Fri. Sat. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thur Brighton.

914 91 91 91 Lan.&York. Stock. 100 126

Dunaburg and Witepsk.-A dividend of 21. per Metropolitan.-At the adjourned half-yearly meeting, the following proposition, which would have the effect of terminating Chancery proceedings, was agreed to. The chairman said he had to propose that, instead of paying a 7 per cent dividend they should declare one of 6 per cent. on the ordinary 58.a 10s.a stock, and at the rate of 6 per cent. on the exten10s.a 10s.asion shares.

By Mr. P. D. TUCKETT, at the Mart.
Freehold house, shop, and premises, No. 38, St. George-street
(otherwise Ratcliffe-highway), let at 851. per annum-sold
for 4501.
By Messrs. FOSTER, at the Mart.
Regent's-park, term 69 years unexpired, at 351. per annum-
sold for 4200Z.

FINANCE, CREDIT, AND DISCOUNT COMPANIES.
Credit Foncier of Mauritius.—A dividend of 7 per Leasehold residence, known as Rosenstead, 62. Avenue-road,

viz., the cost of the line, plant, and stock, and other capital expenditure; the value of surplus lands, stores, and other assets, and the debts owing to the company; cash and investments; accounts in suspense, including cost of reconstruction of stations and works to be liquidated in a series of years. There is also to be an estimate of future expenditure on capital account, distinguishing the items; and a statement of the Leasehold residence, known as St. Germain's-lodge, St. Ger- half year's cost of maintenance of way and stations; with a certificate showing what percentage this part of the half year's expenditure bears to the value of this part of the property; and the engineer is to certify that the way, stations, and works under grounds, and farmyard, with farm buildings, the whole repair, have not depreciated, and the cost has been his charge have been kept in perfect condition and charged to revenue account, with the exception of the construction of X station, to be cleared by Freehold house, No. 20. Clarence-street, Rotherhithe-street, showing what percentage the half year's expenditure annual payments." There is also to be a statement

on the maintenance of locomotives bears to the value at which they stand in the company's books, with a certificate from the superintendent "that the plant and locomotives have been maintained in perfect condition and repair, and have not depreciated beyond what has been set aside under that heading to meet renewals, and that the total cost has been charged to revenue account."

THE PRIVILEGES OF PEERS.-The privileges of peers are-1. That every lord, spiritual or temporal, summoned to Parliament, and passing through the king's forests, may, both in going and returning, kill one or two of the king's deer without warrant, in view of the forester if he be present, or on blowing a horn if he be absent, that he may not seem to take the king's vension by stealth. 2. That they may give their proxies to other peers, to vote as their representatives, a privilege not enjoyed by the members of the Lower House, because they are themselves but the representatives of others. 3. They may enter their protest, or written reason of dissent, against any Bill which passes contrary to their votes. 4. All Bills affecting the peerage must be originated in their House, and cannot be altered out of it. 5. Peers are free from arrest in civil suits in all cases, even when Parliament because they are supposed to be either advising is not sitting, the sovereign, as one of his Great Council, or defend ing his kingdom, as one of his military tenants. They have the right of access, individually, at all times, to the sovereign-a privilege which the House of Commons enjoys only collectively. 7. On trials of for high treason they have a right to be tried by all the peers entitled to sit and vote in Parliament. Peers are not sworn, but give their evidence and their verdict "upon their honour." In case of giving verdicts the youngest peer is first called upon for his vote. In 1648 the Commons passed a resolution, that the House of Peers was useless and dangerous, and restoration of the monarchy, the Lords meantime ought to be abolished. It was abolished until the retaining their titles both in public and private use, Lower House as county members. In 1641 Charles I. and some of them even consenting to sit in the Parliament, and they ceased to form any part of the consented to a Bill for ousting the bishops from Legislature till their restoration by the first Parlia

Convention of Parliament. Though strong argument of Charles II., held after the dissolution of the ments have been urged in favour of life peerages, and some sort of precedent might be found for them in the baronies by writ, already mentioned, the of the Crown to grant them; and in the case of the House of Lords have ever firmly resisted the claim late Lord Wensleydale, they declined to let his Lordship sit until the peerage confered on him for the usual limitations to heirs. Lord Coke tells us life was recalled, in favour of one made out with that, at the time he was writing, the temporal peers of the present Parliament showed 465 names, includnumbered 106. The roll of peers at the beginning ing 4 peers of the blood royal, 30 spiritual, and 431 temporal lords. The Bishop of Chester was the junior bishop (then without a seat in the House), and among the names last added to the roll of temporal peers were those of Lord Cairns and Lord Strathnairn (Sir Hugh Rose).-The Student and

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. NONPAYMENT OF DAMAGES AND COSTS BY CO-RESPONDENT.-On the husband's petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the wife's adultery, damages to the amount of 30007. were assessed against the co-respondent, who was also condemned in the costs of the suit. The co-respondent subsequently became bankrupt; but at the time of the adjudication he had been ordered to pay both damages and costs, though, as respected the damages, the furthest time allowed for their payment into the registry had not expired, and in respect of costs no taxation had been had upon which any order to pay a definite sum could be made: Held, that

APRIL 4, 1868.]

