BANKRUPTCY LAW. LEEDS COUNTY COURT. (Before T. H. MARSHALL, Esq., Judge.) Re JOSEPH BIRDSAL, (a Bankrupt). Rights of uncertificated bankrupt. IN this case, which involved points of considerable importance, and had been adjourned for judgment, a App. 21, &c.) Lord Eldon (in Ex parte Bourne, 2 Gl. & J.) said that whatever a court of law might say about the rights of the creditors under the first commission, a court of equity would support a second commission to the extent that it would not permit the creditors under the first to take what they could not take, without injustice to the creditors under the second, whom they had permitted to deal with the bankrupt as if he had his certificate, and that the second creditors should have priority over the first as to His HONOUR said:-This is an application by the bankrupt's subsequently-acquired property. the Registrar of this court, as official assignee of Troughton v. Getley (2 Amb.), and Tucker v. HerJoseph Birdsal, of Castleford, an uncertificated naman (4 De G. M. & G.), and other cases are bankrupt, under a petition in 1864, to have authorities to the same effect. The result of the £3 6s. 9d. recovered by the bankrupt in an action authorities, so far as I am aware, seems to me this in the Pontefract County Court against one that the subsequently-acquired property of an Smith, paid over to him. Mr. Bond appeared for undischarged bankrupt does not belong as the official assignee, and claims this debt for the matter of course to his assignees, where claimed bankrupt's creditors, on the ground that an un- by other creditors, or even by the bankrupt, but certificated bankrupt can claim to hold no pro- must be got at now through a court of bankperty whatever against his assignees, for which ruptcy. In accordance with this principle the he cited many authorities; and undoubtedly the 54th section of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 is property which passes to the assignees of an uncer- framed, which only allows the debts of an untificated bankrupt under that word, as defined in discharged bankrupt to be enforced against him, the Bankrupt Acts, if taken in the most unlimited subject to the rights of any subsequent creditors, sense, would include everything in the world and with the sanction of the court, and to such which a man at any time can by possibility pos- extent only as the court shall direct. And this sess, not only his realised property, or accumuwas the law under the Insolvent Debtors' Acts lated savings, but his stock-in-trade goods in his (see 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 87); but in the case shop-whether paid for or not the most trifling before this court it will be said that the official debt owing to him, the cash in his till, his house- assignee's claim is resisted, not by creditors, but hold furniture, the bed on which he lies, and the by the bankrupt himself, but surely a bankrupt, clothes he wears; for all these are as much his though undischarged, has a right to claim the property as his realised capital. If they may be protection of the Court of Bankruptcy against any seized by his assignees at any future period of his oppressive or unjust conduct on the part of his life, without his being able to obtain any redress creditors. Suppose he could show that his assig in the Court of Bankruptcy, then his condition is nees had seized his last shilling, and had left him indeed one of the most hopeless and abject wholly destitute, would not a court of bankruptcy poverty, worse, in fact, than that of any felon or grant him relief? I do not say that anything outlaw. He must live and keep his family, and of this kind has been shown, or is to be inferred contract fresh debts and liabilities, for which the in the case before me. On the contrary, the law leaves him responsible, whilst it would take official assignee, without, I presume, any knowfrom him the possibility of discharging them, and ledge of the bankrupt's circumstances, has claimed the means of obtaining a livelihood, except by his this debt because, having been informed of it by personal labour. I cannot think that the rights the debtor, it was his duty to do so. What the of creditors of an uncertificated bankrupt have bankrupt's circumstances are I do not know. He ever been enforced to this extent in this country; has not stated them, or been required to state certainly I have never known this attempted to them. The official assignee, in his affidavit, says be done in the course of my long experience as a he is informed that there are other debts owing commissioner of bankrupts in the country. The which may be claimed for his creditors. If so, he cases referred to by Mr. Bond undoubtedly estacan at any time be called before this court and be blish the general principle that an uncertificated made to account for his property, debts owing to bankrupt can acquire no property as against his him, and the profits of his trade, &c. I do assignees, although he may sue for and recover not think it worth while that this should be debts unless they interfere. But these were deci- done for a debt of £3, the only sum at presions, it will be observed, in courts of law, on the sent claimed by the official assignee. And when I legal rights of creditors, and leave open the ques- find that the bankrupt had been carrying on his tion whether the bankrupt or his subsequent trade in the same villiage for six years since his creditors are not entitled to relief in a court of bankruptcy, without molestation from his then equity or bankruptcy. Such relief was alluded to creditors, and I have had no evidence that any one by the judges in Neas v. Adamson (3 B. & A), of them has claimed this debt of £3, which came which was decided on mere legal grounds. The to the official assignee's knowledge solely from An uncertificated bankrupt's information given by the party owing it, and assignees, after having received £100 from a because he was sued for it, I come to the confriend of the bankrupt, in consideration that the clusion that the bankrupt ought to be allowed to bankrupt's furniture should be left in his posses-retain it. The order, therefore, will be for the case was this: Registrar of the Pontefract County Court to pay LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. LAW SOCIETY. Easter Term, 1872. AT the examination of candidates for admission sion, afterwards seized and sold it; and it was 1. Henry Pendrill Charles, who served his clerkship to Mr. David Randall, of Neath; and Messrs. Vizard, Crowder, and Anstie, of London. 