statement of facts, and three days in arguments of law. Mr, Shedden spoke for one day and a half, when he was stopped by the House. The case of the Shedden family has been before the public in one form or another since the early part of the present century. The question under the present appeal has been as to the legitimacy of Mr. Shedden. In 1860, the appellants presented a petition to the Divorce Court praying that Mr. Shedden might be declared legitimate and a natural born British subject. This proceeding was under the Legitimacy Declaration Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 93). The full court, consisting of the Judge Ordinary (Sir Cresswell Cresswell), and Justices Wightman and Williams, pronounced against the petition. This judgment was the subject of the present appeal. The case in the court below is reported in 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 592: 2 Sw. & Tr. 170. A most interesting account of the remarkable story of the Shedden family will be found in the Law Magazine and Review, vol. 23, p. 344. The case of the Duke of Queensberry and Buccleuch v.Wakefield and Kennedy (with a cross-appeal), was argued on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday last. This is an appeal from a judgment of Vice-Chancellor Malins (reported in 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 462; L. Rep. 4 Eq. 613,) by which it was held that where a local inclosure Act had placed the purchaser of land sold to pay expenses, and the lord of the manor, in the ordinary position of the owner in fee of the surface, and the owner of the minerals with rights of user of the surface for the purpose of working the mines, yet the lord of the manor had no right to cause a subsidence of the surface, even though he could not work the mines at all without causing such subsidence. An injunction, at the suit of the purchaser, was accordingly granted against the lord of the manor. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY On Thursday, July 1, and on Monday last, the And further that the question was to be governed On Wednesday a case of importance on the On Monday judgment was delivered in two wished to abandon his contract for the purchase, and after some negotiations Watkins agreed to put an end to the contract on condition that Elwes should pay 750l. to him, and 1051. to Hanrott for the costs of investigating the title, out of which Watkins was to receive 50l., thus making up 8001. Elwes paid the money and the contract was rescinded. The question which arose upon the plaintiff's suit to enforce his charge of 2751. on the 8001. commission money, was whether the agreement to pay the 8001. remained in force, or whether it was annulled by the rescinding of the contract for sale. His Lordship said that the contract with Elwes was a bona fide contract, and that the annuiling of it did not, in his opinion, exonerate Watkins from his agreement to pay the 800l. It had been argued that this agreement was void because entered into between a solicitor and his client, but his Lordship was of opinion that the relation of solicitor and client did not subsist between Hanrott and Watkins; and even assuming that it did, a contract by a man with his solicitor to pay him a given sum, if he found him a purchaser at a certain price, was perfectly legal and valid. Such an agreement. might be made with a solicitor as well as with any one else. The memorandum would clearly have created a charge on the land if the contract for sale had not been rescinded; but the contract for sale was not rescinded until after notice of the plaintiff's charge had been given to Watkins, and after such notice Watkins and Elwes could not alter the character of the charge by annulling their contract. The charge was a charge on the land, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to stand in Hanrott's shoes, and receive the benefit of his charge to the extent of his security. Kirkman v. Lewis was a suit for the administration of the estate of a testator, who gave the residue of his personal estate to be applied in the construction of a well and the erection of a pump and tank in any convenient place in the village of Llangorse, and he directed that any surplus should be paid to the rector to be applied for the benefit of the parish schools. The question was raised by the next of kin whether this gift was not totally invalid. On behalf of the Attorney-General it was argued that the gift for the well was not void The Great Pacific raised a most important ques-under the Statute of Mortmain, as it did not tion, which was briefly this. The master of the necessarily involve the purchase of land; and ship borrowed money on bottomry, for the repairs that even if it were void, the gift of the surplus of the ship. Subsequently while on her voyage, was good, as it could easily be ascertained what the ship was badly damaged in a hurricane, and would be the cost of sinking the well and erecting was sold as unworthy of repairs. The bottomry the pump, &c. His Lordship held that the gift bond contained the clause: "In case of the loss of for sinking the well, &c., was clearly void under the ship, such an average as by custom shall the Statute of Mortmain; and that the gift of the have become due on the salvage," &c. On a suit surplus was void for uncertainty, as it was imposby the bondholders against the proceeds of the sible to ascertain how much a well would cost sale, a mortgagee of the ship intervening, Sir without sinking it. The whole gift therefore Robert Phillimore held, that the bondholders were failed, and the next of kin were entitled. entitled to the whole proceeds of the sale, there not having been such an absolute total loss as to discharge the borrower from liability; and that the above clause contemplated an event that had not arrived, viz., the ship's ceasing to exist in specie, and debris only remaining. The case below is reported in 20 L. T. Rep., N. S., 44, and similar arguments to those there given were used in the appeal. Their Lordships now affirmed the judgment of the court below, and on the same grounds. In the case of the Germania, a collision at night having occurred in the English Channel between the vessels the Germania and the Constance Eleanore, a question arose as to whether the latter (a barque) was carrying proper lights, because, if So, it was the duty of the Germania (a steamer) to get out of her way. The vessels were both foreign, but by treaty bound to obey the regulations as to navigation obligatory on British vessels by statute. Sir Robert Phillimore decided this question against the barque. The Judicial Committee now varied that judgment by deciding that the damages and losses must be borne equally by the two vessels, considering both to blame for the collision. In Brett v. Ellaiya, a note of the hearing of which appeared in our last week's "Sayings and Doings," the appeal was dismissed, but without costs, the hearing having been ex parte. ROLLS COURT. The Master of the Rolls disposed of all the further considerations early in the week, and then proceeded with his cause list, which is not very long. Some cases worthy of notice have been decided during the past week. The first, Foard v. Watkins, was a suit instituted for the purpose of enforcing a charge which the plaintiff claimed on a sum of 8001. which the defendant Watkins had agreed to pay to a solicitor named Hanrott, for his trouble in finding a purchaser for certain land which Watkins wanted to sell. In Jan. 1868 Hanrott found one Elwes, who agreed to purchase the property, and Watkins signed a memorandum by which he agreed to pay Han rott 8001. Hanrott soon afterwards borrowed 2751. from the plaintiff on the security of this memorandum of agreement. In April 1868 Elwes Rowland v. Cuthbertson was a creditor's suit for the administration