mises were insured. A second demand being made upon the registrar, he wrote the following letter to the secretary: 66 I have considered the applications made to me for the rent of the premises occupied by me, as the registrar of this court, and I understand that the ground on which such application is made is, that I have carried on my private business here. On this, I beg to observe that when I was put in possession of the offices, nothing was said as to any restriction on my right to use them for the ordinary purposes of my profession. If any such stipulation had been made, or any rent required for such use, I should have continued to have carried on my private business at my residence. I conceive the Government have no right to put any such restriction on me, and the attempt to do so is most unfair and unjust; but I will for the future carry on my private business at my private house. As for the demand for rent for the past, I have taken advice on the subject, and am satisfied that such demand is utterly without foundation in law. I believe it to be entirely opposed to equity, and I shall resist it by legal means. "As there is no question of fact arising in the matter, but simply a matter of law, I would suggest that if the Government intend to persist in this most unjust claim, that the question should be submitted to one of the courts of law at Westminster by way of special case. I will never submit to the claim, unless compelled so to do." We heartily commend the spirit of the Registrar. It is perfectly plain that by simply transacting private business in a public office, a tenancy is not created. The proper course for the First Commissioner to have taken would have been to prohibit registrars from transacting private business at the County Court office, and we are not sure that this would not have been a wise step. But to endeavour to make a profit out of the accidental circumstance that private business is so transacted in a public office, by setting up the relation of landlord and tenant, seems to us paltry and unjustifiable. We can see no ground upon which the Board of Works can sustain its claim. COUNTY COURT WARRANTS OF EXECUTION. WE published last week, and briefly commented upon, a judgment delivered by Mr. HULTON, the County Court Judge of Preston, to the effect that a County Court warrant of execution against the goods of a debtor operates upon the goods from the moment when the application for it is granted by the registrar of the County Court. That is to say, that County Court warrants are not within the first section of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, which says that no writ of fieri facias or other writ of execution, and no writ of attachment against the goods of a debtor, shall prejudice the title to such goods acquired by any person bonâ fide, and for valuable consideration, before the actual seizure or attachment thereof by virtue of such writ. This enactment is followed by a proviso which the County Court Judge regarded as explaining the enactment : Provided such person had not, at the time when he acquired such title, notice that such writ or any other writ by virtue of which the goods of such owner might be seized or attached, had been delivered to and remained unexecuted in the hands of the sheriff, under-sheriff, or coroner." 66 The first ground taken by the County Court Judge is, that the proviso is explanatory of the enacting part of this section, which, however, he admits, is certainly general, and embraces all executions." The proviso, his Honour says, virtually confines the enactment to writs delivered to the sheriff, the other officers named being merely his substitutes. We must confess to some hesitation in following this view; because we take it that the enactment must not be explained by the proviso, but the proviso extended by the enactment; and we should take the section in its entirety to mean that no writ of execution whatever should prejudice an acquired title until actual seizure, by whatsoever officer the process may be performed. To limit the enactment because the proviso does not include the word bailiff, seems to us somewhat illiberal. A second point taken is that the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, and the County Court Act Amendment Act, were passed about the same time. "May it not be said," the learned Judge asks, “that the omission of all reference to the process of the County Courts in the first section of the first-named Act was not altogether unintentional?" We should not hesitate to reply that any possible connection between the two Acts was never contemplated, and that not even a conjecture could be based upon the coincidence of the time when they were respectively passed. A somewhat more difficult matter to deal with is that raised by reference to the difference of procedure with reference to writs and to warrants. This is not very clearly treated by the learned County Court Judge. He says that the writ and the warrant operate at different periods of the suit. "In the County Court the goods are bound from the application to the registrar, but in the Superior Court the case is and has been for a long time different." In what material respect? It is to be observed that in the Superior Court the writ is not delivered by the court to its own officer; until the attorney for the creditor delivers it to the sheriff to be executed it is not, as it were, alive. But an application to the County Court is in effect a delivery of the writ to the bailiff, sect. 94 of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, enacting that the clerk of the court, at the request of the party prosecuting the Judge's order, shall issue a writ of fieri facias as a warrant of execution to the high bailiff of the court. And by the 47th section of the Act of 1856, the priority of writs and warrants is to be judged of by the delivery of the writ to the sheriff to be executed in the one case, and the application to the registrar for the issue of the warrant in the other. In both cases the process of execution begins in the same way; the registrar receives a request, the sheriff a writ: the process is different, but the effect the same, and we find it difficult to say that there is anything so different in the nature and effect of the two instruments that the Legislature could not, in the words of the County Court Judge, "have intended the words in that section "-sect. 1 of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97" to apply to warrants from County Courts, the binding effect of which," he adds, " occurs at a different period in the suit." We do not appreciate this observation, and, whilst desiring to uphold the learned Judge, we feel that we ought to come to the conclusion that County Court warrants are within the Mercantile Law Amendment Act. And the practical advantage of giving the Act the widest possible application is obvious, for how is it possible to say what goods are bound until seizure? Is a warrant of execution for a small debt to make an assignment of part of a debtor's goods subsequently executed bad? It must go the whole length, or be inoperative without seizure, for, in the absence of seizure, how would it be possible