quarter's rent, £110 12s., for a dairy of fifty cows. This he could not recover but in a Superior Court, and the authorities which he quoted were strong upon this point that no plaintiff could recover in the County Court by such abandonment of part of his claim.

His HONOUR Cconsidered this a fatal objection to his jurisdiction.

Atkinson then submitted that the case could be taken on the second point, namely, as a breach of contract. The defendant agreed to rent the dairy for one year, but at the end of the third quarter, without proper notice, gave them up, removed his goods by night, and thus broke his contract.

His HONOUR Considered that the same objection would be fatal. He added: According to the authorities referred to, I consider I have no jurisdiction. The only question with me are the costs. If the case is a bona fide one I shall not be disposed to give costs. Atkinson: The defendant had the cows the three best quarters, the calving and milking ones. There was plenty of food for them, but instead of attending to them himself he entrusted the fifty cows to two boys, one fourteen and the other sixteen years of age, and he himself got drunk and never looked after them. The consequence was they were nearly half-starved, and then the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff to the effect that he could not keep them any longer, as his father had not given him the support he expected. Weston replied to this that he had a satisfactory defence on the merits of the case. The cows were in a very bad state when his client took them, and never recovered. His client was much reduced in circumstances, and he submitted that as he (Mr. Weston) had attended twice, his Honour might allow him costs for one attendance. At his Honour's suggestion, Mr. Atkinson agreed to a nonsuit, no costs allowed.

HUDDERSFIELD COUNTY COURT.
Friday, June 18.
(Before Mr. Serjeant Tindal ATKINSON, Judge.)
MITCHELL V. BOOTHROYD.

Specific performance of a contract for the sale of
real property-Absence of vendor's solicitor at
time of execution-Alleged drunkenness.
In this case his HONOUR delivered the following
judgment :-This is a plaint on the equity side of
this court praying specific performance of a con-
tract for the sale of six freehold cottages at Lock-
The facts, so far as they are necessary for
wood.
the judgment in this case, are that on the 7th Nov.
1871 the defendant's solicitors, Messrs. Craven
and Sunderland, advertised for sale six freehold
a favourable in-
cottages and some building ground situate at
Lockwood, describing them as
vestment for qualifying a number of county
voters." The plaintiff being desirous of purchas-
ing a property of this description, sent his agent,
Elijah Carter, to the defendant on the 29th Jan.,
to ascertain the price. An interview took place,
An
and the defendant, who was then perfectly sober,
offered the property to Carter for £400.
appointment to meet together the same night was
made but not kept by the defendant, and Carter
called upon the defendant several times on the
next and subsequent day to close the bargain
with the defendant, but failed to meet with him.
On the 31st Jan. the last day on which, for
qualifying voters to appear on the next Parlia-
mentary register, it was necessary in this case
to have a valid contract signed, the plaintiff,
who was anxious on this ground for the matter
to be completed, met the defendant in West-
the company of a mutual friend,
gate in
the witness Burrans, and told him "he (the
plaintiff) wanted to see about that property
of his which Carter had bought on the Mon-
day previous," and "that it was important
it should be settled that night," adding "that
his attorney's clerk had gone to his (the defen-
dant's) house to ask where he would be in half an
hour." The defendant appointed to meet him
that evening at an inn called the Pack Horse, but
on going there it was found that the defendant
was at another public-house known as the Old
The clerk was sent there by the plaintiff
Hat.
to tell him all was ready, and the defendant and
Burrans came out of the inn at the same time,
and as they all walked out together the defendant
stated "that he would not take £400 for the
property, but that he must have £425." After
some remonstrance on the part of the plaintiff
that the property had been agreed to be sold for
£400, he finally consented to give the additional
£25, and the parties proceeded together to Mr.
Mills', the plaintiff's attorney's office. At this
time it was nearly half-past nine o'clock. The
defendant "demurring" on the ground that Mr.
Craven, his attorney, was not there, but on the
clerk saying he would send to Mr. Craven for the
abstract, and he (Craven) would act for him still,
he permitted the matter to go on. The contract
was then drawn up, and is as follows:-" Memo-

two

that Martha Crook was at her death possessed of certain furniture and effects at the Talbot Hotel, Bradford, and that the bankrupt as her adminis trator possessed himself thereof; fourthly, that by an order of the Court of Chancery, dated the 6th Dec. 1871, in the matter of the Estate of Martha Crook, deceased, and in which matter and cause the parties moving were plaintiffs, the usual accounts and inquiries were made for the adminis tration of the personal estate of Martha Crook; fifthly, that Joseph Crook, the administrator, was on the 5th Dec. 1871, adjudicated a bankrupt by this court, that a trustee was afterwards appointed who took possession of the furniture and effects at the Talbot Hotel, sold them, received the proceeds and proposed to divide them as assets avail able for division among the creditors of the bankrupt. Upon this motion being opened, the objection was taken that the parties moving had no locus standi in this court. They did not repre sent the estate of Martha Crook, nor had they obtained any authority from the Court of Chancery under the administration decree to make the ap plication. They are simply creditors of Martha Crook, and in that character alone had no interest in the bankrupt's estate, or its administration by this court. In order that the motion might be heard and disposed of upon its merits it stood over, that the applicants might apply to the Court of Chancery for proper authority to litigate the matter involved in the motion. Subsequently, when the motion was renewed, Mr. Berry, on be half of the applicants, produced an order dated the 10th May 1872, made by the Master of the Rolls in chambers on their application as plaintiffs in the administration suit, whereby it was ordered that they be at liberty to apply to the Court of Bankruptcy in this matter for the trustee to be at liberty to pay into the bank, with the privity of the Accountant-General, to the credit of the cause the amount received by him as the proceeds of the furniture and effects, and alleged to have been in the possession and the property of the intestate Martha Crook at the time of her death. And further, that the trustee be at liberty to make such payment accordingly. This order purports to be made after reading an affidavit of the bankrupt, filed the 2nd May 1871, made upon some former occasion in the suit, and not for the purpose of that application. This affidavit upon the face of it negatives the fact that the furniture and abstracts to him (Mr. Mills) in the ordinary way, Mills objected. Let the defendant submit the effects in question were the property of Martha Crook at the time of her death; and the order is and they might possibly be able to settle the title to that property, but is in effect merely an not an authority to the applicants to litigate the matter without coming before the registrar. authority to apply to this court for an order that His HONOUR-The ordinary course must follow, the trustee be at liberty to pay the proceeds of the there will be no special directions until the neces-property into the Court of Chancery, and, if this sity arises. Wheelhouse, instructed by Mills, for plaintiff. Hall, Manchester, by Craven and Sunderland, for defendant.

Craven applied that his honour would decree that plaintiff should accept the best title the defendant could give him without putting the defendant to the expense of procuring better evidence of title than was in his own possession.