of the trusts of the will of Alexander Cuthbertson. By his will, dated 8th Nov. 1864, the testator, after directing payment of his just debts, &c., devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate and effects whatsoever and wheresoever situate, and of what nature, quality, or kind the same might be, subject as aforesaid, to trustees upon trust to permit the testator's wife and five children to use his personal estate (not consisting of money), and receive the rents, &c., of his said estate and effects in equal shares as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants; but it was his will that the share and interest so given to his said wife should upon her death cease and determine; and from and after her death he directed his trustees to hold the same upon trust for his said five children, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, equally to be divided between them, share and share alike, as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants. The testator married after the date when the Dower Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 105) came into operation, and he had had real estate conveyed to him without any declaration against dower; the only question which arose in the suit was, whether his widow was entitled to dower out of such real estate. His Lordship was of opinion that she was deprived of her dower by the 9th section of the Act, though not by the 4th section. Davis v. Jones was a motion to restrain the defendant from obstructing a road called Birchanger-road, leading from the Norwood Junction station to Woodside-green, and to restraim him from further interrupting the plaintiff in the use of the road. The roads on the property had been made by the several owners of the property, and mutual rights of way were given over them by an agreement made in the year 1863. The defendant made Birchanger-road, and the plaintiff who is a brickmaker and builder, had a right of way over it under the agreement. In 1868 the plaintiff, who was building in the neighbourhood, began to cart bricks to his building ground over the Birchangerroad, his own road, which was the nearer way to the building ground, having become impassable owing to the constant traffic of the brick carts. The defendant finding that his road was being rapidly rendered as impassable as the plaintiff's, placed a row of wooden posts across the road so as to stop all vehicles; the posts were cut down during the night, and the defendant then dug a trench two feet deep and several feet in width across the road, whereupon the plaintiff instituted the present suit. The defendant deposed that he had closed the road only for the purpose of repairing it, and that when he placed the posts across the road he had put up a placard with the words, "Closed for repairs." His Lordship said that the defendant's proceeding was illegal; that he had no right to close a road over which other persons had a right of way, even for the purpose of repairing it; the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to an injunction in the terms of the motion. In Lord Brougham v. Cauvin, which we mentioned last week, his Lordship gave judgment on Tuesday on the question of costs, which was reserved at the hearing. His Lordship thought that both parties were to blame before the institution of the suit, the defendant for having demanded the immediate payment of 2001., and the payment of another 2001. in a short time, and the plaintiff for having too hastily assumed that it was Dr. Cauvin's intention to use the manuscripts for his own advantage. Soon after the institution of the suit, Cauvin's solicitor had written a most proper and temperate letter, indignantly denying, on behalf of his client, that he intended to make any use of the manuscripts for his own advantage, or that he had entered into any arrangement with Messrs. Trübner or Messrs. Blackwood to publish them, and offering, if the plaintiff would pay him 2001. for his services, to refer the question of further remuneration to Mr. Forster, or Dr. Theodore Martin, in whose hands the defendant would place all the documents in his possession, and that the bill should be dismissed, each party paying his own costs. In his Lordship's opinion, this offer ought to have been accepted, but instead of doing so, the plaintiff's solicitors required, as a sine qua non, that the documents should be immediately delivered up to the plaintiff, and added that when this was done, they would willingly refer the matter to arbitration. They asserted that the suit was prosecuted for the sole purpose of getting back the documents; but this was unnecessary, as the defendant had offered to place them in the hands of the referee. The defendant's offer ought to have been accepted; and, as it had not been accepted by the plaintiff, he must pay the costs of the suit from the 17th Feb. 1868, the date of the letter containing the offer; up to that date each party must pay his own costs. Attorney-General v. The Wox Chandlers' Company was an information praying for a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to certain property which they had since the year 1564 enjoyed under the will of William Kendal, but that they were trustees of the property for charitable purposes. The testator, by his will dated the 31st Jan. 1558, declared that the Master and Wardens of the Mystery of Wax Chandlers should have his housings and tenements in Old Change, in the City of London, for the intent and purpose, and upon condition that they should make certain annual charitable gifts amounting to 7. 15s., including 5s. to the master and wardens for their trouble; and that the rest of the profits should be bestowed upon the reparation of the said housings and tenements, and in default of the due performance of this trust he gave the property to his heir-at-law on the like conditions. At the date of the will the property was let for 91. 4s., its annual value is now 3301. The defendants had hitherto applied the residue for their own purposes, and claimed to be entitled to the property absolutely, subject to the annual payment and the keeping in repair of the property. At the conclusion of a lengthened argument, his Lordship said that it was a question of considerable difficulty, and that he would read the papers before giving his judgment. There was no sitting in this court on Friday and Saturday of last week, owing to the illness of his Lordship, who has been suffering from a severe attack of sciatica. V. C. MALINS'S COURT. Several cases, involving important questions, have been decided during the past week. In Re Coles' Trust the question was which of two charities at Lincoln were the objects of a testator's bounty, he being a subscriber to one, but both answering the description given in the will. This question, however, was not decided, inasmuch as there was a prospect of a compromise, but the question was determined whether the legacy was given free of duty. The words were, so far as was material upon this question, "To set apart and appropriate such further part thereof (referring to a sum of 37,000l. Consols) as at the time of such appropriation shall produce the further clear income or sum of 100l. a-year," and the case of Haynes v. Haynes was cited as an authority in support of the proposition that duty was payable out of the legacy. The Vice-Chancellor, however, was of opinion that this word "clear" being here used distinguished the case from Haynes v. Haynes, and that the testator's intention was that the The next case was Ross v. Tatham, the testa- Another case of Stuart v. Cockrell also occasioned some discussion, where one party, who had got assignment for value of a fund in the hands of trustees, omitted to give notice to them of such assignment, and the assignor becoming bankrupt, and the assignees in