The action was brought by a builder, at Finchley, against Messrs. Sydney (father and son), a firm of attorneys in London, for alleged neglect of duty in regard to the obtaining of a loan or advance of money for him, and also for the recovery of various sums of money, which it was alleged he was entitled to recover from them as having been received by them in the transaction. The declaration complained that they were employed to obtain money for him on mortgage; that the plaint ff, through their want of care, executed a mortgage of houses and lands for a much larger sum than he ever received,-that is to say, that he was led to execute a mortgage to one Cohen for 18507., when he only received 8581, and the plaintiff's that though the defendants, as account of the attorneys, received for and on plaintiff 1409, they failed to account to him for it; and by the particulars of demand the plaintiff claimed (besides damages) the return of 551, the difference between 1409, the sum charged or received from them, and the 8587. admitted to have been paid to the plaintiff.

The defendants entirely denied their liability, and, moreover, severed in their defences, denying their joint liability.

Philbrick and Tindal Atkinson for the other.

The plaintiff Clarke was a builder, who had some houses half built, which he wanted money to complete. This being so (as the learned judge observed), unfortunately for himself," he observed (in April, 1867), an advertisement in the newspapers, inserted by one Collins, who called himself a financial agent, and who, in fact, offered to obtain loans of money. The plaintiff saw Collins, and the result was that (again to use the language of the learned judge) Collins "got him" to sign a letter, dated April 11, 1867, which "was dictated by Collins," and contained the terms of the loan. The letter ran thus: I consent to your terms for an advance of 20001 on four

villas in course or erection, viz, 2750, to be returned at the end of six months from the date of the execution of a mortgage on same terms, to embrace all expenses (except surveyor's fees), when the advances are made; and I undertake to take the said 20007. from the clients of Mr. E. Sydney (the younger defendant), his law expenses to be paid out of the bonus of 7504.

THE LAW TIMES.

to sum up the case to the jury. The plaintiff, he
said, was one of the class called speculative builders
-that is, persons who undertook work for which
That being so, he,
they had not sufficient capital-and he was there
fore in want of money.
unfortunately for himself, observed an advertisement
in the newspapers, inserted by one Collins, who
called himself a "financial agent," and who, in fact,
offered to obtain money. The plaintiff saw Collins,
who got him to sign a letter, dictated by Collins,
which therefore contained the terms of the loan.
According to these terms the plaintiff was to have
an advance of 2000l. for six months for a bonus of

lished twenty years, and is entirely composed of practising attorneys and solicitors.

That its objects are to promote the interests of suitors by the better and more economical administration of the law and to maintain the rights and increase the usefulness of the Profession.

That your memorialists saw with much gratification the establishment of the practice of appointing London commissioners to administer oaths in the High Court of Chancery, which conferred a great boon upon the suitors.

That when the Oaths in Chancery Bill (now the Act 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78) was before Parliament your Commons praying that the Bill might be amended memorialists presented a petition to the House of by empowering the Lord High Chancellor to grant commissions to any persons (being solicitors of the High Court of Chancery) to administer oaths and Masters Extraordinary, at any place within the exercise the powers, up to that time exercised by jurisdiction of the court; and such persons as he might think fit to administer oaths and to exercise such powers out of the jurisdiction. That the House of Commons adopted the amendments suggested by this association, but was induced at the close of the session to abandon then.

That the Act, as it was passed, empowers the Lord Chancellor to appoint any persons, practising as solicitors within ten miles of Lincoln's-inn Hall, at their respective places of business to administer oaths in Chancery, which enactment has been held at any place within such ten miles. to authorise such commissioners to administer oaths

That previously to this Act, the Chancellor had not appointed commissioners residing within ten miles of Lincoln's-inn Hall, and the Act was intended to give the London suitors the same facilities for getting affidavits sworn as suitors residing at a

distance from London.

