R. Swan for the defendant.
Roxburgh, Q.C., and F. J. Wood for University
College Hospital.

Graham Hastings for St. Mary's Hospital and
King's College Hospital.
Fischer, Q.C. and Goren, for the Charing Cross
Hospital.

Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C. and Bagshawe, for St.
George's Hospital.

Wm. Pearson for the Westminster Hospital.
Fry, Q.C. and Chitty, for the Middlesex
Hospital.

Lord ROMILY held that the legacies to inindividuals were to be paid out of the impure personality, and the four legacies of £500 each, to charitable institutions, out of the pure personalty, and directed that the residue of the impure personalty (about £5000) should be divided between Hospital, and each of them to receive out of the the St. George's Hospital and the Westminster pure personalty (about £10,000) such a sum as would make up one sixth of the whole pure and impure personalty, and the residue of the pure personalty to be divided between the other four hospitals. The real estate to be conveyed to the Middlesex Hospital. Costs to be apportioned between the real and personal estate and the portion attributable to the personal estate to be paid out of the impure personalty. Solicitors: Pattison, Wigg, and Co.; Cookson, Wainewright, and Pennington; Gadsden and Treherne.

Blackburn, J., when the facts appeared to be as
follows, viz.: The plaintiff occupied a corner house
in a street on a large estate whereof the defendant

was surveyor. A rumour reaching the ears of the
landlord as to the character of another house in
the same street, he wrote to the defendant, as his
surveyor, to make inquiries about it. The latter
went to the neghbourhood and inquired accord.
dence, stating in effect that it was disorderly, and
ingly, but a person whom he questioned about the
corner house directed him to the plaintiff's resi
the one to be looked to. The defendant said that
must be a mistake, for he had known the defen.
dant for many years to be respectable. Neverthe
less, he, being misled by further incorrect state-
this action. The defence was that in making his
ments, openly pursued inquiries respecting the
house of the plaintiff, who in consequence brought
house, the defendant was acting bona fide, and in
investigation as to the character of the plaintiff's
discharge of his duty as surveyor of the property.
The learned judge directed the jury that an
tions of the landlord, would be privileged, but
inquiry bona fide made in pursuance of the instruc-
that if the defendant disbelieved the information
received in the neighbourhood, and yet pursued his
inquiry as to the plaintiff's house, he went beyond
the scope of his duty. Verdict for the plaintiff';
A rule having been obtained for a
damages £25.
new trial on the ground of misdirection.
Pope, QC. and Gates showed cause.
Channell (with him Huddleston, Q.C.), supported
the rule.

the shares of each of them as are married women disposal, and be free from the debts, control, or shall be for their own sole and separate use and interference of their respective husbands." The Charlotte, the wife of the wife of the Rev. S. B. Browne, predeceased the testator, and died in Sept. 1870. In March 1872, her husband filed this bill, praying for a declaration, as to the rights and interests of the The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, several parties in the one seventh part of the and Lush, JJ.), held that the whole inquiry bond residuary estate, which was primarily intended for relief. The cause came on to be heard on a general that he would have failed in his duty as surveyor the said Charlotte Browne, and for consequential fide made by the defendant was privileged, for demurrer for want of equity by the first two de- if, after hearing an ill report of the plaintiff's fendants, the sole next of kin and the heir-at-house, he had abstained from seeking further information on the subject, and that therefore a nonsuit should have been directed.

J. Morgan Howard, for the defendant, argued
that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority,
Mathew) for the defendant.
Sir George Honyman, QC. (with him J. C. for that as William Burton had become a party to

The COURT (Kelly, C.B., Bramwell and Channell, BB.) were of opinion that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority, for that William New trial-Cause sent down for trial before a Burton, having become a party to the reference, County Court-Motion for a rule nisi for a new which was of the cause and all matters in diffetrial-Notes of the County Court judge-Non-rence between the parties, and the matter in production of.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

Feb. 8 and May 13.

ERRORS, &C., FROM THE EXCHEQUER.

