la mare by, or each annuity granted to, a married | neglect to secure the debt as an act of bank think fit. His Homot said it was a very hard case upon the husband that he should be deprived of his earnings in this way, but that, as the deposit had been made by the wife by means of moneys of her husband, and with his consent, he was obliged, in conformity with sect. 2 of the Act, to make the required order. Order for the applicant. BANKRUPTCY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1963, 88. 6 AND 125-LIQUI DATION -VRWEING OF DEBTOR'S GOODS IN TRUSTKK.-The presentation of a petition for liquidation is an act of bankruptcy, and everything which a trustee would take under a bankruptcy veste in the trustee under the liquidation. A debtor filed a petition for liquidation, but before a trustee was appointed some of the debtor's goods were seized under an execution at the suit of creditors who had notice of the petition: Held (affirming the decision of Bacon, C.J.), that the goods vested in the trustee by relation back to the filing of the petition: (Ex parte Duignan; Re Bissell, 25, L. T. Rep. N. 8. 286. Chan.) BANKRUPTCY LIQUIDATION BY ARRANGE BENTED AFTER SEIZURE, BUT BEFORE SALETITLE OF TRUSTEE. R. and Co. obtained judgments against H on the 21st Nov. On the 23rd the sheriff seized. H.'s landlord distrained for rent on the same goods. The sale on behalf of both creditors and landlord was advertised for the 28th and 29th. On the 26th H. filed a petition for liquidation, and obtained an injunction restraining the sale by the sheriff, who nevertheless sold. On the 9th Dec. notice of the filing of the petition was served on R. and Co., and a trustee was appointed on the 24th: Hold, that the execution creditors were entitled to the proceeds of the sale: (Ex parte Rocke Re Hall, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 287. Chan.) BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, ss. 11, 95, 125-LIQUI MENT EXECUTION CREDITOR-PETITION PRE DATION ACT OF BANKRUPTCY-SEIZURE AND SALE RELATION BACK.-The goods of a nontrader debtor were seized under an execution. A petition for liquidation was presented, but the Bale of the goods seized was completed before the appointment of a trustee. Held, that the execution creditor was entitled to the proceeds. The words "not of bankruptcy," in sect. 95, sub-sect. 3 of the Bankruptcy Aot 1869, mean an act committed at the time of the seizure. The title of a trustee under a liquidation relates back in the same manner as that of a trustee under a bank. ruptoy (Er parte Todhunter; Re Norton, 25 L. T. Rop. N. S. 313. Bank.) ΤΟ BANKRUPTCY INSPECTOR APPOINTED PROTECT SEPARATE ESTATE SEPARATE ADJU DICATION AGAINST ONE PARTNER BANKRUPTCY ACT 1861. -M., one of three partners, was separately adjudicated a bankrupt under the Bankruptoy Aot 1861. Joint creditors of the firm proved debts amounting to 89,000l., and two of the joint creditors were appointed creditors' assignees, The separate debts amounted to not more than 80007. There was no joint estate, and the sepa rate estate only amounted to 38501. Under these circumstances an application was made on behalf of almost all the separate creditors, that the separate creditors might be at liberty to appoint an inspector of the separate estate to protect their interests. The registrar having refused the application: Hold, upon appeal, that the application ought to be granted, but upon the condition that the inspector should take no stop without the ap proval of the registrar: (Er parte Melbourne; Re Melbourne, 25 L. T. Rop. N. S. 368. Chan.) THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, 88. 6. 7,9-ACT OF BANKRUPTCY DEBTOR'S SUMMONS-FAILURE BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE. an A LOCAL case of some importance was heard by the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal in Chancery. Its history is interesting as illustration of the difficulties which may arise in the liquidation of a small estate. In August, 1870, Mr. Samuel Sparke, of Phythian-street, Lowhill, coachbuilder, petitioned the court for liquida tion of his affairs by arrangement. His liabilities, including rent, were 1,68. His assets, which consisted of stock in trade and furniture, realised about 4501. Over this property Messrs. Cohen held bills of sale, which had been several times renewed, without being registered, as security for an advance of 501. made by them to the debtor in the previous month of May. On the petition being filed, they entered into possesion of the property, and were proceeding to sell the same, when on the motion of Mr. Bolland, who had been appointed receiver, they were restrained by Mr. Blair, the learned County Court judge. The ground upon which the order to restrain was made was that, the bill of sale creditor was not in possession of the property at the time the petition was presented, and, therefore, to the outer world, the property was in the order or disposition of the debtor with the consent of the true owner. From that order the bill of sale creditor appealed to the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, who held that although the bills of sale were invalid, being acts of bankruptcy, still upon the issue before him, namely, as to whether the property was in the order or disposition of the debtor with the consent of the true owner, he differed from the learned County Court judge, as the evidence that the bill of sale creditor had demanded possession of the premises the night before the petition was presented was sufficient to show the property was not in the possession of the debtor with the consent of the true owner. The order to restrain being therefore reversed, the bill of sale creditor immediately commenced an action of trover for the property against Mr. Bolland, who had been appointed trustee, and had realised the estate. That action, upon motion by the trustee, was restrained by Mr. Serjt. Wheeler, on the ground