to specify the goods to be appropriated to the execution? Undoubtedly the Mercantile Law Amendment Act intended to meet this difficulty, and so made seizure necessary in order to prejudice a title to goods though that title were acquired after the delivery of the writ to the sheriff. It is upon this ground principally that we object to the conclusion arrived at by the County Court Judge. LAW LIBRARY. BOOKS RECEIVED. The Statutes Revised, vol. 3. Hunt's Law of Fraudulent Conveyances. Butterworths. Wetherfield's Notes on Liquidation, &c.. Second edition. Longman. Foot's Prevention of Crimes Act. Shaw. Heale's History and Law of Church Seats. Butterworths. THE STOCK MARKETS. CITY, THURSDAY, MAY 16. THE chief business in the stock markets since we last wrote, has been the adjustment of the fortnightly account, which was brought to a close yesterday. The feature, as bearing upon the present position of prices, has been mainly the course of the money market, which has been towards ease. It has been evident from day to day since the Bank rate was advanced to 5 per cent. that the value of money had been forced up to an abnormally high point by the effect of an unduly large demand arising from unnecessary fears. The consequence of this is that the supply has continually increased while the demand has been almost nothing; as in fact it has been to-day at the Bank. Notwithstanding this favourable influence, however, there has been no large amount of buying going forward, a prominent reason for which may be found in the fact that a disposition is shown to see whether or not the latest device to settle the Alabama claims entanglement will prove effective Next Monday will be a general holiday, and as Saturday is usually a quiet day, there will probably be inactivity until the middle of next week. The British Funds have risen for the week; India Enfaced Paper, 4; and Exchequer Bills are 4 lower. In the American market there is a rise for the week of in Eries; in the United States Funded Loan; and in the ten-forty bonds. With the one exception of Metropolitan Stock which is 1 lower, for the week, all the changes in British railway stocks are upwards. The time has now arrived when the question of the accrued dividend begins to take an important place in the calculations of the investor. The approach of the holiday season, which more or less favourably affects the traffic receipts of all lines, also assists in calling attention to these securities. With an easier tendency in the value of money consequently it will be seen that this marked would be favourably influenced, as is shown by an advance for the week of 4 in Great Northern A stock; of 3 in Great Northern and North.Eastern; of 2 in Midland; of 14 in London and North-Western; of 1 in Caledonian, Great Eastern, Great Western, Manchester and Sheffield. Metropolitan District, North British, and South-Eastern Deferred. The feature in the foreign market has been the rise for the week in Spanish of per cent. Every possible device is being resorted to by this Government to bridge over its financial difficulties, and the best is being made of the existing state of affairs, with a view, it is presumed, to launch another big loan, when it is expected all alike will be taxed together. A "Lombard" telegram of to-day says that the Bank of Paris, in conjunction with its syndicate, has advanced the Spanish Government £600,000, at 193 per cent. If this be true, it is an eloquent description of the situation Senor Camacho finds himself in. All the changes in this market are favourable. Those calling especially for notice being a rise of 1 in all descriptions of Turkish, and in Egyptian 7 per cents. of 1868; of in Paraguay and Mexican. In Miscellaneous Phosphate Sewage shares are 5 lower for the week; but Native Guano have risen 2. The sum of £50,000 nas been sent into the Bank this day from Germany. The National Printing and Publishing Company (Limited), is a new company which, the prospectus states, "is formed for the purpose of acquiring the extensive and convenient premises situated at 10 and 11, Crane-court, Fleet-street, E.C., together with the entire plant, consisting of steam-engines, presses, type, and all the accessories necessary for carrying on a large printing and publishing business." The capital is £25.000, in 12,500 shares of £2 each. A contract for the purchase, on advantageous terms, of the premises and plant, dated 9th April 1872, and made between William Gilchrist Salmond Urquhart of the one part, and David Murray, on behalf of the company, of the other part, has been entered into, and can be seen at the offices of the company. The printing works and machinery are in full working order, and the services of a competent manager have been secured. The directors have the pleasure of further stating that several offers of business of a lucrative permanent character have been already made, and will be executed on the premises immediately upon the constitution of the company. The latest quotations for British Funds are as follows: Consols, for money, 92 to 93; ditto 1st June Account, 93 to 931; Reduced, and New Three per Cents., 91 to 911; Exchequer Bills, 6s. to 1s. dis.; India Five per Cent. Stock, 110 to 110; ditto Four per Cent., 1023 to 103; ditto Enfaced Paper Four per Cent., 96 to 971; ditto Five and a Half per Cent., 108 to 109; Bank of England Stock, 242 to 244; Metropolitan Three and a Half per Cent., 96 to 97; and French Rentes in this market, 53} to 54. The latest price for French Rentes received from Paris was 54fr. 85c. Market firm. In the market for American Securities, the United States 5-20 Bonds of 1882 are marked 893 to 901; do. 10-40 Bonds, 89 to 894; Atlantic and Great Western Bonds, 40 to 41; ditto Debentures, 50 to 51; Eries, 55 to 55: Illinois, 109 to 110; and United States Funded Loan, 89% to 893. In the Railway Market the prices are:- London and Brighton, 82 to 82; London, Chatham, and Dover, 26 to 26; London and North-Western, 149 to 150; London and South-Western. 106 to 107; Manchester and Sheffield, 75 to 76; Metropolitan, 644 to 64; ditto District, 32 to 32; Midland, 148 to 1484; North British, 65 to 66; North Eastern Consols, 1684 to 1694; South-Eastern, 101 to 102; ditto deferred, 79 to 793; Grand Trunk of Canada, 214 to 22; Great Western of Canada, 22 to 221; Antwerp and Rotterdam, 18 to 19; Great Luxembourg, 18 to 18; and Lombardo Venetian, 17 to 17. The prices of the principal Foreign Stocks are as follows: Argentine, 1868, 971 to 974; do., 6 per cent., 1871, 921 to 92; Brazilian, 5 per cent., 1865, 96 to 9: do., 5 per cent., 1870, 95 to 954; Egyptian, 7 per cent., 1868, 88 to 884; do., Viceroy Loan, 91 to 93; do., Khedive Mortgage Bonds, 791 to 793; French Morgan 6 per cent. Loan, 97 to 971; do. National 5 per cent. Loan, 4 to 5 pm.; Greek 5 per cent., 22 to 23; Italian, 67 to 67; Mexican, 15 to 153; Paraguay 8 per cent. Loan, 91 to 92; Peruvian, 5 per cent. 1865, 101 to 102; do. 6 per cent. 1870, 81 to 81: Spanish 3 per cent. 30 to 301; do. 3 per cent. 1871, 30% to 30%; Turkish, 5 per cent. 1865, 53 to 534; do. 6 per cent. 1865, 724 to 72; do. 6 per cent. 1869, 61 to 613; and do. 6 per cent. 1871, 70 to 71. In the Telegraph Market, Anglo-American Stock is quoted at 116 to 118; Anglo-Mediterranean. 