so bad. He walked out of the room and left his that his professional adviser, Mr. Craven, should
drink. I gave Mr. Craven my opinion about it. be present. The plaintiff heard this, and had that
I was asked to come again, but did not go. We desire been expressed by the defendant for any-
all had had a drink. I have said to no one that I thing more than a creditable wish on his part
noticed that he was excessively drunk after he that, having placed the business in his attorney's
left the office." If this witness is speaking the hands he did not wish him to lose any of the
truth-and there appeared to me nothing in his profit of carrying it out, I should have unques-
demeanour which would lead me to suppose that tionably refused to interfere, but have left the
he was biassed either in favour of one party or plaintiff to his remedy at law. The rule universally
the other-the question of the defendant's sobriety acted upon by the profession, as I understand it,
is disposed of, and I can come to no other conclusion is that where it is known that an attorney is
than that he was perfectly conscious of the effect retained for either a vendor or vendee of property
of what he was doing, and that he was a willing that all communications, when there is an attorney
seller, for a sufficient consideration, of the pro-acting for the other side, must be made to or
perty in question. The evidence of the defendant through the professional parties engaged, and that
as to this is of a very vague and unsatisfactory any communications to the client by the other
character; while that of his wife as to his drun- side upon the subject matter of the sale purchase
kenness on that night relates only to the state in is looked upon as a breach of professional etiquette.
which he was when he reached his home. The The propriety of such a rule is obvious, it shields
only other witness called for the defence was the clients from importunity, prevents impro-
Sarah Crow, the landlady of the Old Hat. She car- vident bargains, and protects them from fraud,
ried the case no further than "that the defendant and what is also of great moment, it preserves
was 'fresh,' the worse for liquor. He had had a a liberal and honourable profession from the
glass or two." There is against this the distinct temptation of entering into unworthy competition.
and positive testimony of the plaintiff, Burrans, In this case it is only just to say that Mr. Mills,
and Farrar, that although " he had had a glass or the plaintiff's attorney, was not present at the
the defendant was sober, and in the full transaction, and was not aware until after the
possession of his faculties. No doubt "courts of whole matter was completed, or that the over zeal
equity, on the grounds of public policy, do not of an active clerk and the anxiety of the plaintiff
incline, on the one hand, to lend their assistance to complete the purchase on that particular day
to a person who has obtained an agreement or had led to the unusual steps adopted on that
deed from another in a state of intoxication, yet, occasion. Looking, however, at the facts, I have
on the other hand, they are equally unwilling to come to the conclusion, although not without
assist the intoxicated party to get rid of his agree- some hesitation, that seeing the contract was signed
ment or deed merely on the ground of his intoxi- by the defendant when he was in full possession
cation at the time." It has been observed by a of his faculties, and who at that time perfectly
learned writer, either the drunkenness of the understood what he was doing, and that there was
party is excessive or moderate. If moderate, and no fraud or intended fraud in the transaction, but
it did not quite so much obscure his understand that the object of adopting the unusual means to
ing as that he was ignorant with whom or for complete the sale on the 31st Jan., was to serve a
what he had contracted, the contract ought to purpose out of which no money-profit to the
bind him, and the Scottish law has adopted this plaintiff was contemplated, I decree a specific per-
distinction, for by that law persons in a state of formance of the contract, but for the reason that
absolute drunkenness, and consequently deprived the defendant's attorney, Mr. Craven, was not
of reason, cannot bind themselves by any contract. present when the contract was signed, without
But a lesser degree of drunkenness, which only costs.
darkens reason, has not the effect of annulling
contracts: (Story's Eq. Jur. 10th edit., sects. 231,
232.) I find this principle has been fully acted
upon in the case of Lightfoot v. Heron (3 Y. & C
586, Ex.), the facts of which are somewhat
similar to the present. Specific performance
was prayed for of a contract for the sale of
a public-house. There was no solicitor present
for the vendor, and two or three glasses of
spirits had, before the sale, been drunk on
both sides. The case set up by the defendant,
as here, was that the agreement was obtained from
him while intoxicated. The defendant produced
a witness who deposed that in the first instance
the defendant concealed himself in a stable to
avoid being pressed to make the bargain, but that
afterwards the defendant and another person sat
up until a late hour drinking, and that both were
drunk. Alderson, B., in delivering the judgment
of the court, said: "The question is whether or
no a sufficient case is made out to entitle the
plaintiff to a specific performance of the agree
ment. It appears that before it was executed
several glasses of liquor had been drunk by the
parties, but the question does not turn upon
that. The question is whether the defendant
examined that agreement under such circum-
stances as fairly to induce the belief that he did
so without the full understanding or knowledge of
what he was doing. If the defendant could show
that he had not that full understanding, or know-
ledge, the plaintiff would, of course, have no
right to relief." Applying the principle of that
case to the facts of the present one, and assuming
that the defendant Boothroyd's acts and conduct
at the time he heard the contract read over,
fully and conclusively showed that he under-
stood clearly and distinctly its terms and im-
port, the same result must follow.
just cited is useful in this respect, as show-
ing that specific performance will be decreed
in favour of a purchaser, though no solicitor
acted for the vendor, and though the contract was
executed under circumstances which might easily
have led to fraud, no fraud having actually been
committed; and also that where a party was con-
siderably in liquor when he entered into the agree-
ment, it still is no reason for a court of equity
refusing specific performance, if there was no
fraud. Upon the ground, therefore, that in the
present case there was no circumvention or deceit
practised by the plaintiff; that the agreement was
fair and just, and was not obtained from the de-
fendant when in a state of intoxication, the de-
fendant's answer to that part of the case entirely
fails. I have had, however, and still have, con-
siderable doubt whether the plaintiff comes into
this court "with perfect propriety of conduct,"
and as a consequence, is entitled to the inter-
position of this court to enforce this contract.
There is no doubt the defendant expressed his
desire before he signed a document, which was to
irrevocably convey his property to the plaintiff,

The case

BANKRUPTCY LAW.
BRADFORD COUNTY COURT.
May 3 and 17; June 11.
(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q. C., Judge.)
Bankruptcy-Interest required to give a party not
a creditor a locus standi to move in bankruptcy
- Order of the Court of Chancery giving liberty
not of itself authority to a stranger to litigate
The duty of giving facility for determining in the
existing proceeding every question in controversy
between parties in furtherance of the jurisdiction
conferred by the 72nd section of the Bankruptcy
Act 1869-Equities enforceable against parties
claiming adversely legal rights prejudicial to
trust of which they have notice.

-

J. W. Berry, Bradford, in support of motion. James Green, Bradford, for trustee in opposition.

His HONOUR said-This is a motion on behalf of Henry Wright and Frederick Geisler Lloyd, of Farringdon-road, in the county of Middlesex, tobacco manufacturers, that the court would declare that the furniture and effects at the Talbot Hotel, Bradford, sold by Edward Dickin as the trustee of the estate of Joseph Crock, the bankrupt, were trust property belonging to the bankrupt as administrator of Martha Crook, deceased, and for an order that Dickin, on or before the 20th May, pay into the Bank of England, with the privity of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, to the credit of re Martha Crook's Estate (Wright v. Crook, c. 95) the sum realised by the sale of the said furniture and effects, the amount to be verified by affidavit, and for inquiries of what such furniture and effects consisted, and the value thereof, and the amount realised by the sale thereof. This application was supported by an affidavit of the parties moving, alleging: First, that Martha Crook died indebted to them in £80 for goods sold and delivered; secondly, that she died 14th June 1870, and on 30th June 1870, letters of administration to her estate were granted to the bankrupt; thirdly,

pos

court give that liberty to make the payment, and that the Accountant-General be at liberty to receive it, this order leaves the objection to the ap plicant's right to make this motion as it was. It gives them no better locus standi than any other person would have who alleged himself to be a creditor of Martha Crook, and claiming the benefit of the administration decree. I must presume the order was made in this form advisedly, and that the court having the facts before it declined to give its judicial sanction to this litigation, but left the applicants to proceed upon their own responsi bility. It is possible, however, that the applicants may have been advised, and accordingly have con. sidered, that the order was sufficient as an an thority for them proceeding, though I am clear it is not, and as the merits have been entered into I will dispose of the motion upon them, leaving the objection to the applicant's right to move open. The case of the applicants depends upon the fact referred to in the order of 10th May 1872, that the furniture and effects at the Talbot Hotel, Bradford, were in the possession and the property of the intes tate, Martha Crook, at the time of her death. That the bankrupt, as her administrator, took possession thereof in that character, and retained such session up to the time of this bankruptcy. And that this specific property being trust property did not vest in the trustee under the bankruptcy, but having been wrongfully taken possession of by him and sold (the sale being adopted by the applicants as affecting to represent though they cannot bind the estate of Martha Crook), the proceeds must be paid over by the trustee to be ad ministered in the Court of Chancery as part of the intestate's personal estate. The facts as to the furniture and effects being in the possession and the property of Martha Crook at the time of her death stand thus: For some time prior and up to the 10th Oct. 1863, John Bell was the tenant and occupier of the Talbot Hotel, and carried on there the business of an innkeeper, and in that character became indebted to various persons in various sums which he was unable to pay. A meeting of his creditors was held on the 5th Oct. 1863, and at such meeting it was agreed that he should assign all his personal estate to trustees upon trust for the benefit of his creditors, and, accordingly, by a deed dated the 10th Oct. 1863, and made between John Bell of the first part, Benjamin Briggs Popplewell, Wine and Spirit Merchant, and Michael

JULY 6, 1872.]

THE LAW TIMES.

