back to the hoist, and that by his foot slipping, or some act on his part not necessarily one of carelessness, he made a sudden lateral movement which took him towards the hole; that one foot went in, he could not recover himself, lost all consciousness, and fell through, having the strap in his hand; the cart was thereby forced with one wheel into the hole, and the momentum of the weight of the plaintiff's falling body, when he had fallen the length of the strap, caused it to break off, as it did close to the nails which fastened it to the cart. The case is therefore one in which there was no negligence or carelessness imputable to the plaintiff, and the accident, the cause of the injury, occurred to him while acting in the discharge of his duty. Under these circumstances the question arises, is the defendant liable in law for the consequences? The solution of that question involves this consideration, that the liability, if it exist, must arise out of some duty on the part of the defendant which he has neg lected or failed to perform. It was contended by Mr. Berry, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the defendant was guilty of negligence in permitting the hole to remain without protection; that, as the event had proved, it was dangerous by being dangerously situated with reference to the work the plaintiff had to perform by reason of its proximity to the hoist. It was proved, however, that the hole had existed as long as the defendant had occupied the mill, and was part of the structural arrangement of the mill made by the owner for the purpose of working the machinery of the mill. The size of the hole as compared with the width of the belts and drum which worked through it, was in itself a protection against any danger that could result from the belts when in motion. The vacant space which intervened between the belts and the edge in each of the three sides of the hole (the fourth side being on the line of the wall) would be a protection against any person passing the hole going along the passage. That the hole has proved a source of danger to the plaintiff is a fact which is not attributable in any way to the proper purpose for which it was made, used, or required. And it would not have been any sort of danger to the plaintiff if he had not gone to it; nor need he have gone to it in the proper discharge of his duty, there was plenty of room for him to have taken the cart with the skep upon it to the hoist without going within two feet of the hole. It appeared in evidence that since the accident a portion of the hole had been boarded over so as to prevent a recurrence of a similar misfortune, and I was asked to consider that as evidence of an admission by the defendant that he knew that the hole unguarded was dangerous, and that he has now performed a duty he had before neglected. I don't think I ought so to regard that act. I regard it as an act done out of abundant caution, and it is an act which as it diminishes the protection which the hole, from its original size, afforded against accident arising from the belts when in motion, if an accident should happen by reason of this diminished protection, as by the dress of a workwoman being caught by the belt while passing, this very act of placing boards to lessen the size of the hole, might with equal plausibility be urged as an act of negligent misfeasance, without which the supposed accident would not have happened. An employer of labour does not insure the safety of persons employed by him against all accidents which they may have the misfortune to meet with in their work. If there is any risk of danger to which without any fault on their part they may be xposed, they may decline the employment; but if they enter upon the employment without a special contract against any supposed risk, they accept it with the attendant risk, what. ever that risk may be, provided it do not arise from circumstances known to their employer and not known to them, and which from the nature of their employment they could not reasonably be expected to know. The cases of Priestly v. Palmer (3 M. & W. 1), and Seymour v. Maddox (16 Q. B. 326), are authorities which may be referred to for what I have stated to be the law. Seymour v. Maddox is identical in principle with the present case, and very similar in its circumstances. In that case the plaintiff had been engaged by the defendant as a male singer in the chorus of an opera played at the Princess's Theatre in London. In passing and repassing to and from the dressing room, he had to pass a floor under the stage, in which there was a hole which was used for purposes of the theatre. This hole was neither lighted nor fenced, and the plaintiff in passing from the stage to the dressing room, fell into the hole and was injured. The court held that there was no duty in law imposed on the defendant to light and fence the hole, and therefore no liability on the defendant to compensate the plaintiff in damages for the injury he sustained by the fall. In that case, as here, the was no special contract; there, as here, there was nothing but the general relation of master and servant. Coleridge, J. said, "If this duty arises from the general relation of master and servant, I do not well know where the master's liability is to stop. He may be held liable because his house is unhealthy, or on numerous other grounds. The servant is not bound to enter the particular service, if he does he must take things as he finds them." And in the same case Erle, J. said, "A person must make his own choice whether he will accept employment on premises in that condition. If he sustains injury in consequence of these premises not being lighted, he has no right of action against the master, who has not contracted that the floor shall be lighted." The circumstance that in that case the plaintiff was an adult, but in this case is an infant, makes no difference. The plaintiff, though an infant, was competent to enter into a contract of service which would entitle him to the rights of such a contract, and as a necessary consequence subject him to its correlative liabilities, one of which would obviously be to take care of himself, and not by his own act or default to occasion injury to himself in doing his work. Suppose a servant girl is employed to carry a tray of valuable china down stairs, and not carefully looking where she is going, misses the first step, and tumbles to the bottom and breaks her arm and the china too. In such a case neither would be liable to the other because it was an accident without fault on either side. And in this case it was an accident without fault on either side. Another ground of liability, however, was relied upon, viz., that the belt and drum which worked through the hole were "mill gearing" within the meaning of the Factory Acts (7 Vict. c. 15, s. 21, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 38, s. 4), and the defendant was required to fence off for the protection of the plaintiff, who was a young person as defined by the interpretation clause in the first mentioned Act (sect. 73), being of the age of thirteen and under the age of eighteen years. By this interpretation clause the term mill gearing," as used in the Act, and to which sect. 21 is applicable, shall be taken to comprehend (inter alia) "Every wheel, drum, or pulley, by which the motion of the first moving power is communicated to any machine appertaining to the manufacturing processes." In this case the belts and drum were used for this purpose only, of communicating to the hoist for the purpose of raising and lowering it, and not for any other purpose; and a hoist is not a machine appertaining to any of the manufacturing processes carried on in the defendant's mill, which was a worsted spinning mill. I therefore think there was no statutory obligation on the defendant to fence these belts and drum; but if there was I think the hole itself was, from its size, a sufficient fence for these