that the bills of sale were acts of bankruptcy, and void as against the trustee. The bill of sale creditor again appealed to the chief judge, who affirmed the decision of the learned County Court judge, with costs. Not deterred, a still further appeal was raised by the bill of sale creditor, and on Wednesday last the case came before the Lords Justices, and was concluded yesterday. Mr. De Gex and Mr. Bagley, instructed by Mr. Maurice Nordon, of Liverpool, supported the appeal; and Mr. Reed and Mr. Wheeler, instructed by Messrs. Duke and Goffey, appeared for the trustee. The main point of contention on the part of the appellant's counsel was that the Court of Bankruptcy had no jurisdiction to restrain an action already commenced in a court of common law, there being no question of any equity different from the legal right. The Lords Justices, without calling upon the counsel for the trustee to reply, said they were clearly of opinion that by virtue of sect. 72 the County Court had jurisdiction to restrain, and that upon the merits of the question the injunction to restrain had been properly granted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.-Liverpool Mercury. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. (Before the CHIEF JUDGE.) Ex parte SUGG AND OTHERS; Re HARGATE. Liquidation-Rights of third persons-NoticeRule 50-Priority. THIS was an appeal from an order of the Regis trar of the County Court of Barnsley, in reference to the petition for liquidation in Re James and Richard Hargate, of Darfield near Barnsley. The appellants are the executors of the late Mr. Henri Hubert Sugg, who was the solicitor to the The facts of the case are shortly these: The two debtors filed a petition of inability to pay their debts on the 22nd March last, and employed Mr. Henri Hubert Sugg, solicitor, of Figtree Chambers, Sheffield, to conduct the proceedings on their behalf. At the first meeting, which took place on the 14th April, Mr. T. Swaine was appointed trustee. At that time the landlord was in possession of the premises for arrears of rent to the amount of 401. for the past year, and previous arrears to the extent of 161. 9s., and on the 24th TO SECURE ALLEGED DEBT WITHIN SEVEN DAYS debtors. solistor to the petitioning creditor, who claimed upwards of 30 for prosecuting the petition. From this order the present appeal was brought. Bagley, who appeared for the appellant, called attention to the fact that one of the orders was without date. He appeared for the executors, and the respondent was a Mr. Busby, who claimed a certain amount of money from the debtors on account of rent. Peel, on the part of the respondent, took a preiminary objection, to the effect that Mr. Sugg's executors had no locus standi. Mr. Sugg was an attorney, and his executors could only apply to the court below, under sect. 71, to discharge or vary the order, they being argrieved by it. The words of the statute were that anyone aggrieved event of his not varying, discharging, or rescinding should apply to the court below, and then, in the the order, they might have applied to the ceurt. The orders were made by the court on the application of the landlord. His LORDSHIP said that it did not matter at all if they felt aggrieved, and called upon Mr. Bagley to proceed. till after the appointment of a receiver to the Bagley then stated that Mr. Sugg was solicitor estate, when he ceased to be such solicitor, and presented his bill of costs. appointed trustee, and on the 15th Aug. he reMr. Swaine was ceived a letter from Mr. Swaine, the trustee, to the effect that an order would be applied for to pay Mr. Busby the amount of his rent. In Mr. Sugg's absence, his clerk replied by putting in a claim for priority of his costs. He also pointed Swaine, and not to Sugg, and he therefore claimed out that the notice for Busby was really sent to a proper notice. The first order was made on or about the 25th Aug., and stated that unless Mr. Sugg showed cause to the contrary, an order for the payment of the amount would be made. Now, by the 50th rule in bankruptcy it was laid down that in the case of any order affecting the rights of a third person, notice of the order should be given to such person, and that had not been done in this case. It was further alleged that the order proceeded upon viva voce evi dence only. Mr. Sugg therefore refused to take any notice of the order, and the consequence was that, no evidence being adduced before the regis trar in addition to the evidence of Thos. Swaine, on which the former order proceeded, the second order was made, by which the 161. 93. arrears was ordered to be paid in priority of the claim of Mr. Sugg. The learned counsel read an affidavit from Mr. Binns, the solicitor acting for the executors, showing that Mr. Sugg had received no notice of the proceedings whatever, such as the statute required. The two orders were made, not by the judge it was true, but from the registrar to whom the judge had delegated his power, and was perfectly clear that the order should not have been made without due notice to Mr. Sugg. It appears, however, that the notice of Busby's intention to apply to the court was only sent to Swaine, who was not only the trustee but as it now turned out was the agent of the landlord. It was a rule of law that a person who took proceedings for the winding-up of the affairs of a debtor was entitled to be paid his costs in priority of all others. The CHIEF JUDGE pointed out that the 50th rule contained a proviso to the effect that in the event of notice not having been given to a third party affected, a rule should issue to show cause why such an order should not be made, which ap peared to have been the precise course adopted here. On the 24th Aug. the order was to show cause, and cause not having been shown by the 17th Oct. it was made absolute. Bagley said that no affidavits had been furnished, but he admitted that the real contention was that there