Rogerson, Chemist, of the second part, and the until the latter end of April 1870, when Martha several other persons whose names and seals were Crook having been taken seriously ill, and unable set and affixed (being creditors of Bell) of the in consequence to attend to the management, third part. Bell assigned to Popplewell and Popplewell appointed Amelia Cooper as manager Rogerson all the leasehold estates, household fur- in Martha Crook's place, and she continued such niture, plate, linen, &c., books of account, book manager until a fresh arrangement was made and other debts, &c., fixtures, and all other house- between the bankrupt and Popplewell, as after hold utensils and effects, and all the stock of wine, stated. Martha Crook, after she had ceased to be spirits, and articles of food or consumption, and manager, being too ill to be removed, continued to all and singular the horses, cows, carriages, har- live at the Talbot Hotel until her death, which ness, corn, grain, hay, and straw, stable, coach- took place on the 10th June 1870. The bankrupt, house, and utensils, and furniture, and all farm- who is a brother of Martha Crook, came to the ing implements then being in and about the Talbot Hotel a short time before her death and messuages, lands, and premises, situate in Brad- remained there, as it would seem, to protect his ford and Manningham then in the occupation of sister's interest, and on the 30th June he took out Bell, and all other his personal estate, whatsoever letters of administration to her estate, she having and wheresoever, with full power for the trustees died intestate. The bankrupt, upon his sister's immediately to enter upon and take possession of death, was desirous of carrying on the hotel, and all the property assigned, and stand possessed he entered into negotiations with Popplewell for thereof upon trust for such time as to them shall an arrangement with that object, and ultimately seem desirable to conduct, carry on, and manage it was agreed between them that the bankrupt the business carried on by Bell, and at such times should purchase from Popplewell, as trustee of as they think proper to sell. The deed contained Bell's estate, the furniture and effects at the powers of management and an authority to the Talbot Hotel, for the amount of the debt which was then due to Popplewell from Bell's estate, in trustees to employ Bell or such other person or persons as to them shall seem desirable for the order that he might continue the business. An purpose of carrying, or conducting, or managing, inventory was accordingly made of all the furnithe business, or as servants in the said business, ture and effects then in the hotel by Mr. Buckley and to make such remuneration to the said John Sharp, a valuer appointed by the bankrupt, and Bell, or such other persons as the trustees should an account was made up by Heselton in the think fit. And the trusts were to continue until books of Popplewell of the debt due to him the creditors of Bell were paid 20s. in the pound, from Bell's estate, which included his original and in the mean time the moneys received were to debt, and also the amount due to him for be paid into the Yorkshire Banking Company, in wines and spirits supplied by him to the hotel This debt was settled at the names of the trustees or trustee for the time during the time he had as trustee undertaken being. And all cheques or orders for drawing the management. The bankrupt had no money thereout any moneys must be signed by the £2005 1s. 2d. trustees or trustee for the time being. This deed where with to pay it. He was then in possession was duly executed by Bell and ten of his creditors. of the furniture and effects at the hotel, and It was not executed by either Popplewell or Roger- carrying on the business. Sharp's inventory was son. Popplewell, however, acted under it, and he worded as an invoice, treating the furniture, &c., appears to have been a large, in fact, the prin- as goods bought by the bankrupt of Poplewell and cipal, creditor of Bell, his debt being for money Rogerson, and at the end the following memoranlent (£1000 and interest) and goods supplied. dum was written: "Received for the above the Popplewell being a wine and spirit merchant sup- sum of Two Thousand and Five Pounds One plied the Talbot Hotel largely in the way of his Shilling and Twopence. B. B. Popplewell, by trade. Rogerson does not appear to have inter- Taylor, Jeffery, and Little, for self and Michael fered actively as a trustee, but he does not Rogerson, Bradford, 27th Aug. 1870," and in appear to have disclaimed. The deed was not re- pursuance and as part of the same arrangegistered under the Bankruptcy Act of 1861, and ment a bill of sale purporting to be dated the as against any creditor of Bell who was neither same 27th Aug. 1870, being made and executed assenting nor party to it, the deed was no doubt between and by the bankrupt therein described as an act of bankruptcy, but no creditor of Bell innkeeper, of the one part, and Benjamin Briggs appears ever to have questioned the validity in Popplewell, of the other part. After reciting that effect of the deed, nor anything that has been the bankrupt was indebted to Popplewell in since done under it. The deed, however, would £2005 1s. 2d., which he was unable to pay, and operate at common law to pass the property in had requested Popplewell to receive payment the tenancy and goodwill of the Talbot Hotel, and thereof by instalments, and to take the security the furniture and effects therein, to the trustees, for the sum of £2005 1s. 2d., and interest thereinand would leave no interest therein, legal or after appearing, he bankrupt thereby assigned equitable, in Bell or any person claiming under to Popplewell all the furniture and effects comhim otherwise than subject to and under the prised in the schedule thereunder written, then trusts. In pursuance of the powers given by the being in or about the messuage and premises in the same as deed the trustees, or rather, as it would appear, Bradford known as the Talbot Hotel, then in the Popplewell as the sole acting trustee, deemed it bankrupt's possession (being advisable to carry on the business at the Talbot Sharp's inventory), by way of mortgage for Hotel, and retained Bell as manager. An account securing to Popplewell the payment by the bank. was opened in the name of the trustees at the rupt of the sum of £5 weekly, and every week Yorkshire Banking Company, which was after- from the date thereof until the whole of the said wards transferred to the Bradford Old Bank, and sum of £2005 1s. 2d. should be paid, and also Bell, from time to time, generally twice or thrice payment on the 27th Feb. and 27th Aug. in every a week, paid into the bank to this account what-year (on which days the account between the ever moneys were received from the hotel busi- parties was to be adjusted), of interest at the rate ness, and cheques were from time to time drawn of £5 per cent. per annum on the amount found by Popplewell upon the account in favour of Bell, due on such account. And also of all such sums who thereout paid the rent, rates, wages, debts, (if any) with interest after the rate aforesaid as and current expenses of the hotel and business. shall have been paid by and remain due to Popplewell for insurance of the premises from fire, with The accounts of these transactions were kept on behalf of the trustees, or rather of Popplewell, by a proviso that until default in payment of any of an accountant, Mr. Heselton, who superintended the sums thereby agreed to be paid, the bankrupt the payments and receipts to and by Bell as should remain in possession of the furniture and manager. This mode of carrying on the business effects thereby assigned, and have the use and was continued until the death of Bell, which enjoyment thereof; and that if default should be occurred in March 1867. He died intestate, and made in any such payment, Popelwell might enter as it would seem, insolvent, and no letters of upon the premises where the furniture and effects administration were ever taken out to his estate. were, take possession thereof, and sell the same, For about twenty years before Bell's death Martha and apply the proceeds in payment of the principal Crook had lived with him as part of the family. and interest moneys then due, and a further proShe was his wife's sister, and while so living with vision that if any weekly instalment should not Bell she assisted in the business, and thereby, as be paid as due the whole of the principal sum then it would seem, acquired a knowledge of the man- remaining due should become immediately payagement. Upon the death of Bell it became the able. duty of the trustees, or of Popplewell, as sole acting trustee, if the business was to be continued under the trust of the creditors' deed, to appoint another manager in Bell's place, and, according to the evidence of the bankrupt and Heselton, he appointed Martha Crook to be such manager, and upon her appointment the same course of dealing with the receipts and payments in respect of the business was adopted as had been adopted during the life of Bell. Martha Crook from time to time paid the moneys arising from the hotel business into the bank to the account of Popplewell as trustee, and he from time to time drew out by cheque in favour of as were required to Martha Crook such sums meet current payments, including rent, rates, and taxes. This course of management continued

