APPERLEY, DAVID, woollen cloth manufacturer, Dudbridge; July 4, at half-past ten, at the Corn hall, Stroud. Sol., Davis BACON, WILLIAM, miller, Walsall, and Lichfield; July 8, at eleven, at the George hotel, Walsall. Sols., Messrs. Underhill and Green, Wolverhampton

BARNES, THOMAS, clock maker, Accrington, and Wigan; July 10,
at three, at office of Sol., Whitehead, Accrington
BATE, JOHN, coal merchant, Mumps, in Oldham, and Chadderton;
July 2, at three, at the Mitre hotel, Manchester. Sol., Clark,
Oldham

BROCAS, REGINALD, and NEUMANN, PHILLIP, merchants,
Austin-friars: July 2, at three, at office of Johnstone, Cooper,
Wintle, and Evans, Coleman-st-bldgs, Moorgate-st. Sol., Holmes
Fenchurch-st

BRYAN, JONATHAN, out of business, Gloucester; July 10, at eleven at offices of Sol., Marshall, Cheltenham

BULL, ABRAHAM, butcher, Sutton St. James; July 8, at one, at the White Hart inn, Wisbech. Sol., Gaches, Peterborough BURKE, WILLIAM, general dealer, Nottingham; July 5, at twelve, at office of Sol., Wood, Nottingham

CLAY, GEORGE, bootmaker, Manchester; June 28, at three, at office of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester

DAVIES, JAMES, master mariner, Aberystwith; July 2, at eleven, at office of Sol., Jones, Aberystwith

DAVIS, EBENEZER, bookseller, Cowbridge; July 6, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Rees, Cowbridge

DENSLEY, WILLIAM, grocer, Bridgwater; July 8, at two, at office of Sols., Reed and Cook, Bridgwater

DEWHURST, JOHN, collector of market tolls, Chorley; July 3, at eleven, at office of Sol.. Morris, Chorley DRAKE, WALTER, manufacturer of laths, Nottingham; July 4, at eleven, at office of Sol., Hogg, Nottingham

DYER, EDWIN HENRY, butcher, Maryland-st, Stratford New Town; July 1, at eleven, at office of Sol., Maniere, Gray's-innsquare

ELLIS, WILLIAM. grocer, Great Grimsby; June 28, at twelve, at office of Sols., Grange and Wintringham, Great Grimsby FELLOWS, WILLIAM, schoolmaster, Cannock; July 12, at two, at office of Sol., Ebsworth, Wednesbury

FLETCHER, WILLIAM, joiner, Derby; July 8, at eleven, at office of Sol., Moody, Derby

FOWLER, HENRY, farmer, Nawton; July 4, at eleven, at office of Sol.. Jackson, Malton

FOX, DAVID, skir: manufacturer, Castle ct. Lawrence-la; July 8, at eleven, at the Chamber of Commecce, Cheapside. Sol., Sturt, Ironmonger-la

FRANCIS, DAVID, platelayer, Llangeinor; July 6, at twelve, at office of Sol., Middleton, Bridgend

FROOME, JOSEPH, grocer, Barton Stacey; July 4, at eleven, at office of Sol., Waters, Winchester

GIRRS, WILLIAM, baker, Bridgwater; July 5, at two, at offices of
Sols., Reed and Cook, Bridgwater
GORRINGE, WILLIAM ALEXANDER, ham dealer, Wandsworth-rd,
South Lambeth: July 9, at two, at office of Sol., Wood, Feather-
stone-bldgs, Holborn

HARDMAN, ARCHIBALD, out of business, Bolton: July 4, at three, at office of Sols., Ramwell, Pennington, and Hindle, Bolton HARRIS, FRANCIS JOHN, nurseryman, Bristol: July 2, at twelve, at office of Hancock, Triggs, and Co., accountants, Bristol Sols., Benson and Elletson, Bristol

HAWKINS, HENRY, grocer, Bristol; July 1, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Murley, Bristol

HEMMINGTON, JAMES, (and not Herrington, as printed in Gazette of June 11) coprelite contractor, Cherryhinton; June 24, at eleven, at office of Sol Ellison, Petty Curry

HEYWORTH, DANIEL, cotton manufacturer, Rochdale; July 10, at three, at office of Sols., Molesworth and March, Rochdale HUNTER, GEORGE, spring forger, Sheffield; July 3, at four, at office of Sol., Auty. Sheffield JOHNSON, GEORGE, varnish manufacturer, Aston-juxta-Birmingham; July 2, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham JONES, JAMES, labourer, Manley; July 2, at eleven, at office of Sol., Linaker. Frodsham

JONES, JOHN, fitter, New Swindon; July 2, at eleven, at the Bell hotel, Swindon

KENRICK, CHARLES, architect, Southport; July 6, at eleven, at office of Sol., Walton, Southport

KITCHINER, JOSEPH, brewer, Chesterton; July 5, at eleven, at office of Sol., Foster, Cambridge

MANLEY, WILLIAM, joiner, Manchester: July 9, at three, at office of Nicholson and Milne, accountants, Manchester. Sol, Burton, Manchester

MCBRIDE, WILLIAM, gentleman, Buxton-villa, Leytonstone-rd;
July 4, at three, at office of Sol., Holmes, Eastcheap
MCLEAN, MURDOCH, draper, Cardiff; July 2, at three, at office of
Sol., Morgan, Cardiff

MILBURN, JOSEPH, travelling draper, Little Bolton; July 5, at three, at office of Sol., Murray, Manchester

MORGAN, DAVID, tailor, Carmarthen, and boot dealer, Swansea; July 1, at a quarter-past eleven, at the Shire hall, Carmarthen. Sol, Lloyd, Haverfordwest

MORGAN, JOHN, linen draper, Brecon; June 29, at two, at office of Sol, Bishop, Brecon

MORRITT, THOMAS, boot manufacturer, Blackburn: July 5, at one, at the White Bear hotel, Manchester. Sol., Hall, Blackburn

MORTIMER, BENJAMIN, corn miller, Leeds; July 3, at four, at the Victoria hotel, Leeds. Sols., Messrs. Carr and Cadman, Gomersal, near Leeds

OLIVER, ROBERT, labourer, High Ongar; July 4, at twelve, at office of Sol.. Preston, Mark-la

OSMOND, JOHN, no occupation, Gordon-rd. South Hornsey; July 5, at three, at offices of Mr. Birchall, Southampton-bldgs, Chancery-la. Sol., Harrison, Furnival's-inn, Holborn PARKHOUSE, WILLIAM, furniture broker, Bath; July 5, at two, at 24, Union-st, Bath. Sol., Shrapnell, Bradford PARKIN, DIXON, formerly warehouseman, Bradford, near Manchester: July 8, at three, at office of Sol., Storer, Manchester PERRY, ELLEN, widow, victualler, Clevedon; July 4, at twelve, at office of Sol., Plummer, Bristol PLATTS, ELIZA, victualler, River-row, Brompton: July 6, at eleven, at the Law Institution, Chancery-la. Sol., Hayward, Rochester