not being enough to pay the claims of both, the appellant claimed priority. He then proceeded to argue that first, it was a clear principle of the law that a landlord could only levy for a year's rent, but in this case there had been previous arrears. He quoted the case of Ex parte Sharman (1 Atk. 103), in which the ruling was that a landlord, having failed to distrain, and the assigne having subsequently seized, had abandoned his right of distress, could not put in a second one, but must rank as a common creditor, and in the case of Bank v. Morgay (Ex. Rep. 641), the landlord having abandoned a distress on a statement that a creditor was about to proceed in bankruptcy, it was held he could not put in a second one. He contended that as in this case the landlord had distrained, and had subsequently withdrawn the sheriff to save costs, he was in the position of a landlord who had already abandoned the distress, and therefore was not entitled to the order in question, on the two grounds, first, that no suf cient notice had been given to Mr. Sugg, and in the second place that the distress had been abandoned. Aug, and the 17th Oct., Mr. Bury, the Registrar | The CHIEF JUDGE, without calling on the of the County Court of Yorkshire held at Barnsley, learned counsel on the other side, dismissed the made two orders ordering the trustee to pay to appeal. Nothing that had been said would induce the landlord the rent in question, amounting to him to rescind or vary the order of the court 564. 9., in priority to paying the costs of the below. As it appeared to him the requirements of the proviso in the 50th rule had been followed, and an order made to show cause why that of the 17th Oct. should not be made. On that day cause was shown. Mr. Smith appeared on the part of Mr. Sugg, and it was open to him to apply for an adjournment for the production of the evidence on which the order of the 24th Aug. was made, and the court would, at all events, have listened to the application. It was admitted that the landlord was properly in possession. His rights were the highest known to the law, and if he, for the sake of saving costs, agreed not to sell until the receivers had investigated the debtor's affairs, he ought not, doing that for the good of the estate, to be placed in a worse position than he was before. It was not the case of the abandonment of a distress. The law was that a landlord should be entitled to restrain for a year's rent, and to prove for the balance of arrears; but in this case there was a previous restrain, and the subsequent presentation of the petition for liquidation would not destroy the landlord's rights. The appeal would be dismissed, but looking to the irregularity of some of the proceedings in the court below, the respondent's costs could not be allowed. The appellant would be allowed to withdraw the costs he had deposited on account of the appeal. (Before Mr. Registrar ROCHE as Chief Judge.) Finlay Knight applied for injunction against a creditor suing in the Common Pleas for a debt included in the statement of debtor's affairs, submitted to a meeting of creditors in February last, at which a composition had been accepted by extraordinary resolution duly registered, payable at TEY twenty-one days and three months afterwards. The composition had not been paid, and on 18th Oct. the action now sought to be restrained was commenced. The grounds relied upon in support of the application were that the whole scope and spirit of the new Act was to give the Bankruptcy Court complete power in all cases, and to oust the jurisdiction at common law; that the resolution to accept a composition was the creditors' own act, and stated that the payments were in satisfaction of the debts due to them; that by clause 9, sect. 126, any creditor not paid at the time stipulated might apply to the court to enforce payment, and that it was the duty of the creditor to have done so. Wetherfield showed cause, and contended that payment of the composition was a condition precedent to release; that at common law there was no discharge, and that the creditors' optional rights under the Act did not oust the common law jurisdiction, and cited the Lord Chancellor's dictum in Ex parte 4 Brock, contending that "may" did not here mean "shall." He also pointed out the omission of extraordinary resolution or composition from Rule 289, which restrained certain proceedings after liquidation. He also cited Re Burr, before the same registrar, in which a creditor was allowed to prove for the whole of his unpaid debt, notwithstanding a prior composition resolution. The REGISTRAR, în giving judgment, said the Bankruptcy Court was a court of equity as well as law; but the resolutions had not been carried out during the appointed time. No tender of the composition was proved, and it was not incumbent on the creditor to go after his debtor. The time having elapsed, and the condition precedent not having been complied with, the original right of the creditor revives, and it can be enforced. The Court ultimately decided that the motion should stand over to abide the result of the action in which the debtor had pleaded the extraordinary resolution, costs being reserved. OLDHAM COUNTY COURT. (Before J. F. TWEEDALE, Esq., Registrar.) Bankruptcy-Order for alimony by Divorce Court Learoyd, of Huddersfield, for Mrs. Wrigley, in support of the application. Brooks, of Ashton, for the bankrupt. The case had been adjourned, and the REGIS- NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRACTICE. NOTICE.-We must remind our correspondents that this column is not open to questions involving points of law such as a solicitor should be consulted upon. Queries will be excluded which go beyond our limits. N.B.-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides Queries. 17. MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT.-Would any of your correspondents be good enough to answer the following questions? Can a married woman, under the Married Women's Property Act of 1870, hold shares in shipping independently of her husband, and, whether, if she can, the investment can be made with money acquired before the passing of the Act as well as with money acquired after the passing of it? AN ARTICLED CLERK. 18. REMAINDERS.-C. B., by his will, devised certain copyhold hereditaments unto his son, R. F. B., for life, and after his decease said testator devised same unto necesse said testator' devised same unto such of his his grandson (R. F. B, the younger) for life, and after his said grandson's lineal descendant or descendants as at the time of his decease should be his heir or heirs-atlaw, to hold same to him, her, or them, and his, her, or their heirs, but in case his said grandson should have no lineal descendant or descendants him surviving, said testator devised same unto his own right heirs for ever. Can any of your readers inform me what estates R. F. B., the elder, and R. F. B., the younger, respectively take? AN ARTICLED CLERK. 19. BEQUEST.-A. B. by his will (inter alia) gave and bequeathed all the residue of his real and personal estate unto trustees upon trust to pay the annual income arising therefrom unto C. D., his daughter, for her life, or to permit her to receive the same; and after her death testator bequeathed the said income to E. F. for his life, and he has since died. C. D. is now alive and in receipt of the income. The will further goes on to state that after the decease of E. F. the testator gives one third of the residue of his said real and personal estate unto G. H. and I. J. as tenants in common. I. J. subsequently married and begat children. Testa. tor died in the lifetime of I. J., and E. F. died in the lifetime of I. J. I. J. and all her children are now dead, but her husband still survives. Question.-Did the share of I. J. vest in her upon the death of testator, or upon the death of E. F. so as to be transmissible to her representatives upon the death of C. D., or did such share lapse by reason of the death of I. J. in the lifetime of C. D.? Please quote authorities. A SUBSCRIBER. 22. ARTICLED CLERKS-DEPUTY CLERK OF THE PEACE. Answers. D. INSTITUTION OF SURVEYORS.-The first meeting of the session was held at the rooms of institution, at No. 12, Great George-street, on Monday. The president, Mr. Richard Hall, delivered an opening address, in which, after congratulating the members upon the continued prosperity of the society, he touched briefly upon prominent subjects of professional interest, and reviewed the measures affecting land and landed property which had received the attention of Parliament during the last session. This institution now numbers 192 members and sixty-four associates resident in various parts of the kingdom, and includes within its ranks a large proportion of the leading surveyors of the country, as well as many barristers and engineers of eminence. Meetings, at which papers are read and discussed, are held on altermeeting, on Monday, Dec. 4, a paper will be read Mondays throughout the session. by Mr. Clutton, ex-president, on tation." At the next "Disaffores LAW SOCIETIES. ARTICLED CLERKS' SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held on Wednesday, Nov. 15 inst., at Clement's-inn Hall. Mr. Mr. Whale moved the apBone in the chair. pointed subject for debate: "That the policy of the present Government is worthy of the nation's support." After the speeches of the appointed speakers the debate was adjourned till next week. HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A MEETING of this society was held at the Church Mr. J. Cook Institute, on Tuesday evening last. The members were examined on in the chair. the third chapter of William's on Personalty, and the following point was discussed: "Was the case of Xenos and another v. Wickham, (36 L. J. 317. H. of L.) rightly decided ?" Mr. Woodhouse argued in the affirmative, and Mr. Pearce in the negative, and after a good discussion the question was decided in the affirmative. MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING THE GAZETTES. Bankrupts. Gazette, Nov. 10. To surrender in the Country. Pet. Nov. 7. BABBAGE, JOSEPH WILLIAM, butcher, Bristol. GROSVENOR, ROBERT, grocer, Owston. Pet. Nov. 6. Reg. Uppieby. Sur. Nov. 22 HOLDER, WILLIAM, and HOLDER, EDWARD, builders, Claines ADAMS, FRANCIS, jun.. oil man, High-st, Forest-hill; Nov. 28, at ARNOLD, EDWAED, engineer, King's Lynn; Nov. 22, at twelve, at BUSKELL, HRNRY CHRISTOPHER, auctioneer, King-st, Cheap- CANE, EDWARD, no occupation, Ripe; Nov. 29, at one, at the CARTBR, JAMES, butcher, Gosport; Nov. 23, at eleven, at office of CHADWICK, GEORGE, and CHADWICK, JAMES, farmers, Consall, DANIELS, JAMES, fent dealer, Manchester and Eccles; Nov. 22, DAVIES, JOSEPH, grocer, Beaufort; Nov. 28, at two, at office of DAVISON, WILLIAM FORSYTH THOMAS, late assistant surgeon, DAWSON, THOMAS, lamp manufacturer, Piccadilly, and Heston; ERVIN, ELIZABETH, widow, draper, Chiswell-st, Finsbury; Nov. ETHERIDGE, MARY ANN, plumber, Winchester: Nov. 21, at two, EVERITT, WILLIAM, builder, Coburg rd, Old Kent-rd, and Ber- GARBUTT, FRANCIS, beerhouse keeper, South Eston; Nov. 22, at HOFFE, HENRY TAYLOR, grocer, Castleford; Nov. 23, at twelve, HUNT, GEORGE, marble carver, Hanley; Nov. 20, at three, at the JONES, ARTHUR, labourer, Tyllwyd; Nov. 20, at two, at the Town- KELSON, CAROLINE, draper, Bristol; Nov. 20, at twelve, at offices LEA, WILLIAM, potter's manager, Burslem: Nov. 22, at three, at office of Sol., Julian, Burslem LLOYD, RICHARD, innkeeper, Ruthin; Nov. 27, at eleven, at office of Sol, Adams, Ruthin MACONOCHIE, JAMES, fish merchant, Aberystwith: Nov. 22, at eleven, at office of Sols., Messrs. Hughes, Aberystwith MCCALLUM, FRANCIS, coal fitter, Sunderland and Newcastle; Nov. 2, at half past eleven, at office of Sol., Simey, Sunderland MIDDLETON, JOHN, plumber, Hartlepool: Nov. 25, at twelve, at the Raglan