bankruptcy having obtained a stop order on the fund, the question arose, as between the claimant for value and those entitled by operation of law. The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that there was no difference between assignees for value and assignees in bankruptcy on the question of priority, and therefore was of opinion that the omission to give notice to the trustees left the fund in the order and disposition of the bankrupt, and although there was priority, the fact of the stop order gave the parties obtaining it priority. know nothing of the European, and must be satis fied of their respectability and standing before I can consent to give them over all the sums." Two days after, part of the mill was burned, and Waddell sent a copy of a policy for the part not burned, and asked for particulars of the other. The plaintiff applied frequently ineffectually to the office for the 28001., stating his loss at 36001., but received no reply, and eventually, having sent. down a clerk to inspect the premises, they refused to pay, on the ground chiefly, that the plaintiff's letter to Waddell was a repudiation. After considerable argument, the Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the letter was not a repudiation; but the plaintiff, considering himself safe meantime, wished to take the month to consider whether he would accept the European. The defence ought never to have been set up, and he entirely condemned it and made a decree for the plaintiff. V. C. STUART'S COURT. The only question of any importance which has been decided during the past week was one arising out of a summons taken out by a Mr. Gardner, to vary the certificate of the Chief Clerk in the causes of Waterlow v. Sharp, and Gardner v. Sharp. The Chief Clerk had found that there was due from the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to the London and County Banking Company-as a debt-a sum of 64,7691. 19s. 11d., guaranteed as to 50,000l. by Sir Morton Peto, Bart., as to 80001. by City Loan B shares of the railway company, and as to 50001. by debenture mortgages, charged on the Western Extension undertaking of the company. He had also found that, at the date of the deed of arrangement, executed by the company on the 19th Jan. 1867 its creditors stood as follows: on. 1. Simple Contract... 6. Debenture Claims. Total £470,549 5 0 36,874 18 2 14.159 17 11 119,702 13 10 3052 7 11 2,269,942 12 2 2,277,424 11 4 £5,192,156 64 He had further found that all these creditors ranked equally. The summons asked for an order to vary that, by certifying that the debts num. bered 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, ranked equally, and in The next case was of a very complicated descrip- priority to those numbered 2 and 3, and that the tion, but may be shortly stated. It came on in debt to the London and County Bank should be Re The Marine Investment Corporation, upon two allowed as a "claim" only to the amount insisted claims, one by the Agra Bank, the other by the The summons also asked for an order to National Bank of Liverpool, arising in this way. reduce a debt due from the company to John Messrs. Sabel and Searle, merchants, were the Penn and Son, from 3985l. 13s. 9d. to 30657. 19s. owners of three steamers, the Scud,the Foam, The Vice-Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said and the Petrel, and the above two banks having-As to the claim of the London and County Bank, discounted acceptances with respect to which there seems to me to be no sufficient reason for these ships were a security, and it being desired varying the certificate. None of the transactions to renew the bills, and the banks being dissatis- in respect of which this bank claims to be a fied with the security, the Marine Investment creditor are other than transactions in the ordinary Corporation (the company) was applied to, and course of dealing between bankers and their certain acceptances of John Gladstone and Co. customers. It is in the ordinary course that there were to be thrown in as a further security. Pend- should be a fixed amount beyond which the cusing the negotiation with the company John Glad- tomer is not permitted to overdraw his account. stone and Co. failed; but ultimately the company Because the transactions were recorded in an gave their acceptances and obtained a commis- account called the loan account they were not the sion of 13751. on the transaction. The corporation less transactions in the regular course of banking being in course of winding-up, as was the Agra business. The title of that account was adopted Bank, claims were brought in for 27,000l. odd each because the amount to which the railway company (the whole acceptances having been 55,000l.), and was allowed to draw was limited. There is there it appearing that the vessels had been handed fore no sufficient reason for saying that there was back, on a mortgage being given, and subse- any borrowing or loan in the proper sense of the quently put up for sale, but bought in, the claims word, or within the meaning of the Act of Parlia were opposed on the ground that a guarantee had ment. The next question was as to the right of been given; that the acceptances of John Glad- the holders of common fund stock to be admitted stone and Co. were worth 15,000l.; that the to prove as creditors. Against their claims it has acceptances were given under the pressure of the been argued that they are shareholders, and Agra Bank, who were bankers of the corporation therefore not creditors; that they are merely and creditors for 100,000l., and that the whole owners of preference shares. No doubt it is true transaction was ultra vires. All these grounds they are entitled to shares in the common fund; were absolutely denied. After a long argument, but the question is whether there is not a the Vice-Chancellor was clearly of opinion that Parliamentary contract by the company to there had been no guarantee, no pressure, the pay those moneys which are to constitute the balance having been reduced to 9900l., and that common fund. It seems to me impossible to put the corporation had full power to give bills; and any other construction on the clauses of the he characterised the defence as very discreditable Additional Powers Act of 1862, especially the to the corporation. clauses 95 to 100 inclusive, than that it binds the company to pay the money which is called the common fund. If so, the persons who are entitled to compel the company to pay these moneys are the shareholders in the common fund; having a right to compel the company, they are properly certified as creditors. There remains the question as to the right of the holders of the Western Extension stock. It is argued that they were shareholders, and therefore cannot be creditors; that their only right is to be paid out of profits; that the company are not purchasers of their original stock; that the word "consideration" is not properly applicable to their claims, and that by the terms of the contract between them and the company, they are entitled to vote at public meetings of the company, and, therefore, so far from being creditors of the company, they are able to concur in contracting debts which the company is Another case of some singularity, was Mackie v. The European Assurance Company, which arose thus: The plaintiff was the owner of woollen mills at Stewarton, near Glasgow, and had insured them in the Commercial Union Assurance Company, but from some cause desired to insure them afresh for 28007. He applied to James Waddell, who had been agent for the Commercial Union, and paid him 4l., Waddell gave him a printed form filled up, whereby the premises were held insured for 28007. for a month, that is to give time for the policy to be made out. The plaintiff did not then look at the document, but it turned out