T. J. Mason, Louth, for the defendants. " cation the earlier enactments of the 25 & 26 Vict. NORWICH COUNTY COURT. (Before W. H. COOKE, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) His HONOUR inquired if this was the case in Johnson responded that he "believed" it had something to do with it. His HONOUR (coolly): "Believed!" Why, you know it. Your name is on the record as the plaintiff's attorney in the impending action; and, therefore, what is the use of talking in this way? Upon this Johnson frankly admitted that it was as the learned Judge had put it. For a time his Honour felt disinclined to hear Johnson make a speech, although he expressed his readiness to listen to any statement from him or anyone else upon oath touching his brother's means, as, judgment having been found for the plaintiff, that was the only point now for consideration; but being somewhat persistent in his attempts to address the court, the learned judge at length yielded, and listened with the greatest patience to Johnson's arguments, which in substance were directed to prove that as the defendant had already suffered one thirty days' imprisonment, the court had no jurisdiction to hear this fresh summons, which he therefore asked to be dismissed. Johnson fortified his arguments by a lucid and able comparison of the various statutes bearing upon imprisonment for debt, and concluding by reiterating that the defendant, by his incarceration, had expiated any offence which might have been laid to his charge, and that his confinement had, by operation of law, destroyed the debt, for non-payment of which he was sent to prison. His HONOUR gave the following judgment:In this case the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants, the registered owners of the Excelsior schooner, the sum of £17 2s.. in respect of services rendered to that vessel in getting her off the coast at North Somercotes, where she stranded on the 14th Nov. 1871. Although the word "salvage' is not used in the particulars of the claim, the services rendered were of that nature, and though, as the parties were present at the last court, I heard the evidence, I did so on the understanding that before giving judgment I would consider the point whether I had jurisdiction to try the case at Louth at all, and whether the claim should not have been made at Grimsby, as an Admiralty cause within the jurisdiction of that court? Now, it appears that by the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 101, ss. 458, 460, and by 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 49, in salvage cases where the sum claimed is below £200, or the value salved is below £1000, a jurisdiction was given to any two justices or County Court judge near the place where the ship was salved, or the port to which she was just brought afterwards, to decide the dispute "by way of arbitration," and it seems from the case of Beadnall v. Beason (L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 439) that the jurisdiction thus given to the justices or County Court judge was exclusive, and that the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty was, in such cases, ousted; and it further appears from that decision that the jurisdiction conferred on the County Court judge was not an increase of the jurisdiction of the County Courts, but clothed him as an individual persona desig. nata, with certain specific duties in relation to salvage disputes. So matters remained until the year 1868, when, by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, and an Order in Council on admiralty jurisdiction below a certain amount (including salvage cases) was given to some of the County Courts, of which Grimsby is one, and the Admiralty district annexed to that court was made to include the district of the Louth County Court. One consequence of this Act is, that whereas the High Court of Admiralty, according to the case above-mentioned, has no original jurisdiction in salvage cases below a certain amount, a County Court, with admiralty jurisdiction, has salvage jurisdiction in such cases. But the question remains whether such jurisdiction is conclusive or concurrent only with that conferred on the County Court judge by the earlier enactments I have referred to. Now it is to be observed that these are not expressly repealed either by the Acts conferring an Admiralty jurisdiction on certain County Courts, nor by the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 110), in which last Act certain of the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 are pealed; and, that being so, then, according to the general rules of law, the earlier enactments are in force unless they are clearly inconsistent with the later ones. But is there here any such manifest inconsistency? It appears to me that there is not. It is true that in this particular case the dispute would be settled by me whether sitting here or at Grimsby; but it might be that the admiralty district of a County Court should include the district of a court presided over by a different judge, and in that case a concurrent jurisdiction would give the suitor a choice of judges. Besides, even as regards ourselves, it may be more convenient for a suitor to try his case here, where his witnesses are at hand, than to carry them to Grimsby, and he may prefer the more summary proceeding by way of plaint and summons to the regular forms of an admiralty suit. And it may further be remarked that the case of the Jeune Paul (36 L. J. 11, Adm.) (Before LOXDALE WARREN, Esq., Deputy-Judge.) shows that the High Court of Admiralty and the Admiralty Court of the Cinque Ports have both jurisdiction in certain cases over salvage claims, and, therefore, there is nothing strange in an Admiralty County Court having concurrent jurisdiction in such claims with the justices and the judge of a Court Court without admiralty jurisdiction. It may be proper to say a word as to the 5th section of the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, as that enactment at first seems to me to repeal by impli re His HONOUR said that it gave him no pleasure to send any one to gaol; but he could not accept Mr. Johnson's interpretation of the law, but was of opinion-with, he believed, all the other County Court judges-that a defendant, upon proof of means, might be sent to prison from time to time indefinitely for any period not exceeding forty days under one commitment. Still, the point raised by Mr. Johnson was a very important one; and if he really believed he could establish it before a superior tribunal, he (his Honour) would afford him every facility for trying it by an appeal. He need hardly add, that if Mr. Johnson were successful, it would save him and his fellow-judges a great deal of trouble; for when a defendant was once sent to prison, he would be done with. (Laughter.) Having reference to the impending action against himself at next Norfolk Assizes, his Honour said that he would adjourn the present summons until the sittings in August, by which time would be seen whether or not he had the power to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament which he was bound by his oath of office to obey. If, as Mr. Johnson contended, he had no jurisdiction to act, the defendant could not be much injured by an adjournment of the hearing till August. STOURBRIDGE COUNTY COURT. Death of Judge Dinsdale. Southam, Stourbridge, Stratford-on-Avon, and Warwick. Mr. Dinsdale's decisions have always been characterised by their clearness and fairness. He has been incapacitated for work for about two years, during which time the duties of the office have been discharged by Mr. Godson, of the Oxford Circuit, and Mr. Loxdale Warren. Mr. Dinsdale was highly esteemed in Leamington, as well as by the legal gentlemen practising in the courts over which he presided. The deceased gentleman was a LL.D. a J.P., and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. The DEPUTY-JUDGE made the following remarks with reference to the death of Judge Dinsdale :"Previous to commencing the usual business of the court I cannot refrain