belts and drum, as it effectually prevented any person, without contributory negligence on his or her part, coming in contact with them, or being brought within their reach when in motion; and, of course, when not in motion they could not be the cause of danger. The case of Holmes v. Clarke (31 L. J., N. S., Ex. 356), which was relied upon by Mr. Berry has, when it comes to be examined, no bearing upon the question to be determined here, and its authority was dis cussed in Button v. Great Western Cotton Company (L. Rep. 7 Ex. 133). Judgment will therefore be entered for the defendant and costs. FALMOUTH COUNTY COURT. THE NEW JUDGE. THERE was a very numerous attendance of legal gentlemen at the court for the purpose of giving welcome to Mr. Montague Bere, Q.C., the newlyappointed judge as successor to the late and much respected Judge Bevan, who died at his residence, at Fowey, a short time since, from a sunden and severe attack of illness. A few minutes after ten o'clock the learned gentleman, accompanied by Mr. Harry Tilly, the registrar, made his appearance in court, on which the gentlemen at the Bar rose, as also did others present. Upon his Honour taking his seat his appointment to the judgeship by the Lord Chancellor was read by Mr. Julyan, the high bailiff of the court, after which Mr. George A. Jenkins, the senior advocate, on behalf of his professional brethren present, addressed his Honour in very feeling and appropriate language, and said that "this opportunity should not be allowed to pass without paying a tribute to the memory of our friend the late Judge Bevan, whose death took us all by surprise. He was held in the highest esteem by us, and no one knew his worth better than those who moved in the same social circle. As judge he was an impartial one, and carried out his duties to the best of his ability, which was very great, and every judgment which he had given, I can safely venture to say was given from a firm conviction that he was doing right. In congratulating his Honour on his appointment, he (Mr. Jenkins) said, "I shall only be doing justice to myself and my fellow professional brethren by whom I am surrounded, if I beg permission to offer on their behalf and on behalf of the public, a word or two of congratulation on seeing you in that chair. It has been my good fortune, Sir, if I may speak of what has occurred to myself, to practise before the late judge during many years of his presidency over this court, and I have often been a witness to his urbanity, and the excellent manner in which he displayed his duties; and we know very well that, in the course of time, those of us he has left behind him will be called away as he has been from our midst, to give place to those who are younger and bestowed with equal talent to fill such an office; and I congratulate the public first of all upon the fact that, to occupy the place of your predecessor, the Lord Chancellor, has in you a successor of such acknowledged ability and acquirements, and who, I am quite sure, will very easily discharge the duties to which you are called as judge of this court, not only with credit to yourself, but with great advantage to those whose interests you have in charge as judge. So far, therefore, the public, I think, are very much to be congratulated, and I confess, for one, that I am extremely delighted to find, if I may so use the term, so good an appointment has been made by the Lord Chancellor (one which, I am sure, will prove a benefit both to the Profession and the public) in this particular case. Having known you for some years as an advocate at the Bar in travelling on the Western Circuit, and in filling high judicial positions at Exeter, your ability is known to us both for zeal and earnestness and carefulness in conducting cases. We are cognisant of your fitness for the position your Honour holds. We hail your presence amongst us now with great pleasure, and I feel sure that I may promise your Honour, on behalf my professional brethren practising here, that they will at all times be ready and willing to assist your Honour in upholding the character of the proceedings of this court. I can only wish, Sir, that you may be spared for many years, and be blessed with health and strength to enjoy and adorn the position which you have attained, and which you appear here today in this court for the first time. His HONOUR replied in a very feeling and pathetic manner, concurring in what had been observed by Mr. Jenkins with reference to his late learned and lamented predecessor, and thanking him (Mr. Jenkins) on his part for the cordial welcome he had received, and for the kind manner in which Mr. Jenkins had addressed him on behalf of his professional brethren at the Bar, remarking at the same time that it was the most appropriately worded and neatly expressed speech he had heard on the loss of him they were then lamenting. His Honour then referred to the appearance of the Profession in court, and said he confessed it was a little old-fashioned, the wearing of gowns, but he should himself take care at all times to sit before them robed, and he should feel personally greatly obliged if all those who were entitled to appear in robes would do so too. He remarked that he was very much pleased to see Mr. Jenkins robed, and he would like to see them all, and hoped to see the costume worn in future in this and all the courts in the circuit, as he thought it would distinguish them from others attending, it would also tend greatly to preserve the dignity of the Profession and at the same time command respect and veneration for the proceedings of the court, it was becoming to appear robed in their gowns, and it would also have the effect of keeping the attorney's table clear of those who had no business there. In conclusion his Honour said: "I do not think it necessary to dwell at any length on the present occasion, having delivered a lengthy speech on taking my seat in my first court at Penzance, where I was exceedingly well received on Monday last, otherwise it would occasion my doing so in all my courts, consequently I shall be as brief as possible. I do not feel as being a stranger amongst you; I travelled several years on the Western Circuit, and I filled the office of recorder of the borough of Penzance for fifteen years, in which office I succeeded your late judge, whose loss I sharply feel and regret. I knew him in very early boyhood, during which time he was one of my truest friends in after life, our friendship was never interrupted, though our professional course had diverged considerably. His memory is held by me in the greatest respect and reverence. I feel perfectly convinced that he was thoroughly competent for the position he held, and I hope it will be my lot after a few years' experience, for I have a great deal to learn with reference to the administration of justice in these courts, to gain the respect and esteem of those I am come amongst as that gained by my predecessor. I shall keep his example before me and endeavour to follow in his steps, my only desire being to discharge my duties earnestly and with fidelity. Being entirely new in the practice of these courts as judge I feel sure from the very kind receptions which I have on my way everywhere received, that I shall be rendered full assistance from the gentlemen who practise as advocates in these courts, and I shall look to them with the utmost confidence to assist me in all matters of practice. I shall do all that lies in my power to discharge my duties to the best of my ability, and carry on the business of the court with correctness and despatch. In order that this may be preserved I ask that there be no personal discussion between the advocates. I have observed in other courts, and among the other branch of the Profession, a practice prevail occasionally which I do not admire, and that is that when some point had arisen in evidence a personal discussion took place between the two advocates. I