since the trial being in the employ of the defendant, was not one whom the plaintiff should have been expected to call as a witness. Justices Mellor and Lush, on the other hand, were of opinion that it would be opening a door to endless litigation if a new trial were granted on such a ground. The rule for a new trial was accordingly discharged. On the 12th inst. Mr. Bridge moved on behalf of Mr. John Evans, that he should be re-admitted an attorney of the court. The applicant had been admitted in 1839, and struck off the rolls in 1848 for having obtained the sum of 61. under false pretences, of which offence he had been convicted. Mr. Bridge stated that he had several letters from respectable practising attorneys, attesting the great legal knowledge of Mr. Evans and his fitness for the Profession. Mr. Murray, on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, objected that there were no affidavits, but only these letters from attorneys; and that the letters were testimonials only as to the professional ability of the applicant, and not to his good conduct. The court thought that the materials on which the application was grounded, were not of a sufficiently satisfactory character; that the salutary rules acted upon with respect to such an important matter should not be relaxed, and that the application should be refused. Mr. Day obtained a rule nisi for a new trial in the case of Robinson v. Bailey, in which a verdict was obtained against the defendant, an attorney, for 2001., the amount paid by the plaintiff to the clerk of the defendant to be invested on mortgage, and appropriated to his own use by the clerk, who had absconded. It was proved at the trial that the clerk in question had often paid and been paid sums of money for the defendant, and that he had sometimes given receipts for them in his own name; but it was urged that this took place in general in the presence of the defendant, whereas the sum of money in the present case was paid to the clerk in the absence of the defendant, who had not been brought into direct relation with the plaintiff in the matter at all. The rule was granted on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and also on the ground of misdirection on the part of the judge in not withdrawing the case from the jury. Sampson v. Mackey argued on the same day by Mr. Finlay on the part of the plaintiff, and Mr. Cooke on the part of the defendant, furnishes another decision on the subject of costs and County Court jurisdiction. It was an action by an attorney's clerk for certain slanderous words, and also for trespass to the plaintiff's premises, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for 31. The judge before whom it was tried, Mr. Justice Mellor, refused to certify for costs, thinking the action one which should not have been brought at all. Sect. 5 of the County Courts Act 1867, provides that, "if in any action commenced after the passing of this Act, the plaintiff shall recover a sum not exceeding 201. if the action is founded on contract, or 101. if founded on tort, whether by verdict, judgment by default, or on demurrer, or otherwise, he shall not be entitled to any costs of suit, unless the judge certify on the record that there was sufficient reason for bringing such action in such Superior Court, or unless the court or a judge at chambers shall by rule or order allow such costs." The case of Gray v. West had already decided that in an action of tort, which could not be commenced in a County Court, and the present was such an action, in which a verdict not exceeding 101. was recovered, the court might grant the plaintiff his costs, even though the judge at the trial had refused to certify, and in the judg ment a doubt was expressed whether the above section of the County Courts Act 1867 applied, or was intended to apply, to actions which could not be commenced in a County Court, and whether in the case of such actions the plaintiff should not always have his costs if he recovered such an amount as, if this section had not been enacted, would have entitled him to costs. This argument was pressed on the court in the present case; but they held that the section applies to all actions of tort whatsoever, whether they could be commenced in a County Court or not, and, whilst adhering to the principle laid down in Gray v. West, that the court might allow the plaintiff his costs where the judge at the trial had refused to certify for them, they thought the present case not one in which their discretion should be exercised in favour of the plaintiff, and refused to grant him his costs. On the same day some important questions of copyright law were decided by the court on the argument of a case which arose out of a recent conviction of the applicant for infringing the copy ight of Mr. Graves in certain drawings and photographs of pictures, embracing Sir E. Landseer's "Piper and Pair of Nutcrackers," and several pictures of Millais. Sect. 14 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45 (with which Act the subsequent Act of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68 is incorporated) provides that "if any person shall deem himself aggrieved by any entry made under colour of that Act in the book of registry at Stationer's Hall, "it shall be lawful for such person to apply by motion to the Court of Queen's Bench, Court of Common Pleas, or Court of Exchequer, in term time, or to apply by summons to any judge of either of such courts in vacation, for an order that such entry may be expunged or varied; and that upon any such application by motion or summons to either of the said courts, or to a judge as aforesaid, such court or judge shall make such order for expunging, varying, or confirming such entry, either with or without costs as to such court or judge shall seem just, and the officer appointed by the Stationers Company for the purposes of this Act shall, on the production to him of any such order for expunging or varying any such entry, expunge or vary the same according to the requisitions of such order." The present applicant to have the entry of Mr. Graves as proprietor, expunged or altered according to this section, was convicted under the 6th section of the 25 & 26 Vict., c. 68, which inflicts