that Waddell, having ceased to be agent for the Commercial Union office, had become agent for the European, and had made out the document in that office. The plaintiff wrote to him noticing this fact, and asking if the old office had refused, saying, "I bound to pay. When the terms of the Various Powers Act of 1861 are accurately examined, they do not support this argument. By that Act of Parliament, the Western Extension shareholders, as a separate class, were authorised to have that undertaking united with the general undertaking. But they were not so united by becoming share-by the defendant's ship Colombian, from Liverpool holders in the general undertaking. They were to receive a perpetual rentcharge as the price of giving up their undertaking as soon as the resolations for effecting these transactions were passed. The right of the Western Extension stockholders was to receive payment of their perpetual rentcharge on a Parliamentary contract by the company to pay that rentcharge as the consideration and price due to them. It is a mistake to say the word consideration does not exist in the Act. The words of the 15th section are for such consideration by way of perpetual rentcharge. Therefore if the company are by contract bound to pay their rentcharge to the Western Extension stockholders as an association, I know no other character in which they can stand than that of creditors when they claim payment, and of that certain price which is dae to them upon their contract. As to the argument that they are shown to be shareholders and not creditors by the right they have to vote at meetings, as that right does not in any degree interfere with their right of payment, it cannot make them less creditors. What seems conclusive is, that by the 85th section of the Additional Powers Act they have a right to recover what is due to them by distraining on the company. Upon the whole the summons to vary the certificate on these three matters must be refused. in which an offer may have been made or conveyed. They held the defendant, therefore, to be liable to the penalty imposed by the Act. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. On the 3rd in st., the court met to deliver judgments in a number of cases in which they had taken time to consider. Judgments were delivered by all the members of the court in turn. In Wren v. Weall and another, the court were called upon to determine the admissibility of certain evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff on the trial of an action against the defendants for slandering the plaintiff's title to the patent of certain spooling machines, by writing to various customers of the plaintiff telling them that the machines sold by the plaintiff were infringements of the defendant's patents, and that if they used the machines without paythe defendants' royalties, they would be proceeded against at law. Mr. Justice Lush refused at the trial to receive evidence offered by the plaintiff to show that the defendant's patent was hot new, as that was in effect evidence adduced to try the validity of the patent itself, for which a particular mode of proceeding was provided. The case was argued at the sittings after last term, by Mr. Webster, Q. C. and Mr. Baylis for the plaintiff; and by Mr. Quain, Q. C. and Mr. Aston for the defendant. Mr. Justice Blackburn now delivered the judgment of the court (which consisted of that learned judge and Justices Lush and Hayes), in favour of the ruling of Mr. Justice Lush, and against the admissibility of the evidence, on the ground that the evidence tendered failed to show that the defendant did not bond le believe in the validity of his patent. The judgment in Simpson v. Yean was delivered by Mr. Justice Mellor. The question involved was one relating to the offence of bribing voters, under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102. Sect. 2 of that Act defines bribery thus, "Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give or lend, or shall offer, promise, or promise to procure, or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce any voter to vote, or to refrain from voting, or shall corruptly do any such act as aforesaid, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election." In this case the defendaut had called on the voter's wife, and told her he came to solicit his vote; she said he did not intend to vote, though he had been offered a handsome sum on the other side, as he would lose so much time in going to vote. The defendant then said if he Voted he would be remunerated for his loss of time, and said the same thing to the voter himself next day; but defendant swore that he never mentioned money or offered any. An action for the penalty imposed by the statute on persons guilty of bribery was brought in the County Court of Stafford, but the judge held that the case was not proved, whereupon his judgment was appealed against. The Court of Queen's Bench were of a different opinion, and held that the facts proved did bring the case within the statute. They condered it of such importance that electors should be left free to vote according to their opinions, that they were bound, in construing the Act of Parliament, to give free effect to the plain meaning of the words used, and apply them to the substantial facts of the case, without raising subtle distinctions or requirements as to the precise words In Greeves v. The West India and Pacific Steam Ship Company, the plaintiff had taken a through bill of lading of certain merchandise to be carried to San Francisco. The entire freight was paid to the defendants at Liverpool in advance, freight and primage to be considered as earned, ship lost or not lost. It was stated on the bill of lading that by an arrangement between the defendants, the Panama Railway Company, and the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, the goods were to be carried from Liverpool to Colon by the defendants' ship, from Colon to Panama by the Panama Railway Company, and from Panama to San Francisco by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. The defendants signed the bill of lading for the service from Liverpool to Colon. It was then handed to the plaintiff, who took it to the agents of the other two companies, who signed it for the service from Colon to San Francisco. The defendants' ship, by which the merchandise was carried, was lost in a hurricane at the Island of St. Thomas in Oct. 1867, and the merchandise was consequently never delivered to either of the second or third companies, having been lost before the vessel reached Colon, the place where the merchandise was to be delivered over to them. The defendants, after receiving notice of the loss of the vessel, paid over to the other two companies the whole of the freight, with the exception of 31. 58. per ton, which they reserved for themselves as their proportion, and the present action was brought to recover the amount of the freight so paid over. The facts not being in dispute were stated in the form of a special case, which was argued by Mr. Benjamin on behalf of the plaintiff, and by Mr. Mellish, Q.C.