was right as the co-plaintiff was the right party to sue on one count, and the plaintiff on the other, and as the same effect could be produced by the plaintiff entering a discontinuance and commencing de novo, the court would encourage such amendments as a saving of expense to both parties (De Gendre v. Bogartus, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 733. C. P.) TESTAMENTARY GUARDIANS.-A testator by his will appointed two guardians of his daughter, a minor, and directed that in the event of the death of either of them, the survivor should nominate some other person to act as co-guardian with him: Held, that such direction was within the powers of 12 Car. 2, c. 24, and administration de bonis non was granted to the guardian thus substituted: (In the Goods of Thomas Parnell, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 744. Prob.) MARRIAGE-CELEBRATION-LICENCE-4 GEO. 4, c. 76, s. 22.-A. and B. intermarried on 18th June 1857. On the day before A., the husband, called on the officiating clergyman, and knew from him that the licence would not arrive in time for the marriage next day, and it did not actually arrive until the day after the marriage. B., the wife, was ignorant of this fact, and believed that all the formalities had been complied with: Held, that the parties had not intermarried without licence knowingly and wilfully within in the meaning of 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 22, and that the marriage therefore was valid: (Greaves v. Greaves, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 745. Div.) PAY BILLS OF EXCHANGE-ENDORSEMENT ABLE ABROAD-DECREE OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PROLONGING PERIOD OF PAYMENT-LEX LOCI SOLUTIONIS.-Bills of exchange were drawn at Salonica, payable to the order of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs and made payable at Marseilles. The French Government, differently constituted from time to time, made decrees suspending the payment of all bills of exchange. The bills in question, in accordance with such decrees, were not presented until the period fixed by the foreign Government: Held, that the decrees were valid, and that the defendant remained liable: (Allatini et Cie v. John Nelson Abbott, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 746. Consular Court.) PLEADING-EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWER-PARTNERSHIP-SETTLED ACCOUNT.-The plaintiff and defendant, being partners, executed certain articles of partnership, by which it was stated that the capital of the partnership then consisted of the sum of £6000 brought in by the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a bill for a dissolution of the partnership, and for the usual accounts. The bill alleged that it was not the fact that the £6000 had been brought into the partnership by the defendant, and the interrogatory founded on that allegation asked how that sum was made up. The defendant declined to answer the interrogatory, by his answer pleading a settled account. The plaintiff having excepted to the answer for insufficiency, held, that as the bill did not allege fraud, the defendant was entitled to rely on the settled account. The exception was therefore overuled with costs: (Wier v. Tucker, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 719. V.C. M.) VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT-EVE OF ENTERING TRADE-DEFEATING CREDITORS-STAT. 13 ELIZ. c. 5.-A voluntary settlement, executed by a man on the eve of going into trade, and whether at the time actually contemplating trade or not, is void as against those who may become his creditors in the course of his trade. A., while contemplating entering a firm as partner, and being at the time interested with the firm in certain mercantile speculations but not actually indebted, made a voluntary settlement of all his property upon himself, his wife and family. Six weeks afterwards he became partner, and in about seven months from the commencement of the partnership the firm became insolvent: Held, that the settle. ment was fraudulent, and void as against creditors (Mackay v. Douglas, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 721. V.C. M.) HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. FULLER (George), Thetford, Norfolk, butcher. Next of kin to send in, by Aug. 8, at the County Court at Thetford. Aug. 15, at twelve o'clock, at the said office, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. NORTON (Henry), 16, Manor-place, North Chelsea, Middlesex, retired butcher. Next of kin to send in, by Oct. 29, at the chambers of the Master of the Rolls. Nov. 5, at twelve o'clock, at the said chambers, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. OMMANNEY (John), Portsmouth, a mariner. Next of kin to send in by Nov. 2, at the chambers of the M.R. Nov. 16, at twelve o'clock, at the said chambers, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the person-s respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] LUTTRELL (Henry Acland Fownes) Esq., Badgworth Court, Badgworth, Somersetshire, £13 10s. 6d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Henry Acland Fownes Luttrell. LYALL (Wm.) and ATKINS (Thos. Shatt), both of St. Helen'splace, London, merchants, and NUNN (Roger Spurley), Esq. One dividend on the sum of £1277 2s. 11d. Three per Cent Annuities. Claimant, said Wm. Lyall. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. HOP AND MALT EXCHANGE AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY (LIMITED). Creditors to send in by Aug. 31 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to J. W. R. Adams, 27, Walbrook, E.C., the liquidator of the said company. METROPOLITAN LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY (Limited).— Creditors to send in by Aug. 2 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any) to F. G. Hunt, 1, Fountain-court, Liverpool-street, E.C., the liquidator of the said company. WILTSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.-Petition for winding-up to be heard July 27, before M.R. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BALL (Eliza), Portsdown-road, Maida-vale, Middlesex. CHALLIS (Win.), Basingstoke. Aug. 31; F. Guillaume, solicitor, 186, Fleet-street, E.C. Oct. $1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. CHAPLAIN (Maria), 319, King's-road, Chelsea, Middlesex. HARRISON (John), Mexbrough, Yorkshire, wine merchant. HERBERT (Edward), 212, Euston road, Middlesex, modeller. July 31; Taylor and Co., solicitors, 28, Great James-street, Bedford-row, W.C. Aug. 7; M. R., at twelve o'clock. JACKSON (Robert G.), Heigham, near Norwich, gentleman. July 31; T. M. Golding, solicitor, Walsham-le-Willows, MOSELEY (Rev. Win. W.), Edenhurst-villa, Hurlinghamnear Ixworth, Suffolk. Aug. 3; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. lane, Fulham, Middlesex. Sept. 2; Walker and Co., solicitors, 5, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, W.C. Nov. 5: M. R., at twelve o'clock. SAMBBOOK (Thos.), 307, Holborn, W.C., brushmaker. Aug. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ALLEN Jas.), New Globe Tavern, Mile-end-road, Middlesex, licensed victualler. Sept. 13; Nash and Co., solicitors, lane, E.C. ALLEN (Susan), 18, Boscobel-gardens, St. John's-wood, N.W. Aug. 12; Childs and Batten, solicitors, 25, Coleman-street, 2, Suffolk- E.C. ALisos (Frederick M.), 4, Milner-street, Chelsea, Middlesex, lieutenant in H.M.'s army. Sept. 25; Mackenzie and Co., solicitors, 1, Crown-court, Old Broad-street, E.C. ANDERSON (Thos.), Esq., 6, Marine-parade, Brighton. Sept. 1; J. Crowdy, solicitor, 17, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet-street, E.C. ANDERSON (Wm.), Penzance, draper. Sept. 29; G. A. ARCHER (Sarah), 6, Sydenham Villas, St. James-road, ATKINSON (Capt. John D.), Gibraltar. Sept. 12, Venning BEECHAM Wm. P.), Newtown, Montgomery, solicitor. BROUGH (Geo.), Victoria-lodge, Hounslow, Middlesex, gen- BRUNDRIT (Jos.), Stretford, Lancaster, innkeeper. Aug. 31; chester. BULLOCK (Robert), Eastwood, Notts, gentleman. Aug. 23; W. Browne, solicitor, Banks-chambers, Notts. CARPENTER (Samuel A.), 43, Temple-street, and 33, Harborne-road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, web and brace manufacturer. Aug. 25 Saunders and Bradbury, solicitors, 11, Cherry-street, Birmingham. CATT (Edward), East Arms public-house, Hurley-road, Lower Kennington-lane, Surrey, licensed victualler. Sept. 2; Nash and Co., solicitors, 2, Suffolk-lane, E.C. COOPER (Robert), Willington-quay, Northumberland. July 25; Hoyle and Co., solicitors, 33, Mosley-street, Newcastleupon-Tyne. COLEMAN (Chas.), Athol-villas, Station-road, Redhill, Surrey, merchant. Sept. 2; Uptons and Co., solicitors, 20, Austin-friars, E.C. CORBETT (Corbett H.), Esq., Admington-hall, Admington, and Admington-house, Cheltenham. Aug. 30; J. H. Woodward, solicitor, 103, Newhall-street, Birmingham. DUNN (Geo. W.), 16, Pembroke-street, Pembroke Dock, Pembroke, solicitor, Sept. 6; Miller and Miller, solicitors, 5, Sherborne-lane, E.C. ELWES (Jane M.), Wolland Carey, Woolfardisworthy, Devon. Sept. 30, Tilleard and Co., solicitors, 34, Old Jewry, E.C. FARRER (Wm. F.), Esq., Brafield House, Buckingham, and Pulteney-street, Bath. Aug. 31 Domville and Co., solicitors, 6, New-square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. FLEMING (John B. W.), Esq., Stoneham Park, and Chilworth Manor House, Southampton. Oct. 1; J. Bargin, solicitor, S, John-street, Bedford-row, W.C. GILBERT (Edward W.), Tonbridge Wells, Kent, land surveyor. Oct. 1; Alleyne and Walker, solicitors, Tonbridge Wells. GINN (Charles), 4, Brunswick-place, Brook-street, Upper Clapton, Middlesex, carpenter. Oct. 1; Heath and Parker, solicitors, 12, St. Helen's-place, E.C. GODFREY Catherine), Ware, Herts. Sept. 1: W. Weall, solicitor, 5, Bell-yard, Doctor's-commons, E.C. HALL (General John, Six Mile Bottom, Cambridge. Aug. 18; Carlisle and Ordell, solicitors, 8, New-square, Lincoln's inn, W.C. HARRISON (John M.), Norfolk Works, Scotland-street, Sheffield; and Sharrow Mount, Sheffield. Aug. 3; Web. sters and Picard, solicitors, 3, Hartshead, Sheffield.' HARSANT (Charles), 229, Strand, W.C., and The Willows, Garrett, Tooting, Surrey, perfumer. Sept. 12 C. D. Webb, solicitor, 61, Carey-street, Lincolns-inn, W.C. HUSTED (James), Aylesbury, toll contractor. Oct. 1; Lang. ham and Son, solicitors, 44A, Robertson-street, Hastings. JOLLIFFE (Rev. Thos. R.), Ammerdown-park, Somerset, clerk. Aug. 12; Currie and Williams, solicitors, 32, Lin coln's-inn-fields, W.C. JUDKIN (Anne', 49, Euston-square, N.W. Sept. 2; White and Co., solicitors, 12, Great Marlborough-street, W. LOCKWOOD (Joshua), Esq., Hawley House, near Farnborough, Hants. Sept. 12; Paterson and Co., solicitor, 40, Chancery-lane, W.C. LOVELL (Wm.), 2, Albion-road, Hampstead, N.W., and Charles-street, Westminster, solicitor. Sept. 2; F. L. Keays, solicitor, 26, Charles-street, Westminster. LAKER (Alexander), Cotton Hall, Eton, carpenter. July 30; D. B. Smith, solicitor, Sheet-street, Windsor. MCGREGOR (Richard H. G.), Laburnain Villa, Chesuntwalk, Worcester, surgeon dentist. Sept. 1; W. W. Gabriel, solicitor, 13, Lincoln's-inn-field, W.C. MITCHELMORE (Richard H.), Newton Calstock, Cornwall, yeoman. Sept. 29; E. Nicolls, solicitor, Callington, Corn wall. MOORE (Wm. G.), Esq., Sydney, New South Wales. Ang 27; Waltons and Co., solicitors, 19, Great Winchesterstreet, London. NORMAN (Hon. John P.), Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, Bengal. Aug. 30; James and Simmons, solicitors, Wrington, East Somerset. PENFOLD (Sarah), Rustington and Steyning, Sussex. Aug. 1; Kingsford and Dorman, solicitors, 23, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. PHILLIPPS (Edwd. B.), Esq., 105, Onslow-square, Middlesex. Aug. 4; Walters and Co., solicitors, 9, Lincoln's-in, W.C. PRYOR (Morris), Esq., Baldock, Herts. Aug 1; T. Veasey. solicitor, Baldock. RANDOLPH (Sophia E.), Lansdowne, Torquay. Sept. 1; Wa Ley, 161, Carey-street, Middlesex. ROBSON (Wm.), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Scotswood, Northumberland, fire brick manufacturer. Aug. 31; Hoyle and Co., solicitors, 33, Mosley-street, Newcastleupon-Tyne. ROGLE (John), Coventry, attorney and solicitor. Sept. 2; TODD (Wm. J.), 5, Thurston-terrace, Bushey, Herts, clerk. WALTERS (Edward), Esq., Hope Hill Cottage, Hope-within- No. 53, Cambridge-terrace, with stabling, term 90 yearssold for £2010. No. 6, Cambridge-place-sold for £835. No. 48, Eastbourne-terrace, term 67 years-sold for £1570. Maida-hill.-No. 31, Howley-place, term 65 years-sold for Wednesday July 10. By Messrs. CHINNOCK, GALSWORTHY, and Co., at the Mart. Newington-butts.-No. 15 and No. 14 and 16, Walworth-road. -sold for £1160. No. 3, Short-street, the Young Elephant beer-house-sold for £780. Nos. 1 and 2, Short-street-sold for £1250. No. 23, the Waggon and Horses public-house-sold for £60, Walworth-road.-No. 18-sold for £560. No. 31-sold for £700. No. 33-sold for £780. Nos. 35 and 37-sold for £1450. Walworth-road.-Nos. 36 and 38-sold for £1900. Newington-butts.-No. 51-sold for £700. Newington-butts.-Nos. 61, 63, and 65-sold for £2250. No. 67-sold for £720. Thursday, July 11. By Messrs. BEADEL, at the Mart. Devonshire, near Honiton.-The Honiton Estate, com◄ prising 1602a. 3r. 4p., freehold-sold for £59,000. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, LYE, and WHEELER, Borough.-Nos. 2 and 3, Stoney-street, freehold sold for £1620. No. 4, adjoining-sold for £900. £190. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. City-road.-No. 6, Oakley-crescent, term 70 years-sold for St. Pancras.-No. 76, Aldenham-street, term 18 years-sold for £160. By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE. Commercial-road.-No. 11, Commercial-place, freehold-sold for £350. Nos. 18, 15, 17, 19, and 21, Buross-street, term 43 years-sold for £185. Dean-street.-Improved ground rents of £36 per annum, term 20 years-sold for £105. No. 3, Johnson-street, freehold-sold for £300. for £10. Rotherhithe.-A plot of land in Cow-lane-sold for £80. 2 shares of £5 each, fully paid, in the Woolwich Gas Company-sold for £252. 25 similar shares-sold for £231. new ditto-sold for £196. 25 ditto-sold for £175. £1000. Tuesday, July 16. By Messrs. DRIVER, at the Mart. Pall-mall.-No. 6, Waterloo-place; term 45 years-sold for A freehold ground-rent of £18 188. per annum-sold for £160. hold sold for £950. By Messrs. DANIEL SMITH, SON, and OAKLEY, at the Mart. Berks, near Windsor.-The St. Leonard's-hill Estate, com in good repair, without altering or disturbing one stone of it; and the ancient muniments in it, partly belonging to the Archbishops and partly to the Dean and Chapter, should be classified and re-arranged. At this moment the Gateway Tower House is said actually to be sub-let (by the Dean and Chapter) to the "Office of Works and Public Buildings," as part of the Probate Court Offices! The Gateway House (before it became "the Ecclesiastical Registry") was formerly used as apartments for the Six Preachers when they came in turn to preach in the Minster. We learn that Mr. Hassard gave the Archbishop much assistance in arranging the muniments and manuscripts in the Clock Tower and Registry, at Fulham Palace, when his Grace entered there from Carlisle in 1857. Mr. Hassard is now (amongst other things) private and confidential secretary to the Baroness Burdett Coutts, and the firm of Messrs. Day and Hassard are secretaries to the Bishop of Rochester, and town secretaries to the Bishops of Peterborough and Exeter. Mr. Hassard is known to be a good and active man of business, living nearly all the year round close to the Houses of Parliament at Westminster; and as he has long taken a deep interest in the development of our sea fisheries, in connection with the establishment and transfer to the corporation of Columbia Market, it is not, we hear, at all improbable he may be asked to stand, at the next general election, for one of our seaport towns, to watch the fishing interests. Mr. Hassard is a "Liberal Conservative," as was his cousin, the late Mr. Michael D. Hassard, M.P. for Waterford from 1856 to 1866, who is well remembered as, year after year, one of the best chairmen of select committees in the House of Commons. He died in 1869, at the early age of fifty-three, after a short illness, just after having been appointed by the late Speaker a referee of the House of Commons. His death was considered a great loss to the public business of both Houses. IRISH PRACTICE CASES, COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. (a) May 1870. NICHOLSON v. TANHAM. The learned judge declined to nonsuit, whereupon the defendants gave the following evidence: Rose Tanham.