from referring to an event which has recently occurred, by which I have been deprived of a sincere friend, and this court of its presiding judge. Mr. Dinsdale died on Sunday morning last, at the age of sixty-nine. He was appointed Judge of the County Courts upon the establishment of those tribunals in 1847, having previously served his country as a judge of the Court of Requests, and although this court was not originally a portion of his circuit, still he has presided over it for a length of time, more than sufficient for all you who have practised before him to have fully appreciated his greatness of heart and amiability, and that kindness, courtesy, and consideration which I am sure he ever felt, and, I believe, he invariably exercised towards all his professional brethren of both branches of the Profession. In every action one party alone ceed one is certain to be disappointed, and it can win; and as both generally expect to suewould be impossible for the most perfect judge to please every one. Occasionally a judge of a County Court has to decide a case upon its legal aspect, but in the generality of cases that come before him he has to decide on conflict ing testimony, and none but those whose duty requires him to do so can know the difficulty of so deciding. I am sure, however, that our late Judge ever decided cases that came before him impartially and conscientiously, to the best of his ability, and so sound were his decisions that very few indeed were ever reversed circuit has lost has lost a jnst and upright judge, on appeal to a Superior Court. By his death the and myself a true friend. s my duties as deputy will terminate either to-day or to-morrow, I take the present opportunity of publicly returning my sincere thanks to Mr. Harward, the Registrar, for the great kindness and support I have invariably received from him; to Mr. Evers, the High the other officials of the court for the respect Bailiff, for his courtesy and assistance, and to with which they have always treated me. To you, also, gentlemen, who practise at the bar of this court, I cannot say farewell without recording my deep sense of the kindness and courtesy which have I received at your hands. The duties of a County Court Judge must necessarily be both anxious and arduous, but the members of your profession who practise as advocates have it in their power to render the performance of those duties as pleasant as the nature of them will admit, or, on the contrary, tedious and irksome in the extreme. It is now some years since I first casually occupied this seat. For the last year and a half I have occupied it almost permanently, and during the whole of that period, from first to last, the performance of my duties have been materially lightened by the ability, and rendered as pleasant as possible by the regularity with which you have severally conducted the business before me, and when I leave this seat I shall retain a lasting impression of the courtesy and consideration you have shown towards me, and for which I beg now most heartily to thank you all. Homfray, as senior solicitor, replied, and expressed the regret the Profession there represented felt at the death of Mr. Dinsdale, and fully endorsed Mr. Warren's remarks regarding him. He also said that the Profession regretted they should lose Mr. Warren, as deputy, and could not part from him without recording their sense of his uniform kindness and courtesy. SWANSEA COUNTY COURT. Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 103-Partners-Separate Glascodine for the trustee in bankruptcy. W. R. Smith for other parties. His HONOUR said:-Under sect. 103, Bankruptcy Act 1869, it is provided that "if one partner of a firm is adjudicated bankrupt, any creditor to whom the bankrupt is indebted jointly with the other partners of the firm, or any of them, may prove his debt for the purpose of voting at any meeting of creditors, and shall be entitled to vote thereat, but shall not receive any dividend out of the separate property of the bankrupt until all the separate creditors have received the full amount of their respective debts." This section gives to joint creditors the same rights as they had under sect. 140 of the Act of 1849. A question has arisen respecting the right of a joint creditor of the firm, who is the petitioning creditor in the bankruptcy of one member of a firm, to prove and receive dividends from the estate of a bankrupt partner, along with the separate creditors of such bankrupt partner. If the creditor were not the petitioning creditor there could be no contention, and the words of the above section would be conclusive. The Llanelly Railway Company were creditors of the firm of Richard Perkins and Co., a firm consisting of Richard Perkins and Frank Perkins. The first process had been a judgment debtor's summons against the two, but on that summons Francis Perkins alone became bankrupt, and he has a private estate of some value. Afterwards Richard Perkins was adjudicated a bankrupt. The general rule respecting the proof of debts is this: "That joint creditors are entitled to be paid out of the joint estate 20s. in the pound, together with interest on such debts as carry interest before any part can be applied in augmentation of the separate estate of partners. Joint creditors are also entitled to prove, under a separate adjudication, for the purpose of voting at any meeting of creditors, and will be entitled to vote thereat; but they are not entitled to receive any dividend out of the property of the bankrupt until all the separate creditors have received the full amount of their respective debts." These words I cite from the instructive work of Mr. Robson, and he further adds that there are some exceptions-thus, if a joint creditor obtains a separate adjudication against one partner, which is the case before me, he will be allowed to prove in competition with separate creditors on the ground that as the adjudication is for their benefit, and that as he has become precluded by petitioning from suing for his debt at law, it woul be inequitable not to let him come in with the parate creditors. Now, it is this rule which has been contested before me as being in opposition to the 103rd section which I have cited. But in the case of Ex parte Burnett and Boyd, re Blake (6 Jur. 331), th eption has been carried further, for there it was held that where a creditor sued out a separate fiat against one who was indebted to him on two accounts, on the one alone and on the other jointly with other persons, he is entitled to prove both debts against the separate estate of the bankrupt, although the separate debt was of sufficient amount to sustain the fiat. The joint creditor, having a separate debt, does not, on this account, lose his privilege. The argument adverse to the final decision of Lord Lyndhurst was very skilful, but the judgment was clear: "The rule," said that able judge, is general, namely, that where a joint creditor sues out a separate fiat, he is entitled in respect of his joint debt to prove against the separate estate in competition with the separate creditors: he is cn an equal footing with the separate creditors." And then he proceeded to say: "the petitioning creditor having a joint debt is not upon an equal footing with other joint ereditors, unless he is allowed to prove against the separate estate. Other joint creditors, in respect of a joint debt, may sue the bankrupt and sue his co-debtor at law. The petitioning creditor cannot po this. He is considered to have conclusively made his election not to proceed at law, and the utmost that was contended for it by the Bar was this, namely, that in the event of any deficiency he would have a right to prove against his co-debtor. But the co-debtor may have no funds; he may be unable to pay; he may be insolvent; and, therefore, unless the petitioning creditor, who is precluded from proceeding against the bankrupt at law, has a right to proceed against the separate estate, he is not on an equal footing with the other joint creditors." The cases of Ex parte Kensington (3 Vesey, 