(with whom was Mr. Day), on behalf of the defendants. For the plaintiff it was contended that on the face of the bill of lading there were two distinct contracts, one with the defendants and the other with the agents of the two other companies, that the freight was apportionable although the share to be received by each of the carriers was not specified on the face of the bill of lading, the exact share being stated in the advertisements put for ward by the defendants; and that the defendants in paying over the freight to the subsequent carriers before the goods had been delivered to them were guilty of a breach of the duty which they had undertaken of forwarding the plaintiff's goods. For the defendant it was contended that the contract was an entire one for the carriage of the goods to San Francisco, and that the freight being payable in one entire sum was not apportionable, that the advertisements issued by the defendants were not admissible in evidence, and that the defendants could not be held responsible for the freight which they had paid over to the other two companies, as they had received it as the agents of those companies. The judgment of the court (which consisted of Justices Lush and Hayes), was now delivered by Mr. Justice Lush, and was in favour of the plaintiff on all points. They considered that there were several contracts, and not one entire one; that the freight was apportionable between the different companies; that the advertisements issued by the defendants might be looked at by the court; and that as soon as notice of the loss of the vessel before reaching Colon was received, the amount of freight paid in the first instance to the defendants for the remainder of the journey from Colon to San Francisco was money had and received by them on the part of the plaintiff, and that their payment over of it to the other two companies did not exonerate them from the plaintiff's demand in the present action. Stringer v. The English and Scottish Marine Insurance Company was a case which had been argued a good many terms ago, and then sent back to the arbitrator to state more fully certain facts of the case. It was again argued last term, when the court reserved their judgment, which was now delivered by Mr. Justice Blackburn. Certain goods of the plaintiff had been insured in 1863, and shipped from Liverpool to Matamoras. Towards the close of that year the vessel in which the goods had been shipped was seized by a vessel belonging to the United States navy, and taken into New Orleans. A suit was instituted there to have the vessel adjudged a lawful prize, but unsuccessfully, the court giving judgment in favour of the owners. Notice of abandonment was given by the insured on the 12th Sept. 1864, which was refused. Everything that occurred from that date was communicated to the underwriters, the present defendants. They were informed in Feb. 1865 that an endeavour was made to sell the cargo; but neither party took steps, and the goods were sold and the proceeds paid into the American Court. The assured could not have prevented the sale without giving bail to the full value of the goods. After the sale of the goods another notice of abandonment was given, which was also refused. The plaintiff claimed, in the present action, for a total loss, and the court held that he was entitled to do so. Having, on the capture of the vessel, elected not to treat the case as one of total loss, but to litigate the validity of the capture, he could not, so long as the circumstances continued the same, treat the loss as total; but when circumstances did change, and the loss was rendered really total, the assured was not prevented from so treating it. Now, the sale of the cargo, a sale which could not have been prevented without giving bail for the full value of the goods, and that at a time when the American currency was of a very fluctuating character, did alter the case. To give bail under such circumstances was not a step which a prudent owner, uninsured, would have been likely to take. The sale was, therefore, a total loss, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. In Playford v. The Electric Telegraph Company, an attempt was made to render the Electric Telegraph Company liable for a mistake made by one of their clerks in the transmission of a message. The plaintiff having a cargo of ice to dispose of, sent a message to a customer at Hull, and was pleased to receive a reply by telegraph offering him 278. per cwt. for the ice. The ship and cargo of ice were forthwith despatched to Hull, when it was discovered that the offer of 27s, was never intended to have been made, the offer sent by tele. graph being 23s. per cwt., which the telegraph clerk by mistake read off as 278. The owners of the ice sought in this action to make the telegraphic company responsible for the damages they had sustained, through this mistake of the clerk. The judgment of the court, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Lush, was in favour of the telegraph company, on the ground that as the owners of the ice were not the persons who had sent the message, they were not the proper parties to sue, and the relation between them and the Hull merchant was not that of principal and agent, but that of buyer and seller. There was another point as to the particular terms on which the message was sent, but the court did not think it necessary to determine it. Farrer v. Close involved a most important question on the subject of the legality of trades union societies, which we shall report next week, and to-day refer to in a leading article. ELECTION LAW. VOTE BY BALLOT. THE Reform Club is about to abolish election by ballot, because a candidate was blackballed whom some eminent men had proposed. The ballot is one of the articles of political faith with the members of that club; and even now they are actively endeavouring to recommend voting by ballot to the acceptance of Parliament. This difference betweeen preaching and practice is very remarkable. They are seeking to force upon others that from which they are striving to emancipate themselves. When the ballot is again debated, a conclusive answer to its advocates will be the conduct of its foremost friend -the Reform Club; which abandoned the ballot in their own practice, because they found it to be ineffective and mischievous. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (IRELAND). (Before KEOGH and LAWSON, JJ.) M'GOVERN (petitioner); Viscount Sr. LAWRENCE and Sir R. BLENNERHASSETT (respondents). (a) The Parliamentary Elections Act 1868-Review of taxation of costs in election petitions where costs already paid. This was a motion on behalf of the agent and petitioner by way of appeal from Master Burke, that certain costs of Sir R. Blennerhassett, one of the respondents, which had been taxed to 1001. 14s. 5d., be referred back to the master for taxation, and that the master be instructed that the items 9 to 24, and 115 to 159, and 160, 161, and 162, be disallowed or reduced, and that in case the said costs upon re-taxation be reduced below 1001. 14s. 5d., the said respondent should return to the petitioner the amount by which the said costs may be reduced, the said respondents having been paid the said sum of 1001. 14s, 5d. The costs in question were the costs of objections to the recognisances of the sureties on the petition, to which Sir R. Blennerhassett was declared entitled by an order of Master Burke, made the 4th Jan. 1869, and also the costs of a bill of particulars, which were ordered to be paid by the unsuccessful party, by an order of Baron Fitzgerald, made the 9th Feb. 1869, and to which The costs the respondent had become entitled. were furnished at 1391. 7s., and on taxation before Master Burke were reduced to 1001. 148. 