hotel, Tower-st, West Hartlepool. Sol., Todd MILLA, JOHN, tailor. Birmingham; Nov. 17, at three, at office of MOULSON, ABRAHAM, er, Bradford; Nov. 22, at ten, at office MOCNSEY, BENJAMIN, cloth manufacturer, Guiseley; Nov. 27, at NASH, THOMAS RUSS, builder, Leigh-st, Burton-crescent, and PARE KICHARD, 1 nkeeper, Poulton-le-Fylde; Nov. 28, at three, PELL, THOMAS, jn, farmer, Wavendon; Nov. 27, at eleven, at PIGG, JOSEPH, grocer, Watford; Nov. 20), at two, at office of Sols, REILY, EDWIN, engraver, Birmingham; Nov. 23, at twelve, at ROME, PEARL. farmer, Boxted: Nov. 29, at one, at the Cross Keys' SMITH, WILLIAM, carpenter, Bedford; Nov. 24, at eleven, at office STOKOE, JOHN, grocer, Doncaster; Nov. 21, at half-past twelve, THEOBALD, JOHN, gentleman, Cornwall-rd, Bayswater; Nov. 24, THORP, THOMAS, wood turner, Manchester; Nov. 25, at ten, at VIVIAN, CHARLES TRUSCOTT, outfitter, Redruth; Nov. 22, at two, WALLER, GEORGE, grocer, Lisson-grove, Marylebone; Nov. 23, at WEST, ELIZABETH, general dealer, Scarborough; Nov. 27, at WILLIAMS, THOMAS, cabinet maker, Birmingham; Nov. 22, at Gazette, Nov. 14. ASTON, BENJAMIN, glass dealer, Preston; Nov. 27, at three, at AUSTEN, CHARLES, Sailmaker, Ramsgate; Nov. 28, at three, at BASKERVILLE. RALPH HANCOCK; BAXTER, SAMUEL: and BEACH, JEREMIAH, out of business, Wolverhampton; Nov. 24, at BUTTERWORTH, JAMES, tailor, Oldham; Nov. 24, at eleven, at the CROMPTON, JOHN, commission agent, Atherton; Nov. 7, at two, DALLINGER, JOSEPH ALEXANDER, tobacconist, Norwich; Nov. DAVIS, WILLIAM. file grinder, Tipton; Nov. 29, at two, at the Old DYE, GEORGE, builder, Basingstoke; Nov. 29, at elever, at office GITTOES, JOHN, commission agent, West Bromwich; Nov. 27, at GREEVES, BENJAMIN TITTER, out of business, Norwich; Nov. HERVEY, JOHN, victualler, Coleman-st, Woolwich; Nov. 23, at HOLT, RICHARD, woolstapler, Rochdale; Nov. 29, at three, at HUGHES, WILLIAM JOHN, pork butcher, Halifax; Nov. 23, at LEMON, SAMUEL JOHN, pewterer, Chatham; Nov. 28, at two, at LEWIS, WILLIAM RICHARD, shoe dealer, Dinas, near Pontypridd, MAJOR, THOMAS, wheelwright, Old Alresford; Nov. 28, at one, at MEDLEY, JOHN, cordwainer, Goulceby: Nov. 30, at half past Horncastle MITCHELL, FREDERICK ROSIER, out of business, Aberdare; MORRIS, RICHARD, beerhouse keeper, Maiden Newton; Nov. 29, MYCOCK, JAMES, licensed victualler, Stone; Nov. 25, at eleven, at PAGE, ALFRED, builder, Little Stonham; Dec. 5, at twelve, at PARK, WILLIAM, jun., commission agent, Barnsley; Dec. 8, at PEARSON, EDWARD JEWKES, brickmaster, B ierley-hill; Nov. 28, at half-past eleven, at offices of Sole, Homfrey and Holberton, Brierley-bi PERRINS, WILLIAM, commercial traveller, Worcester; Nov, 25, at PIERCE, DAVID, fish dealer, Wigan; Nov. 23, at eleven, at office of PIERCE, PIERCE DANIEL, builder, Pwllheli; Nov. 27, at twelve PRICHETT, SAMUEL, tanner. Charlbury, and Spelsbury; Nov. 27, PRIESTLEY, SAMUEL, Colliery proprietor, Tornyrepail; Nov. 28, CHARLES, nurseryman, Goldenhill, near Tunstall; RIPPON, PICKERING, foiner, Kingston-upon-Hull; Dec. 1, at ROBINSON, THOMAS, innkeeper, Lee Mill, near Bacup; Nov. 7, SQUIRES, JOHN, cut of business, Wolverley; November 21, at THOMAS, EDWARD, attorney, Bristol; Nov. 24, at twelve at offices WATSON, WILLIAM, builder, Beverley; Nov. 29, at eleven, at office WOOD, ROBERT MYERS, solicitor, Birmingham; Dec. 5, at three WOOD, THOMAS, tailor, Dewsbury, Dec. 4, at three, at office WOODHOUSE, FREDERICK GUSTAVE, cabinet maker, Shafton-rd, bury WOOLFE, JOSEPH, wholesale clothier, Manchester; Nov. 24, at WRIGHT, JAMES, oven builder, Park - st. Kennington - cross; WYER, WILLIAM, veterinary surgeon, Metheringham; Nov. 28, Dibidends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees, &c., are given, to whom apply for the Bell, G. potato salesman, first 7d. At office of Trust. C. Inga Allen, H. of Southsea, third, 1s. 11d. Paget, Basinghall.st.Barron, A. West India merchant, third, 1s. Paget, Basinghall-st.Beech, A. and J. druggists, first, sd. Kinnear, Birmingham.Carryer, J. J. manufacturing chemist, first, 20s. Paget, Basinghallst.-Chisnall, E. cab proprietor, first, 8id. Paget, Basinghall-stClarke, W. S. coal merchant, second, 5d. Paget, Basinghall-etCollett, J. victualler, first, 1s. 1d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Dalgetty, J. baker, first, sad. Harley, Bristol.-Elliott and Isley, engineers, first, G. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Fitchett and Shair, tailors, second, 7d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Gamblin, C. H. teacher of music, first, 28. 11. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Gorfett, T. A. clerk in Custom House, first, 58. 114. Paget, Basinghall-st-Harkins, J. T. ale and porter dealer, first, 117. Kinnear, Birmingham.-Hicks, B. coal merchant, first, 27. 1-12th. Paget, Basinghall-st-Messer, J. provision dealer, fourth and final, 18. 2d. Stone, Liverpool-Pil kington, J. ship broker, second, 1s. 9. (first and second divs, of 55, 4. to new proofs). Paget, Basinghall-st.-Kobias, A. mer chant, first, 28. 10. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Ryder, T. merchant, first, 4d. Paget, Basinghall-st.--Stanley, H. banker's clerk, first, 1. Od. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Inderhay, S. F. surgeon, second, 1s. 3d. Paget, Basinghall-st.-Waddell, H. W. commission agent for wines, first, 3s. Paget, Basinghall-st. Beer, E. butcher, 28. C. At offices of Trust. W. W. Arliss, 32, Westwell-st, Plymouth.-Duncalfe, G. C. coal merchant, 6s. 8d. At offices of Trust. S. J. Walker, 54, Victoria-st, Wolverhampton. Hosegood, T. W. and Turner, J. colour manufacturers, first, 3. 6d. At Trust. G. Whiffin, 8, Old Jewry.- Jenner, R. miller, 3. At office of Sol. Langham, Uckfield-Latimer, T. of Bradford, first, 25. id. -Latemon, J. jun. At office of Trust. H. Dickin, Market-st, Bradford builder, first and final, 18. 34. At office of Sols, Sankey, Son, and At office of Flint, Canterbury.