2. Thomas Harwood, who served his clerkship 3. Harry Bevir, who served his clerkship to To Mr. Charles, the prize of the Honorable Society of Clifford's-Inn. To Mr. Harwood, Mr. Bevir, Mr. Fulford, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Peach, prizes of the Incorpor. ated Law Society. The examiners also certify that the following candidates, under the age of 26, whose names are placed in alphabetical order, passed examinations which entitle them to commendation:- Alfred Edward Robbett, who served his clerk. ship to Mr. William Hunt, of Bristol; and Messrs. Merediths, Roberts, and Mills, of London; Isidore James Carter, who served his clerkship to Mr. Frederic Roger Carter, of Torquay; John Erring. ton, who served his clerkship to Mr. Joseph Bendle, of Carlisle; and Messrs. Carter and Bell, of London; Richard Cresswell Loader, who served his clerkship to Mr. Walter Taylor; and Mr. John Yarde, both of London; Henry Ormiston Lyus, who served his clerkship to Mr. George Lyus, of Diss; and Mr. James Crowdy, of London; William Postlethwaite, who served his clerkship to Mr. Thos. Postlethwaite, of Ulverston; and Messrs. Allens and Carter, of London: Charles Tanner Kingdon Roberts, who served his clerkship to Mr. Edward Roberts, of Exeter; and Messrs. Torr, Janeway, Tagart, and Janeway, of London; Sydney Charles Scott, who served his clerkship to Mr. William James Scott, of London. The council have accordingly awarded them certificates of merit. The number of candidates examined in this term was 122; of these, 102 passed, and 20 were postponed. By order of the Council, E. W. WILLIAMSON, Secretary. Law Society's Hall, Chancery-lane, London. EXAMINATION in British India. ple; Francis Robert Morrison, Esq., student of JAS. ANDERSON, Chairman, pro tem. Council Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, GENERAL EXAMINATION Of Students of the Inns of Court, held at Lincoln's- TRINITY TERM, 1872. Frederick George Carey, Esq., student of the Inner Temple, an exhibition of twenty-five guineas per annum, to continue for a period of three years. Edward Denny Fairfield, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; James Keith Grosjean, Esq., stu dent of the Middle Temple; William Henry Rattigan, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn, certifi cates of honour of the first class. James Anderson, Esq., student of Lincoln's. inn; John Winfield Bonsor, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn; Harry Armstrong Brett, Esq student of the Middle Temple; John Worre Carrington, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn; Emery James Churcher, Esq., student of Lincoln's inn Richard Henry Cole, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Thomas Conlan, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Charles Arthur Duncan, Es, student of Lincoln's-inn; Henry James Duggal, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; John Dillon, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn; Thomas Edward Fairfax, Esq., student of the Middle Temple Robert Fischer, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn: John Donohoe Fitzgerald, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Arthur John Flaxman, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Charles James Fleming, Esq., student of Gray's-inn; Marischal Keith Frith, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Henry Spencer Berkeley Hardtman, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; William Hardy, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Timothy Nathaniel Hilbery, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn; Peter Quin Keegan, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn; John Taylor Lingen, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; John MacDonell, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Henry Francis Makins, Esq., student of the Middle Temple: Francis Robert Morrison, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; James O'Kinealy, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn; William Edwin Ormsby, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; John William Owsley, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; William Peregrine Propert, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Robert Purvis, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; James Hermann de Ricci, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; William Benet Rickman, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Patrick Ryan, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Henry Rawlins Ripon Schooles, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Joseph James Smith, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Francis Willis Taylor, Esq., student of the Inner Temple; Augustus William Wollaston, Esq., student of the Middle Temple; Hugo Joseph Young, Esq., student of the Inner Temple, certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination. By order of the Council, Council Chamber, Lincoln's-inn, CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. NOTE.-This Department of the Law TIMES being open to free discuss on on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or stateinents contained in it. THE LAW EXAMINATIONS.-Permit me to correct a mistake into which your correspondent "W. H. W." has fallen with regard to the resolu tion passed at the recent Law Students' Societies' Congress concerning the law examinations. "W. H. W." speaks of the resolution with disapprobation, and characterises it as one "for increasing the difficulties of the law examinations." His words, however, are apt to mislead, for the sole necessary examination, the standard of which is proposed to be raised, is the preliminary examination in general knowledge. I say the sole "necessary" examination, for another part of the resolution suggests "that every articled clerk should be afforded an opportunity to pass an examination in constitutional law and general jurisprudence." These words treat the proposed additional legal subjects as purely optional, and, if carried into effect, will, I apprehend, merely place them by the side of the present non-essential subjects of bankruptcy and criminal law. In any cases the resolutions will not, if its suggestions be adopted, render either of the two other examinations one whit more formidable than at present to any candidates save those who voluntarily take up the extra subjects. Perhaps, however, the rather loosely-worded letter of "W. H. W." was intended to express his disapproval of the suggestion to deprive the examination in general knowledge of that strictly elementary character which it has hitherto borne; I assume, also, that he is not in favour of the proposal to introduce into the Intermediate and Final Examiuations, or either of them, two additional though optional subjects. I refrain from offering any defence of the resolutions passed by the representatives of the various law students' societies. Altogether, the views of the Congress would scarcely seem to be in accord with those entertained by "W. H. W." He is consequently forced to the conclusion that the Congress was by no means representative," and that each society represented or misrepresented thereat must have elected its delegates "irrespective of their opinions." I leave your readers to form their own judgment as to the probability of this conjecture, and the justice of the remarks which "W. H. W." founds upon it. J. H. F. THE LAW STUDents' Congress.