POWIS, LITTLETON, brewery clerk, Wolverhampton; July 2, at two, at office of Bridgwater, accountant, Wolverhampton PRANGLEY, ARTHUR, artificial manure manufacturer, Edmundter, Cornwall-rd. Notting-hill; July 1, at two, at office of Sol., Bradley, Mark-la

READ, JOHN, grocer, Old Buckenham; July 4, at eleven, at office of Sels., Messrs. Miller and Stevens, Norwich

REED, JAMES EDWARD, grocer, Camden-rd, Camden Town; July
4, at eleven, at office of Sol., Laundy, Cecil-st, Strand
REEVE, RICHARD, gold refiner, Great Sutton-st, Clerkenwell
June 29, at three, at office of Thwaites, Basinghall-st. Sol.
Dobie, Basinghall-st

RICHARDSON, BERNARD ANDREW, toy dealer, Guildford; July 5,
at two, at offices of Stevens; Guildford
RICKARDS, HENRY JOHN, jobmaster, Leinster-pl, Bayswater;
July 1, at three, at office of Sol., Tripp, Burleigh-st, Strand
RUDMAN, DANIEL, upholsterer. Andover; July 10, at two, at the
White hart hotel, Andover. Sols., Messrs. Footner
RUSSELL, CHARLES HENRY, wine merchant, Fitzroy-rd, Regent's-
pk; July 8, at two, at office of Dubois, accountant. Gresham-
bldgs, Basinghall-st. Sol., Maynard, Clifford's-inn. Fleet-st
SAGGERS, GEORGE GILBERT. grocer, High-st, Whitechapel;
July 2, at two, at office of Sol., Poole, Bartholomew.close
SATCHELL, JOHN, commission agent, Lady Somerset rd, Kentish-
town: July 4, at one, at 15, Pinner's-hall, Old Broad-st. Sol.,
Stacpoole

SEANOR, RICHARD, innkeeper, Hipperholme-cum-Brighouse;
July 10, at three, at office of Sol., Hutchinson, Bradford
SHEATHER, JOHN, wholesale stationer. Upper Thames-st; July
16, at three, at the Cannon-st hotel, Cannon-st. Sol., Easton,
Clifford's-inn
SHORTCLIFFE, WILLIAM, commission agent, and tobacco dealer.
Nottingham; July 1, at three, at offices of Sols., Cranch and
Lowe, Nottingham

SHUCG, HENRY, WILLIAMS, draper, Penzance; July 4, at eleven, at office of Sol.. Trythall, Penzance

SHUTTLEWORTH, JAMES BIMPSON, debt collector and commission agent, Accrington; July 4, at three, at office of Sol., Whitehead, Accrington

SIMCOCK, JAMES, joiner, Tunstall; July 3, at two, at offices of Sol, Hollinshead, Tunstall

SMART. ARTHUR HENRY, grocer's assistant, Middlesborough ; July 2, at eleven, at office of Sol., Draper, Stockton SUTTON, WILLIAM, baker, Streatham-common: June 28, at eleven, at office of Wills, accountant, Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st. Sol., Knight, Wansey-st, Walworth TATCHER, ANN, widow, dress maker. Taunton; July 9, at twelve, at offices of Sols.. Reed and Cook, Taunton TEPPER, DAVID GERSHOx, manager of a printing office, Walthamstow;; July 5, at three, at offices of Sol., Wragg, Great St. Helen's

THOMAS, DAVID, wool manufacturer. Ynismedw, near Swansea; July 2, at twelve, at the Town Hall, Neath. Sol., Morgan, Neath

TRAMPLEASURE, WILLIAM HENRY, hay dealer, Albert Embankment, Lambeth: July 2, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Pitman, Stamford-st, Lambeth

TUCKER, CHARLES, clock maker, Chalk-farm-rd, Haverstockhill; June 28, at two, at offices of Sol., Marshall, Hatton-gdn WADDINGTON, BEN COWPER, tinplate worker, Wellingborough; July 6, at twelve, at office of Sol.. Hevgate, Wellingborough WARBURTON, WILLIAM, boot dealer. Hulme; July 10, at three, at office of Payne, accountant, Manchester. Sol., Simpson, Manchester

WRAGG, JOHN, and WRAGG, JOHN WILLIAM. carpenters, Great Yarmouth; July 1, at twelve, at office of Sol,, Palmer, Great Yarmouth

Gazette, June 25.

ADAMS, ALBERT, shirt manufacturer, Downend: July 6, at twelve at office of Hancock, Triggs, and Co., public accountants, Bristol ARNOLD, JANE, licensed victualler, Kidderminster: July 5, at eleven, at the Clarendon inn, Kidderminster. Sol., Crowther, Kidderminster

BETTS, JOHN, licensed victualler, Litcham: July 9, at twelve, at offlees of Sols, Emerson and Sparrow, Norwich BIDWELL, FREDERICA, widow, Newton Abbot; July 8, at three, at the Bude hotel, Saint Sidwells. Sol., Watts, Newton Abbot

BLACKWELL, JOHN ARMSTRONG, plumber, Little Albany-st, Regent's-park; July 8, at three at office of Sol., May, Golden-sq. St. James

BLISS, EDWIN, wholesale fruit salesman, Birmingham; July 8, at twelve, at office of Sol., Green, Birmingham BOLDER, CHARLES GEORGE, draper, Great Grimsby: Julv 5, at offices of Messrs. Belfrage and Middleton, solicitors, Bedford

row

BOUCHER, FRANK, haulier, Bristol; July 5, at twelve, at office of Sol., Harwood, Bristol

BRADBURY, WILLIAM, commission agent, Wednesfield; July 13, at twelve, at office of Sol.. Barrow, Wolverhampton BROWN, JAMES MANNS, tailor, Dorchester: July 10, at eleven, at office of Sols., Andrews and Pope, Dorchester

BRYAN, JOHN, electro plater, Aston; July 4, at twelve, at office of Mr. Bunkle, accountant, Birmingham. Sol., Cheston, Birmingham

BURNARD, EDWARD, furniture dealer. Mile End-rd; July 3, at two, at offices of Sol., Layton, jun., Gresham-st

CLIFF, JAMES, retail provision merchant, Bradford, and at
Grimsby; also in copartnership with Lumb, under style of
Cliff and Lumb, as wholesale provision merchants; July 4, at
eleven, at the Queen hotel, Bradford. Sol.. Pullan
CLOSE, EDWIN, hosier, Sheffield; July 8, at four, at office of Sols.,
Messrs. Binney, Sheffield

COXON, WILLIAM, pawnbroker, Leeds; July 8, at eleven, at at office of Sol., Pullan, Leeds

COOK, HENRY, out of business, Chippenham; June 27. at two, at the Commercial Rooms, small-st, Bristol. Sol., Beckingham, Bristol

DAWES, FREDERICK, draper, Birmingham; July 9, at three, at office of Sol.. Maher, Biriningham

DRIVER, RICHARD, joiner, Leeds; July 10, at three, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Fawcett and Malcolm. Leeds