Landord's property tax-Rent FRAMPTON AND OTHERS v. BROWN AND OTHERS. THIS was an action to recover £45 2s. 6d., balance of rent alleged to be due under the following circumstances. The declaration charged that by a certain indenture of lease, dated 25th March 1813, one John Dekewer demised to one Richard Stephens, the premises therein described for a term of 94 years from the 25th March 1816, and that the said R. Stephens, the lessee, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators (among other things) covenanted with the said J. Dekewer,

in case

first six being for the various injuries complained
of in respect of the plaintiff's ownership of the
freehold, and the remaining five counts being for
the like injuries to the plaintiff's reversion, a part
of the property being in the possession of a tenant.
The defendant pleaded various pleas of, not guilty,
traversing the plaintiff's possession, leave and
license, and acquiescence on the plaintiff's part in
what the defendant had done on which issues
were joined. The plaintiff and defendant were the
owners respectively of a row of cottages between
which was a passage four or five feet wide, which
was arched and built over, and which belonged to
the plaintiff, but through which the defendant had a
right of way. The defendant had pulled down one of
his cottages, and in rebuilding it he had encroached
slightly on the passage, and so had diminished its
width; had removed soil belonging to the plaintiff, the lessor, his heirs and assigns, that the
had obstructed the plaintiff's light, by building said lessee, his executors, administrators, and
his new cottage higher than the old one, and had assigns, would pay to the said lessor, his heirs
committed other grievances alleged in the declara-
or assigns, during the said term, the yearly
tion. The value in fee of the land of the plaintiff rent of £110, by equal quarterly payments on the
encroached upon by the defendant, and which was
four most usual quarter days, without any deduc-
about some 12ft. square only, amounted, according tion or abatement whatsoever, except the land-
to evidence given at the trial, to 7s. 3d., at twenty-lord's property-tax on the said yearly rent;
five years' purchase at 2d. per yard of annual chief and the said lessor for himself, his heirs,
rent. At the trial, before Lush, J., at the last executors, administrators and assigns, among
spring assizes of the Salford Hundred at Man- other things covenanted with the said lessee,
chester, the learned judge, in summing up, directed his executors, administrators and assigns, that,
the jury that, on the evidence, they must find for
the property tax, payable upon the
the plaintiff upon the counts for encroachment said demised premises, should at any time or
upon, and for removing soil and other matters times, after the making of the said deed, and
from, the plaintiff's land and passage; and he left during the continuance of the said term, be re-
the following questions to them: First, was the moved, or taken off, or become extinct, by any Act of
plaintiff's light substantially obstructed by the Parliament, or other lawful authority, then, and in
defendant's building? secondly, was the plaintiff's such case, and from thenceforth, the said yearly
cottage damaged by the additional weight proved rent of £110 by the said deed reserved to the said
to have been put on it by the defendant's new
lessor, his heirs or assigns, should, thenceforth
building being higher than the old? and and so long as the said property tax should be so
he said he doubted whether in fact there removed, taken off, or become extinct, be reduced
could be any such obstruction according to
to the net rent of £100 per annum clear of all
the course of the sun and the position of the deductions or payments by authority of Parlia-
building, but he left it to the jury. He also told
ment or otherwise howsoever." Averments, that
them that a question of right was involved in the plaintiffs afterwards became possessed of the
the alleged obstruction, and that, in assessing demised premises, as assigns of the said lessor,
damages, as none had been proved up to the time and the defendants, in the year 1865, became pos-
of action commenced, they could not take into lessee, and whilst they were so possessed of the
sessed of the said term as assignees of the said
consideration any damage sustained by the plain-
tiff since that time. A general verdict was given said term, the property tax payable for the said
by the jury for the plaintiff on all the questions demised premises, was not removed nor taken off
put to them, with 40s. damages. The learned
nor did it become extinct by authority of Parlia-
judge declined to certify for costs. A rule was
ment or other lawful authority, whereby the de-
afterwards obtained calling on the defendant to fendants, during the whole time they were so
show cause why the plaintiff should not be allowed possessed, became and were liable to pay to the
his costs of suit under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 5, plaintiffs, as assignees of the said lessor, the said
and why the master should not tax the same, and reserved rent of £110, yet they did not well and
why the defendant should not also pay the costs truly pay the same rent, but only a part thereof, to
of this rule. The section in question enacts that
the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that after
"if in any action in any of Her Majesty's Superior the making of the said deed, and during the said
Courts of Record the plaintiff shall recover a
term, and before the defendants became such
sum not exceeding £20, if the action is founded assignees, as in the declaration mentioned, the land-
on contract, or £10 if founded on tort, he shall lord's property tax in the said deed mentioned, was
not be entitled to any costs of suit, unless the removed and taken off and became extinct by Act
judge shall certify on the record that there was
of Parliament, or other lawful authority, within
sufficient cause for bringing such action in such
the intent and meaning of the said deed,
and has never
Superior Court, or unless the court or a judge at
since been reimposed, and
chambers shall by rule or order allow such costs."
that since their possession of the said term, as
assignees, as in the declaration mentioned, they
J. Edwards, for the defendant, showed cause,
have duly paid to plaintiff as assignees of the
and contended that, the judge having refused to lessor the yearly rent of £100, clear of all deduc-
certify, the court ought not to, and would not, in- tions within the meaning of the deed, and have
terfere in such a case, where the whole value of made all such quarterly payments as have, to the
the right involved was of so trifling an amount, commencement of action, become due and payable
and 40s. only had been given by the jury for het under the terms of the said deed, and have made
whole damage the plaintiff had suffered.
no default therein. Cross demurrers to the declara-
Kay, Q.C., for the defendant, contra, in support, tion, and to the plea respectively, and joinder in
contended that the amount of damages here demurrers. The ground of the demurrer to the
was immaterial on the question of costs, as declaration was that it was consistent with the
the judge had directed the jury they could not facts stated, that the landlord's property-tax had
give damages subsequent to action brought. been removed by Act of Parliament, or other law-
The case involved questions of right of consider- ful authority, before the defendants became
able intricacy, and could not have been satisfac-possessed of the term. The grounds of demurrer
torily disposed of in the County Court. Hinde v. to the plea were that the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 33 reim-
Sheppard and others (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 200; posed the tax in the plea mentioned, and that the
L. Rep. 7 Ex. 21) is an authority that the court allegation of payment of a yearly rent of £100 was
will in such a case interfere.
no satisfaction of a claim for a yearly rent of £110.
The Court of Exchequer, in Trinity Term 1871,
after argument, held that the declaration was
good and the plea bad, and gave judgment for the
plaintiffs, whereupon the defendants brought
error to this court, and now

