child," and the alternative word or may relate to the names of the daughters, though they follow the immediate preceding words "their child." The words "their child" must refer to a child by some one of them, and to this must be added the words "or [not the word "and"] the children of some one or of all of them." But the testator himself shows that he did not mean primarily to make a bequest to his grandchildren, for he says he makes the trust to benefit "his children." The words "share and share alike" are not, also, necessarily connected with the preceding words "their child or children." If the words "their child or children" are read parenthetically, which I think is the true reading, then the daughters were entitled to equal fourth shares, or to shares alike, and the children were referred to in substitution only of their mothers. They, in case their mothers or any of them died in the lifetime of the testator, were not intended to be primary and immediate legatees unless their mothers were dead. The reading then would be a gift "to the daughters (their child or children), share and share alike." This would express the intention of the testator to benefit his children, and without disturbing the expressions used. By giving an emphasis to the words "their child or children," parenthetically, his intention directly to benefit his daughters only, in the first instance, may be executed without any violence to the words. Such a reading will assign equal shares to each of the four daughters only. They survived their father, and if any of them had died in the lifetime of the father, their children would have been entitled to take the share it was intended their mother should have enjoyed. I should hesitate a very long time before I permitted myself to go beyond the expressions used, or to deprive any expressions used of their fair effect. In the interpretation I give to the words, an equality of interest is secured to the daughters or to their children as a class representing only each daughter, without departing from the terms of the will, or changing even the position of any word used, or forcing a meaning on any word in order to give effect to what was most certainly the obvious wish of the testator. Lastly, the testator says, that "his said houses are never to be sold under any pretence whatever; neither are they to be mortgaged." As an illustration, more curious than otherwise, in the late case of Drennan v. Andrew, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 252, before the Lord Chancellor, a house was given to some children "which was not to be sold, but to be kept among them so long as it lasts." Of course no such provision has any legal effect. HAMMOND V. THE ROYAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAW COURTS. Compensation Case in the New Law Courts. To-day Mr. Under-Sheriff James Burchell and a jury assembled at the old Insolvent Court in this case, to assess the value of the house, No. 5, Serle'splace, belonging to Mr. Hammond, the auctioneer of Bell-yard. The house in question had an entrance to Bell-yard. Lloyd and Horace Lloyd were for Mr. Hammond, Hawkins, Q. C. and M'Mahon were for the Commissioners. who had an office in the house. THE NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW NOTE-Practitioners will oblige by forwarding new point, decided by the County Courts, opinions of counsel, doubts and difficulties that may arise in their practice, and queries, for this department of the Law TIMES. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. BANKRUPTCY GARNISHEE ORDER.-A judgment-creditor obtained a garnishee order against D., and the judgment-debtor then assigned his debts, &c., to trustees by a trust-deed, which he registered. After registration of the deed, but without notice thereof, D. paid the sum attached by the garnishee order. The payment was protected. The debt was not recoverable from the garnishee; but if the garnishee had received notice of the deed before showing cause against the order nisi, notwithstanding he pays the judgment-creditor, such payment would not be protected: (Wood v. Dunn, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 411.) LEEDS BANKRUPTCY COURT. Tuesday, Jan. 8. THE BANKRUPTCY OF MR. P. R. WELCH. The bankrupt, who is one of the registrars of this court, appeared to pass his last examination. Horsfall and Latimer, solicitors, Leeds, appeared for the assignees. Simpson, of Leeds, instructed by Mr. Ponsioni, of London, solicitor, appeared for Mr. Welch. The official assignee presented the following report:-"The bankrupt is described as formerly of Richmond, in the county of Surrey, and now of Harrogate, in the county of York, barrister. His debts and liabilities amount to 16,666l. 3s. 1d., of which there is due to secured creditors 9886l. 15s. 6d., secured by property of the estimated value of 93104 The sum actually provable against the estate will be about 73001. The assets, on the other hand, given up to the assignees are estimated at about 2501., and there may be some surplus from the property in the hands of one of the creditors-viz., Samuel Tucker, who holds as security for his debts ten paintings, of the estimated value of about 10007., his debts being about 500. The deficiency, as appearing on the face of the accounts, is 71611. 