Dykes, WILLIAM ASTLEY SHERRATT, surgeon, Kirton; July 3,
at cleven, at office of Sol., Thomas, Boston
ECKLEY, THOMAS GREATREX, and Moss, JOHN EDWIN, whole-
sale milliners, Bristol; July 5, at twelve, at office of Sols.,
Messrs. Murly, Bristol

ELLIS, GEORGE, grocer, Gateshead; July 1, (and not June 20, as
erroneously printedin Gazette of June 11), at twelve, at office of
Sol, Britton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
FEARON, ANN, grocer, Cockermouth; July 9, at two, at office of
Sol., Wicks, Cockermonth

GARDNER, WILLIAM ALFRED. accountant clerk, Edgbaston; July 9, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Hodgson, Birmingham

GIBB, JOHN, wholesale stationer, Basinghall-st, and Downs Parkrd, Dalston; July 8, at eleven, at office of Sol., Foster, Chancerylane

GILLEY, JAMES, furniture broker. Torquay: July 4, at eleven, at offices of Messrs, Harris, Wreford, and Co., public accountants, Exeter. Sol.. Huggins, Exeter

GOODE, ALBERT JAMES, draper, High-st, Notting-hill: July 8, at twelve, at the Warehouseman's Rooms, Gutter-la. Sol., Morris, Grocer's Hall-ct, Poultry

GREEN, FREDERICK, wholesale druggist, Birmingham; July 5, at twelve, at office of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham HARVEY, JOSEPH JAMES NUTT, lace warehouseman, Notting. ham: July 2, at twelve, at office of Sol., Heath, Nottingham HELMORE, MARK, licensed victualler, Exeter: July 9, at cleven, at the Bude Haven hotel, Exeter. Sol.. Floud, Exeter HEWITT, ALFRED HARMER, beer retailer, Pritchard-rd, Hackney-rd: July 2, at ten, at office of Sol., Hope, Serie-st, Lincoln'sinn-fields

HESKETH, WILLIAM PEMBERTON, commission agent. Walmer; July 12, at eleven, at 16, Watling-st, Canterbury. Sol Kingsford, Canterbury

HICKS, RICHARD WILLIAM, tailor, Upper Deal; July 6, at twelve, at the Royal Exchange hotel. Deal. Sol, Drew HOLGATE, OCTAVIUS, taller, Saffron Walden; July 11, at twelve, at offices of Sol, Catlin. Basinghall st

HOLMES, FRANCIS HENRY, ironmonger, Stafford: July 11, at three, at the Swan hotel, Stafford. Sol.. Morgan, Stafford HOOD, JAMES, and HOOD, THOMAS, bleacher, Manchester; July 5, at three, at Ellesmere-chmbs, Manchester. Sols., Ramwell, Pennington, and Hindle, Manchester

HOWAT, ANDREW, mechanic, Farnworth: July 5, at ten, at office of Sols., Potter and Knight, Manchester JACKSON, WILLIAM. painter. Eastbourne: July 2, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Surr and Gribble,: Abchurch-la, London. Sol., Stiff, Eastbourne

JONES, JOHN, accountant, Ferndale; July 5, at eleven, at office of Sol., Beddoe, Aberdare

KEMP, CHARLES EDWARD. builder, Brighton; July 8, at three, at office of Sol., Penfold, Brighton

KENDALL, GEORGE, builder, Bradford, near Manchester: July 5, at three, at office of Sols., Hulton and Lister, Manchester KENWARD, EDWARD, farmer, Winterborne Stoke; July 8, at two, at offices of Messrs. Venning, and Robins, Tokenhouse-yard Lon don. Sols. Cobb and Smith, Salisbury

LANGSTON, WILLIAM, innkeeper, North Hinksey: July 8, at two' at the Railway hotel, Oxford. Sol., Jotcham, Wantage LATHAM, WILLIAM, bootmaker, Birmingham'; July 1, at ten, at office of Sol., East, Birmingham

Suffolk-la

LAWRENCE, CHARLES HILLEARY, clothier, Bermondsey New.rd; July 16, at two, at office of Sols., Nash, Field, and Layton, LUCAS, WILLIAM, tailor, Preston; July 8, at eleven, at office of Sol., Taylor, Preston

LYON, WILLIAM, butcher, Guildford; July 8, at two, at office of Sol, Curtis, Guildford

MARSHALL, THOMAS INGHAM, grocer, Middlesbrough: July 12, at eleven, at office of Braithwaite and Co., Middlesbrough. Sol, Bainbridge, Middlesbrough

MCKENZIE, MARY ANNIE, draper, Sherburn: July 10, at eleven, at offices of Messrs. Hotham and Whiting, Leeds. Sol., Crumble,

York

MERRILLS, WILLIAM, fishmonger, Doncaster; July 12, at two, at offices of Messrs. Shirley and Atkinson, solicitors. Sols., Burdekin, Smith, and Pye-Smith

MITCHELL, JOHN, painter, Swansea; July 10, at one, at office of
Ray, solicitor, Bristol

MUSK, HORATIO CALEB, clerk, Carlisle-ter, Fairfield-rd, Bow;
July 2, at two, at office of Sol., Layton, Gresham-st
NETTLETON, CHARLES, EDWARD, attorney-at-law, Wakefield;
July 4, at eleven, at offices of Messrs. Fernandes and Gill
Wakefield
NODES, EDWARD THOMAS, tailor, Aldersgate, July 16, at eleven,
at the London Mercantile Association, Gutter-la.
Sol., Start,
Ironmonger-la

OLDAKER, JOSEPH, and NEAL, WILLIAM HENRY, gas fitting manufacturers, Birmingham; July 5, at three, at office of Sol, Parry, Birmingham

OSMOND, MARIA: OSMOND, EMILY; and OSMOND, REBECCA, dyers, Leadenhall-st; July 10, at twelve, at the Guildhall Coffee house, Gresham-st. Sols., Messrs. Jenkinson and Owen, Corbet-ct, Gracechurch-st

OVEREND, JOHN GARTSIDE, grocer, Great Yarmouth; July 9, at twelve, at office of Sol., Palmer. Great Yarmouth PEDDLE, BENNETT, out of business, Huntspill; July 6, at twelve, at office of Sol.. Brice, Bridgwater

RADFORD, WILLIAM MORGAN, Cooper, Swansea; July 8, at elever, at office of Sols., Davies and Hartland, Swansea SAGAR, JOHN, grocer, Leeds; July 9, at three, at office of Sola. Messrs. Fawcett and Malcolm, Leeds

SIMPSON, JOHN, plumber, Hartlepool; July 4, at eleven, at cffice of Sol., Todd, Hartlepool

SIMPSON, WILLIAM, and SIMPSON, ROBERT, cotton manufac turers, Burnley: July 9, at three, at office of Boote and Edgar, solicitors, Manchester. Sol., Hartley

SMITH, FREDERIC, currier, Rochdale; July 10, at four, at offices of Sol., Standring, Rochdale

SNELLING, SARAH, widow, upholstress Brighton July 15, at three, at office of Sol., Mill, Brighton

TAMLYN, ROBERT, writing clerk, Wolverhampton; July 13, at three, at office of Sol., Barrow, Wolverhampton TANNER, EDWARD, out of business, Bicester; July 19, at twelve, at the Oxford Temperance hotel, Oxford. Sol., Berridge, Highst, Marylebone

