Masterman (solicitor for the bankrupt) said the clerk who had appeared was undoubtedly a very courteous and able gentleman, and he had no objection to offer to him personally; but he submitted that as a clerk he had no locus standi or right to appear, and that the solicitor alone could He referred to the Bankruptcy Act 1869, sect. 70; Re Broadhouse (36 L. J., N. S., 29, Bank.); and Roche and Hazlitt's Law and Practice in Bankruptcy, 108 to 110, 2nd edit.

do so.

G. R. Kennedy (instructed by Learoyd, Learoyd, and Peace) submitted that the effect of sect. 70, and the cases cited, was only to exclude persons other than solicitors from practising in the bankruptcy courts, and persons other than counsel and solicitors from appearing and pleading before the judge, and before the registrar when sitting as judge in open court, and did not extend to such matters as were heard and determined by the registrar in chambers; or it would be necessary for the solicitor personally to perform the most trivial duties, such as the issuing of a summons, or the filing of an affidavit, which would practically render it impossible for solicitors to practise in the court.

His HONOUR said that, having regard to the precise terms of sect. 70, and what appeared to be the general practice, a solicitor's clerk was entitled to transact for his principal the business usually transacted before the registrar in chambers, and therefore that a clerk was entitled to examine the bankrupt at a private sitting, and he overruled the objection to the clerk's appearing.

rectly stated, whilst the affidavit erroneously
described their places of residence as well as
Campbell's occupation, it should not, having
regard to the learned Chief Judge's affirmed deci-
sion in Re Wood, be considered that, inasmuch as
the descriptions in Campbell's bill of sale of grantor
and witness are correct, the requirements of the
statute have been sufficiently fulfilled?

JAMES STRIDE.

TEN YEARS' MEN AND "DISPENSING ORDERS." -A large majority of the members present at a meeting of the Law Students' Debating Society, held last evening (Jan. 7) at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, were in favour of the motion which I had the honour to bring before the society, viz., "That the present system of granting dispensing orders' is highly injurious.' As this subject has from time to time found a prominent place in the LAW TIMES, and many of your correspondents have expressed their strong disapproval of these orders, I feel that it may interest your readers to know the prevailing view at the abovenamed meeting. Owing to the late hour, the debate was adjourned, to be resumed at an early date, and that resolutions might be passed condemnatory of the system of exempting ten years' men from the preliminary examination. It is hoped that some resolutions of this character will shortly be brought to the notice of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. I will not burden you with many comments, as I feel that they would be superfluous, after the many marked expressions of disapproval which the Profession has given to these orders; besides the unanimous opinion of the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society held at Manchester in October last, that the powers now vested in the judges under the 11th section of the Solicitors' Act of 1877 ought to be transferred to the Incorporated Law Society, in order to exercise some rigour and care in granting these exemptions to ten years' men. If these wholesale exemptions be continued on the scale of last year's numbers, or rather from 1st Oct. 1877 to Oct. 1878. when no less than eightytwo were admitted without examination (and the number is admittedly on the increase), I fear that a solicitor will no longer be looked upon in society as an educated man. He may, perhaps, be credited with a little knowledge of the law, but here I am afraid it will end. His social position will have passed away, and the advantages which society now gives him over architects, merchants, and others will have gone; the Profession will be denuded of the respect which it has commanded hitherto. I fear, also, that it is hopeless and unreasonable for solicitors to claim of the Benchers of the Inns of Court like facilities for becoming barristers as have been extended to the latter desirous to become solicitors, in view of these wholesale admissions into the Profession of persons who shirk an examination in the ordinary branches of a gentleman's education. I have the pleasure to inclose my card and a copy of the

motion to which I have referred.

66

CHARLES J. MAC COLLA.