181 to 184; British Australian, 9 to 93; British Indian Extension, 11 to 121; ditto Submarine, 10 to 11; Chinas, 8 to9; Cubas, 7 to 8; Falmouths, 11 to 12; Marseilles, Algiers, and Malta, 9 to 9; Mediterranean Extension, 6 to 7; French Cables, 214 to 22; Renter's, 10 to 114; and West India and Panama, 6 to 6. In miscellaneous shares the prices are as follows:-Crystal Palace 24 to 26; General Credit and Discount, 24 to 2 pm.; International Finance, par. to pm. ; India Rubber and Gutta Percha, 42 to 44; National Discount, 13 to 14; Telegraph Construction, 32 to 334; Native Guano, 19 to 21; Phosphate Sewage, 24 to 26; and Royal Mail Steam, 88 to 90. NOTES OF THE WEEK. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY. VESTRY OF Streeten appeared for the defendants, but was Judgment for defendants. Hitchins. CAMPBELL V. EAST LONDON WATERWORKS Statutory duty to supply water-Exemption from works Act 1853. Repeal of general Act by special Acts-10 Vict. of the calculation. Pollock Q.C. (with Bosanquet) contended that the plaintiff's had a right to rely upon the Act of 1868 in matters concerning which it differed from the Act of 1860. premises and gods were burnt and destroyed. Act 1847. Sir G. Honyman, Q. C. (with Cohen) argued for Pollock, Q.C. (with Lanyon) for defendants. Attorneys for plaintiff Combe and Wainwright. HARRISON V. GARTHORNE. to take a cargo out for owner's benefit, and there Kemplay, Q.C. argued for plaintiff. The COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), Judgment for defendant. Attorneys for plaintiff, F. W. Blake for Saxelbyes and Sharp, Hull. Attorney for defendant, W. H. Farnfield. SCALES v. LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAIL WAY COMPANY. Estoppel-Inaccurate statement intended to be acted upon-Reasonable consequence of statement-Special case stated by an arbitrator. ONE Pinou, a merchant at Honfleur, had consigned butter by defendants to plaintiff. On 16th Jan. 1871, Pinou wrote to plaintiff that he would send no further supply until he heard further. On 19th Jan. seventeen barrels of butter were delivered by Pinou to defendants, without address. Defendant's agent at Honfleur wrote to plaintiff that these barrels were consigned to him, and mentioned the charge for carriage. Plaintiff paid the carriage, and accepted a bill drawn by Pinou for the value of the butter. Defendants after wards, at Pinou's request, delivered the butter to Pollock, Q.C. (with Bompas) for plaintiff. Charter-party-Dangers of seas during voyage-made by the defendants with the intention that Ship to arrive within three weeks. the plaintiff should act upon it, and that plaintiff's act was not the reasonable consequence of the statement. Judgment for defendants. Attorneys for plaintiff, Bischoff, Bompas, and Bischoff. Attorney for defendants, L. Crombie. Friday, May 10. THOMPSON v. COHEN. Assignment of after acquired property by bill of sale-Licence to seize-Subsequent liquidation of grantee's affairs under B. A. 1869. THIS was a demurrer to a replication. The action was for breaking and entering plaintiff's house, and converting his goods, under the false and unfounded claim that the defendant was entitled to seize the said goods for a debt, whereby the plaintiff was considered by his customers to be incapabie, by reason of his poverty, and embarassed circumstances, of carrying on his trade, and his customers were deterred from dealing with him, and he lost and was deprived of divers gains and profits. In the fifth plea the defendant set out a bill of sale, by which plaintiff assigned to him all his goods and chattels, and gave him power to enter and seize, upon nonpayment of certain sums for which plaintiff agreed to be liable. There was also a clause by which plaintiff, the mortgagor agreed, that if he at any time during the continuance of this security should become possessed of any goods, other than, or in addition to, the property assigned by the deed, they should be in all respects subject to these presents, and might accordingly be seized, sold, and disposed of, as if assigned by the deed. Defendant averred that the alleged trespass and conversion were in pursuance of this deed. To this plea the plaintiff replied, fourthly, upon equitable grounds, that after granting the said bill of sale, and before the said trespass, he duly filed a petition for the arrangement of his affairs pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act 1869; his affairs were liquidated by an arrangement binding upon defendant, and a trustee was appointed, who duly, upon resolution, sold the goods to friends of plaintiff, who gave plaintiff possession thereof, and he then held the same freed and discharged from the said bill of sale, and from all charge or claim of the defendant thereon. G. Bruce for defendant, argued for the demurrer C. Russell, Q. C. for plaintiff, supported the replication. The COURT (Blackburn, Mellor, Lush, and Hannen, JJ.) considered that the licence to seize given by the bill of sale was merely accessary to the assignment of the goods as security for the debt; and that the debt and licence were both barred by the liquidation. Judgment for plaintiff. Attorney for plaintiff, H. G. Field, for Thos. Etty, Liverpool. Attorney for defendant, Chinery and Aldridge, for M. Nordon, Liverpool, COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Ex parte DAVIS; Re DAVIS. There was no provision either in the Act itself or was De Gex Q.C. and F. Knight, for the registrar of the Oldbury Court, contended that this an extraordinary resolution, and as the debtor had not tendered the prescribed affidavit, the registrar had no option but to refuse to register the proceedings; and that until these were registered there could be no transfer. They cited The Bankruptcy Act 1869, s. 126, Rules 283, 281, and form 120. Griffiths, in reply. his, or her deceased parent would have had if living, and so as the issue of his nephew J. G. should have no greater share than the issue of any other of the children of his sister A. was directed to have in case of the decease of their, his, or her parent. And at the end of the will there was a proviso which declared that if his real estate should ever be sold under the limitations thereinbefore contained, and the money arising thereby should ever become payable to the issue of his sister A., or of his nephew J. G. (except his son J. W.) or any of them, and any one or more of such issue should be then dead, having left lawful issue, then the issue of such issue as should be so dead should have and receive the part or share to which their, his, or her parent would have been entitled if living. The estates tail having failed, the trust for sale arose, and the proceeds of sale became divisible. Held, that the proviso at the end of the will was not void for remoteness. A. had only one child besides J. G., namely N., who The CHIEF JUDGE said that it was a great pity died before the period of distribution. Held, that a debtor's estate should be spent in such un- that the one-third was divisible in equal moieties satisfactory litigation; it was, nevertheless, pro- between the children of N. on the one hand, and per that a