12s. 2d., but the bankrupt would be entitled as against that to credit for 10007., being the amount of a guarantee for another person, with which he debits himself on the other side of the balance-sheet." com tigation in the court, and partly because, being mere "whitewashing" cases, the debtors have themselves petitioned the court. Then, when it is found that the costs of solicitor, accountant, auctioneer, official assignee, and messenger have absorbed the 501. or 100% realised, as the case may be, a hue and cry is at once raised, and the balance-sheet showing the net available assets nil is triumphantly shown to the public as a fair example of the working of the Act, whereas the very opposite is the fact. Take the case you quoted. Suppose the assets had been 1000l. instead of 100l. There is no reason to suppose the costs would have been much greater, and the creditors would then have received a large dividend. It may be that the machinery of the Act in many respects is unsuited for the administration of small estates, but, as a rule, these should go to the County Court, which rejoices in a scale of fees sufficiently miserable to content even mercial men. I maintain, nevertheless, that the Act, if properly administered, is well capable of satisfactorily and cheaply winding-up an estate of moderate amount; and, I say it with all respect, nearly all the mischief has arisen through the incompetent way in which the practical part of the Act has been carried out. The scale of charges is not unreasonable, and if this were adhered to, needless adjournments prohibited, and the trade assignees compelled to audit their accounts every three months and declare dividends Middleton (barrister) asked, on behalf of Mr. Moore, in due course, as the Act requires, there would be the largest creditor, for an adjournment, and further very little cause for complaint. Again, not even asked that the bankrupt might be required to furnish mercantile ingenuity will ever be able to construct a a cash and deficiency account. He might state that Bankruptcy Act which can be efficiently worked Mr. Moore asked for the deficiency account because without expense. Supposing the Act to be confined he was not satisfied with the statement of accounts to the bare administration of the assets, without any in its present form, but as he understood that Mr. penal clauses, fraudulent bankruptcy would enjoy Simpson, on behalf of the bankrupt, was prepared even greater immunity from punishment than the to accede to a certain extent to what he asked for, warped construction put upon the penal clauses of he would confine himself to asking for a cash account, the present Act has obtained for them. In such a to be rendered from the beginning of 1863. That, case, moreover, the creditors would, I presume, hand no doubt, might appear to be a long period, but it the estate over to the tender mercies of the accounthad been gathered from certain examinations that ants; and they would, if I am not very much large sums of money had been dealt with in 1863 mistaken, find that, in point of delay, trouble, and which he wished to have some account of. He expense, they had simply been engaged in "jumping would suggest that a special account might be renout of the frying-pan into the fire." I have made dered, drawing attention to the particular items these few and imperfect remarks for the most part in upon which an explanation was required. Mr. Simp-order to bring about a discussion in your columns; son observed that it was quite proper the assignees but I propose, with your kind permission, in a should receive an account of any specific sums future communication, to deal more fully with this of money to which the bankrupt's attention might very important subject. C. H. be drawn, and his client was quite willing to accede to any such request. With regard to a cash account, he would remark that such were only generally granted for limited periods, never beyond twelve months, and rarely exceeding six months, as these were required merely to test how money had been disposed of for a short time previous to the bankruptcy. The deficiency account he would be glad to furnish. As to the cash account, he would consent to one for twelve months, and an explanation of such sums received by the bankrupt since the beginning of the year 1863 as the assignees might require. Mr. Middleton was quite willing to admit that it there were certain items to which he could draw wasa long time back to ask for a cash account; but attention, and if those particular items could be explained the assignees would be satisfied. The hearing was adjourned until the 1st March, for the filing of a deficiency and cash account for twelve months, and an account of such specific sums 1863, and the bankruptcy, the accounts to be filed as might be required by the assignees between Jan. ten days prior to the meeting. Correspondence. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1861.-In your issue of in which an estate, amounting to 1007., was disposed the 5th inst., you give certain statistics of the way all but 13/. 68. 