BILLS OF SALE-AFFIDAVITS OF EXECUTIONDESCRIPTION OF RESIDENCE-NAME.-On reading in the LAW TIMES of the 21st Dec., p. 139, the report from the Irish Law Times of the case in bankruptcy, Re Campbell, and in the LAW TIMES of Dec. 28, p. 159, Re Woods, I felt sure of your commenting upon them; but finding in the LAW TIMES of the 4th inst. that you have only done so in respect of Wood's case, I take leave, with all respectful deference, to refer to both cases for your consideration. A bill of sale was executed by John Campbell, of 9 and 9, Trinity-street, in the county of the city of Dublin, spirit retailer, the witness thereto being described as John Lahiffe, 28, Fishamble-street, in the city of Dublin, law clerk, both descriptions being correct; but the affidavit filed on registration under the Bills of Sales Act stated that the said John Campbell resides at Nos. 9 and 9, Trinity-street, in the county of Dublin, and is a trader, and that the residence of the witness was at Fishamblestreet, in the county of Dublin, there being no sach places in the county of Dublin as distinguished from the city or county of the city. Upon which Harrison, J. said (inter alia): "The case of Jones v. Harris (L. Rep. 7 Q. B. 157) decides that the copy bill of sale registered along HOOLE v. EARNSHAW. We have read Mr. with the affidavit may be referred to in order to Tattershall's letter in your issue of the 4th Jan., explain and supplement the description of the and would like our professional brethren to judge residence of the grantor as stated in the affidavit. whether or not this matter has been dealt with in But I think there is some doubt whether the that spirit of courtesy which should exist between copy bill of sale can be relied on where it contra- solicitors. Mr. Tattershall speaks of us as an dicts the affidavit in describing the residence of opponent;" he has caused us a considerable the grantor and attesting witness, as in the county personal loss, and his costs incurred will no doubt of Dublin, in place of in the city or county of the amount to more than our own. Though we acted city of Dublin, as in the copy bill of sale. Here, personally in the matter, defendant's solicitor however, the description of the residences, as of never met us as we wished, but invariably sent 9 and 9, Trinity-street, and 28, Fishamble-street, his clerk. The facts of the case are shortly as without anything further, would not, in my follows:-The writ of summons in this action was opinion, have been sufficient; and as the descrip- issued under the Bills of Exchange Act to recover tion in the affidavit contradicts that of the bill of £500. There were two defendants residing twelve sale, by averring the streets aforesaid to be in miles from our office, and we indorsed upon the the county of Dublin in place of the city or writ £4 15s. for costs. After service of the writs, county of the city of Dublin, I entertain con- Mr. Tattershall wrote to our client commenting siderable doubt whether the requirements of the upon his having instructed us, and using an unstatute were sufficiently fulfilled." In the affi- founded imputation upon our professional chadavit filed under the first section of the Bills of racter. Our client produced the letter to us, and, Sale Act 1854, with a copy of the bill of sale of as terms were asked for in that letter, we merely the grantor, Joseph Wood is described as of Lache replied on behalf of our client, stating what Hall Farm, in the county of Chester, farmer. His arrangement he would be willing to make. The real name was Joseph, but he had assumed and terms we offered to accept were declined, and we was generally known by the name of Joseph were then offered the whole of the debt and £3 3s. Albert Wood. The farm was in the county of for costs. This was on the eleventh day after the city of Chester; and there was no evidence service; but, as we had prepared the necessary that there was any farm of the same or any papers for signing judgment, and had attended similar name in the county. Held (affirming the our client on the matter, and written several decision of Bacon, C. J.), that the descrip- letters, we thought £3 3s. an insufficient remunetion was sufficient. Semble, that a mistake in ration for our trouble, but offered to take £4 48. in the affidavit as to the grantor's name would settlement. The same day Mr. Tattershall sent be immaterial, the 1st section of the Act us a cheque for the full amount of debt and costs making no provision as to the name, but only indorsed on the writ, thus ignoring our previous requiring a description as to the residence and offer to take £4 4s. We inquired of the clerk occupation of the person making or giving the who brought the cheque, and who knew the cirbill of sale (Ex parte Hattie, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. cumstances, whether the settlement was in good 373. Ct. of App.) Question, whether, as in Camp-faith; he informed us he had no instructions bell's bill of sale his residence and occupation, and the description of the witness to it, were cor

except as to payment of the cheque; and we,
believing the defendant's solicitor was acting

fairly in the matter, accepted the cheque and gave a receipt. We were never asked to tax the costs. The next intimation we had was a summons served on us, issued out of the district registry by defendant's solicitor, seeking a taxation, and that we should pay costs of taxation if more than one-sixth taxed off. We made an affidavit of the facts, and urged before the registrar that an order to stay on payment of debts and costs to be taxed should have been taken out, and not a settlement made. The registrar dismissed the summons, on the ground that the defendant not having entered an appearance to the writ in the registry, he had no right to take a summons to tax, and that he (the registrar) had no jurisdiction in the action, so far as the defendant was concerned, until appearance. Defendant's solicitor appealed. Mr. Justice Field dismissed the summons with costs. On appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, Mr. Justice Field's decision was upheld, and the motion was dismissed with costs. On motion before the Court of Appeal, the previous decisions were reversed, on the ground that the amount was to be taken as if paid within the four days, by our implied waiver in accepting the amount of debt and costs free from any condition. The order made was that the costs, &c., indorsed on the writ should be referred to one of the masters of the Queen's Bench Division, or to one of the district registrars at Sheffield, to be taxed, but no costs of appeal or motion were allowed on either side. In compliance with the order, we taxed our costs before the registrar, and were allowed £2 15s. 10d. The decision which the defendant's solicitor has obtained will in future tend to make us more cautious in settling actions at the eleventh hour. Reading Mr. Tattershall's letter, we notice that he states: "I will make myself content, without any feeling of disappointment, at not having the trumpery satisfaction involved in obtaining a few pounds for costs against my opponent. I was not battling for costs, but for right interpretation of rules and my client's interest." In accordance with the spirit Mr. Tattershall professes in these words, he has sent to us a bill of costs amounting to £6 0s. 4d., which he claims for his successful effort in reducing our costs indorsed on the writ to £2 15s. 10d. We leave the foregoing facts to speak for themselves. AUTY AND SON,

Plaintiff's Solicitors.