think it would be much better in all such cases that both advocates should address the court, and not each other personally. I am sure it will greatly tend to the good order of the court, and also the comfort of the Profession, and facilitate the despatch of business. If then there are, as there must be, many cases in which points of law and difficulty arise-in which complicated facts will arise-then I look to the advocates who will appear on each side with confidence that from them I shall receive such help as will enable me to give a righteous and proper decision, because I know full well that in these courts it is of the utmost consequence that the judge should strive to give that which will be an equitable decision upon the cases in dispute that are brought before him. It will be my aim to administer judgment equitably between man and man, knowing it to be my first and bounden duty to God. MARYLEBONE COUNTY COURT. (Before HENRY T. J. MACNAMARA, Esq., Judge.) Liability of railway companies as carriers-The enacted "that such mail carriers shall not be As there was no fraud intended SHEERNESS COUNTY COURT. gagees of his chance of recovering from the execu tors so much as would satisfy the whole of his debt, was a good consideration for each agreeing to take less than the whole of his debt, and that such agreement and actual payment of his rateable share of the assets were a good satisfaction of the whole; and that it would have been so without the stipulation (which formed part of the arrangement) as to barring or extinguishing the equity of redemption, and that it was not the less so because of the addition of such a stipulation; and consequently that the agreement so pleaded in bar to that action need not have been in writing. In that case, however, it was admitted by the court that no argreement to convey an equity of redemption would be binding unless in writing, because a court of equity treats the equity of redemption as the land itself-at all events as an interest in land. A fortiori, therefore, must a mortgage which conveys the land itself be an interest in land, and consequently an agreement for a mortgage must be an agree ment concerning an interest in land. This being so, and the Statute of Frauds requiring such an agreement to be in writing, and the agreement in the present case not having been so, judgment must be entered for the defendant, but without costs. YORK COUNTY COURT. (Before E. R. TURNER, Esq., Judge.) Property of bankrupt-Order of payment to trustee. Smith, instructed by Peter Harris, Bradford, appeared for the trustee, Mr. Alexander Thomp son. Parker, Selby, for the execution creditor, and Smith said his first motion was to apply for an order that the sum of £217 3s., now in the hands of the sheriff, might be handed over to the trus tee, deducting therefrom the costs to which the sheriff might be entitled. He also had to apply that four stacks of hay in the possession of Mr. Tock, the execution creditor, should be declared to be the property of the trustee in liquidation. It appeared that Wood, the bankrupt, in June of last year entered into an agreement with Mr. Tock, who lives at Drax Abbey, whereby Mr. Tock, for the sum of £425, agreed to sell Mr. Wood a certain quantity of hay-growing grass at that time-and also some straw. At the time of the purchase, Wood paid Tock the sum of £200, and gave for the balance three bills of exchange at two, three, and five months each, dated the 5th June, for £75 each, making up the balance of £225. On the 2nd Nov. Mr. Wood and Mr. Tock met at the office of the latter, and another agree. Contract to lend money on mortgage-Breach-ment was then entered into between the parties, Statute of Fraud. HIS HONOUR delivered the following judgment in HIS HONOUR.—This action is brought to recover whereby two acceptances, one at four months and one at six months were agreed to. Wood, how. ever, states that at the time he was under the influence of drink, and never heard the agreement read. Wood was making an assignment, and ac cording to the agreement Tock was to have full power to sell the whole of the produce belonging to Wood which was on the premises of Tock, and acceptances for the amount were deposited with the property of Wood in his possession, conhim. Thus Tock obtained full power over sisting of four stacks of hay and several stacks of straw. He submitted to His Honour whether practically that did not amount to a bill of sale. If so it had not been registered and therefore was void as against the trustee in bankruptcy. There was also the question whether it it was not a fraudulent agreement, for where was the consideration for it? His Honour said he saw no fraud about it. It appeared that Wood had become bankrupt in April last, and that when the first of the bills, under the November agreement, became due, in March last, Tock commenced an action against Wood, judgment was signed on the 6th April, the Sheriff entered into possession on the 8th, and a fi. fa. execution was levied. On April 13th, the sheriff assigned to Tock a certain quantity of straw. on which day the petition was signed and filed on the 15th. Smith said all he was applying for was that the money in the hands of the sheriff might be handed over to the trustee. Parker, on the other side, maintained that they were justified in withholding payment of the money. His HONOUR on this motion decided that the amount in the hands of the sheriff ought to be paid over to the trustee. Smith's next application was that four stacks of hay, which belonged to Wood, and which had been taken possession of by Tock, should be handed over to the trustee. The stacks in question were the subject of the agreement in June, and were part of the bankrupt's estate. Parker contended, with respect to this motion, that they were justified in withholding the stacks. until the sum of £400 had been paid to them under the agreement of June. His HONOUR was of opinion that the stacks in question were not in the reputed ownership of the bankrupt, and that they belonged to Mr. Tock. He ordered that the sheriff's costs and the costs of the application be paid by Mr. Parker. CORRECTION.- MITCHELL V. BOOTHROYD.There was a slight mistake in our report of this case last week. Hall, of Manchester, instructed by Mills, of Huddersfield, was counsel for the plaintiff, and Wheelhouse, instructed by Craven and Sunderland, was for the defendant, and not vice versû as stated BANKRUPTCY LAW. DATION UNDER BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869.-The gations of the immaculate Oxton butcher. Having made the charge of fraud, he challenged them to justify it. It was also contended that a case cited by Mr. P. Hawthorne did not apply, for the Chief Judge had held in Ex parte Birmingham Gas Light Company (L. Rep. 11 Eq. 201) that proceedings under sects. 