8d., and you say, "This is a good of in the Court of Bankruptcy, the expenses taking example of the working of this Act." Now, sir, as one who has had considerable practical experience of the Act since it first came into operation, I most emphatically protest against such an assertion. I deals with the Bankruptcy Act on the principle of have noticed for some time past, that almost everyone "hitting it hard because it has no friends," which is a principle much more convenient than just. Allow me to say a few words in defence of this muchvilified Act of Parliament. As we all know, the 192nd and following sections provide for the winding-up of estates by deeds of arrangement among creditors, and empower a majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors whose debts amount to 10% and upwards to bind dissentient creditors to the arrangements they agree to make among themselves, and these provisions, avoiding to a great extent the publicity and saving much of the delay unavoidable in a bankruptcy, have been greatly taken advantage of, and since 1861 nearly all the large estates have been administered under the private arrangement clauses, which, although far well. But the very many small estates have been from perfect, have, on the whole, been found to work uniformly administered in the Court of Bankruptcy, partly, no doubt, because the smallness of the assets shown has made the creditors desirous of an inves ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. THE VESTMENT AND RITUAL QUESTION. WE have before us two pamphlets; the first entitled, "The Ornaments of the Minister: a Case submitted to Counsel on behalf of several Archbishops and Bishops of the United Church of England and Ireland; together with the Joint Sir Roundell Palmer; Sir Hugh Cairns, Q. C.; Opinion thereon of the then Attorney-General, Mr. Mellish, Q. C.; Mr. Barrow." The case is stated at some length. The first question is as follows: "Suppose a clergyman of the Established Church of England to administer in vestments prescribed by King Edward VI.'s the Holy Communion in a parish church habited first Prayer-book (1549), does he infringe the law and commit an offence cognisable by any legal tribunal?" The answer to this is: "We are of opinion that the first question should be answered in the of Uniformity of 1662 and the rubric of the affirmative. A careful consideration of the Act with the previous rubrics and enactments appliPrayer-book, and a comparison of that language cable to the question, lead us to the conclusion that the intention of the Legislature was not to revive or restore the use of any ornaments Elizabeth, as altered by the advertisements, had which had become obsolete. The statute of been recognised both by the liturgy and canons of James in 1604, and appears unquestionably to have been in force down to 1662. And since there is nothing in the statute of that year (except so far as it establishes the rubric) which touches the point, it is by the rubric alone that the practice, which had been established by the advertisements, can have been altered or repealed. We do not think that the rubric has or was intended to have this effect; on the contrary, it would seem to apply only to such ornaments of the minister as are common to all times of his ministration, and to point to a retention of such as were then in use rather than advertisements. to a revival of such as had been displaced by the This interpretation is supported by the universal practice which has prevailed from 1662 down to the present time, and which affords a contemporaneous exposition of the rubric to which great weight would be attached by every court of law in England." The opinion of which the foregoing is a part is dated 29th May 1866. The second pamphlet is entitled, "Disputed Ritual Ornaments and Usages. A case submitted on behalf of the English Church Union, with the opinions thereon of Her Majesty's Advocate (Sir R. Phillimore); Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Q. C. (now Lord Chief Baron); Sir W. Bovill, Q. C. (now Lord Chief Justice of Common Bench); Mr. W. M. James, Q. C.; Dr. Deane, Q. C.; Mr. J. D. Coleridge, Q. C.; Mr. C. G. Prideaux; Mr. J. Hannen; and Mr. J. Cutler, Professor of Law, King's College, London." The "case," dated 21st June 1866, occupies seventy-nine pages, and consists in great part of endeavours to meet the positions and suggestions of the "case" of the first pamphlet, to which it refers in the outset. Its first question is as to the legality or otherwise of using "the vestments prescribed in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. for use by the minister in celebrating the Holy Communion, namely, a white alb, plain, with a vestment (ie. chasuble) or cope;' the assisting ministers also wearing 'albs with tunicles.' In answer to this question all the counsel agree in asserting the legality of the vestments mentioned in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. As they differed on other points submitted to them, their opinions are not all given together; Mr. James gives a separate opinion on all points, and on the one now before us refers to the case and opinion of the first pamphlet, and combats its arguments. in the inquiry is, what "ornaments" of the In that Prayer-book we find the following 1. Upon the day and at the time appointed for the 2. Certain notes for