66

TEN YEARS' CLERKS AND "ORDERS DISPENSING WITH THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION."-A large majority of the members present at a meeting of the Law Students' Debating Society, held on the 7th instant at the Law Institution, Chancery Lane, were in favour of the motion which I had the honour to bring before the society, viz. "That the present system of granting Dispensing Orders,' and admitting persons to practice as solicitors whose educational fitness has not been previously tested by the Preliminary,' or some equivalent examination, is highly injurious; and that the secretary do communicate the views of this meeting to the council of the Incorporated Law Society." As this subject has from time to time found a prominent place in the LAW TIMES, and many of your correspondents have expressed their strong disapproval of these orders," I feel that it may interest your readers to know the prevailing view at the above meeting. The debate was adjourned, and, at the express wish of the society, I shall have the pleasure of again introducing the motion on the 4th Feb. at their usual Tuesday evening meeting, when there is every probability that some resolutions condemning the system of exempting ten years' men from passing the preliminary examination, will be passed unanimously, or by a very large majority, and the same made known to the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. I will not burden you with many comments, as I feel they would be superfluous, after the many marked expressions of disapproval which the Legal Profession has given of these "orders," and the unanimous opinion of the meeting of the Incorpated Law Society held at Manchester in October last, that the powers now vested in the judges under the 11th section of the Solicitors Act 1877 should be transferred to the Incorporated Law Society so that some care and rigour might be exercised in granting ten years' men exemption from passing the preliminary examination. No less than eighty-two persons had dispensing orders in one year, viz., from Oct. 1877 to Oct. 1878, and they are on the increase, as the facility with which they are obtained becomes more generally known. If these wholesale exemptions be continued in this way, I fear that a solicitor will no longer be looked upon in society as an educated man; he will be credited with a little knowledge of the law, but here it will end. His social position will have passed away. He will have no claim to rank as he does before architects, merchants, &c. In short, the Profession will be denuded of the respect which it has hitherto commanded of the public. I fear also, that it is hopeless and un

judges from town when their energies are most needed there. I trust that Her Majesty's advisers may be induced to modify their present programme, which is already producing the fruit of discontent. W. D. THURNAM.

PRACTICE IN REGISTRIES.-Perhaps some of your readers may be able to resolve my doubt upon the following decision of a registrar in Chambers :-A summons was taken out by me for discovery, which, under the new practice, is granted as a matter of course. My clerk omitted to attend the summons until a quarter of an hour after the time fixed for its return, and the opposite party attended the return in the office, but, after waiting ten minutes, went away without attending before the registrar. The registrar, on application, granted costs to the opposing solicitor for his attendance, though he did not wait half an hour. There is a little favouritism in the registry referred to, which the power of appeal is a wholesome check upon; but, as there is no appeal for costs alone, there is no remedy in this case, should the registrar be incorrect in this law, which frequently occurs. Coe's Practice fixes half an hour for the solicitor taking out the summons to wait, and infers that the opposing solicitor should wait the same time. EDWD. WILLIAMS.

Liverpool, 15th Jan. 1879.

LEGAL OBITUARY.

NOTE.-This department of the LAW TIMES, is contributed by EDWARD WALFORD, M.A., and late scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and Fellow of the Genealogical and Historical Society of Great Britain; and, as it is desired to make it as perfect a record as possible, the families and friends of deceased members of the Profession will oblige by forwarding to the LAW TIMES Office any dates and materials required for a biographical notice.

J. T. SHAPLAND, ESQ.

in the Liberal interest, by a large majority, as one
of the members for the county of Cork; and at the
last general election he was again returned, with-
out opposition. "He was,
observes a writer in
the Times, 66 an advocate of earnest action, but a
firm opponent of obstruction, and he did not hesi-
curring more odium, disapproval of the course
tate to express openly, though at the risk of in-
which the Obstructionists took in Parliament.
Mr. Downing married, in 1837, Jane, third daughter
of Daniel M'Carthy, Esq., of Air Hill, co. Cork.

COURT OF APPEAL AND HIGH COURT OF
JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION).

HILARY SITTINGS, 1879.

Rota of Registrars in Attendance.

Saturday, Jan. 18
Monday
Tuesday...
Wednesday
Friday
Thursday
Saturday.

