Cole, Q.C. and Gibbons for the plaintiffs showed cause. Prentice, Q.C, and Green supported the rule. Rule absolute. Saturday, June 1. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (apps.) v. Nuisance not injurious to health-Nuisances Re- with full power, liberty, and authority, to get the Dowdeswell, Q. C. (with Shar) argued for the plaintiff. Bosanquet for the defendants. The COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), considered that by this indenture of lease the owners in fee granted the absolute right to the minerals, and that the plaintiff's remedy for the loss of the support of his land and buildings was restricted to that provided by the lessee's covenants in the lease. Judgment for defendants. Herschell, Q.C. (with Hughes), for the respondent, contended that the Act applied to all private premises which were kept so as to be a nui sance. The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Lush and Hannen, the Act. MILDMAY AND OTHERS (apps.) . THE PARISH OF Rateable occupation-Rifle butts-Temporary use Denman, Q.C. (with F. M. White) argued for Thesiger for the respondents. The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Lush and Hannen, Judgment for appellants. Monday, June 3. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. May 28 and 29. DE MATTOS v. SAUNDERS. Insurance-Action by indorsee of bills of lad and policy-Set-off of debt due from insurer. SPECIAL CASE. Plaintiff had shipped a cargo of salt for India, and gave bills for payment of twothirds of the freight. The cargo, plus the freight thus prepaid, was worth about £1900. Plaintiff then insured the cargo and freight for £1700. Plaintiff then arranged with Ogle and Co. for an advance of £1446 4s. 2d. against the bill of lading and policy of insurance, and agreed to consign the cargo to the Calcutta correspondents of Messrs. Ogle and Co. The bill of lading and policy were accordingly assigned to Messrs. Ogle and Co., who procured certain others to advance the money to plaintiff on security of the bill of lading, and policy.. The ship in which the salt had been shipped was shortly afterwards wrecked under circumstances that, in the opinion of the court, entitled plaintiff to recover on the policy of insurance, as for a partial loss. Subsequently to the loss plaintiff executed a deed of inspectorship in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1861, and was at the time indebted to the defendant (who had underwritten the policy of insurance). The defendant assented to the deed in question, and had received two dividends under it. The sum of £1446 4s. 2d. had not been repaid to Messrs. Ogle and Co., and this action was brought on the policy in the name of the plaintiff by and on account of Messrs. Ogle and Co., in whose hands the bills of lading and policy of insurance still were. Butt, Q.C. (Chas. Russell, Q.C. with him) for the plaintiff. Sir G. Honyman, Q.C. for the defendant, contended that defendant was entitled to set-off the plaintiff's debt to him. The COURT (Willes and Keating, JJ.) held that Thurday, May 30. KITSON V. HARDWICK. Liquidation-Sale of debt to person whose affairs under liquidation-Action by him for goods sold and delivered-Departure-Policy of bankrupt laws. DEMURRER to a replication. Declaration for goods sold and delivered. Plea that before action plaintiff's affairs were in liqui lation, and that an assignee had been duly appointed thereunder. Replication that before action the assignes had sold the debt to plaintiff. Demurrer and joinder in demurr er. Cave (Nathan with him), in support of the demurrer, contended that the sale alleged in the replication was void as against the policy of the bankrupt laws; also that the replication was a departure from the declaration, as plaintiff was suing as vendor of the goods, whereas in his replication he showed a claim (if any) not as vendor of the goods, but as purchaser of the debt from the assignee. A. L. Smith, for the plaintiff, was not called upon. Attorneys for defendant, Jacobs, North, and VARLEY v. COPPARD. WULFF v. JAY. Liability of surety-Discharge by creditor's laches -Equitable plea. THIS action was tried before Quain, J., in Middlesex, when a verdict of £320 was found for the plaintiffs, leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter the verdict for him or to reduce the damages. The action was brought upon a deed by which the defendant covenanted to pay the plaintiffs £75 on the 25th Aug. 1871, and annually, until £300 should be paid and satisfied, with interest upon the unpaid part thereof; the plaintiffs averred that no part of the said sum or interest thereon had been paid by the defendant. The defendant pleaded, amongst other pleas, upon equitable grounds, that by the deed recited in the declaration, which was made on the 25th Aug. 1870, between one George Burns of the first part, the defendant of the second part, and the plaintiffs of the third part, the plant and stock-in-trade of the said George Burns, and his partner, Edward Pim, were assigned to the plaintiffs as security for £300 advanced by the plaintiffs to the said Burns and Pim, and defendant was a mere surety for the repayment of the money advanced; that after the execution of the deed on the 5th Aug. 1871, a petition for Libel-Slander - Criminal information - Privi- Covenant not to assign the demised premisesliquidation of the affairs of the said Burns and Pim was filed in the Bankruptcy Court; that a trustee was appointed, and that the plant and stock-in-trade of the said Burns and Pim, being the same as assigned to the plaintiffs, were sold by auction; of all which the plaintiffs had due notice, and were well aware, but the defendant knew nothing and received no notice. And the defendant said that the plaintiff's did not, as it was their duty to do, take possession of the said plant and stock in trade, and that by their conduct the plaintiffs had exonerated him from the covenants entered into by him in the deed recited in the declaration. It was proved that the said deed was never registered as a bill of sale, that the plant and stock in trade assigned by the deed realised at the auction exactly £300, and that the plaintiffs might have registered the deed, and thereby obtained all they were owed but the small amount of interest then due, viz., £7 2s. 6d. A rule had been obtained by the defendant in pursuAnce of the leave reserved on the ground of the sufficiency of the equitable plea above mentioned an answer to the action. leged occasion. Seymour, Q. C. (with whom were Cave and Finlason) moved for a rule for a criminal infor mation against Lord Vernon for a speech made by him at quarter sessions reflecting on the applicant, and also for a criminal information against the proprietor of the Derby Mercury, for publishing the speech without publishing the reply of Mr. Bateman. It appeared that the appellant had published pamphlets reflecting severely on the conduct of the magistrates, and that Lord Vernon had made a motion for a committee of inquiry, and in support of that motion had made counter statements reflecting severely on the conduct of the applicant, and in doing so had used some strong expressions charging malice, and a bad motive. The COURT were of opinion that the occasion was privileged, and there was not sufficient excess to justify the granting of a criminal information, and were also of opinion that the facts did not justify the granting of a criminal information against the proprietor of the Derby Mercury. Attorneys for applicant, Steele and Co. Assignment by one joint tenant of his interest to the other joint tenant-Breach. DEMURRER to a declaration alleging that plaintiff demised to A. with a covenant in the lease that A. should not assign the demised premises without leave of lessor; that A., with leave, assigned to plaintiff and one Death, and that subsequently plaintiff had demised his interest to Death, without leave of the lessor. Gibbons, in support of the demurrer, conceding that this was a covenant that ran with the land, argued that the covenant being not to assign the demised premises must be taken strictly and thus meant the whole of the demised premises, and that it appeared on the face of the declaration that defendant had only demised part of the demised premises. H. T. Atkinson, for plaintiff, supported the declaration. The COURT (Willes and Keating, JJ.), held the declaration good. Judgment for the plaintiff. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (apps.) v. BLOWER (resp.) Railway company-Common carrier-Live animal -Loss through inherent vice of animal. THIS was an appeal from the decision of the County Court judge for Wiltshire. The action had been brought by the respondent to recover the value of a bullock which had been delivered to the appellants to carry to Northampton, and which had broken out of the truck in which it was being conveyed, and thus met with injuries which resulted in its death. It was proved as a fact that the bullock was properly stowed away in a truck to the satisfaction of the respondent, and that the truck was a proper track for the conveyance of cattle. On these facts the County Court judge decided in favour of the plaintiff (the respondent). Hence this appeal. Manisty, Q.C. (Digby with him) for the appel lants. Bosanquet for the respondent. The COURT (Willes and Keating, JJ.) held that the railway company were common carriers of bullocks as of other things, but that, in the case of the carriage of live animals, the carrier was exempt from liability (beyond the ordinary exemptions enjoyed by common carriers, in the case of the act of God or of the Queen's enemies) for logs or accident arising from the inherent vice of the animal carried. That the findings in the case excluded the notion of negligence on the part of the company, and hence the only conclusion was that the loss must be attributed to the inherent vice of the animal-a loss for which the company was not responsible. Judgment for the appellants. Attorneys for the appellants, Young, Maples, Teesdale, and Co. Attorneys for the respondent, R. J. Child. THE REPUBLIC OF PERU v. WEGUELIN AND OTHERS. Order for inspection-Costs of the order-Common Law Procedure Act, 1854. IN this case Martin B. had made the usual order for the plaintiffs to inspect documents in the defendant's possession, viz., "on payment of 6s. 8d. costs, and 4d. per folio for the copy," &c. defendants having ineffectually endeavoured to get Hannen J. to vary this order by making the costs costs in the cause, obtained a rule nisi to that effect. R. G. Williams showed cause The Watkin Williams and Cohen in support of the rule. The COURT (Bovill, C.J., Byles and Brett, JJ.) held that the rule under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 6, that the party asking inspection should pay the costs of it, applied under the 50th section of the Common Law Procedure Act 1854; that the plaintiffs had not taken this case out of such general rule, and that therefore the Court could not interfere with the discretion exercised by Hannen J. Rule discharged. Attorney for plaintifs, Gregory and Co. Attorney for defendants, Sharp. Friday, May 31. SECOND DIVISION OF THE COURT. Injury to land-Compensation-Lands Clauses Public user. SPECIAL case. The plaintiff carried on business as a carman and builder's contractor, adjoining a drawdock in Whitefriars, leading into the river Thames. The plaintiff held the premises under a lease for eighty years from Michaelmas 1854, and had been in the habit of constantly using the drawdock owing to the proximity of his premises to it, although he had no right more than any one of the public to such but in consequence user, of the proximity his premises were rendered of more value either to sell or occupy. By the Thames Embankment Act authorising an embankment on the north shore of the River Thames, the dock was permanently stopped up. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the loss of the dock, and insisted that his premises were injuriously affected. Hon. A. Thesiger (Prentice, Q.C. with him) argued for the plaintiff. Hawkins, Q.C. (Philbrick with him) for the defendant. The COURT (Willes and Keating, JJ.) were of opinion that the plaintiff's interest in the lands and premises was injuriously affected within the meaning of the 68th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), so as to entitle him to compensation, and, therefore, judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff. Attorney for the plaintiff, Edmonds. Attorney for the defendant, The Solicitor to the Metropolitan Board of Works. June 1 and 3. of the Tribunal of Commerce, but fetched such a SEYMOUR v. LONDON AND PROVINCIAL MARINE small amount that a sum of £663 2s. 10d. was still INSURANCE COMPANY. Marine policy-Contraband of war. SPECIAL case. One Bello de Minières had made a contract with the Confederate States of America, during the American war, by which the States agreed to take all goods of a certain character be imported, and pay for them in cotton at which Bello de Minières might procure to the rate of 100 per cent. on the invoice prices. Bello de Minières accordingly invited persons goods in question, among to send out the which was some artillery harness, and other goods of military or quasi military chashould be shipped on board the ship Peterhoff, It was arranged that these goods which was then to proceed to Matamoras, a Mexican town, separated from the State of Texas only by the river Rio Grande-Texas being one of the racter. a Confederate States. navigable as far as Matamoras, so that it was arranged that the goods should be put out of the Peterhoff into lighters, and thus taken up the river to Matamoras. The various shippers of the goods had made no contract binding on them to furnish these goods to the Confederate States, but expressly reserved to themselves the right to dispose of them at Matamoras to anyone they might think proper. The goods were accordingly shipped for Matamoras, and the bills of lading and other papers made out for that place. Plaintiff was an insurance broker, and effected a policy on the cargo against war risks, in which there was a warranty that no part of it was contraband of war. The Peterhoff was captured by an American cruiser, taken into port and condemned. This was an action on the policy. The Rio Grande is not Field, Q.C. (Murphy with him) for the plaintiff. Sir G. Honyman (J. C. Mathew with him) for the defendants, contended that there was a breach of the warranty. unsatisfied. Such a loss by the law of Bremen is treated as a general average loss, the German code being there in force. for the plaintiff. Sir George Honyman, Q. C. (M'Leod with him) Watkin Williams (Cohen with him) for the defendant. Cur. adv. vult. JJ.), were of opinion that, taking into consideraThe COURT (Bovill, C. J., Keating and Brett, tion' the clause "to pay general average as per foreign statement if so made up," and that the loss was a general average loss according to the law of Bremen, that the underwriter was liable to pay the sum of £663 23. 