-I am a daughter of Thomas Tanham. He died the 26th May 1869. He was very ill and foolish for nine years before he died. Tom and Pat managed the farm. Byrne, the bailiff, gave me a paper. I did not read it. He handed it to me and asked me how my father was. I told him he was quite innocent. I threw the paper on the dresser, and afterwards burned it. I did not tell my father anything about it. On cross-examination she added: We all took care of my father, and managed the farm. Pat is older than Tom. The two managed the farm together, and were the one master. I think they did see the paper on the dresser. It was two or three hours on the dresser. They were in the house, and could read. Patrick Tanham swore: My father was foolish for nine or ten years. I never saw the notice to quit. It had been burned before. No one told my father of it. I paid the rent to Mr. Nicholson regularly. On cross-examination he added: I think I did not see the notice. Tom spoke to me of it. He can read, and said we got the notice to quit. Thomas Tanham swore: I am son of old Thomas. My brother, Rose, and I lived there. My father was foolish for some years before his death. I never spoke to my father of the paper, and he knew nothing of it. Patrick Smith swore: Old Thomas Tanham was foolish for some years before his death. The judge's report thus proceeded :-" At the close of the defendant's case, counsel for the defendant insisted that there was no evidence that Thomas Tanham, the elder, was the tenant, and asked me to leave to the jury the question whether a new tenancy had been created between Thomas Tanham the younger and the plaintiff. I held that there was no evidence of any new tenancy having been created, and I refused to leave any question to the jury upon that point. Counsel for the defendant then required me to tell the jury that the notice to quit had been insufficiently served, inasmuch as Thomas Tanham could not understand it, and it had, in fact, never reached him. I declined to do so; but in order to raise the question properly, I left to the jury the question whether, in fact, the notice to quit ever reached Thomas Tanham, or became The jury found that it did not reach him, or become known to him. I then directed a verdict for the plaintiff, being of opinion that the service of the notice to quit Thomas Tanham. I said that I would take a was good, although in fact it never reached note of the objection that I should have held the service bad; but I did not reserve liberty to move to change the verdict into a verdict for the defen prising mansion and 230a. 3r. 16p., freehold -sold for £52,000. Practice-Respective function of judge and jury-known to him. An enclosure of land, containing 20a. Or. 36p.-sold for £2250. Several enclosures, containing 45a. Ir. 80p.-sold for £1850. By Messrs. EDWIN FOX and BOUSFIELD. Hackney.-No. 4, Walmer-cottages, term 71 years-sold for Dalston.-Nos. 11 and 15, Acacia-villas, term 74 years-sold £250. for £360, Peckham.-Harder's-road.-A profit rent of £70 per annum -sold for £50. A plot of building land-sold for £250. THE NEW REGISTRAR OF THE DIOCESE OF CANTERBURY.-The Archbishop of Canterbury a few weeks since accepted the resignation made by the aged Mr. W. H. Cullen, of Canterbury, of the Registrarship of the Diocese of Canterbury. Mr. Cullen is now in his 91st year. His Grace has just appointed Mr. John Hassard (of the firm of Messrs. Day and Hassard, of No. 28, Great Georgestreet, Westminster), to be Registrar of the Diocese of Canterbury. Mr. Hassard is the youngest son of the late Mr. John Hassard, of Bawnboy House, and of Gardenhill, near Enniskillen, Ireland, High Sheriff of the county of Carlow in 1830, and who was killed from his horse returning from the declaration of the poll after the county election 1835. Mr. Hassard was not born until some He having months after his father's decease. received his articles-as he has we know ever spoken of with gratitude-from the hands of Mr. Joseph Barker, solicitor, of Bristol (formerly of the firm of Messrs. Daniel and Co. there) who had the highest respect for Mrs. Hassard, his mother, who had come to settle at Clifton, near Bristol, with a large family. Before moving to London Mr. Hassard also passed a year with Messrs. Stanley and Wasbrough, solicitors, of Bristol, and formed a lasting friendship with Mr. H. Sydney Wasbrough, of that house. He was admitted a solicitor in 1853, and afterwards read for a year in the chambers of Mr.Charles Davidson, the well known conveyancing barrister. Mr. Hassard was private secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury for twelve years, namely, from 1856 to 1868, when the Most Rev. Dr. Tait was Bishop of London. Mr. W. H. Cullen, jun., of Canterbury (who has for some years assisted his uncle) will, we are told, be appointed by the new registrar to continue to act as "deputy registrar" for local matters in Canterbury. The diocesan registrarship is now but of small value, and must not be confused with the office of registrar of the Province of Canterbury (held by Mr. F. H. Dyke, Her Majesty's Proctor), which is an appointment of real value. It is to be hoped that the new registrar will look to-and make application to have most carefully and securely preserved-all the ancient and valuable records in the Christ Church (or Cathedral) Gateway Tower. The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury should forthwith put this splendid gateway Service of notice to quit on daughter of tenant of weak mind on the premises-Held sufficient. THIS was an appeal against a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, making absolute a conditional order that the verdict had for the plaintiff, John Armitage Nicholson, against the defendants, before Lawson, J. and a special jury at the Summer Assizes 1869, for the county of Meath, be set aside, and a new trial had, upon the ground of misdirection with respect to the sufficiency of the service of a notice to quit. The action was one of ejectment on the title, and the only question was as to the sufficiency of the service of the notice to quit upon Thomas Tanham, senior, the late tenant, who was the father of the defendants, and had died since the service of the notice to quit. The evidence given for the plaintiff was as follows: Henry Byrne said: I am a bailiff; I served a copy of the notice to quit produced, in Tanham's house on the 23rd April 1868, by delivering it to his daughter, at the house of the father, upon the lands. I got the notice from Mr. Nicholson on the same day. I read and compared the notice and copy. Tanham had two sons; Patrick is the eldest son, Thomas Tanham, the defendant, is the or second son. The father was alive when I served the notice to quit. On cross-examination he added: The father was silly for twelve thirteen years; Thomas and Patrick, the two sons, managed the farm. I live within four miles of them. I never saw the old man out on the farm. Evidence was also given that the tenancy had originally commenced upon the 1st Nov. from the late Thomas Tanham. The plaintiff proved that he had received rent rent dated the 28th Oct. 1867, was given to Thomas A receipt for Tanham, the elder, by the hands of Patrick Tanham. The last payment of rent was on 10th May 1869, for the rent of the year 1868. I never made any change in the tenancy. On cross-examination he added: I think I have seen Thomas Tanham, the elder, at his own house; but he never personally paid me. I know nothing of Thomas Tanham, the younger; he never paid me rent. receiver over the lands from 1857 to 1862, and Payment of rent by Thomas Tanham to a before the sale to the plaintiff in the Landed Estates' Court was then proved, and the plaintiff closed his case. Counsel for the defendant then called for a non suit on the ground that there was no proper service of the notice to quit, and no explanation of the notice, and contended that Thomas, the son, had been made tenant, in lieu of Thomas, the father. (a) From the Irish Law Times. 473). Counsel for the appellant, Macdonogh, Q.C., Battersby, Q.C., and O'Driscoll. Counsel for the respondent, Butt, Q. C. and Martin. Cur. adv. vult. June 3.-The Court now delivered judgment. LAWSON, J., said that the question whether, upon the proved state of facts, the service of the notice was sufficient was a question of law upon which he was bound to have directed; that he had. held that it was sufficient, upon the ground that the notice was served upon the lands where the person whose duty it was to hand it to the tenant, tenant resided, and then actually was, upon a and that it was received by and known to all who were acting as agents of the tenant. His lordship also pointed out that although there was no evidence that the father was a lunatic or otherwise incompetent, save in being a person of very advanced years, it appeared upon the defendant's own evidence that the daughter, who received the notice, was the person who, together with her two two brothers, who jointly managed the farm in brothers, took care of her father, and that these question, knew that they had got a notice to quit. MORRIS, J., was of opinion that the leaving of the notice to quit at the dwelling-house of the sufficient to determine the tenancy. tenant when the tenant was at home was in itself DEASY, B., was of opinion that the service proved was sufficient, inasmuch as it appeared upon the evidence that the notice became known to the persons having the management of the farm, the only persons who could have