The COURT were divided in opinion. Martin, B., thought the court had no power to interfere on appeal with the decision of the judge at the trial. Channell, B., was of opinion that, though there was no appeal from the judge, there might be an independent application to the court on different materials; and Bramwell, B. thought the court might, if they saw cause to do so, allow costs, which the judge had refused; but all three of the learned barons were of opinion that the plaintiff's rule should be discharged. Kelly, C.B., however, differed, and thought that Hinde v. Sheppard was a distinct authority in favour of the plaintiff's contention, and that, the present being an action peculiarly fit to be tried in the Superior Court, the certificate ought to have been granted, and the rule ought to be made absolute.

Rule discharged. Attorney for the plaintiff, T. Horrex, Gray'sinn, W.C., agent for H. T. Edwards, Manchester. Attorneys for the defendant, Clarke, Woodcock, and Ryland, 14, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C., agents for F. A. and J. Grundy and Co., Manchester.

Feb. 8.-Garth, Q.C. (with him was Finlay), for the defendants, argued that the property tax mentioned in the lease was the particular tax existing at that date, which was imposed by the 46 Geo. 3, c. 65, and was removed by Act of Parliament and became extinct before the possession of the term by the defendants. The covenant referred only to the tax then in force, and not to any one to be from time to time afterwards imposed, and the case of Colbron v. Travers (6 L. T. Rep. N. S. 281; 31 L. J. 257, C. P.; 12 C. B., N. S., 181), even if it were well decided, was no authority for the present plaintiffs.

This being the last day of the sittings in error after Hilary Term, the court said they would consider, before the next sitting of the court, whether they would call upon J. D. Bell (with him was M. Chambers, Q.C.), for the plaintiff.

May 13.-LUSH, J. now delivered the judgment of the Court (Willes, Mellor, Lush, Grove, and Brett, JJ.), without hearing the plaintiff's counsel, unanimously upholding and affirming the decision of the court below, and holding the lessor to be entitled to the payment of the higher rent of £110 per annum. Judgment affirmed. Attorney for the plaintiffs (defendants in error), W. J. Scott, 92 and 93, Fleet-street, E.C. Attorneys for the defendants, Bridger and Collins, 37, King William-street, London-bridge,

E.C.

ERRORS FROM COMMON PLEAS.

Dec. 1, 1871, and Feb. 9 and May 23, 1872.
AND ANOTHER V. HODGSON AND
HOLLAND
ANOTHER.