-At p. 92 of your last number I am reported to have said at the congress that "each law student should be left to go into a solicitor's office how and for what time his prudence dictated." The report does so far state the truth, but it is not the whole truth; and therefore, as my opinion is likely to meet with much opposition, and the official report is not yet published, I trust you will allow me a little space for explanation. My contention is that the whole system of articles is unwise. The object of the Legislature in requiring them was, no doubt, that thereby every aspirant to the post of solicitor Would be compelled to acquire practical know ledge. But that this is a delusion is, I think, very clear. If the articled clerk be lazy, it is in vain that he spends five years running in and out of an attorney's office. If, on the other hand, he be wise and industrious, he may, and indeed will, in a far shorter period, acquire the requisite practical knowledge. Apprenticeships," says Bentham, as a necessary qualification for practising, are of no use among any class of mercenary lawyers." All that the State can do in this matter, and therefore all that it ought to attempt -if, indeed, it should interfere at all-is to see that no man call himself a solicitor without show. ing-through the test of an examination-such knowledge as renders him competent to discharge the duties of his profession. These laissez faire views will, I fear, shock some of your readers in these days, when our Government is expected to do everything, from teaching men what is truth, down to providing them with work when trade is dull, and bed and board when they are lazy. Nevertheless, I am what Professor Huxley is pleased to term an "administrative nihilist," and live in hope that the time may yet come when such views find favour in the eyes of the English nation. Permit me, sir, to add a few words as to your leader on the congress. The writer complains that "nothing of a very practical character appears to have been accomplished." But, may I ask, what of a more practical character we could have done, and what more practical is ever done by any such congress? All that such meetings can do, is to discuss evils and point out remedies, and that, to the best of our poor abilities, we did. The time was not, I submit, entirely, nay, nor even chiefly, devoted to the "condemnation of things as they exist," but mainly to that "invention which your leader says should precede agitation. Whoever will look through the report in your own pages, will find several resolutions, especially those relating to the examinations (page 93), which are of a really practical character, and which afford ample justification against a charge of mere fault-finding agitation. "W. H. W." kindly explains that the congress was by no means representative," but it is difficult to perceive how it could well be much more so. If "W. H. W." will look at page 91 of your journal, he will see that nearly all the law students' societies, and the chief seats of industry in the country, were represented at the congress. If, however, such a body of delegates be not representative, à fortiori, "W. H. W." cannot assume that character when he writes a letter to your journal bearing only his anonymous signature. GEORGE WHALE, jun. Woolwich, 3rd June 1872. NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRACTICE. NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will N.B. None are inserted unless the name and address of the be excluded which go beyond our limits. writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides. Queries. 20. FORECLOSURE DECREE AGAINST AN INFANT.-Will some of your readers kindly inform me on the following point. In a dec ec made against an infant in a foreclosure suit, is a day now given to the infant to show cause against it, and if so how soon after his coming of age. The authorities seem at variance Smith's Eq. Man., 10th edit., p. 304., saying that he has a year and a day Daniell's Ch. Pr., 5th edit, p. 151. says the decres should contain a clause allowing the infant six months, to show cause, and Fisher on Mortgages (2nd edit. p. 1018-1023 appearing to be of opinion that it is unnecessary to give the infant a day to show cause. R. H. 21. SUCCESSION DUTY.-A testator, who died in 1852, by his will, devised his real estate to "his daughter A. B., wife of C. D., for life, remainder to said C. D. in fee." A. B. and C. D. have now sold the real estate. Will any of your corresponden's favour me with his opinion and cases, if pos-ible, on the following point: Does not a succession arise to C. D. on the death of A. B.? and will not the property sold be chargeable with the duty in the hands of the purchaser when such succession arises? and ought not the purchaser now to require the duty to be commuted, or some indemnity given him against such duty? G. P. to his son in consideration of natural love and affection. How must such a conveyance of equity be stamped? Will it require an ad valorem stamp of £2 on the £400, and a deed stamp of 10s. in addition; or will the deed stamp alone be sufficient ? N. C. 26. WILL.-A. B. makes his will, and appoints C. D. and E. F. his executors. The will is duly executed and attested, and A. B. takes away same with him. Some time after A. B. quarrels with C. D., and strikes out his name from the will, substituting for it the name of G. H. This alteration is unknown to both executors, and is not discovered till the death of A. B. The will was never re-executed. Has the alteration any, and what, effect on the will? and, if not, who would be the proper persons to prove such will? References to cases will oblige. A SOLICITOR. Answers. (Q. 1.) MORTGAGE STAMP.-The deed to be stamped appears to be merely a conveyance of the equity of redemption. I do not think it is also any of the followcollateral, additional or substituted security. It is the ing: a transfer of mortgage, release of a mortgage debt, usual and almost invariable practice on a sale of an equity of redemption, for the purchaser taking the estate to covenant with the vendor to pay the mortage debt, and indemnify him against his personal formance of which the estate stands security, but I do liability either in respect of the estate or for the pernot think it is the practice to impress such a conveyance with any other stamp than the conveyance stamp, calcu lated on the amount of the purchase money paid by the purchaser to the vendor, and the mortgage debt covenanted by the purchaser to be paid to the mortgagee. I have stamp only has been impressed. If "C.'s" contention known many such conveyances on which the conveyance be correct, I submit it may be contended that a lease stamp is required in respect of an attornment in a mortgage deed. In the case in question the usual practice appears to have been departed from, and the purchaser covenants with the mortgagor instead of with the vendor, but this I think does not affect the amount of the stamp duty, or bring the deed within any of the terms included under the head "Mortgage" in the schedule to the Stamp Act. I much wish to have the question settled, and with this view I shall be glad if "C." will kindly refer me to some case on the point. A SUBSCRIBER. (Q. 18.) In Walker v. Giles, reported in 18 L. J. Rep. N. S. 323, C. P., it was held that a transfer of mortgage (the same principle would apply in the case of a mortgage) made to a friendly society was not exempt although by its rules such society is empowered to from stamp duty under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, s. 37, invest surplus funds on mortgage. J. R. S. 14. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-In the "Law Digest," vol. 1, p. 124, it is stated, "the Dower Act does not apply to freebench." The case of Smith v. Adams, 5 De G. M. & G. 713, is cited as an authority; and in vol. 5, p. 396, it is stated, citing Marshall v. Smith (34 L. J. 189, Ch.), the Statute of Limitations applies to an action at law for dower. Freebench is merely copy hold dower, claimable by the custom of some manors. See Fitz. Nat. Brev. 155 P.; Steph. Comm. vol. 3, p. 714, note. As by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126, s. 26, actions for dower and freebench are to be commenced by writ of summons. In the Court of Common Pleas, it seems that a plea of the Statute of Limitations under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, to an action for arrears of all dower, would be valid, although I cannot find any case which decides the point. There can be no equitable reason for a distinction between dower and freebench, as to a limitation of time in bringing an action for arrears, the claimant being simply a tenant for life in each case of realty, standing upon the same plan. Before the Statute of Limitations, there was no limitation to a claim for arrears of dower: (see Oliver v. Richardson, 9 Ves. 222.) Consequently freebench seems to have been also not subject to limitation, but the abovementioned statutes have altered the law, as I think, with respect to dower and freebench in favour of the reversioner or remainderman, and custom in such a case is not likely to interfere. C. C. LAW SOCIETIES. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. THE usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, London, on Wednesday last, June 5, Mr. John Smale Torr in the chair. The other directors present were Messrs. Brook, Carter, Hedger, Monckton, Rickman, Smith, and Young (Mr. Eiffe, secretary.) A sum of £105 was granted in donations to the necessitous widows of three deceased members of the association, and a sum of £15 was distributed in smaller grants of assistance to the families of four deceased nonmembers. Fourteen new members were admitted to the association, and other general business was transacted. ARTICLED CLERK'S SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held at Clement's Inn Hail, on Wednesday the 5th June inst., Mr. Dendy in the chair. Mr. Drummond opened the subject for the evening's debate, viz., That “The Electoral Disabilities of Women Removal Bill should not become law." The motion was carried by a majority of five. Messrs. Hanhart and Whale, the delegates of the Society at the late Law Students' Societies Congress held at Birmingham, presented their report, which after some discussion was adopted, and a unanimous vote of thanks was passed to the delegates for their services. ABBOTT, JOHN, merchant, Great Winchester-st; June 13, at two, at the Guildhall Coffee house, Gresham-st. Sol., McDiarmid, Old Jewry-chmbs ANDERSON, GEORGE, corn merchant, Lewes; June 12, at eleven, at the Bear hotel, Lewes. Sol., Hillman, Lewes ARTIS, WILLIAM, cutler, Brighton; June 19, at three, at 34, Old BARFOOT, MARK, woollen draper, Chester; June 14, at three, at office of Sol., Cartwright, Chester BETTS, JOSIAHI, commission agent, Wolverhampton; June 13, at three, at office of Sol., Thurstans, Wolverhampton BIGINORE, WILLIAM THOMAS, warehouseman, Luton; June 10, at eleven, at office of Sol., Scargill, Luton BISHOP, WALTER, out of business, Auckland-rd, Battersea-rise; BRADSHAW, JOSEPH RUTLAND, bootmaker, Tipton; June 11, at eleven, at office of Sol., Travis, Tipton BROUGHTON, HENRY, grocer, Grange-rd, Star-corner, Bermondsey; June 20, at three, at office of Sol, Butcher, Bouverie-st, Fleet-st CARTMELL, ROBERT, butcher, Castlerigg; June 17, at two, at office of Hayton and Simpson, solicitors, Cockermouth. Sol., Ansell, Keswick CHITTENDEN, NATHANIEL WALTER, fibre agent, Pudding-la; June 12, at one, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Bastard, Brabant-ct CLARK, CHARLES SHEW, plumber, Lambourne; June 10, at twelve, at office of Sols., Rickards and Walker, Lincoln's-innfields. Sol., Cave, Newbury CLAY, GEORGE, bootmaker, Manchester; June 17, at four, at office of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester COLLINS, CHARLES, out of business, Great Grimsby; June 13, at three, at Crowther's hotel, Great Grimsby COOK, EDWARD JOANES, stonemason, Steyning; June 19, at twelve DAYMOND, LEWIS, bootmaker, Colaton Raleigh; June 14, at three, at office of T. Andrew, Exeter DIXON, SAMUEL, imber dealer, Wolverhampton; June 14, at two, at office of Sol., Ebsworth, Wednesbury EDWARDS, LOTON, and EDWARDS, SAMUEL TIPPER, brush EVANS, JOHN, victualler, Pembroke-dock; June 13, at five minutes EVERSON, ROBERT, miller, Finborough; June 12, at eleven, at the Angel hotel, Bury St. Edmunds. Sol., Walpole, Bury St. Ed. munds GARDNER, JAMES WILLIAM, painter, Southsea; June 14, at three at the Chamber of Commerce, Cheapside. Sol., Globe, Fareham GARDNER, WILLIAM BROWNING, parliamentary agent, Craig's-ct, Charing-cross, and Upper Gardiner-st; June 12, at three, at offices of Sol., Parkes, Beaufort-bids, strand GOODWIN, CHARLES LEMUEL, and GREEN, GEORGE WILLIAM, joiners, Rock-ferry; June 13, at half-past two, at office of Sols., Messrs. Bremner, Liverpool HARRIS, VALENTINE, Cooper, Leicester; June 14, at twelve at office of Sols., Fowler and Smith, Leicester HARVEY, JOSEPH JAMES NUTT, lace warehouse man, Nottinghani; June 8, at twelve, office of Sol., Heath, Nottingham HIBBITT, CHARLES, painter, Birmingham; June 10, at twelve, at office of Sol., Ladbury, Birmingham HOLMES, ALFRED WILLIAM, plumber, King-st, Hammersmith; June 10, at three, at office of Sol., Marshall, Lincoln's-inn-fields HOPKINS, SAMUEL, sen., horn worker, Bewdley; June 17, at three, at office of Sol., Corbet, Kidderminster HUGHES, CHARLES WILLIAM, pump maker, Birmingham; June 18, at twelve, at office of Sol., Chirm. Birmingham HUMPHREYS, RICHARD, baker, Drayton; June 20, at half-past eleven, at office of Sol., Mallam, Oxford HUZZEY, JOSHUA, grocer, Pembroke dock; June 15, at a quarterpast ten, at the Guildhall, Carmarthen. Sol., Dunn, Pembrokedock HYDE, SAMUEL, iron shearer, Sedgley; June 14. at twelve, at office of Sols., Bolton, Waterhouse, and Bolton, Wolverhampton JONES, WILLIAM, manufacturer of cotton goods, Ballingdon and Sudbury: June 18, at ten, at office of Sol., Cardinall, Sudbury JONES, WILLIAM, grocer, Tabernacle-sq, Finsbury: June 13, at two, at office of Izard and Betts, accountants, Eastcheap. Sol., Foster, King's-rd, Grays-inn KELSEY, JOHN, farmer, Fillongley; June 12, at twelve, at office of S 1s., Woodcocks, Twist, and Son, Coventry LEAVER, FERDINAND, grocer, Wolverhampton; June 12, at two, at office of Sol., Barrow, Wolverhampton LEMON, FREDERICK, fish merchant, Handsworth; June 18, at twelve, at office of Sol., Richardson, Birmingham LILLEY, GEORGE LEWIS, brewer, Greenwich, and Sheerness; June 3, at two, at office of Sols., Messrs. Baker, Cloak-la LOFTS, FREDERIC FULCHER, wine merchant, Charles-st, Grosvenor-sq; June 8, at eleven. at office of Sols., Guscotte, Wadham, and Daw, Essex-st, Strand MASON, HENRY STEVENSON, oilman, Cleveland-st, Fitzroy-sq, NEWTON, HENRY, optician's assistant, Liverpool; June 13, at ORTON, WILLIAM ISAAC, butcher, Birmingham; June 14, at three, at office of Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham ham PHILLIPS, ABRAHAM, silk mercer, Clifton-st, Finsbury; June 10, at twelve, at office of Sol., Ring, Worship st ROBINSON, MARGARET, and ROBINSON, FANNY, dressmaker, Crossgate; June 12, at eleven, at office of Sol, Salkeld, DurROTHWELL, RICHARD, innkeeper, Ludden; June at 12, three, at the Railway hotel, Rochdale. Sol., Ashworth, Rochdale