TAYLOR, BENJAMIN, butcher, Lincoln; July 11, at one, at office of Sol., Clitherow, Horncastle

TAYLOR, WILLIAM, dyer, Eccles; July 15, at eleven, at office of
Sols., Tindall, Varey, and Sutton, Manchester
TILBURY, GEORGE, FRANCIS, commercial traveller, Leicester;
July 4, at twelve, at office of Sol., Owston, Leicester
UPFILL, WILLIAM, lodging house keeper, Gloucester-crescent,
Hyde-pk; July 11, at two, at office of Sol., Cooper, Portman-st
Portman-sq

WARNER, AQUILA, and JAMES, THOMAS, grocers, Liverpool: July 9, at three, at office of Roose and Price, accountants, Liverpool Sols., Masters and Fletcher, Liverpool

WELSH, HUGH, draper, Manchester; July 3, at three, at offices of Sol., Burton, Manchester

at

WRIGHT, HENRY, oil merchant, Southampton; July 5, at three, the Guildhall coffee-house, King-st, Cheapside. Sol, Killby, Southampton

Dibidends.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES.

The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Dividends.

Charles, Messrs, steel rollers, first, 3s. At office of Trust., A. Allott, 10, Norfolk-st, Sheffield.-Collinge, J. doctor of medicine. first, 3s. 6d. At Trust., R. J. Fletcher, 23, Delamere-st, Ashtonunder-Lyne.-Daragh, H. and J. stuff merchants, second and tal, 2d. At warehouse of Trust., H. Clayton, 6. Nelson-st. Bradford.Davies, J. general merchant, second and final, 1s. old. At office of Sol., L. Bishop, Landilo.-Irons, W. draper, first, 68. At office of Trust., W. B. Whall, 39, King-st, King's Lynn.-Jones, G. confectioner, first and final, 1s. 4d. At offices of Sols., Merrimans and Gwillim, Marlborough.

Ashton, H. iron merchant, second, Gld. McNeill, ManchesterHarris, Q. wine merchant, first, 3d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Fag, L. clerk in holy orders, third, 1s. 74d. (and Ss. 74d. to new proofs). Paget, Basinghall-st.-Rackstraw, P. B. fish salesman, first, s. 4d, Paget, Basinghall-st.-Shortreed, P. of Henfield, Bri hton, Jersey, and Jedburgh, second, 2s. 34d. (and 5s, 5d. to new proofs). Paget, Basinghall-st.

Batten, H. tailor, second and final, Is. 3d. At offices of Trust. J. L. Richards, 8, Marsden-st, Manchester.-Brockbank, J. timber merchant, Carlisle, first, 1s. 4d. At office of Trust.. T. Wright, 4, Bank-st, Carlisle.-Browne, Rev. E. F. Roman Catholic priest id. At the Wrexham Branch of the North and South Wales Banking Co., 28, High-st, Wrexham. Trust., T. H. Jones.-Bota, J. wholesale hosier, first and final, 8d. At offices of Trusts. Nicholson and Milne, accountants, 7, Norfolk-st, ManchesterCrook, J. victualler, first, 4s. At office of Trust., E. Dekin, Market-st, Bradford.-Gates, G. and Morris, H. warehousemen, first and final, 3s. sd. At offices of Honey, Humphreys, Baggs, and Co. 28, King-st, Cheapside.-Kerrison, R. A. and R. and Harry, Sir R. J. R. fifth, 1s. To the Crown Bank, Norwich, Sol.. Coaks, Norwich.-Mubane, J. boot dealer, first and final, 28. old. At offices of Trust., W. H. Burrell, 18, Albion-st, Leeds.- Maskell, F. R. pawnbroker, first and final, 1s. 4d. At offices of Trust, J. D. Thomas, The Parade, Neath.-Potts and Clif, brewers, first, 58. At office of Trust., H. Bolland, 10, South John-st, LiverpoolReynolds, W. H. watchinaker, 10d. At offices of Trust., J. E. E. Dawe, Union-ter, Union-st, Plymouth. Rudgard, E. W. B. maltster, 28. 8d. At office of Trust., E. G. Pickering, Guildhall st, Lincoln.-Shate, J. dyer, 29. 9d. At offices of Trust., J. P. Birt whistle, Crown-st, Halifax.-Wilson, R. tailor, third, 4s. At offices of Halse, Trustram, Philpott, and Co., 61, Cheapside.-W, S. of Dalston and Islington, first, 2s. 6d. At offices of Trust, H. W. Banks, 23, Coleman-st

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

LOCOCK.-On the 20th inst., at 9, Cambridge-square, the wife of
Charles Brodie Locock, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a daughter.
MAXWELL. On the 22nd inst., at Annefield. Bridge of Allan,
Stirlingshire, the wife of W. E. Maxwell, Esq., Police Magis
trate, Straits Settlements, of a son.

PERKINS. On the 19th inst., at Shenley, Bucks, the wife of W.
Tindal Perkins, of Gray's-inn, of a daughter.
RASTRON-On the 20th inst., at Beddington, Surrey, the wife of
Simpson Rastron, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son and heir.
ROGERS.-On the 20th inst, the wife of William Rozers, 17, Essex-
street, Strand, and 13, Belsize park, London, solicitor, of a son.
SCARD. On the 24th inst., at Blackheath-road, Greenwich, the
wife of J. Cowper Scard, Esq., solicitor, of a son,
MARRIAGES.
CHILD-MEAD.-On the 20th inst., at St. Luke's, Chelsea, Charles
Edwin Child, Esq., of Chelsea, to Louise Anne, eldest daughter
of George Edward Mead, Esq., solicitor, of Chelsea.
SEYMOUR-CROWTHERS-On the 25th inst, Emille Stuart
Ettrick, second daughter of Wm. Digby Seymour, Esq., QC,
LL.D., Recorder of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to George Crow-
thers, Esq., of Liverpool, and of Albert House, Birkdale.
DEATHS.

BEVAN. On the 21th inst, at Fowey, Cornwall, aged 66, Charles
Dacres Bevan, Judge of County Courts, Cornwall.
COOPER.-On the 22nd inst., at East Dereham, aged 51, Augusta
Louisa, the wife of George Halcott Cooper, solicitor.
INGLE. On the 21st inst., at Sandford Orleigh, Newton Abbot,
aged 91. John Ingle, Esq., Magistrate for the county of Devon.
and a Deputy-Lieutenant of the county of Pembroke.
MILLS. On the 24th inst., at Sutgrove House, near Cirencester,
aged 54, Daniel Yarnton Mills, Esq., J.P. for the county of
Gloucester.

SHARPLEY-On the 24th inst., at Louth, Lincolnshire, aged 72, John Booth Sharpley, Esq., J.P., and Alderman of the Borough,

to do in some places, the districts should be readjusted and the overburdened Judges relieved. Moreover, a County Court Judgeship is a sufficiently handsome reward for most of the recent recipients, and the demands of the Bar are numerous. Consequently, there is every reason to be satisfied with the present arrangements.