a penalty on any person who shall, "without the consent of the proprietor, repeat, copy, colourably imitate, or otherwise multiply for sale, hire, exhibition, or distribution, or cause or procure to be repeated, &c.," any painting, drawing, or photograph in which there shall be subsisting copyright. He set up no title in himself, nor any existing dispute between Mr. Graves and any other person, but considering himself a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of section 6 of the former Act, applied to have the entry in the book of registry expunged or altered, on the ground that no memorandum of the assignment to Mr. Graves by the original proprietors had been registered at Stationers' Hall, as, it was contended, was rendered necessary by sect. 4 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68. That section, after providing for the keeping of a "register of proprietors of copyright in paintings, drawings, and photographs, wherein shall be entered a memorandum of every copyright to which any person shall be entitled under this Act, and also of every subsequent assignment of any such copyright," enacts that "no proprietor of any such copyright shall be entitled to the benefit of this Act, and no action shall be sustainable nor any penalty be recoverable in respect of anything done before registration." The court (consisting of Justices Blackburn, Mellor, and Hannen) did not think it necessary to decide whether the present applicant was a person aggrieved within the meaning of the enactment, but were of opinion that he was not. As to whether it was necessary that the previous assignments should have been registered, the court were of opinion that that was not necessary in order to entitle Mr. Greaves to recover the penalties imposed for the infringement of his copyright; Do action could be maintained or penalties recovered for anything done before the registration, but once Mr. Graves had registered there was nothing to prevent him recovering the penalties, and the Legislature never intended that all previous assignments must also be registered in order to entitle him to do so. Mr. Giffard, Q. C. and Mr. Poland showed cause against the rule obtained by Mr. Underdown and supported by him, and now discharged. 66 Company came before the court on the same day In Wren v. Weall and another, argued on last A very curious policy of insurance came before the court for interpretation in the case of Whellock v. The Home aud Colonial Marine Insurance Company. The policy was effected by the plaintiff, a lighterman on the Thames, against "all such losses and damages" as should be thereinafter expressed. Then a pen was drawn through all the ordinary perils enumerated in the policy, and after a description of the goods insured, these words were added, "This policy to cover only such claims as may not be reimbursed by other underwriters." At the time the goods were lost or damaged there was no other subsisting policy of insurance, and the question arose whether the existence of another insurance was not to be a condition precedent to the liability of the defendants, or whether the meaning of the contract was that if there were any other underwriters then the defendants should not be liable except for such claims as were not reimbursed by them to the plaintiff. It was quite clear that the policy of insurance as it stood did not express the intention of the parties, and, by the rules of evidence, no parol evidence was admissible to supply the defect, so that the Court had to give an interpretation to the document as it was. After an argument on behalf of the plaintiff by Sir George Honyman and Mr. J. C. Mathew, and by Mr. C. Pollock, Q. C., and Mr. Cohen, on behalf of the defendants, the court came reluctantly to the conclusion that as the document was not in legal phrase, absolutely "insensible" in itself, it must be interpreted to mean that the existence of another policy or other policies was a condition precedent to the liability of the defendants, and, as none such was in existence at the time of the loss or damage, the plaintiff could not recover in the action. the other. It appeared that on the occasion when the accident occurred, a man in the plaintiff's service was about to cross the line at the crossing with the waggon and horses. At the place where the gate was, by which access was obtained to the crossing, a view of only a very short distance on the line was obtainable by reason of a bridge being in the way; but just by the side of the line a view of over 300 yards, and on the six-foot a view of over 400 yards, was obtainable along the line in the direction from which the train came which did the mischief. The man in charge of the waggon left it at the gate, and went to the side of the line to see if anything was coming, and there was not then any train in sight. He returned to the waggon, and started to go across the line, and immediately proceeded on to the crossing without looking again, as the defendants contended the facts conclusively showed, to see if a train was coming. He was on the side of the horses farthest from the train, which while he was crossing ran into the waggon and destroyed it, and killed the horses. The driver of the train did not whistle, nor were any precautions taken by the company to prevent accidents at the crossing. On these facts the verdiet was entered for the plaintiff at the trial, leave being reserved to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit. A rule nisi had been accordingly obtained, against which Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Hance showed cause. They argued that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the waggon. He had looked before proceeding to cross the line to see if a train was coming; the distance which the train had to travel before coming to the spot, after coming into sight, was such as to make it very close work, and to make the crossing a very dangerous one in the case of a train coming at a good rate of speed. It was, therefore, the duty of the company to cause trains to be driven with caution, and to provide that some warning or signal should be given by whistling, or otherwise, when a train was at hand. They cited Bilbee v. The Brighton Railway Company. 