taken action upon it. FITZGERALD, B., said that the simple question for consideration was, whether service of the notice to quit upon the daughter of the tenant at his dwelling-house, upon the lands where she resided with him, and, together with her two brothers, two care of him and managed the farm, became insufficient by reason of the fact that it did not reach the tenant or become known to him, and that so to hold would, in his opinion, render the service of notice to quit impossible in numberless cases, and would be inconsistent with the law as laid down by Lord Kenyon in Jones v. Marsh (4 Term Rep. 454) and the later authorities. His Lordship further remarked, that no proof having been given that the daughter did not know the nature of the paper before she burned it, no such fact could be taken for granted, and that the inference upon the whole evidence given upon the defendant's part was altogether the other way. In his opinion a party asking only for a direction must be held to admit every fair inference which a jury might draw from his own evidence, at least to the extent of not being allowed to assume the contrary. PIGOT, C.B., dissented from the opinion of the rest of the judges of the Exchequer Chamber, for the reasons given by the Court of Queen's Bench. He was of opinion that there is nothing, either by common law, or by statute, in the nature of a notice to quit, to distinguish it from any other ordinary notice required by the law; that verbal notice was sufficient, and that notice in writing was but a more easily proved method of intimation by the landlord to the tenant that the relation between them should be terminated. There were several classes of reported cases upon the books, bearing upon this matter, viz.: 1. Those in which it has been held that certain matters amount to prima facie evidence that the notice had reached the right person. 2. Those where the person to be served has an agent upon whom the service may be effected; qui facit per alium facit per se; and it is immaterial whether or not the communication ever reached the principal. 3. Those where a person invested with authority so to act frustrates the object of the service by wilfully concealing the fact; there his principal is held estopped by his misconduct, from showing that he did not receive the notice. Until it was ascertained by a finding of the jury that the case fell within either of the latter two classes, it was not open to the judge to direct that the service was sufficient; it would be usurping the functions of the jury so to act. For these reasons he was of opinion that the decision of the Queen's Bench should be upheld. MONAHAN, C.J., concurred with the majority of the court. Either the old man had been incompetent to manage the farm, and it was managed for him by those to whom the notice came, or he was not so incompetent. His Lordship was of opinion that whether the court was entitled to assume without a finding of the jury, that the persons to whom the notice came were agents, or not, the principle of the case of Papillon_v. Brunton (5 Hurl. & N. 518), applied, and the service was sufficient. Judgment of the Queen's Bench reversed. (a) NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT 1869SUMMARY JURISDICTION. Diseases (Animals) Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 70) Contagious contains no express words giving summary jurisdiction to justices to convict for the offences created thereby; but, by sect 57, a person doing a certain thing is to be deemed guilty of an offence, "unless he shows, to the satisfaction of the justices before whom he is charged, that he did not know," &c.; and, "in case of a conviction for an offence under this section, no compensation shall be payable," &c.; by sect. 103, if any person acts in contravention of or is guilty of an offence against this Act he shall for every such offence be liable. to a penalty not exceeding 220; by sect. 107, "in proceedings before justices under this Act, any railway company or other body corporate may appear by any member;" and by sect. 108, an appeal to quarter sessions is given to any party who "feels aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by justices, or by any determination or adjudication of justices with respect to any penalty or forfeiture under this Act," upon certain conditions mentioned. Held, that these provisions impliedly gave to justices summary jurisdiction to convict for offences under the Act: (Cullen v. Trimble, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 691. L.JJ.) NUISANCE-BLACK SMOKE-NUISANCES REMOVAL ACTS.-The respondents, who were occu (a) The decision of the Exchequer, Chamber was affirmed by the House of Lords on appeal on the 29th April 1872 [see Weekly Notes (1872), page 101.] piers of mills which were used as a manufactory, and not as a private dwelling house, were summoned before justices under the Sanitary Act 1866, and the Nuisances Removal Acts incorporated therewith, for sending forth from one of their chimneys black smoke in such quantity as to be a nuisance. It was proved that during one hour the smoke from this chimney was a nuisance; but, no evidence being given as to the persons who were in charge of the furnaces which sent the smoke up the chimney, the justices discharged the summons: Held, that the respondents were the proper persons against whom proceedings should be taken, but that the justices should inquire whether the nuisance was likely to recur, or to be repeated, before they made an order of abatement: (Barnes v. Ackroyd, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 692. Q. B.) METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT-JURISDICTION OF COUNTY JUSTICES.-The respondent was charged before justices of the county of Kent, sitting at Dartford, out of the metropolitan police district, with committing an offence under 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54, at Bexley, which is a place within the metropolitan police district, not assigned to any of the police courts of the metropolis. Held, affirming the opinion of the justices, that they had no jurisdiction to try the offence: (Dann v. Manby, 26 L. T. Rep. N. Š. 730. Q.B.) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES STAMPS WORNOUT-RESTAMPED.-It is not necessary where a weight has been once stamped in accordance with 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 63, s. 21, but from use the mark has become erased, that it should be restamped: (Starr v. Trinder, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 735. Ex.) BEERHOUSE-LICENCE-JURISDICTION OF JusTICES-CHANGE OF TENANT.-The tenant of a house, who in Sept. 1860 had obtained a licence for the sale of exciseable liquors, under 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, was compelled by the landlord (after due notice given) to quit possession of the house in May 1871, and another tenant was let into possession, to whom the justices in petty sessions refused, on the 5th June 1871, to indorse the former tenant's licence, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 44, s. 5. The new tenant then gave up possession, and no application for a licence was made to the general annual licensing meeting, held on the 4th Sept. 1871, the house being at that time unoccupied. Appellant, the next tenant of the house, applied for a licence, under sect. 14 of 9 Geo. 4. c. 61, at a special sessions held under that Act, but the application was refused by the justices, whose decision was affirmed on appeal by the quarter sessions, who found, however, that the appellant was a proper person: Held, that the justices clearly had a discretion to refuse the licence. Quære, whether the justices had any jurisdiction to deal with the matter at the special sessions? (Reg. v. Rowell, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 732. Q. B.) THE INTERNATIONAL PRISON CONGRESS. THE closing proceedings of this congress were held on Saturday, in the Middle Temple Hall, Sir John Pakington, M.P., presiding. There was a very full assemblage of the delegates and commissioners, and although the business to be transacted was only to receive the reports of the various sections, a pro formâ matter, the members showed an unabated interest to the last in the work. The Chairman, on taking his seat, said the Congress was now assembled for the concluding meeting of what had been a most interesting gathering, and he hoped the proceedings of the morning would be in every way worthy of the duty was not then to detain them, but he would satisfactory proceedings of the other days. His simply congratulate them upon having got through their work so well. He then called upon M. Victor Bournat, of France, to present the report of the