THE late John Terrell Shapland, Esq., solicitor, of South Molton, Devon, who died at his residence in that town, on the 23rd ult., in the sixty-sixth THE year of his age, was the son of the late Richard Shapland, Esq., of North Molton, where he was born in the year 1813. He was educated at the Grammar School, at South Molton, under the Rev. Charles Melhuish, M.A.; he was admitted a solicitor in Michaelmas Term 1837, and at the time of his decease had practised at South Molton for more than forty years. The deceased gentleman, who took a deep interest in Freemasonry, was widely known through Devonshire, and highly esteemed by a large circle of acquaintances. He was the Conservative registration agent for the South Molton district of North Devon; a Commissioner for Affidavits, Perpetual Commissioner, Deputy Coroner, and a Commismissioner in the Courts of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries of Cornwall and Devon. Mr. Shapland married, in 1836, Charlotte, eldest child of Mr. William Francis, of Crediton, Devon, by whom he had a family of eight sons and four daughters: four sons predeceased him, three in their infancy; and the other. Arden A. Shapland, a solicitor, of 28, King William-street, London, and Crawford Lodge, Epsom, was accidentally drowned whilst bathing at Teignmouth, in Sept. 1875. The eldest son, Mr. John Terrell Shapland, is in practice in the city. The third son, Mr. A. F. Terrell Shapland, is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Evershed and Shapland, of Brighton; and the fourth continues his father's business, under the style of Messrs. J. T. Shapland and Son. The remains of the deceased gentleman were interred at North Molton, on the 27th ult.

F. C. PARRY, ESQ.

THE late Francis Charles Parry, Esq., barristerat-law, of Allington, Devizes, who died on the 18th ult., in the ninety-ninth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Charles Henry Parry, LL.B., vicar of Speen, Berkshire, by his marriage with Mary, daughter of the Rev. Thomas Shepherd, vicar of Speen, and of Woodhay, Berks. He was born at Speen in the year 1780, and was educated at Winchester, and at University College, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1802, and proceeded M.A. in 1806. The deceased, who was probably the oldest member of the Legal Profession, was called to the bar by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple in Trinity Term 1806. He was appointed in 1831 Deputy Registrar in the old Court of Bankruptcy, and was a commissioner under the new Bankruptcy Act at Birmingham. He was a Major in the Berks Militia, and a Fellow of the Geological Society. Mr. Parry was a contributor to the Edinburgh Review in 1819-1823, and published The Letters of Francis Parry, An Account of the Berkshire Charities," and several political pamphlets. The latter part of his life was occupied with collecting materials for a pedigree of the Parry family and its many branches. Those interested in Shakespeare criticism will remember that Mr. Parry occupied a prominent place in the Collier controversy, as having been the possessor of a folio which was for some time wrongly identified with the Perkins folio. Mr. Parry married, in 1814, Marian, daughter of Capt. Hawker, R.N., of Padworth, Hants, but has left no surviving issue.

66

M'CARTHY DOWNING, ESQ., M.P. THE late M Carthy Downing, Esq., M.P., of Prospect House, Skibbereen, county Cork, formerly a solicitor, who died on the 9th inst., in the sixty-fifth year of his age, was the second son of Eugene Downing, Esq., of Kenmare, co. Kerry, by his marriage with Helena, fifth daughter of Timothy M'Carthy, Esq., of Kilfidamore, co. Kerry. He was born in the year 1814, and was admitted a solicitor in Michaelmas Term 1839, and having realised a large fortune by his industry and ability, retired from the active duties of his profession a few years ago. The deceased gentleman was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the county of Cork, a magistrate for county Kerry, and also a magistrate for the town of Skibbereen; he was likewise for some time chairmam of the Town Commissioners, and vice-chairman of the Board of Guardians. He always took a very active part in politics, especially in the formation of the Irish Parliamentary party in 1852, and of the Tenant League, of which he remained a member during its existence, and he was one of the most active and zealous of O'Connell's supporters in the south of Ireland. In 1868 he was returned

20

Ward

21

Pemberton

22

Ward

Clowes

23

Pemberton

24

Ward

Кое
Clowes

....... 25

Saturday, Jan. 18
Monday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday.
Saturday
Saturday, Jan. 18

Monday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday

Merivale

20

Farrer

21

King

22

Farrer

23

King

24

Farrer

25

King

V.C. Hall.

20

Hold-hip

21

Teesdale

22

Holdship

23

Teesdale

Farrer

Certificates of Sale and Transfer.-Saturday, Jan. 18,
Mr. Latham; Monday, Mr. King; Tuesday, Mr. Farrer;
Wednesday, Mr. Teesdale; Thursday, Mr. Holdship;
Friday, Mr. Pemberton; Saturday, Mr. Ward.

Trinity Sittings, 1878.
Tried during Sittings.
MIDDLESEX-Henry v. Lazard and Co.
SURREY-Hunt v. Gamble and another [L.C. Baron
Motion for Judgment-Under Order 40.
LIVERPOOL-Stewart v. The Union Bank of Kingston-
Greaves . Taylor [C. M. Roupell, Esq., Official Referee
upon-Hull
Henwood v. Binney
[L.C.J. of England
[C. M. Dowdeswell, Esq., Official Referee
Michaelmas Sittings, 1878.
NOTTINGHAM-Fitzjohn v. Harris
[Fry, J.
SUFFOLK-Woods and others v. Jones [Cleasby, J.
LIVERPOOL-Stewart v. The Union Bank of Kingston-
upon-Huli
[L.C.J. of England
SURREY-Sassoon and others v. Cababa
To be argued with Motion for Judgment.
[L.C. Baron
WARWICK-Richardson v. Oldham and another [Fry, J.
WINCHESTER-Reg. v. W. G. Ward and the Southamp
ton, &c., Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. [Denman, J.
DERBY-Evershed v. The North Staffordshire Railway
Company
NEWCASTLE-Cay v. Volkart
[Hawkins, J.
[Pollock, B.
[Baggallay, L.J.
Motion for Judgment-Under Order 40.
DERBY-Sheppard and another v. Adkinson (Leicester
Lewis and others v. Jones
District Registry)
[Hawkins, J.
[J. Anderson, Esq., Official Referee