-MeGrath, M. tea dealer, first. Trust. J. K. Glaisyer, 1, New North-rd, Huddersfield.-Morris, J. B. grocer, final, Gd. At offices of Sols. Roberts and Leak, Hull -Oxborough, H. G. gentleman, 20s. At office of Trust. C. Fairer 28, Southend-rd, Penrith.-Renshaw, C. en ineer, 6s. Bd. At office of Sols. Sale, Shipman, and Seddon, Manchester.-Thompe, H. provision merchant, second, 8d. At office of J. S. and R. Blease, Commerce-chinbs, 15, Lord-st, Liverpool. BIRTHS. NOTICE. NOW PUBLISHING. A GENERAL INDEX to vols. 11 to 20 of the LAW TIMES REPORTS, New Series, will be published in ten parts, price 1s. each. Sent free of postage to subscribers. The first part is now ready. The General Index to vols. 1 to 10, N. S., may still be had, price 7s. 6d. in cloth. The Law and the Lawyers. A REPORT with reference to the proceedings in Australia connected with the Tichborne baronetcy speaks little for the honesty of the inhabitants of the colony. It is said that the claimant's counsel advertised for the crew of the Bella, seven in number, and that he received no less than 150 replies. MR. HARINGTON, of the Oxford Circuit, has been appointed a metropolitan police magistrate for the Wandsworth and Hammer VOL. LII.-No. 1495. smith district, vice Mr. INGHAM, who has resigned. The learned gentleman was called to the Bar in 1858, after obtaining honours at the general examination, and was acquiring considerable business as a junior counsel on his circuit. It is expected that he will make an excellent police magistrate. HARINGTON'S By Mr. appointment a recordership on the Oxford Circuit becomes vacant. Two important appeal cases in bankruptcy were decided by the Lords Justices on Thursday, one with reference to sect. 23 of the Act of 1869, relating to the disclaimer of onerous property by the trustee, and the other relating to the question of fraudulent preference (Re Cherry). An exposition of the law of fraudulent preference was anticipated, but their Lordships simply upheld the decision of the CHIEF JUDGE as to the construction to be put upon the finding of the jury. Notes of the cases will be found in another column. THE present Government being confessedly a cheeseparing Government, it is somewhat remarkable that, in making County Court Judges it does not select men already pensioners on the Consolidated Fund. There are at present several old bankruptcy commissioners who are either doing nothing or returning to practice at the Bar-a scarcely fair proceeding and in large centres, such as Liverpool, where a vacancy must shortly occur, the experience possessed by them might be of the greatest practical service. We will not mention names; they are well known to the LORD CHANCELLOR, and as a matter of policy and economy these bankruptcy pensioners should be promoted to vacancies in the County Courts, especially in districts where much bankruptcy business is transacted. THE doubtful convenience of post cards has been rather strongly illustrated by proceedings in the courts, civil and criminal. We recently referred to the law concerning libellous matter disseminated by such means, and we are glad to see that no single judge has followed the decision which we criticised, and questioned whether or not a libel on a post card could be considered in the light of a libel in a letter addressed to the individual libelled. We can hardly expect that the POSTMASTER GENERAL will deem it expedient, because the post card has been abused, to withdraw it from public use. Fortunately, in the cases brought before the courts the handwriting of the writers has been proved, and a conviction resulted. This may do something to check an intolerable nuisance. Mr. ARCHIBALD DOBBS, barrister-at-law, has issued a pamphlet proposing a readjustment and modification of Mr. HARE's plan of representation, wherein he suggests the creation of four new constituencies: (1) The Royal Society, together with the members of certain other scientific societies, as the Geological, Astronomical, Geographical, and such like societies; (2) The four Inns of Court; (3) all solicitors and attorneys on the roll; and (4) fellows of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, and fellows and members of the Royal College of Surgeons. We cannot here go into an examination of Mr. DOBBS' scheme, but simply notice, in addition to the foregoing, that he suggests that the custom or law in accordance with which a member on accepting a party office in the Government vacates his seat, and has to be re-elected, should be repealed, remarking that it has been repealed in the colony of South Australia. THE Irish Law Times feels rather sore that Irish Judges have not been considered in the arrangements connected with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. After some comments on the present posture of affairs, our contemporary says: "Here we may ask why were the Judges and ex Judges of the Irish courts disqualified from holding these rew offices? The Privy Council are willing to avail themselves of the gratuitous services of Irish Judges, and Sir JOSEPH NAPIER has been selected to deliver the judgment of the court in several recent cases of importance. It becomes, however a totally different matter when salaried offices are involved. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a tribunal of an eminently imperial character, and the exclusion of Irish Judges from the number of permanent Judges is a positive slight to the Irish Bench. We no not know whether any of our Judges would have been tempted by the office, but of this we are persuaded, that the strength of the Judicial Committee might have been materially increased by the addition of an Irish Judge. This may, perhaps, suggest the solution of the difficulty, but for this purpose a new statute would of course be necessary. A SINGULAR impression with respect to the qualifications necessary in the law officer whose duty it is to conduct naval inquiries seems to prevail in high quarters, which is entertained nowhere else save in the naval journals. The latter trumpet forth the announcement that certain redoubtable ex-officers of Her MAJESTY'S service have been called to the Bar, whereupon some people imagine that such inquiries as we have named will be done in a manner startling to ordinary practitioners. As a matter of fact few men are less qualified to conduct legal investigations than these ex-officers, and in order to open the eyes of those gentlemen themselves, and the authorities who seem to give them a preference for legal appointments connected with the navy, we are not at all sorry that such flagrant elementary blunders were made in the course of the Megara court martial. It seems almost a contradiction in terms to say Captain So-and-So, barrister-at-law: the Rev. So-and-So, plumber and glazier, would be scarcely less ridiculous. We do not say that young officers may not abandon the service and become excellent lawyers, but the man of maturer years should think twice before making the change, and Government should, as Mr. GLADSTONE Said with reference to the reform of the House of Lords, think not only twice but thrice before they employ them in the public service. WE are informed that the Hon. G. DENMAN, Q.C., the arbitrator appointed to determine the dispute between Mr. MACLEOD and the Crown in respect of the preparation of Specimen Digests of the Law, has awarded Mr. MACLEOD the sum of 6251., making the total remuneration received by Mr. MACLEOD equivalent to 750l., per annum for two years' work. The arbitrator has assigned no reasons for his award, and the Government has refused to allow him to do so. Mr. MACLEOD, however, conceiving that the payment made to him, being as a matter of fact at the rate of two guineas a day for work extending over ten hours a day, is wholly inadequate, and as he is precluded from having the award reviewed by a court of law, intends to present a petition to Parliament in order that there may be a public inquiry. Mr. DENMAN would appear to have disregarded the damage resulting to the gentlemen employed from the abrupt termination of the engagement; but apart from that, it seems truly monstrous that the highest legal ability short of the Bench should be expected to undertake a laborious work of national importance for less than a third of the pay of a Parliamentary draughtsman. THE Benchers of the Inner Temple have been first in the field with the new regulations respecting compulsory examinations. A notice has been posted, dated Nov. 17, intimating that the four Inns have agreed to call no students to the Bar unless they have passed a public examination. It is also intimated that, with a view to this examination, a course of lectures will commence early in January. There is some doubt in the minds of present students whether this notice is retrospective. We apprehend that it is not. We are unable to state whether the lectures in the different Inns will go on contemporaneously with the lectures appointed by the Council of Legal Education; but we should imagine that the latter will be abandoned, and each Inn be left to educate its own members. The following is the notice referred to: The four Inns of Court having determined that there shall be a compulsory examination of students for the Bar before they are called to the Bar, or allowed to practise under the Bar, the Masters of the Bench desire to inform the students of this Inn, that in order to assist them in preparing for such examination, they have instituted a course of instruction, of which every student of this Inn may, if he pleases, avail himself. The course will commence on the 11th Jan. next. There will be three Legal Terms, and the payment will be one guinea a term for each student attending a class. The Benchers of the Inner Temple wish to appoint four gentlemen to instruct the students of the Inn in-Jurisprudence and Civil and International Law, Constitutional Law and Legal History, Equity and the Law of Real Property, Common Law. The terms and duties of the appointments may be obtained at the Treasurer's office, Inner Temple. Candidates are requested to send in their applications on or before the 7th Dec. next, Mr. REDFIELD, the American lawyer, in a paper on Law Reform in the United States, makes some important suggestions founded on his own experience. He says: "My own experience of the practical working of attempts at codification has been restricted to these revised statutes. That process was resorted to in the State of Vermont, while I was connected with the Supreme Court of that State. The result did not impress me favourably in regard to any actual improvement in the statutes, by reducing them to a formal code, either in regard to certainty or completeness. The Commissioners for presenting the draught of the revision consulted the statutes of other States, and incorporated many new provisions into their report, and altered some of the existing ones, and changed the phraseology in many instances, either for greater certainty or symmetry, but in almost every instance produced many times more uncertainty than they cured, and in some instances resorted to such refinements of language, as might seem more suitable to other writings than to the statutes of a State. The highest judicial tribunal of the State was, more or less, occupied for many years in removing the uncertainties created by these improvements in language.' I am thoroughly convinced that after a statute has received repeated judicial constructions, if it is intended to be substantially preserved, it is not wise to change its phraseology, however much it may seem to increase its clearness or beauty. I think, therefore, that while revisions or concentrations of the statutes of a State after they become considerably numerous, is of the last importance, for the convenience of those who desire to consult them; it should, nevertheless, so far as practicable, always