French-speaking section. Mr. Powell, of New York, rose and said he wished to state that he deprecated the proposed closing of the Congress on that day, it not having discussed two very important questions-one on the point whether the death penalty for the crime of murder should be continued, and if not what other punishment should be awarded to that crime; and the second as to the use of intoxicating drinks led to an increase of crime. He said he should as a beverage, and whether, and how far, this use propose that the Congress should adjourn until Monday, and then to Tuesday, in order to discuss these questions. The Chairman said that the speaker was out of order in bringing forward his views at that juncture, and the assemblage would be asked to listen to the report of the French-speaking section. M. Bournat then brought up this report, which entered into the subject of the deliberations of the French-speaking section with great spirit, and discussed at very great length the merits of the various systems of imprisonment brought before it. Great praise was given to Sir W. Crofton, Captain Du Cane, M. Stevens, and other gentlemen, for the information which had been laid before the section. The report proved to be too long for the audi. ence to hear it all, and the reporter of the section was interrupted when he had got apparently about half through his reading. A resolution was passed that the report should be printed with the proceedings of the Congress. the Mr. G. W. Hastings then read the report of the International Committee, and this gave a résumé of the proceedings, the general features of which have been reported, and it expressed the thanks of the committee to the Government of Her Majesty for the facilities afforded to the delegates for the inspection of the convict and other prisons, and for the information given to the meeting, especially by Sir Walter Crofton and Captain Du Cane, the head of the convict department, who had attended the sittings of the Congress, and spared no pains to elucidate the working systems under their care. The Congress was much gratified by the presence of the Secretary of State, the Right Hon. H. A. Bruce, at one of its sittings, and by the assurances he gave of the interest felt by the Government in the objects of the Congress. A still more flattering recognition was afforded by the presence of the Prince of Wales at the soirée, held in the Middle Temple Hall on the 9th inst., when the leading delegates from most of the countries represented at the Congress were introduced to His Royal Highness. The committee also thanked the courts of Quarter Sessions, benches of magistrates, and public institutions which had sent delegates to the Congress, and also the Incorporated Law Society, the Society of Arts, and the Social Science Association for the accommodation placed at the disposal of the committee. The report concluded by stating, that in the general question of recla mation, the influence of women devoted to such work was of the highest importance, and the committee rejoiced that the Congress had had the advantage of the presence and counsel of many ladies whose practical acquaintance with prisons and reformatories had given weight to their words, and whose example furnished hope for the future. After reading the report, Mr. Hastings said he wished to draw the attention of the Congress to the manner in which criminal statistics were prepared. He hoped that whatever scheme might be devised especial care would be taken to insure trustworthi ness in obtaining such information. He did not hesitate to say that at present such statistics were exceedingly delusive. Sir Walter Crofton the other day had pointed out that it was a most imperfect test to ask what was the number of convictions under a system. They should well consider the circumstances of those reconvictions, and he therefore begged to call the attention of the International Committee to that point. The next point he wished to refer to related to prison disci pline, which, he contended, could not be carried out efficiently unless the prisons contained a certain number of prisoners. The management of gaols containing a small number of prisoners could not be carried on properly, and he men tioned one instance where a gaol contained but five prisoners. Mr. Hastings said he hoped the Home Office would see the necessity of submitting to Parliament the great good which would be effected by the Secretary of State having power to abolish prisons which contained a small num ber of prisoners. The speaker then formally moved the adoption of the report, and resumed his seat. Mr. Haines seconded the motion. Miss Carpenter, in addressing the meeting, observed that it was impossible to comprehend the importance of the Congress, for by it a new era this new era had been coming on for years. She had opened up in the progress of civilisation, and recollected well the chairman being at a meeting of juvenile delinquents some twenty years ago, and she was then asked if children did not owe retribution to society, but her answer was that society owed retribution to them. (Applause.) There had been one feeling of unanimity pervading the Congress in reference to the treatment of prisoners so as to prepare them for a re-entry into the world. There was, too, another new feature connected with the Congress, and that was the part assigned to women in the work of criminal reformation. It was right that women should seek out and help the less fortunate of their own sex. It was a great feature in the history of the country for women to enter upon such important duties, for they of all others were best able to treat the moral and mental, as well as the physical diseases of their sex. (Cheers.) Mr, Powell then addressed the chair, and sug gested that at the close of the day's business the Congress should adjourn till Monday and Tuesday to consider the subjects of death punishments and the creation of crime by the liquor traffic. Mr. E. H. Coates, of Pennsylvania, fully sympsthised with the last speaker, and said that when he left America he brought with him documents representing the views of half a million of the best men and women on the American continent. The Chairman, referring to the report of the Committee, said it was very pleasing to hear such a very satisfactory report from what was essentially a representative committee, consisting of one delegate from each of the many nations there represented. The discussions which had been held would be read with the deepest interest by the people of every nation represented at that meeting, touching as they did upon subjects both complicated and difficult. When they found, then, that such committee concurred in recommending the report for adoption, which, though brief, was comprehensive in its character, it could not fail, he apprehended, to give the greatest satisfaction. It proved that the discussions had not been in vain. After alluding to the prominent part which had been taken in the proceedings by ladies, the chairman concluded by observing that it was a source of much thankfulness to know that the debates would not be unproductive of good results. Mr. Powell then renewed his suggestions in the form of a motion. The Chairman said he understood that no further business was to be taken, and thought that it would not be just to the foreign representatives to have an adjournment; at the same time he admitted that both the questions referred to by the gentleman were of vital importance, and were well worthy of consideration. He then put the adop. tion of the report to the meeting, when it was carried unanimously. Borough. Bolton Lichfield Wigan estate. Dr. Wines then moved, and Archbishop Manning seconded, the following resolution : That this International Congress, composed of representatives from twenty states of the world, desires on this, its last day of meeting, to express its grateful thanks to the Master and the Hon. Society of the Middle Temple, and to its Treasurer, Sir T. Chambers, for their liberality in placing at the disposal of the Congress this magnificent hall, and their Parliament Chamber." Votes of thanks were also passed to the chair. man, to the secretary, Mr. Pears, to Dr. Mouat (who had interpreted on several days, and otherwise assisted the Congress), to the foreign delegates, and to other gentlemen who had rendered the Congress service. Mr. Foote, in a very humorous speech, moved that the thanks of the foreign members of the Congress be presented to the citizens of London and to the English Government for the courtesy extended to the foreign delegates in every way, and with these interchanges of votes of good feeling and goodwill the proceedings terminated. During this week the members of the Congress will visit prisons, State, county, and voluntary, little time having been afforded last week for obtaining an inspection of these objects of peculiar interest to the gentlemen who have visited this country. BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. When holden. Wednesday, July 24 Wednesday, July 24. Wednesday, July 24... REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING. [Recorder. S. Pope, Esq., Q.C. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. LEASES AND SETTLED ESTATES ACT-PRACTICE. A petition under 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120, prayed for general leasing powers, which it was considered would prove very beneficial to the One of the petitioners who was entitled for life to one-sixth part of the settled estates, and might in certain events become entitled to the whole, was a married woman resident in the United States. Under the above circumstances the court made an order dispensing with the separate examination required by the Act: (Re Thorne's Estate, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 682. V.C. M.) IN "* MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT-POWER TO INVEST REAL OR PERSONAL" SECURITY-BOND. Where trustees of a marriage settlement were empowered to invest the trust funds "on such security either real or personal" as they should, with the consent of the husband and wife, in their absolute discretion, think proper, and prior to the marriage £2500, part of the trust property, was advanced to the husband upon his note of hand, the court allowed the investment to be continued, upon the husband executing a bond to the trustees for the £2500, and interest at 5 per cent : (Pickard v. Anderson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S., 725. V.C. B.) MERCANTILE LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CARRIAGE BY SEA-WILFUL ACT AND DEFAULT -EXEMPTION OF CARRIER FROM LIABILITY, UNDER SPECIAL CONTRACT.-A special contract, entered into between a shipowner and a passenger by sea, contained a provision that the shipowner would not be answerable for loss of baggage "under any circumstances whatsoever:" Held, that such a stipulation covers the case of wilful default and misfeasance by the shipowner's servants: (Taubman v. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 704. Ex.) OF EXECUTOR TO PARTNERSHIP-DECEASED PARTNER'S ESTATE REMAINING EMPLOYED IN BUSINESS-LIABILITY ACCOUNT FOR PROFITS PARTIES.-A testator at the time of his death was employed in a partnership business with three other persons, one of whom he appointed, jointly with two other persons, executors of his will. The partnership was carried on under articles, by which it was provided that, if any partner should die, his share was to be valued and ascertained with the profits to which he would have been entitled on the 30th June preceding, and that the amount so ascertained should be in full for the purchase of the share of such deceased partner in all the property of the partnership, and should be secured to be paid to the executors of the deceased partner by promissory notes of the surviving partners, payable by instalments, extending over two years, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. ......... per annum from the death of such partner. The business of the firm was, after the testator's death, carried on by several successive partnerships. The executors did not call in the testator's estate, which was employed in the business, but allowed it to remain so employed, and it was treated by the members of the successive partnerships as a debt due to the executors, bearing 5 per cent. compound interest. On a bill filed by a residuary legatee against the executors to administer the estate of the testator, and for an account of the profits made by the employment of the testator's estate in the partnership business: Held, that the executors were personally liable to account for all the profits made by the employment of the testator's estate in the business with interest thereon at 5 per cent. per annum from the respective times when such profits were made: Held, also, that the present and past partners of the firm, other than the executors, were not necessary parties to the suit: (Vyse v. Foster, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 725. V.C. B.) MARITIME LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION-WINDING-UP-UNSTAMPED POLICY-LOSS OF SHIP-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY.-Where there was an entry in the minute book of an insurance association admitting the liability of the association upon a certain policy, and the association was ordered to be wound-up before the money was paid, the insured was held to be entitled to the amount so admitted to be due, although the policy was not stamped: (Martin's claim, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 686. V.C. B.) PRACTICE-SUIT FOR NECESSARIES-INJUNCTION.-Plaintiffs brought an action to recover the price of necessaries supplied during the year 1869 to the Lion, a vessel which at that time was the property of the North-West of Ireland Deep Fishery Company. Defendants, the official liqui. dators of said company, lodged in court a sum of 2031. 7s., in lieu of bail, and as security for claim and costs, and to abide the adjudication of this Court. They then applied to the Court of Chancery (England), and obtained therefrom an injunetion restraining the plaintiffs from prosecuting said action" until further order." And they now applied by motion to this court for an order that said sum of 2081. 7s. be paid to them. Held, that inasmuch as the injunction was in force until further order" only, the court would not make an order directing the payment of the said sum of 2081. 7s. to the said defendants: (The Lion, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 716. Adm. Ct. Ireland). SHIP-MORTGAGE-CHARGE ON FREIGHT POSSESSION BY MORTGAGEE-NOTICE--PRIORITY. The first registered mortgagee of a ship made a further advance on the security of a mortgage comprising the ship and the freight thereof then earned or to be earned during the continuance of the security. Prior to the date of this further advance, the mortgagor had executed a second mortgage of the ship, and had given the second mortgagee a lien on the freight for a balance due to him. The first mortgage had no notice of this second mortgage, or of the lien on the freight, at the time of making the further advance. The second mortgagee completed his title by giving the charterers notice in writing of his lien on the freight. The first mortgagee subsequently took possession of the ship before she reached her port of discharge, and continued in possession till the ship was sold: Held, that the first mortgagee was entitled to priority over the charge of the second mortgagee of the freight, not only in respect of the amount due on his first mortgage, but also in respect of the whole amount of his further advance, together with interest and costs: (Liverpool Marine Credit Company v. Wilson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 717. L.JJ.) MARINE INSURANCE-SHIP-OPEN POLICYMISTAKE IN NAME-INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATIONS. Plaintiffs, ship and insurance brokers, having received instructions from Messrs. G. and K., of Hamburg, to open a policy on hides to the amount of £5000, filled up a slip for that amount on hides per "ships," and left it at the office of the defendants' underwriters. About four months afterwards, an agent of Messrs. G. and K., having written to the plaintiffs about hides on board the Socrates, a clerk of the plaintiffs called on the defendants, and, after referring to the French Veritas, which contained the names of two vessels, the Socrate, an old French vessel, and the Socrates, a Norwegian vessel, said he believed the vessel on board of which the hides were to be shipped was the Socrates. About a week after, one of the plaintiffs, taking up the old slip for £5000 at the defendants' office, filled up two slips instead, one for £2500 on hides per the Sophie, the other for £2455 on hides per the Socrates; and policies were duly issued in accordance with the slips. The hides were loaded not on board the Socrates, but on board the Socrate, and were totally lost, whilst on board that vessel, by the perils insured against. An action having been brought upon the policy for £2455, the jury found that the parties intended to insure the hides by the vessel on which they were shipped, whatever the name might be. Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench), that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, although the hides were on board the Socrate at the time they were lost. Held, also, that the slip for £5000 was admissible in evidence, to show the intention of the parties at the time the policy founded upon it was executed, although by 30 Vict. c. 23 ss. 4, 9, the slip, not having been stamped, would not be available as a policy: (Ionides v. Pacific Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 738. Ex. Ch.) COUNTY COURTS. LAUNCESTON COUNTY COURT. (Before MONTAGUE BERE, Esq., Q.C.) THIS was an action, entered under sect. 12 of the County Courts Act 1867, for a trespass upon a hedge. The plaintiff had claimed £1. After post hours, on the 8th inst., defendant had paid into court 5s., with 1s. for costs. Peter was for plaintiff. Bridgman for the defendant. Peter now moved for full costs, as in cases where titie is in dispute, and they were ordered. LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. (Before Mr. Serjt. WHEELER, LL.D, Judge.) creditors-The Factors' Act. THIS was a motion which involved the right to property valued at over £10,000, and was argued at great length, counsel occupying the court two whole days. The learned judge took time to consider his judgment, and, as it is a case which, it was stated will be taken to the highest court of appeal, we give the judgment in full. His HONOUR, in giving judgment, said :-This was a motion by Messrs. Coles against the trustee in the bankruptcy, and the North-Western Bank, for an order to deliver up certain wools claimed by them. Mr. Harrison and Mr. Wheeler were counsel for Messrs. Coles and Co.; Mr. Benjamin for the North-Western Bank; and Mr. Gully for the trustee. It appears that Slee was a wool broker, carrying on business in Liverpool, and also a warehouse keeper. He had his offices in Lancaster-buildings, and he had two warehouses, one in Temple-street and the other in Luton-street. Messrs. Coles and Co., of London, are extensive importers of wool, and they had for three years prior to his bankruptcy employed the bankrupt from time to time to receive on their account under bills of lading endorsed to him and to warehouse wools imported by them. The wool consisted of two descriptions-goat wool and sheep wool. The bankrupt was a sheep wool, not a goat wool, broker. The sheep wool he was entrusted with the possession of for purposes of sale. Goat wool was simply warehoused with him at the usual warehouse rates, the sales being made through goat wool brokers, who are a separate class, as it seems. As to sheep wool the bankrupt was, in a limited sense, the agent of Messrs. Coles for its sale. The course of business was this. The bankrupt received the goods under bills of lading endorsed to him, and he warehoused them in his own warehouse. It was then his duty to value the goods, and to send his valuation to Messrs. Coles. Having done this he awaited their instructions as to sale, and they exercised their discretion as to whether they would or would not sell, and instructed the bankrupt accordingly. The bankrupt was a customer of the North Western Banking Company, and was in the habit of borrowing money from the bank upon the hypothecation of wools in his possession as security for advances. There are three letters of hypothecation relating to wools in question in this case, severally dated the 5th and 11th March and the 5th April. The terms of these letters of hypothecation are in substance the same. I may read one: "Liverpool, April 5, 1872. To the North-Western Bank, Limited. In consideration of your advancing to me (against bills to be got hereafter) the sum of £7000 (say seven thousand pounds), for two months, I agree to hold the produce hereunder specified as trustee for you, and as security for the said advance (with interest and commis. sion), and to sell the same under your order, and pay to you the proceeds thereof as and when received, in or towards the repayment of the said advance; and I further agree that I will, whenever you request me so to do, deliver the produce to you to enable you to sell the same and apply the proceeds to the payment of the said advance. The property is fully insured by floating policies with the Royal for the sum of £ the policy for which I hold for your behalf.-I am your obedient servant, EDWIN SLEE." To each letter of hypothecation is attached a schedule of the wools hypothecated, with columns in the schedule for the marks, the description, the classification, and value, and for a statement where the wools To the hypothecation letter of the 5 March there is what is called a warrant attached, which states, first, that the total number of bales are held to the order of the bank manager, and then specifies each lot forming the total number, with the description of the marks and number. At foot of the warrant there is a memorandum describing where the goods lie. The schedule to the hypothecation letter of the 11th March states where the two lots which it comprises are situate. With regard to the hypothecation of the 5th April, the schedule does not state where any portion of the wools comprised in it are; nor is there any warrant attached; but there is a memorandum at the foot of the hypothecation letter in these words: "Warrants for which I can then were. lodge to-morrow." On the 6th April (Saturday), the day after the last hypothecation, Mr. Archibald, a bank clerk, applied to the bankrupt for the warrants mentioned at the foot of the hypothecation letter, but Slee made some excuse, saying he would attend to the matter. On Monday, the 8th, the application was renewed, but the warrants were not forthcoming; again, on the 9th, a further application, with the like result. On the 10th (Wednesday), the bank clerk again applied at Slee's warehouse, and was told that he was out of town, but would be back next day and all would be right. The bankrupt had, in fact, absconded, and has not since been heard of. The bank had thus the earliest intimation of his absence, and that he had gone not only without notice to them, but without fulfilling his promise to deliver warrants, or making any arrangement to deliver them, notwithstanding the pressure which had been put upon him. On the 11th, nothing was heard from Slee except the receipt at his office of a telegram, dated that day, and addressed from the station at Derby, and which is in these words: "Am coming home: £7000 for the bank." This telegram was taken to the bank on the day it bears date, and received by the bank clerk Meikle, and by the manager. It will be remembered in connection with the statement in the telegram" £7000 for the bank," that the loan of £7000 was for two months, of which five or six days only had expired; but the explanation of the words offered on behalf of the bank is that Slee had been pressed for the warrants, and had not delivered them; that he wished the bank to understand that, as he had not delivered the warrants, he was intending to repay the loan. The real truth, however, as to the statement in the telegram, probably was that he made it with a view to stave off suspicion, and to gain time to get away. On the 12th nothing was heard, and in the course of that day the bankrupt's brother was sent for by the bank and interrogated as to the bankrupt, and asked if he knew where he was. The reply the brother gave was that he was in ignorance of the whole matter. On Saturday, the 13th, the bankrupt's brother was again sent for and interrogated, and in the course of the day the bank clerk Archibald obtained the keys of both the warehouses-the Luton-street warehouse at the bankrupt's office, and the keys of the Temple-street warehouses from Mr. Bibby, the bankrupt's clerk. Having obtained the keys, the bank took possession of the warehouses in which the goods were stored, and have held the keys and the goods ever since. It does not appear that there was any authority on the part of any of the bankrupt's clerks to deliver the keys. On the 13th, the day on which the bank clerk Mr. Archibald obtained the keys, and before he obtained them, the bankrupt's brother had an interview with the bank manager as to the keys, and after that interview was introduced to Mr. Arnold, one of the directors, and peremptorily asked by him to deliver up the keys, which he as peremptorily refused to do. According to Mr. Slee, Mr. Arnold then said, "We shall apply to Dale-street, and see Major Greig, and have you taken into custody." Mr. Edmondson, the bank manager, denies this, and states that what was really said by Mr. Arnold was that "if the keys were not given up he considered it was a case for the police office." Mr. Arnold, to whom the statement is imputed, has not made any affidavit, although the hearing of the case was, as I understand, adjourned on the ground of his absence from Liverpool, and with a view to his making an affidavit. The difference