The regulations framed on the Act coming into operation were understood to be: That the applicant must have been in practice as a solicitor for ten years previously, and that he should state the parish, and, when practicable, the strecet and number of the house, where he had carried on his business for the last three years, and should also produce ten years' practice and from two barristers. certificates of respectability from two solicitors of

7501. That is to say, he was to pay 7501. for the loan of 2000l. for six months. That would be at the rate of 15007. for the 20007. for a year, or at the rate of 7501. for the loan of 1000 for a year. This did not tend to give a good colour to the transaction; but he would make no remarks upon it further than it tended strongly to show that the bonus at all events was not to be deducted from the 20007, the money to be advanced. It appeared quite plain that it was to be a clear advance of 2000, for 2750%. was to be returned that is to say 2000l. was to be advanced, and 2750l. to be repaid. The bonus, therefore, did not belong to the Sydneys, and was not to be deducted Prentice and Joyce were for the plaintiff. Serjt. Ballantine and Morgan Howard were for the from the 2000l. to be advanced. The plaintiff was introduced to them by Collins, and they, being aware senior defendant. of the arrangement (having been shown the letter Collins had got the plaintiff to sign), prepared a mortgage to Cohen, which the plaintiff executed, they acting as his attorneys. The mortgage recited that there was to be an advance of 18587.-that is to say, 8587. down, and 1000l. afterwards in two sums of 500. In point of fact, the plaintiff had not received the money and never received it, for he only received 8584, though the attorneys (the defendants) received 14097. from Cohen, the mortgagee. Now, it was said on the part of the plaintiff that it was great negligence in the younger Sydney to allow him (he being an illiterate or uneducated man) to sign a mortgage for so much larger a sum than he received. And certainly any man of any knowledge of business must know that it was a very imprudent thing to do. The attorneys, however, received 14094, from the mortgagee, but they only paid 8581. to the plaintiff, and he accordingly claimed to recover the difference-that is, the sum That further regulations, imposing additional of 550, as money which he had never received, though they had got it in their pockets for him. restrictions, were on the 6th May 1854 communiThat is to say, the plaintiff's charge or complaint cated to the Profession through the council of the that in consequence of the great number of gentleagainst them was twofold-that they had allowed Incorporated Law Society. These regulations state him to execute a mortgage for the larger sum, receiving only the much smaller sum, and that they men already appointed London commissioners to will not make any further appointments at present, having received a sum nearly double what he had administer oaths in Chancery, the Lord Chancellor received had kept back so large a portion of it themselves. These were the substantial charges made unless, in addition to the certificates now required, against the defendants. They, on the other hand, the applicant produces one signed by two housedenied that this was the true statement of the case, holders, stating the necessity for an additional for they claimed, in the first place, to deduct the appointment, and a statement of the number of bonus of 7501. For the reason, already given, how-commissioners within a quarter of a mile of the ever, he was clearly of opinion that they were not so entitled. They also claimed to set-off or deduct other sums, as to which an account would be taken. The great question remaining was as to the negligence or neglect of duty. This resolved itself into a twofold question-whether the younger Sydney, who acted in the transaction, had neglected his duty in it, and whether the elder Sydney, the other defendant, was liable for it. Now, as to the latter question, he thought that if attorneys carried on business together, and, for their own convenience, one of them attended to one branch of business, -as the conveyancing-and the other to another department, they were mutually responsible to each other, and jointly responsible to their clients for misconduct. If this had been a charge of fraud, a different consideration would have arisen; but this was not a charge of fraud; it was a charge of misconduct. If, therefore, the defendants were in partnership together, and this matter was part of the partnership transactions, then, however innocent Sydney might personally be (and he did not appear to have had anything personally to do with it), the law would render him responsible for any misconduct by his partner, if any such there should appear to have been. The great question, then, was, was there such misconduct? Did the plaintiff retain the defendants as his attorneys in the matter, and did they neglect their duty, or was there neglect of their duty in the matter? If the jury thought there had been such negligence, and that money was due to the plaintiff, they must find for him; otherwise for the defendants.

applicant, and that he himself carries on his business upwards of a mile from Lincoln's-inn-hall.

a

That your memorialists are informed that it is also regulation not to appoint as commissioners to administer oaths in Chancery any solicitors whose only offices are situate, or who carry on the chief portion of their business within one mile of Lincoln'sinn-hall.

That your memorialists were at the time of the Act, and still are, of opinion that, the reason having to administer oaths-viz., the interference with the ceased for limiting the number of persons empowered fees of the officers of the court-and the fee fund being more than adequate for the purposes to which it is applicable, the interests of the public_ are best promoted by extending the facilities to administer oaths without any limit, except the due qualifications of the persons appointed."