Under this security the furniture and
effects remained in the possession of the bank-
rupt, and he had the use and enjoyment thereof
for the purposes of his business, until the 2nd
Dec. 1871. Popplewell died in June 1871, leaving
his wife his executrix, who proved his will, and
she being advised that default had been made in
payment of the instalment due 25th Nov., on the
2nd Dec. 1871, caused the bankrupt to be served
with a demand for immediate payment of the sum
of £1701 78. 8d., the amount of principal and in-
terest then due on the security of 27th Aug. 1870,
and the bankrupt not being able to pay that sum,
Mrs. Poppelwell caused a man to be placed in
possession of the furniture and effects at the
After an ineffectual attempt to
Talbot Hotel.
raise the money to pay off Mrs. Popplewell, the
bankrupt put himself in the hands of his creditors,

was thereupon adjudicated a bankrupt on the 8th
filed a declaration of insolvency in this court, and
tration decree), a receiver and manager was
Dec. 1871 (the day before the date of the adminis-
immediately appointed, who took possession of
the goods and effects at the Talbot, and car-
ried on the business there until his appoint-
ment as trustee. Litigation afterwards ensued
in this court between Poplowell's executrix
and trustee to determine as between them the
title to the goods in question, Mrs. Popplewell
claiming them under the security of 28th Aug.
1870, and the trustee claiming them as being goods
and chattels in the order and disposition of the
bankrupt at the commencement of the bankruptcy.
Upon the case between these parties it appeared
that the security had not been duly registered
under the Bills of Sales Act, and was therefore
void against the trustee, and on that ground his
title prevailed, and it became unnecessary to con-
sider any other question. The trustee has since
sold the goods for £1400, and the proceeds he now
proposes to distribute as part of the bankrupt's
estate, Mrs. Poppelwell sharing in the distribution
pari passu with his other creditors. I have gone
through these facts thus in detail for the purpose
of showing that Martha Crook, whose interests
the applicants volunteer to represent, never had,
or rightfully could have had, any interest, legal or
are the subject of dispute on this motion, and
equitable, in the furniture and effects which
consequently that the bankrupt as her adminis-
trator has no interest therein which could be the
subject of administration in the Chancery suit.
John Bell's family for upwards of twenty years
Martha Crook happened to have been a member of
before his death, and upon that event happening
was appointed by Popplewell as the acting trustee
manager, under Popplewell, of the business which
under Bell's assignment to succeed Bell as
formed part of the trust estate. She accepted
years, when on her becoming incapacitated by
that appointment, and acted under it for three
illness, a successor was appointed, who acted as
such manager during the remainder of Martha
Crook's life, and until the new arrangement before
mentioned was made between the bankrupt and
Popplewell. The applicants represent themselves
to be creditors of Martha Crook in respect of goods
supplied to her for the use of the Talbot during
the time she was manager, but it appears from the
bankrupt's accounts upon the file of proceedings
that they are entered as creditors upon his estate.
It is, doubtless, open to remark that the mode in
which Popplewell dealt with both Bell and Martha
Crook, as managers, was such that if the bank-
ruptcy of either had occurred during his or her
management, persons who had supplied goods to
either upon credit, as the apparent owner of the
hotel, and in ignorance of the real transaction,
might perhaps have successfully contended against
were in his or her order and disposition with
Poppelwell that the goods at the Talbot Hotel
question has been prevented from being raised
Popplewell's consent, as full owner; but that
through the death of both those parties. The
foundation of Mr. Berry's argument for the ap
plicants was that Martha Crook, upon the death of
John Bell, took possession of the property at the
Talbot Hotel, and carried on the business there
until her death, as executrix de son tort of Bell,
and that during that period she paid Popplewell
various sums of money, which greatly exceeded
sums ought to have been applied by him in pay-
the amount due to him from Bell, and that these
ment of his debt, so as to extinguish it, and con-
sequently that the furniture and effects at the
hotel were at the death of Martha Crook her
property, and vested in the bankrupt as her ad-
ministrator, and remained so vested in him down
to the time of his bankruptcy. This case, however,
is not supported by the evidence, and is in fact
negatived by the evidence of Heselton, and the
documents and vouchers he produces.
servant of Popplewell as trustee, and that the
show that Martha Cook was the mere agent and
moneys she paid to Popplewell were paid into his
banking account as trustee of Bell's estate, and
that he thereout paid to her such sums as she re-
quired for the purposes of the business, and,
further, that at her death no part of Popplewell's
original debt against Bell had been paid, but the
amount due to him had been increased by a con-
siderable sum, which was due for goods supplied to
him for the purposes of the hotel business, and not
paid for out of its proceeds. The case, therefore,
of any beneficial interest in the property in question
in Martha Crook, or the bankrupt as her adminis-
trator, entirely fails, and the specific case raised
upon the notice of motion must, therefore, be
disposed of adversely to the applicants, and here
I might stop. I consider it right, however, to
notice a view of the case which might be taken
upon the effect of some evidence which was
adduced, and strongly relied upon by Mr. Berry.
I allude to the agreement of tenancy, and the
hotel licence. These, it is contended, as I under-
stood Mr. Berry's argument, were the property of
Martha Crook; the tenancy was a legal tenancy in

These

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

No one

ministrator, and enable him also to embarrass
Popplewell in like manner; but that agreement of
tenancy having been obtained while Martha Crook
was actually in possession and occupation of the
demised premises as manager for the trustee,
LEGAL EDUCATION AND LAW LIBRARIES.-
would in equity operate for the benefit of the In reading a report of the meeting of the Law
trust estate, and confer no beneficial interest Students' Societies, held at Birmingham on the
whatever, either on his or her representative 21st ult., I notice that the second and third reso-
adverse to the trust estate. It is immaterial lutions passed thereat were respectively: -2.
whether Popplewell was privy to that agreement That in setting the final examination questions
or not. There is no evidence upon the subject less importance should be given to mere points of
one way or the other. If he were privy to it it practice, and more attention should be given to
would be a breach of trust on his part to permit a legal principles. 3. That every articled clerk
valuable portion of the trust estate to be with- should be afforded an opportunity to pass an
drawn from the trust without an equivalent benefit examination in constitutional law and general
to the trust estate, and this court would decline to jurisprudence, such works as those taken by
enforce by active interference the interest of a Hallam and Austin being taken as test books.
party claiming the benefit of such breach of trust. And that a resolution was passed drawing the
If, however, Popplewell was privy and consented attention of the Incorporated Law Society to the
to the agreement adopted, it being beneficial to inadequate means of instruction available to the
the trust estate, then the estate is entitled to the provincial law student. These resolutions have
benefit of it, and the claim of Martha Crook's brought forcibly to my attention what I conceive
estate would fall to the ground. If, however, to be the great want of law students in our branch
Popplewell was neither party or privy to the of the Profession, I mean, the want of public
agreement, nor ever adopted it, but it was obtained libraries. No doubt to a certain extent the Law
behind his back for some private purposes of Institution and the British Museum supply this
Martha Crook, then it was a simple fraud upon want, but the Law Institution Library is only open
Popplewell, and the trust estate void in equity. to members of the institution and their articled
In any view, therefore, of the facts which may be clerks; and as it does not include much more than
thus relied upon as affecting the goodwill and one-fifth of the Profession in its numbers, it is
possession, I am of opinion that the case of the obvious that there must be multitudes of men
applicant fails. These properties originally who are out of its pale, and the British Museum
formed part of the trust estate, and continued is for many reasons inconvenient.
to do so when the arrangement was made between will dispute that access to a library is ab
Popplewell and the bankrupt in Aug. 1870, and solutely essential, both to a legal education
they are involved in that arrangement. It is un- (especially so if the examinations are to be made
fortunate for Popplewell's estate that the security severer and more extensive in scope), and to the
intended to have been effected by the bill of sale successful application of one's education in
of the 27th Aug. 1870, has failed through the practice. Now, most law students find that a
accident of imperfect registration; but the private library is beyond their resources or out of
general creditors of the bankrupt, and not Martha their reach, and from the reasons above stated
Crook's estate are entitled to the benefit of what- many are excluded from the public libraries. I
ever consequences result from that failure. I therefore beg to call the attention of your readers
have not overlooked the fact that it appears by to this subject in the hope that some steps may be
the affidavit of the bankrupt of the 2nd May 1871, taken to remedy the want I have indicated. I
referred to in the order of the 10th May 1872; and fear it is vain to hope that the Law Institution
it was also stated by the bankrupt in his exami- will ever be induced to throw open the portals of
nation before me, that as administrator he has its library to the general legal public. In my ex-
taken credit for some debts alleged to have been perience it is not frequented by more than twenty
paid by him out of the assets of Martha Crook, or thirty readers per night; and I have on more
which appear to have been for goods supplied to occasions than one been the solitary reader there;
Martha Crook for the purposes of the hotel, and and I feel certain that there must be numbers of
while she was manager, some of which may have men who would be glad to pay any reasonable sub-
been included among those sold by the trustee. scription for access to its library, but who are
The propriety of those payments as items of dis- shut out because their principals are not members,
charge to the property allowable to the bankrupt and who cannot become so themselves till certifi
is a question to be determined in the administra-cated. The Law Institution has, of course, a
tion suit, and which the court has no power to perfect right to do what it likes with its own, but
deal with or inquire into, and the decision, what- it will never represent the Profession whose edu
ever it may be, can have no bearing upon the cation it superintends until it displays greater
questions raised or raisable upon this motion. liberality in affording to the student the means
This motion having therefore failed altogether, of acquiring that education which it enforces.
both in form and substance, is dismissed with It appears to me then that the only course
costs. And I regret that the division of the for those whom the Law Institution refuses
fund, among the creditors, has been delayed by to help is to bestir themselves, and consi
such a groundless litigation.
der whether it would be impossible to found
a library free to the general public. The
question is chiefly one of expense, and the prin
cipal expenses would be: first, that of purchasing
books; secondly, rent of rooms; thirdly, attend-
ance, gas, rates, &c. I do not think it would be
advisable to start such an adventnre unless at least
100 members could be found to join in it. I believe
that several times that number would in fact be
glad to do so, but with that number to start with,
if the subscription were fixed at two guineas, with
a two-guinea entrance fee, the expenses, which I
will put at £40 for rooms, £78 for an attendant,
and £20 for gas, &c., would be met, and there
would be at once a surplus of £282 to start with
for the purchase of books, besides an annual
surplus of £72, available for the same purpose.
With respect to the probable or possible number
of members, I would remark that there is an
average of more than 600 articled clerks in
course of study from year to year, of whom,
at least, one-half are in London, taking into
account those who spend their last year there.
To this should be added, first, a large number
of men in practice for themselves, who would
find a law library most useful for daily refe
rence, and who do not care to incur the ex
pense of joining the Law Institution; secondly,
a much more numerous body who are in the
intermediate state between admission and prac