ROWLANDS, CHARLES, grocer, Derri-in-Gelligaer; June 10, at one, at office of Sols., Simons and Plews, Merthyr Tydfil RUSHTON, LUKE, grocer, Whitworth: June 14, at three, at the Wheatsheaf-inn, Rochdale. Sol., Standring, Rochdale RUTTER, THOMAS, victualler, Choppington; June 14, at one, at office of Sol., Garbutt, Newcastle-upon-Tyne SHELTON, CHARLES, grocer, Newport Pagnell; June 12, at three, at the Swan hotel, Newport Pagnell. Sol, Stimson, Bedford SOWERSBY, JOHN, draper, Hounslow; June 17, at twelve, at the Guildhall tavern, Gresham-st. Sol., Clark, Dean's-ct, St. Paul'schurchyard SWATMAN, THOMAS, beerhouse keeper, Wolverhampton; June 12, at three, at office of Sol., Cresswell, Wolverhampton THOMAS, THOMAS, butcher, Birkenhead; June 13, at two, at otice of Sol., Downham, Birkenhead TOOTH, JOHN, plumber and painter, Birmingham; June 14, at twelve, at office of Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham TUCKER, ROGER SQUIER, dealer in fancy goods, Walbrook; June 17, at twelve, at office of Sols., Sole, Turner, and Turner, Aldermanbury VICKERS, WILLIAM, grocer, Brackley Saint Peters; June 14, at ten, at office of Sol., Pellatt, Banbury WEAVER, THOMAS, out of employment, Manchester; June 12, at three, at offices of Sols., Cobbett, Wheeler, and Cobbett, Manchester, WEEDON, GEORGE, barge builder, Rochester; June 15, at eleven, at the Crown hotel, Rochester. So, Keene and Marsland, Lower Thames-st WEITZEL, JOHN HENRY, victualler, Stoke Newington; June 12, at three, at office of Sol., Boydell, South-sq, Gray's-inn WILLIAMS, BENJAMIN, saddler, Rusholme; June 19, at three, at office of Sols, Grundy and Coulson, Manchester WILLIAMS, WILLIAM, bookbinder, Great Newport-st, St. Martin'slane, and Great James-st, Bedford-row; June 8, at three, at office of Sol., Maniere, Gray's-inn-sq WINDER, THOMAS, confectioner, Ashford: June 10, at three, at office of Sols., Hallett, Creery, and Furley, Ashford Gazette June 4. ABBOTT, LUKE, mechanic, Holloway, near Matlock; June 17, at two, at office of Sols., Cobbett, Wheeler, and Cobbett, Manchester ABELS, JOSEPH, army and navy tailor, Regent-st, London, and Durnsford-vilias, Merton-rd, Wandsworth; June 26, at two, at 1, Bank-bags, Wandsworth. Sol., Jones BALME, ALFRED, and CROSSLEY, ARTHUR BENJAMIN, engineers, Halifax; June 14, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Ingram, Halifax BARR, JOSEPH HENRY, Surg on, Manchester; June 17, at three at the Old Half Moon howl, Manchester. Sol, Minor BARTLAM, JOSEPH, jun, builder, Wolverhampton; June 17, at three, at offices of Sol., Stratton, Wolverhampton BRUMMIT, JAMES, plumber, Huddersfield; June 20, at eleven, at office of Sol., Berry, Huddersfield CADL, JAMES, farmer, Much Marcle; June 19, at two, at office of Sol., Jones, Gloucester CALVERT, THOMAS HENRY, cloth manufacturer, Leeds; June 19, at eleven, at the Griffin hotel, Leeds. Sol., Clarke COLEMAN, HENRY STEWARD, builder, Deal; June 15, at eleven, at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew, Deal DAVIES, CALEB, licensed victualler, Neath; June 14, at eleven, at office of Sols., Cuthbertson and Turberville, Neath DEAVILLE, ISAAC, mill furnisher, Stockport, June 18, at eleven, at office of Sols, Messrs. Vaughan, Stockport DEIGHTON, HENRY, piumber, Ventnor; June 20, at twelve, at office of Sole and Turner, Aldermanbury. Sol., Hooper, Newport DIXON, JOHN, newspaper proprietor, Bedford; June 10, at eleven, at 29, Park-st West, Luton. Sol., Shepherd, Luton DIX, WILLIAM THOMAS, tailor Cheltenham; June 17, at twelve, at office of Sol., Putter, Cheltenham ELDRIDGE, GEORGE, tailor, Hastings; June 15, at three, at office of Sol., Langham, Hastings ELKINGTON, DAVID, innkeeper, Grimsbury; June 18, at eleven, at the Elephant and Castle inn, Grimsbury. Sol., Judge, Grimsbury EVERETT, JOSEPH, tailor, Cornwall-rd, Paddington,; June 19, at two, at office of Sol., Venn, New-inn, Strand FARLEY, JOSEPH, licensed victualler, Bicester; June 17, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Beridge, High st, Marylebone FARKAND, JOHN, grocer, Ashton-under-Lyne; June, 20 at three, at office of Sol., Addlesh-w, Manchester FITZPATRICK, JOSEPH HEREMON PERSSE, gentleman, Pelhamcrescent, Brompton; June 17 at three, at offices of Sols. Lawrance, Plews, Boyer, and Baker, Old Jewry-chmbs FOWLER, JO: EPH, cattle dealer, North Somercotes; June 19, at three, at office of Sols., Mason and Falkner, Louth FRYER, WILLIAM HILLARY, woollen merchant, West Hartlepool: June 17, at two, at office of Sols, Hardick, Leeds GOBLE, WILLIAM RICHARD, oil and colourman, High-st, Islington; June 13, at three, at office of Sol., Marshall, Hatton-gdn GOULD, WILLIAM, hotel keeper, Hand-ct, High Holborn; June 7, at twelve, at office of So'.. Sherring, Lincoln's-inn-fields HAFFENDEN, JAMES, no occupation, Wi kham market; June 14, at three, at the London Friendly Institution, Farringdon-st HANCOCK, JOSEPH, shoe manufacturer, Northampton; June 18, at three, at offices of Mr. Becke, Northampton. Sol., Terry, Northampton KARDMAN, RICHARD. cotton manufacturer, Burnley, and RamsDoom; June 21, at three, at office of Sol, Addleshaw, Manchester HEDGE, THOMAS, carman, Barnet; June 22, at twelve, at office of Sol., Boyden, South--q, Gray's-inn HIBELL, JOHN, wire manufacturer, King's Norton; June 14, at three, at office of Sol., Jubues, Birmingham HINTON, WILLIAM JAMES, bus proprietor, Tettenhall; June 19, at one, at office of Sol., Gatis, Wolverhampton HODDY, DANIEL SAMUEL, pig dealer, East Bergholt; June 21, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Pollard, Ipswich HOPWOOD, EDWIN, licensed victualler, Birmingham, and ironCoventry; June 14, at three, at office of Sol,, Parry, Birmingham HOWES, WILLIAM, commission agent, Newcastle-st: June 28, at eleven, at office of Sol., The Cloisters, Midale Temple IBBETSON, WILLIAM, joiner, Rawcliffe, near Goole; June 18, at two, at the Downe Arms, Snaith IVEY, JOHN HEYMAN, stone merchant, Strood: June 7, at two, at the Cathedral hotel, St Paul's-churchyard. Sol., Stephenson, Chatham JACKSON, WILLIAM, house decorator, Eastbourne; June 21, at twelve, at offices of Surr and Gribble, Abchurch-la Sol., Stiff, Eastbourne JAMES, THOMAS, CHARLES, draper, Cable-st, Whitechapel: June 18, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Read and Dangerfield, Milk-st. Sol., Mason, Gresham-st KEEPENCE, CHARLES, builder, Plaistow; June 17, at three, at office of Sol., Marsh, Billiter-st, City LEWIS, JOHN, farmer, Llanllibio: June 23, at two; at the King's Head hotel, Holyhead. Sols., Messrs. Barber, Holyhead LYON, DAVID, schoolmaster, Lewisham; June 19, at three, a office of Sols., Ingle, Cooper, and Holmes, Threadneedle-st MANN, ANNIE, widow, Porteus-rd, Paddington; June 24, at twelve, at Anderton's hotel, Fleet-st. Sol., Pullen, Southampbdgs, Chancery-lane MCMAHON, JOHN, boot dealer, Sheffield; June 14, at four, at office of Sol., Clegg, Sheffleld MURPHY, ANN, whip manufacturer, Birmingham; June 14, at three, at office of Sol, Walter, Birmingham PEMBERTON, ISAAC, jeweller, Morecambe, and Bowness; June 18, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Johnson and Tilly, Lancaster POATE, JOIN, baker, Garibaldi-ter, Blue Anchor-rd; June 6, at eleven, at office of Sol., Greaves, Essex-st, Strand QUAYLE, THOMAS, cabinet maker, Birmingham; June 17, at twelve, at office of Sol., Fallows, Birmingham