10d.; and also where the general average is fairly settled by a foreign average stater, the assured may recover from the insured, although the apportionment may be different from the English law. Judgment for plaintiff. Attorney for plaintiff, J. H. Cotterill. Attorneys for defendant, M'Leod and Watney. SECOND DIVISION OF THE COURT. Metropolitan Building Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122)— Erection of arches - Fees to surveyor-New buildings. CASE stated for the opinion of the court under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. The appellant, who was the district surveyor for the Southern Division of the City of London, summoned the respondent for the non-payment of the sum of £25 10s. which he claimed for the surveying of fifty-one arches which had been erected by the respondent, a builder, under a public highway in Old Newgate Market. The Metropolitan Buildings Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122) provides that the building of all arches shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the statute, and that all buildings shall be executed under the supervision of the district surveyor, who shall be paid by fees, but one fee shall be chargeable only in respect of any work done upon any building in pursuance of the Act; it was contended that the words in the second schedule to the Act, "for inspecting the arches or stone floors over or under public ways, 10s.," meant that the appellant was only entitled to one sum of 10s. for inspecting any number of arches. The magistrate was of opinion that the respondent was right, and that only one sum of 10s. was payable and determined usage-against the larger claim of the appellant. Geary for the appellant. The COURT (Willes, Keating, and Brett, JJ.) held that the goods were really bound for Texas, so that there was a breach of the warranty, which disentitled plaintiff to recover. Judgment for defendants. Attorneys for plaintiff, Phelps and Sidgwick. Attorneys for defendants, Druce, Sons, and Jackson. SECOND DIVISION OF THE COURT. STARR v. TRINDER. Unstamped weight-Mark worn out by -5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 63, s. 21. CASE stated under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. Information under 5 & 6 Will. 4 c. 63, s. 21, for unlawfully using a weight not having been stamped according to the provisions of the statute. The inspector of weights and measures proved that the weight had no visible stamp, but was correct in other respects. On behalf of the appellant it was proved that the appellant's son took four weights, including the one in question, to be stamped, and that the inspector stamped them himself some years ago. The justices decided that, as the weight bore no appearance of a stamp, the appellant must be convicted, and they accordingly fined him 1s. and costs. E. Baldock Stone for the appellant. No one appeared for the justices. The COURT (Willes and Keating, JJ.) were of opinion that the conviction could not stand; that there was strong evidence for the magistrates to come to the conclusion that the weight had been formerly stamped, which was enough to satisfy the statute; and that the information must be quashed, if the justices in petty sessions, who could alone draw inferences of fact, believed the evidence that the weight had been formerly stamped. Judgment for the appellant. Attorney for the appellant, P. Wood, for Sprott, Tunbridge Wells. HARRIS v. SCARAMANGA. General average-Foreign adjustment-Bottomry bond-Law of Bremen. ACTION on a policy of insurance on a cargo of rye by the ship Bella Leandra, on a voyage from Taganrog to Bremen. The policy contained a clause, to pay general average as per foreign statement, if so made up." The ship in the course of her voyage, having encountered severe weather, was disabled, and the master for the purpose of continuing the voyage executed a bottomry bond on the ship, freight, and cargo, at Constantinople. A further bottomry bond was executed at Malta for repairs incurred there. The captain, on the arrival of the ship at Bremen, was unable to pay the bonds, and payment was accordingly demanded from the consignces of the cargo. Upon a statement of average drawn up at Bremen, the proportion falling on the cargo was paid by the underwriters, but the proportion falling on the ship and freight was not paid by the captain. The ship was accordingly sold by auction by order Grove Chapman for the respondent. The COURT (Willes and Keating) were of opi nion that the surveyor was entitled to one fee of 10s. for each building, and that it was for the magistrate to say whether the arches in question were one or several buildings; they therefore gave judgment for the respondent, and directed the case to be remitted to the arbitrator to state whether the arches were one building or to how many buildings the fee of 10s. was to be attri buted. Judgment for the respondent. Attorneys for appellant, Chapman, Clark, and Turner. Attorney for respondent, Charles Thomas. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. May 28 and 29. WATKINS v. DAVIES. Breach of promise of marriage-Plaintiff's evi dence-Corroboration of by defendant's lettersWhat a sufficient under 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 2Nonsuit. THIS was an action for breach of promise of mar riage, which was tried before Channell, B. at the last assizes for Denbighshire, at Ruthin, when the learned Baron directed a nonsuit to be entered, on the ground that there was no corroborative evidence of the promise sufficient to satisfy the The facts, as they appeared at the trial, were that requirements of sect. 2 of the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68. the defendant was a farmer in North Wales and a widower with grown up daughters, and that the plaintiff was a young woman about the age of the defendant's eldest daughter, who had been a domestic servant at the defendant's, and with his daughters did all the household work of the farm. According to the evidence of the plaintiff the defendant became attached to and paid his addresses to her unknown to his daughters, and made her a promise of marriage. The daughters, however, eventually becoming aware of, and much disapproving of their father's partiality for the plaintiff, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the former should go into another situation near Liverpool, and remain away until the defendant's daughters were married off, when she was to return to the defendant's. The only corroborative evidence offered by the plaintiff was a series of letters written to her by the defendant during the time she was in England, all of which were admitted to have been written by the defendant; but they were signed by him in a feigned name, sometimes as "your affectionate uncle, Evan Edwards," and at other times as "your affectionate sister Mary." They were posted at offices at a distance from the defendant's house. It was proved also that the plaintiff's letters in answer were, by the plaintiff's desire, addressed to the plaintif at places other than his own house, and that on several occasions he had gone a considerable distance to meet the postman and obtain these letters. In one of his letters he had asked the plaintiff to obtain her mistress's leave to meet him near Liverpool, and to tell her mistress that it was her sister she was going to meet, and he had on one or two occasions met her and spent many hours in her company near Liverpool. There was nothing amounting to a promise to be found in any of the defendant's letters. The 2nd section of the statute 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, which enables a plaintiff in an action for breach of promise to give evidence, provides that the plaintiff shall not recover a verdict "unless his or her testimony shall be corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise." A rule having been obtained by M. Lloyd, pursuant to leave reserved, to set aside the nonsuit if the court should be of opinion that there was any corroborative evidence in support of the promise, McIntyre, Q. C., for the defendant, showed cause against it, and contended there was not a tittle of corroboration of any promise in the letters, and that the learned Baron was right in not leaving the case to the jury. M. Lloyd, for the plaintiff, contra, urged that the correspondence did corroborate her testimony, and showed it to be no fiction. It was a secret correspondence, carried on under forged names and addresses, and the defendant's whole conduct was inconsistent with any relation between him and the plaintiff but that of her lover; and he must be assumed to be an honest lover, and not a seducer. The matter was now placed on the same footing as evidence in bastardy cases, in which the Court of Queen's Bench had held any proof of familiarity to be sufficient corroboration. Cur. adv. vult. May 29.