strict rule should be enforced. If the the children of J. G. (other than J. W.) on the registrar had registered the proceedings in the other hand, there being a tenancy in common bestate in which they were tendered to him for tween the two families, but a joint tenancy beregistration, he would have been acting in viola- tween the children of each family, which joint tion of his duty as prescribed by the Act and the tenancy was, however, by the effect of the proviso, general rules. He had no more power to register severed in the case of each child who died leavthe proceedings in that unauthenticated conditioning issue. Held, accordingly, that where any such than his Lordship would have at that moment. child died before the period of distribution, leaving Until the proceedings were properly stamped the children him surviving, his death operated as a registrar had no power to transfer them to another severance of the joint tenancy as to his share, to court; in fact, there was nothing to transfer. which his children became entitled as joint tenants The registrar, before filing any documents, is bound inter se. Decision of Malins, V.C. (24 L. T. Rep. to see that the prescribed forms, by which alone N. S. 864; L. Rep. 11 Eq. 522, varied: Heasman v. he can ascertain what stamp is to be affixed to the Pearse, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 299. Chan.) proceedings, have been complied with. In the present case the registrar required an affidavit stating the whole amount of the composition, and, as that was not produced, his Lordship was of opinion that the registrar was perfectly right in refusing to file the proceedings. The notice of motion in this case required the court to direct the registrar to do what the law prohibited him from doing. The appeal must be dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant, Duignan, Butler, and Smiles, for Duignan and Co., Walsall. Solicitors for the Registrar of the Oldbury Court, Wilkins, Blythe, and Marsland. The WIFE'S SEPARATE ESTATE-REDUCTION INTO HUSBAND'S POSSESSION SOLICITOR'S CLAIM FOR DEBT DUE FROM HUSBAND.-The plaintiffs, through the instrumentality of the defendant, a solicitor, borrowed a sum of money upon the security of life insurances, and also of a mortgage upon the wife's separate estate. This mortgage was executed by both plaintiffs, but the husband alone covenanted for the repayment of the money. The objects for which the money was raised were only, as the defendant knew, to pay a certain debt which the husband owed, and to build some cottages upon the wife's separate estate. defendant, upon the written authority of both plaintiffs, received the money from the mortgagee, and paid the husband's debt, the costs of the mortgage, and a small sum to the plaintiffs; but he claimed to retain the balance, which was the amount sued for in this action, that amount being due to him from the husband alone, for previous professional services: Held, that this action was maintainable; and that the defendant could not, under the circumstances, treat the transaction as a reduction into possession by the husband: (Jones and Wife v. Cuthbertson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 359. Q.B.) SUIT AGAINST AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-JURISDICTION.-The plaintiff contracted with the French Goverment for the supply of certain goods, and a firm of bankers, acting as the agents of the French Government in this country, informed the plaintiff by letter, that a special credit for £40,000 had been opened by them in his The Juries Bill was read a second time, and favour, to be paid rateably as the goods were delireferred to a select committee. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WILL-CONSTRUCTION-REMOTENESS-RULE AGAINST PERPETUITY - LIMITATION AFTER ESTATE TAIL-JOINT TENANCY AND TENANCY IN COMMON.-No limitation after an estate tail is too remote, and it is immaterial whether the limitation be directly to a class of issue to be ascertained at the determination of the estate tail, or a gift to a trustee for such class, or upon trust to convey to such class, or to sell and to divide the produce amongst such class, provided the legal and beneficial interests be both ascertained at the moment of the determination of the estate tail. In construing a will no words can be struck out because they offend against the rule against perpetuities, but for all purposes of construction the will must be read as if no such rule existed. A testator devised his real estates to the use of several persons successively in tail, with remainder to the use of trustees upon trust to sell and to divide the proceeds into three equal parts. And the testator directed her trustees to pay and divide one of such third parts unto and amongst all and every the children of his late sister A., except his nephew J. G., who should be then living, and the issue of such of them as should be then dead leaving issue, and the issue of his nephew J. G., except his son J. W., share and share alike, but so as the issue of such of the children of his sister A. as should be then Griffiths appeared in support of the appeal.' dead should have no greater share than their, vered, upon receipt of certificates by the officers of the French Government. Eventually, and before the completion of the contract, the French Government withdrew the credit, without the plaintiff's consent. Upon bill filed by the plaintiff against the bankers to restrain them from parting with the fund on the ground that the fund had been in fact assigned to him, and specifically appropriated for the payment of the contract moneys. Held, that the bankers were liable as stakeholders, and that although the fund had been deposited by a foreign government, which was not subject to the jurisdiction of this court, yet the fund itself had become subject to the jurisdiction, and that the court had power to prevent its being withdrawn. The plaintiff having proved unfair dealing on the part of the agents of the French Government in withholding the certificates necessary to enable him to receive payment under his contract. Held, that he was entitled to payment without the certificates: (Larimere v. Morgan, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 339. V.C. M.) PRACTICE-SECURITY FOR COSTS-CROSS SUIT -COMPANIES ACT 1862, s. 69.-A limited company which was in liquidation, having been made defendant to a bill for foreclosure, subsequently filed a bill against the mortgagee, seeking to impeach the validity of the mortgage, and also praying that, if the mortgage should be held valid, it might be declared to be a security for only a part of the amount claimed by the mortgagee; that the company might be at liberty to redeem on paying what should be found due; that the mortgagee might be restrained from selling, and that a receiver might be appointed. Held (affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that this was not so strictly a cross suit to the foreclosure suit as to exempt the company from giving security for costs. But, semble, that even if it had been strictly a cross bill, the company, being a limited company in liquidation, would have been required to give security for costs: (The City of Moscow Gas Company (Limited) v. The International Financial Society (Limited), 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 377. Chan.) ANTE - NUPTIAL PROMISE IN WRITING of TESTAMENTARY GIFT LOST DOCUMENT PAROL EVIDENCE-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. An ante-nuptial written promise by the husband to settle upon his wife 10,000l., and to leave her one-half of his property by his will, enforced after the husband's death, although the letters containing such promise had been lost, the existence and substance of the letters being clearly established by the evidence: (Gilchrist v. Herbert, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 381. Rolls). PRACTICE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS JOINT POSSESSION.