RICHARDS, ALFRED, grocer, Strood; June 17, at twelve, at office of Sol., Hayward, Rochester SHAW, THOMAS, agent, Park; June 12, at twelve, at office of Sol., Belk, Nottingham SIMS, JOHN, butcher, Outibridge; June 17, four, at office of Sols, Messrs. Binney, Sheffield SMITH, JOSEPH EDMUND, brewer's agent, Manchester; June 21, at three, at offices of Sols., Sutton and Elliott, Manchester STEAD, GEORGE, butcher, Leeds; June 14, at three, at office of Sol., Harle, Leeds SUMMERLINE, JOHN, farmer, Chichely; June 15, at four, at office of Sol., Stimson, Bedford THOMPSON, FRANCIS WILLIAM, fishmonger, Nottingham; June 21, at twelve, at office of Sol., Belk, Nottingham TINNISWOOD. ROBERT, and TINNISWOOD, ROBERT JOHN, carrying on business as the Whitby Soap and Alkali Company. Ellesmere Port; June 15, at two, at office of Sols., Radcliffe, and Layton, Liverpool TONGE, JOHN BROYDEN, builder, Walsall; June 17, at eleven, at office of Sols., Wilkinson and Gillespie, Walsall TURNER, THOMAS, grocer, Shalbourne; June 14, at ten, at the Three Swans hotel, Hungerford. Sol., Cave, Newbury WALKER, GEORGE HENRY, and POTTER, EDWARD, wholesale lace warehouseman, Birmingham; June 13, at twelve, at office of Sol., Rooke, Birmingham WILLIAMS, WILLIAM, boler maker, New Line, near Bacup; June 18, at three, at offices of Messrs. Grundy and Coulson, solicitors, Manchester. Sols., Hargreaves and Knowles, Newchurch in Rossendale WILSON, GEORGE, auctioneer, Albion st, Hyde Park-sq. Padding- WOOD, GEORGE, licensed victualler, Ugborough; June 17, at Dibidends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Armitage, J. commission agent, first, 44d. McNeill, Manchester. -Bastore, W. silk merchant, first, lid. McNeill, ManchesterCochran and Parker, joiners, third, ltd. (and first, second, and third, 28. 3d., 6id., and 14d., on new proofs). McNeill, Man chester.-Coz, S. teacher of music, first, 2d. Harley, Bristol. --Davies, L. of Blacknook, first, id. Harley, Bristol-fre hurst, W. common brewer, first, 8d. McNeill, Manchester. - Drew, J. of Cheltenham, third, 1d. Harley, BristolEdwards, F. A. of Carmarthen, third, 7d. Harley, BristolEvans, Foster, Langton, and Foster, East India merchants, eighth, 41 25-32nds. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Farmer, W. horticultural builder, second, 5s. 5d. (aud 9s. 2d. to new proois). Paget. Basinghall-st -Geronthius, B. ship broker, first, 1s. Harley, Bristol-ffigies, T. W. cheesemonger, first, 18. 6d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Joses, C. sail maker, second, jd. Harley, Bristol.-Jones, D. timber mer chant, second, d. Harley, Bristol.-Judd, J. o: Brynmawr, third, d. Harley, Bristol.-Langley, R. F. scrivener, fifth, 3d. Harley, Bristel.-Matthews and Payne, brush manufacturers, first, 4. cd. Harley, Bristol-Millard, D. clerk, third, 4s. 8d. Paget, Basing hall-st.-Miller, J. shipbuilder, first, 12s. Harley, Bristol.-Ang W. of Cinderford, first, 3s. 43d. Harley, Bristol.-Neethan, F. H. dressing-case maker, first, 14s. 51. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Notes, T. miller, first, 2d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Parker, J. joiner, second, 54d. McNeill, Manchester.-Penny, J. of Merthyr, second, d. Harley, Bristol.-Phillips, J. draper, third, d. Har Bristol.-Phillips, M. wine merchant, second, 6d. McNeill, N chester.-Sutherland, R. draper, first, 5d. Harley, BristolWilliams, E. nay dealer, first, 2s. 6d. Harley, Bristol.-WHEELS J. B. wine merchant, second, d. Harley, Bristol.-Wilms, J. T. wine merchant, 1ourth, id. Harley, Bristol.-Wonham, J. miller, first, Is. 5d., Paget, Basinghall-st. Allen, E. widow first, 68. 8d. At offices of Sols., Messrs. Poole T. Chirgwin, River-st, Truro.-Mandy, H. G. gentleman, first, BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. BIRTHS. BILLINGS.-On the 27th ult., at Florence Villa, The Park, Chel tenham, the wife of Samuel Bruce Billings, Esq., solicitor, ut a daughter. EVANS. On the 28th ult., at Ely, the wife of William John Evans, solicitor, of a daughter MARRIAGES. COOPER-FURLEY.-On the 5th inst., at St. Stephen's Church, Hull, by the Rev. John Scott, and the Ven. Archdeacon Coup John Spyvee Cooper, solicitor, to Alice, eldest daughter Richard Lee Furley, Esq., of Hull. DAWSON-YELVERT N-LAWRENCE.-On the 30th ult., at St. Saviour's, Liverpool, by the Rev. C. D. Winslow, M.A., Roger Yelverton Dawson Yelverton, E-q., barrister-at-law, only of Roger Dawson, Esq., of Brighton, and grandson of the lab Hon, and Rev. Frederick Powys, of Achurch, North Hants, a Mary, only sister of Henry Yelverton, nineteenth Lord Grey de Ruthyn, to Ellen, youngest daghter of the late James Lawrence Esq., J.P. of Park hill, near Liverpool. MITCHELL-HYDE.-On the 4th inst., at St. George's, fanoversquare, Sydney John Mitchell, of Solihull, Warwickshire, tor, to Emmeline, eldest daughter of the late Clarendon Hyde of Loughborough, surgeon. DEATHS. HAYMES.-On the 2nd inst., at his residence, in Leicestershire, aged 62, Arthur Haymes, Esq., of Great Glenn, and also of Leam ingten, solicitor. HOOLE.-On the 28th ult., at Crookes Moor House, Sheffield, age 28, Francis William, solicitor, eldest son of the late Franc Hoole, Esq., of Moor Lodge, Sheffield. In the press, QUESTIONS. A NEW EDITION (THE SEVENTH OF HALLILAY'S EXAMINATION ADIGEST of the EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in Common Law, Conveyancing, and Equity, from the commencement of the Examinations in 1836 to Hilary Term 1872, with ANSWERS; also the Mode of Proceeding, and Directions to be attended to at the Examination. By RICHARD HALLILAY, Esq., Author of The Articled Clerk's Handbook." By GEORGE BADHAM, Esq., Solicitor. [Will be ready on the 24th inst. London: HORACE Cox, 10, Wellington-street, Strand, W.C. sion, and of ladies, was very large, the crowding was not inconvenient, and a most pleasant and agreeable evening was passed. Reunions of this kind are much to be encouraged, as they are calculated to widen the sympathies and promote the social intercourse of those whose study and practice have somewhat of a narrowing tendency. So many unpleasant things have been said about the conduct of the TICHBORNE case by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, that a pleasant incident of the trial should not be left unrecorded. We believe there is now flourishing in the grounds belonging to Sir JOHN TAYLOR COLERIDGE, at Ottery St. Mary, a small plantation of trees transplanted from the Tichborne estates, and christened the Tichborne knoll, in commemoration of the great case. These trees were given to the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the purpose described, by the ladies of the TICHBORNE family, as the only expression of their appreciation of his services which he would receive. This incident proves that whatever the outside world may think as regards the ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S compensation, the family itself felt that no amount of money could adequately represent their sense of his successful devotion to their cause. A VERY bad illustration of the disgraceful abuse of their professional position, of which attorneys are occasionally guilty, is afforded by the case of WILLIAM POPE, which came before the Court of Common Pleas on the 7th inst. He had allowed an unqualified person, named MARTIN, who was a corn-chandler, to