Wrigley and Sons v. Bury Union, &c.

Stacey v. Lintell

Westham Local Board v. Liveley

Montgomery v. Bear and another

Parkinson and another v. Jones
Brading v. Swatheridge
Passey v. Oxford Local Board

Common Pleas Division.
REMANET PAPER.

New Trials Easter Sittings, 1878.
LONDON-Irvine and Co. v. Warns. Stands over
Motion for Judgment, Trinity Sittings, 1878.
Cailton v. King. Special referee. Stands over
King v. Cailton. Special referee. Stands over
New Trials Michaelmas Sittings, 1878.
LEEDS-Yorkshire Banking Company . Beatson and
another. Part heard

LEEDS-Leeds and County Bank v. Same. Part heard
GLOUCESTER-Carpenter v. London and North-Western
Railway Company

SWANSEA-Ladd v. Newman

MIDDLESEX-Daun and another v. Simmins

MIDDLESEX-Northcott r. Donghty

MIDDLESEX-O'Brien v. Powell

LONDON-Hall v. Qusse

LONDON-M Andrew v. Lawes

MIDDLESEX-Bowles v. Faker

LONDON-Sexton v. Bond

Exchequer Division.

NEW TRIAL PAPER. For Argument. GLOUCESTER-The Rhos Llantwit Coal Company (Limited) v. The Monmouthshire Railway and Canal Company [Quain, J. Transferred from Common Pleas Division. Stands over till after decision of House of Lords in "Monmouthshire Railway and Canal Company t. Bevan."

DERBY-Ellis v. Kirby

[Bramwell, L.J. 25th June and 11th and 13th December, 1878. Part heard before Lord Chief Baron and Baron Pollock. MIDDLESEX-Robinson v. Bensberg [Hawkins, J. MIDDLESEX-Cotterell v. Owen [Hawkins, J. MIDLLESEX-Dodsworth and another v. Ridgway | Huddleston, B. Huddleston, B.

Brothers

MIDDLESEX-Haycox v Chetwynd
MIDDLESEX-Brooks . Sleight and another

Hawkins, J.
[Fry, J.
Part heard 17th December, 1878, before Lord
Chief Baron and Baron Pollock.
NORWICH-Loftus v. Berney
MIDDLESEX-Greaves v. Keene
LIVERPOOL-Olano Larrinaga and Co. v.
and Co.

MANCHESTER-Turner v. Galloway

[Thesiger, L.J.

[Pollock, B. Dennelle, Sons

[Lopes, J.
LIVERPOOL-Bird v. Barrell and another
[Manisty, J.
YORK-Tiffen v. Bells, Lightfoot and Co. [Lush, J.
LEEDS-Peel . The Middleton Estate and Colliery
Company (Limited)
[Lindley, J.
MIDDLESEX-Carey v. The Great Northern Railway
Company
[Pollock, B.

MIDDLESEX-Carnegie v. Walker and Co. Pollock, B.
MIDDLESEX-Bennett v. England [Huddleston, B.

MIDDLESEX-The New Westminster Brewery Company

(Limited) v. Calcutt

LONDON-Learoyd v. Emmens

[Groves, J. [Hawkins, J. Denman, J.

SPECIAL PAPER.

For Argument.

LONDON-Miller v. Peters

H. H. Hughes-130 Greig v Salting and others-
Flowers and N.

W. B. Dunn-131 Faulkner v Chubb and another-
Venn and W.

Lane and A.-134 Knight ▾ Hill-E. W. and W. B.
James

Rooks and Co.-136 Thackrah v Perry-H. W. Cattlin
In person-137 Smith v Muir-E. C. Goldring

C. O. Humphreys and Son-138 Mathieson v Paton-
T. Donnithorne

Wills and W.-139 Turner and others v Benham-J. H.
Waring

T. D. Dutton-140 Peart v Cross-Fisher, M. and Co.
Pattison, Wigg, and Co.-141 Turnor v Moojen-Wal-
ter and Moojen
J. Scoles-142 Bodell v Bagenal-H. Rawlings
Young and Sons-143 Petry v Haupt-W. T. Ricketts
A. Haynes and Sons-144 Foxwell v London General
Omnibus Company (Limited)-Stevens and H.