From this letter it would be seen (once more to resort to the language of the learned judge) "that there was to be an advance of 2000. for six months, for which there was to be a bonus of 7507., that is to say, 7501 was to be paid for the loan of 2000l. for six months, or at the rate of 1500l. for a year." It will further be observed (as the learned judge also remarked) that it was quite clear the bonus of 750l. was not to be deducted out of the 2000, but that there was to be a clear advance of 20007., which was to be repaid, with the addition of the bonus-that is to say, 2000l. was to be advanced and 2750 repaid. The broad result, however, was, that plaintiff received only 8587. Collins introduced him to the Sydneys-at all events to the younger Sydney (Edward), and he being asked by plaintiff whether it was necessary for him to have any other attorney, told him that it was not, and that he (Sydney) would do all that was necessary, and that they (the Messrs. Sydney) would prepare the deed and do everything necessary for him, in consequence of which he employed no other attorney, and left himself entirely in their hands. It should be stated that he, as the learned judge remarked, was rather illiterate, and, at all events, uneducated. The mortgage to one Cohen-was prepared by the Messrs. Sydney, It recited and on the 29th May he executed it. that there was to be an advance of 18587.,-that is to say, 8581. at once and 1000l. afterwards, in two sums of 500. In point of fact, however, only 8581. was ever actually received by the plaintiff though 14097 was received by Sydney from Cohen, the mortgagee. He claimed on the present occasion to recover from Mr. Sydney the difference between the 14094. they had received and the 8587. he had received, that is to say, the sum of 5517., which was the chief sum in question. He also, however, claimed compensation for their neglect of duty as his attorneys, in allowing him to execute a mortgage for so much more than he received. They, on the other hand, insisted that the bonus of 7501. was to be deducted from the 1858/., and that the defendants had only to account for 11502, which they declared their readiness to do, and they accordingly set up various items on account-fees, payments, and disbursements, &c. As to these, the learned judge repeatedly observed that they properly formed the subject of a reference, and they were in the result so dealt with, leaving to be determined by the court the main question in the case-the right to deduct the bonus" from the sum advanced, and the question whether the defendants had neglected their duty as the plaintiff's attorneys, both questions being, it COMMISSIONERS TO ADMINISTER OATHS Writ Clerk's office is closed, in finding a commiswill be seen, determined against them, the first by the judge, the other by the jury.

At the close of the case,

The learned JUDGE (having induced the parties to assent to the arrangement already mentioned-viz., that a verdict, if for the plaintiff, should be subject to a reference of the matters of account) proceeded

The jury found generally for the plaintiff.

the elder

It was thereupon at once referred to an arbitrator to settle the account between the parties, he to be at liberty (if he thought fit) to reserve for the court the question as to the "bonus."

IN CHANCERY.

To the Right Honourable the Lord High Chancellor of
Great Britain.

The humble Memorial of the Metropolitan and
Provincial Law Association,
Showeth, That this association has been estab-

That commissioners are frequently called upon to exercise their functions under some of the following

circumstances:

1. During the vacations, when the Record and Writ Clerk's office is closed, save for a very short time daily.

2. Before and after the office hours of the Record and Writ Clerks.

3. In cases where the exhibits to affidavits are so heavy or bulky (as is frequently the case in patent cases) as to render it inconvenient, and, in some Writ Clerk's office; or where the deponents are cases, impossible to take them to the Record and it may be necessary that the commissioner should ladies or infirm persons, and in other cases in which attend where the exhibits are, or at the office of the deponents' solicitors, &c.

That the number of commissioners within a mile operation of the existing regulations becoming more of Lincoln's-inn being already limited, and by the so, suitors are often put to great inconvenience, especially in the vacation, and after the Record and

sioner, and more especially one who can attend at a distance in a case of urgency.

That commissioners to administer oaths in Chancery are by the Probate Act appointed as commissioners to administer oaths for proceedings in the Court of Probate, and that the Record and Writ clerks cannot take affidavits for that court. If,

therefore, solicitors in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's-inn are not to be appointed commissioners, suitors in that neighbourhood are deprived of the advantage, intended by the Act to be conferred upon them, of being able to get oath; administered near to their places of business; and in the vacation it is extremely difficult to find a commissioner at all. That the clients of the body of solicitors who practise within a mile of Lincoln's-inn, including a large proportion of the most important offices in the Profession, are thus subjected to serious inconvenience from which the clients of solicitors whose offices are in any other part of London are free. That in all the courts of common law it is the practice to grant commissions to administer oaths upon the application of any solicitor of respectability, and that the practice is of great advantage to the suitors.