125 and 126 are perfectly distinct; indeed, the question of duty mentioned by Mr. Registrar Roche was specially provided for under both sections, and the duty had been duly paid in this case. He also cited the case Ex parte Levy, re Varbetian (21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 333), and confirmed on appeal, in which the Chief Judge had held that the registrar had no judicial function in such questions at all. He was merely entitled to satisfy himself that the requirements of the rules and Act had been complied with, as to the regularity of the meeting and resolution, and would only be justified in refusing to register if NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. the examination of the debtor at the meeting, the ASSIGNMENT OF GOODS AS SECURITY FOR A only proper place for such examination, revealed DEBT-LICENCE TO SEIZE AFTER-ACQUIRED PRO- fraud. If the proceedings were regular the regisPERTY-ACCESSORY TO DEBT-EFFECT OF LIQUI institute inquiry, or hear any evidence whatever. trar was bound to register. He had no power to plaintiff sued defendant for breaking and entering He also objected to the affidavit used by Mr. Haw. his premises and converting his goods. The de- thorne, which he had only just seen, because it fendant pleaded an indenture whereby, in conwas not stamped as required by the rules, sideration for money advanced, the plaintiff Haothorne, in reply, contended that the registrar assigned all the furniture and goods upon his pre-dence; and in the exercise of his discretion, if was entitled, under the 269th rule, to hear evimises to defendant, provided that upon repay ment of the money advanced the indenture should be void. It was agreed that defendant might enter and seize, and dispose of the goods assigned upon default of payment by plaintiff. And it was further agreed and declared that if the plaintiff should at any time thereafter during the continuance of the security become possessed of furniture or goods other than or in addition to the property assigned, the same should be in all respects subject to the indenture, and might accordingly be seized, sold, and disposed of in the same manner to all intents and purposes as if the same were then possessed by the plaintiff, and were duly assigned by the indenture. The plea proceeded to aver that the plaintiff's premises and goods mentioned in this indenture were the same as those mentioned in the declaration, that the plaintiff was in default, and that defendant entered and seized under the indenture, which were the alleged trespass and conversion. The plaintiff replied on equitable grounds that after the execution of the said indenture, and before the alleged grievances, the plaintiff's affairs were liquidated by arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act 1869, and that all conditions were fulfilled to render the liquidation binding upon the defendant, and that before the alleged grievance the trustee under the liquidation sold the said goods to divers friends of the plaintiff, who thereupon gave the plaintiff possession thereof, and the plaintiff then held the same freed and discharged from all claim of the defendant thereon: Held upon demurrer, that the licence in the indenture to seize afteracquired property was merely accessory to the debt secured, and was barred by the liquidation; and that the replication was a good answer to the plea: (Thompson v. Cohen, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 693. Q.B.) BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT. (Before J. W. HARDEN, Esq., Judge.) THIS was an appeal from an order of Mr. Mason, the registrar of the Birkenhead County Court, whereby he refused to register an extraordinary resolution of creditors to accept a composition which had been offered by the debtor. the circumstances revealed fraud in the debtor, to His HONOUR, in giving judgment, observed that on the 13th May 1872, William Woodhead recorded his inability to pay his debts; and petitioned the court for liquidation of his affairs by arrangement or composition with his creditors, estimating his debts at £256 11s. 3d. A first general meeting was accordingly summoned for May 29. Notices were sent to thirty-three creditors, twenty of whom, whose proofs amounted in the aggregate to £234 16s. 8d., appear to have been present or represented at the meeting; and it was resolved that a composition of 1s. in the pound, payable on the 1st July 1872, should be accepted in satisfaction of the debts due; one creditor alone for £38 63. 2d. dissenting. That resolution was confirmed at the second meeting on the 10th June. But a notice was sent to theregistrar on the 10th June, that the same dissenting creditor objected to the registration of the resolution; and when the matter came formally before the registrar, on the 17th June, the creditor appeared by counsel, and argued that the resolution ought not to be registered, on the ground that it was fraudulent and mala fide; that the main object of the petition, which was presented on the 13th May, was to deprive the opposing creditor of the fruits of a judgment which he had obtained against the petitioner for butcher's meat, so lately as the 7th May; that the petitioner had already offered, and the opposing creditor had agreed to accept 48. in the pound; that nearly all the large Downham, in support of the appeal, argued that debts are owing to relations living with the petithe duties of the registrar were simply ministerial, tioner, and are highly suspicious, if not false; and and that he had no power to hear evidence at all that the whole proceeding is a palpable attempt to If he was satisfied, as in this case he was, that “whitewash”a defaulter at the expense of tradesthe requirements of the rules and Act had been men who have trusted him for the necessaries of complied with, he was bound to register the reso- life. These arguments prevailed with the regislution. The only evidence he could possibly hear trar, who refused to register the resolution, and would be that of fraud in the meeting, or revealed the simple question before me to-day is whether by an examination of the debtor at the meeting. he was justified in so refusing. In other words, Any question of fraud, to be established in any I am called upon to define the duties and the other way, was a matter for inquiry before the powers of a registrar in such a case. The main judge in the regular way, and referred to the case object of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 is to ignore, Re Davies, in which the Chief Judge had held as far as practicable, official aid; and to leave that the judge had power to review the acts of the management and winding-up of insolvent the registrar; and that this was the remedy if a estates to those who are most interested, viz., creditor was dissatisfied. This, however, could the creditors themselves; such a control only only be done by way of substantive motion, and being reserved to the Court of Bankruptcy as is not on an application for registration. The case necessary to preserve uniformity of system and Ex parte Barnett (L. Rep. 4 Ch. 68) was conformity with the law. The question then is, cited on this point. On the question of fraud he what ought the registrar to do when a resolution should be quite prepared, at the proper time, and to accept a composition is presented to him for on a proper issue being raised, to meet the alle-registration under sect. 126? and I am of opinion Dornham, solicitor, appeared for the debtor. Hawthorne, barrister, instructed by R. B. Moore, for a non-assenting creditor. | | that he has only to inquire whether notice has been sent to all the creditors, as the rules require; and whether the resolution submitted to him has been passed by a majority in number and threefourths in value of the creditors assembled at the first general meeting, and has been confirmed by a majority in number and value of the creditors at the second general meeting. If the registrar is satisfied that the resolution has been so passed, and that the rules have been complied with, it appears to me that he is bound to register the resolution forthwith. The proper course for a dissenting creditor to pursue is to attend the first general meeting, and examine the petitioner, who is bound to attend and answer all such questionsas shall be put to him, and to take care that the answers are taken down. He has then an interval of seven to fourteen days to confer with the other creditors, make such farther investigation as he likes, and object to the proposal at the second meeting, and if it be carried against him, he has still the opportunity of going before the registrar, statute have not been complied with ;" but short and satisfying him that the "requirements of the of that, "the registrar's duties are simply ministerial-register he must." See Ex parte Levy and Co., re Varbetian, before the Chief Judge, March 20, 1871. If the opposing creditor thinks fraud, it will still be competent to the court to he can invalidate the resolution on the ground of annul the registration; but a clear case of fraud