-The COURT (Kelly, C. B., and Martin, Bramwell, and Channell, BB.) were of opinion unanimously that the learned Baron was right in nonsuiting the plaintiff, being clearly of opinion that the letters in question did not amount to a sufficient corroboration of the alleged promise, and the plaintiff's rule therefore would be discharged. Rule discharged. Attorney for the plaintiff, H. H. Poole, 58, Bartholomew-lane, E.C., agent for John Hughes, Corwen. Attorney for the defendant, W. Hammond, 16, Furnival's-inn, E.C. Thursday, May 30. BALDWIN (an Infant by his Next Friend) v. CASELLA. Mischievous dog-Action for bite of-ScienterKnowledge of coachman having care of the dog the knowledge of the master-Direction to jury. THIS was an action by the plaintiff an infant of six years of age, by his father and next friend, to recover compensation in damages, for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, through his having been bitten by a dog belonging to the defendant. The plaint was originally brought in the County Court, bat, under the provisions of the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 103, the defendant objecting to the action being tried in the County Court, and having deposited a sum of money in lieu of security for costs, all proceedings in the County Court were stayed, and the plaintiff then declared in this court against the defendant for that he "wrongfully kept a dog of a fierce and mischievous nature, and the said dog, whilst the defendant kept the same, attacked and bit the plaintiff, whereby," &c. The plea was not guilty. At the trial before Cleasby, B., at the Middlesex sittings after last Easter term, on the 24th May, the facts appeared to be that the plaintiff, a child of six years old, lived with his father, who was a gentleman's servant, in a mews at Kensington, and the defendant was a gentleman Living in the neighbourhood and having stables in the same mews in which the plaintiff and his father lived. The defendant was the owner of a dog, an ordinary carriage dog, which he had kept at his stables in the mews, under the care of his coachman, for some four or five years. On the day in question the 17th July, the plaintiff was playing in the mews, when the dog attacked him and bit him in the face. There was conflicting evidence as to whether or not the child was teasing the dog with a small stick at the time that he was bitten, but it was proved that, on the previous 24th June, the dog had jumped up at the child, and either with his teeth or with his paws had scratched the child's face, and that the child had said that when met the dog again he would beat him. Upon that first occasion the child's father complained the defendant's coachman of the dog's con he duct, and requested him to inform his master, the defendant, of it, but it appeared that the coachman did not do so, nor was it proved that before the bite of the 17th July the defendant had any knowledge of his own of the dog's ever having attacked or bitten anybody. There was also a conflict of evidence as to the dog's disposition. The witnesses for the plaintiff asserting that he was of a fierce and mischievous temper, and had on other previous occasions attacked and bitten several persons; whilst the defendant's witnesses stated that the dog was quiet and good tempered, and that the children were used to play with him. The defendant's counsel, at the trial, contended that there was no evidence of scienter on the part of the defendant. Plaintiff's connsel cited and relied upon Styles v. The Cardiff Steam Navigation Company (10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 844; 33 L. J. 310, Q. B.), and Gladman v. Johnson (15 L. T. Rep. N. S.476; 36 L. J. 153, C. P.) The learned baron summed up the case to the jury as follows:-"The defendant must knowingly have kept a mischievous dog. I think if the dog is left in the care and charge of a person, and is kept on the premises under such circumstances as that such person would know if the dog were a mischievous dog, such knowledge affects the master. If the coachman had sole charge of the dog and knew it to be a dangerous dog, he ought to have told the master." The jury found for the plaintiff, with £10 damages, and now Pope, Q.C. (with him was F. O. Crump) for the defendant, moved for a rule for a new trial on misdirection in the learned judge's telling the jury that knowledge of the coachman of the dog's disposition was sufficient to fix the master with scienter, and he cited and commented on the cases above mentioned. The COURT (Martin, Bramwell, and Channell, BB.), were unanimously of opinion that the direc tion of the learned baron was right. The dog was kept by defendant at his stables under the care of his coachman, who knew he was a ferocious dog, and that knowledge of the coachman was the knowledge of the master. The rule, therefore, Rule refused. would be refused. Attorney for the defendant, W. A. Crump, 10, Philpot-lane, E.C. Friday, May 31. GARLAND V. JACOMB. Bill of exchange purporting to have been drawn and indorsed by a firm of attorneys, but indorsed by one only-Action against acceptor by an innocent indorsee-Plea denying indorsement. A RULE had been obtained in this case by the defendant, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict found for him should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, pursuant to leave reserved, upon the ground that the endorsement of the names of Williamson and Blackburn, being Blackburn's alone, was not, under the circumstances, an endorsement to the plaintiff. This was an action by the indorsee of a bill of exchange purporting to have been drawn and indorsed to the plaintiff by Williamson and Blackburn, and accepted by the defendant; to which the defendant pleaded that the said Williamson and Blackburn did not indorse the same. From the facts it appeared that Williamson and Blackburn were attorneys in partnership, there being no provision in their partnership deed giving either of them any power to draw, accept, or indorse bills of exchange, and that Blackburn obtained from the defendant her acceptance to the bill of exchange in question without any consideration, and which bill he drew in the names of his firm, and indorsed it (unknown to Williamson) in the same way to the plaintiff, who was an innocent holder. At the trial a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill of exchange (75), with leave to the defendant to move for the present rule. Kemplay, Q.C. and Cave showed cause and contended that notwithstanding a firm of attorneys have no power to endorse bills of exchange in the partnership name, yet the defendant in accept ing such a bill, held out to the world that it was a valid bill, and that she would pay it, and that in fact she was estopped from denying that the bill was lawfully indorsed. They cited Drayton v. Dale (2 B. & C. 293); Pitt v. Chappelor (8 Mee. & W. 616); Robinson v. Yarrow (7 Taunt. 