18 C. B., N. S., 584. Mr. H. James and Mr. Ormerod argued, for the defendants, in support of the rule. They contended that this being merely an occupation road, the case stood on quite a different footing from the cases decided, with reference to level crossings on a highway. The company might in some cases be compelled to make occupation works, or, if they did not, then, upon the severance of land, the greater risk and inconvenience caused in crossing was a subject of compensation to the landowner. It was clear that if there had been two men employed the accident need not have happened, for one might have watched the line and seen if anything was coming, while the other attended to the waggon. It was in respect of the greater trouble and expense, caused by the necessity of such precautions, that compensation was given. Even as it was, the driver had been guilty of contributory negligence. Instead of looking along the line, and then returning to fetch the waggon, and immediately proceeding to cross, he ought again to have looked along the line just before taking the waggon and horses upon the crossing. The learned counsel proceeded by a comparison of distances and times, which it is unnecessary to give in detail, to argue that if the driver had looked just before going on the line he must have seen the train approaching. Under these circumstances, there was no necessity for the engine-driver to whistle; he was entitled to assume that people would not run into an apparent danger. Bilbee's case was quite different, inasmuch as there, owing to a sharp curve, it would have been impossible to see the train; and a person might have waited all day without being able to cross in greater safety than by crossing at That was the ground upon which the court laid it down that there was a duty on the company to take precautions by whistling, or otherwise. The present case was wholly different, and more resembled Stubley v. The North-Western Railway Company, L. Rep. 1 Ex. 13. It would be impossible, practically speaking, for the company to take precautions wherever there was a level crossing. Some members of the court appeared to be impressed with the arguments for the defendants, and inclined to make the rule absolute, but others seemed doubtful; and ultimately, as they all thought the verdict unsatisfactory as against the lute for a new trial. once. On Monday last an interesting question arose in the case of Myers v. Veitch, on the interpretation of sect. 113 of the Bankruptcy Act 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 106). That section provides that "if any bankrupt shall be arrested for debt he shall, on producing such protection to the officer who shall arrest him, and giving such officer a copy thereof, be immediately discharged; and if any officer shall detain any such bankrupt after he shall have shown such protection to him, except for so long as shall be necessary for obtaining a copy of the same, such officer shall forfeit to such bankrupt, for his own use, the sum of 5l. for every day he shall detain such bankrupt, to be recovered by action of debt in any court of record at Westminster in the name of such bankrupt, with full costs of suit." The question for the decision of the court was whether the governor of the gaol to Western Railway Company, argued in the ExIn the case of Johns v. The London and South-weight of the evidence, the rule was made absowhich the bankrupt is brought after his arrest is chequer on Friday, June 11, a discussion took an officer within the meaning of the words “ any officer" in the section, so as to be liable to the place involving many interesting topics with reference to the liability of railway companies to take penalty imposed by the section in case the bank- special precautions, at level crossings, to provide rupt is detained by him after producing his order for the safety of persons and property upon such of protection. Mr. C. Russell and Mr. C. Crompton crossings. The facts of the present case were as argued the question. The court (Justices Black- follows: The action was brought by the owner of barn, Lush, ani Hayes) were of opinion that thea waggon and a pair of horses, which had been gaoler was not an officer within the meaning of the enactment, and therefore that the penalty could not be recovered from him; and considered that the officer referred to was the one who made the arrest. Two actions against the North-Eastern Railway COURT OF EXCHEQUER. destroyed by being run over by one of the de- BREAKFAST-EPPS'S COCOA-GRATEFUL AND COMFORTING. The very agreeable character of this preparaService Gazette remarks:-"The singular success which Mr. Epps attained by his homeopathic preparation of By a thorough knowledge of the natural laws which cocoa has never been surpassed by any experimentalist. govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful application of the fine properties of wellselected cocoa, Mr. Epps has provided our breakfast tables with a delicately flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctors' bills." Made simply with boiling water or milk. Sold by the Trade only in lb. lb., and 1lb. tin-lined packets, labelled "JAMES EPPS and Co., Homœopathic Chemists, London." tion has rendered it a general favourite. The Civil London Chartered of Australia.-Eight per cent. dividend declared. London and River Plate.- An interim dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum declared. FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES. Egyptian Commerial and Trading, Limited.-A further return of 4s. per share is announced to the shareholders. Marine Investment, Limited. The Vice-Chancellor has fixed the 22nd for the appointment of a liquidator, in the place of Mr. H. A. Coffey. Otago and Southlands Investment.-A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum has been declared. ASSURANCE COMPANIES. Accidental and Marine Assurance Corporation, Limited. The liquidator's report announces that many of the past contributories have appealed to the Lords to have their names struck off the list. Should the appeal be successful there would be no chance of a further dividend; but it is hoped that the Vice-Chancellor's decision will be endorsed. International Life Assurance Society.