Trade fixtures - Mortgagor and mortgagee
Machinery attached to premises.
TROVER for looms by mortgagees against the
assignees of George Mason, a bankrupt, the mort-
gagor. Geo. Mason, in 1869, carried on the busi-
ness of a worsted spinner. By a mortgage dated
in that year, he conveyed to plaintiffs in fee the
said mill, in which he carried on his business,
with several closes of land, cottages, and other
hereditaments described as "all that mill lately
occupied by, &c., in parish and county, &c., with the
warehouse, counting-house, engine-house, &c., be-
longing, adjoining, or near thereto, and also the
steam-engine, shafting, going-gear, machinery,
and all other fixtures whatever which now or
at any time hereafter during the continuance of
this security shall be set up and affixed to the
said hereditaments and premises hereby granted
and assumed or intended so to be, or any part
thereof." The deed was not registered under
Bills of Sale Act. The defendants subsequently,
on the said George Mason becoming bankrupt,
were chosen as his assignees, and as such took
possession of and sold the looms on the premises,
and it was in respect of this conversion that this
action was brought. The looms were placed in va
rious rooms in the factory. They were driven by
and going gear, from drums on which the required
steam power, which gave motion to the shafting
communication was given to the looms by means
of leathern bands, which could be applied to, and
disconnected from the looms at pleasure. Each
loom stood on four feet, each foot being a flat
piece of iron with a hole drilled in it. It is
essential to the proper working of a loom that it
should stand on a level, and be steady and keep
its true direction perpendicular to the line of
shafting. If it merely rested on its own weight
on the floor, it would be liable in working to be
shaken and drawn backwards and forwards. In
order, therefore, to keep the looms steady, holes
were drilled in the stone floor in the places
where two of the four feet of each loom at
opposite corners would stand. Into each of these
holes was driven a plug of wood so as to fill it up
completely and make a tight fit. Then the loom
was placed in position and brought to a proper
level by thin pieces of wood packed under the
feet, and then a nail about four inches long, in
some cases with a flat head and in others with
hole in the foot of the loom into the wooden plug.
a square bolted head, was driven through the
After the nails had been driven in, the looms
could not be moved without drawing the nails.
But this could easily be done without any serious
injury to the floors. It was not necessary for the
purpose of keeping the looms in their proper
position for working that the nails so driven into
the plugs should have heads.
Spikes without
heads would equally have answered the purpose,
and if such spikes had been used, the looms could
have been lifted up and removed and put back
again without disturbing the spikes. The mort-
gage deed not having been registered under the
Bill of Sales Act, it was contended for the plain-
tiffs that the looms passed to the plaintiffs as
part of the realty. Plaintiffs had a verdict at the
trial for the value of the looms. Defendants,
pursuant to leave reserved, obtained a rule nisi to
enter the verdict for them; but, on cause being
shown, it was admitted on behalf of the defen-
dants that Longbottom v. Berry (22 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 385; L. Rep. 5 Q. B. 123) was an authority
directly against them, and could not be distin-
guished. The rule was accordingly discharged,
and defendants now brought error, with a view
to impeaching the correctness of the decision in
that case, and to establishing that the looms,
being easily removable, and being thus slightly
affixed to the floor, solely for the purpose of
rendering them steady and keeping them in their
place, did not become part of the realty.

Dec. 1 and Feb. 9.-Field, Q.C. (Kemplay, Q.C. with him), for the defendants, contended accordingly.

Cave for the plaintiffs.

Cur, adv. vult.

May 23.-BLACKBURN, J., delivered the judg ment of the court (Kelly, C.B., Blackburn, Mellor, and Hannen, JJ., Channell and Cleasby, BB.)

firming the decision of the court below, and
ciding that the looms passed with the freehold.
Judgment affirmed.

Attorneys for plaintiffs, Jacobs and North.
Attorneys for defendants, W. and J. Flower and

ussey.

Feb 10, and May 23. OCKLE v. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. egligence Railway company — Invitation to alight-Train brought to final standstill. HIS was an action for damages for injuries susined by the plaintiff through the negligence of e defendants. The plaintiff was a passenger to eptford, and was travelling in the last carriage f the train. On arriving at Deptford station the ain was stopped short of the usual place, and e carriage in which the plaintiff sat was drawn about four feet from the edge of the platrm, which there receded from the ine of .ils. There was no express invitation given the passengers to alight, nor was any arning given to them. It was dark, and the mps on the platform near the place where the laintiff's carriage was stopped were not lighted. he plaintiff attempted to alight, and in so doing 11 between the carriage and the platform and istained the injuries for which she brought her tion. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff ith £150 damages, subject to leave reserved to iter a nonsuit if the court should be of opnion at there was no evidence of negligence to go to e jury. In the court below (Common Pleas) the idges were equally divided, and the rule was disharged (22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 513; L. Rep. 5 C. P. 57). This appeal was then brought to the Exhequer Chamber.

consideration of the complaints in order to con-
sult his colleague, Mr. Chance, and allow of Mayo
producing witnesses against the charges, which
he positively denied.