447); Ex parte Pinkerton (6 Vesey,814), and Ex parte Janson, were not cases where the joint creditor was also the petitioning creditor. It is on this distinction that the decision of Lord Lyndhurst depended. Though the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 repeals all pre-existing bankruptcy laws, and the law of bankruptcy depends on special statutes, I cannot come to the conclusion that I am entitled to read sect. 103 as a new enactment which needs judicial interpretation. Until it shall be otherwise distinctly decided to the contrary, I shall hold myself to be bound by the reasons given for the interpretation ments in the Bankruptcy Act 1869, similar to those contained in previous Acts. The joint creditor, therefore, being the petitioner, may prove against the separate estate in common and equally 6. of the former Acts when I have to deal with enact with the separate creditors. A GEORGIA judge seventeen years ago sentenced a man to be hung, and last month passed a similar sentence on the man's son. BANKRUPTCY LAW. BATH COUNTY COURT. (Before C. F. CAILLARD, Esq., Judge.) LEWIS v. BARNETT; MORRIS, Garnishees. Attachment by judgment-creditor-LiquidationRight of trustee. THE following is the special case submitted to Mr. Caillard by the attorneys employed in the matter, Mr. J. K. Bartrum and Mr. T. Wilton :The plaintiff obtained judgment in the above court on the 27th July 1871, against the abovenamed defendant, for the sum of £25 0s. 2d., and £5 1s. for costs. On the 24th, 25th, and 26th days of the same month of July the garnishees (who carry on business in co-partnership at the city of Bath as auctioneers) sold the household furniture and effects of the defendant by auction, and they still held the proceeds thereof at the date of the said judgment. The plaintiff immediately on obtaining judgment issued a garnishee summons, which was served upon the garnishees on the 27th July 1871, and before the petition for liquidation next herein referred to was filed. A copy of the garnishee summons is annexed hereto. On the 26th July 1871, the day before judgment was obtained by the plaintiff, the defendant, Ann Barnett, signed a petition in the above court for liquidation by arrangment or composition with her creditors, but the same was not filed until the 27th July, after the said judgment had been obtained. Notice was before the judgment verbally given to the plaintiff's agent, William Prior, and to plaintiff's attorney by the petitioner's solicitor, that the petitioner was about to present a petition for liquidation to the above court. The plaintiff thereupon obtained a judgment and proceeded to attach the debt as set out in the preceding paragraph. Subsequently the petition was filed and the registrar granted an interim injunction whereby the plaintiff was restrained from taking any further proceedings upon the judgment recovered by him against the said Ann Barnett until the 17th Aug. then next, at two o'clock in the afternoon, when the injunction would be continued unless just cause should be shown to the contrary before the registrar, at his office, 4, Abbey-street, Bath, before twelve o'clock on the same day. Henry Eve, of the city of Bath, auctioneer, was appointed receiver of the estate. On the day and at the hour appointed the plaintiff attended at the County Court office for the purpose of showing cause against the said injunction being continued, and the trustee's solicitor also attended to apply for its continuance, but the registrar was absent from Bath, and consequently no application to continue the said injunction was made, and it has not been continued. The creditors assembled at the general meeting of the creditors of the said Ann Barnett, held on the 16th Aug. 1871, passed a resolution that the affairs of, the said Ann Barnett should be liquidated by arrangement, and Mr. John Southcombe was appointed trustee. The plaintiff has not proved his debt under the said liquidation proceedings. The plaintiff contends that he is, under the circumstances detailed, entitled to be paid the amount of his debt and costs out of the moneys in the hands of the garnishees arising from the sale of the effects of the defendant. The trustee contends that the whole of the proceeds of the sale and moneys in the hands of the garnishees passed to him on his appointment. The garnishees submit to the decision of the court thereon. whole of the proceeds of sale, and moneys in the hands of the garnishee, is vested in the trustee for the benefit of the creditors generally. WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT. (Before HENRY JAMES STONOR, Esq., Judge.) Re JAMES ABRAHAM FOX, a Bankrupt. Bankruptcy-Removal of trustee-Appeal - Per jury-Offences against Bankruptcy and Debtors' Act 1869-Prosecution by order of the court-14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 19-Practice. IN this case the bankrupt had been accepted as tenant under an agreement of some meadow or building land at Battersea, the reversion of which was in the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. The bankrupt, after having paid a half year's rent, neglected to pay further. His landlord ter minated his tenancy by notice, and proceeded to recover the arrears of rent in the Superior Court. Subsequently, on judgment being unsatisfied, he proceeded to procure an adjudication in bankruptcy as upon a debt. The bankrupt still, how. ever, continued to receive a considerable annual rental from three regular tenants under agree ments, as also various sums from different persons by permitting the carting of rubbish on the land. The trustee made no attempt to interfere with the bankrupt or obtain the rent. Upon the applica tion of the petitioning creditor at different times various alleged debts were expunged as fraudu lent and fictitious, and only three or four of the creditors who had originally proved debts on affi davit remained on the file. The trustee also was removed. The trustee appealed against the order for his removal, and to restore the proofs of the alleged creditors which had been expunged. This appeal to the Chief Judge was dismissed with costs, and subsequently the petitioning creditor, by an order of the court on motion made, procured possession again of his land. applied to the court for direction or leave of the court to prosecute (on one or more of several charges) the bankrupt, his solicitor, his late trustee, and an alleged creditor. He then J. E. Palmer, of the Home Circuit, instructed by Alfred Rutter, of Symons-inn, appeared for the petitioning creditor. Hughes on behalf of certain freeholders and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Gibbons, barrister, for the bankrupt, instructed by Haynes, solicitor for the bankrupt. Ribton, Macrae Moir, Wood, and Rose, barristers, instructed by Ody, Summerlin, Philp, and Miller, solicitors, for various creditors. His HONUOR now delivered the judgment of the court.