Martha Crook, and on her death vested in the
bankrupt as her administrator, and in that cha-
racter he obtained the transfer of the licence from
the magistrates. The furniture and effects at the
Talbot have been sold, with the goodwill of the
business, and the possession of the hotel as a
going concern, and the bankrupt has concurred
with the trustee in giving effect to that sale, and
it is urged that by this mode of sale a larger sum
has been obtained than would have been obtained if
the furniture and effects had been sold without
the goodwill and possession. That this goodwill
and possession ought therefore to be treated as
assets of Martha Crook, of which the trustee has
improperly possessed himself by means of the
mode in which the sale of the furniture and effects
was, with the assistance of the bankrupt, effected,
and that the estate of Martha Crook (assuming the
furniture not to have been hers), has an equity to
be recouped out of the moneys received by the
trustee, such a portion of the proceeds of the sale
as would represent the value of the goodwill and
possession, and that this value should be ascer-
tained by the court. This, I am of opinion, is
an equity which would be enforceable against the
trustee if the facts of the case warranted it,
and I will examine them for that purpose. I
must observe, however, that this special equity is
not open upon the terms of the notice of motion
which are confined to the furniture, and say
nothing about possession or goodwill, but if it
were necessary I should, in order to do complete
justice in accordance with the liberal and com-
prehensive spirit and object of the 72nd section of
the Bankruptcy Act 1869, give leave to make the
necessary amendment to the end, that the real
question in controversy between the parties may
be decided here, and now, subject of course to
appeal, I will, therefore, examine the facts: they
embrace the hotel licence which relates to the
goodwill, and the agreement for tenancy which
affects the right to the possession. Under the
trust deed of the 10th Oct. 1863, the goodwill, the
tenancy, and the effects in the hotel (then the
property of Bell) all passed to the trustees, and
constituted the trust estate to be managed and
dealt with by Popplewell in accordance with the
trusts of the deed. Popplewell having as trustee
decided to continue to carry on the business, em-
ploying Bell as manager for that purpose. Bell's
right to the possession as actual occupier, and his
right to the goodwill by virtue of the licence
were both subservient to the right of Popplewell
as trustee, and Bell could claim no right in them
adversely to the trust estate; and on Bell's death
his legal personal representative, had there been
one, would have had no more right than he.
When upon Bell's death, Martha Crook became
manager under Popplewell, and in that character
became the occupier of the hotel and the holder of
the licence, her rights in each were in like manner
subservient to those of Popplewell as trustee.
When she ceased to be manager, and Amelia
Cooper was appointed in her place, no transfer of
the licence was obtained, but that was immaterial
as regards the question of beneficial interest.
Whatever right or interest Martha Crook had by
virtue of the licence, she was bound, after she
ceased to be manager, to exercise it or allow it to
be exercised in subservience to the rights of Pop-
plewell as trustee, and after her death the bank-
rupt, as her administrator, would have been equally
bound to do the same. If as was probably the case
the bankrupt obtained the licence to be granted
to himself as administrator in order to gain an
advantage, either for himself personally, or for
the benefit of Martha Crook's estate to the pre-
judice of the rights of Popplewell as trustee; that
advantage would have been gained inequitably,
and he could not by such an act have deprived the
trust estate in Popplewell as trustee of the right
to the goodwill of the business as affected by the
licence. He has not done so, and this court would
not compel him to do, nor will it treat him as
having done, an act which, if done, the court would
regard as wrongful. So much for the goodwill.
As regards the possession the question as to that
is involved in a singular complication. It is quite
clear that the possession was part of the trust
estate, and Bell during his life dealt with it ac-
cordingly, and also that Martha Crook did the
same up to the 1st April 1870. On that day an
agreement of tenancy was entered into between
the landlord of the hotel and Martha Crook, whereby
the hotel and premises were demised to Martha
Crook as tenant from year to year, from the 1st
April 1870, at the yearly rent of £441, payable half-
yearly in advance, the first half-yearly payment of
rent to be made on that day. Upon the face of the
document it would appear that Martha Crook be-
came tenant in her own right, and adversely to the
right of Popplewell as trustee, and in a character
opposed to that which she had theretofore sustained,
and was then sustaining as occupier of the hotel
as Popplewell's manager. This agreement would
no doubt confer legal right upon Martha Crook,
which might embarrass Popplewell in his admin-
istration of the trust estate, and which upon her
death would devolve on the bankrupt as her ad-

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
be excluded which go beyond our limits.
N.B.--None are inserted unless the name and address of the
writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a
guarantee for bona fides.

Queries.

44. ARTICLED CLERK.-I was articled in April 1870, passed my Intermediate on the 25th April 1872. When is the first term and year in which I can go up for my Final ? A.

45. SUCCESSION DUTY.-A vendor contracts in writing to sell two freehold houses, but dies before completion of the sale. Which, legacy or succession duty, is payable in respect thereof ?

Answers.

T. H. T.

(Q, 39.) COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS-The cause of
action on the bill arose where the bill was signed; there-
fore, if the bill in question were signed in the north,
the registrar is right, for his court would have no juristice; and, thirdly, the superior class of unarticled

diction.

J. R.

clerks, many of whom would profit as much by
this scheme as any that I have mentioned. These
all would find a library most useful, whether for
systematic reading or for points arising in daily
practice, and I should say that the majority of
these are shut out from the convenience of
a good library. This beginning may be hum-
ble, but it would be, I believe, practicable:
and I venture to throw out this suggestion in
the hope that it may meet with the approval, and
upon it.
that I may obtain the criticism of your readers
ADMITTED B. A.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street.

at Pentonville. Pet. June 29. Reg. Roche. Sur. July 19
To surrender in the Country.
BEARD, GEORGE, brickmaker, Hartpury.
Reg. Riddiford. Sur. July 19
BLIGHT, JOHN, draper, Plymouth. Pet. June 28.
Shelley. Sur. July 17

Pet. June 29. Dep.-
Dep..Reg.