be done with the strictest adherence to existing phraseology." RESOLUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION. CONSIDERING the very large extent to which the liquidation clauses of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 are being made available, it is clear that the procedure at the meetings of creditors should be carefully regulated according to the spirit and letter of the Act. A most important part of this procedure has reference to the resolutions of creditors. We will state shortly what directions are given by the Act. The resolution referred to in sect. 125 is a special resolutoin, which is to be passed by the general meeting of a debtor's creditors summoned by him, and with regard to this it is said, by clause 14, that in calculating a majority on a special resolution for the purposes of this section, creditors whose debts amount to sums not exceeding 101. shall be reckoned in the majority in value, but not in the majority in number. By clause 4 the duty is imposed on the registrar to inquire whether the special resolution has been passed in the manner prescribed by the section, and on being satisfied, he is to register it. The rule (275) applicable to the section of the Act, says that the special resolution shall determine whether the affairs of the debtor are to be liquidated by arrangement and not in bankruptcy, or whether any, and what, composition shall be accepted in satisfaction of the debts due to the creditors from the debtor, or it may reject either of such modes of arrangement. It concludes thus :-"Only such resolutions as are reduced into writing and are signed by or on behalf of the statutory majority of the creditors assembled at a meeting, shall be taken cognisance of by the court, but the signatures of such creditors may be subscribed subsequently to the making, but prior to the filing or registration of the resolution." Upon this rule doubts arose as to the validity of a resolution not at the time of being passed assented to by a particular creditor, though subsequently signed by him, and the point has been decided. The case to which we refer is well known, Ex parte Pooley, re Russell (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 275; L. Rep. 5 Ch. App. 722). There, a large creditor attended by proxy (rule 85), and opposed resolu tions for a liquidation by arrangement. Without him the requisite majority did not assent to the resolutions. He subsequently signed them, and the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy ordered them to be registered. On appeal the direction of the Chief Judge was sustained. Lord Justice James remarked that "the Act does not say that the resolutions must be passed by a show of hands, nor indeed that the votes must be given at the meeting at all," but the creditors vote when they affix their signatures to the resolutions. It was held incidentally that because resolutions contained certain conditions upon which the future property of the debtor was to be realised, this fact did not make them extraordinary resolutions, and that the matter was proper to be contained in a special resolution. We last week reported an analogous case, containing somewhat more elaborate directions as to the framing, passing, and registra tion of resolutions-Ex parte Orde, re Horsley (25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 40). This is rather more important than E parte Pooley, because the resolutious were refused registration by a County Court Judge, ordered to be registered by the Chief Judge, and ultimately refused registration by the Lords Justices. The rock the creditors split upon in Ex parte Orde was a resolution for adjournment. That resolution was passed ostensibly by a majority, but as a matter of fact this was not so, the original meeting being informally adjourned; the County Court Judge and the Lords Justices held that the resolutions passed at the adjourned meeting were invalid. It was contended on the part of the trustee appointed under the liquidation that it was not necessary that a resolution merely to adjourn a meeting should be passed with all the form alities required for the resolutions referred to in the Act and the Rules. And that was the entire question. Rule 293 says that "where any resolution is required to be passed, or any act to be done by the creditors present or represented at the meeting, the majority required for the purpose shall, in the absence of any enactment to the contrary, be a majority in value of the creditors present or represented thereat." And the Lords Justices construed that to mean that nothing but affirmative evidence that the majority is a proper majority, according to the statute, can give the resolution validity. Then follows the question what must be the evidence, and Sir W. Russell's case comes in to show that the only admissible evidence is the signatures of the creditors present or represented at the meeting. "The Registrar," said Lord Justice James, "is to see that the persons assenting thereto do constitute a majority in value of the creditors present or repre◄ sented thereat, or a majority of two-thirds, as the case may be, and there is no duty whatever cast upon the registrar of ascer taining whether any other persons present voted against or expressed themselves neuter, or as not desiring to vote at all." The papers alone have to be looked to, and no regard to be paid to what took place in the room 66 An objection was started with reference to clauses 7 and 8 of sect. 16 of the Act, which speaks of a majority of the persons present and voting on such resolution," which it was urged were inconsistent with the rules, which say that the resolution must be signed in writing by persons present at the meeting in person or by proxy. "It seems to me," said the Lord Justice, "there is no real inconsistency between the statute and the rules. There is no definition in the statute of the meaning of the words 'voting on |