-I have to-day to give judgment upon four applications which have been made by the peti tioning creditor in this bankruptcy to this court in the performance of a most onerous and painful duty imposed upon it by the Legislature, to direct the prosecution of George Thomas Condy a solicitor, practising in this court, Henry Harvey, an accountant, Charles Andrews, gentleman, and the bankrupt, Fox, for various offences alleged to have been committed by them in carrying out a conspiracy to defraud the petitioning creditor and other bona fide creditors of the bankrupt, by the fabrication of fictitious claims and otherwise. These applications and the matters involved in them have been before this court no less than six times, occupying no less than four hours at the least each time; and the shorthand writer's report of the proceedings, which I have carefully perused in considering this judgment (exclusive of the reports of the proceedings on appeal in the I Superior Court) extend to more than 500 pages. repeal of the 184th section of the Act of 1849 taken to consider my judgment, and also because I The following is his HONOUR'S judgment:-The mention these facts to account for the time I have undoubtedly leaves this case in the same state as think it right that it should be known to the public if such an enactment had never existed, and what what labours have been imposed upon judges of has to be ascertained, therefore, is the position of County Courts by the Bankruptcy Act 1869, hitherto the present judgment-creditor under the Act of without any further official or clerical assistance, 1869. The mere service of the summons on the which is much required, or any additional remugarnishee does not give the creditor any mort- neration which would enable them to obtain it. I gage, charge, or lien, and is not, I think, equiva- will now proceed to consider these four applica lent to an actual seizure of goods under an execu- tions separately, in the order which I think most tion. My opinion, therefore, is, that the service of desirable, and the first application which I shall the garnishee summons has not the effect of consider will be that against Henry Harvey. This making the judgment-creditor one holding a application is for an order for his prosecution for security within the meaning of sect. 12 and sect. the following offences: First, for forging and 16 (sub-sect. 5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. I uttering the proof of claim of Henry Deacon; fail to see how this opinion can in any way clash secondly, for wilful and corrupt perjury in his exwith the decisions in Ex parte Rocke, re Hall, and amination in this court and in his affidavit in his in Slater v. Pinder, which place a judgment-proof of debt; thirdly, for suborning the said Fox, creditor, who is unaffected by sect. 87 of the Act the bankrupt, to commit perjury; fourthly, for of 1869, and who has seized but not sold goods conspiring with others to defraud the bona fide under an execution, on the footing of a creditor creditors of Fox, the bankrupt; and, fifthly, for "holding a security" within the meaning of that making a false proof and affidavit and statement Act. It follows, then, under the circumstances of account, with intent to defraud. With restated in the above case (I mean, especially, that gard to the first and fourth, and even the the garnishee summons was issued and served on fifth, offences charged, this application must be the garnishee before the filing of the petition, refused, as no Act of Parliament requires or all although on the same day), that the judgment thorises this court to direct prosecutions in such creditor is not protected against the trustee in cases. With regard to the second ground of appli bankruptcy by the saving clauses of the Act in cation, I am of opinion that the applicant is favour of secured creditors. I am of opinion that entitled to the order applied for. The claim made the trustee is right in his contention, and that the by Henry Harvey, and supported by his exami nation and affidavit, clearly appeared by his crossexamination, and the cross-examination of the bankrupt, to be fictitious, and has been expunged by the order of this court, confirmed on appeal by order of the Superior Court, and the justice of that order appears still more clearly, if possible, by the evidence of the wife of the bankrupt, who has been subsequently examined on this application, and I can feel no doubt that the offence which is charged has been committed, and that it falls not only within the 14th section of the Debtors' Act 1869, but also within the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 19, which authorises judges to direct prosecutions for perjury. With regard to the third offence charged, I think that the applicant is also entitled to an order under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 19, already referred to, and the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 94, s. 8, which enacts that aiders and abettors in misdemeanors shall be liable to be indicted and punished as principals. The next application which I shall consider is against Fox the bankrupt, first, for uttering forged proofs; secondly, for wilful and corrupt perjury in this court; thirdly, for suborning Harvey and Charles Andrews to commit perjury; fourthly, for conspiring to defraud: fifthly, for aiding and abetting in making false proofs; sixthly, for failing for one month to inform the trustee of false proofs; and seventhly, for false representations to induce his creditors to enter into a compromise. As to the first, fourth, and seventh, and even the fifth grounds, the application must be refused for want of authority in the court to direct a prosecution in such cases; but as to all the other offences charged, namely, the second, third, and sixth, I unhesitatingly grant the application. In so doing, how ever, I wish to record my opinion that the bankrupt, who is an illiterate man, and in destitute circumstances, is not nearly so guilty morally as the accountant Harvey, who undoubtedly organised and carried out the conspiracy to defraud the petitioning creditor and other creditors, which has been happily frustrated, but at the sacrifice of so much time, trouble, and expense. As to these two cases I have had a painful and onerous but clear and simple duty to perform. The cases against Harvey and Fox may be well summed up in the words of the Chief Judge, who, addressing their counsel on the appeal, said, "Put yourself in the place of the County Court judge, and what would you do with such evidence as that? You would believe neither of them." If any doubt had arisen in my mind I should have gladly referred the applicant to the magistrates, and made my direction to prosecute contingent on the committal of the persons charged, but in these two cases I think such a course would have been a delay, and, so far, a denial of justice to the applicant. The next application which I shall consider is that for the prosecution of Charles Andrews-first. for wilful and corrupt perjury in his examination and proof of debt in this court; and, secondly, for conspiracy. As to the latter offence the application will be dismissed, as in the other cases, for want of authority in this court. With regard to the first offence charged I entertain no doubt that the offence has been committed. Andrews' proof, which was expunged by this court, was, in my opinion, clearly fictitious and the evidence in support of it false, but there had been, apparently, frequent dealings between Andrews and the bankrupt, and, although it was impossible to believe that the sum claimed by Andrews on the bill of exchange produced was really due to him, it was possible that something may have been due to him from Fox, or that he believed so, and from these dealings, and upon such possible balance, Andrews may have concocted the claim in question. This, indeed, is no justification, but may be regarded as some little palliation of his offence, and I also feel some doubt whether the legal evidence which could be adduced in support of an indictment against him would be sufficient to obtain a conviction. On the whole, in mercy to the person against whom the application is made, and for whom Mr. Ody made so strong and judicious an appeal, and in exercise of the discretion of this court I refuse this application, but of course without costs. There remains to be considered the application against Mr. Condy, the bankrupt's solicitor, for an order directing his prosecution. First, for aiding in the forging and uttering of certain proofs purporting to be the proofs of Jonathan Neve Elsey and William Deacon; secondly, for aiding in the subornation of the said Jonathan Neve Elsey to commit perjury on the 16th Jan. last; and thirdly, for conspiring with others to defraud the creditors of the above named bankrupt. With regard to the first and third offences this application must be refused for want of authority in this court to direct a prosecution in such cases. But the circumstances connected with the first of these alleged offences, namely, the aiding in forging and uttering Elsey's and Deacon's proofs. require to be fully considered by the court. It clearly appears by the affidavits of Elsey and Deacon that two affidavits of proof were made in Tavern. Mr. John M. Clabon occupied the chair, and after a toast had been drunk to the prosperity of the Institution, the secretary read a list of subsciptions, amounting to over £160. The number of members were stated to be about 200. IN the course of the Chelmsford assizes a prisoner who pleaded "Guilty" to a charge of breaking into a church to steal delivered to the Judge a brief written address, which commenced with this appeal:-"My Lord,-I have been over 18 weeks a prisoner waiting for my trial. If it impresses your kind judgment in my favour I shall be ever thankful, and I will bring you as fine a bird for a present as ever was brought from India next voyage." The reading of this excited, of course, much merriment. It was evidently meant in all simplicity, and the Judge laughed as heartily as any one. The learned Judge sentenced him only to three months' imprisonment, observing humorcusly, "But, mind, you must not bring me that bird.' (Laughter.) their names by some other person or persons Act with me, and I have it here. It would from the 19th section (handing the Act to the learned His HONOUR (addressing Fox).