J. T. Hazeldine-145 Block v Thorogood-Wontner and
Sons

Thompson and D.-147 Ronalds v Brunsden-Wood-
bridge and Sons

Learoyd L. and P.-148 Eskholme v Badger-Bell, B.
and G.

Duignan and S.-150 Rogers v Ancona-Emmett and
Son

Evans F. and R.-151 Kent v Ashburner-A. E. Francis
G. M. Cooke-152 Warne v Kaselack-W. A. Crump
and Son

R. S. Taylor and Son-157 Pelletier and Co. v Burgiss
-Pritchard, E. and Co.

Same-158 Pelletier v Same-Same

G. M. Cooke-160 Oliver v Wright-Pearce and Son
S. R. Glyn-161 Lake, trading, &c. v Walbridge
(commission)-E. F. B. Harston

Pearce and Sons-162 Barker v Bishop-Learoyd, L.
and P.

J. Hopgood-163 Ridley v Tuck-Venn and W.
G. E. Carpenter-164 Styles v Hart-Fisher and Co.
Same-165 Waghorn v Paraire and others-H. Millman,
H. W. Lindus, Venn and W.

J. Hopgood-166 Ellam v Groucock-Tilleard, G. and
H.

Field v. London and North-Western Railway Company. J. H. Waring-169 Ireland v Kew-T. M. Jenkins
Special case

Swettenham v. Savin. Special case

Everton and others v. The Droitwich Salt Company (Limited). Demurrer to defence stands over till case in Court of Appeal decided.

Hough and Co. v. Manzanos and Co. Demurrer to defence

Same . Same. Demurrer to claim

Webster v. Petre and others. Demurrer o defend n
Hemans to claim

Phillips v. Rust. Demurrer to claim
Longmore v. Upton. Demurrer to claim

Hunter, trading, &c. v. Steel and another, trading, &c.
Special case

Bruce, suing, &c. v. Haslewood and others. Demurrer
to claim

Davey, trading, &c. v. Shannon. Demurrer to defence
De Natoye v. Goodacre. Demurrer to defence
Wood v. Lycett. Demurrer to claim

APPEALS FROM INFERIOR Courts.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MIDDLESEX.-HILARY SITTING, 1879. (Continued from page 196.)

The following are set down to be tried by Common
Juries:-

[PLT.'S SOL.-No.-PLT.-DEFT.-DEFT.'S SOL.] Paterson, Sons and G.-91 Bramley-Moore v SpinkA. E. Francis

Hacon and T.-95 Page v Kerridge-Bridges, S. and Co.
G. Thompson-97 Markwick v Cortis (postponed)-A.
S. Edmunds

Lewis and Lewis-99 Moody and another v Fisher-J.
Donague

H. W. Christmas-101 Bettyes v Williams and another
-G. and A. Lindo

Lyne and H.-101 Windas and another v Caldwell-
Hogan and H.

Norris, Allen, and Co.-105 Lynde and another v Hunt
-A West

Rollitt and Sons-107 King and Co. v Mayor, &c., of
Leamington (stayed)-H. Tyrrell

A. G. Ditton-112 Rule v Braid and Co.-Tyrrell and H.
F. A. Foster-114 Lucas v Allen and others-H. W.
Christmas

J. E. Lickfold-115 Harrinson v Hopkinson and another
-E. Morley, Bennett and Co.

A. Hicks and Arnold-116 Palmer v Potter and another
-Tippetts, Son and T.

T. R. Apps-118 Lee v White-Ellis and Co.

J. Geaussent-120 Jeffery v Harper-Thompson and D.
B. F. Watson-121 Dunster v Price and another-Cree
and Son, Philpot and Son

Shum, C. and Co-122 Gower v Evans-Brook and C.
Duignan and S.-123 Champion v Walter (commission)-
Purkis and P.

W. Sweetland-124 Minns ▼ Wilkinson-Marson and D.
Gadsden and T.-125 The Broomhall Tile and Brick
Company (Limited) v Cheesman and Co.-Clarke and
6.
G. S. Finch-126 Smith ▾ Chamberlain and another-
W. Easton

Billing and K.-129 Hudson v Budds-Sandom, K.
and K.

Boulton and Sons-170 Metcalfe v Wilson-Paterson,
S. and B.

W. F. Morris-172 Lilly v Brittain and another-Sharpe,
P. and Co.

G. Thompson-173 Markwick v Redford and others-
Ravenscroft, H. and W.

Stopher and R.-174 Neil v Burden-Briggs and Co.
Clarkes, R. and C.-175 Wood v Pringle and another,
executors, &c.-J. and E. Scott

J. C. Button and Co.-176 Dyer v Samuel-Fraser
A. Wrakeford May-177 Wood v Unwin and others-
F. J. and G. J. Braikenridge, in person
Green and C.-178 Green and another v Partridge-
Robinson and W.