carry on business in his name, paying him a per-centage of the profits. This business was carried on in London for two years, whilst POPE himself resided in a different part of England. It is well that some attorneys who have not yet received the attention from the Incorporated Law Society which is their due, should take warning by the observations which fell from the Court: "The Act of Parliament is clear against any solicitor or attorney permitting an unqualified person to use his name and act as his agent in his business under a penalty of being struck off the rolls, and for ever disabled from practising as an attorney for the future." We are sorry that this warning is not unne cessary. Ir always affords us pleasure to record compliments paid to the Profession, and when an honest critic expresses a candid opinion, that, too, ought to be noticed. In his new work on the Science of Jurisprudence, Mr. SHELDON Amos thus speaks of our text-books: "It cannot be said that the current text-books or professional treatises on different parts of the law have hitherto tended much to illuminate or supplement the original authorities. With a very few exceptions (some of them presented within the last few years), these works have been nothing more than dreary and servile compendiums, or rather catalogues, of the original cases on which alone the writers have ventured to rely. Without a definition, without a dominant conception, either of a single part, or it need scarcely be said of the whole of the national system of law, the writers have done what in them lay, by their distracted and skeleton-like productions, to paralyse the originality of the youthful student, and to dull the energies of the most unflinching practitioners." This is, perhaps, harder hitting than is deserved, but there is a great deal of truth in it. THE Hall of the Middle Temple presented a most unusually festive appearance on Wednesday evening last, in commemoration of the fact that about three hundred years ago this fine building was inaugurated by QUEEN ELIZABETH. A very distinguished company honoured the Masters of the Bench with their presence at a sumptuous banquet, whereat all due honour was paid to whatever Middle Temple lawyers can find to be proud of. And it is to be recorded that an ancient custom On all occasions hitherto the Benchers have was departed from. invariably retired to their Parliament Chamber after dinner, leaving the barristers and students to finish their wine by themselves. We should have been disposed to say that this early withdrawal was due to the ill-manners of law students, did we believe that the conduct of some present on Wednesday could be taken as a fair specimen of the behavour of past generations. But whatever be the origin of the custom, we think it may be departed from occasionally with great benefit to the Bench, the Bar, and particularly the students. We trust this innovation may be taken as a sign of the times, and point to general reforms in every branch of the Inn's administration. IN a volume which has just been published by Mr. JonN FINCH, Attorney-at-Law, being a report of the litigation to determine the boundary between the mines in Cornwall, known as West Bassett and South Frances, we have a fair illustration of the operation of our legal system. Mr. FINCH tells us that "The case went before two special juries, went twice before the Court of Queen's Bench on leave reserved at each of the trials, went twice before the Court of Error, consisting of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas and Barons of the Court of Exchequer, was then taken by appeal to the House of Lords, then went before the Vice-Chancellor JAMES in a suit against the representatives of the grantor of the mining setts under which the litigation arose, then went before a Queen's Counsel as arbitrator, and ultimately went again before the Court of Queen's Bench on an application to refer back to the arbitrator his award, on the ground that he had misinterpreted the judgment of the House of Lords, when the Court of Queen's Bench declined to enforce the award by any summary interference, but left the parties to bring an action upon it. The proceedings occupied about twelve years, having been commenced in Dec. 1857, and the last judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench having been pronounced in the month of June 1870." THE newspapers sacrifice a great deal in order to pander to popular curiosity. A practice is becoming common of prefacing reports of trials by what is considered smart descriptive writing a practice which is much to be condemned as tending in effect to prejudice the proceedings. The Daily News offended conspicuously in this respect in the case of the Park-lane murder. Having exhausted the appearance of the court, the writer is necessarily driven to discuss the prisoner in the dock, and, not confining himself to her general demeanour, takes up the role of Mrs. SCOTT-SIDDONS, and finds murderess indicated by the physiognomy. "It is easy," the public and the jury were told in the middle of the trial, "to make physiognomical discoveries when you know, or think you know, their subject's character beforehand; and it would require no great powers of imagination to read murderess in the calm determined face of the powerful woman seated in the dock." An observation of this nature, the case under remark being one in which the defence rested entirely on the possibility of getting rid of the premeditation, and reducing the crime to manslaughter, was calculated to have the worst possible effect, and if this sort of comment is to be tolerated we may as well at once remove all restraints upon the press. How's Case which was decided a few days ago by Vice-Chancellor MALINS, is worth special note from its bearing on that most difficult portion of company law-the legality of transfers for the purpose of getting rid of liability. It appears that Mr. How held fifty shares in the Hercules Insurance Company in June 1866, and he applied for 150 more which were allotted to him. The sums payable on application and allotment, amounting altogether to £300, he bor rowed on his promissory note from the company. Mr. How was placed upon the register and his name continued on it until November 1867 when he transferred the shares to one RABAN a man of straw. The validity of this transfer was the question before the court. Mr. How alleged that he paid the company the £300, and reborrowed it, but in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, even if this was the fact, the payment was only colourable. A proper transfer was executed to RABAN, and his name was placed on the register and the company accepted his promissory note for £300, but inadvertently Mr. How did not receive the note he had given back from the company. The Vice-Chancellor admitted that a bona fide transfer, when no interest was reserved for the transferor was perfectly valid, even though made for the purpose of getting rid of liability on the shares transferred, but still he declared every such case should depend on its own particular circumstances. In this case the directors would not have assented to the transfer had they known RABAN was a pauper, except it were for the purpose of playing into How's hands. Whichever way therefore the case was viewed the transfer was void, and How was