455); Halifax v. Lyle (3 Ex. 446); Cooper v. Mayer (10 B. & C. 468). D. Seymour, Q.C. and Waddy in support of the rule, were not called upon. The COURT (Martin, Bramwell, and Channell, BB.), were of opinion that the rule should be made absolute to enter a nonsuit; for that as Blackburn had no power to make a valid endorsement of the bill of exchange, the plea of the defendant was made out. Rule absolute. Attorney for the plaintiff, Clarke, Leeds. Attorneys for the defendant, Chauntler, Crouch, and Spencer, London. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Monday, June 3. (Before the CHIEF JUDGE.) Ex parte SOMERVILLE; Re FITZE. Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 7-The court has no power to dismiss a debtor's summons on a question of disputed accounts if there be an actually subsisting debt. THIS was an appeal from a decision of the regis trar, sitting as judge, of the County Court of Kent, held at Tonbridge, dismissing a debtor's summons. of exchange, amounting together to the sum of In May 1871, Fitze, the debtor, accepted two bills £240, drawn by S. B. Somerville, the consideration being an immediate cash advance made by Somerville to the debtor. In the month of August following Mr. Somerville brought an action in the Court of Exchequer upon the two bills, and obtained a verdict for £270, debt and costs. The verville against the debtor, not in issue in the action, dict and certain other claims made by Mr. Somerwere referred to arbitration, and by the awards of the arbitrator, delivered in March 1872, the plaintiff, S. B. Somerville, was declared to be entitled to £246 in respect of his action on the bills of exchange, and to about £150 in respect of his other claims. Later in March the debtor filed a bill in Chancery against Mr. Somerville with regard to an estate which Somerville had agreed to sell to him for a sum of £4120, for a specific performance of the agreement, for damages, and an injunction to restrain an action of ejectment commenced by Somerville against the debtor in respect of this estate; the debtor also in his bill denied his liability upon the bills of exchange, which were partly the subject of the award before mentioned. An arrangement was come to in this suit, that the purchase money should be brought into court by the debtor, and that all further proceedings in the action of ejectment by Somerville should be stayed. On the 27th March last Mr. Somerville took out a debtor's summons against the debtor for the amount awarded by the arbitrator in respect of the two bills of exchange, and upon the hearing the registrar of the County Conrt dismissed the summons upon the grounds, first, that the award might be set aside; and, secondly, that the debtor claimed a set off in respect of the matters contained in the Chancery suit. It was against this decision that the present appeal was brought. Bagley appeared for the apppellant.-He contended that the summons could only be dismissed upon the ground that there was no subsisting debt of £50 or upwards. He referred to the Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 7; Ex parte Ellis (L. Rep. 6 Ch. 602); Ee parte Mauritz (L. Rep. 5 Ch. 779); Ex parte Wier (L. Rep. 7 Ch. 319). The judgment in the common law action was not signed prematurely; the award was made on the 14th and judgment signed on the 19th March: (O'Toole v. Pott, 26 L. J. 88, Q. B.) De Gex, Q.C. and Westlake appeared for the respondent.-The debtor having paid the whole of the purchase money into court, and claiming a set-off against the appellant in respect of the amounts claimed by him upon the two bills of exchange, it could not be arbitrarily determined by the County Court that he was indebted to Somerville as alleged, and that therefore the summons was rightly dismissed. The CHIEF JUDGE said that he could not enter into a consideration of the matters at issue in the Chancery suit; it would be wholly irrelevant to the present inquiry to do so. The question to be determined was solely upon the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and the wholesome enactments contained in it were not to be frittered away and lost. [His Lordship read the 7th section of the Act.] Upon this section his Lordship was of opinion, independently of the cases cited on behalf of the appellant, and by which he felt himself bound, that this summons ought not to have been dismissed on the mere assertion of the debtor that the result of the Chancery proceedings would be a set-off sufficient to cancel this alleged debt of £216. With the judgment of the common law court before him, the registrar should not have gone into the questions involved in the Chancery suit. The proceedings taken by the debtor were altogether wrong, and he would have to pay the costs in the court below. The order of the Registrar would be discharged. Solicitors for the appellant, S. B. Somerville. Solicitors for the respondent, Burnard and Norris; agents for Stone, Wall, and Simpson, Tunbridge Wells. WE regret to learn that Mr. Matthew Davenport Hill, Q.C., formerly Recorder of Birmingham and Commissioner of the Bristol District Court of Bankruptcy, is very seriously ill at his residence, Heath-house, Stapleton, near Bristol. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE, of the United States, has expressed his intention of visiting Europe, in order to take part in the forthcoming International Prison Congress. four. LEGISLATION AND JURIS- HOUSE OF LORDS. THE IRISH LAND ACT. PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, said that its object was to improve the condition and amend the discipline of the county prisons of Ireland. The Bill was a very moderate one, and any modifications it might require could be best discussed in committee. The Bill was read a second time. CLERKS OF THE PEACE. been committed, notwithstanding the competence HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE GALWAY ELECTION INQUIRY. Lord LIFFORD, in moving for a select committee on the working of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act 1870, said his object was not to Mr. MITCHELL HENRY said that as the proceedattack the principles of the Act, but to point outings on the Galway Election Petition had extended undeniable cases of hardship and injustice in over many days, and the evidence taken was very carrying it out. He complained that the Civil voluminous, and as the judgment of Mr. Justice Bill judges decided these claims without appeal, Keogh extended over nine hours, and contained and cited, among other instances, a tenant claim language of an unusual nature (Cries of "Order!") in Donegal where the judge gave forty-two years' he hoped that, in justice to that learned judge, the purchase of the rent when the fee-simple was earliest opportunity would be afforded to the usually only twenty-one years' purchase. The country of knowing what it was that Mr. Justice motion was opposed by Lord KIMBERLEY and Keogh really did say in giving his judgment. He, the LORD CHANCELLOR, on the ground that in- therefore, wished to put to the First Lord of the quiry would be premature, and that some of the Treasury the question of which he had given cases were still subjudice. It was supported by notice, viz., whether the attention of the GovernLord DE Ros and Lord CLANRICARDE.