J. R. Wood-181 Whitaker v Brown (without jury)-F.
Bradley

Ellis and Crossfield-182 Trautman v Young-H.
Wickens

E. A. Swan-183 Colquhoun v Eden-G. H. Finch
Paterson, S. and B.-185 Worsfield v Callow-Lewis
and Lewis

T. A. G. Powell-186 Hummel and others v Verner-J.
Davis

D. Keane-187 Upington v Johnson-T. R. Apps
W. F. Morris-188 Lovett v Atlas and Waterloo As-
sociation-Lewis and Lewis

T. R. Watson-189 Girardet v Green and others-J. H.
Child

T. Fortune-190 Gooch v Barnes-Prior, Bigg and Co.
J. R. Mayo-193 Cronin v Steel-Hicklin and W.
Rickards, W. and M.-194 Young v Scott-H. Philbrick
Gregory and Co.-195 Davies v Ruthwaite Bayrites
Mining Co.-Harrisons.

Valpy, C. and P.-196 Matthews and others v Cooper-
J. W. Few

R. S. Taylor and Son-197 Paget v Kenway and others
-Lowless and Co.

B. E. Greenfield-198 Pickford v Evans and another-
Robinson and P.

Walker and M. W.-199 Woodgate v Godfrey-J. W.
Heritage

C. G. Rushworth-200 Mason v Sutherland and another
-HDavis

W. Batham-204 Arnati and another v Lawrence-
Parkers

F. W. Mount-205 Finke and Co. v Voight-T. Beard
and Sous

Page and Son-206 Mallan v Beesty-Plunkett and L.
Lewin and Co.-208 Lea, trading, &c. v Lady Howard
de Walden-Cutler and Co.

Noon and C.-209 Olding and others v Duncan-H. T.
Tiddeman

W. H. Marshall-210 Armstrong v Metropolitan Dis-
trict Railway Company-Baxter and Co.

W. R. Philp-311 Treadwin v Nunn-J. D. Blake
J. H. Child-212 Funge and another v Same-Same
Kynaston and G.-213 Thompson v Trench and another

[PLT.'S SOL.-No.-PLT.-DEFT.-DEFT.'S SOL.]
Benbow and S.-92 Lord Londesborough and another v
The Royal Aquarium, &c., Society (Limited)--F.
Richardson and S.

Norton, R. N. and B.-93 Fajkmajer v Fothergill and
another-Hollams, Son and C.; Field, Roscoe, and Co.
S. T. Cooper-94 Fowke v Wells-In person
Faithful and 0.-96 Foulkes v Metropolitan District
Railway Co.-Baxter and Co.

J. W. Heritage-98 Sterne, administratrix v North-
Western Railway Co.-Paine, L. and C.

R. W. Cooper--100 Cooper v Gorleston and Southtown
Gas Co.-A. F. Barnard

Noon and C.-102 Grubb v London and North-Western
Railway Company-R. F. Roberts

W. Reeve-103 Clifford and another v Lowe and others
(commission)-W. Evans

W. Moon-106 Shepherd v Bishop of Winchester and
others-Bolton and Co., Few and Co., Markby and
Co., D. W. Logie, Saffery and H., Blake and S.,
Keighley and Co.

Gardiner, Son, and W.-108 Collins v London and South
Western Railway Company-M. H. Hall

E. Newman-109 Young and others v Wilson-Steven
and H.

A. G. Ditton-110 Winn v North Metropolitan Tramway Company-H. C. Godfray

Same-111 Shepherd v Same-Same

Bevan and D.-113 Lambert and wife v The South.
Eastern Railway Company-W. R. Stevens

B. Hutchinson-117 Westrip v Wood, administratrix-
T. R. Apps

Denton, H. and B.-119 Hall v Dunlop (postponed)-
Hare and F.

G. J. Jennings-127 Pritchitt v Perry and Co.-Lewis,
M. and L.
Hicklin and W.-128 Slaughter v London Tramway
Company-H. C. Godfray

W. Eley-132 Dewar and another v Tinker and another
-Rollit and J.

W. H. Tattam-133 Ellis v Kocsis-A. C. Spaull
V. J. Chamberlain-135 Murrell and another v Heritage
-F. Heritage and Co.

J. T. Hazeldine-146 Jermyn v North Metropolitan
Tramway Company-H. C. Godfray
Snell and G.-149 McDougal v Copestake (stayed)-
Mercer and M.

Tilley and S-153 Hendrickx and another v Compagnie
Laferme Tabak und Cigaretteren and others-Field,
Roscoe and Co.

Phelps, S. and B.-154 Howell, James, and Co. v Earl
Desart-Horn and M.

T. A. G. Powell-155 Lord C. Ker v. Tattersalls-Bailey,
S. and G.

R. W. Cooper-156 Upward v The West Middlesex
Waterworks Company-Same

Hughes, H. and B.-159 Reg. v Mayor, &c. of Falmouth
-Gregory and Co.

Stoneham and L.-167 Phillips and others v Metropo-
litan Board of Works-R. Ward

Peckham and Co.-168 Roberts and Son v Savill, Bros.
-Hillearys and T.