5. on or about the 30th April 1869. (a) From the Irish Law Times, The petitioner in his affidavit stated that he objected to the items in question at the time; that the master ruled against him, and being informed at the time, and believing that he had no right to appeal on the ground that the amounts allowed by the master were too high, he paid the costs immediately after the costs were taxed; that he had been informed that the court had since decided that he had a right to such appeal, and that he believed he had just grounds for a review of the taxation on the ground that some items should be struck out, and that some items had been taxed on too high a scale; and he believed that if the costs were taxed in accordance with the scale of costs in the Court of Chancery they would not amount to more than 601. From the affidavit of S. P. Redington, agent for Sir R. Blennerhassett, it appeared that these costs were taxed and certified on the 30th April; that he understood the petitioner preferred that the amount of them should be drawn out of the sum lodged in court; he served notice of motion with that object for the 3rd May, but receiving a letter from the petitioner objecting to the motion, and enclosing a cheque for the 100l. 14s. 5d., he withdrew his notice of motion, and never asked for any costs connected with the motion; that the petitioner was entitled, under an order made Jan. 4th, to certain costs against Sir R. Blennerhassett, which he furnished on the 22nd April, to the amount of 35l. 12s.; that those costs were taxed by Master Burke on the same day as the costs payable to Sir R. Blennerhassett to the sum of 231. 16s. 2d., and were taxed on the exact scale and the same principles as those payable by the petitioner; that the petitioner did not certify these costs until the 10th May, and that deponent sent a cheque for them on May 17th. the corruption was extensive. At the latter place out of 150 public houses, 108 were open free. At Salford a great deal of money was expended in drink. The election at Wigan was especially pure. The Liberal candidates, against whom alone a petition was presented, determined that no public-houses should be used at all. It was, however, on the polling day that the necessary rooms could not be obtained anywhere else than at public houses, and they were therefore hired, but the landlords were paid 101. each for the hire of the rooms, not to supply any drink. The petition at Barnsley disclosed the fact that some 800 persons were bribed ostensibly for the purpose of the municipal, but in fact for the purpose of the parliamentary election. The expenses of the Westminster election were enormous. Mr. Smith, the successful candidate, spent 90001., and it was his (the learned judge's) opinion that Mr. Smith was robbed throughout the election. There was a very general desire on the part of the candidates who were examined before him to get rid of bribery and corruption. LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE. HOUSE OF COMMONS. FIRE INSURANCE DUTY. Exchequer whether in the case of septennial fire Mr. H. BEAUMONT asked the Chancellor of the insurance policies which had still a few years to run, and on which fire insurance duty commuted at six years was paid in advance, he would be prepared, now that the fire insurance duty was abolished, to return to the insured, through the insurance offices, the amount of duty paid on such Butt, QC., with him Seeds, LL. D., for the policies in respect of the period occurring after petitioner. The court has decided in the London- the abolition of the duty.derry case, 3 Ir. L. T. 366, May 29, that the the EXCHEQUER: In reply to the question of the -The CHANCELLOR of master had taxed on too high a scale in these hon. member I have to remark that those who election matters, and that they should be retaxed insured seven years in advance obtained the reon the scale of the Irish Court of Chancery. That mission of one year's duty, and that the arrangedecision was since the taxation of those costs, and ment so entered into was made subject to whatwe would clearly have a right to have the taxation reviewed if the money was still due, and it would duty had been raised I do not think that those ever might be the pleasure of Parliament. If the be very unreasonable that a party should be pre-insurers would have applied for permission to pay judiced by prompt payment. There was a certain amount of pressure to enforce payment by serving the notice of motion, though it was withdrawn. Coffey, Q. C., and Waters, Q. C., for the respondent. There has been no case in which costs have been ordered for re-taxation after the amount has been paid, and there was no pressure exercised by the respondent's agent to get the money paid immediately, as the motion was abandoned; besides, the petitioner has waived his right to an appeal, if he ever had it, by taking the amount of his own costs on the precise principle and scale to which he now objects. KEOGH, J.-Though there was not actual pressure for the payment of these costs, there was the possibility of pressure by applying to have them paid out of the sum lodged in court. The entire practice in election matters is novel, and under this new system, and considering that this court has, since the costs were paid, directed costs in election matters to be taxed on a lower scale than the master adopted previously, we think we should remit both of these bills for re-taxation. Ordered, That the respective bills of costs, payable by petitioner to said respondent, and by said respondent to petitioner, be remitted for retaxation; and thereupon that said master do tax same upon the scale on which costs are taxed in a suit in the High Court of Chancery in Ireland between solicitor and client. Let the peritioner pay the respondent or his agent 71., costs of this motion. Agent for petitioner, T. M'Govern. a larger sum, and they must, therefore, take their chance of what has happened. Under these circumstances, it is not the intention of Government to make any return whatever. (A laugh.) aulatto COUNTY FINANCE. PUBLIC COMPANIES. Illinois Central.-Half-year's dividend, cent. per London and Greenwich.-Dividend at the rate of 21. 14s. 2d. per cent. per annum. BANKS. Bank of France.-Dividend of 51f. per share. British Linen.-A further dividend, making 13 per cent. for the year. Imperial Ottoman.-A payment of 15s. per share, making with the interim distribution in January last, a dividend of 12 per cent. for 1868. National.-The Times states that an arrangement for the settlement of the affairs of Charles Laffitte and Co. (Limited) has been signed, and that Mr. Harvey Lewis and Mr. Henshaw, who are sufferers by the deceptions practised, have acted throughout in perfect good faith. South Australia-A half-year's dividend, at the rate of 10 per cent. per asnum. FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES. Imperial Mercantile Credit Association.-The sixth instalment of 2s, 6d. in the pound, making 15s. in all, is paid to the creditors. New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency.-An interim dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum for the past six months. ASSURANCE COMPANIES, Hercules Insurance Mr. W. J. White has been appointed sole official liqidator. dator has given information respecting the liqui International Assurance Society.-The liquidation of the company, and the arrangement concluded with the Prudential Assurance Company for taking over the life policies and annuities. Marine Insurance.-A dividend of 11., and a bonus of 71. per share declared. London and Provincial Law Assurance.-A 15th July, dividend of 4s. 6d. per share is payable on the rate of 16 per cent, declared for the halfRoyal Exchange Assurance.-A dividend at the f-year. MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. Assam Company.-A 2 per cent. dividend. on the first and second preference stocks. Atlantic Telegraph.-Eight per cent. dividend Bombay Gas.-A dividend of 23 per cent., making 4 per cent. for the year. 10 per cent per annum. British Land.-Interim dividend, at the rate of Hudson's Bay.-A dividend of 14s. per share, of which 6s. has already been distributed, ad quired to forward claims to the liquidators by the Madras Coffee (Limited).-Creditors are re1st Nov, the rate of 10 per cent. per annum declared on the National Steamship.-An interim dividend at original and preference shares. HUGESSEN said that the Bill relating to the admi- STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. week. The season is fast drawing to a close, The following are the fluctuations: South Australian.