in the language used, whichever may be the correct version-that of Mr. Slee or that of Mr. Edmondson-is not very material, because it is clear that the police office was mentioned, and mentioned in connection with a refusal by Mr. Slee to deliver the keys. It is also clear that this conversation had its effectprobably the effect intended-upon Mr. Slee, for he afterwards, before the keys were delivered, consulted his fellow-clerk, Mr. Ragg, what he was to do, as Mr. Arnold had threatened to have him taken into custody if he did not give up the wools. The answer of Mr. Ragg, he says, was that they would have to do what the bank wished. The bankrupt's brother left Liverpool on the Saturday after the keys had been delivered up, in quest of the bankrupt, but no tidings of him could he obtain. On the 19th the petition for adjudication in bankruptcy was filed, and on the 23rd adjudication was made, the act of bankruptcy being that Slee, being a trader, had departed from his place of business with intent to defeat and delay his creditors. These are the material facts. There is a conflict of claims with respect to these wools. In the course of the case the controversy has been narrowed by an admission on the part of the bank that as to a portion of the wools in their possession they cannot oppose an order for their delivery to Messrs. Coles, as upon inquiry they find that the hypothecation did not extend to them. Those are 36 bales mattrass wool ex Albanian, and 24 bales Egyptian wool ex Iberia. As to the 216 bales unwashed Turkey fleece, it appears to me that there must also be an order for their delivery, as I do not think they are identified. The bank claims them under the hypothecation of the 5th March as part of a lot described as 149 bales Turkey wool, various marks-as to which 20 marks are not given, though if the above statement be correct they might have been, and they are stated to be lying in Bell and Grant's warehouse, 17, Templestreet, or warehouse 25, Temple-street; whereas at this date they had not arrived in Liverpool, nor were they received at the bankrupt's warehouse until 15th March. These three lots being thus disposed of, the claim is limited to two lots, amounting together to 172 bales, sheep wool, and to two lots, amounting together to 136 bales, goat wool, hypothecated by the letter of the 5th April; and the controversy has been further narrowed by the trustee, who, at the outset of the case, claimed to be entitled to the surplus to arise from the sale of the wools after satisfying the claim of the bank, withdrawing his claim, subject to his right as trustee, to rent for the goods for the time they have been on the premises of the bankrupt. The contention on the part of the bank is that the bankrupt was intrusted with the possession of the goods in question as a factor, and enabled, therefore, to pledne them for an advance; that he did so by the hypothecation letter, receiving at the time an advance of £7000; and that the hypothecation letter constituted a perfectly equitable charge which a court of equity would enforce; and that, supposing that were not so, the bank, before notice of an act of bankruptcy, obtained possession of the goods by obtaining the keys of the warehouse in which they were stored, and that the bankers were legally justified, taking the terms of the letter of hypothecation into account, in obtaining such possession in the way they did, as that letter passed the property, but that, whether the bank were right or wrong in the mode they adopted, they cannot be called on to restore the goods without satisfy. ing their lien or pledge. The contention on the part of Messrs. Coles is that the bankrupt was not an agent entrusted with the goods within the meaning of the Factors Act, and that if he were so at all he was not so as to the goat wool, with respect to which it had been proved in evidence that, assuming him to be an agent in possession of that wool, he was not entrusted therewith by the owner.' And further, as to the whole transaction, it was contended that it was inchoate, and therefore invalid as a pledge under the Factors' Act, resting as it must on the letter of hypothecation only without delivery of the goods, or of the mercantile symbols of the goods, the bills of lading, and that the letter of hypothe cation constituted no equitable charge, because the bankrupt was not dealing with his own goods or with goods supposed by the bank to be his, but he was dealing with the goods, as the bank knew, in the character of a broker or factor, and there. fore deriving his power to pledge under and in conformity to the Factors' Act. And with respect to the bank now having possession of the goods, Messrs. Coles cortend that they cannot eke out their title to hold them against the real owners by reason of that possession, as to which in fact they were trespassers; and moreover, that, at the time they obtained such possession, the bankrupt, as a trader, had committed an act of bankruptcy, of which the bank had notice, by absenting himself from his place of business with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, on which act he was subsequently adjudicated a bankrupt. In the view I take upon the subject, the goat wool and the sheep wool must be separately considered. With respect to the goat wools, it appears to me that they were simply warehoused with the bankrupt on the usual terms of warehouse rent being paid for them, and that therefore he was not an agent for sale or for an object connected with the sale within the meaning of the Factors' Act, so as to authorise him to make a valid pledge, even if the transaction had been completed by delivery, as it was not. I shall therefore order the two lots of goat wool in question in this case to be delivered to Messrs. Coles as the owners. As to the sheep wools, the case, as it seems to me, depends upon other considerations. The only general remark I shall make upon the subject is, that this is not a case of a person dealing with his own goods, and therefore having all the common law rights incident to the ownership, and being subject, amongst other obligations, to the obligation of specific performance, which a court of equity would enforce, of contracts entered into by him but not completed. It is the case of an agent dealing with the goods of his principal, and even supposing him to be in possession, and intrusted with the power to sell, he had not in that character, until the Factors' Act-in the inte rests of trade, as it was thought-enabled him to do so, the power to pledge the goods for advances. The difference between the two cases of an owner in his own right, and of a broker who, under certain circumstances, and within certain limits, and acting in a particular way, is clothed with quasi rights of ownership, is very distinct, and appears to me to dispose of several cases which were quoted in the course of the hearing, and to which I have since referred. It is clear to my mind that a broker must conform to the statutable requisites, otherwise he cannot make a valid pledge. Upon the facts it appears to me that the bankrupt was an agent entrusted with the possession of the documents of title-the bills of lading-to the goods in question, and therefore entitled by statute to make a valid pledge of them. Has he done so? To make a valid pledge under the Factors Act, hypothecation must be either accompanied by the deposit of the documents, or followed, under the 4th section, by such deposit before the pawnee had notice of the agent's want of authority to make it. That has not been done in this case, and I think that the hypotheca tion letter standing alone, is not sufficient to create an equitable charge, binding the property so as to vest it in the bank, and that the bank cannot pray in aid in order to complete their title the possession of the goods, considering that it was taken, not given, in the legal sense of the term; and, whether given or taken, was not so until after the bankrupt had committed an act of bankruptcy, of the facts constituting which, whether with or without notice of the legal quality of the acts, the bank had notice. It appears to me, therefore, that as to the sheep wool, for the reasons I have just stated, there has been no valid because no complete pledge within the Factors' Act. I may add that, if I am wrong in my opinion that the goat wool was not entrusted to the bankrupt within the meaning of the Factors' Act, so as to entitle him to pledge it, the grounds upon which my judgment proceeds as to the sheep wool will equally apply to the goat wool. Under the circumstances, therefore, I must rule that the wools, both goat wool and sheep wool, be delivered to Messrs. Coles, the owners. And with respect |