--Lord ment had been directed to the judgment of Mr. CAIRNS approved the suggestion that two judges Justice Keogh in the Galway Election petition should go round the country to hear cases under case, and whether means would be taken to place the Act, whereby uniformity of decision would be upon the table of the House the shorthand writer's secured. Upon a division, the motion was carried report of the exact terms and language of that against the Government by a majority of twenty- judgment, without the delay that must ensue if the production of the document in question was deferred until the voluminous evidence taken in the course of the inquiry was ready for publication. tion of the Government has been called to the Mr. GLADSTONE-Certainly, the attenreport of the important judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Keogh. But I may observe that neither we nor the public are as yet in what may be termed authentic possession of that julgment. (Hear, hear.) I have been told I cannot say I know it, but I have been told-that Mr. Justice Keogh does not at all desire to be bound by the precise expressions of the report, and thinks that they are not in some respects likely to convey his meaning in the fullest and most satisfactory manner. But. as far as we are concerned, I do not think we have any title to interfere as an Executive Government in this matter. (Hear, hear.) The statute, I apprehend, makes full provision for dealing with it. Under the statute it will be the duty of Mr. Justice Keogh, I believe, to make a report to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr. Justice Keogh has reserved a case for the Court of Common Pleas; and I believe it is not until Thursday, or some later day, that it can be dealt with, and until that has been dealt with I do not believe that in the regular course of proceedings any further step will be taken. When that case has been disposed of, I believe that Mr. Justice Keogh will make his report to the Speaker, and that the evidence will be forwarded to the Speaker. That will also be the time for our procuring-and it will be more consonant with precedent a copy of his judgment. And I think in a case of this kind, where matters of very considerable consequence may be involved, it is especially requisite that we should allow the whole of the proceedings to take their own natural course, particularly as we believe that the provisions of the statute are quite sufficient for bringing the whole matter regularly before the House. In reply to Viscount MIDLETON, the Earl of MORLEY said that the returns relative to clerks of the peace which had been ordered by the House could not be presented, because some of them had not been received. A reminder should be addressed to the defaulters, and the return made up as soon as possible.- -Lord HYLTON moved the third reading of the Metropolis (Kilburn and Harrow) Roads Bill, and said that it furnished an example of what could be effected by good management. The country was deeply indebted to the commissioners who had had charge of these roads. The Earl of MORLEY, on behalf of the Government, endorsed these sentiments. There was no question that the work of the commission, done gratuitously, had been productive of immense advantage to the metropolis, and its services were acknowledged by the Government.- The Bill was read a third time and passed. STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. The LORD-CHANCELLOR said this was one of a series of Bills of which the object was the reduction of the bulk of the Statute Book with reference to repealed and expired statutes. The present Bill disposed of some 400 statutes dating from the year 1800 to the year 1806, and he hoped that in the course of this year another measure extending to 1810 would be prepared in order to enable the Stitute Law Commissioners to carry on the work of the republication of the statutes. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time. The Marquis of SALISBURY remarked that there was an Act to enforce the due observance of the canons and rubric of the Church of England as to the age of persons admitted to the sacred orders of deacon and priest. It was alleged that this Act had been virtually repealed by the Irish Church Act, but on examination he found that although the preamble of the latter Act was directed to remedy a certain abuse which had arisen in Ireland, yet the enacting part, which extended to Great Britain as well as Ireland, declared that from and after the passing of the Act no person should be ordained deacon till he had attained the age of twenty-three years complete, or priest until he had attained the age of twenty-four years complete, and that if any person infringed this enactment his admission to holy orders should be void in law. It was true that by the Act of Uniformity that prohibition already existed in the English StatuteBook, but neither that Act nor any canon of the Church said that orders given to persons under those ages should be void. He apprehended that the charge was a most formidable one, for if orders were void ab initio, the validity of marriages celebrated by, and other acts done by persons holding such orders might be impeached. Therefore he earnestly hoped that before the Bill went into committee the noble and learned lord would turn his attention to this particular Act, and consider whether it ought to be included in the schedule. -The LORD CHANCELLOR was glad the noble marquis had brought this subject under his notice. He wished their Lordships to understand that he was only doing his best with the agents employed to carry these Acts into effect. When it was remembered that the Bill dealt with some 400 statutes, it was not to be wondered at that some error, such as he presumed this to be, should have THE COURT OF CHANCERY BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply in the present state of public business, to say to Colonel French, stated that it was impossible when the Court of Chancery Bill would be again brought forward, but sufficient notice would be given before it was further proceeded with. he approved was that which offered increased facilities for lodgers getting their names placed on the register. Ultimately it was agreed to postpone the committee for three months. DEFAMATION OF PRIVATE CHARACTER BILL. Mr. RAIKES in moving the second reading of this Bill, said at present the penalty for defamation was one year's imprisonment if the libel were true, and two years if it were not true. In both cases the punishment was without hard labour, and his object was to enable the judge to add hard labour to imprisonment. He wished also to incorporate in the Bill the clauses passed some sessions ago for inflicting flogging in cases of robbery with murder and violence, and apply them to cases in which attempts were made to extort money from a woman by a threat to injure her character. He thought the latter crime merited flogging as much as violence did; but if the House were of a different opinon, he would not press that part of the measure. All he asked at present was that the Bill might be read a persons at MIDDLESEX REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL. Mr. G. GREGORY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was identical in all respects with that which he introduced on the same subject last session, and the provisions of which he then explained.- -Mr. M'MAHON opposed the Bill expressing a hope that the hon. and learned gentleman who had charge of the Bill would withdraw of Parliament respecting the transfer of land it, and wait to see the measure which the Govern ment would introduce into that or the other House generally. Mr. R. TORRENS observed that the system of registration in Middlesex was of no use whatever, except, indeed, to increase the costs of CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL. conveyancing. --Mr. BROWN desired to see the Mr. FAWCETT asked the First Lord of the Government bring in a complete measure ex Treasury what were the intentions of the Govern- tending the principle of registration to all ment with regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill; the counties of England.