THE House of Commons have very good humouredly disposed of the Lords' amendments to the Ballot Bill. That which refers to optional secrecy has been got rid of, and we must join in Mr. DISRAELI'S regret that the Lords did not pass the Bill as a whole with a clause limiting it to places where bribery and intimidation prevail on a large scale. This proposal was met with much laughter, but it is really all that is wanted at present in England. The" scrutiny" amendment of the Lords met with a half concession from Mr. FORSTER. Mr. HENRY JAMES protested emphatically against the principle of a scrutiny, arguing that the compromise would be worse than the present system of open voting; but on a division the scrutiny was carried. A short time will give us sufficient experience of the value of this measure, and amidst so much conflict of opinion it will be interesting to see which is right-the House of Lords or the House of Commons.

MONDAY was an important day in the Legislature. The European Assurance Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords. In the same House the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The report of amendments on the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Bill, and on the Debtors (Ireland) Bill were brought up and agreed to. In the House of Commons, Mr. BRUCE said that if the Public Prosecutors Bill be not proceeded with this Session it will be reintroduced early next Session, and he promised that in the meantime the costs allowed by the local taxing masters shall be paid without supervision. Mr. GLADSTONE said that the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill had never been a Government measure, and seemed to think that in the present divided state of opinion with regard to the question, the "Bill was in a position of difficulty and embarrassment." Finally, Mr. BRUCE said it was not intended to proceed further with the Clerks of the Peace and Justices' Clerks (Fees) Bill; the Lords Amendments to the Ballot Bill were considered, and a committee appointed to draw up the reasons of the House for disagreeing with the Lords; and the Land Transfer (Scotland) Bill was read a second time. This may be described as a busy evening.

The

Ar the Middlesex Sessions on Monday last, a flagrant example of the fraudulent practices which are alleged to exist amongst certain attorneys practising at the Metropolitan Police Courts was brought to light. A tradesman who was bound over to prosecute complained to the Court that it had been arranged that the case in which he was to appear was to be postponed; he stated that such a course would be most inconvenient to him. A barrister then informed the Court that a learned friend had been instructed to prosecute, and that he had requested him, on his behalf, to oppose any postponement of the case. Upon this, the prosecutor denied that he had instructed any attorney or counsel to appear for the prosecution. attorney, therefore, whose name appeared on the brief, must have adopted the case without any authority whatever, on the expectation of obtaining such costs as are allowed by the clerk of the court to those conducting a prosecution. The court immediately instructed a member of the Bar to prosecute, thus thwarting the designs of the attorney upon the county funds. We are informed that the practitioner in question was once a member of the Bar, but had been disbarred in consequence of ill practices in that branch of the Profession. He had, however, afterwards obtained, without difficulty, admission to the roll of attorneys. This is another instance of the manner in which the Law Institution protects the honour of the branch of the Profession which it is supposed to represent.

IF the BENNETT judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is of a negative character from an ecclesiastical point of view, it is satisfactory in at least one legal aspect. An elaborate argument was addressed to the DEAN OF ARCHES by Dr. STEPHENS, and the Dean loaded his judgment with authorities. The argument was repeated before the Judicial Committee, but they were not ambitious to display a mastery in the collocation of opinion. In their judgment their Lordships observe that, "having arrived at the conclusion that they must advise her Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed, feel bound to add that there is much in the judgment of the learned Judge in the court below with which they are unable to concur. The learned Judge has endeavoured to settle by a mass of authorities what is the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of the Holy Communion. It is not the part of the Court of Arches nor of this Committee, to usurp the functions of a synod or Council. Happily their duties are much more circumscribed, namely, to ascertain whether certain statements are so far repugnant to, or contradictory of, the language of the Articles and Formularies, construed in their

plain meaning, that they should receive judicial condemnation." And they further add that they "will not attempt to examine in detail the catena of authorities which the Judge of the Arches has brought together, nor that of the learned counsel who appeared for the appellant. No mode of argument is more fallacious on a subject so abstruse and of so many aspects; short extracts, even where candidly made, as in this case, give no fair impression of an author's mind."

A SOMEWHAT important decision respecting the rights and liabilities attaching to bills of exchange drawn in one country, payable to the defendant's order, and made payable by endorsement in another in a state of war, was decided by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, at the Supreme Consular Court of Constantinople on the 13th ult. The bills were drawn at Salonica, payable to the order of the defendant, also of Salonica, endorsed over by him to the plaintiff's firm at Marseilles, accepted at Genoa, and made payable at Marseilles. The date of the bills was the 20th Sept. 1870, and they would have become payable in the following December; but the Franco-German war was then raging, and various decrees were passed by the French Government from time to time, postponing the liability of payment on bills of exchange. The bills accordingly were not presented on the day when due, and when the adjourned day arrived they were not paid, all parties being insolvent save the present plaintiff and defendant. Notice of presentment and dishonour was duly given, if the decrees of the French Government were to be taken as valid and applicable to these bills. If not, the defendant contended that he was released from his engagement as endorser, and was not liable at all. The court held that the endorsement on the bills "payable at Marseilles," caused the bills to be governed by French law; and as the court held also that the decrees of the French Government were valid, the indorser remained liable. We shall reproduce the judgment in an early impression, and possibly add some comments upon the views adopted by the learned Judge.

A PARAGRAPH quoted in another column sets forth a report we would willingly believe to be unfounded. It is so much in harmony, however, with the previous proceedings of our present Government in the matter of administering justice, that we should not be surprised to find it true. A prisoner has been committed for trial by the magistrates at Ashford, in Kent, on the charge of having committed a most brutal murder at that place. In order to complete the evidence for the trial at the assizes, it is considered necessary that certain expenses beyond the ordinary prosecution costs should be incurred, with a view to have an analysis of certain spots on the prisoner's clothes, supposed to be spots of blood, and a professional examination of hair found upon his boots. If ever there was a case where the Government should do everything possible to prevent a failure of justice this is one, and the magistrates' clerk accordingly applied to the HOME SECRETARY that the Crown should defray these extra expenses. This, the report goes, the HOME SECRETARY has declined to do. The result is that the jury at the assizes will have to acquit or convict upon the evidence as contained in the depositions before the magistrates, and neither science nor professional skill will be called to aid in deciding the issues of life and death, because they would cost a little money, which no one can be found to pay. The innocent may suffer, the criminal may escape, public confidence in the law may be shaken, crime may be encouraged; what matters it if the surplus at the end of the financial year be swollen, and Mr. LOWE and his coadjutors shine forth before the country in their economy?