The case was again brought under Mr. Ellison's
notice on this afternoon, when Mayo said the
witness he wished to have present could not be
obtained.

CHORLEY (Henry F.), Esq., 13. Eaton-place, West. Middle-
sex. June 13; Gregory and Co., solicitors, 1, Bedford-row,
W.C.

CLARK (James), 55, Queen-street, Milton, next Gravesend,
Kent, gentleman. June 26; J. Armstrong, 21, Harmer-
street, Gravesend.
COZENS (Elizabeth), 8, Bloomfield-terrace, Pimlico, Middle-
Bex June 30; Parke and Pollock, solicitors, 63, Lincoln's-
inn-fields, W.C.

DARBYSHIRE (Ralph), Esq., 12, Queen Elizabeth-row, Green-
wich, Kent. July 26; Lawrie and Co., solicitors, 2, Dean's-
court, Doctor's-common-, E.C.
DAVIS (Jas.), Bristol, gentleman. July 1; Fry and Otter,
solicitors, Shannon-court, Bristol.

Dow (Jonathan D.), 9, Pembridge-villas, Bayswater,
Middlesex. June 10; J. T. Simpson, solicitor, 62, Moor-
gate-street, E.C.

DUNCAFT (Jas.), Longsight, Lancaster. July 1; Kay and
Son, solicitors, 8, Church-lane, Oldham.
ELLIOTT (John E.), 99, Queen's road, Brighton, timber mer-
chant. July 1; H. Verrall, solicitor, 4, New-road,
Brighton.
FLAXMAN (Ellen), 18A, Albert-terrace, Knightsbridge,
Middlesex. July 15: Lewis and Watson, solicitors, 89,
Gracechurch street, E.C.

Mr. ELLISON said he had fully considered the whole of the facts, and the remarks made by Mr. Mayo in answer thereto. He had consulted Mr. Chance, his colleague, and they both agreed as to the matter. He was obliged to say the opinion formed by Mr. Chance and himself was that the complaints made had been proved, and it only remained to do all in their power to prevent such practices, and to express at the same time, in the strongest possible terms, their abhorrence of such dirty and disreputable practices as those complained of. There was a body, the Law Society, that could go much further than he could, but as far as he and his colleague were concerned they had determined that all steps to prevent such disgraceful practices FREELAND John), 21, Cambridge Gardens, Notting-hill, and should be taken. He had no need to charge the officers of the court to carry out this, for they had already been fully instructed how to act, and to give immediate information to himself or Mr. Chance. He should not now say more, but only repeat his strong condemnation of the practices brought under his notice.

Mayo said he still denied the truth of the statements made, and was proceeding to remark upon them, as upon the last occasion, when

Mr. ELLISON said he had fully listened to the explanation of Mr. Mayo on the last occasion, and that had been duly taken into consideration before the decision had been come to by himself and Mr. Chance. He must decline to hear anything further from Mr. Mayo on the subject.

Gibbons and Macrae Moir were for the plaintiff.
O'Malley, Q.C. and F. M. White for the
efendants. They cited Siner v. Great Western
ailway Company (20 L. T. Rep. N.S. 114; L. Rep.
- Ex. 117); Bridges v. North London Railway UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE
ompany (21 L. T. Rep. N.S. 835; L. Rep. 6 Q.B.
77).

The COURT (Cockburn C.J., Blackburn and fellor, JJ., Pigott and Cleasby, BB.), in a condered judgment, affirmed the decision of the ourt below on the ground that where a train is rought to a final standstill under circumstances hich warrant the passenger in the belief that he 3 intended to alight, and therefore can do so ith safety, without any warning of his danger, is is negligence for which an action is aintainable, if there be no contributory negli ence on the part of the passenger. Their Lordhips based their judgment on the principles laid own by the court in Proeger v. The Bristol and xeter Railway Company, to which they alluded s follows:-" The case to which we refer, Praeger . The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company, hough an important one, has not found its way nto the regular reports. It is, however, to be ound in 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 105, where it is very ully and ably reported." Their Lordships proeeded, "As the case in question has not been generally reported, it may be desirable to repeat he judgments pronounced on the occasion in quesion." They then cited the judgment at length rom the report. Judgment for the plaintiff. Attorney for plaintiff, W. H. Smith, for Fry and Otter, Bristol.

Attorney for defendant, E. P. Cearns.