Your memorialists humbly pray, therefore, that your Lordship will be pleased to revise the regulations for granting commissions to administer oaths in Chancery, and to grant commissions upon the application of, at all events, any solicitor of ten years' standing, who can produce the requisite certificates of respectability.

(Signed) HENRY S WASBROUGH, Chairman. PHILIP RICKMAN, Secretary. Jan. 30, 1868.

PROFIT COSTS OF SOLICITOR MORTGAGEE

WHO ACTS ON HIS OWN BEHALF.

(From the Upper Canada Law Journal)

IN Sclater v. Cottam, apparently a suit_to_carry the trusts of a settlement into execution (3 Jur. N. S. 630), Vice-Chancellor Kindersley refused to allow the mortgagee of a life estate under the settlement, and who had acted as his own solicitor, the costs which he had incurred in defending his title other than costs out of pocket. The Vice-Chancellor observed: "Now, one principle is, that the mortgagee is entitled, as between him and the mortgagor, to have taken into account, on a suit to redeem, any costs which he has incurred in protecting his title to the mortgaged property. Another principle is, that the mortgagee, though he may be entitled to certain expenses properly incurred in relation to the mortgaged property, as the expenses of employing a collector, onnot himself charge for his own trouble. For instance, he may employ a collector, but if he himself takes the trouble of doing it, although it would not be a greater burthen to allow him the remuneration, the principle is, that he shall not be allowed it in his accounts. Putting these two principles together, my opinion is, that I must come to the conclusion that the certificate of the chief clerk is right, and

that these costs cannot be allowed."

From the statement of the case, it seems that the mortgagee had under his security been in receipt of rents amounting to 11007., from which he claimed to deduct, among other moneys, his costs, including profit costs, and it is observable that a mortgagee in possession is constructively a trustee of the rents and profits which he receives (see Lewin, 155); but, as the Vice-Chancellor observes, "It is not the same as the case of a trustee being allowed" (query disallowed?) "his costs," it may be questionable whether he rested his decision on the mortgagee's possession.

In Price v. McBeth, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 521; 10 Jur. N. S. 579, a puisne mortgagee filed his bill against the prior mortgagees, and the mortgagor for redemption and foreclosure. A decree was made in the useful form directing an account of what was due to the prior mortgagees for principal, interest, and the costs of their suit. They had not, however, been in possession of the mortgaged property. On taxation the plaintiff objected that they ought not to be allowed profit costs, but the taxing-master allowed them the same costs as he would have allowed them if they had employed other solicitors to act for them.

Mr. Wainwright, the taxing-master, in his reason for decision, stated, that a solicitor acting for himself, as plaintiff or defendant in a suit, had always been allowed his profit costs as if he had acted for others, except in the case of a solicitor acting for himself as trustee; that a mortgagee, until he was repaid, was not a trustee, but a creditor; that, up to the case of Sclater v. Cottam (ubi sup.), the cases in which a mortgagee was not allowed to charge for his time and trouble, seemed to have been cases of a mortgagee in possession receiving his own rents, and doing his own business as other individuals might do, and seemed not to have applied to the privilege of a solicitor acting for himself in a suit, and charging his fees in that suit. In Sclater v. Cottam the decision was not that the solicitor-mortgagee should not have his profit costs in that suit, but that he should not have profit costs for defending two other suits, which costs he claimed in the nature of just allowances to him as a mortgagee.

A motion was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the taxing-master might be ordered to review his taxation. The items to which objection was taken were "all such items as either wholly or partially had been allowed," whereby the prior mortgagees would derive any pecuniary profit over and above the money out of pocket.

Vice-Chancellor Stuart stated that he did not intend to decide whether or not a solicitor as mortgagee in a suit for redemption and acting for himself, was, as a matter of course, to have his ordinary full costs of the suit; that was a question to be decided at the hearing. If any reason could be suggested why a solicitor's costs should be merely costs out of pocket, it ought then to be stated, and the decree ought so to direct, but as the decree in question had not done so, he held that the taxing-master was "bound to proceed in the usual manner, and ought not to take upon himself the trial of questions which went beyond the decree." The Vice-Chancellor therefore refused the motion, without costs..

In Morgan & Davey's Costs in Chancery, p. 283, the authors, after citing Price v. McBeth, add, "but see ante p. 281," apparently referring to Cradock v. Piper, 1 M. & G. 664, there cited, as if it were inconIn sistent with the ruling in the former case. Cradock v. Piper, Lord Cottenham, C. had held (contrary to his impression, see p. 675) that under an order to tax costs generally, or to tax costs as between solicitor and client, the taxing masters were at liberty to take notice of the fact that the solicitor is also a trustee, and accordingly in that case to His disallow costs, except those out of pocket. Lordship, however, founded his conclusion on the practice of the taxing-master, and even then he thought that there was "a little difficulty in reconciling so large a discretion with what appeared to him to be its proper and legitimate exercise." See p. 676. The inference from Cradock v. Piper would rather seem to be, that the practice in the taxingmaster's office has a very material bearing on the question. It is noticeable, that in Sclater v. Cottam, no reference appears to have been made to this practice.