-A person who had carried on business transactions on his own account, and had made entries relating to them in the partnership books of a firm of which he was a member, was made defendant to a suit for an account of those transactions: Held (reversing the decision of Malins, V.C.), that no order could be made for the production of the partnership books, as one of the joint owners of them was not a party to the suit; but that the plaintiff's proper course was to amend his bill so as to compel the defendant to set forth copies of the entries in question, and then to obtain production of the books themselves at the hearing by serving the defendant's partner with a sub pœna duces tecum: (Hadley v. Mc Dougal, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 379. Chan.) BEQUEST OF FARMING STOCK DURING WIDOWHOOD RES QUE IPSO USU CONSUMUNTUR. — Testator being tenant of a farm from year to year, bequeathed his farming stock, consisting of consumable articles, to his wife during the term of her widowhood, and then over: Held, that the gift was made for the purpose of enabling her to carry on the testator's business of a farmer, and that she was entitled to an interest in the stock during her widowhood only, the ordinary rule as to res que ipso usu consumuntur not applying: (Cockayne v. Harrison, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 385. M. R.) BREACH OF TRUST-LIABILITY OF EXECUTORS OF DECEASED TRUSTEE-ADVERTISEMENTS FOR CLAIMS.-22 & 23 VICT. c. 35, s. 29.-The executors of a trustee, whose estate was liable for a breach of trust, issued notices to creditors and others requiring them to send in their claims against the testator's estate within three weeks after the publication of the last of such notices. These notices were inserted in four local news. papers circulating in the neighbourhood where the testator had resided, but had not been advertised in the London Gazette, nor in any London daily newspaper: Held, that the advertisements in the local newspapers were not a proper compliance with the requirements of the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 29, and that three weeks from the date of the notices was too short a time within which claims were to be sent in; and, therefore, that the executors were personally liable as well as the estate of the testator: (Wood v. Weightman, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 385. M.R.) MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING SUIT IN FRENCH COURTS-FRENCH CONTRACT.-The plaintiff, W., an Englishman domiciled in France, entered into an agreement in France with the defendant F., a Frenchman, that if F. assisted him in obtaining certain contracts from the French Government, the profits of those contracts should be divided between them in certain proportions. F. negotiated with the defendants, D. and Co., merchants in this country, for carrying out the contracts, and D. and Co. held, as the plaintiff alleged, large sums of money which were due to the plaintiff under his agreement with F. The plaintiff filed a bill against F. and D. and Co. for an account, and to restrain D. and Co. from handing over the money in their hands to F. Proceedings were also instituted in France for the same accounts as were prayed for in the English suit. Upon a motion by the defendants to stay all proceedings in the English suit until the determination of the French suit: Held, that inasmuch as there were interrogatories which the defendants were bound to answer, the motion, which was in the nature of a demurrer, could not be sustained; it was therefore refused with costs: (Wilson v. Ferrand and others, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 387. V.C. M.) PERSONAL INJURIES-ACTION FOR-GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF INJURIES-APPLICATION FOR PARTICULARS OF SUCH INJURIES.. Where a plaintiff sues a defendant for damages for personal injuries, the court will not require him to give particulars of such injuries unless the defendant can swear that he is ignorant of the nature of such injuries, and has no means of ascertaining in what they consist. The plaintiff declared against the defendants, alleging them to be common carriers of passengers upon a railroad for reward, and that they received the plaintiff as a passenger to be safely and securely carried on a certain journey, but that they so negligently and unskilfully conducted themselves, that the plaintiff was thereby bruised, wounded, and suffered severe concussions and contusions, and was and is permanently injured, and was prevented from attending to his business, and incurred loss of time and expenses in and about the cure of his said injuries." Upon an application for a rule calling upon the plaintiff to deliver to the defendants particulars in writing of the injuries complained of in the action, and which application was founded upon an affidavit which stated that "though the defendants' medical officer had seen and examined the plaintiff, no particulars of the plaintiff's injuries have been delivered, either before or after action, and the defendants are embarrassed in their defence of this action for want of such particulars. The court refused to grant a rule: (Brown v. The Great Western Railway Company, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S 398. Ex.) PRACTICE-SALES BY AUCTION BEFORE CHIEF CLERK.-The court has power to direct sales to be carried out in chambers before the chief clerk in the same way as they were carried out before the master prior to the Master in Chancery Abolition Act, though the practice has fallen into disuse. But the court will not direct such a sale except by the consent of all parties interested in the estate: (Pemberton v. Barnes, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 389. V.C. M.) JUDGES' CHAMBERS. Malicious prosecution-Co-tortfeasors-Action against both. THIS was a summons taken out by the defendant, calling on the plaintiff to "show cause why the proceedings in the action should not be stayed, on the ground that the plaintiff had already recovered judgment against one B., who had committed the grievances in the declaration complained of jointly with the defendant, and that the said This was an judgment had been fully satisfied." action for a malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff had brought an action for malicious prosecution against B., and had recovered £60 damages against him, which had been paid. The verdict for £60 in the action against B. was taken by consent. The declaration in the present action was in terms identical with that in the former action against B. Allen (instructed by Alsop and Co.) appeared for the plaintiff. Dodd (instructed by Pitman and Lane) appeared for the defendant. CAPPER (Mary A.). Suffolk-lawn, Cheltenham, widow, one dividend on the sum of £3000 Three per Cent. Annuities, claimant Rev. Daniel Capper, sole executor of Mary A. Capper. CLARKE (Geo.), 61, Chiswell-street, publican, SMITH (Thos.), 14, Bow-lane, London, surgeon, MELHUISH (Louisa), a minor, and CLARKE (Jos. Alfred), a minor, £50 Three per Cent. Annuities, claimants said Geo. Clarke, Louisa Langley, wife of William Langley, formerly Louisa Melhuish, spinster, and Jos. Alfred Clarke, now of age, the survivors. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ALTEN AND QUENANGER MINING COMPANY (LIMITED), creditors, to send in by June 8, their 1ames and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to Jas. T. Snell, 8, Cheapside, E.C., the official liquidator of the said company. June 22; at the 11 o'clock, at the chambers of the M. R., is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claim. HOP AND MALT EXCHANGE AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY (LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be heard, May 24, before V.C. M. PATENT PNEUMATIC LOOM COMPANY (LIMITED). Petition for winding-up to be heard, May 24, before V.C. M. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BARTON (John), Westminster-road, Lambeth, Surrey, and Hamilton-terrace, Middlesex. June 10; Barton and Pearman, solicitors, 59, Kennington-road, Surrey. June 24; V.C. W., at one o'clock. BOND (WI.), Bromyard, Hereford, farmer. June 10: H. N. Knott, solicitor, Bromyard. June 24; M. R., at eleven o'clock. CHURSTON (Right Hon. John Lord), Churston Ferrers and Lupton, Devon. June 8; B. G. Lake, solicitor, 10, New. square, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. June 22; M. R., at eleven o'clock. CROFTS (Robert), Esq., Dumpton, Isle of Thanet, Kent. June 11; Thompson and Debenham, solicitors, Salter's Hall-court, Cannon-street, E.C. June 28; M. R., at eleven o'clock. DOBSON (Samuel), Queen's-gate-gardens. Middlesex, civil engineer. June 15; C. T. Foster, solicitor, 14, King'sroad, W.C. June 21; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. FAULKNER (David), Nechells-park-road, Birmingham, gun barrel manufacturer. June 10; Saunders and Bradbury, solicitors, Birmingham. June 20; V.C. W., at two o'clock. FLEET (Thomas), Harbledown. Kent. June 5; E. E. Collins, solicitor, 37, King William-street, E.C. June 13; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. FOSSETT (Charles), Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, Middlesex, gentle man. May 30: John V. Longbourne, solicitor, 4, Southsquare, Gray's-inn, W.C. June 3; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. GOWARD (Elizabeth), Bell-grove, Bexley, Keut. June 15; Robinson and Preston, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. June 29; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. GOWARD (Thomas) Bell-grove, Bexley, gentleman. June 15; Robinson and Preston, solicitors, 35. Lincoln's-inn fields, W.C. June 29; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. HARBROE (Frederick), Dorking, painter. June 10; H. Young, solicitor, 6, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet street, E.C. June 14; V.C. M.. at twelve o'clock. HARTLEY (Jas. J.), Halifax, York, gentleman. June 10; F. Jabb, solicitor, Halitax, June 20; V.C. W., at one o'clock. MAULSON (Robert), Everingham, York, farmer. June 14; R. B. Bell, solicitor, Pocklington, York. June 28; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. HEWITT (Mary A,), Great Yarmouth. May 22; Wm. Holt. solicitor, Great Yarmouth. June 3; V.C. W., at one o'clock. HILLIARD (John), Harborne, Staffs., and Spencer-street. Birmingham, silversinith. June 20; John Jeif, solicitor, Newhall-street. July 1; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. MOUNT (Wm. F.), The Hermitage, Twyford, Berks, gentleman. June 10; Woott.n and Sons, solicitors, 2. Finsbury. OCCLESTON circus, E.C. June 17; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. (James), Curzon-park, Chester, gentleman. June 20; J. A. Foyster, solicitor, Manchester. July 1; PUCHARD Wm.), T, Rheidol-terrace, Islington, Middlesex, V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. gentleman. June 24; C. G. Rushworth, solicitor, 15, Bedford-row, W.C. June 28; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. RICHARDSON (Harriet), Elm-grove, Hammersmith, Middlesex. June 15; H. Fryer, solicitor, 1, Gray's-inn-place, Gray's-inn, W.C. June 21; V.C.W., at twelve o'clock. SAVILLE (Samuel), Wakefield, York, gentleman. May 25: A. H. Owen, solicitor, Huddersfield. June 4; V.C. W., at one o'clock. Dodd said that the judgment recovered against the one of two joint tort feasors was a bar to an action against the other: (Brinsmead v. Harrison, L. Rep. 6 C. P. 584; 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 798; Com. Dig., tit. " 'Action," K. 4.) That in this case full compensation for the injury had been given in the belief that no further proceedings would be taken, and, therefore, that the action was brought against good faith. If against good faith the action would, as a matter of course, be stayed; but if not it would be stayed, since the defendant had already been compensated: (Bird v. TOMLINSON (Wm. B.), 97, Talbot-road, Bayswater, Middlesex, Randall, 3 Burr. 1354; 1 W. Bl. 389.) Allen said the cause of action was not the same as before; the parts taken by B. and the defendant in the prosecution were different. The action could not be stayed; the defendant must plead the identity of the causes of action, so that the point could be tried: (Martin v. Kennedy, 2 faith, as so small a sum as £60 would not have B. & P. 69.) The action was not against good been accepted by the plaintiff from B. if he had not thought he could sue the defendant. KEATING, J. on the following day made the order asked for by the summons. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. HELM (Susannah) Camberwell House, Camberwell, Surrey, spinster. Next of kin to come in by July 1, at the chambers of V.C. B. July 8, 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 persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] ALLEN (Lewis). Harpenden, Herts., gentleman, and ALLEN (Mary), his wife, £35 Three per Cent. Annuities, claimant, said Mary Allen, widow, the survivor. BEAGLEY (John), 18, Bayham-street, Camden Town, N.W. gentleman, £868 98. 4d. Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities, claimant said John Beagley. BERESFORD (Lieut.-Gen. Marcus), 1, Craig's-court, London, and BERESFORD (Caroline), his wife £383 9s. 10d., Three per Cent. Annuities, claimants said Lieut.