the more plain explication and decent ministration of things contained in this book. In the saying or singing of matins and evensong, baptising and burying, the minister, in parish churches and chapels annexed to the same, shall use a surplice; and in all cathedral churches and colleges the archdeacons, deans, provosts, masters, prebendaries, and fellows, being graduates, may use in the quires besides their surplices such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees which they have taken in any University within this realm. But in all other places every minister shall be at liberty to use any surplice or no. It is also seemly that graduates, when they do preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees. And whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the Holy Communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochette, a surpastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by plice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his Thus the two sets of counsel have arrived at contrary opinions as to the first point: and this is remarkable because we believe that the two cases contain in substance the same pre-his chaplain. mises, though the latter may be richer in historical information and reference than the former. It is beyond the scope and limits of this journal to investigate the historical argument, if it deserves that name; but it may interest our readers to have their attention directed to the more strictly legal parts of the If the matter rested here, the legal conclusion would seem inevitable, viz.-that, in performing clergy are at least at liberty to use the dress the services of the present Prayer-book, the prescribed by the first Prayer-book of Edward for the analogous services in that book; but were not allowed to sleep in England, and much was done which, taken as a whole, is said to have restricted the apparent meaning of the rubric of would have made a clumsy sentence. There is a comma immediately after "evening service," as well as after "morning service," showing that the words "immediately after the Second Lesson" were to relate to "morning" as well as "evening service." That this interpretation of the Act accords with the intention of the Legislature is evident from the fact, that the rubric and practice were altered in accordance with it, and the alteration was acquiesced in by all the bishops; and as they formed part of the body of legislators who passed the Act, they must have well known what the Act was intended to effect. It is impossible that this change could have been acquiesced in for so long a period, had it not been in accordance with the law. The following is the form of the rubric, as altered, taken published during the time of morning service, or of from a Prayer-book of 1823: "The banns must be evening service (if there be no morning service), immediately after the Second Lesson;" the punctuation being exactly the same as in the Act. Who can doubt the meaning of these words? and they are the same as those of the Act (except that the words question, are abbreviated), and the practice has within the parenthesis, which does not affect the followed the undoubted meaning, that is to say, in the morning the banns have been published immediately after the Second Lesson. It having been found necessary to authorise the publication of banns during the evening service, the Legislature seems to have considered it wise, for the sake of uniformity and preventing mistakes, to make the time for morning publication the same as that for the evening. I may mention, in confirmation of the Wood, V. C. very recently decided, in the case of grammatical construction above contended for, that Nicoll v. Jones, that the words in the 12th rule of the 19th Consolidated Order, "no affidavit or deposition filed or made," mean "no affidavit filed or deposition made," thus connecting the participles "filed " and "made" with the foregoing substantives, "affidavit" and "deposition" respectively, according to sition" only, and upon the same principle the words the sense, and not to the latter substantive, "depo"immediately after the second lesson "ought to be connected with the former term "morning service" as well as the latter "evening service," the sense be asked, has this simple question, which might evidently requiring it. How, then, it may now have been answered by a national-school boy, been learned gentleman has first mystified himself by so much mystified? The reply seems to be, that a and has then, by his learned and ingenious arguments, mystified two learned judges, whose own first impressions, we are informed, were right and natural, but who do not seem to have given the matter much consideration, and in their turn have mystified a A. T. learned and right reverend bishop. question; and this we purpose to do, in the first between 1549 and 1662 ecclesiastical questions applying to it too much of his exuberant learning, instance, with respect to "vestments," and afterwards, as occasion may serve, with respect to the other points raised in the two cases. Such principles as apply to either of the other points, besides the one now under consideration, will not need to be repeated when we consider the other points. The rubric of the present Prayer-book, settled A.D. 1662, which is at the root of the whole matter, is: And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use, as were in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth. The meaning of this rubric is determined by the judgment of the Privy Council in Liddell se 1662. We propose to state, as briefly as the subject admits, the several stages through which the question passed, keeping close to authoritative documents, and declining historical disquisition. (To be continued.) Correspondence. BANNS OF MARRIAGE.