-A dividend d at th the rate of 8 per cent. per annum. Aberdare Merthyr Steam Coal (Limited).-The 12th July is appointed for the settlement of the list of contributories. Creditors must send particulars of claims by the 10th July, to Mr. Henry Dever, the official liquidator. Ceylon Company. Six per cent. per annum dividend declared. Charles Cammell and Co.-A dividend of 41. per share, Crystal Palace. The revenue from visitors has increased during the past six months. The insuraance of the building and contents now reaches nearly 112,000. It is proposed to lease part of the large reservoir to a bath company for twentyone years. A proposal has been made to form an audit committee. This the board intend to resist. ENGLISH FUNDS. Fri. Sat. Mon. Tues Wed Thur Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron, and Coal. A dividend of Agent for Sir R. Blennerhassett, one of the Bank of England Stock 240 respondents, S. P. Redington. 3 3 THE NOTTINGHAM ELECTION PETITION.-A meeting of the central committee for promoting the petition against the return of Mr. Charles Seely was held at the Maypole Hotel, Nottingham, on Saturday evening. Mr. Digby Seymour addressed the meeting, and pledged himself that the petition should be brought to an issue. They had only been defeated by the money of Mr. Seely and his friends. He (Mr. Digby Seymour), considering the great cause for which they were fighting, had made up his mind to go to the poll again, in the event of Mr. Seely being turned out. Mr. Cockayne, solicitor for the petition, said that in the opinion of eminent counsel the evidence, if established, was quite sufficient to unseat Mr. Seely. The petition was lodged on Wednesday. AN ELECTION JUDGE ON ELECTIONS.-Mr. Baron Martin, who has been examined before the Elections Committee said he had tried eleven election petitions in different parts of the country, and he was of opinion that bribery was not so prevalent as was generally supposed. In many instances that came before him the allegations were perfectly absurd. At Norwich and Bradford 92 92 921 92 93 93 ... 10 Cent. Red. Ann. 92 92 93 93 93 934 Cent. Cons. Ann... 92 921 92 931 New 2 Cent. Ann.... New 3 Cent. Ann. Do. do. Jan. 1894.. 5 Cent. Annuities 5 Cents. Jan. 1873 Ann. 30 years exp. April 5, 1885 Do. exp. Jan. 5, 1880 Red Sea Tele. Ann. 1908 Do. exp. July 1880 Consols, for Acc... India 53 Cent. for Acc. Do. 5 Cents. July 1880 92 921993 93 934932 10s. per share.ty of bailques estretai John Brown and Co.-A dividend of 41. 18s. 3d. per share. MINING COMPANIES. Capunda Dividend of 6d. per share. REPORTS OF SALES. [NOTE. The reports of the Estate Exchange are officially supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names 10 are registered there will oblige by reports of their own sales.] G1 & 2 stubsjutt was skem need suit Thursday, July 1, Huidweni quo, ProdLugo), By Messrs. FOSTER, at the Mart. Freehold estate known as Ashley Arnewood, in the parish of Milton, Hants, comprising a residence, farm, land, and woods, in all 202a. 2r. 32p.-sold for 61007 Freehold estate known as Stanley's, in the parish of Nordle, India Stock, July 1880. 1113 1111 111 112 112 112 Hants, comprising farmhouse, shooting box, lands, and A Indi. Cent. Oct. 206 207 100% 1007 100 100 100 101 128.a 15s.a 20s.a 20s.a 98.a 158.a 158.a India Bo. (10007.) 10s.a dEx div. 20A__ MELT June 3 per cent., 6. pm. June 3 per cent., 23. pm. March par. to 59. pm.; June 2s. to 78. premium. woods, in all 159a, Or. 38p.-sold for 21507, Friday, July 4. By Messrs, NORTON, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart. Freehold rectorial tithe rentcharges, secured on land situate at Lingfield, Surrey, in 25 lots-Lot 3 rentcharge of 887. 168. 8d.sold for 02.; lot 9, ditto 187. 4. 10d. sold for 3307.lot 10, ditto 197, 28. 9d.-sold for $207.; lot 18, ditto 97, 168, 9d-sold for 165; lot 5, ditto S. 48. Sd.-sold for 551. lot 17, ditto 77. 8. 2d.-sold for 1254. lot 19, ditto al. 158, 9d-sold for 1007.; lot 21, ditto 47, 94. 5d-gold for 741. lot 23, ditto 31. 17. Sd.-sold for 601 lot 25, ditto 6. 108. Id.-sold for 857.; lot 5, ditto 35. 108. Id-sold for 6502; lot 10, ditto 13/. 2. 11d.sold for 2257: lot 12, ditto 107. 98. 3d.-sold for 1751.; lot 14, ditto 91. 68-sold for 100%. lot 16, ditto 87, 78. 1d.sold for 1407.; lot 18, ditto 67, 68. 4d. -sold for 1057.; lot 20, ditto 47. 98. 3d.-sold for 70: lot ditto, 37, 28, 3d,-sold for 671.; lot 94, ditto S. 8, 5d.-sold for 567. Tuesday, July 6, By Messrs. DEBENHAM and TEWSON, at the Mart. Leasehold residence, No. 11, Albion-grove, Thornhill-road, Barnsbury, term 333 years from 1835, at 67. 68. per annum, annual value 501.-sold for 350. annum-sold for 6301. Leasehold residence, No. 130, Hemingford-road, Barnsbury, let at 50l. per annum, term 38 years from 1844, at 27. per Freehold residential property, known as The Olives, Wadhurst, Sussex, consisting of a residence, with stabling, ground, cottages, and land, containing 31a. Ir.-sold for Leasehold two houses and shops, Nos. 1 and 2, John-street, Portland-town, producing 108/. 4s, per annum, term 83 years from 1838, at 207. per annum-sold for 3557. 44007. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ANDREW (Wm.), Manchester. July 31; S. A. Orton, solicitor, 31, Princess-street, Manchester. FOREIGN LOAN.-When a Government negotiates a loan in a foreign country, the contract must be construed not according to the law of the country in which the loan is negotiated, but according to that of the State negotiating the loan: (Smith v. Weguelin, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. BAKER (William). Upper George-street, Bryanston-square. 724. Ch.) PRACTICE-SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DECREEPARTIES OUT OF THE JURISDICTION.-Certain persons interested in property ordered to be sold under the provisions of the Partition Act 1868 had not been made parties to the suit, and were out of the jurisdiction, their addresses being unknown: Held, that the provisions of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 42, rule 8, and Consolidated Order xxxv., rule 18, as to the service of notice of decree, applied to such a case: (Peters v. Bacon, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 729. M.R.) SOLICITOR RETAINER-FALSE AFFIDAVIT. — A solicitor, who had filed a bill for specific performance in the name of the assignee of a bankrupt without having obtained his consent or retainer, and who had also allowed his client to make an affidavit containing a statement which he knew to be false, was sentenced to be susFreehold house and shop. No. 15, Bevis Marks, let on lease pended for the space of ten years from practising Freehold house and shop, No. 13, Gilbert-street, Clare By Mr. ROBINS, at the Mart. at 321. per annum-soid for 6007. Leasehold house, No. 15, Bevis Marks, let on lease at 357. per annum, term 73 years, 7 years unexpired, at 27. per annum -sold for 6601. By Messrs. E. and H. LUMLEY, at the Guildhall Absolute reversion to 3797, 108. 3d., consols expectant on the houses situate as above-sold Freehold ground-rents of 64. 15. per annum, secured on two Freehold plot of ground, with buildings thereon, in rear of above, and a messtage, No. 5, Bennett's-place, annual value 557.-sold for 8707. Freehold four messuages, Nos. 1 to 4, Bennett's-place-sold for 9637. as an attorney or solicitor If there be not a ATTENBOROUGH (James), Brampton Ash, Northampton, Sept. 1; W. W. Comin, solicitor, 81, Great Portland-street. BROWN (C.), 28, Cavendish-square. Sept. 24; J, McMillin, CAMPBELL (Capt. Colin A, of H.M... Ariadne. Aug. 15; Sept. 1; Sawbridge and Wrentmore, solicitors, 126, Wood- CLARK (George), Wootten Wawen, Warwick. Aug. 1; T. B. Couchman, solicitor, Henley-in-Arden. DAVIDSON (Andrew), 13, East-street, Lamb's Conduit-street. GWILT (Francis J.) Sitholester-terrace, Hyde-park- Sept. 10; HAGLEY (Miss Charlotte M.), Fossgate, York. PROTESTANT DISSENTERS MINISTER -TEN- RADNEDGE (John), 3, Gloucester place, Cheltenham. Ang.1; WILLS.