-Gen. Marcus Beresford, and Caroline Beresford, his wife. BOOTHROYD (John), Wike, Bristol, butcher, WILSON (Thos.), Lowmoor, Bradford, currier, and HANSON (Edward), Halifax, Yorks, butcher, £295 168, 10d., Three per Cent. Annui ties, claimant said Thos. Wilson, the survivor. SPELLING (Robert T.), Gorleston, Suffolk, fish merchant. June 7 C. H. Wiltshire, solicitor, Great Yarmouth. June 25; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. SWANN (Frederick D.), Esq., Redhill, near Reigate, Surrey. June6; Wightwick and Kingsford, solicitors, Canterbury. June 17; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. &c., pawnbroker. June 5; Wm. W. Comins, solicitor, 8, Great Portland-street, Middlesex. June 19; V.C. W., at twelve. WALKER Rev. Wm. H.), Neston, Norfolk. June 20; Winterbotham and Co.. solicitors, Cheltenham. July 3; V.C, W., at twelve o'clock. WATTS (John), The Pince of Wales's Stables, Bishop's Mews, Bishop's-road, Paddington, Middlesex, jobmaster. June 15; W. Venn, solicitor, 3, New-inn, Strand, W.C. June 24; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock. WILLIAMS (John), Beaumaris, Anglesea, June 8; P.Nelson, solicitor, 11, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. June 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. WILLIAMS (Richard), Trosyr Afon, Beaumaris, Anglesea. June 10; John W. Hughes, solicitor, Bangor. June 15; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. WILSON Jane L. E.), 15, Upper Porchester-street, Hyde park, Middlesex. June 1; Walker and Martineau, solicitors, 13. King's-road, Gray's-inn. June 8; V.C. W., at twelve WINNIFRITH (Henry), Tunbridge Wells, Kent, builder. June 10; George Arnold, solicitor, Tunbridge Wells. June 25; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock. o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ACKERS (George H.), Esq., 15, Hyde-park-terrace, Middlesex and Moreton Hall, Chester. July 1; Milne and Co., solicitors, 2, Harcourt-buildings, Temple, E.C. ANDERSON (Henry), Fishergate House, York, solicitor. July 17; Parr and Anderson, solicitors, 30, Stonegate, York. ATKINSON (George), Esq., 2, Highbury-park, Middlesex. May 25; Pilgrim and Phillips, solicitors, Church-court, Lothbury, E.C. BARNES (Thomas), Esq., M.D., Bunker's-hill, Cumberland. July 18; T. H. and C. B. Hodgson, solicitors, Carlisle. BENSON (Luke), Ampleforth, York, yeoman. July 1; Parr and Anderson, solicitors, 30, Stonegate, York. BRIGGS (Camilla, Southwood, Sydenham-hill, Kent. June 30; White and Co., solicitors, 6, Whitehall-place, Westminster. BROWN (Elizabeth), Wheatamstead, Herts. June 10; W. A. Boyle, solicitor, 10, Brunswick-square, W.C. BURNETT (James), Prudhoe-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. millwright. June 10; Forster and Co., solicitors, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. BUTTERFIELD (John), Summer-hill, Far Headingley, near Portsea, Hants. CURRIE (David), 131, Hemingford-road, Barnsbury, Middlesex. Aug. 17; Kipping, solicitor, 45, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. DANNELL (Edmond G.), Bedford-place, Rotherhithe, Surrey. gentleman, June 21 B. G. Wilkinson, selicitors, 151, Bermondsey-street, S.E. DARBY (Lucy), Ebbw Vale-park, near Newport, Mons. July 10: Rixon and Son, solicitors, 53, Gracechurch-street, E.C. DAVIS (Jos.), Bristol, gentleman. July 1; Fry and Otter, solicitors, Shannon-court, Bristol. DON (Jonathan D.), 9, Pembridge-villas, Bayswater Middlesex. June 10; J. T. Simpson, solicitor, 62, Moorgatestreet, E.C. EVANS (Richard), Esq., Bugle-street, Southampton. July 1; Deacon and Pearce, solicitors, Southampton. FILKIN (Richard), M.D., 5, Ormond-terrace, Richmond, Surrey. July 4; Dawes and Sons, solicitors, 9, Angelcourt, Throgmorton-street, E.C. Foor (Jas. J.), Wilmer-gardens, Kingsland-road, Middlesex; and Morton-cottage, Bournemouth, Southampton, silk manufacturer. June 1; H. H. Poole, solicitor, 55, Bartholomew-close, E.C. - FROGGATT (Robert), Kelvin-villa, Westow-hill, Norwood, Surrey, gentleman. June 3; Whittington and Son, soli citors, 41, Wilson-street, Finsbury-square, E C. GOODWIN (Jane), Lyncombe, Thicket road, Upper-Norwood, Surrey. June 21; Merriman and Pike, solicitors, 25, Austinfriars, E.C. GREVILLE (Georgiana M.), Hillingdon, Middlesex. June 8; June 10; Cole and Co., solicitors, 38, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. HUTCHINGS (Naomi), Ebenezer House, Victoria Park-road, Middlesex, June 24; Turner and Son, solicitors, 78, Leadenhail-street, E.C. HUYSHE (Hannah), East Coker, Somerset, July 15; Nalder, solicitor, Shepton Mallet, Somerset. HYETT (Benjamin A.), Cheltenham, gentleman, June 15; Ticehurst and Son, solicitor, Essex-place, Cheltenham. JACOBS (Michael), Mansel-street, Swansea, Glamorgan, pawnbroker and shipowner, June 10: Fielder and Sumner, solicitors, 14, Godliman-street, Doctor's-commons, E.C. KABER (Elizabeth', 8, Westbury-terrace, Plymouth. July 1; Stricklands and Robinson, solicitors, 2, All Saint'scourt, Bristol. KENSINGTON (Rt. Hon. Wm. Lord) July 1; Tatham and Proctor, solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern. POOR REMOVAL-BREACH OF RESIDence.The pauper, an old woman of seventy, had lived twenty-eight years in the parish from which she was ordered to be removed; during the last four years she was at intervals in the workhouse, and had no other place of residence. Upon leaving the workhouse in 1870, she was for six weeks in domestic service in the parish; after which, finding herself too old for such service, she left, saying Horselydown. No, 6 Thornton--street, all freehold-sold that she wished at any rate first to have a holiday. for £165. No. 4, adjoining-sold for £120. No. 12-sold for £370. No. 14-sold for £365. Nos. 20 and 22-sold for £100 each. No. 21-sold for £150, She stayed six days out of the parish with a son and a friend, both of whom were too poor to continue to entertain her. She then returned to the workhouse of the parish, from which she was afterwards removed to her place of legal settlement. Manufacturing premises, with entrance from Powell's-yard Held, that this was not such a breach of residence -sold for £850. Nos 1 and 2, Powell's-yard-sold for £300. Business premises inrear of Thornton-street-sold for £500. Nos. 12, 13, and 14, Three Oak-lane-sold for £205 each. A ditto of £6-sold for £580. as to destroy the pauper's status of irremovability in the removing parish, although she had no place of residence in that parish to which she could return during her absence. Reg. v. Glossop Union (L. Rep. Q. B. 227) discussed and qualified: (Reg. v. St. Ives' Union, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 393. Q. B.) EVIDENCE CONFESSION INDUCEMENT. Two little boys were in custody on suspicion of obstructing a railway train, and the mothers and a policeman were also present. One of the boys' mothers said, "You had better, as good boys, tell the truth." Whereupon, both the boys confessed. Wood-lane.-A plot of freehold building land, containing Upon the trial, they were convicted upon evidence 2r. 25p.-sold for £550. Wood House, with stabling, &c., and 10a. 3r. 30p., leasehold -sold for £900. Wood-cottage, term fourteen years-sold for £210. Highbury-grove,-A ditto of £11 58.-sold for £350. Two ditto of £7 each-sold for £215 each. A ditto of £7-sold for £225. Two ditto of £6 108, each-sold for £215 each. By Messrs. ORGILL and SWANN, at the Mart. Middlesex, Northolt.-A plot of land, containing 4a. 1r. 30p. -sold for £190. Two plots of land containing 21a. 2r. 6p.