VACANT RECORDERSHIP.-The Recordership of COURTNEY, GEORGE HARVEY, a convict in Her Majesty's prison Bristol, value £800 a year, is vacant by the resignation of Mr. Montague Bere, who has been appointed County Court Judge in Cornwall circuit. Mr. Bere might lawfully hold both offices, but he has authorised the announcement that he will resign his appointment as recorder. At the Bristol Quarter Session on Saturday, Mr. W. F. Woodforde, on behalf of the bar practising at the Bristol Sessions, congratulated the Recorder on the ap- SLACK, JAMES, farmer, Caverswall. Pet. June 25. Reg. Keary. pointment he had received, and thanked him for the courtesy he had shown towards them in every relation that could exist between the bar and a judge in the discharge of his duties.

JUDICIAL ECONOMY.-We trust there is no foundation for a report which has appeared in some of the daily journals. It is stated that the clerk to the magistrates at Ashford, Kent, has, ever since the committal of the prisoner who stands charged with the brutal murder recently

CLARKE, AUGUSTUS STANLEY, gentleman, Alcombe Court, near
Stroud. Pet. June 28. Dep.-Reg. Riddiford. Sur. July 13
MARSH, WILLIAM, railway waggon manufacturer, Southport.
Pet. June 29. Dep.-Reg. Speakinan. Sur. July 16
SIMMONS, THOMAS, ironfounder, Sheffield. Pet. June 28. Reg.
Wake. Sur. July 18

Sur. July 13

BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED.

Gazette, June 28.

COTTON, WILLOUGHBY, of no occupation, Lown les-sq, Knights-
bridge. Feb. 15, 1872

GOULE, RICHARD, blockmaker, Newport. April 22, 1872
LANDON, CHARLES RICHARD, Vigo-st, and New-rd, Hammer-
smith. Jan. 14, 1863

Liquidations by Arrangement.

FIRST MEETINGS.

Gazette, June 29.

rd, Finsbury-pk; July 8, at two, at 7, Whitehall-pl, Westmin-
ster. Sol., Murray

ASCHKINASS, WOLF, tea dealer, Minories, and Offord rd, Barns-
bury; July 12, at three, at office ct Sol., Holmes, Eastcheap.
ASH, ALFRED, commission agent. Poultry; July 12, at ten, at
office of Sols., Howard and Co., New Bridge-st
BARTON, JOHN WILLIAM, coal merchant, Ringmer; July 9, at
twelve, at the Bear hotel, Lewes, Sol., Langhamn, jun., Uckfield
BENJAMIN, MICHAEL, bill discounter, Air-st, Piccadilly, and
Adelaide-villa, Alex indra-rd, Abbey-rd, St. John's-wood: July
11, at three, at office of Sols., Miller and Stubbs, Eastcheap
BENNETT, WILLIAM, medical botanist, Hanley; July 3, at eleven,
at office of Sol., Stevenson, Hanley

REVINGTON, HENRY, china decorator, Hanley; July 5, at three,
at office of Litchfield, Hanley. Sols., Turner, Hanley and
Stoke-upon-Trent

BILLS, WILLIAM, out of business, Deptford: July 11, at twelve, at
office of Sols, Taylor and Jaquet South-sq, Finsbury-sq
BOWDEN, ALFRED JAMES, victualler, Old-st, St. Lukes, July 16,

at two, at the George public house, Old-st, St. Luke's. Sol.
Flavell, Bedford-row

perpetrated at that place, been in correspondence ARCHER, FREDERICK JAMES, professor of music, St. Thomas's-
with the Home Secretary with the view of induc-
ing the Crown to pay the expenses of the prose-
cution in the case, and also those of an analysis of
the spots on the prisoner's clothes supposed to
be blood, and a professional examination of the
The Home
grey hairs found upon his boots.
Secretary, the report says, has just replied, de-
clining to interfere; so that the depositions will
go before the court at the assizes just as they
are, as the magistrates, on receipt of the commu-
nication, refused to make any order. It seems dif-
ficult to believe that the policy which the Treasury
have hitherto pursued, only to the probable injury
of the efficiency of criminal prosecutions, will be
adhered to in a case where it is so manifestly and
certainly disastrous to the ends of justice. The
withholding of the Treasury sanction to these
necessary expenses is the more inexcusable as the
case in question has now arrived at a point where,
on the principles recognised by the Government
themselves in their amendments to the Public
Prosecutors Bill, it would become the duty of
public prosecutor to undertake the conduct of
the proceedings. It is not to be supposed that
such an official would refuse from considerations
of economy to complete the evidence against a
prisoner committed for trial on a charge of murder,
and the Government, therefore, which at present
stands, as it should stand, in the place of a public
prosecutor in such cases, incurs a very grave re-
sponsibility by its refusal.

LAW SOCIETIES.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. THE usual monthly meeting of the board of directors of this association was held at the Law Institution, London, on Wednesday last, July 3rd, Mr. John Smale Torr in the chair; the other directors present were Messrs. Brook, Hedger, Monckton, Nelson, Rickman, and Sidney Smith, Mr. Eiffe, Secretary. A donation of £60 was granted to the necessitous widow of a late member of the association; and a sum of £30 was distributed in grants of assistance to the necessitous families of four deceased non-members. The result of the late anniversary festival was reported to be a net gain to the funds of the association, after payment of all the expenses, of £612, and an accession to the list of eighty-four new members. Resolutions of thanks to Lord Cairns, who presided, and to the principal donors, were unanimously passed. Thirty-three new members were admitted, and other business of a general nature transacted.

To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street.
GRAY, ROBERT, Australian merchant, Leadenhall-st. Pet. June
27. Reg. Pepys. Sols. Messrs. Chappell, Golden-sq. Sur. July 9
LYONS, BENJAMIN BERNARD, wholesale hardwareman, Brondes-
bury villas, Kiburn, and Houndsditch. Pet. June 25. Reg.
Brougham. Sols., Sydney and Son, 46, Finsbury-circus. Sur.
July 12
STOKES, WILLIAM, Rendlesham-rd, Hackney Downs. Pet. May 9.
Reg. Pepys. Sur. July 9

To surrender in the Country.

BURNS, DAVID, confectioner, Lee. Pet. June 24. Dep. Reg.
Farnfield. Sur. July 16
BUTTERFIELD, JOHN GEORGE, draper, Birkenhead. Pet. June
24. Reg. Wason. Sur. July 10

DASHWOOD, CHARLES HENRY, gentleman, Folkestone. Pet. June
2. Reg. Callaway. Sur. July 8

GREAVES, JOHN, livery stable keeper, Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Pet. June 22. Reg. Challinor. Sur. July 10
HARRISON, JOSEPH, brickmaker, Waterloo, near Ashton-under-
Lyne Pet. June 24. Reg. Hall. Sur. July 12
HESKETH, WILLIAM, collector of rents, Liverpool, Pet. June 24.
Reg. Watson. Sur. July 10

JONES, WILLIAM EDWARD, dentist, Newport. Pet. June 22. Reg.
Roberts. Sur. July 1
SINGLEHURST, WILLIAM, Ccorn merchant, Firbeck. Pet. June 18.
Reg. Wake. Sur. July 10

inn

BUCKLER, HENRY, grocer, Portsmouth: July 9, at three, at 46,
St. James-st, Portsea. Sol., King, Portsea
BUDGE, DAVID, no occupation, Loughborough pk, Brixton; July
15, at two, at office of Sol., Girdwood, Verulam-bldgs, Gray's-
CAMPIN, JAMES GEORGE, coal dealer, Mayfield; July 12, at ten,
at office of Sol., Arnold, Tunbridge Wells
CAPENHURST, JOHN LEEDHAM, Coffin furniture manufacturer,
Bristol; July 11, at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Denning, Smitu,
and Co., accountants, Bristol. Sols., Messrs. Fussell, Prichard,
and Swann, Bristol

CARPENTER, ELIZA GARDENER, spinster, dressmaker, Cambria-
house, Stratford-grove; July 13, at one, at orices of Sols.,
Paterson, Sons, and Garner, Bouverie-st, Fleet-st
CHADDOCK, ALEXANDER, draper, Congleton; July 13, at eleven,
at office of Sol., Cooper, Congleton

CLARKE, JOSEPH, Ironmonger, Sidbury; July 10, at eleven at
offices of Sol., Meredith, Worcester
CLIFF, JAMES, and LUMD, SAM, wholesale provision merchants:
Bradford and Nottingham; July 4, at eleven, at the Queen
hotel, Bradford, Sols., Watson and Dickons, and B. C. Pulian