—I commit you LEGAL NEWS. THE ESTATES OF MAR.-In the Court of Session, Edinburgh, an action has been raised by the Earl of Mar against the Earl of Kellie for the recovery of the entailed estates of Mar at Alloa. SUDDEN DEATH.-We regret to announce that the eldest son of Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., M. P., dropped down dead on Friday night. He was at Mr. Arthur Kekewich's in Regent's Park, after the Harrow and Eton match, and at a moment's notice leant on to the table and died. He was a barrister of Lincoln's-inn, aged 24. JUDGES SALARIES BILL.-The object of this Bill, proposed by the Government, is to provide that the salary of every person performing judicial duties in the United Kingdom shall commence from the date of his appointment, and not from the death or resignation of his predecessor. LAW-WRITERS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION.The annual dinner of this Institution took place on Wednesday evening, at the Freemasons' 26 Elizabeth, the Middle Temple instituted the following regulations in regard to apparel: "1. velvet in gownes, but by such as were on the That no ruff should be worn, 2. Nor any white color in doublets or hoses, 3. Nor any facing of bench. 4. That no gentlemen should walk in the streets in their cloaks, but in 5. That gownes. no hat, or long or curled hair, be worn. 6. Nor any gownes, but such as were of a sad color." But in 1660 the lawyers resumed donned their wigs and wore, in court, velvet caps, their brave and fashionable attire, the judges coifs, and cornered caps, and barristers were adorned with long bands and falling collars. But gradually these fantastic details of costume became less prevalent among the Profession, and finally there remained only the bag and gown for the practitioners and the robe for the judges, which had been professional accompaniments uninterruptedly for ages. The lawyer is represented in the theatrical performances of Queen Caroline's time with a green bag in his hand; in the literature of Queen Anne's reign he is referred to in the same manner; and green bags were commonly carried by the great body of legal practitioners until a very recent date, while the king's counsellors, queen's counsellors, the Chancery lawyers, and the leaders of the common bar were honoured with the privilege of carrying red, purple, or blue bags. The green bag was so characteristic of the Profession in the reign of Queen Anne that "to say that a man intended to carry a green bag was the same as saying that he meant to adopt the law as a profession." But bags have disappeared entirely from the English courts, and the gown is the only distinctive species of costume which has withstood the advances of inattention to costume and plainness of dress, even in juridical, formal and conventional England. The robes of her judges, the silk gowns of her royal counsellors and leading barristers, and the stuff gowns. of her common law lawyers are likely to be per petuated for centuries, as being perfectly appropriate to an advanced civilisation, as a concession to a sober demand for some distinctive professional insignia, and as becoming the dignity, solemnity, authority, and learning of the Bench and Bar. And it is much to be regretted that the Profession in this country should be without any distinctive apparel, at least while in court. We do not advocate a return to the costume of English judges and barristers of the middle ages-to wigs, coifs, caps, bands and collars, or even to green, red, blue, or purple bags, for these (particularly all but the bags) would not become a dignified and learned profession in a scientific and intellectual period. But extensive use of the robe and the gown, we believe, would add lustre, distinction, and gravity to the Bench and the Bar, and would be an incentive to all wearers of these professional insignia to render themselves worthy the distincrion. The American lawyers before and immediately after the time of the rupture between the colonies and Great Britain adopted the contemporaneous manners and customs of the English lawyers. But the revolution effected a great change not only in the commercial and military condition of this country, but also in the spirit of the people; and it was sufficient to condemn anything not absolutely necessary for the preservation of life, to concede that it was "English." This influence, combined with the free and independent character of Americans of the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, was more than sufficient to abolish many social and professional customs and costumes which had been introduced from abroad, and initiate a simple, unostentatious, and even inelegant style of living and dress. But it appears to us that both of these elements (that of rudeness and newness of national life, and that of prejudice against anything foreign) have been outgrown in a great measure in the United States, and that, with our advancing power, education, and refinement, with the decline of national prejudice and the increase of our understanding of the proprieties, we ought to adopt some distinctive dress for our lawyers. A learned English serjeant once said that the farther he went west the convinced that the wise men came from the east." But it seems that this observation needs a little modification, when we consider that the Bar of St. Louis, a principal western city, have been the first in the country to adopt this wise habit of appearing in court in gowns. Perhaps it may be explained on the hypothesis that the practice was introduced by certain wise men who emigrated thither from the east. However that may be, in all seriousness we consider it both for the interest and the dignity of the Profession that the robe and the gown be universally adopted in all our higher courts. The Supreme Court of the United States should not alone clothe her judges in official robes, nor the Bar of St. Louis alone wear learned gowns. A custom universally practised among the enlightened and intellectual nations of Europe should not be ignored by Americans, especially when there is added to the influence of example a noble and correct national sense of the propriety and desirableness of that custom. bench, possessing learning, gravity, and authority, and clad in impressive robes, with a Bar educated, honourable, and industrious, and clothed in the dignified gown, the legal sense of the nation will no longer be pained by the spectacle of a profes. sion striving, under many weights, to preserve its great name, its honourable reputation, and its respectable authority among men.-Albany Law Journal. more he was The Common Law.-Sidney Woolf, Esq., student CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to NOTES AND QUERIES ON NOTICE. We must remind our correspondents that this Queries. that when goods have been taken in execution "in [Yes; the point has just been decided.