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL,

LAMBETH POLICE COURT.
Saturday, May 25.

(Before Mr. ELLISON.)
Touting attorneys-Charges proved.
As noticed by us last week, several complaints
were heard before Mr. Ellison of a system of
touting alleged to have been carried on at this
court.

Evidence was given by a man named Hardcastle, who stated that Mr. Mayo, a solicitor, had offered his professional aid to defend him, when he was charged with assaulting his wife. The solicitor, upon being told by the complainant that he had no money, said he would accept an I. O. U. upon his goods and chattels. On the day the complainant was in custody he told Mayo he did not want his services, upon which the latter said he had made out his brief and should expect something for what he had done.

Another man, named Adams, gave evidence as to Mayo tendering his professional aid; and Mr. Ody, a solicitor, related a circumstance in which Mayo took a fee in a case in which he himself had been engaged, the party in the case stating that Mayo had told her Mr. Ody was not coming to the court. Mayo was afterwards sued in the Lambeth County Court for the amount, which he ordered to pay, in addition to costs.

was

Upon the hearing of these matters before Mr. Ellison, Mayo denied the greater portion, and said whatever cases he had he was asked to attend to.

Mr. ELLISON decided to adjourn the further

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.]

BURN (Mary Ann), Upper Tulse-hill, Brixton, spinster, £100
New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Eardley
Nicholas Hall, pursuant to an order of Lord Justice
James, dated April 18, 1872, in the matter of Mary Ann
Burn, spinster, a person of unsound mind.
CULVERHOUSE (Sarah Anne), spinster, CULVERHOUSE
(Emma), spinster, and CULVERHOUSE (Wm.), Esq., all
of Osborne-place, Osborne-street, Whitechapel, 200 Three
per Cent. Annuities. Claimants, the said Sarah Anne
Culvernouse and Emma Culverhouse, spinsters, the sur-
vivors.

DRUCE (Chas.) Esq., Denmark-hill, CANNAN (Herbert
Harris, Basinghall-strees, official assignee, and FULLER
(Thos.), of H.M.'s 18th Hussars, one dividend on the sum
of £2000 Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Chas.
Drace.

JACKSON (Lient. Col. Basil), Croydon, Surrey, HENDLEY
(Matchian Christopher, Monnt Rivers, Fornby, Ireland,
and HOLT (Vesey Weston, Esq., Pall-mall, Westminster,
one dividend on the sum of £2725 128. New Three per Cent.
Annuities. Claimant, said Vesey Weston Holt.
KITTON (Geo. Rodwell, East Barsham, near Fakenham,
Norfolk, farmer, £97 78. 2d. Three pcr Cent. Annuities.
Claimant. Elizabeth Kitton, spinster, administratrix of
Geo. Rodwell Kitton, deceased."

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK
WINDING-UP ACTS.

TOWNS DRAINAGE AND SEWAGE UTILIZATION COMPANY.

Creditors to send in by June 28 their names and addresses
and the particulars of their claims, and the names and
addresses of their solicitors, if any, to T. Kennedy, 11,
Old Jewry Chambers, E.C., the official liquidator of the
said company. July 15. at eleven o'clock, as the chambers
of the Master of the Rolls, is the time appointed for hear-
ing and adjudicating upon such claims.
WEST WORTHING INVESTMENT SOCIETY Limited). Creditors
to send in by June 15 their names and addresses, and the
particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of
their soliciters, if any, to Battock and Eley, 5, Westminster
Chambers, Victoria-street, Westminster, the liquidators of
the said company.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.

GRAY (Benjamin), jun., 36, Argyll-road, Kensington, Mid-
dlesex, gentleman. July 1 Robinson and Preston,
solicitors, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. July 15; V.C. W.,
at 12 o'clock.

PRANCE (Jas. V.), 69, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W. C., gentleman,
July 1; J. Chapple, solicitors, 25, Carter-lane, E.C. July
10; V.C, W. at twelve o'clock.

TOMLINSON (Wm. B., 97, Talbot-road, Bayswater, gentle-
man. Jure 5; W. W. Cɔmins, solicitor, 84, Great Port-
land-street, Middlesex. June 19; V.C. W. at twelve
o'clock.
WEBB (Jas.), Queen's-road, Norwich, builder. July 1;
Abel Tillet, solicitor, Norwich. July 15; V.C. W. at
twelve o'clock.