--Mr. LEEMAN said he and further, what Government measures would had been informed upon high authority that the take precedence of it. Mr. GLADSTONE.-At disadvantages which would arise from the abolithe commencement of the Session, when we ob- tion of registration in Middlesex, until something tained the leave of this House to introduce the had been done legislatively in order to deal with Corrupt Practices Bill we did it with a full exthe law of register generally, would be of the pectation of being able to pass that measure into greatest possible mischief to owners of property. law in the present session, and that expectation, and he therefore hoped the hon. and learned I am happy to say, we retain entire. We fully gentleman would withdraw the Bill.-—Mr. look forward to its being passed as one of the POWELL observed that there was an unanimous measures of the year. Beyond that I am not pre-feeling in Yorkshire in favour of the registration pared to go at this moment. Wednesday, June 5. REGISTRATION OF BOROUGH VOTERS BILL. Mr. HENRY MATTHEWS moved the rejection of the Bill. The hon. and learned gentleman objected to the extensive powers which it was proposed should be conferred upon the registrar, and contended that the whole machinery proposed in the Bill was defective, and would fail to work satisfactorily.--Sir CHARLES WINGFIELD seconded the motion for the rejection of the Bill.--Mr. V. HARCOURT defended his Bill, and pointed out the defects of the existing system of registration.-Mr. GOLDNEY opposed the Bill.- Mr. BRISTOWE was convinced that the Bill, if carried, would materially increase the cost of registration to the ratepayers. The only portion of the Bill of which of titles. Mr. DENMAN thought the hon. gentleman who had brought in the Bill must by this time be convinced that it was hopeless to attempt to pass this Bill this session, and therefore he hoped he would withdraw it, leaving the House to wait for a comprehensive measure on the subject being introduced by either the Govern ment or a private member. He moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.- -Col. BERESFORD and Mr. COLLINS opposed the Bill.The ATTORNEY-GENERAL also opposed the Bill, upon the ground that dealt in a crude and unsatisfactory manner with that which was part of a much larger system. Both the amendment and the Bill were withdrawn. QUEEN'S BENCH (IRELAND) PROCEDURE BILL. This Bill was read a second time. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ARBITRATION-THREE ARBITRATORS-AWARD OF ONE-COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT 1864, s. 13. The arbitration clauses of the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, do not apply where the reference is to more than two arbitrators: (Gumm v. Hallett, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 468. V.C. B.) WILL CONSTRUCTION - ANNUITIES PERPETUAL OR FOR A LIFE.-A testator, after be queathing certain life annuities left a sum of £800 per annum, out of the proceeds of the profit of a certain estate, to be appropriated by his trustees to the maintenance and education of the children - of Mrs. H., provided they took his name. If any of the children died the mother was to have the benefit of the deceased child's share. The trustees were empowered to forfeit the share of any of the children who got into debt, and to divide such share among the other children; they were also empowered to sell the estate and invest the proceeds for the benefit of the children, and should the profits of the estate not reach £800 annually, then the testator charged all the residue of his property to make up that sum. Held, that the innuity was perpetual, and that the children were entitled to such a sum as would produce an innuity of £800: (Hicks v. Ross, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 470. V.C. B.) BAILOR AND BAILEE-MASTER AND SERVANT NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF CABOWNER[MPLIED WARRANTY. -The relation between a cab owner and cab driver is that of bailor and pailee, and not that of master and servant The plaintiff was the driver of the defendant's cab, for which he paid 18s. a day, and kept the remainder of what he earned for his own benefit. The plainiff could do what he liked with the cab during the lay, and was not under the control of the owner. In an action by the driver against the cab owner or an injury sustained by reason of his being 3upplied with a vicious and unmanageable horse, which upset the cab, it was proved that the defenlant supplied the plaintiff with a horse which had never been driven in a Hansom cab before, and was fresh from the country. Held (dissentiente Wills, J.), that the relation existing between the parties was that of bailor and bailee, and not that of master and servant. Also, per Byles, J., that even if the relation of master and servant existed, here was such personal interference and superincendence of the master in the supply of the horse, and therefore, such evidence of personal negligence oy sending out the servant with an untried vicious horse, the master having the means of knowing the horse's character, and the servant having no such means, as to render the defendant liable: (Fowler v. Lock, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 476. C. P.) BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE DENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF-CORROBORATIONPROOF OF FACTS PRIOR TO THE ENGAGEMENT32 & 33 VICT. c. 68, s. 2.—By the 2nd section of the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, which enables a plaintiff in an action for breach of promise of marriage to give evidence, it is provided that the plaintiff shall not a verdict "unless his her testimony shall be corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such a promise:" Held, that such corroborative evidence need not be of facts subsequent to the engagement, but may consist of facts prior to it: (Wilcox v. Gotfrey, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 481. Ex.) recover REPORTS OF SALES. Thursday, May 30. Evi or By Messrs. VENTOM, BULL, and COOPER, at the Mart. Maida hill, No. 17, Bromfield-street, term 70 years-sold for £380. Southwark, Falstaff-yard, leasehold stabling, term 40 yearssold for £175. By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern. Stoke Newington Church street, house with shop, term 48 years-sold for £700. No. 19, Church-street, term 47 years-sold for £580. No. 50, adjoining-sold for £190. Monday, June 3. By Messrs. CHADWICK AND SONS, at Garraway's Tavern Forest hill. An enclosure of land, containing 58. Or. 15p., and two plots of land 40 feet by 201 feet-sold for £2200, Covent-garden.-No. 11, Maiden-lane, term 45 years-sold for £500. Portman-square.-No. 6, Adam-street East, term 43 yearssold for £330. Lambeth.-No. 19, Belvedere-road, term 21 years-sold for £210 Old Ford.-No. 36, Libra-road, freehold-sold for £210. Hackney.-No. 7, Cambridge-terrace, term 75 years-sold for By Messrs. DRIVER, at the Mart. Berks, near Newbury. The Crookham Estate of 839a. 2r. 21p., together with the inanor of Crookham-sold for £7,000. The Waterside Farm, containing 588. 2r. 33p.-sold for £1000. Middlesex. Cricklewood House and 4a. Ir. Op., freeholdsold for £ GOO. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. The Gatwick Estate, Surrey, near the Hor.ey Station. comprising mansion and 525a. Sr. 7p., freehold-sold for £30,100. Egham, near. A plot of land containing 5a. 2r. 30p.