-ED. L. T.] 52. STAMP. In a conveyance of land, there is an inrentcharge which is payable out of the land, and a covedemnity by the vendors to the purchasers against a nant by the vendors to pay the same; is a conveyance stamp on the consideration sufficient in such a case, or must there also be an extra stamp in respect of the indemnity? Answers. C. B. A. the rooms of the Manchester Law Library Society, on the 3rd July. "Resolved,-That it is with feelings of the deepest regret the members receive the announce. ment of the retirement from the position as one of the trustees of James Frederic Beever, Esq., and they desire to record their high estimation and appreciation of his untiring energy and zeal on behalf of the society, of which he must be considered the founder, to whose watchful care, wise counsel, and generous support, its present pros perous condition is mainly attributable, and the members earnestly hope that although the officia tie is severed, the good feeling on one side, and gratitude on the other, may ever continue, and that in retiring from active professional pursuits, there may be many many years of health and happiness in store for their first and ever faithful guide, counsellor and friend." Committe: Edward Owen. LEGAL OBITUARY. A. HAYMES, ESQ. Glenn, Leicestershire, and also of Leamington, THE late Arthur Haymes, Esq., solicitor, of Great who died at his residence near Leicester, on the 2nd June, in the sixty-third year of his age, was the only surviving son of the late Robert Haymes, Esq., of Great Glenn, who was a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant for Leicestershire, and formerly high sheriff of that county; his mother was Dorothy, daughter of the Rev. Richard Buckby, of Sego, in the county of Armagh, and he was born in the year 1809. He was admitted a solicitor in Michaelmas Term 1830, and was formerly in prac tice at Kenilworth, Warwickshire, where he was in partnership with Mr. Robert Poole, with whom he acted as clerk to the magistrates for the Kenilworth division of the hundred of Knightlow. He afterwards removed to Southam, near Rugby, where he was for some time in partnership with Messrs. Patterson and Hanbury, and held the office of clerk to the Commissioners of Land, Assessed, and Property Tax; and subsequently, in conjunction with Mr. Hanbury, he settled at Leamington Priors, where he continued down to the time of his decease. In 1863, shortly after the retirement of Mr. Hanbury from the firm, Mr. Haymes's son, John Buckby, was admitted into the Profession, and entered into partnership with his father. The deceased gentleman, who held the lordship of the manor of Great Wigston, was for merly a major in the Leicestershire Yeomanry Cavalry. He inherited the estate of Great Glenn in Leicestershire in 1859, on the death of his brother, the Rev. John Haymes, rector of Galby, in that county. Mr. Haymes married, in 1833, Ellen, daughter of John Evered Poole, Esq., by whom he has left issue. His eldest son, the Rev. Robert Evered Haymes, is curate of Hopesay, (Q.46.) BEQUEST-PROVISO.-I think that the words "with benefit of survivorship" merely expressed in a clumsy fashion the same idea that was present to the mind of the testator when he required that children of the daughter who were to take should at her death be "then living," and that they do not cut down the gift to such children by creating an indefinite survivorship inter se. Refer to Reid v. Worsley (14 Jur. 325), Hodson v. Micklethwaite (2 Drew. 294). If, however, such indefinite survivorship was intended, I am of opinion that the rule against perpetuity forbids that any effect Shropshire. And with a should be given to the executory devesting, for such devesting does not necessarily take place within a life or lives in being at the testator's death and twenty-one years. There was a legal, if not an actual, possibility THE late William Francis Dobson, Esq., barrister W. F. DOBSON, ESQ. of the daughter having children after the testator's death, and a gift over after the death of any such after-at-law, of Bearstead House, near Maidstone, Kent, born childen in favour of a class which could not be who died at 135, Gower-street, on the 29th June, respectively would be clearly void: (Jee v. Audley, 1 of the late Sir Richard Dobson, Knt., M.D., ascertained until the death of such afterborn children in the sixty-first year of his age, was the only son Cox 324; Leake v. Robinson, 2 Merivale 384; Re Sayer's F.R.S., of Gloucester-place, Portman-square (some Trusts, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 787.) This is, no doubt, opposed to a decision of Stuart, V.C., in Avern v. Lloyd time Inspector of Hospitals and Fleets), by his (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 282), but for the reasons stated first wife, a daughter of the late William Alston, (LAW TIMES Vol. xlv., p. 339) that decision may be con- Esq., and was born in the year 1811. He was sidered unsound. The devesting clause being thus of no educated at the Grammar School, Rochester, and effect, the gift to the children of the daughter living at ceeded to St. John's College, Cambridge, where he at Dr. Burney's, at Greenwich; thence he prograduated B.A. in 1835, and took his M.A. degree in 1838. He was called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of Lincoln's-inn in Nov. 1838, and resided for many years at Gravesend. He married, in 1841, Emma, second daughter of Lieut. Michael Fitton, R.N., by whom he has left issue two daughters. The remains of the deceased were interred at Bearsted. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. JULY EXAMINATION The Council of Legal Education have awarded the following Exhibitions to the under-mentioned students, of the value of 30 guineas each, to endure for two years: Constitutional Law and Legal History.-George Serrell, Esq., student of Lincoln's Inn. Jurisprudence, Civil and International Law.William Duthoit, Esq., student of the Inner Temple. coln's-inn. Equity.-George Serrell, Esq., student of LinThe Common Law.-John Gilbert Kotze, Esq., The Law of Real Property, &c.-George Serrell, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn. student of the Inner Temple. The Council of Legal Education have also awarded the following exhibitions of the value of 20 guineas each, to endure for two years, but to merge on the acquisition of a superior exhibition: Equity-Robert Welch Mackreth, Esq., student of Lincoln's-inn. her death would remain absolute: (Carver v. Bowles, (Q. 49.) GUARANTEE.-If the guarantee is for pay. SOCIETY. J. D. J. LAW SOCIETIES MANCHESTER LAW CLERKS' FRIENDLY WE have been requested to insert the following resolution which had been elaborately engrossed Beever, Esq., solicitor, Manchester, on the 15th on vellum, and was handed to James Frederic inst., on the occasion of his retirement from the Profession, and from his position as one of the trustees. At the twenty-fourth annual meeting, held at F. DINSDALE, ESQ. THE late Frederick Dinsdale, Esq., F.S.A., bar. rister-at-law, and judge of the Warwickshire County Courts, who died at his residence, Tachbrooke House, Leamington, on the 8th inst., was to the bar by the Hon. Society of the Middle a little over 60 years of age, having been called appointed judge of the County Court circuit No. 22, Temple, on the 23rd May 1834. In 1847 he was which embraces Warwickshire, and portions of previously held the judgeship of the old Court of Northamptonshire and Worcestershire. He had Requests at Oldham, Lancashire. The deceased gentleman, who was a magistrate for the county and discharged his duties by deputy. of Warwick, had recently been in failing health, residence, Forest House, Bacup, on the 11th inst., EDWARDS, WILLIAM, florist, Bishopsgate-st Without, trading as in his forty-ninth year, was an advocate of undoubted ability, and his kind and strict attention to business, coupled together with a benevolent intention to all parties, had gained him an immense practice, which few solicitors can equal. Clarke and Co. Pet. July 10. Reg. Roche. Sols. Lumley and Co. Sur. July 23 GUNSTON, THOMAS