WILLIAMS (John), Beaumaris, An leser. June 8; Park
Nelson, solicitor, 11, Essex-street, Strand, W.C. June 15;
V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

WILSON (Jos.), Church-row, Bethnal-green, Middlesex,
chenille manufacturer. June 21; F. T. Donne, solicitor,
1. Prince's-street, Spitalfields, Middlesex. July 4; V.C. M.,
at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT c. 35.
Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent.
ACKERS (Geo. H.), Esq., 15, Hyde-park-terrace, Middlesex,
and Moreton-hall, Chester. July 1; Milne and Co., solici
tors, 2, Harcourt-buildings, Temple, E.C.
BAAT HAM (Robert). Bridge House, Battersea, Surrey,
Aug. 1; Reed and Lovell, solicitors, 1, Guildhall Chambers.
31, Basinghall-street, E.C.
BARNARD Henry), 210, Brixton-road, Surrey, and 2, Crown-
court, Threadneedle-street, E.C, stock broker, July 15;
Champion add Co., solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-lane, Cheap-
side, E C.

BRENT (Robert), Esq., M.D., Sydney-cottage, Woodbury,
Devon, June 1; Coode and Co., solicitors, 7, B dford-row,
W.C.

CAVE Thos), 19, Bagle-street, Southampton, gentleman.
July 1: Hicknian and Son, solicitors, 7, Albion-place,
Southampton.

FORD (Henry B., 33, Park-street, Bath. July 1; Francis
and Bosanquet, solicitors, 22, Austin-friars, E.C.
FRAMPTON (George), Poole, Dorset, m rchant and ship-
owner. July 1: H. W. Dickinson, solicitor, Poole.
FRANCIS (Wm.), Horsham. Sussex, farmer. June 24;
Medwin and Co., Carfax, Horsham.

1, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex, solicitor. Aug. 24; T. Bowker, solicitor, 1, Gray's-inn-square. GREVILLE (Georgiana M.), Hi lingdon, Middlesex. June 8; M. and F. Davidson, solicitors, 35, Spring Gardens, S.W. HIBBARD (Chas.', Little Coxwell, Berks, gentleman. July 1; Geo. F. Crowdy, solicitor, Faringdon, Berks. HINRICHSEN (Elizabeth), 16, Highbury New-park, Islington, Middlesex. July 6; Morris and Co., solicitors, 5, Finsburycircus, E.C.

man.

HONYWOOD (Robert), Esq., 9, Waterloo-place, Middlesex.
June 7; Stevens and Bawtree, solicitors, Witham, Essex.
HUGHES (John), Greenfields, Llanelly, Carmarthen, ballast.
July 31; W. Howell, solicitor, 14, Park.street,
Llanelly.
HYETT (Benjamin A.). Cheltenham, gentleman. June 15;
Ticehurst and Son, solicitors Essex-place, Cheltenham.
INCHIQUIN (Rt. Hon, Lucius Baron, Dromoland, Clare.
Aug. 1; J. Maunsell, solicitor. 18, Stephen's - green,
North, Dublin.
JEFFRIES (Emilie H.), Limes, Spring-grove, Isleworth, Mid-
dle ex, gentlemen. June 30; Spyer and Son, solicitors, 1,
Winchester-house, 53A, Old Broad-stseet, E.C.

JONES (George), Ivy-cottage, Oscott, near Birmingham,
ironfounder. July 6; D. Dimbleby, solicitor, 15, Bennett's-
hill, Birmingham.

KENSINGTON (Right Hon. Wm. Lord). July 1; Tatham and Proctor, solicitors, 36, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. KNIGHT (Isabella J.), 17, Piazzi Patti, Florence, Italy. June 30: Currie and Williams, solicitors, 32, Lincoln's-innfields, W.C.

LOE (Geo.), Portsmouth and Wait Land, End Farm, Waterloo, Southampton, coachbuilder and farmer. July 1; Hellard and Son, solicitors, 182, High-street, Portsmonth. MAWLEY (Robert T.), Esq., Richmond, Surrey. June 29; Wilkins and Co., solicitors, 10, St. Swithin's-lane, E.C. MOORE Thos.), Colchester, Essex, wholesale grocer. Sept. 6; J. S. Barnes, Colchester.

MURLEY (Mary A.), 149, Bishopsgate-street Without, E.C., and Guildersfield, Streatham, Surrey. July 20; S. Heath, solicitor, 10, Basinghall-street, E.C.

MURLEY (Silvester), 149, Bishopsgate-street Without, E.C., and Guildersfield, Streatham, Surrey. July 20; S. Heath, 10, Basinghali-street, E,C.