We understand the practice of the taxing-master's office to be-that a solicitor-mortgagee is allowed his costs of suit (coinciding with the rule laid down by Master Wainwright), and this exception to the usual rule, that a party suing in person is entitled only to charge costs out of pocket may be justified as well on the ground of public policy as upon the principle that a solicitor, as an officer of the Court of Chancery, is, by virtue of his privilege as such, entitled to his fees. Upon general grounds it is certainly advisable that a solicitor-mortgagee should be If this were otherwise, the allowed his profit costs.

DоDMAN (Montague), Thornham, Norfolk, farmer Aprils: T. Garwood, solicitor, Wells. April 1s; V.C. S., at one o'clock in the afternoon.

EDGWORTH (Thos.), Bryn-y-grog, near Wrexham, Denbigh-
shire, Esq. May 14; J. James, solicitor, Wrexham May
30; V.C. S., at noon.

GAWTHROP (W. T.), 2, Raymond-buildings, Gray's-inn,
London, and of Hemel Hempstead, Herts, solicitor. May
2; A. W. Surtees, solicitor, 35, Bedford-row, London. May
25: V.C. S., at noon.
HAGUE (Charles), 3, St. John's-villas, Kew-road. Richmond,
Surrey. April 14; W. Gribble, solicitor, 33, Nicholas-lane,
London. April 25; V.C. M., at noon.

HALL (James), Batley, Yorkshire, manufacturer. May 9;
B. C. Pullan. solicitor, Leeds. May 29; V.C. S., at noon
HALLAM (Saml.), 67, East-street, Brighton, and Burgess-hill,
Sussex. Apríl 20; G. Fry, solicitor, 62, Mark-lane, London.
April 27; V.C. G., at noon.

HARGRAVE (Matilda), Wakefield, spinster. April 27; C. Nay-
lor, solicitor, Leeds. May 8; M. R, at noon.
HEALD (George), Garston, near Liverpool, Esq. April 27;
Leeman, Wilkinson, and Leeman, solicitors, York. May 6;
V.C. M., at noon.

HIBBERT (Thos.). Freman's Folley, Hillingdon, Middlesex,
horse dealer. May 1: W. V. Eyre, solicitor, 32, Poultry,
London. May 9; M. R.. at noon.
KELLIE (Jane), Avenue-house, Leigh, Lancashire, spinster.
May 11; Marsh and Son, solicitors, Leigh, Lancashire.
May 28; V.C. S., at noon.
LANE (John), Hanley Castle, Worcestershire, farmer. May
10; T. G. Norcutt, solicitor, 11, Gray's-inn-square, London
May 25; V.C. S., at noon
MCKEAND (Wm.), 62, Brook-street, Hanover-square, Mid-
dlesex, Esq. April 11; W. Simpson, solicitor, 51, Grace
church-street, London. April 21; V C. G., at noon.
NEWCOMBE (R. N.), Stamford, Lincolnshire, May 1; H. H
Carter, solicitor, Nottingham. May 14; V. C. S., &
NORTH (Thos.), Barford-hall, Notts, coal master. April 27;
T. Browning, solicitor, 13, Austinfriars, London. May 6;
V.C. M., at noon.
OLIVER (James), 30, Ladbroke-square, Kensington, Mid-
dlesex, gentleman. April 16; Lewis, Munns, Sunn, and
Longden, solicitors, 8, Old Jewry, London. April30; M. R,
at eleven o'clock in the forenoon
PHILLIPS (John), Cardiff, Glamorganshire, gentleman. April

noon.

20; C. Waldron, solicitor, Cardiff. May 8; M. R., at eleven
o'clock in the forenoon.

WAGSTAFF (James), 16, Brown's-lane, Spitalfields, Middlesex,
watchmaker. April 24; Bennett and Paul, solicitors, 1,
Sise-lane, Bucklersbury, London. May 8; M. R., at eleven
o'clock in the forenoon.
WALTER (Edwd.), Long Parish-house, Hants, a lieutenant-
colonel in the Indian Army. April 20; Tatham and Proctor,
solicitors, 36, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London. May 4; V.C.M,

at noon.