-It appears from your correspondents, and those of the Times, that a very simple matter has been mystified by too much learning. The question relates simply to the construction of a few plain words in an Act of Parliament; and a national-school boy, well up in his English grammar, would have little difficulty in and others v. Westerton, and Liddell and others v. resolving it. It is very clear that all rubrics must Beal. Their Lordships held that the second of the 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, that in this case now takes give place to an Act of Parliament, and it is the Act year of Edward VI. means the first Prayer-precedence. This Act directs that all banns of book of Edward VI., and that the word "orna- matrimony shall be published "during the time of ments means "all the several articles used in morning service, or of evening service (if there shall the performance of the services and rites of the be no morning service in such church or chapel Church," including the dress of the ministers, upon the Sunday upon which such banns shall be but does not extend to articles not used in the published), immediately after the Second Lesson." rvices but set up in churches as decorations. Surely this is plain enough, and no person can misIn the same judgment on the question whether understand it, except one with either too little or everything that is not named in the rubrics of banns shall be published either during the time of too much learning. It undoubtedly means that the Prayer-book is excluded from the services of morning or evening service immediately after the the Church, their Lordships expressed themselves Second Lesson, but not in the evening except when as follows: there shall be no morning service on the Sunday of publication; and clearly the words "after the Second Lesson" relate to "morning service" as well as to "evening service," in like manner as the words "during the time" relate to both services, and not to "morning" only. So the words "morning service" and "evening service" are correlative terms. If the words "immediately after the Second Lesson" had been meant to apply only to "evening service," the time for the morning publication would have been specified immediately after the words "morning service," as thus: "as prescribed by the rubric," or "immediately after the Nicene Creed;" and in this manner the correlative terms would have kept up a proper relation to each other, and would have been properly distinguished and balanced. both "morning service" and "evening service" are But this was not the meaning intended; therefore, connected with "immediately after the Second Lesson," and these last-quoted words apply to both. To have inserted these words immediately after both "morning service" and "evening service" Their Lordships entirely agree with the opinions expressed by the learned judges in these cases and in Faulkner v. Litchfield, that in the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer-book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed; that no omission and no addition can be permitted; but they are not prepared to hold that the use of all articles not expressly mentioned in the rubric, although quite consistent with or even subsidiary to the service, is forbidden. Organs are not mentioned, yet, because they are auxiliary to the singing, they are allowed. Pews, cushions to kneel upon, pulpit cloths, hassocks, seats by the communion-table, are in constant use, yet they are not mentioned in the rubric. And, in applying this principle, their Lordships held that a credence-table was a lawful adjunct to the communion-table. Such being the authorised meaning of the rubric of the present Prayer-book, the next step Since my letter of the 1st inst. I have learned that in the edition of Wheatley on the Common Taunton, Jan. 8, 1867. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. B. Is YORK.-You will oblige a subscriber if you will answer the following question in your next. York a city and county in itself, as being separate and distinct from the county of York? [York is a city merely. See directions of writs, "Chitty's Practical Forms," p. 305.—Ed. L. T.] MAGISTRATES' LAW. A. laid an information against B for trespass in the daytime in search of game. The case was regularly heard at petty sessions and dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence for the complainant. The defendant examined no witness, but his attorney addressed the Bench. Quære, can A. lay a fresh information against B. for the same offence, and sustain a conviction upon new and sufficient evidence; or, is the dismissal upon the hearing of the first information a bar to such fresh proceedings under sect. 14 of Jervis's Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43? A SUBSCRIBER., THE DEAD LOCK.