must first be established. Registration ordered accordingly. POOLE COUNTY COURT. (Before T. E. P. LEFROY, Esq., Judge.) Bankruptcy Act 1869-Bill of sale-Act of bank ruptcy. THIS was a motion on behalf of Mr. William Douling of Salisbury, corn merchant, the trustee of the property of the bankrupt, for an order or declaration that a bill of sale, executed by the bankrupt, should be declared fraudulent and void, and should be given up to be cancelled, and that Mr. Arthur Whitehead, of Wimborne Minster, solicitor, to whom the bill of sale had been given, should account, and pay to the trustee the proceeds of a sale, which had taken place under it, and for an inquiry as to the damages consequent on such sale. The bankrupt was a corn dealer and seed merchant at Wimborne Minster, and was indebted to Mr. Whitehead, who had acted as his solicitor in defending him against proceedings on several occasions for law costs, and also for money lent to the amount of £80 or thereabouts. Mr. Whitehead obtained judgment against him, and afterwards paid a sum of £27 odd to an execution creditor who had levied on the bankrupt's goods. The £27 odd was paid on the 6th March 1872, and on the 11th March the bankrupt executed a bill of sale and assignment, by way of mortgage to Whitehead, of all his furniture, stock-in-trade, plant, book and other debts, and all his estate and effects, both present and future, in consideration of the sum of £110 payable on demand. About a month afterwards another execution was issued against bankrupt by another creditor, and Whitehead, a short time afterwards took possession of all bankrupt's property under the bill of sale, and on or about the 17th May sold everything off by auction. A creditor's petition was on the 18th May filed against the bankrupt, two acts of bankruptcy being alleged, namely, the filing of a declaration of inability to pay, and the execution of the bill of sale, and bankrupt was thereupon adjudicated a bankrupt, and a trustee was afterwards appointed. J. Seymour Salaman, of London (with Moore, of Wimborne), appeared for the trustee, and after stating the above facts, which were sworn to by the bankrupt, and not denied by Mr. Whitehead, cited Grahan v. Chapman (12 C. B., N. S., C. P. 85), Lacon v. Liffen (9 Jur. 13), and Ex parte Fisher, Re Ash (LAW TIMES, vol. liii., p. 156), before the Lords Justices of Appeal, and submitted that the circumstances of the present case were identical with those cases in which it had been decided that such a deed as the one in question for a byegone debt and a present advance, where the debtor received no substantial advantage or equivalent from the new advance, whilst he placed all his estate present and future, in the possession of a single creditor, was an act of bankruptcy under the 6th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. Reade, of Ringwood, appeared for Mr. Whitehead. His HONOUR said the circumstances of the present case were as strong as could be imagined, and upon the authority of the cases cited he must grant the relief asked for, and made an order in the terms of the notice of motion, directing an inquiry as to damages before the registrar, unless the parties could agree upon an amount, and ordered the costs of the application to be paid by Mr Whitehead. LEGAL NEWS, Mr. Morris, registrar of the County Court of Swansea, died last week. It is reported (according to the Post) that Sir Alexander Cockburn is about to be called to the Upper House as Earl Cockburn. a ALLEGED Failure of Justice.-A singular scene occurred at the Warwick quarter sessions on Friday afternoon last week, between Sir J. Eardley Wilmot, the recorder, and a petty jury. For a considerable time past the borough has been in a state of chronic excitement owing to several singular verdicts of "not guilty" having been returned by local juries in cases where the guilt of the prisoners has been considered indisputably clear; and recently the Town Council petitioned Government to abolish these quarter sessions, on the ground that it was impossible to get justice administered. On Saturday, a man named Griffin, living in Warwickshire, was charged with violent highway robbery on a man named Mooney, living at Leamington. He was caught in the act by a policeman, who found the prosecutor's property in his possession. The prisoner told the policeman he knew he was done, and should plead guilty. The jury acquitted him. The recorder characterised it as the clearest case of guilt he had ever had before him, and solemnly remon strated with the jury for their verdict. He said, after this. he hoped the local authority would renew the attempt to get this court of quarter sessions abolished, and promised all the assistance in his power to secure that desirable object. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL.-This Bill, as remodelled by the amendments, has been reprinted. The Bill is designed to come into operation in the Central Criminal Court district on the 1st Jan. 1873, and a Secretary of State may appoint a public prosecutor or prosecutors for such district. The Bill may also be adopted by the local autho- | rity of a county or borough (the quarter sessions of the county or the council of the borough), by a resolution passed at a meeting; and thereupon a Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, may appoint a locally practising attorney or attorneys to be public prosecutor or prosecutors, subject to a recommendation of not less than three persons by the local authority, with (in a borough) the consent of the borough sessions. If the Secretary of State is of opinion that none of the persons recommended are fit, the local authority may make another recommendation; but if no such recommendation is made within six months as enables the Secretary of State to make an appointment, he may appoint without a recommendation. The same rules will apply to subsequent appointments. A public prosecutor is not to practise privately in criminal proceedings, or Parliamentary elections, or registration. He is to hold office during the pleasure of the Secretary of State. The public prosecutor is to conduct the prosecution of persons committed for trial for felony, larceny, and other offences named in a schedule to the Bill, and is to institute and conduct such other prosecutions or criminal proceedings as he may be required to institute and conduct. The Secretary of State may make regulations for carrying the Bill into effect, and, in particular, regulating the duties of public prosecutors and determining what criminal proceedings they are to appear in; and he may also issue directions to a public prosecutor in reference to any matter done or to be done by him in pursuance of this Bill. A private prosecutor may be associated with the public prosecutor in a prosecu tion, in manner and on conditions to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. A private prosecutor may apply to a Superior Court for leave to conduct a prosecution in lieu of the public prosecutor, showing reasonable grounds for such application. The Bill is not to deprive any person of the right to take proceedings before justices or to prosecute where a public prosecutor does not. The salary of every public prosecutor (fixed by the Secretary of State and the Treasury) is to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, as also are all costs properly incurred by him in the execution of his duties, including the payment of witnesses for the prosecution and for the accused. There are clauses also for payment of clerks of the peace and justices' clerks by salary; and, being attorneys, they are eligible for the office of public prosecutor. THE late Judge Story always enjoyed a good joke, even at the expense of his best friends. He was fond of carrying his studies late into the night, while his friends, John Quincy Adams and Josiah Quincy, were famous for early rising. One hot summer's day, the latter two gentlemen made a call upon the judge, as he was engaged in delivering a lecture to the law students of Harvard University. He gave them a cordial welcome, introduced them to his class, gave them a seat on either side of him, and proceeded with his lecture, slightly elated at having two such distinguished auditors. After a little time he noticed a smile on the faces of some of his students. The whole class soon shared in it, and it grew almost to be an audible laugh. Very much disturbed, he turned to his visitors to see if they noticed it, when he found that, overcome by the ride and the heat, they were fast asleep and nodding. The temptation was too great to be resisted. "Young gentlemen," said the judge, in his blandest tones, "you see before you the result of too early rising." The hearty laugh that followed waked the sleepers. Chicago Legal News. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. LEGAL EDUCATION AND LAW LIBRARIES.— The letter contained in your last issue signed "Admitted B.A.," appears to treat purely of the want of access to Law Libraries in town. What then must be that want in the country town where no Law Library at all exists, and the law books to be found in the principal's office are few and mostly of a thoroughly practical nature. This must be the case with very many articled clerks throughout the kingdom. To remedy such an evil I would suggest that if Law Students' Societies exist in any country town where there is no Law Library, a library should be annexed to the society, and to meet the further expenses so incurred, a larger subscription than is generally the case should be payable. I believe that in London Law Libraries are parts of both the Law Students' Societies which exist there, and that the articled clerk by becoming a member of either of the societies obtains the user of the library annexed. W. S. H. Two OFFENCES CHARGED IN ONE COUNT.At the recent Dorset Sessions T. C. H. was arraigned upon an indictment which charged that he "on the 20th April 1872, at Shaftesbury, in the county of Dorset, one stock and certain bits and chisels of the goods and chattels of one G. H., and one pair of carriage wheels, and one axle-tree of the goods and chattels of one G. E. J. feloniously did steal," &c. Counsel for the prisoner said the indictment was bad, and the prisoner refused to plead to it, alleging that two felonies were charged in one count, which could not be done in law. Counsel for the prosecution urged that the prosecution could elect what charge to go upon, and abandon the other! The prisoner's counsel, however, denied that, and endeavoured to show that the indictment was not pleadable. He quoted Archbold, "If a defendant be charged with two or more offences in the same count of an indictment, the count will be bad for duplicity, except in one or two excepted cases.' Considerable discussion ensued, the point being sharply argued with various illustrations amid dissolving views on either side, the prisoner's counsel contending that the present case did not come within the excepted cases alluded to in Archbold. The presiding chairman of the court (Mr. Farrer) said he found a considerable amount of difficulty in deciding, and would have been exceedingly glad to have seen some form of indictment, particularly that in R. v. Giddins, which had been quoted. But, on the whole, the court was inclined to think that the objection was valid, and that on the face of the count it did charge two offences. Therefore they quashed the indictment. This the court did without hearing any evidence, of which they knew nothing, beyond the depositious before them, of which there was but one set, in which the caption set forth the goods stolen to be the goods and chattels of the two persons named in the indictment. There were, however, other witnesses subpoenaed, who may have proved, for what the court knew, that the properties of the two persons were taken and stolen at one and the same time; and the mere probability upon counsel's ipse dixit, that the goods stolen, were stolen at different times, seems to be no ground for election by the prosecutor. (R. v. Dunn, 1 Moody, c. 146.) In the present case there could be no possible embarrassment to the prisoner in his taking his trial. If there had been two bills of indictment preferred, and two trials to take place upon the same facts, would not the judges have decreed it? It is to be remarked that the count of the indictment in question, lays but one offence, although the property of two persons, showing the felony to have been committed on one day, and inferentially at one time and place, whilst the case quoted, R. v. Giddins, would seem to warrant that in felonies, the indictment may charge the defendant in the same court with felonious acts with respect to several persons, if it was all one transaction : (Archbold, p. 64.) Had the count charged two offences as having been committed on two different days or times, there can be no question but the indictment would have been bad; but on the face of the count, it shows but one offence, committed at one time, and therefore it is contended by the framer of the indictment, who has had thirty years' practical experience in the minutia and science of indictment law, that the indictment as presented to the court, was a perfectly good indict ment, upon which the prisoner could plead and take his trial. Strange to say, however, the court quashed the indictment, not only without having any evidence, but without one word being said, either by counsel or court, as to the powers of the court to cause the indictment to be amended under sects. 1 and 25 of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100. Will you, or any of your readers, be good enough to say: (1.) Whether the count of the indictment was good or bad. (2.) If bad, whether the court was justified in quashing the indictment, and, (3), whether the indictment could not have been amended, and the trial have proceeded to its issue. LEX. 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. 46. BEQUEST-PROVISO.-A'testator bequeathed a sum of money upon trust for his wife for life, and afterwards for his daughter for life, and upon the decease of the daughter upon trust to divide amongst the children then living of the said daughter, share and share alike, with benefit of survivorship," but for certain reasons therein expressed, he excluded the two eldest children from participation in the sum so bequeathed. The wife and daughter died some time ago, and upon the death of the latter the fund was divided, the shares of the children being of age being paid to them re spectively, and of the children under age invested for their benefit. One of the children has lately died under 21, and questions are raised as to the disposition of such child's share. It is apprehended that all the children of the testator's daughter living at her death (except the two eldest) took immediate vested in terests. Then do the words "with benefit of survivor. ship" operate to divest the share of a child dying under 21, or are they surplusage? If the latter, is the share affected by the proviso excluding the two eldest children, or would they be entitled to participate in the distribution of the share? An early answer from one of your learned correspondents will oblige. B. S. C. 48. EMBEZZLEMENT. - D., a traveller, embezzles moneys of his master. The master does not prosecute, but takes an I. O. U. for the amount on the traveller's supplication and promise not to offend again. 1. Can the master now prosecute? 2. Would the traveller have any defence to an action for recovery of the D. S. money? Authorities. 49. GUARANTEE.