-The 18th inst. is appointed to settle the list of contri butories. London and Provincial Marine.-A payment on account has been made at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. Ocean Marine.-The usual interim payment of 5s. per share is to made on the 1st July. MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. African Steamship.-At the meeting a 10 per cent. dividend declared. Anglo-American Telegraph.-A dividend of 17s. per share declared. Ceara (Brazil) Gas.-A further dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum declared. City of London Real Property.-The board limit the dividend to 4 per cent. Imperial Land of Marseiles, Limited.-Creditors must forward particulars of claims to the liquidators by the 26th inst., the 26th July having been appointed by Vice-Chancellor Malins for adjudicating upon them. Metropolitan Ice Company, Limited.-Mr. Lovering, the official liquidator, has made a return of 3s. 101d. per share to the shareholders, after paying creditors in full. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation.-A dividend of 3 per cent. for the past six months announced. West London Wharves and Warehouses, Limited. -A meeting is called for the 23rd inst., for the following purposes:-1. To report to the shareholders the manner in which the liquidation has been conducted to the present time, and its present position. 2. To submit to them an offer of compromise made by a large proportion of the holders of forfeited shares. 3. To consider the question of the remuneration payable to the liquidators. Tuesday, June 15. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. Copyhold residence, known as Hertford House, Highgatehill, with stabling, outbuildings, pleasure grounds, and gardens, comprising 4a. 3r. 14p.-sold for 60007. Leasehold house, shop, and premises, No. 8, Northumberlandplace, Commercial-road East, let on lease at 557. per annum, held for a term expiring in 1892, at 27. Gs. per annum-sold for 8501. BY MESSRS. FAREBROTHER CLARKE and Co. Freehold two cottages, homestead, yard, &c., and plot of land in rear, known as Brookfield, Ashford, Middlesex, the whole comprising 16a. 3r. 34p.-sold 22707, Freehold plot of building land, fronting the high road from Bracknell to Bagshott, Berks-sold 2007. By MESSRS. DRIVER. Freehold residence, known as Ockford House, Godalming, Surrey, with pleasure grounds and land, containing 49a. 2r. 6p.-sold 62001, Freehold estate, known as Ockford Cottage, with tan yard premises, cottages, &c., the whole comprising 0a. 3r 3p.Freehold, 2a. 1r. 30p. of meadow land, situate as abovesold for 751. sold 19007. Freehold, 41a. 3r. 5p. of land with two cottages, situate as above-sold for 40501. Freehold residence known as Losterford House, Monersh, Surrey, with stabling, buildings, and land, containing 10a. 2r. 26p.-sold for 18007. Freehold, la. Ir. 27p. of garden and grass land, situate near Bramley, Surrey-sold for 4007. Frhehold, 5a. Or. 39p. of land, situate as above-sold for 4001. Wednesday, June 16. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, CLARK, and Co., at the Mart. Freehold plot of building land, containing 1 acre, situate at Freehold, la. 1r. Sp. of building land, situate as above-sold Lower Pembury-sold for 957. By Messrs. CHINNOCK, GALSWORTHY, and CHINNOCK. Freehold estate known as Wakehurst-place, Ardingley, Sussex, comprising mansion, farm, cottages, buildings, manors, and land, containing 573a. 2r. 26p-sold for 22.2007. Freehold and copyhold estate, comprising Knowle's Farm. Old Knowle's Farm, and Upper Lodge Farm, with cottages, buildings, and 363a. Or. 16p. of land-sold for 13,000Z. By Messrs. E. and H. LUMLEY, at the Guildhall Coffee-house. Beneficial lease of No. 9, Southampton-street, Strand; term 21 years from 1869, at 827. per annum-sold for 6207. LEGISLATION AND JURIS- HOUSE OF LORDS. BEERHOUSES, &C. BILL. The Marquis of SALISBURY said this Bill, which the House of Commons had passed unanimously, practically repealed the change in the licensing law effected by the Duke of Wellington's Government in 1830. Under the old law all public-houses were licensed by the justices, but the Act of 1830, the object of which was to secure to the public the benefit of a reduction in the duty on beer, vested the licensing of houses for the sale of beer in the Excise; this change had not worked satisfactorily, and only nine years after its passing a bill for its repeal, introduced by Lord Brougham, passed this House, but was rejected by the House of Commons. A select committee of the House of Commons, which sat some time ago under the presidency of Mr. Villiers, reported that the system had proved a failure, its object having been to secure the public cheap and pure beer, and to dissociate beer-drinking from drunkenness, and to induce the establishment of a class of refreshment houses free from the disorders supposed to attend exclusively on the sale of spirits. That committee further expressed their concurrence in the report of a select committee of this House which sat in 1849, that the beershops were for the most part in the hands of the brewers, that they were notorious for the sale of an inferior article, that the consumption of ardent spirits had not diminished, and that the comfort and morals of the poor were seriously impaired. Now, the present Bill proposed that beerhouses, like public-houses, should be licensed by the magistrates, who would withhold their certificate in the case of any house which was the resort of bad characters, and it was notorious that in many of these places all kinds of crimes were planned. The Government had accepted the measure, but, holding that a more comprehensive Bill was necessary, they had restricted its operations to two years, so that it was merely suspensory and tentative, and Parliament could retrace its steps before any mischief could happen in the event of its not working satisfactorily. The noble marquis concluded by moving the second reading, which was agreed to. RECORDERS' DEPUTIES BILL. did not object to the clause on its merits, but held that it was not within the scope of the Bill.Lord REDESDALE held that the clause was ultra vires; and on the House resuming, he explained that the Bill having come up from the Commons, that House would object to a "tack" irrelevant to its object. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE JUDICATURE COMMISSION. Mr. NORWOOD inquired of the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of the Government to enlarge the scope of inquiry of the Judicature Commission so as to embrace the County Courts, Quarter Sessions, and other local tribunals in the provinces. The hon. member also suggested that the mercantile and manufacturing interests should be represented on the Commission. Mr. BRUCE replied that the Commission was issued by the late Government. He had consulted the Lord Chanceller and Lord Cairns on the subject, and they agreed in the opinion of his hon. friend in thinking that the scope of the inquiry ought to be extended. The suggestion which his hon. friend had made should receive consideration. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PLEA OF-OUTLAWRY-FORM OF.-By the death of an intestate certain personal property descended on B. an outlaw, and C. his sister. A judgment-creditor of B. filed a bill against him and C. for the administration of the estate and for satisfaction of the debt out of B.'s share. C. pleaded that B. was an outlaw, and that his property was vested in the Crown, but did not aver the enrolment of the outlawry: Held, that the plea was good: (Taylor v. Wemyss, 20 L. T. Ref. N. S. 599. V.C.S.) COSTS-MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.-Where upon a verdict being returned for the plaintiff the defendant moves for and obtains a rule nisi for a new trial, which is afterwards discharged in consideration of the plaintiff consenting to a reduction of his damages, neither party pays to the other the costs of the rule: (Hussey v. Metropolitan Railway Company, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. Q. B. 612.) CRIMINAL INFORMATION-SECOND APPLICATION-PRACTICE.-The court will not permit a second application to be made for a rule for a criminal information unless leave was reserved for the purpose on the first application from very special circumstances, such as being met by affidavits which afterwards turned out to be based on perjury: (Ex parte Munster, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 612. Q. B.) OR DISCOVERY REPORTS OF SERVANTS AGENTS-PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS-COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT 1854, s. 50.-In an action by a passenger for compensation for injuries sustained in a railway accident, the consequence, as the plaintiff alleged, of the negligent construction of the wheels of the engine, application was made by the plaintiff for inspection of documents relating to the accident, which the defendants admitted were in their possession, under sect. 50 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1854. Held, that any report or communication by a servant or agent to his principal concerning the circumstances which are the cause of litigation, whether before or after the action brought, or whether containing statements of fact or opinion, are not privileged from inspection by the opposite party, unless made for the purpose of and with a view to litigation. Held, therefore, that reports of the accident by the general manager of the company, by the inspector, the guard, and the locomotive superintendent, made in the usual course of their duty at the time of the accident, the copy of a letter written by the general manager to the Board of Trade, a guarantee of the materials of the engine wheels, and the minute books of the directors (except entries relating to the communications of defendants' attorneys), were not privileged. Held, however, that reports of scientific witnesses consulted with reference to the cause of the accident for the purpose of the action, ought not to be included in the order for inspection: (Woolley v. The North London Railway Company, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 613. C. P.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Before KEATING, J.) GUIBOT v. TYLER. In committee on this Bill, a clause was inserted, on the motion of Lord CHELMSFORD, requiring a recorder, on the appointment of a deputy, to send forthwith to the Home Secretary a statement of the reason for such appointment. The Earl of CARNARVON proposed a clause allowing stipen- This was an action for breach of promise of mar diary magistrates three months' holiday in the riage. When the case came on in order no counsel year, instead of six weeks.--Lord CHELMSFORD appeared for the plaintiff, and the names of her attorneys, Messrs. E. Lewis and Co., were calle in court without effect. The plaintiff, a rather prepossessing-looking young Frenchwoman, came forward and said that her attorney had been in court, and had promised to attend later on. Hawkins, who appeared for the defence with Francis, said that from the opinion which he had formed of his case he did not feel justified in consenting to a postponement of the trial, but he would not insist on a verdict. After some discussion as to the best course to be pursued, his Lordship left the court to consult the Lord Chief Justice, from whose list the case had been taken. On his return he said the best thing the plaintiff could do was to withdraw the record. The case was called on in its order, counsel for the defence was ready, and he could not ask them to waive their rights. The conduct of the plaintiff's attorney, unless explained, was most unaccountable and unjustifiable. The plaintiff was a foreigner, almost unable to speak the English language, and certainly unable to understand the procedure of the English courts, and her attorney would be liable to her for the consequences of her having to withdraw the record; "and," added the learned Judge, "I hope, if he has no excuse for his conduct, that he will be made responsible, and I think that a jury will look into the matter with strictness, and treat it with some severity." The plaintiff, who seemed aghast at the notion of waiting until December for the trial of her action, said that she wished to withdraw the record, and the effect of this step having been kindly explained to her by the learned Judge, it was withdrawn accordingly. The list for the day being exhausted, the court rose at one o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. C447 (Demetrius G.). S. New Broad-street. July 10; J. Hollams, Commercial Sale Rooms, Mincing-lane. July 2; V.C. J., at twelve. CAYLEY (Charles), 41, Pail-Mall. June 25; W. S. Prichard, July 3; V.C. S., at CLARKE (Josh. B.), Cheltenham. July 1: Slater, Heelis, and solicitor, 59, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Co., solicitors, Manchester. July 10: M. R., at twelve. Brierley, solicitor, Halifax. July 20; V.C. S., at one. WINMILL (Wm. H., Gorlestone, Suffolk. July 20: Fredk. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE THE EDMUNDS SCANDAL.-There is now every probability that this case will soon be brought to a termination. Lord Chief Justice Bovill has settled the terms of the reference. All matters in dispute as between Mr. Edmunds and the Crown are to be referred to two arbitrators, who may choose an umpire. These proceedings are to commence forthwith. The action for libel brought by Mr. Edmunds against Mr. Greenwood (the Solicitor to the Treasury) is also included in the terms of reference. The case of Merriman v. Sears in the Court of Exchequer on Thursday was an action by a solicitor against the printer of a paper called the Insurance Budget and Commercial World for libel. When the case was called on Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Anderson), on the part of the plaintiff, said that the action was brought for certain articles in the paper commenting on the Hercules Insurance Company, of which the plaintiff was solicitor, and insinuating that those with wreckers, and that he had got an official liquidator whom the plaintiff acted in reference to it were appointed for the company (which was now being wound-up) for his own private purposes. There was not the slightest foundation for these statements, and therefore the plaintiff felt bound to bring the action with a view to the vindication of his character. Ultimately a consultation took place between the parties, and the defendant having, through his counsel, Mr. Serjeant Parry, Low Mill, Ulverston. July 15; G. admitted that the statements were untrue and un Bennington, solicitor, Ulverston, Lancashire. July 29; LINDLEY (Robert), 39, Percy-street, Rathbone-place. July 3; MACKALT (Mary), Up Hall, Priest Hutton, Lancaster. MORTIMER (William), Albion public-house, Thornhill-road. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. BEVAN (Reece), Freekleton House, Wigan. July 10; Leigh and Ellis, solicitors, Commercial-yard, Wigan, Lancashire. BONTE (LOUIS), New Corn Market, Mark-lane, E.C., and of 46, Gainsford-street. July 10; Weir and Robins, solicitors, 3. Guildhall Chambers, 32, Basinghall-street. justifiable, and expressed his regret and apologised for having published them, a verdict was by consent entered for the plaintiff, with 40s. damages, the learned judge expressing his approval of the arrangement and certifying for a special jury. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. INNER TEMPLE, June 11.-The undermentioned gentleman was this day called to the bar by the honourable society of the Inner Temple :-Henry William Dent, Esq. The supporters of Mr. Digby Seymour have, it is stated, decided to petition against the return of Mr. Seely for Nottingham. Bribery is alleged. We understand that Mr. Romaine, the second secretary to the Admiralty, has accepted the ap Dyson (Mr. Henry L. Bradford, York. July 8; Rawson, pointment of Judge Advocate-General in India, George, and Co., solicitors, Bradford, Yorks. DRURY Jno. C.), Newcastle-on-Tyne. Sept. 1; Ingledew and Daggett, solicitors, 3, Dean-street, Newcastle-onTyne. London. ELDEN (Richd.), Prince George Tavern, Park-road, Dalston. Darvill, and Co., solicitors, Windsor, Berks. KNIGHT (Ann) Eton, Buckingham. July 31; Darvill, Darvill, and Co., solicitors, Windsor. Fulham. July Rhodes, Son, and Co., solicitors, 63, NUNN (Walter W.), Hadleigh, Suffolk. Sept. 10; W. P. PALLY (Mrs. Helen'. Barnes, Surrey. July 1; Cox and Sons. solicitors, 4, Cloak-lane, London. PIRIE (Dame Jean), Champiou Park, Camberwell, July 1; McLeod and Watney, 16, London-street, E.C. Portsmouth. REAY (John), Bromfield, Cumberland. Aug. 1; S. Potter, offered to him reeently by the Duke of Argyll. Mr. Romaine was Deputy Judge-Advocate in the Crimea, and at the end of the war was appointed second Secretary to the Admiralty by Sir Charles Wood. Mr. STANDISH GROVE GRADY, of the Home Circuit, Recorder of Gravesend, and author of several works of repute on English law, has been appointed by Lord Westbury and the other members of the Council of Legal Education, the new Reader on Hindoo, Mahommedan, and Indian Law to the Inns of Court. He was selected from amongst twentythree competitors. The number of Indian students for the Bar has so much increased that the benchers of the several Inns of Court considered it expedient to found this professorship. It is not unlikely that the benchers will resolve not to grant a remission of terms to any gentleman intending to practise in India unless he passes an examination in the native and English laws; and this was probably one of the objects they had in view in founding the new chair which Mr. Grady will be the first to fill. The office, it is believed, involves For these duties Mr. Grady is amply qualified. He has been largely engaged in initiating pupils in in the Privy Council, and his works on the Hindoo Indian and English law. He has a fair practice Law of Inheritance and the Mahommedan Law of Inheritance and Contract have been very well received here by the Profession, and are regarded doubt, instrumental in obtaining for him his prewith respect by the Privy Council, and were, no sent appointment. Circumstances may for a time prevent their being used as class books in our Indian Universities, but their intrinsic merit will ultimately overcome all objections. They will become text-books in the Inns of Court, and surely what the high authorities of England consider the duties of examiner of candidates for the Bar. repositories of learning and the proper channels of legal inspiration from which to initiate pupils into the spirit and mysteries of those laws ought to be equally useful and valuable in India. We congratulate the natives of India on this new instance of the desire of the authorities here to recognise their claims to share in the administration of their own laws by affording them facilities for the acquisition of those laws; and it must be gratifying to them that one whose works and whose familiarity with their laws are so well known in India, has been selected to fill the new chair.