placed on the list of contributories, with costs. "A man Our THE Comments which we have recently felt called upon to make with reference to the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor's Court will, we are informed, be entirely borne out by the Report of the Judicature Commission. Very strong representations, it appears, have been put forward by provincial solicitors as to the oppressive action of the process of the Lord Mayor's Court. This action has been thus desbribed by a correspondent: in London gets an order (say from Derby) by letter. He sends the goods, say double the quantity, or five times the quantity (such cases constantly occur). The man in Derby objects. Londoner goes to the Mayor's Court, makes an affidavit that part of the cause of action arose in London, being told that the receipt of the letter in London is part of the cause of action, and thereupon process is issued by leave of the court, i.e., by leave of the registrar, who has all the powers of "the court" (by the Mayor's Court Act), and whose salary increases as the business increases. The process goes down (to Derby) and is served; the defendant goes to his attorney, who writes to his London agent, who informs him in reply that any objection to the jurisdiction in cases under £50 must be by plea (Mayor's Court Act again!) so that the defendant has to plead to the jurisdiction, and, if he succeeds, he gets no costs. It is consequently better to pay and be done with it, and this he does, whereby the plaintiff in London and the Mayor's Court are encouraged to further aggressions. This explains the recent great increase of business in the Court." Our correspondent adds: "But it is to be hoped this robbery will now be put an end to." THE Fortieth Annual Festival of the United Law Clerks' Society was celebrated by a dinner, under the presidency of Sir JOHN COLERIDGE, on Saturday last. The objects of the society have been advocated in our columns on more than one occasion, and we are glad that it received adequate support in the shape of contributions and donations, the aggregate amount announced being upwards of £400. In the course of several speeches the ATTORNEYGENERAL took occasion to refer to the vulgar abuse which is too frequently heaped upon lawyers, and remarked that the princely liberality with which any private tale of sorrow is invariably met by lawyers would put to the blush the bounty of those who are so ready to comment maliciously upon the profits of the law. This is undoubtedly true. The miseries of many failures and misfortunes among lawyers have been alleviated by the ready generosity and sympathy of the successful in the Profession. But for the very reason that calamities so often fall when least expected, the prudence of making provision by belonging to a benefit society is quite clear, and we trust that all societies having such admirable objects as those embraced by the United Law Clerks will continue to flourish and to receive all the support which they deserve. THE RESTRAINT OF LIBELLOUS PUBLICATIONS. THE case of A'Beckett v. Mortimer, which was before the Court of Exchequer on the 8th inst., points to a condition of things in the press which is very undesirable, and which has more than once given our courts of law and equity some trouble. A somewhat analogous application to that of Mr. A'Beckett was made to ViceChancellor Wickens in the case of Mulkern v. Ward (L. Rep. 13 Eq. 619). That was a motion on behalf of a permanent benefit building society, which was also a bank of deposit, for an injunc tion to restrain the publication and sale by the defendants of a book containing alleged libellous paragraphs in reference to the annual balance-sheets and solvency of the society. The ViceChancellor refused the application, and, in doing so, said that, but for the case of Dixon v. Holden (20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 357; L. Rep. 7 Eq. 488), he should have considered it perfectly settled that a court of equity will not restrain by injunction the publication of a libel. His Honour brought forward a formidable array of autho rity, observing, "What was said by Lord Ellenborough in Dubost v. Beresford (2 Camp. 511), that the Lord Chancellor would grant an injunction against the exhibition of a libellous picture,' has been expressly disavowed by Lord Campbell in the case of The Emperor of Austria v. Day (3 De. G. F. & J. 217, 239), and is inconsistent with the dictum of Lord Eldon in the case of Gee v. Pritchard (2 Swab. 414), with that of Lord Langdale in Clark v. Freeman (11 Beav. 112), and with that of Sir L. Shadwell in Martin v. Wright (6 Sim. 297); and lastly, it seems to me inconsistent with what may be clearly discovered to have been Lord Cottenham's opinion in Fleming v. Newton (1 H. of L. Cas. 366), for which opinion, it may be observed, he gave very strong reasons." The Vice-Chancellor regarded the case of Dixon v. Holden as introducing an entirely new rule. In that case a solicitor held out a threat of publishing an advertisement addressed to creditors under the bankruptcy of a firm, which advertisement untruly represented the plaintiff as being a member of that firm. The plaintiff averred that the only object of the defendant in publishing the advertisement was, by insinuations of fraud and complicity, to extort money from the plaintiff; that the effect of its publication would be most prejudicial and injurious to the mercantile reputa tion of the plaintiff and his firm, and would doubtless have the effect of seriously damaging his business. In granting the plaintiff relief by injunction, Vice-Chancellor Malins relied very much upon his own decision, unappealed against, in the case of Springhead Spinning Company v. Riley (L. Rep. 6 Eq. 551; 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 64). That case Vice-Chancellor Wickens spoke of as peculiar, and it undoubtedly was so. The defendants were officers of a trades union, and they gave notice to workmen by means of placards and advertisements that they were not to hire themselves to the plaintiffs pending a dispute between the uuion and the plaintiffs. The bill prayed an injunction to restrain the issuing of the placards and advertisements, alleging that by means thereof the defendants had, in fact, intimidated and prevented workmen from hiring themselves to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs were thereby prevented from continuing their business, and the value of their property was seriously injured and materially diminished. The acts of the defendants were held to amount to a crime, and the court interfered by injunction to restrain the acts because they also tended to the destruction or deterioration of property. The objection to the jurisdiction was there raised on much the same ground that Lord Cottenham refused an injunc tion to restrain the publication of a libel in Fleming v. Newton (1 H. of L. Cas. 363)—namely, in the latter case that to do so would have been to interfere with the jurisdiction conferred by statute upon juries, and in the former case of the trades union that the crime was punishable by the ordinary tribunals. This, however, never can be an answer to proceedings in a court of equity, which as in the case of nuisances and patents, will always exercise its jurisdiction, notwithstanding any remedy which may exist at law. |