-Does the following guarantee require any and what stamp? The subject matter exceeds £5 in value: "A. B. Industrial, &c., Society." "To C. D. Sir,-We hereby guarantee to you the the above society within the time allowed for payment payment of any account that may be due to you by of same, that is, one month from date of order. Yours, &c., E. F., G. H.” ENQUIRER. (Q. 31.) INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATIONS. - A sudden and severe illness occuring within a few hours after penning my answer to Question 31, inserted in the Law Times of the 22nd ult., has prevented my earlier state ment of its thorough inaccuracy. I was, at the time of inditing my reply, engaged in comparing the Intermediate with the Final Examination Questions, and can the latter as to have temporarily clouded my better only assume that my mind became so fully charged with knowledge. Henceforth I will revise my answers before forwarding them. Next week I hope to be able to raise a question on this very subject; meanwhile, I beg you H. L. and your readers to accept my apology. (Q. 39.) COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS.-I think it a pity those who submit answers for other's edification do not quote authorities in each instance, for their teaching (?). The "cause" of action upon a bill arises through its dishonour, and the jurisdiction of the County Court must, of necessity, be limited (excepting to that in which the defendant resides) to the district in which the dishonour occurred; but there is nothing to prevent proceeding upon the original consideration for the bill in the district wherein it passed. JAS. LEMAN. HAY FEVER.-Anthoxanthum, administered as spray, is the most successful remedy, 2s. 6d. per ounce free by post, 2s. 9d. ; or with glass spray producer, 10s. 6d.; plated ditto, 148. 6d.; superior vulcanite ditto, with extra supply of anthoxanthum, 25s. and 29s. 6d. ; carmists, 170, Piccadilly, and 48, Threadneedle-street.riage paid.-JAMES EPPS and Co., Homoeopathic Che [ADVT.] LAW SOCIETIES. LAW ASSOCIATION. THE usual monthly meeting of the board of direcof this association was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane, on Thursday last, the 4th inst., Mr. Desborough in the chair. The other directors present were Messrs. Steward, Burges, Carpenter, Collison, Drew, Kelly, Nisbet, Sidney Smith, Styan, Whyte, and Boodle (secretary). A sum of 455 was distributed in grants to the families of seven deceased non-members, one new member was elected, and other general business was transacted. LEGAL OBITUARY. H. GREENE, ESQ. BUGGS, MARK, hay merchant, East-st, Epsom; July 16, at eleven the time of his decease he was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for the county of Northumberland. Mr. Gray married, in 1827, Eleanor, eldest daughter of the late Lieut.-General Walter Ker, of East Bolton, and of Littledean, in the county CLATWORTHY, FREDERICK CHARLES, veterinary surgeon, Plyof Roxburgh, by whom he has left issue. His eldest son, Mr. William Ker Gray, who was born in 1828, is a captain in the 86th Regiment. W. DUGMORE, ESQ., Q.C. CONNELL, THOMAS, plasterer, Manchester: July 17, at eleven, at DAVIS, GEORGE, out of business, Birmingham; July 17, at three, FELTON, JOHN, engineer, City-rd-bridge; July 19, at four, at office of Sol., Cutler, Bell-vd, Doctor's commons THE late William Dugmore, Esq., Q.C., who died at Cannes, in the south of France, on the 1st inst., in the seventy-second year of his age, was a younger son of the late John Dugmore, Esq., of Swaffham, Norfolk, who was some time a Com- FOSTER, JOHN, merchant, Bicester; July 24, at eleven, at office missioner of Inclosures, and Receiver-General of the Crown rents of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Lincolnshire; his mother was Elizabeth, daughter of Woodrow, Esq., of Hingham, Norfolk. He was born in the year 1800, was called to the bar by the Hon. Society of Lincoln's-inn on the 24th June 1828, and practised for many years as a conMr. Dugveyancer in New-square, Lincoln's-inn. more was nominated a Queen's Counsel in 1861. Mr. Dugmore resided for many years at Hampstead, where he was much and deservedly respected. He married in 1823 Martha, daughter of the late J. Garratt, Esq., of Newington-green, Middlesex, by whom he has left a numerous family to lament his loss. THE late Henry Greene, Esq., solicitor, of Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire, who died on the 11th June, in the sixty-sixth year of his age, was the second son of the late Rev. Richard Greene, rector of Warbleton, in the county of Sussex, by Maria Jane, daughter of Garrall Johnson, Esq. He was born at Warbleton, in the year 1806, and, having chosen the practice of the law as a profession, was admitted a solicitor in 1828. He was appointed in 1869 deputy recorder of Higham Ferrers, of which borough he was also senior alderman. He was the legal adviser of the magistrates; of the Higham Ferrers sewer authority; and of the Higham Ferrers, the Rushden, the Raunds, and the Irthlingborough gas companies, of which companies he was one of the originators. Mr. Greene married, in 1835, Charlotte, daughter of the late Rev. George Warcup Malim, vicar of PARKER, HENRY, jun.; Higham Ferrers, but has left no issue. The remains of the deceased gentleman were interred in the cemetery at Higham Ferrers, the mayor and aldermen of the borough attending his funeral as pall-bearers. THOMAS GEDDES, ESQ. THE late Thomas Geddes, solicitor, of Warring. ton, was admitted in 1841. He held the offices of clerk to the board of guardians of the Warrington Union, and superintendent registrar, and lately resigned the office of town clerk of Warrington, owing to continued ill health. He died much regretted, having stood high in the estimation of all classes. He was born on the same day as Her present Majesty, and died at 2, Bewsey-road, Warrington, on the 29th May 1872; and was buried at St. Paul's Church, in Warrington. The deceased gentleman leaves a widow and numerous family. C. D. BEVAN, ESQ. THE late Charles Dacres Bevan, Esq., judge of the Cornwall County Courts, who died at his newly-acquired residence, at Fowey, on the 24th June, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, was the son of the late Lieutenant-Col. Charles Bevan, of the King's Own Regiment (who died in 1811), by Mary, daughter of Vice-Admiral James Richard Dacres. He was born in the year 1805, and was educated at the Charter House School under Dr. Russell, and subsequently at Balliol College, Oxford, where he graduated B.A. in 1827, and proceeded M.A. in 1830: he was called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of the Middle Temple, in Trinity Term, 1830, and for some years went the Western Circuit. He was a magistrate for the county of Cornwall, and was for some time recorder of Dartmouth, Falmouth, Helston, and Penzance. In Jan. 1857, he was appointed judge of the Cornwall County Courts, the duties of which office he fulfilled down to the time of his decease. Mr. Bevan is succeeded in the post of Judge of the County Courts by Mr. Montagu Bere, Q.C., Reeorder of Bristol. W. GRAY, ESQ. THE late William Gray, Esq., barrister-at-law, of East Bolton, near Alnwick, Northumberland, who died on the 27th June, in the seventy-sixth year of his age, was the eldest son of the late Right Rev. Robert Gray, D.D., Lord Bishop of Bristol, who died in 1823, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Camplin, Esq., of Bristol. He was born in the year 1796, and was educated at Eton, where he had among his schoolfellows the late Duke of Leeds, the Marquis of Donegall, Marquis Conyngham, Lord Feversham, the late Earl of Ellesmere, Lord Howard de Walden, &c. On leaving Eton he entered at Christ Church, Oxford, where he took his B.A. degree in 1819, and proceeded M.A. in 1824. Called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of the Inner Temple on the 28th May 1824, he occupied for some years chambers in Essex-court, Temple, and subsequently in King's Bench-walk, practising as a special pleader on the Northern Circuit, and attending the Durham, Newcastle, Mr. Gray, who and Northumberland sessions. retired from the active duties of his Profession about a quarter of a century ago, was for some tane Reader in law at Durham University, and at THE GAZETTES. Professional Partnerships Dissolved. Gazette, June 28. ROOKE, THOMAS JAMES; PARKER, FREDERIC SEARLE; and PARKER, WILLIAM SEARLE, attor neys and solicitors, Bedford-row, June 24. ROBINSON, THOMAS, and JOHNSON, JOHN FOSTER, attorneys and solicitors, Huddersfield. Dec. 31. Debts by Johnson. Gazette, July 2. MUTLOW, WILLIAM, and BARBER, VAUGHAN, attorneys and solicitors, Ledbury. June 29. Debts by Mutlow. Bankrupts. Gazette, July 5. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. HICKS, THOMAS, pastry cook, Waterloo-rd, Lambeth, und manager Sur. To surrender in the Country. BROWN, ANNE, widow, Hull. Pet. July 2. Reg. Phillips. Sur. COLES, FRANK GEORGE, miller, Street. Pet. July 1. Reg. Foster. HILL, THOMAS, grocer, Little Hulton, near Bolton. Pet. July 2. Pet. HOOF, ALFRED, of no occupation, Wells-st, Jermyn-st. KAY, HENRY, leather seller, Leeds. Pet. July 1. Reg. Marshall. RESTARICK, WILLIAM, clothier, Great Malvern. Pet. July 1. Pet. July 1. Reg. Phillips. Sur. herd's-bush. July 2, 1872 Liquidations by Arrangement. FIRST MEETINGS. ADAMS. DAVID, and MARSHALL, ROBERT, joiners, Harpurhey ATCHISON, JOHN PATTISON, baker, Gateshead; July 16, at twelve, AULT, KENYON GEORGE, and HUMPHRIS, JOHN HENRY, manu- BARBER JOHN CLARKE, builder, Dunstable; July 19, at eleven, BLACKSHAM, WILLIAM JACKSON, painter, Goldenhill, near BOARDMAN, ANDREW, mechanic, Bolton; July 17, at three, at BRICKLAND, CHARLES, fish salesman, Liverpool; July 19, at three, at office of Sol., Baxter, Liverpool of Sol., Mills, Bicester FREEMAN, WILLIAM, painter. Eastleigh, near Bishopstoke; July 19, at one, at office of Lee and Best, Southampton GARTH, BENJAMIN, tailor, Batley; July 23, at three, at office of Sols., Scholes, Breary, and Scholes, Dewsbury GERSHON, MICHAEL, rag merchant. Mansell-st, Aldgate; July 15, at eleven, at office of Sol., Gammon, Barge-yd-chmbs GIBBS, ALFRED JOHN, superannuated clerk, Southville, Wandsworth-rd; July 22, at twelve, at office of Sol., Elworthy, Serlest, Lincoln's-inn HARRIS, JOSEPH, Orpington; July 13, at two, at office of Sol., Gibson, Dartford HARTLEY, ROBERT, refreshment house keeper, Rochdale; July 19, at three, at office of Sol, Lomax, Rochdale HAWKSLEY, ROBERT FARRAND, gentleman, Bedminster: July HobsON, MICHAEL BASILIO, florist, Tunbridge Wells: July 18, 16, at eleven, at office of Sols., Abbott and Leonard, Bristol at five, at 23, Church-rd, Tunbridge Wells. Sols., Stone, Wall, and Simpson, Tunbridge Wells HURST, STEPHEN, builders, Lancaster-rd, Kensington-pk, Notting-hill; July 23, at three, at London Warehousemen's Association, Gutter-la. Sol., Oliver, King-st, Cheapside INGRAM, ALFRED EDWARD, out of business, Birmingham; July 16, at half-past ten, at office of Sol., Beaton, Birmingham JACOBSON, ISAAC, dealer in jewellery, Mornington-crescent, Hampstead-rd; July 22, at one, at office of Sol., Murray, Great Saint Helens JORDAN, SAMUEL, manufacturer, Luton; July 10, at four, at office of Jolley, accountant, Luton LAWTON, HENRY, wholesale confectioner, Howland-st. Fitzroysq; July 19, at twelve, at office of Sol., Lydall, Southamptonbldgs, Chancery-la LENNIE, WILLIAM BROWN, watchmaker, Liverpool; July 23, at two, at office of Sol., Hughes, Liverpool LITTLEHAILES. JOHN, bootmaker, Sunderland; July 22, at eleven, at office of Sol., Steel, Sunderland MACBETH, THOMAS, tailor, Manchester; July 18, at three, at office of Sol., Addleshaw, Manchester MCCOY, PETER, travelling draper, Camborne; July 17, at one, at office of Sol., Budge, Truro NASH, JOHN, stonemason, Birmingham; July 18, at twelve, at cffice of S 1., Ladbury, Birmingham PAYNE, GEORGE, jun., coal merchant, Liverpool; July 22, at eleven, at office of Sols., Laces, Banner, Newton, Bushby, and Richardson, Liverpool PITTS, HENRY, haulier, Gloucester: July 13, at eleven, at office of Sol., E-sery, Bristol REUSCH, CASPAR ROBERT JULIUS, schoolmaster. Watchet, par. St. Decumans; July 19, at twelve, at office of Sols., Trenchard and Blake, Taunton ROBERTON, ROBERT, jun., ornamental lithographer, Manches. ter: July 22, at three, at office of Sol., Leigh, Manchester ROTHWELL, JOHN, victualler, Liverpool; July 24. at two, at the Clarendon rooms, Liverpool. Sol.. Smith, Liverpool STONE, ROBERT, grocer, Barham, near Canterbury; July 22, at four, at office of Sol., Minter, Dover SPRAGUE, Jesse, baker, Holcombe Rogus: July 19, at three, at office of T. Andrew, 13, Bedford-circus, Exeter STUBBERFIELD, JOSEPH HENRY, grocer, Deal; July 20, at three, at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol., Drew, Deal TERRY, HENRY, market gardener, Ringwould: July 20, at twelve, at the Royal Exchange hotel, Deal. Sol, Drew TURNER, JOHN, and WINDERS, ALBERT JAMES, joiners, Kirkmanshulme; July 22, at three, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Sutton and Elliott, Manchester WILLIAMS, DANIEL JOHN, grocer, Caerwys; July 17, at three, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Roberts and Dickson, Chester WITHER, CHARLES, beerhouse keeper, Iron Acton; July 15, at. twelve, at office of Sol., Clifton, Bristol WRIGHT, ALFRED, draper. Little Ilford: July 22, at three, at office of Sol., Spiller, South-pl, Finsbury Gazette, July 9. BARR, HARRY, coal merchant, College Wharf, Great College-st Camden-town; July 18, at two, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Dalton and Jessett, St. Clement's-la, Lombard-st BATE, JOHN, coal merchant, Mumps, and Chadderton July 15, at three, at the Mitre hotel, Manchester. Sol, Clark, Oldham BATH, THOMAS HENRY, seedsman, Lymington: July 24, at two, at the Chamber of Commerce, Cheapside. Sols., Moore and Jackman, Lymington BATSON, WILLIAM, out of business, Dipton; July 30, at three, at office of Sol., Elsdon, Newcastle-upon-Tyne BEALE, EDMUND, farmer, Overton; July 20, at one, at office of Sol., Chandler, Basingstoke BEAR, WILLIAM, cotton spinner and manufacturer, Padiham: July 30, at three, at the Clarence hotel, Manchester. Sol., Leigh, Manchester BIRCH, SARAH, widow, out of business, Hereford; July 29, at eleven, at offices of Sols., Underwood and Knight, Hereford BOOTH, JOSEPH, whitesmith, Worcester; July 22, at twelve, a3 Sol., office of Dixon, public accountantant, Birmingham. Pitt, Worcester BRIDPORT, WILLIAM, out of business, Southampton; July 19, at three, at office of Sol.. Kilby, Southampton BOSTLE, THOMAS, glass dealer, Sunderland, and Bishopwearmouth; July 20, at noon, at office of Sol., Robinson, Sunderland BUSH, JOHN, licensed victuall er, Bristol; July 23, at two, at offices of Hancock, Triggs, and Co., public accountants, Bristol. Sol., Beckingham, Bristol CARHART, ELIAS, miller, Callington; July 30, at one, at offices of Edward Nicholls, attorney-at-law, Callington. Sol., Square, Plymouth CHALLINOR, RALPH, Bolton, and BRODIE, JOSEPH PARMINTER, cheese factors,Great Lever; July 22, at four, at the Victoria inn, Preston. Sol., Dawson, Bolton COOKE, WILLIAM ROBERT, auctioneer, Stanton July 30, at eleven, DUNN, ISAAC, shoe manufacturer, Norwich: July 25, at half-past three, at office of Sol., Sadd, jun., Norwich ELSDON, WILLIAM, provision merchant, South Shields; July 22, at two, at office of Sols., Wawn and Purvis, South Shields FARRAR, WILLIAM, chemist, West Hartlepool; July 25, at three, at office of Sol., Bell, West Hartlepool FELDMAN, MOSES, jewellers' factor, Birmingham; July 17, at eleven, at offices of Sols., Messrs. Hodgson, Birmingham GARDNER, WILLIAM, timber merchant, The Crescent, Stamford Hill; July 25, at twelve, at the Masons' Hall tavern, Masons'avenue, Basinghall-st. Sols., Messrs. Whites, Renard, and Floyd, Budge-row, Cannon-st GORE, WILLIAM, builder, Stamford-st, Blackfriars, and Vine-st, Belvedere-rd, Lambeth; July 18, at two, at offices of Mr. J. Simmons, accountant, 29, New Bridge-st, Blackfriars. Sol., GREEN, GEORGE, tailor, Bristol; July 22, at two, at office of Sol., Beckingham, Bristol Bilton GREEN, WILLIAM THOMAS, wholesale confectioner, Pendleton; JOYCE, JACOB, butcher, Kendal; July 22, at half-past ten, at the |