In addition to recent English cases on the subject of breach of promise of marriage, some interesting decisions are reported from Ireland, and one from the distant region of California In the Irish case of Garviev. Lindsay, Chief Justice MONAHAN, in charging the jury said, "It would not be enough that the man was willing to marry the woman, or that he had made advances which ought to have resulted in a proposal of marriage. There are a great many men in the world who amuse themselves by paying marked attention to ladies, without intending ultimate marriage; but that is a mere matter of delicacy and good taste, and all the attentions paid, all the letters written, will not be sufficient, unless they result in an express agreement between the parties to marry each other." This is not in accordance with the law as stated by Baron PIGOTT, in the case of Hickey v. Campion, who said, 'mise to marry may be made without words. The conduct, demeanour, and behaviour of persons towards each other may constitute proof from which the contract might be inferred." Our English law now requires that there should be some material corroboration of the plaintiff's evidence of the alleged promise. In observing upon the Irish and English authorities, the Irish Law Times says, "It seems, therefore, that, where a promise is proved in direct terms, evidence of mutual demeanour may amount to material corroboration. It may be collected from acts, letters, or conversation, even prior to the promise, as if the defendant holds himself out as a lover, or conducts himself as if he were engaged. But we trust that it will never be held that such

"A pro

proof as might entitle the plaintiff to an affiliation order will, in all cases, also enable the party to maintain an action for breach of promise, or that mere flirtation will amount to 'confirmation strong as proof of Holy Writ.' The Californian case had mainly reference to the admissibility of evidence of a plaintiff's statements after the alleged promise of the defendant to prove her acceptance of it. The court said: "Evidence was admitted at the trial showing that after the date of the alleged promise plaintiff announced to several persons, in the absence of the defendant, that she was engaged to marry the defendant. There was no error in the admission of this testimony. Conceding that an express promise of marriage had been made by the defendant, it was essential to show that the promise had been accepted by the plaintiff. Considering the peculiar nature of the contract sought to be established, the frequent and public announcement of the engagement by the plaintiff would be among the best evidences of her acceptance of the offer of the defendant. This testimony would not tend to prove the promise by defendant; but it is admissible to prove the equally essential fact the assent of the plaintiff. This evidence was offered generally, and was excepted to as being irrele vant and immaterial. Since it was relevant to a material issue in the case, it was properly admitted.”

THE SEATING OF CAPTAIN TRENCH.

WE last week intimated our intention of considering the law with reference to the seating of a candidate, where the return of the sitting member is declared to be void. The facts connected with the seating of Captain Trench may be shortly recapitulated. He and Captain Nolan became candidates for the county of Galway; Captain Nolan received the support of the Catholic clergy, and it was made perfectly plain by the findings of the judge on the trial of the petition presented against Captain Nolan's return, that the clergy from the time of his candidature combined, not to use the harsher term conspired, to render his return a matter of certainty. Controlled by the bishops, with certain exceptions, the parish priests entered with the utmost zeal into the contest, and by their own acts and by the countenance given to all their proceedings by Captain Nolan, they became his election agents to all intents and purposes. At an early period of the contest, the stronger form of clerical influence, outside the border line of legitimate influence, was employed in favour of Captain Nolan. This influence amounted to positive tyranny, and was matter of notoriety. The learned Judge found, indeed, at the trial of the petition, that the electors willingly lent themselves to be the instruments of the clergy--abandoning at once the free exercise of the franchise. Captain Trench, however, did not rely upon this for the purpose of rendering nugatory the votes given for Captain Nolan; but he scattered notices broadcast over the country, gave them to such voters as were accessible, and posted them at the polling booths. The first question of law arising is, therefore, was this sufficient notice to affect the constitutency as a whole with knowledge of the disqualification of Captain Nolan? In the case of Rex v. Hawkins (10 East 211) notice of the defendant's incapacity was publicly given to the electors, and was heard by all who afterwards voted for the defendant, being twenty in number, except two or three. The votes given for the defendant after such notice were held to have been thrown away. This was a corporation case, and it is obviously far easier to settle a question of this kind where the number of electors is limited. For example, in his judgment in this case, Lord Ellenborough was able to fix the precise moment at which notice of the disqualification was brought home to the electors, and finding that at that period the number of votes given for the disqualified candidate was less than the total of votes given for his opponent, was able to declare the latter elected. The difficulty of coming to an equally satisfactory conclusion where the constituency numbers some thousands, and the majority of the disqualified candidate is very large, is easily appreciated. In the case, also, of Claridge v. Evelyn (5 B. & Ald. 81) the number of voters was very limited, and express notice was given to each voter as he came to the poll. So in Rex v. Bridge (1 M. & S. 76) there was clear evidence that a good majority of votes had been given to the candidate alleged to be disqualified before the notice of his disqualification was brought home to the electors. There are one or two cases in Heywood (p. 538-9), where general notice, and notoriety of the disqualification, seem to have been considered sufficient to cause votes to be thrown away. In Rex v. Cox, however, one of the cases referred to, the election was to the office of common councilman. The case of the Aberbrothock petition (1748), was a Parliamentary case, and the petition alleged "that the said Charles Maitland was by law incapable of being elected, as his capacity was then objected, and was notorious to all the electors." The petition was withdrawn and nothing decided. The case of Fife (p. 540 of Heywood), is stronger. General Skene held offices which disqualified him under the statute of Anne, and the committee being of opinion that the novel creation of one of the offices was notorious, held that the electors who had voted for the sitting member had thrown away their votes, and adjudged the petitioner who had the minority on the poll to be duly elected. But there, in addition

to the novelty of the office being notorious, the petitioner appears to have proved that he publicly apprised the freeholders at a public meeting it was a county election that General Skene was inelegible, and that any vote given for him would be thrown away. Heywood (p. 541) mentions that "in the Middlesex election of famous memory the majority of votes given for Mr. Wilkes, who had been expelled the House of Commons, and therefore declared incapable of being elected in that session of Parliament, were held to be thrown away, and the candidate with the smaller number resolved to be duly elected. No public notice of the incapacity appears from the entries in the journals to have been given at the time of the last election, but it was mentioned in the writ, which was read at the election, that two prior elections had been set aside on this account, so that it might be presumed that the freeholders could not be ignorant of it. All that was done in the Southwark case (No. 2) (p. 544) in the shape of giving notice to the electors was an address from the hustings, and the sitting member was held disentitled to the seat.

This puts the question of notice in a tolerably clear light. Notice of disqualification must be given specifically, so as to reach the understanding of all the electors, or the disqualification must be so notorious that knowledge will be presumed. If no notice has been given before the period at which it can be proved that the candidate petitioned against had obtained a majority, it can have no effect upon the return except for the purpose of unseating the member. That is to say, the votes given before the notice would not be thrown away, and the candidate having the next largest number of votes would not be entitled to be elected. We do not think it is necessary to discuss the question whether the latter could be seated by a judge or the court of Common Pleas upon a finding that the sitting member had not a legal majority. There is precedent for such a course as regards committees of the House, and in cases of corporations. It is certainly only fair, inasmuch as the same result could be attained by the wearisome process of a scrutiny.