WILLATS (Wm ), Denton-court, Canterbury, Esq. April 21:
W. H. Haycock, solicitor, 4, College-hill, London. May 4;
V.C. S., at noon.

WILKES (Thos.), Shirley-house, Solihull, Warwickshire,
metal dealer. April 25; Alcock and Milward, solicitors,
5, Union-street, Birmingham. May 4; V.C. M., at noon.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. and druggist. June 1; G. H. Burnhamn, solicitor, Wellingborough. BAILEY (Peter), the younger, Ashwell, Herts, bricklayer. May 1; A. Stocken, solicitor, Baldock, Herts. BOTTOM (Charles), Newmarket, Saint Mary, Suffolk, gentleman. May 1; Kitcheners and Fenn, solicitors, Newmarket. COOK (James), Portland-place, Middlesex, and of Mincinglane, London, merchant. May 12; Oliverson, Peachey, Denby, and Peachey, solicitors, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London.

inevitable result must be either that he would compli- AKRILL (Wm.), Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, chemist
cate matters by taking the security in the name of a
third party (so as not to disclose the fact that he, the
solicitor, was himself the real lender), or else he
would employ some other solicitor at a possibly
increased expense, inasmuch as the previous know-
ledge possessed by another solicitor of the title and
circumstances of the mortgaged property would
probably be less than that of the solicitor-mortgagee CROWLEY (Charles S.), 8, Cavendish-place, Cavendish-square,
himself. Hence it may well be for the mortgagee's
own advantage, that this rule should be followed,
and this the rather as the costs can be taxed; and
the taxing-master would doubtless be ready to tax
as strictly when the mortgagee was his own solicitor
as when he acted by another.

The question we have been noticing has been
frequently raised of late in the taxing-masters'
offices, but in no case has it been adjourned into
court. At present the practice may be taken to be
as we have said, and we believe the present practice
to be the best for all parties. The subject is certainly
an important one for the Profession.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK
WINDING-UP ACTS.

IMPERIAL STEAM AND HOUSEHOLD COAL COMPANY (LIMITED).
-Petition for winding-up to be heard before V.C. M. on
the 17th April. Solicitors, Laurence, Hardwick, and Co.,
Mitre-chambers, 157, Fenchurch-street, London.
MERCANTILE TRADING COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to
send in by May 1 their names and addresses, and the par-
ticulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of
their solicitors (if any), to L. H. E. Evans, 15, King-street.
Cheapside, London. May 15, at noon, at the chambers of
V.C. M., is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such
claims. Solicitors, Ashurst, Morris, and Co., 6, Old Jewry,
London.
NATIONAL PROVINCIAL MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
(LIMITED). Creditors to send in by April 30 their names
and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and
the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to R.
Fletcher, 2, Cowper's-court, Cornhill, London.
RAGLAN-HALL COLLIERIES COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for
winding-up to be heard before V.C. M. on the 17th April.
Solicitor, G. Becke, 21, Bedford-row, London, agent for M.
Tennant. solicitor, Aberavon, Glamorganshire.
WESTMINSTER MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for
winding-up to be heard before V.C. S., April 17. Solicitor,
F. W. Snell, 1, George-street, Mansion-house, London.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.

ASTLEY (W. F.). Hurley, Kingsbury, Warwickshire, farmer.
April 29: T. Argyle, solicitor, Tamworth, Staffordshire.
May 7; V.C. S., at noon.
BLAKESLEY (John), Hinckley, Leicestershire, auctioneer and
wine and spirit merchant. April 30; Pilgrim and Preston,
solicitors, Hinckley. May 7; M. R., at eleven o'clock in

the forenoon.

BOTTELEY (Fanny), Stafford, widow. May 9; A. Phillips,
solicitor, Shiffnal, Salop. June 1; V.C. S., at noon.
BROWN (Thos. Francis), Lincoln, solicitor. April 15; W.
Harrison, solicitor, Lincoln. April 22; V.C. G., at noon.

Bus (J. F.), The Chestnuts, Kingston-road, Ewell, Surrey,
architect and surveyor. Ápril 15; G. Biller, solicitor, 14,
Golden-square, London. April 27; V.C. M., at noon.
CLIPSHAM (Wm.), Bardney, Lincolnshire, innkeeper. April
14; Hughes and Son, solicitors, Lincoln. April 29; V.C. G.

at noon.

Middlesex, and of Alton, Hants, and of Croydon, Surrey, Esq. July 14; Rixon and Soù, solicitors, 122, Cannonstreet, London.

DE BRETT (Martha), Bishopsteignton, Devon, widow. April
28; Deacon, Son, and Rogers, solicitors, 1, Paul's Bake-
house-court, Doctor's-cominons, London.