Cocks, WILLIAM, Portobello-ro, Bayswater; July 16, at offices of
Messrs. Slater and Pannell accountants, Guildhall chmbs,
Basinghall-st. Sol., Lay, Poultry

COOKE, WILLIAM, Victualler, Bilston: July 17, at twelve, at offices
Sol., Barrow, Wolverhampton

COX, RICHARD, gardener and seedsman, Ludlow; July 12, at two,
at office of Suis., Anderson and Davis, Ludlow
COX, SAMUEL, nurseryman and seedsman, Ludlow; July 10, at
one, at the Feathers hotel, Ludlow.
Sols., Anderson and
Davies
DARKIN, HENRY JAMES, victualler. Oxford-st; July 15, at two,
at office of Sol, Beard, Basinghall-st
DAVIES, SAMUEL, watchmaker, Merthyr Tydfil; July 10, at
eleven, at the County Court office, Merthyr Tydfl. Sol., Bed-
doe, Merthyr Tydfil

DAY, JOHN G. ORGE, farmer, Lamarsh; July 8, at four, at office
of Sol., Jones, Colchester

ETESON, WILLIAM, Stuff finisher, Bradford: July 11, at eleven, at
at office of Sols., Wood and Killick, Bradford

EVANS, JAMES, innkeeper, Lamborne, July 9, at two, at the
George hotel. Reading. Sol., Cave, Newbury
FISH, GREGORY, beer retailer, Bristol; July 6, at eleven, at office
of Sol., Essery, Bristol

FLINTHAM, HENRY, fruiterer, Rotherham; July 8, at eleven,
at offices of Wing, Sheffield. Sol., Edwards, Rotherham
FLINTHAM, JOHN, fruiterer, Rotherham, July 8, at eleven, at
offices of Wing, Sheffield. Sol., Edwards, Rotherham
FRANCIS, ISAAC, grocer, Spotlands, near Cardiff; July 12, at
eleven, at office of Sol., Morgan, Cardiff

FULLER, THOMAS, butcher, Brighton; July 12, at three, at office
of Sol., Lamb, Brighton

FULLWOOD, ABRAHAM, victualler, Kidderminster; July 9, at
twelve, at office of Sol., Prior, Kidderminster

GARBUTT, CORNELIUS, draper, West Hartlepool; July 10, at three,
at the Raglan hotel, West Hartlepool. Sol., Todd, West Hartle-
pool

GEORGE, HENRY, plumber, Montgomery; July 12, at half-past
twelve, at office of Sol,, Jones, Newtown

GREEN, JAMES, lodging-house keeper, Bristol, July 5, at twelve,
at office of Sol., Thick, Bristol

HALL, THOMAS, baker, Shoreham; July 12, at twelve, at office
of Sol., Lamb, Brighton

HAND, ALFRED, out of business. Small Heath, near Birmingham
July 1, at three, at office of Sol., Duke, Birmingham
HEYES, GEORGE, hearth rug manufacturer, Huddersfield; July
10, at three. at office of Sol., Ramsden, Huddersfield
HIGGINSON, SAMUEL, victualler, Longport; July 4, at eleven, at
office of Sol., Stevenson, Hanley

HILL, JOHN, coach builder, Rugeley; July 9, at eleven, at offices
of Sol., Crabb, Rugeley

HILL, THOMAS, baker, Lordship-ter, Lordship-la, Wood-green;
July 11, at twelve, at office of Sol., Preston, Mark-la
HOLLAND, JOSEPH, shirt maker, Chorlton-upon- Medlock; July
12, at three, at offices of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester
HOSKEN, FREDERICK JOHN, and HAMLEY, THOMAS HILL, tea
dealers, Plymouth; July 8, at half-past ten, at office of Sol.,
Curtels, East Stonehouse

JONES, EDWARD HOBSON, tobacco and cigar dealer, and restau
rant keeper, Liverpool; July 10, at three, at offices of Sols.,
Evans and Lockett, Liverpool

JONES, THOMAS, grocer, Newcastle, par Llangattock Vibon Avel;
July 15, at, at two, at office of Sol., Williams, Monmouth
KNIGHT, WILLIAM, farmer, Ashby-de-la-Zouch; July 17, at ten,
at the Queen's Head inn. Ashby-de-la-Zouch
LEBLANC, MARIE BENONI, wine merchant, Dean-st, Soho-sq;
July 2, at three, at office of Sol., Maniere, Gray's-inn-sq
LEE, GEORGE, beerhouse keeper, Ravensthorpe; July 16, at
three, at office of Sol., Armitage, Huddersfield
LIVERMORE, CHARLES, boot manufacturer, Bristol; July 8, at
two, at office of H. B. Cozens, accountaut, Bristol
LLOYD, JOHN, auctioneer, Longton July 11, at eleven, at offices
of Sol., Welch, Longton

LOBB, HARRY WILLIAM, surgeon, Harrow, and Sackville-st,
Piccadilly: July 9, at four, at offices of Messrs. Smith, Harvey,
and Co., accountants, Basinghall-st. Sol., Parry, King William-
st, Strand
LUFFINGHAM, JOHN, haberdasher, Barnett-st, Hackney-rd; July
6, at twelve, at offices of Marshall, 12, Hatton-gdn. Sol., Hope,
Serle-st, Lincoln's-inn

MACKNESS, JOSIAH CHRISTOPHER, general draper, Pershore;
July 9, at twelve, at office of Sol., Corbett, Worcester
MORGAN, JOHN, grocer, Tredegar; July 15, at three, at the King's
Head hotel, Newport. Sol, Harris, Tredegar

NASH, ALFRED, fish factor, Laurence Pountney-hill, and Ducks.
foot la, Upper Thames st; July 5, at two, at the Guildhall
coffee-house, Guildhall-yard. Sol., Nind, St. Benet-pl, Grace-
church-st

PACKRIN, GEORGE, grocer, Whitby; July 2, at eleven, at office of
Sols., Messrs. Hunter, Gray, and Frankland, Whitby
PORT, ALFRED, leather seller, Twickenham: July 9, at two, at
office of Sols., Wood and Hare, Basinghall-st.

POUGET, PAUL, AUGUSTE, commission agent, Southampton;
July 1, at three, at office of Sols., Messrs. Coxwell, Bassett,
and Stanton, Southampton

SCHMIDT, CHRISTIAN, and STURZENACKER, HENRY, pipe manu-
facturers, Liverpool; July 10, at three, at office of Sol., Quinn,
Liverpool

SMALLWOOD, EMMA, wholesale tobacconist, Birmingham; July 4,
at the King's hotel, Birmingham. Sol, Cresswell, Birmingham
SPARK, SIDNEY, innkeeper, Luton; July 8, at eleven, at offices of
Sol., Pope, Poultry

STEVENSON, JAMES, engraver, Longton; July 18, at eleven, at
office of Sol., Welch, Longton

STILL, JAMES, general draper, Sydenham, and Forest-hill; July 1, at two, at the Guildhall coffee-house, Gresham-st. Sol., Cotton, Old Bailey

st

STRACHAN, ARTHUR, victualler, Holborn; July 11, at offices of
of Sols., Hillearys and Tunstall, Fenchurch-bldgs, Nenchurch-
SUGDEN, SAMUEL, plasterer, Manningham; July 15, at ten, at
office of Sol, Lancister, Bradford

TERRY, ISAAC, market gardener, Great Mongeham, near Deal;
July 10, at eleven, at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol.,
Drew, Canterbury

UNDERWOOD, RICHARD, butcher, Lowesmoor; July 10, at three,
at office of Sol, Beale, Worcester

VAUGHAN, THOMAS, out of business, Oldbury; July 9, at eleven, at office of Sol., Wright, Oldbury

WADDINGTON, JOHN, watchmaker, Tarnworth; July 9, at three,
at Ellesmere cumbs, los, King-st, Manchester. Sols., Ramwell,
Pennington, and Hindle, Bolton

WALTON, WILLIAM, jun., gentleman, Low Harrogate; July 10,
at ha f past three, at offices of Sols., Hirst and Capes, Knares
borough
WILLETT, THOMAS WILLIAM, and JONES, EDWARD HOBSON.
tobacco dealers, and restaurant keepers, Liverpool; July 10, at
two, at offices of Sols., Evans and Lockett, Liverpool
WINCHCOMBE, HENRY PHILLIMORE, coal ugent, Roath, July 16, at
three, at office of Sol.. Payte, Cardiff
WYBORN, JOHN, carpenter, Singlesham, near Sandwich: July 10,
atwelve, at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew

Gazette, July 2.