NAILARD (Wm.), Horsebridge-common, Steyning, Sussex, veterinary surgeon. June 24; Medwin and Co., solicitors, Carfax, Horsham.

NEWTON (Nelson N.), Esq., Montague House, Brook-green,
Hammersmith, Middlesex. July 1; T. D. Bolton, solicitor,
4, Elm-court, Temple, E.C.

PAIN (Thos.), Southweald, Essex, horsedealer. June 29; C.
C. Lewis and son, solicitors, 5, Mark-lane, E.C.
PAINTER Chas.) John-street, Lorrimore-road, Kennington,
Surrey, cowkeeper and dairyman. July 15; Champion and
Co., solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapside, E.C.
RAMSEY (William), Teddington, Middlesex, and Bermond-
sey, Surrey, gentleman. July 1; Bridger and Collins,
solicitors, 37, King William-street, London-bridge, E.C.
RAYMOND Jas.), Esq., Hildersham Ha 1, Cambridge. July
15; J. T. Collin, solicitor, Saffron Walden.
RICKET (Wm., 5, Albert-villas, Clifton-road, South Nor-
wood, Sarrey, and 183, Mde-end-road, Middlesex, grocer.
June 13; T. W. Rogers, solicitor, 7, Fenchurch-street.
E.C.

ROBERTSON Major-Gen. Chas. D.), Pau, France. June 24;
Wing and Du Cane, solicitors, 1, Gray's-inn-square, W.C.
RYMILL (Lonisa), Milbourne Lodge, Upper Riclimond-road,
Putney, Surrey. July 1; Walker and Co., solicitors, 5,
Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, W.C.

SCOTT Catharine), 31, South Front, Branding-place, New-
castle-upon-Tyne. July 1; J. B. Falconar, solicitor, 75,
Clayton-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

SHAW (WI.), Alpha-terrace, Nottingham, and Hyson-green
Works, Nottingham, elastic web manufacturer. July 1;
H. N. Towle, solicitor, 17, Low Pavement, Nottingham,
SHOOLBRED (Alfred), Esq., Tottenham-esirt-road, Middle-
sex, of Surbiton, Surrey, and Warnh m, Sussex. July
$1; J. Mackrell and Co., solicitors, 21, Cannon-street,
E.C.
SLADE (Lieut-General Marcus J.), Elvington-house, Ryde,
Isle of Wight. June 21: Wing and Du Cane, solicitors,

1, Gray's-in-square, W.C.
SLOPER (William). Market Lavington, Wilts, gentleman.
July 1 N. Bennett, solicitor, 4, Furnival's-inn, Hol-
born, W.C.

SMITH William), Bushey, Hertford, surveyor. June 26;
John Basley, Chapel-house, Bushey, Herts.

SMYTH WM., Esq., Little Houghton, Northampton. July
8: Markby and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square, Lincoln's-
inn, W C.

SWIFT (Richard), Esq., 6, Upper Monta me-street, Russell-
square, Middlesex, and Lowcliffe, Chale, Isle of Wight,
and 75, St. John-strect, Smithfield, E.C. June 21; Tucker
and Co., solicitors, 4, King-street, Cheapside, E.C.
THWAYTES Major Henry), Denmark House, Sanlown, Isle
of Wight, Aug. 1; Norris and Sons, solicitors, 2, Bedford-
rew, W.C.

TINNEY (W. H., Esq., Q.C., Snowdenham, Torquay, and
31. Mortagne-place, Middlesex, Auz. 21; Young and Co.,
solicitors, Essex street, Strand, W.C.
TOOTH Edwin F.), Tunbridge Wells, Sussex. June 22; J.
Wheeler, sclicitor, 4, Victoria-stret. Wtminster.
TRETHEWY (Henry), Grampoand, Cornwall, gentleman.
July 1; J. G. Chicott, solicitor, Truro.
(David).
VALENTINE
1, Park-street, Victoria park-road,
South Hackney, Middlesex, drysalter. July 1; W. L.
Jones, solicitor, 19, Spital-square, E.
VANSITTART (Lieut-Colonel Robert), Chuffs, near Maiden-
head. July 24; Markby and Co., solicitors, 9, New-square,
Lincoln's-inn, W.C.

WEBSTER (George), Esq., 73. Upper Gloucester-place,
Dorset-square, Middlesex. July 1; B. F. Watson, solicito.
1. Lincoln's-inn-fields, W,C.

WYNDHAM (Lieut.-Col. Charles), the Tower of T
Middlesex. Aug. 21: Bowker and Freeland, sci
Gray's-inn-square, W.C.