We pointed out last week that the question whether the electors of Galway received due notice of the disqualification of Captain Nolan before they voted was a mixed question. The case of Reg. v. The Mayor of Tewkesbury, to which reference was made in our last impression, is sufficiently clear as to the presumption of knowledge in a case where the nature of a candidate's office carries on its face a disqualification, but we do not consider that it is so binding an authority in a parliamentary election as Chief Justice Monahan appears to have regarded it. It was there held that every elector was not bound to know the law that the mayor who acted as returning officer was incapable of being elected a town councillor. Mr. Justice Blackburn put that case thus: "The case," he said, "merely shows as a fact that Blizard was returning officer, from which a lawyer would be aware that he was disqualified, and in my opinion the knowledge that Blizard was returning officer does not in law necessarily involve the knowledge that he was disqualified." And Chief Justice Monahan's difficulty in the Galway case appears to have been that the finding of the election Judge were not sufficient to bring home knowledge to the electors who constituted Captain Nolan's majority. The other Judges considered that the case did show sufficient from which the court might conclude that notice was brought home to the electors. We have cited some cases which, in our opinion, support this view, but in the midst of so much doubt it is perhaps wiser to look to the Legislature to provide against similar difficulties in the future.

THE NEW BASTARDY BILL.

MR. CHARLEY is likely to be more successful with his well meaning Bills during this session than he was during the last. His Bill for the Protection of Infant Life is already in a fair way of becoming law; and his Bill for the Amendment of the Bastardy Laws has been read a second time. The latter Bill is divided into two parts, the one relating to proceedings in bastardy, and the other for the protection of girls. This is rather an unusual course, and it would be less invidious if two separate Bills had been introduced. The second part has no real connection with the first part of the Bill, and has the appearance of being smuggled in. No one, however, can doubt Mr. CHARLEY'S sincerity, and the excellence of his intention.

In the LAW TIMES of the 30th Dec. last, we dealt cursorily with the bastardy laws, pointing out where the law in our opinion was capable of, and indeed required amendment, and on the other hand, showing, to a certain extent, the impracticability, if not the unfairness, of some of the suggestions, which for some time past have emanated from the supporters of Mr. CHARLEY. We need hardly say that as yet we have seen no reason to change our opinion on the subject. That the bastardy law may be improved cannot be denied. Mr. CHARLEY proposes to do this by extending the time for application on the part of the mother to meet cases where the alleged father absconds, by doing away with the present maximum sum to be paid by the father, and giving an unlimited power to justices as to the father's contributions, by enlarging the period of the father's liability from thirteen to sixteen years, and by conferring on boards of guardians certain powers which they

have not now in cases where the mother has not obtained a justice's order.

The present law of bastardy is that which is found in the statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101.

By that statute provision is made that a woman who has been or is about to be delivered of a child, either before its birth or at any time within twelve months after its birth, or at any time thereafter, upon proof that the man alleged to be the father, has within the twelve months next after the birth of the child paid any money towards its maintenance, may apply for a summons against the putative father. Under this, if a man did not contribute anything within the first twelve months, and managed to escape without being served with a summons, he could never be made to contribute anything towards the support of his child, and many evaded their responsibilities by leaving the country for that time. Great injustice was consequently suffered by mothers so treated. Mr. CHARLEY intends to remedy this by providing that a summons may be issued at any time within the twelve months next after the return to England of the man alleged to be the father, upon proof that he absconded from England within the twelve months next after the birth of the child. This provision in our opinion will not meet the case, it is loosely and carelessly drawn, and will most undoubtedly require careful remodelling. In the first place it is not sufficient in its scope, as it does not meet the case where the alleged father evades summons by removing from one district in England to another, as is often done. It is only applicable to the case where a man goes out of England. Again, what is the meaning of absconding. We presume it must mean the act of wilfully going abroad with the intent to evade the service of the summons. But it would surely not include the case where a man's duty called him away. Suppose the alleged father to be a sailor, and he was absent for the twelve months next after the birth, what then would be the result? An unlimited period for summoning is also open to the objection that it may lead to great injustice by allowing such a time to elapse as would render it difficult for a man to obtain evidence in defence, that is, supposing an unfounded charge to be made. There should be some provision to guard against this. If the mother had an opportunity to summon the alleged father, but did not do so, and the man afterwards went abroad within the twelve months, not for the purpose of evading a summons, and ignorant that he was even likely to be accused with the paternity of the child, it would clearly be hard upon the man ten years after to be brought before the magistrates on such a charge. And it would as clearly be no hardship upon the woman who so neglected her opportunity. We trust these points will be well considered in committee. It is not advisable in our eagerness to do justice to women to open the door of fraud and injustice upon men.

Under the present law, half-a-crown weekly is the largest sum the father of a bastard child can be ordered to contribute towards its support. It was never intended for a moment that this sum was enough to keep a child. The object of the Legislature was to fix some responsibility upon the father, so as to deter men, and at the same time to hold in terrorem over the women, their liability to support their unlawful issue. The promoter of the new Bill and his supporters are of opinion that the father's liability should not be subject to any limit, and it is proposed in this Bill that the question of the amount of the contribution should be left entirely in the discretion of the magistrates. On the second reading of the Bill in question several speakers were opposed to this unlimited power being vested in magistrates, and were of opinion that care should be taken that no inducement was held out to a woman to allow herself to be seduced by providing too liberally for the maintenance of her child. This is the objection we have always maintained. "The law does not presume to encourage immorality; on the contrary, by limiting the sum to be paid by the father, it does its best to discourage illegitimacy by making the mother also contribute out of her earnings something towards the maintenance of the child." We feel certain that if the path of the immodest woman is to be strewn with roses, and the burden of bringing up, or at any rate contributing towards the bringing up, her illegitimate offspring be removed, illegitimacy will increase with all its attendant evils. In the next place, under the present law, the mother can only recover thirteen weeks' arrears. The Bill proposes to remedy this. But its provisions are not very clear on the point, as there seems to be no limit whatever. Why should not this be subject to the same limitations as ordinary debts? In case of nonpayment, power is given to justices to distrain, and if the defaulter has no goods upon which to distrain, to commit him Instead of an application to justices, we would rather see the arrears made recoverable at County Courts; and the commitment of the man to prison for nonpayment should be subject to the same safeguards as are now observed in County Courts before a man is committed to prison for nonpayment of his debt. Why should not his salary or his wages be made liable to attachment? This is so where a parent in Scotland is liable to contribute towards the support of his child in an industrial school, and the same may with advantage be done under the bastardy laws.

With regard to the period during which the father is to be

liable to contribute, the Bill before us proposes to make it until the child attains the age of sixteen years. At present the father's liability ceases when the child attains the age of thirteen years, or upon the marriage of the mother. On this point we cannot do better than refer our readers to our previous article, already referred to. There we approved of the proposal that the mother's marriage should not cause the man's liability to cease, but did not express the same approval of the extension to sixteen years.

To meet the case where the child, through the inability of the mother to support it, and where no order upon the father has been obtained, has become chargeable to the rates, it is proposed to empower the guardians of the union or parish to which such child has become chargeable, to apply for a summons against the alleged father, such summons to be issued to such person only as the mother of such child shall depose upon oath to be the father of such child; and the next section regulates the proceedings thereupon, providing that the justices shall hear the evidence and determine the matter in the same manner in all respects as they might have done if the summons had been issued upon the application of the mother. We doubt whether this would require the alleged father to have contributed something towards the maintenance of the child during the first twelve months of its existence, or to have "absconded" within that time. If it does not it is objectionable. There must be some limit to the liability, and on the whole this Bill, in its attempt to remedy real evils, is overreaching.