DE FREVILLE (Edward H. G.), Hinxton-hall, Cambridge-
shire, Esq. May 1; Farrer, Ouvry, and Co., solicitors,
66, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.
DICKSON (Sir Wm.), Sydenham, Roxburgh, Scotland, and 5,
Gloucester-road, Hereford-square, Brompton, Middleses, a
Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy. May 9: Davies, So,
Campbell, and Reeves, solicitors, 17, Warwick-street,
Regent-street, London.
ELLIS (Isaac), Middlesborough, Yorkshire, brewer, &c. May
1; Brewster and Stubbs, solicitors, Bridge-street-west
Middlesborough.

FENWICK (William), 4, Albert-terrace, Richmond-road,
Dalston, Middlesex, gentleman. April 30; Stibbard and
Beck, solicitors, 2, East India-avenue, Leadenhall-street,
London.

GOULD (Nathaniel), 4, Tavistock-square, London, Esq. May
6; Bischoff, Coxe, and Bompas, solicitors, 19, Coleman-
street, London.
HAWKINS (Sarah), Gloucester, spinster. April 30; Mac-
kenzie, Trinder, and Co., solicitors, 1, Crown-court, Old
Broad-street, London.

HELLING (J. N.), 81, Hilldrop-crescent, Middlesex, gentle-
man. July 1; J. Ivimey, solicitor, 8, Staple-inn, London
HERAPATH (John), Red Lion-court, Fleet-street, London, and
Catford-bridge, Lewisham, Kent, Esq. June 24; J. Chapple,
solicitor, 25, Carter-lane, London.

JONES (John), 68, Gibson-square, Islington, Middlesex,
gentleman. May 1; Redpath and Holdsworth, solicitors,
23, Bush-lane, London.

KNIGHT (George), 9, Belgrave-road, Highgate, Middlesex
May 1; C. W. Stevens, solicitor, 35, Bucklersbury, London.
MACKENZIE (Harry), 17, Cornwall-terrace, Regent's-park,
Middlesex, Esq. April 25; Henderson and Leach, solicitors,
18, Lancaster-place, Strand, London.
MILL (James), The Fishery, Soles-bridge, Rickmansworth,
Herts. Aug. 1; J. Sedgwick, solicitor, Watford, Herts
NICHOLS (Richard), 219, Ebury-street, Pimlico, Middlesex,
gentleman. May 8; W. H. Roberts, solicitor, 46, Moor-
gate-street, London.

OLIVE (John), Woolfold, near Bury, Lancashire, railway
waggon maker. April 30; T. A. and J. Grundy, solicitors,
14, Union-street, Bury.

PADGETT (Betty), Clifton, near York, spinster. July 1; North
and Sons, solicitors, 4, East Parade, Leeds.
POWELL (George), Beaufort-buildings, Strand, London, Es
April 30; Bowker, Peake, and Bird, solicitors, 6, Bedford-
row, London.

PREEDY (Mary), 10, Lancaster-road west, Notting-hill, Mid-
dlesex, widow. April 25; West and King, solicitors, 66,
Cannon-street, London.

RIDDIFORD (Abraham), 28, Belitha-villas, Barnsbury, Middlesex, Esq. June 24; J. B. May, solicitor, 67, Kassell

square.

ROBERTS (John), New Windsor, Berks, grocer. May 21;
Shepheard and Son, solicitors, 12, Lower Phillimore-place,
Kensington.

SPICER (E. W.), Debden-hall, Essex, and Leatherhead,
Surrey, Esq. April 21; F. Woolbert, solicitor, 12, Lincoln's-
inn-fields, London.

STABLES (Emily), Fickles-hall, Cheisham, Surrey, spinster
June 12; M. C. Bellamy, solicitor, 9, Union-court, Old
Broad-street, London

STROUD (George), 4, Chester-place, Kennington, Surrey.
May 1; T. Parker, solicitor, 40, Bedford-row, London

SKETCHES IN CHAMBERS, BY A TEMPLAR. present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in

Attorneys and Solicitors' Act only repealed that portion of the Act which related to attorneys and solicitors, and did not name clerks of the peace, the enactment as to them remained in force. He added

intended to proceed for any penalty, nor would the protest then made be allowed to prejudice the defence in the case about to be brought before the court.

that he had informed Mr. Milton that it was not

The RECORDER said he considered the Act of George the Second was repealed, and that if it were not so, he could not interfere. The remedy would be to enforce the penalty. With the propriety of the partner of the clerk of the peace acting as advocate he had nothing to do, his duty being merely to administer the law.