ABLARD, JOSEPH, auctioneer, Great Grimsby; July 18, at three,
at office of Sol., Mountain, Great Grimsby
ASTON, RICHARD, gun maker, Birminghain: July 16, at twelve,
at the Queen's Hotel, Birmingham. Sol., Baker, Birmin, ham
AUSTIN, WILLIAM, pinter, Sunderland; July 12, at two, at office
of Sol., William Bell, Lambton-st, Sunderland
BOAKES, WILLIAM GEORGE, painter, Deal: July 20, at ten, at
the Royal Exchange Hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew, Deal
BOYLE, ALEXANDER, traveling draper, Merthyr Tydfil: July 13,
at one, at offices of Sols., Simons and Piews, Merthyr Tydni
BRANT, JAMES, colourman, High-st, Hounslow; July 23, at three,
at the Fleece tavern, Queen st, Cheapside. Sol., Philp, Pan-
cras-la
BURBURY, THOMAS WINTER, attorney-at-law, Kidderminster;
July 10, at three, at cffices of Sol, Corbet, Kidderminster
CAMROUX, GEORGE OLIVER, and CALLAND, CHARLES FORBES.
'wine merchants, Eustencap, trading as Wilcock Brothers and
Co.; July 22, at twelve, at office of Lovering and Co., accountants.
Sols.. Messrs. Mercer, Coptmall-ct, Throgmorton-st
CHAMBERLAIN, ALFRED SAMUEL, hosier, Kentish Town-rd,
Kentish Town; July 12, at twelve, at The London Warehouse-
men's Association, Gutter-la. Sols., Messrs. G. and W. Webb
and Pear-on, Austin Friars

CORBISHLEY, MARGARET, dressmaker, St ke-upon-Trent; July
17, at eleven, at the County Court Office, Stoke-upon-Trent.
Sol., Lichfield, Newcastle

COTTRILL, THOMAS, wine merchant, Sheffield; July 15, at four, at offices of Sol., Clegg, Sheffield

COWLISHAW, CHARLES JAMES, grocer, Sheffield; July 12, at
two, a ofice of Sol., Taylor, Shef 11

COWTON, HExay, talor, "Hart.epool, July 13, at three, at office
of Sul., Ralph Bell, Church-st, West Hartlepo
CRAWSHAW, ABRAHAM, hosier, Wakefield, July 15, at eleven, at
the Foresters' Room, Crown-et, Wakefield. Sols, Wainwright
Minder, and Whitham, Wakefield

DEWHURST, JOHN, tailor, Bradford; July 12, at eleven, at offices
of So, Peel, Bradford

DONALD, THOMAS Consos, fishmonger, Bolton: July 18, at two,
at the Mitre hotel, Cathedral-yd, Manchester. Sol., Gordon
GA DENER. GEORGE, boot maker, Preston: July 17, at two, at
office of Sol, T. E felston, Winckley-st, Preston
GATHERCOLE, JOHN, and THOMPSON, FREDERICK, ale mer-
chants, Ipswich; July 26, at three, at office of Sol, Hill,
Ipswich

GILL, SETH, innkeeper, Stalybridge; July 12, at three, at the
Commercial Iun, Stalybridge. Sol, Buckley

GREEN, THOMAS OLLIVER, photographer, Worthing: July 22, at
twe ve, at 14 South, Worthing. Sol., Mant, S ocrington
HARBER, FREDERICK, corn merchant, Brixton-rd; July 17, at
three, at office of Sol, Euis and Crossfield, Mark la
HAWKINS, SAMUEL, and WARE, JESSE EDMUND, marble mer-
chants, Battle Bridge Whuf. King's-cross; July 11, at two, at
the Auction Mart. Tokenhouse-yd. Sols., G. and W. Webb, and
Pearson, Austinfriars

HUNTER, GEORGS JOHN, builder, Portsea; July 15, at eleven, at
office of Sol., Feltham, Port-ea

INGHAM, JAMES, cotton manufacturer. Heywood; July 15, at three, at office of Sols., T., A., and J. Grundy and Co, Union-st, Bury

JONES, WALTER, Italian warehouseman, Brighton; July 16, at three, at 34, Old Jewry. Sols., Black, Freeman, and Gell, Brighton

KING, CHARLES, manager to a dining room keeper. Panton-st, Haymarket; July 15, at three, at offices of G. Birchail, Southampton bidgs, Chancery-¡a. Sol., Harrison, Furnival's-inn,

Holborn.

LADKIN, PHILIP JAMES WALE, horse dealer, Lutterworth;
July 17, at two, at office of Sol., Hand, Coleman-st, London
LANGSLOW, RICHARD, butcher, St. Helen's; July 15, at three, at
offices of Gibson and Bolland, accountants, Liverpool. Sol.,
Taylor, St. Helen's

LAUGLANDS, NATHAN, grocer, Dartford; July 15, at two, at
offices of Banks, Colemin-st. Sols., Harcourt and Macarthur,
Moorgate-st
LAWRENCE, JOHN, carpenter, Norwich; July 17, at two, at offices
of Sol., Stanley, Norwich

castle

LAWTON, JAMES, Cooper, Longton: July 17, at eleven, at the
County Court Office, Stoke-upon-Trent. Sol, Litchfield, New-
LERCHE, HENRY, tailor, Wells-st, Oxford-st; July 17, at three, at
office of Sol., Hall, Fenchurch-st
MACCORMACK, MICHAEL JAMES, physician, Clapham-rd, Lam-
beth; July 10, at one, at office of Sol., Blake, Blackfriars.rd
MATHEWSON, JOHN, tailor, Horncastle; July 13, at eleven, at the
office of Sol., Dale, Lincoln

MILLARD, JOHN, coprolite merchant, Bottisham Lode; July 16,
at eleven, at office of Sol., Ellison, Cambridge
MANNERING, ALBERT GEORGE, schoolmaster, Botley: July 15, at
four, at omces of Messrs. John Bath and Co., King William-st
MORTIMER, CHARLES, and MORTIMER, JOSEPH, professional
Vocalists, Sheffield; July 13, at one, at office of Sol., Tatter-
sall, Sheffield

MURRAY, THOMAS, baker, Liverpool, and Birkenhead; July 19, at
two, at office of Sol.. Meadows, Liverpool
NEVIN, CHARLE outfitter, Liverpool; July 15, at two, at offices
of Sol, Heaton, Liverpool

PAGE, EDWARD JOHN, no occupation, Studley-rd, Stockwell;
July 18, at two, at office of Sol., Lett, Great George-st, West-
minster

PATON, ADAM, machine maker, Leeds; July 17, at eleven, at the
Griffin Hotel, West Bar, Leeds. Sol., Clarke, Leeds
RANDALL, CALEB, wholesale ironmonger, Leighton Buzzard;
July 10, at two, at Ridler's Hotel, Holborn. Sol., Marshall,
Lincoln's-inn-flelds

REYNOLDS, GEORGE FREDERICK, iron merchant, Norwich
July 13, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Emerson and Sparrow;
Norwich

SAWYER, GEORGE, metallic bedstead manufacturer, Birmingham;
July 12, at twelve, at offices of Sol., Griffin, Birmingham
SAXBY, JOHN, wheelwright, Ore; July 13, at three, at offices of
Sol., Langham, Hastings

SHAPCOTT, CHARLES EDWIN, beerhouse keeper, Hammersmith
July 12, at eleven, at the Richmond Hotel, Shepherd's bush-rd
SIMKINS, ELIAS BARNETT, merchant's clerk, Smethwick, July
19, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Bayley, West Bromwich
SPICER, HENRY REVELL, dealer in house property, Balcomb,
and Brighton; July 22, at three, at office of Sol., Lamb,
Brighton