-Allen's Indian Mail. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH LAWYER. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. NUISANCES REMOVAL-SEAWEED.-By sect. 12 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121 (The Nuisances Removal Act for England 1855), justices may make an order for the removal of a nuisance upon the person, owner, or occupier of the premises by whose act, default, permission, or sufferance, the nuisance arises or continues. The harbour of Margate was vested in the Margate Pier and Harbour Company, and by the action of the sea a quantity of seaweed was drifted into the harbour, and, being left there, became a nuisance: Held, that the company were bound to remove it, and that not having effectually done so, an order was rightly made upon them under the foregoing section: (Company of Proprietors of Margate Pier and Harbour v. The Town Council. &c., of Margate, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 564. Q. B.) THE foreman of the Middlesex grand jury, attended by his fellow jurors, appeared in the Court of Queen's Bench to lay before the Chief Justice a presentment complaining of the practice of summoning a grand jury for every term when there is nothing to be brought before them. As the Court of Queen's Bench has at common law jurisdiction by indictment over every description of offence committed in Middlesex, from high treason or felony down to the smallest misdemeanor or breach of the peace, for the purpose, as it were, of upholding this jurisdiction a jury is sumIn practice, however, the moned every term. custom is little more than an idle ceremony, as an interval of years sometimes elapses before anything is left for the jury to inquire into. This morning, therefore, the grand jury which had been summoned for the present session made a present, ment, complaining of the inconvenience to which the jurors of the county were needlessly put by the practice, and suggesting that an Act of Parliament. should be passed to abolish the necessity. The Chief Justice said he should take care that the presentment was laid before the Home Secretary, at the same time expressing his concurrence in the reasonableness of the suggestion. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION - REGIS TRATION OF SHARES - WINDING-UP.-P. and several other persons applied for shares in the above-mentioned company on the faith of its prospectus; shares were duly allotted to them, of which they received notice, and their names were entered on the register. A month afterwards, on discovering that important particulars were mis-stated in the prospectus, they repudiated the shares, upon which the company commenced actions to recover payments due from them in respect of the shares, and the shareholders formed themselves into a committee for their common protection. An order was made in the actions that all of them, except one begun against R., should be stayed; and almost contemporaneously with that order R. filed a bill against the company to restrain the action, and to have his name removed from the register. The solicitor who acted for R. acted also for this committee, and in answer to a letter addressed ceived a letter stating that "your clients, the by him in their behalf to the company, he reother allottees, are not to be prejudiced by their not taking proceedings pending the decision in R.'s case." The Vice-Chancellor decided that but before the hearing of the appeal the windingsuit in favour of R., and the company appealed; up order was made, the names of P. and the other allottees being still on the register. On summons to settle P.'s name on the list of contributories: Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the name could not be retained upon the list, for there was here undoubted fraud, repudiation of the shares immediate upon its discovery, and bona fide proceedings actively prosecuted by P. to remove his name; and where the circumstances are such, it is not necessary that there should be a separate proceeding by each one of the parties repudiating, or that the proceedings actually taken by one as a representative should have been brought to a final decision before the date of the winding-up order: (Pawle's case, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 589.) COUNTY COURTS. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. RULE TO COMPEL A COUNTY COURT JUDGE TO DO HIS DUTY-NECESSITY OF JUDGE'S SIGNATURE. The court will not grant an order, under 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 43, to compel a County Court judge to do his duty, unless it appear that he has absolutely refused to act in some matter wherein he ought to have acted. A mere qualified or temporary refusal, as by suggesting an adjournment, with a view to an arrangement, is no ground for issuing such an order, which, being of the same nature as a mandamus, is to be governed by the same rules Quare, whether the signing and sealing a case by the judge is absolutely necessary, and whether the rule should be addressed, as well as commu CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. [NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMES being open to SOLICITORS AS MAGISTRATES.-As an old sub- quence of the non-execution of the deed by A., it is necessary to make his personal representatives parties to the re-conveyance, for the purpose of giving a valid receipt. I believe it has been decided that it is not essential to the validity of the ordinary declaration against dower in a purchase-deed that the purchaser should execute the conveyance, on the ground that he must be held to take, subject to the provisions of the document, and it would appear that the same reasoning might be applied to the case in question. Have of your readers met with a similar transaction, and can I be referred to an authority in point? A. T. any 33. WILL. I have a small estate to distribute under the will of a testator, in which is the following clause : brother deceased; or will the amount be confined to and LAW LIBRARY. Latin Proverbs and Quotations. By ALFRED nicated, to the opposite party: (Irving v. Askew, advice. It is simply an act of injustice, without THE compiler of this work was a solicitor. He 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 584. Bank.) ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. THE IRISH CHURCH BILL. THERE is a growing opinion among all moderate men in and out of Parliament that this is especially a subject for a compromise. Lord ELCHO has suggested, as the basis of such a settlement, the recognition of the fact that one considerable section of Ireland is almost purely Protestant, as other parts are almost wholly Roman Catholic, and that the law should recogthis fact and mete out a different measure to each. This was very much the basis of the plan which was submitted by the LAW TIMES some time ago, and of which the outline may, perhaps, be usefully repeated now that there is some probability of more moderate and reasonable Counsels prevailing. Our suggestion was and is as follows:-To adopt disestablishment, to permit the Protestant Church to retain its possessions and parochial organization in all the Protestant parts of Ireland, and in all parishes containing some agreed number of Protestant Churchmen, say, onethird of the entire body of the parishioners. In parishes having a less proportion of Protestants, on the death of the existing incumbent, the fund, which by the present Bill is so confiscated, to be applied to the purpose of education in that parish, dividing the income among the schools in proportion to the number of pupils taught in each school in each year. Constitute so much of the Church as is preserved a part of the Church of England in all respects, as if it had been a district in Yorkshire or Cornwall, the QUEEN nominating the Bishops but such Bishops not to be temporal peers. In the parishes where the Church has ceased to exist by reason of paucity of members, provision to be made for the spiritual service of the Protestant people by the extension to them of the system of home missionaries, the country being divided into convenient districts for that purpose. Thus right would be done to all and wrong to none. Where the Roman Catholics are in a considerable majority, they will not be offended by State favour shown to the small minority; and where the Protestants prevail, they will continue to possess their own Church as hitherto they have done, but instead of belonging as now to the Church of Ireland, they would be members of the Irish Province of the Church of England. Just as there is an archbishop of the province of York, so there would be an archbishop of the province of Ulster. And lest the name of "Irish" Church should offend, there would be no objection to institute the title of "The Ulster Branch of the Church of England," or any other that might be preferred. This plan would, further, recommend itself to Roman Catholics, inasmuch as it would recognise the principle on which they rightly set so great a value, that of denominational education. began it when compelled by ill-health to retire from the active exercise of his profession, but, as the publishers inform us in a short note which precedes the preface, he did not survive to see the fruition of his labours, but died whilst the proof sheets were passing through the press. The volume is an exceedingly handsome one, and may be said to be without a rival in its peculiar department of literature. We observe that all the Latin words presenting any difficulty as to quantity are marked, so that it may be useful even to the unlearned. Nothing more need be said in praise for, as the cover of the book informs us-verbum sapienti sat. CHANCERY ORDER. any reason, to the Profession generally. Mine is Leamington, 14th June, 1869. MAJOR. NOTES AND QUERIES ON 8th June 1869. Whereas it is proper that the accounts kept by the Accountant-General of this court should be examined and compared, in order to settle the time to perfect such examination, and it is necessame, and whereas it will require considerable sary that a time should be appointed for closing the books of accounts of the said AccountantGeneral for the purposes aforesaid, I do order that the books of the said Accountant-General be closed from and after Friday the 20th Aug. next, to Thursday the 25th Oct. next, inclusive, except. mentioned, in order to adjust the accounts of the ing upon the days and for the purposes hereinafter during that time no draft for any money, except suitors with the books kept at the bank; and that as hereinafter provided, or certificate for any effects under the care and direction of this court, be signed or delivered out by the AccountantGeneral, or any stocks or annuities accepted or transferred by him relating to the suitors of this court; and that no purchase, sale, or transfer be made by the said Accountant-General, unless the order and request or registrar's certificate be left at his office on or before Saturday, the 7th Aug. next; and that no order for payment of any money out of the court which may then be in court, be received in the Accountant-General's office after Tuesday, the 10th Aug. next, provided, nevertheless, that the office of the said Accountant-General shall be open on Tuesday the [N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the 12th, Wednesday the 13th, and Thursday the 14th writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a 32. CONVEYANCING.-Freehold property was conveyed The paid off, and the question arises, whether, in conse of Oct. next, for the delivery out of any regular interest drafts which may have become payable in respect of the October dividends, and of any other regular interest drafts which have become pay. aforesaid. And to the end that the suitors may able prior to, or during the closing of the office have notice hereof, and apply to the court, as there shall be occasion to have money paid to them out of the bank, or stocks, or annuities, transferred to them before the 20th Aug. next, I do order that this order be entered and set up in the several offices of this court. (Signed) HATHERLEY, C. ORDER OF COURT. Saturday, June 12. |