DANIEL EDWARD, cheesemonger, Hollowayrd, Islington. Pet. July 9. Reg. Hazlitt. Sols. Duffield and Bruty. Sur. July 23 HOWARD, JOSEPH GROOM, butcher, New-st, Dorset-sq. Pet. July 10. Reg. Spring-Rice. Sols. Barnard and Co. Sur. July 25 To surrender in the Country. BRADBURY, THOMAS, clothier, Manchester and Salford. July 9. Reg. Kay. Sur. Aug. 1 GARNER, CHARLES, farmer, Southall. Pet. July 6. Reg. Darvill. Sur. Aug. 13 GIBBS, WILLIAM, baker, Bridgwater. Pet. July 8. bond. Sur. July 24 Robinson. Sur. July 24 Pet. Reg. Lovi Reg HAWKINS, HENRY, grocer, Bristol. Pet. July 11. Reg. Harley. Sur. July 26 HENLY, ROBERT JOHN, commission agent, Gloucester. He was a native of Bury, Lancashire, and was articled with Messrs. Grundy of that town. He was admitted in 1848, and in a short time after he commenced practice as a solicitor, and entered into partnership with E. M. Wright, Esq., and had offices at Haslingden, Rawtenstall, and Bacup, GOUGH, THOMAS, builder, Bishop's Castle. Pet. July 9. the partnership continuing ten years. He was for many years joint clerk to the magistrates at Haslingden, registrar of the Bacup County Court, clerk to the Bacup Burial Board, solicitor and treasurer of the Haslingden and Todmorden Road, and the Rochdale Road Trusts, and also held many other public appointments, all of which he had up to the time of his death. He enjoyed an immense practice, and was a noted conveyancer. He leaves a wife and five children, all of whom are well provided for. The remains of the deceased gentleman were interred in the family vault at St. Nicholas Church, Newchurch-in-Rossendale, Lancashire. W. H. ROBERTS, ESQ. THE late William Henry Roberts, Esq., barristerat-law, of Great Easton, in the county of Leicester, late recorder of Grantham, who died at Leicester on the 28th June, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, was a son of the late Rev. Thomas Roberts, some time head master of Uppingham School, Rutlandshire, by Elizabeth, third daughter of the late Rev. William Pochin, rector of Morcott, in that county. He was born on the 9th Jan. 1815, and was educated at Emanuel College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1837 and proceeded M.A. in 1840, and in 1839 was Tyrwhitt's Hebrew Scholar of the first class. He was called to the Bar by the Hon. Society of Lincoln's-inn in Jan. 1842, and went the Midland Circuit, attending the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire sessions. In 1855 he was appointed recorder of Grantham, the duties of which post he fulfilled down to a recent period. The deceased gentleman, who unsuccessfully contested Richmond in the Liberal interest in March 1866 and Nov. 1868, was the joint editor of "Roberts's, Leening's, and Wallis's New County Court Cases," and also author of several smaller professional works. He married, in 1861, Esther, second daughter of Mr. R. Wyborn, of Finglesham, Kent. THE COURTS & COURT PAPERS. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before Lord PENZANCE.) LORD PENZANCE said: It has already been stated that the Court will not sit for motions on the 30th inst., because I have to attend at the Privy Council on that day. But as I understand that about the 30th inst. will be the time for making absolute several decrees nisi, and it would not be right to delay them until after the Long Vacation, I will sit on the morning of Thursday, the 1st of August, for the purpose only of making those decrees ab solute. Pet. HODGE, WILLIAM, cooper, Hull. Pet. July 8. Reg. Phillips. Sur. July 24 MATTHEWS, WILLIAM, paint dealer, Chester. Pet. July 9. Dep.Reg. Royle, Sur. July 26 STUBBS, ROBERT JOSIAH, and ROBERTON, JOHN, jun., ornamental lithographers, Manchester. Pet. July 11. Dep.-Reg. Lister. Sur. July 25 WEBBER, GEORGE, wine merchant, Bishop Auckland. Pet. Gazette, July 16. BRETT, ROBERT, licensed victualler, Tiverton. Pet. July 12. Reg. Watson. Sur. Aug. 8 HESKETH, WILLIAM, collector of rents, Liverpool. Pet. June 24. WILLIS, RICHARD CHILD, clerk in holy orders, Minster, Island of BANKRUPTCIES ANNULLED. MEDLICOTT, EDWARD, coal merchant, Ludlow. May 29, 1872 GELDARD, THOMAS, stone merchant, Thornton. May 17, 1872 Liquidations by Arrangement. FIRST MEETINGS. ANDERSON, WILLIAM JOHN, watchmaker, Grenada-ter, ComInercial-rd-east; July 25, at three, at office of Sol. Ditton, Ironmonger-la ARNOLD, JABEZ, grocer, Portsea: July 21, at twelve, at the Chamber of Cominerce, Cheapside. Sols., Cusins and Burbidge, Portsmouth BARNES, WILLIAM, greyhound trainer, Blackley, near Manchester; July 25, at three, at office of Sol., Leigh, Manchester BARROWMAN, WALTER, victualler, Pembrok dock; July 20. at five minutes past ten, at the Guildhall, Carmarthen. Sol., Parry Pembroke-dock BEACHIM, WALTER, no occupation, Barnes; July 26, at two, at office of Sol., Venn, New-inn, Strand BELL, GEORGE, Jun., joiner, Gateshead; July 30, at twelve, at office of S., Macdonald, Newcastle BIRKETT, WILLIAM, retailer of beer, Nottingham; July 30, at twelve, at office of Sol., Cowley, Nottingham BROOKMAN, WILLIAM HENRY, painter, Bristol; July 31, at one, at office of Hancock, Triggs, and Co., Bristol. Sol., Willmott, Bristol BROOKS, ADAM, victualler, Borough-rd; July 25, at three, at office of Sol., Kelley, Great James-st, Bedford-row BROOM, GEORGE JOSEPH, oilman, Coburg-rd, and Havil-st, St. Giles, Camberwell; July 19, at three, at office of Day, accountant, Bedford-st, Bedford sq. Sol., Williams, Alfred-pl, Bedford square CHALLINOR, RALPH, and BRODIE, JOSEPH PARMINTER, cheese factors, Bolton; July 22, at three, at the Victoria inn, Preston. Sol., Dawson, Bolton CHAPPLE, JONATHAN, baker, Russell Town, St. George; July 20 at eleven, at office of Sol., Essery, Bristol CHEATER, GEORGE, labourer, Southampton; July 16, at three, at office of Grace, Southampton CLODE, JOHN COX, victualler, Broad-st, Golden-sq; July 19, at three, at office of Sol., Pittman, Stamford-st, Blackiriars-rd, Lambeth PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS COYLE, JOHN, grocer, Middlesborough; July 23, at one, at office N.B.-Announcements of promotions being in the nature of advertisemeats, are charged 2s. 6d. each, for which postage stamps should be inclosed. ALDERMAN WHITE, one of the Sheriffs elect for London and Middlesex, has appointed Mr. Arthur T. Hewitt, of 32, Nicholas-lane, Solicitor, to be his Under-sheriff for the ensuing year. THE SHRIEVALTY.-Mr. Edward Brooke, one of the Sheriffs Elect for the city of London and the county of Middlesex, has appointed Mr. Alexander Crosley, of the firm of Crosley and Burn, solicitors, Moorgate-street, to act as his Under-Sheriff during his year of office. This will be the eighth time Mr Crosley has served the office of Under-Sheriff in the city of London. of Sol., Dobson, Middlesborough DAVIES, DAVID, farmer, Tyrdref, in Llandyssil: July 20, at two, at the Townhall, Carmarthen. Sol., Lloyd, Haverfordwest DEMPSEY, MARTIN, wholesale woollen dealer, Gateshead, and Batley; July 23, at eleven, at office of Sol., Garbutt, Newcastle DEVERBUX, JOHN GEORGE, and DEVEREUX, THOMAS HENRY, drapers, Wallsall; July 5, at three, at office of Sol., Rowlands, Birmingham Sol., East, Birmingham DICKIE. DAVID, tailor, Birmingham; July 22, at ten, at office of EADES, ALFRED, butcher, Bristol; July 22, at eleven, at office of Sol., Essery, Bristol EDYE, THOMAS, cutter, Walsall; July 23, at three, at 133, Lichfieldst, Walsall. Sol., Stubbs, Birmingham EVANS, JOHN, lead washer, Llanasa; July 29, at two, at the Royal hotel, Greenfield, Holywell. Sol., Williams FINCH, BENJAMIN, grocer, Devonport, and Plympton St. Mary, and Cawsand; July 25, at twelve, at office of Sols., Messrs. Edmonds, Plymouth FREEMAN, SABINA, Beverley-rd, South Penge-pk; July 23, at FURNESS, CHARLES, and FURNESS, GEORGE, brace bit manu. facturers, Sheffield; July 22, at half-past three, at office of Sol., Messrs. Binney, Sheffield GALLOWAY, WILLIAM, carver, Bradford; July 22, at ten, at office of Sol., Hargreaves, Bradford GILL, LEVI, bootmaker, Leeds; July 26, at three, at office of Sol., Hardwick, Leeds GOODALL, FRANK, printer, Glastonbury; July 