-Where a testator left two wills, one In the case of Laurie P. O. v. Schofield, the Court of Common Pleas has interpreted the follow ing as a continuing gurrantee :- In consideration of the Union Bank of London agreeing to advance to the firm of Messrs. Russell and Co., during the next eighteen months, not exceeding in the whole a sum of 1000l., we hereby jointly and severally agree, &c., to pay the same in case of default." It was contended for the defence that the 10001, having been once advanced and repaid during the eighteen months, the guarantee was exhausted that it did not cover a subsequent re-advance. The court, however, overruled this, holding that the guarantee applied to any unrepaid advance not exceeding 1000l. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. Aug. 4; E. L. Ashworth, solicitor, 88, King-street, Manchester. SHELDON (Hugh), Parker-street, Manchester. Ang.4; E. L. Ashworth, solicitor, 88, King-street, Manchester. SLOCOCK (Edmund), Bellevue House, Chelsea. Sept. 1; Sawbridge and Wrentmore, solicitors, 126, Wood-street, Cheapside. TAYLOR (Wm.), Halifax, Yorks. Sept. 1; Robson and Suter, THOMPSON (Miss Mary), Kirk Deighton, York. Sept. 10; street. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE A domiciled Spaniard died without having made a will. His brother made one for him [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the according to his direction. The court, on affidavit that this was a valid will according to the law of Spain, granted probate: (In the goods of Gutieres. Ibid.) CHARITY-DISMISSAL OF INMATE-MISCONDUCT-MALICE.-H. was bought into an asylum for incurable patients by the purchase of votes, that is to say, the friends of H. contributed funds to the charity and obtained four votes in respect of each guinea, which votes they gave to H., who was elected an inmate of the asylum. H.' was dismissed from the asylum for alleged misconduct. She brought an action for wrongful dismissal: Held, that the action would lie. Held, also, that the question of misconduct of H. was a matter for the board of management of the asylum, and not for the jury, who had simply to consider whether the board had acted maliciously. A non-observance of rules may amount to misconduct: (Hoare v. Anderson, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 759. Cockburn, C.J.) at twelve. LAST DAY OF PROOF. National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each, in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] FORBES (Caroline L.), Castle New, Aberdeenshire. Dividend on 21217. 108, 5d. Reduced Three per Cents. Claimant, said Caroline L, Forbes. A question has been raised whether so large a and Co. prosecution. Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, in sum as 5000l. is necessary for the Overend, Gurney, reply to some remarks on the subject in the Pall Mall Gazette, reiterate that "to cover the original fees and daily refresher of eminent counsel, the preparation of briefs, the briefing the voluminous documentary evidence, and not least, the attendance of about forty witnesses during a trial which will probably last ten days, it is a moderate estimate, and one which has been so considered in the Profession." CASH DEPOSITS.-The necessity of caution in dealing with advertisers who require cash deposits is strikingly shown by some extraordinary disclosures which have been made in a case before the Bristol Bankruptcy Court. The bankrupt, John Walker, carried on business as a dyer, and towards the close of 1867, he inserted advertiseCREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.ments in the Christian World and other newspapers, for " a manager for a branch establishment Box (Susannah), Songue, Leige, Belgium. July 26; C.-W. in a fashionable watering place." The appointWilliams, solicitor, 62, Lincoln's-inn-fields. Aug. 2; V.C. S..ment was to be permanent, and a liberal salary GARRAWAY (George), 4, Fellows-road, Haverstock-hill. Jnly and interest on the business transacted was pro19; Ashurst, Morris, and Co., solicitors, 6, Old Jewry. July mised. For all these "advantages one condition 31; M. R., at twelve. GILLIAT (Wm.), Barham-house, East Hoathly, Sussex. July was imposed - the applicant was required to 21: Young, Maples, and Co., solicitors, 6, Frederick's-place, deposit 751. with "the firm." It was subsequently Old Jewry. July 31; M. R., at twelve. JACSON (John), Preston, Lancaster. July 28 Richard the cash deposit was that they had been losers by "the firm" insisted on explained that the reason Dickson, solicitor, 20, Bedford-row, Aug. 6; V.C. J., at twelve. the defalcation of a manager at Brighton; and in LLOYD (George P.), Plas-yn-dre-Bala, Merioneth. July 30: another instance, where they had taken the security Hayes, Twisden, and Co., solicitors, 60, Russell-square, of a guarantee society for a manager in the north, MAIR (John), Friday-street, City. July 27: J. Williamson, who had also become a defaulter, they had exsolicitor, 10, Great James's-street W.C. July 29; V.C. J.,perienced considerable difficulty in bringing the PARKER (Thomas), Chorlton-upon-Medlock. July 28; J. sureties to book. For so eligible" a situation, READ (William), Ipswich, Suffolk. Aug. 2: Jackaman and this fact seems to have led "the firm" to increase Lamb, solicitor, Manchester. Aug. 4; V.C. M., at twelve. of course, there were numerous applicants; and Sons, solicitors, Ipswich. Nov. 3; M. R., at twelve. ROBINSON (Philip). Feltham, Middlesex. Oct. 29; H. Webb the deposit until it reached 1501. In September solicitor, 11, Argyll-street, Regent-street, Nov. 11; V.C. S., last two applicants, named Cross and Webber, SNOWBALL (Geo.), Slough, Bucks. July 22; R, B. Barrett, paid 1251. each as deposit, and were thereupon solicitor, Slough. Aug. 5; M. R., at eleven. appointed "managers at Exeter. When they STONE (Josiah), Llawrenny Villa, Lewisham. Aug. 2: arrived in that city, they discovered that the firm Parker and Sons, solicitors, Lewisham. Aug. 7; V.C. S., had no business premises there. In March last, THOMPSON (J. R.), 2, St. James's-terrace, Newcastle-on- Mr. Thomas Stott, of Manchester, was tempted to Tyne. July 31 Alfred Legge, solicitor, Newcastle-on- reply to one of the bankrupt's advertisements, Tyne. Aug. 7; V.C. M., at twelve. UPTON (James), Dartford. July 30; Russell and Son, soli- and, being "accepted," he paid a deposit of 1501., citors, Dartford. Aug. 5; V.C. M.. at twelve. and was appointed manager at Penzance. Mr. Stott proceeded to that town with his wife and Aug. 7: V.C. S., at twelve. at twelve. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ARBITRATION AWARD.-By the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, s. 15, the Superior Court in which any submission has been made a rule is authorised to enlarge the time for making an award, and this power applies to references under the Lands Clauses Act. But the exercise of that power is within the discretion of the court, and where, in a matter between a railway company and a landowner, an award had been referred back to the umpire who had made it, and nothing was done under that reference for a time so long as to render it necessary that the whole of the evidence should be again produced: Their Lordships held, agreeing with Vice-Chancellor James, that the right given by the Lands Clauses Act after such a delay of having the question decided by a jury ought not to be interfered with: (The Dale Valley Railway Com-ETCOMB (Charles), Strand, and Exeter. Sept. 21; E. pany v. Rhys, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 717. Ch.) Force, solicitor, Exeter. Oct. 30; V.C S., at twelve. at twelve. at twelve. 66 |