-sold for £1100. A ditto, containing 8a. 3r. 26p.-sold for £2000. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. CALVER (Jas. C.), Kenninghall, Norfolk, gentleman. June 25; L. Lane, solicitor, Kenninghall. July 16; M.R., at eleven o'clock. COOPER Samuel T.), Esq., Bulwell Hall, Nottingham. July 6; Wells and Co., solicitors, Bradford. July 9; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. HASKOLL (Rev. Jos.), The Rectory, East Barkwith, near Wragby, Lincoln, clerk. July: Chapman and Co., solicitors, 21, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. July 22; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. LLOYD (Eusebius A.), Ventnor. Isle of Wight, gentleman. MOUSLEY (Rev. Wm., Ashby Hall, Cold Ashby, Northamp ton. July 1; Wm. Willoughby, solicitor, Daventry. July 9; M. R., at twelve o'clock. OSBORN (Mark), Lower Trinity-street, Birmingham, and Vine Cottage, Green-lanes, Smallheath, near Birmingham, fender manufacturer. July 10; J. S. Canning, solicitor, 41, Waterloo-street, Birmingham. July 20; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. STEPHENSON (William), Womersley, York, butcher and farmer. June 2: William J. Walker, solicitor, Pontefract. July 19; M. R., at eleven o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. AITKEN (John), Manchester, merchant. Aug. 1; Hyde and Coppock, solicitors, 17, Warren-street, Stockport. ANDREW (Rebecca), 6, Grosvenor terrace, Stony-Knolls, Broughton, near Manchester. Nov. 26; Withington and Co., solicitors, 21, Brown-street, Manchester. ANDREWS (Eliza), 37, Gloucester gardens, Bishop's-road, Paddington, Middlesex. July 20; G. E. Thomas, solicitor, 31, St. James's-square, Pall-mall, S. W. ASKELL (Wm.), Goat and Compasses, 66, Fitzroy-street. Fitzroy-square, Middlesex, licensed victualler. June 29; G. Walker, solicitor, 52, Fitzroy-street, Fitzroy-square. BAKER (Geo.), High-hill Ferry, Upper Clapton, Middlesex, dyer. July 29; R. Miller, solicitor, 6, Copthall-court, E.C. BAKER (Thos.), Leyton, Essex. July 1; Jacobs and Co., solicitors, 20, Budge-row, Cannon street, E.C. BALLARD (Geo.), Esq., 48. Addison-road, Kensington, Middlesex. July 20; W. J. Foster, solicitor, 44, Chancerylane, W.C. BARNS (Ann), Sherbourne-hotel, Sherbourne-road, Balsall Heath, Worcester. July 1; D. Dimbleby, solicitor, 15, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. BATE Amelia), Rodney-street, Liverpool. July 1; Laces and Co., solicitors, 1, Union-court, Liverpool. BERNARD (Ralph M., 5, Victoria-square, Clixton, Bristol, doctor. Aug. 1; Wadham and Chilton, solicitors, 3, Sinall-street, Bristol. BROOKMAN (Jas.), Laburnum-cottage, Widcombe Hill, Bath. Ang. 10; Stone and Co., solicitors, 13, Queensquare, Bath. BURDIN (Sophia), 8, Palace-street, Pimlico, Middlesex. CROPTON John, Bishopwearmouth, shipowner. July 1; DIMMOCK (Edward M.), Esq., Prospect House, Matfield Brenchley, Kent. July 1; C. Sawbridge, solicitor, 126, Wood-street, Cheapside, E.C. FILKIN (Richard), M.D., 5, Ormond-terrace, Richmond, Surrey. July 4; Danes and Sons, solicitors, 9, Angelcourt, Throgmorton-street. FLAVEL (Emma), Loughborough, Leicester. Oct. 1; W. J. FORD (Jos.), Fenchurch-street, E.C., hairdresser. July 1; Borough. Berwick-on-Tweed Canterbury Carmarthen Chichester Colchester Deal Dover Faversham Portsmouth Rochester Wigan.. GILLOW (Ellen), Minster, Isle of Thanet, Kent. Sept 1: M. and O. Daniel, solicitors, Ramsgate. GILLOW (Herbert W.), Minster, Isle of Thanet, Kent, gentleman. Sept. 1; M. and O. Daniel, solicitors. Effingham-street, Ramsgate. GODDARD (Geo.), 21, Walworth-road, Surrey, chemist. June 30; F. Kent, solicitor, 35A, Cannon-street, E.C. GODDARD (Jas.), Esq., 6, New England-villas, Old Shoreham-road, Brighton. Aug. 1; Cunliffe and Beaumont, solicitors, 43, Chancery-lane, W.C. GURNEY (Thos.), Esq., 21, Carlton-villas, Edgware-road, Middlesex. July 31; Routh and Stacey, solicitors, 14, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, W.C. HASTINGS (Lady Louisa E.), 7, Seymour-street, Portmansquare, Middlesex. July 1; Brindrett and Co., solicitors, 10, King's Bench-walk, Temple, E.C. HAWKES (Robert J.), 4, Waterloo-plate, Kilburn, Middlesex, and Tavistock Hotel, Covent-garden, W.C., hotel keeper. July 20; Johnson and Jackson, solicitors, 55, Chancerylane, W.C. HEATH (Thos.), Esq., Myton Grange, near Warwick. Sept. 1; R. C. Heath, solicitor, Warwick. HENLEY (John), Lend, Surrey, farmer. Aug. 1; T. A. Curtis, solicitor, Guildford, Surrey. Jox (Benjamin), Airethwaite, Kendal, gentleman. July 16: Thomson and Graham, solicitors, Kendal. JARMAN (Capt. John T.). Sydney, New South Wales, master mariner. June 30; F. Kent, solicitor, 35, Cannonstreet. KENNEDY (Thos., 162, Pentonville-road, Middlesex, musical instrument maker. July 15; Carlisle and Ordell, solicitors. 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn. W.C. LAKE (Captain Willoughby, R.N., Presbury, near Cheltenham, July 29; Wynne and Son, solicitors, 46, Lincoln-innfields, W.C. LAMB Mary, Frodsham, Chester, Aug. 1; Davies and Brook, solicitors, Warrington. LIEBERT (Bernhard), Esq., Victoria-park, Manchester, July 31; Cunliffe and Leaf, solicitors, 56, Brown-street. Manchester. LODGE (Edmund), Esq., J.P., Keen Ground, Hawkshead, MAYNE (Lieut.-Col. Taylor L.), The Castle, Dover, Kent. farmer. Luton, Beds. NEALE (Thos.), Norwich, gentleman. June 24; Blake and Co., solicitors, Norwich, OLDROYD (Adam), Huddersfield, grocer and tea dealer. July 31; Robinson and Johnson, solicitors, John Williamstreet, Huddersfield. PARKINSON (John), Esq., 66, Lincoln's inn fields, W.C., and Gray's-inn, W.C. July 1; Farrer and Co., solicitors, 66, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. PARKINSON (John), Esq., Jun., Bellevue-villas, Holloway, Middlesex. July 1; Farrer and Co., solicitors, 66, Lincoln's-inn-fields. W.C. PAYN (John B.). Birmingham, Grove House, Handsworth, Staffordshire, maltster. July 16; Allcock and Milward, solicitors, 5, Union-street, Birmingham. PEYTON (Sir Algernon W.), Bart., Swift's House, near Bicester. July 1: Garrard and James, solicitors, 13, Suffolk-street, Pall-mall East, S.W. PICKERSGILL (Richard), Walkerfield, near Staindrop, Dur. ham, gentleman. July 1; R. H, Bourne, solicitor, Staindrop. PITTAR (Arthur). Esq., 41, Hollywood-road, West Brompton, Middlesex. June 30; Jas, and John Hopgood, solicitors, 17A, Whitehall-place, S. W. POOLE (Wm.), 24, Wells-mews, Wells-street, Oxford-street. man. SARD (John), 226, Camberwell New-road, Surrey, gentleJuly 8; W. H. Haycock, solicitor, 4, Collegehill, E.C. SEARLE (Frank F.), 5, St. Mary's-yard, Exeter, surgeon. July 1; A. F. Luke, solicitor, 16, Bedtord-circus, Exeter. SEWELL (Edw. J.), 27, Offord-road, Barnsbury, Middlesex, pianoforte manufacturer. June 30; F. Kent, solicitor, 35A, Cannon-street, E.C. SHAW Geo.), Grange House. Barlow, Derby, farmer. June 99; W. T. Jones, solicitor, High street, Chesterfield. SMALLMAN (Richard), 209, Piccadilly, W. civil engineer. July 17; Mackenzie and Co., solicitors, 1, Crown-court, Old Broad-street, E.C. SOLOMON (Julia), 14, Broad-street, Golden-square, Middlesex. July 1; Jacobs and Co., 20, Budge-row, Cannonstreet, E.C. TAPRELL (Ellen), 7, Westbourne-crescent, Hyde-park, W. July 15; Surr and Gribble, solicitors, 12, Abchurch-lane, E.C. TERRY Richard, Esq., Popham-lane, Southampton. July 8; G. Cottman, solicitor, South-fields, Wandsworth, S.W. THOMAS (Nathaniel), 22, Gilbert-street, Oxford-street, W. upholsterer. July 10; R. G. Marsden, solicitors, 326, Oxford-street, Regent-circus, W. THURMAN (Jas. G.), Carlisle, bookseller and publisher. TRETHEWY (Henry, Grampound, Cornwall, gentleman. |