Harrison, B. and H.-171 Hale v Roberts-Janson,
C. and P.

J. H. Douglas-179 Watson and others v Hodgson-
Learoyd, L. and P.

Bridges, S. H. and Co.-180 Kavanagh v Blair and
another-Few and Co.

G. J. Jennings-181 Simmons v North Metropolitan
Tramway Company-H. C. Godfray

Dillon Webb, K. and Co.-191 Willdridge v Hester-
Beaumont and W.

E. Warriner-192 Allison v The Midland Railway Com-
pany-Beale, M. and Co.

Blake and W.-201 Nunn v Hemming-J. M'Diarmid
J. Pullen-202 Le Touzel v Roy and another-in
Person

J. Mason-203 Fletcher, administrator, &c. v Huggett
-Newman and L.

G. H. Finch-207 Wood v Great Eastern Railway Com-
pany-C. A. Curwood

DUNCAN, HILL, and DICKINSON, solicitors, Liverpool (Henry
Cairneross Duncan, John Edward Gray Hill, and John
Dickinson). Dec. 31

FRANCIS, RICHES, and FRANCIS, solicitors, Cambridge
(Clement Francis, Alfred Smith Riches, and Thomas
Musgrave Francis). Dec. 31

PEED, S. and W. and TURNER, solicitors. Cambridge
(Samuel Peed, William Peed, and Charles Turner, as
regards Turner. Debts by S. and W. Peed. Dec. 31
POTTER and STEVENS, solicitors, Farnham and Aldershot
(Henry Potter and James Stevens). Dec. 31
RADCLIFFE and SMITH, solicitors, Liverpool (William
Radcliffe, and Radcliffe William Smith). Debts by
Smith. Dec. 31

Bankrupts.

Gazette, Jan. 10.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Lincoln's-inn-fields.
WALKER, BENJAMIN and JAMES, drysalters (trading as
Levick, Walker, and Co.), Mincing-la. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg.
Spring-Rice. Sols. Linklaters, Walbrook. Sur. Jan.
To surrender in the Country.
BRANNAN, HUGH, spirit merchant, Gateshead. Pet. Jan. 8.
Reg. Mortimer. Sur. Jan. 22
COLLINS, FREDERICK, and SMITH, HENRY, builders, Brent-
ford. Pet. Jan. 4. Reg. Ruston. Sur. Jan, 2
DAVIES, WILLIAM, builder, Rock Ferry. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg.
Williams. Sur. Jan. 31

GRIFFITHS, JABEZ, and GRIFFITHS, JAMES, West Bromwich.
Pet. Jan. 8. Reg. Watson. Sur. Jan. 22
HENRY, DAVID, floor cloth manufacturer, Manchester. Pet.
Jan. 8. Reg. Hulton. Sur. Jan. 22

HOGG, ROBERT, labourer, Plumstead. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg.
Pitt Taylor. Sur. Jan. 28

ISHERWOOD, RICHARD, greengrocer, Liverpool.

6. Reg. Bellringer. Sur. Jan. 22

Pet. Jan.

LEA, THOMAS KEIGHLEY, accountant, Manchester. Pet.
Jan. 8. Reg. Lister. Sur. Jan. 27

MERCER, EDWARD, labourer, Plumstead. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg.
Pitt-Taylor. Sur. Jan. 23

MYERS, ISAAC, and MYERS, ELIZABETH, tobacco merchants,
Birmingham. Pet. Jan. 8. Reg. Parry. Sur. Jan. 2
SKELTON, JOHN LOVATT, builder, Heigham. Pet. Jan. &
Reg. Cooke. Sur. Jan. 22

THRIFT. VALENTINE, labourer, Plumstead. Pet. Jan. 7.
Reg. Pitt-Taylor. Sur. Jan 28

WILKIE, ROBERT, labourer, Plumstead. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg.
Pitt-Taylor. Sur. Jan. 28

Gazette, Jan. 14.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court. Lincoln's-inn-fields.
JONES, ASKEW, builder, Gunter-grove, West Brompton.
Pet. Jan. 9. Reg. Hazlitt. Sur. Jan. 29
MAYNELL, JAMES HARRIS, out of business, Dalyell-rd,
Brixton. Pet. Jan. 9. Reg. Hazlitt. Sur. Jan. 29
THOMAS, JAMES, potatoe salesman, South-row, Covent Gar
den Market. Pet. Jan. 10. Reg. Brougham. Sur, Jan.

29

To surrender in the Country.
ADIE, CHARLES, auctioneer, Tunbridge Wells. Pet. Jan. 11.
Reg. Cripps. Sur. Jan. 27
BELLARD, BENJAMIN BEAKEN, out of business, Merton-rd,
Chiswick. Pet. Jan. 7. Reg. Willoughby. Sur. Jan.
BOSWORTH, WILLIAM, lace manufacturer, Long Eaton.
Pet. Jan 10. Reg. Weller. Sur, Jan. 29