23, at twelve, at office of Sol., Hobbs, jun., Wells GRIMES, GEORGE, grocer, Oakfield, near Ryde, Isle of Wight; July 22, at eleven, at offices of Sol., Joyce, Newport, Isle of Wight HARRIS, JOHN, painter, Gloucester; July 24, at eleven, at office of Sol., Jaynes, Gloucester HIDE, JOHN, surgeon's assistant, Marden; July 31, at eleven, at offices of Towner, Eastbourne. Sol., Stuckey, Brighton HILL, ALFRED SEPTIMUS, commission agent, Kinnerton; July 24, at three, at office of Sol., Taylor, Chester HOLDING, JAMES, paper dealer, Ashton-under-Lyne; July 25, at three, at office of Sols., Darnton and Bottomley, Ashton-underLyne HURD, THOMAS, oyster merchant, Manchester; July 23, at three, at office of Sol., Örton, Manchester INGHAM, JOHN ROSS, grocer, Farsley; July 25, at three, at office of Sol., Hutchinson, Bradford INGRAM, THOMAS FLETCHER, no occupation, Wolverhampton; July 26, at three, at office of Sol., Ratcliffe, Wolverhampton JENKINS, WILLIAM, Cooper, Wolverhampton; July 23, at three, at offices of Sol., Thur-tans, Wolverhampton JOHNSON, THOMAS, commission agent, Congleton; July 27, at eleven, at office of Sol., Cooper, Congleton JONES, EMANUEL LEVY, dentist, Hull; Aug. 2, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Hearfield, Hull JONES, ROBERT MORRIS, chemist, Abergele; Aug. 7, at eleven at the Queen's hotel, Chester. Sol., Davies, Holywell KENDALL, WILLIAM, watchmaker, Shipley; July 19, at ten, at office of Sol.. Hargreaves, Bradford MANLEY, JOSEPH, miller, Bridgend; July 24, at twelve, at office of Sol., Jones, Wrexham MARIGOLD, EDWARD, barman, Darlaston; July 25, at eleven, at office of Sol., Glover, Walsall MARKS, GEORGE, looking glass manufacturer, Shoreditch; July 31, at two, at office of Sol., May, Princes-st, Spital-sq MILES, CHARLES THOMAS, grocer, Guildford; July 24, at two, at offices of Sol., Lovett, Guildford MITCHELL, SAMUEL, grocer, Cardiff; July 30, at eleven, at office of Sol., Morgan, Cardiff NORFOR, HENRY JAMES, builder, Great Yarmouth; July 26, at PRIOR, ROBERT, and PRIOR, RICHARD CORNELIUS, Bideford; RICHTER, FREDERICK, clerk, Kingsland; July 26, at four, at office of Sol., Salaman, King-st, Cheapside SCHLESINGER, CHARLES FREDERICK, general merchaut, Tollington-rd, Upper Holloway; July 25, at three, at office of Sol., Parkes, Beaufort-bldgs, Strand SMITH, THOMAS, arysalter. Macclesfield: July 28, at three, at office of Sols., Higginbotham and Barclay, Macclesfield STANSELL, EMILY, dressmaker, Taunton; July 26, at eleven, at office of Sols., Trenchard and Blake, Taunton STAPLETON, THOMAS, upholsterer, Red Hill; July 18, at three, at office of Sol., Howell. Cheapside STEVENSON, JOHN, builder, Goole; July 26, at eleven, at the TRIBE, JAMES, traveller, High Holborn July 26, at one, at office of Sol., Orchard, John-st, Bedford-row TRIPP, ROBERT, builder, Weston-super-Mare; July 22, at eleven, at office of Sols., Baker, Phillpott, and James, WestonSuper-Mare TURNER, JOHN, out of business, Dean-st, Fetter-la; July 25, at two, at office of So., Greatorex, Chancery-la UPJOHN, THOMAS HORTON, poultry salesman, Leadenhall-market, and Avering-villas, Amherst rd, Dalston; July 30, at two, at office of Sols., Digby and Lidale, Circus-pl, Finsbury-circus WAKE, DUNTHORN JOHN, merchant's clerk, Studley-ter, Stockwell: July 26, at three, at offices of Sols., Elits and Crossfield, Mark-la WALKER, CHARLES WALTER, ornamental painter, Norwich; July 23, at eleven, at flees of Sols., Winter and Francis, Norwich WATKINS, EDWIN GOSS, WATKINS, JAMES LOGAN, cabinet makers, Godalming: July 30, at one, at the Public-hall, Godalming. So!., Roker, Godalming. WOOD, JOHN CHARLES, commercial traveller, Sheffield; July 23, at twelve, at office of Sol., Fernell. Sheffiel WOODRUFF. HENRY, shoemaker, Waddington; July 23, at ten, at offices of Sols., bioore and Ward, Lincoln Gazette, July 16. ALLCROFT, WILLIAM, ROWLEY, clerk, West Butterwick; July 30, at twelve, at the White Hart hotel, Gainsborough. Sols., Oldman and Iveson, Gainsbo: ough ALLISON, JOSEPH EDWARD, bookseller, Bradford; July 29, at three, at office of Sol., Green, Bradford AP LEGATE, WILLIAM GEORGE, ironmonger, Seymour-pl, Marylebone; July 29, at four, as office of Sol, Pain, Marylebone-rd BRIGGS, WILLIAM, butcher. Birmingham; July 30, at three, at offices of Sul., Rowlan is, Birmingham BRODIE, THOMAS JOHN, the younger, news agent, Devon: July 30. at twelve, at offices of Messrs. Harris, Wref.rd, and Co., public accountants, Exeter BROWN, CHARLES ALBERT, butcher, King William pl, West-end, Ramersmith; July 27, at eleven, at office of Sul., Russell, Walbrook BROWN, JAMES GILLES, architect, Gateshead; July 27, at twelve, at office of Sol., Dixon, Sunderland COOKE, WILLIA THOMAS, tailor, Bradford; July 29, at ten, at offices of Woodh, use accountant, Mold Green, Huddersfield. Sol., Freeman CORBETT, ROBERT, jun., butcher, Brick-la, Bethnal-green; July 2, at ten, at the Victoria tavern, Morpeth-rd, Victoria pk. Sol, Brutton, Landsdowne-ter, Victoria pk COWLES, GEORGE, bootmaker, Southsea, and Landport; July 24, at three, at the Chamber of Commerce, Cheapside. Sol., Walker Portsea D. V.DSON, GEORGE, waiter, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Aug. 2, at two, at office of Sol., Elsdon, Newcastle-upon-Tyne DEFRIES, LOUIS, warehouseman, Brighton; July 30, at twelve, at office of Sol., Stuckey, Brighton DINHAM, WILLIAM JOHN, out of business, Bristol; July 23, at two, at office of Cozens, public accountant, Bristol DOWDALL, JAMES RENDELL, stationer, Swansea; July 29, at two, at offices of Sols., Smith, Lewis, and Jones, Swansea ETESON, WILLIAM. stuff finisher, Bradford; July 24, at haif-past eleven, at office of Sols., Wood and Killick, Bradford FAULKNER, EDWARD, estate agent, Manchester; Aug. 1, at three, at office of Sols., Gardner, Horner, and Brandwood, Manchester FLETCHER, WILLIAM, joiner, Derby; July 19, at eleven, at office of Sol., Moody, Derby FINDLAY, WILLIAM DAVIES, builder, Birkenhead; July 31, at three, at office of Sheen and Martin, accountants, Liverpool. Sol., Lowe, Liverpool FREEMAN, THOMAS, stay manufacturer, Mile End-rd: July 26, at three, office of Steadman, Coleman-st. Sol., Dobson, Mile End-rd G-ARY, JOHN MATTHEW, box maker, Aldersgate-st; July 23, at one, at office of Sol., Hope, Serle-st, Lincoln's-inn-fields GILBERT, MARY, licensed victualler, Marazion; July 23, at eleven, at office of Sol., Trytball, Penzince HALBARD, PHILIP FAUCK ES, engineer, Burton Extra, and Horninglow, par. Burton-upon-Trent: July 30, at twelve, as office of Sols., Messrs. Drewry, Burton-upon-Trent HARA, THOMAS, wholesale stationer, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; July 31, at twelve, at office of Sols., Ingledew and Daggett, Newcastle-upon-Tyne HILL, GEORGE FAWCUS CORNFOOT, shipping butcher, Sparrowcorner, Minories, Tidal Busin, Victoria Docks, and Tenter-st West, St. Mary, Whitechapel; July 29, at two, nt office of H. A. Dubois, Gresham-bldgs, Basinghail-st. Sol., Dubois, King-st, Cheapside HOWARD, WILLIAM HENRY, cabinet maker, Lincoln; Aug. 3, at eleven, at office of Sols., Burton and Scorer, Lincoln HUGHES, ROBERT GREEN, draper, Llangollen; July 30, at one, at the Royal hotel, Llangollen. Sol., Lloyd, jun., Ruthin HUMPHRISS, THOMAS EDWARD, grocer, St. James's-rd, Holloway; July 31, at two, at offices of Sol.. Walker, Abchurch-la JOHNSON, STEPHEN, and JOHNSON, DANIEL, painters, Long Ditton; July 24, at two, at office of Sol., Best, Queen-st, CheapJONES, LEWIS, wheelwright, Swansea; July 24, at eleven, at offices of Messrs. Barnard, Tdomas, Clark, and Co., Crockherbtown. Sol., Field, Swansea side KENDALL, GEORGE JAMES, Commercial clerk, Nottingham; July 20, at three, at the Royal hotel, Derby. Sol., Simmons KENT, HENRY ALFRED, tailor, Ipswich; Aug. 1, at twelve, at offices of Sols., Merriman, Powell, and Co., Queen-st, Cheapside KNEE, PHILIP, tailor's cutter, Bristol; July 29, at twelve, at office of Pitt, public accountant, Bristol KNOWLES. JAMES, coal merchant, Crosby: July 29, at three, at offices of Messrs. Skeen and Martin, accountants, 57A, Churchst, Liverpool. Sol., Lowe, Liverpool |