-sold for £2000. Two cottages and plot of copyhold land-sold for £360. KERLEY (Robert), The Priory, Bournemouth, Hants. July By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. (Before the Recorder of Exeter, H. C. LOPES, 1; H. W. Dickinson, solicitor, Poole. LAW (Isabella), Weston-Super-Mare. June 15; Brooks and Co., solicitors, 7, Godliman-street, Doctor's-commons, E.C. MASON (Penelope M. G.), 55, Chichester-road, Kilburn, Middlesex, May 31; Holmer and Co., solicitors, 5, Philpotlane, Lombard-street, E.C. MEIRHOFF Otto), York-villa, Blyth-hill, Stansted-rond, Forest-hill, Kent, gentleman. June 21; Turner and Son, solicitors, 78, Leadenhall-street, E.C. MULLIENS Sarah), 411, Mile-end-road, Middlesex. June 24; PARKER Thos.), 10, Brunswick-square, Camberwell, Surrey. PROBYN (Thos.), Astrop, Northampton, licensed victualler. RENWICK (Wm.), 10, Wellington-road, Coldharbour-lane, Camberwell, Surrey, flour factor. June 21; C. Armstrong, solicitor, 33, Old Jewry, E.C. ROBERTS (Wm. R.), 114, Kensington-park-road, Surrey, gentleman. June 6; V. Louther, solicitor, 16, Ely-place, Holborn, E.C. ROBERTSON Major Gen. Charles D.), Pau, France. June 21; Wing and Du Cane, solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, W.C. RITCHIEL (Jos. H.), Cedar Bank, Hyde Vale, Greenwich, Kent, surveyor to Lloyd's Register of Shipping. June 1; Andrew and Atkins, solicitors, 8, George-yard, Lombardstreet, E.C. ROOKE (Charles), M.D., Falsgrave, Scarborough. Aug. 15; Moody and Co., solicitors, 45, St. Thomas-street, Scar borough. SAUNDERS Martha), Crooked Billet publichouse, Upper Clapton, Middlesex. July 1; Nash and Co., solicitors, 2, Suffolk-lane, E.C. SCOTT (Alexander J.), Esq., Park place, Cheltenham. July 31; C. Waddilove, solicitor, 6, Godliman-street, Doctors'commons, E.C. SEAGOE (Frances), 3, Park-place, Edmonton, Middlesex. June 1: W. T. Reeve, solicitor, 1, Lilypot-lane, Noblestreet, London." SEWARD (Henry), Ormond-villas, St. James-road, Surbiton, Works, Notts, elastic web manufacturer. July 1; H. N. Towle, solicitor, 17, Low-pavement, Notts. SLADE (Lieut.-General Marcus J., Elvington-house, Ryde, Isle of Wight. June 24; Wing and Du Cane, solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, W.C. SMITH (Jas.), Esq., Barkeley House, Seaforth, near Liverpool. June 22; Harvey and Alsop, solicitors, 12, Castlestreet, Liverpool. SMYTH (Geo.), Stevenage, Herts, gentleman. June 10; S. Veasey, solicitor, Baldock, Herts. SMYTH Wm.), Esq., Little Houghton, Northampton. July : Markby and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln'sinn, W.C. SWIFT (Richard), 6, Upper Montague-street, Russell-square, W.C., of Lowcliffe Chale, Isle of Wight, and 75, St. Johncitors, 4, King-street, Cheapside, E.C. THWAYTES (Major Henry), Denmark House, Sandown, Isle of Wight. Aug. 1; Norris and Sons, solicitors, 2, Bedford street, Smithfield, E.C. June 21; Tucker and Co., soli row, W.C. WARD (Geo.), Reeth, York, innkeeper. June 9; Jas. R. Tomlin, solicitor, Richmond, York. WARD (John), New Elvat, Durham, gentleman. June 13; J. G. Hargreaves, solicitor, 47, North Bailey, Durham. WARD (WI. L.), Great Marlow, Bucks, solicitor. June 28; J. McMillin, solicitor, 39, Bloomsbury-square, W.C. Surrey.-Godstone.-The freehold residential estate, known as Godstone-place, comprising 23 acres-sold for £3050. Feltham.-Nos. 9 and 10, Florence-villas,term 80 years-sold for £300 each. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, CLARK, and Co. Upper Teddington.-No. 2, Claremont-villas, freehold, sold for £800. No. 4, sold for £760. No. 5, sold for £750. Wednesday, May 15. By Messrs. CHINNOCK, GALSWORTHY, and CHINNOCK, at .he By Messrs. EDWIN FOX and BOUSFIELD. Kent, near Orpington-Freehold residence, The Rookery, and 30 acres-sold for £9300. Bexley-Parkhurst, with pleasure grounds and 7a. Or. 5p., freehold-sold for £5700. A freehold plot of land adjoining, containing 23a, 3r. 23p.sold for £5600. Acton, High-street-A freehold house with shop-sold for £730. A ditto adjoining-sold for £430. A freehold ground rent of £23 per annum-sold for £350. Hammersmith, Stamford-brook-Ground rents of £15 per annum, term 63 years-sold for £560. Albion-gardens, a ditto of £17 per annum, term 73 years-sold for £285. MAGISTRATES' LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. HIGHWAY-OWNERSHIP AD MEDIUM FILUM VIE-In opposition to the claim of the owners of houses abutting upon an ancient street in a town that they were entitled to the soil of the street ad medium filum viæ, evidence was adduced, that the lords of the manor used formerly to receive tolls in respect of markets held in the street, which tolls they subsequently sold to the corporation of the town; that in 1694 they had, in consideration of a yearly rent of £3, granted a licence to certain persons to dig up any streets of the town in order to lay pipes for the purpose of supplying the town with water, which rent of £3 was paid to them down to 1858, when it was bought up by the corporation for £75; and that payments had on several occasions been made to the lords of the manor by owners of houses abutting on the street in question in respect of encroachment made upon the soil of the street: Held (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that the evidence of ownership in the lords of the manor was sufficient to rebut the presumption of law, that the owners of the lands abutting upon the street were entitled to the soil of the street ad medium filum vice, and that consequently the lords of the manor had shown a good title to the soil in question: (Beckett v. The Corporation of Leeds, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 375. L. JJ.) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.-Purchase of a gold chain for the mayor out of the borough fund is illegal: (Attorney-General v. The Mayor &c., of Batley, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 392. V.C. W.) Esq., Q.C., M.P., at the Guildhall, Exeter). Removal of a pauper-Derivative settlement- Queen's Bench, that the order must be quashed. THIS was an appeal to the quarter sessions for the city and county of the city of Exeter by the Guardians of the Poor of the Strand Union, against an order of removal by two Exeter justices of a pauper named Isaac John Lee from the Exeter Union to the Strand Union. and The order of removal was in the usual form, the important part being the last recital, whereas we the said justices, upon due proof thereof upon oath as well by the examination of Elizabeth Stroud as otherwise, and upon due consideration of the premises, do adjudge the same to be true, and that the place of the last legal settlement of the said I. J. Lee is in the parish of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields, within the Poor Law Union of the Strand, in the county of Middlesex. These are, therefore, in Her Majesty's name to require and order you," &c. corder and admitted by the counsel for the parties, The facts, proved by evidence before the Rewere afterwards embodied in a special case, of which the following part is material: The said pauper, I. J. Lee, is the orphan son of Isaac John and Elizabeth Lee, deceased, and was born on the 22nd July the parish of St. Martin-in-the-riel` appellants' union, where he cont |