THE LATEST DECISION RESPECTING FIXTURES. WE are disposed to think that where we find an exhaustive judgment upon any particular subject upon which the law has been unsettled, we best serve our readers by placing that judgment before them in as concise a form as possible. It is very well known how fluctuating and varying have been the decisions on the subject of fixtures, and we this week report a case from the Exchequer Chamber which arranges the cases, and as nearly as possible settles the law. It was a more important case than it would have been, by reason of the fact that virtually it was an appeal from the decision of the Queen's Bench in the great case of Longbottom v. Berry (22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 365).

THE MAXIM OF LAW.

"There is no doubt," said Mr. Justice Blackburn, in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court, "that the general maxim of law is that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say with precision what constitutes an annexation sufficient for this purpose. It is a question which must depend on the circumstances of each case, and mainly on two circumstances, as indicating the intention, viz., the degree of annexation, and the object of the annexation. Where the article in question is no further attached to the land than by its own weight, it is generally to be considered a mere chattel: (see Willshear v. Cottrell, 1 E. & B. 689, and the cases there cited.) But even in such a case, if the intention is apparent to make the articles part of the land, they do become part of the land (see Deyncourt v. Gregory, L. Rep. 3 Eq. 382). Two blocks of stone, placed one on the top of another, without any mortar or cement, for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall, would become part of the land, though the same stones, if deposited in a builder's yard, and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels. On the other hand, an article may be very firmly affixed to the land, and yet the circumstances may be such as to show that it never was intended to be part of the land, and then it does not become part of the land. The anchor of a large ship must be very firmly fixed in the ground in order to bear the strain of the cable, yet no one could suppose that it became part of the land, even though it should chance that the shipowner was also the owner of the fee of the spot where the anchor was dropped. An anchor similarly fixed in the soil for the purpose of bearing the strain of the chain of a suspension bridge would be part of the land. Perhaps the true rule is, that articles not otherwise attached to the land than by their own weight are not to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to show that they were intended to be part of the land, the onus of showing that they are so intended lying on those who assert that they have ceased to be chattels; and that on the contrary an article which is affixed to the land, even slightly, is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to show that it was intended all along to continue a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a chattel. This last proposition seems to be in effect the basis of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, delivered by Mr. Justice Maule, in Wide v. Waters (16 C. B. 637). This, however, only removes the difficulty one step, for it still remains a question in each case whether the circumstances are sufficient to satisfy this onus. In some cases, such as the anchor of the ship, or the ordinary instance given of a carpet nailed to the floor of a room, the nature of the thing sufficiently shows it is only fastened as a chattel temporarily, and not affixed permanently as part of the land. But ordinary trade or tenant fixtures which are put up with the intention that they should be removed by the tenant (and so are put up for a purpose in one sense only temporary, and cer

tainly not for the purpose of improving the reversionary interest of the landlord), have always been considered as part of the land, though severable by the tenant."

THE REASON OF THE RULE.

"In most, if not all, of such cases, the reason why the articles are considered fixtures is probably that indicated by Vice-Chancellor Wood in Boyd v. Shorrock (L. Rep. 5 Eq. 79), that the tenant indicates by the mode he puts them up that he regards them as attached to the property during his interest in the property. What we have now to decide is, as to the application of these rules to looms put up by the owner of the fee in the manner described in the case. In Hellawell v. Eastwood (6 Ex. 312), decided in 1851, the facts as stated in the report, are that the plaintiff held the premises in question as tenant of the defendants, and that a distress for rent had been put in by the defendants, under which a seizure was made of cotton-spinning machinery, called "mules," some of which were fixed by screws to the wooden floor, and some by screws which had been sunk in the stone floor and secured by molten lead poured into them. It may be inferred that the plaintiff, being the tenant only, had put up those mules, and from the large sum for which the distress appears to have been levied (20007.) it seems probable that he was the tenant of the whole mill. It does not appear what admissions, if any, were made at the trial, nor whether the court had or had not by the reservation power to draw inferences of fact; though it seems assumed in the judgment that they had such a power. Baron Parke, in delivering the judgment of the court says: "This is a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each case, and principally on two considerations; first, the mode of annexation to the soil or fabric of the house, and the extent to which it is united to them, whether it can easily be removed integre, salve, et commode, or not, without injury to itself or the fabric of the building; secondly, on the object and purpose of the annexation, whether it was for the permanent and substantial improvement of the dwelling, in the language of the civil law perpetui usus causâ, or in that of the Year Book, pour un profit del inheritance, or merely for a temporary purpose or the more complete enjoyment and use of it as a chattel." "

ALL THE CASES EXAMINED AND COMPARED.

The judgment goes on to say: "It was contended by Mr. Field that the decision in Hellawell v. Eastwood had been approved in the Queen's Bench in the case of Turner v. Cameron (L. Rep. 5 Q. B. 386). It is quite true that the court in that case said that it afforded a true exposition of the law as applicable to the particular facts upon which that judgment proceeded; but the court expressly guarded their approval by citing from the judgment delivered by Baron Parke, the facts upon which they considered it to have proceeded: 'They were attached slightly, so as to be capable of removal without the least injury to the fabric of the building or themselves, and the object of the annexation was not to improve the inheritance, but merely to render the machines steadier and more capable of convenient use as chattels.' As we have already observed, trade or tenant fixtures might, in one sense, be said to be fixed merely for a temporary purpose; but we cannot suppose that the Court of Exchequer meant to decide that they were not part of the land, though liable to be severed by the tenant. The words merely for a temporary purpose' must be understood as applying to such a case as we have supposed-of the anchor dropped for the temporary purpose of mooring the ship, or the instance immediately afterwards given by Baron Parke, of a carpet tacked to the floor for the purpose of keeping it stretched whilst it was there used, and not to a case such as that of a tenant who, for example, affixes a shop counter for the purpose (in one sense temporary) of more effectually enjoying the shop whilst he continued to sell his wares there. Subject to this observation, we think that the passage in the judgment in Hellawell v. Eastwood (6 Ex. 312) does state the true principles, though it may be questioned if they were in that case correctly applied to the facts. The court, in their judgment, determine what they have just declared to be a question of fact, thus: The object and purpose of the annexation was not to improve the inheritance, but merely to render the machines steadier and more capable of convenient use as chattels.' Mr. Field was justified in saying, as he did in his argument, that, as far as the facts are stated in the report, they are very like those in the present case, except that the tenant who put up the mules cannot have been supposed to intend to improve the inheritance, if by that is meant his landlord's reversion, but only at most to improve the property whilst he continued tenant thereof; and he urged with great force that we ought not to act on a surmise that there were any special facts or findings not stated in the report, but to meet the case as showing that the judges who decided Hellawell v. Eastwood thought that articles fixed in a manner very like those in the case before us remained chattels; and this is felt by some of us, at least to be a very weighty argument. But that case was decided in 1851. In 1853 the Court of Queen's Bench had, in Willshear v. Cottrell (1 E. & B. 689), to consider what articles passed by the conveyance in fee of a farm. Amongst the articles in dispute was a thrashing machine, which is described in the