-Upon the subject of the "dead lock" it has occurred to me to suggest that the appointment of three assistant judges with coequal powers to the existing superior judges, and to relieve them entirely of their duties at chambers, would remove much of the inconvenience and delay arising from the numerous adjournments that take place in trials at Nisi Prius and arguments in banco, because the judge sitting has to rise at two o'clock to "go to chambers." Surely, three gentlemen behind the bar might be found competent and willing to perform the duty for 2500l. each, with the chance of promotion to the highest seats, when vacancies arise, and a saving of 7500l. a-year thus effected might meet the economical views of Mr. Gladstone, and probably secure his assistance to the passing of the necessary measure. H. G. expressly charged with debts, &c. 2. The estate (if any) It appears that as long as any of the assets not specifically bequeathed remain, such as are specifically bequeathed are not to be applied in payment of debts or of costs when a suit has been instituted: (Burton v. Cooke, 5 Ves. 464; Newbegin v. Bell, 23 Beav. 386.) But when the assets not specifically bequeathed are insufficient to pay all the debts, then the specifle legatees must abate in proportion to the value of their individual legacies: (Stecch v. Thornington, 2 Ves. sen. 561-564; Clifton v. Burt, 1 P. Wms. 382-383.) Consequently, it would appear that the payment bequest of the household furniture, and if that fund is not of the outstanding debts should be made out of the general sufficient, then the specifle legatee should join in; afterwards the proceeds of the sale of the real estate may be applied. ARTICULES. Winsford, Jan. 9. 178. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 35 OF THE HIGHWAY ACT "BOLD INVADERS."-My attention has been called to better one than Huddersfield, Jan. 9. 179. DEVISE.-If, before the Wills Act (7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26), A. devised certain lands to B. or his heirs, would B. have an estate for life or in fee? I should be glad if any of your readers could refer me to a case on the point. Winsford, Jan. 7. Answers. LEX. "Articled Clerk" is referred to White v. Mullett, 20 B.'s (Q. 175.) CONTRACT-BANKRUPTCY.-I would refer "Articled Clerk" to the case of Holderness v. Rankin, 29 L. J. sold, and remained in the shipbuilder's yard for completion. Afterwards the shipbuilder became bankrupt; it was held that the statute did not apply, as the bankrupt had possession of the vessel for a special purpose only, and had not the order and disposition of it See also Colins v. Forbes, 3 T. R. 316; Clarke v. Spence, 4 A. & E. LAW STUDIES AT CAMBRIDGE.-It affords me 448; and Chitty on Contracts, 3rd ed. 397, where it expresses it thus: "That earnest given upon a sale of much pleasure to observe the insertion of the recent goods does not absolutely alter or bind the property of list of Cambridge law honours in last week's LAW the goods contracted for, but only binds the bargain and TIMES; and that you intend also to publish the difentitles the vendee to the goods, if not guilty of an express ferent papers set at that examination. In doing this default in subsequently refusing to pay for them:" (Back I think you are acting wisely. The question of legal. Owen, 5 T. R. 409; Com. Dig. Biens D. 3; 2 BL. Com. 448; 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 125; and the judgment of Pollock, education is one which has been for some time a C. B. in Hamilton v. Bell, 10 Ex 550; also Selwyn's Nisi subject of anxious consideration to that large section Prins, vol. 1, 294.) ARTICULUS. of society who take a direct interest in the law and lawyers. It is well, then, that whatever is being done at our Universities and elsewhere in this direction should be brought before the eyes of lawyers themselves. They are thus able to scatter to the winds those hazy, shadowy ideas which love to play across and obscure the face of truth. Briefly I will state what is being done at our Universities indirectly to promote legal education. At Oxford there is the school of "Law and Modern History;" at this examination history greatly predominates, Roman law and jurisprudence holding a very humble place. At Cambridge, for those ambitious of law honours, there is the law tripos; eight papers are set in Roman law, jurisprudence, international law, and English law, and one paper in constitutional history. At the London University, according to the new regulations for the LL.B., Roman law and jurisprudence occupy an important position. Thus, in comparing the systems of Oxford and Cambridge as a preliminary training for the young lawyer, that of Cambridge stands facile princeps. It becomes, then, an important question, what is the marketable value of a good place obtained in the law tripos at Cambridge? What ability and industry is such a place considered to represent? The way in which this question is answered will vitally influence the future destiny of these studies. You cannot expect men To scorn delight and live laborious days, unless they know beforehand that the smile of favour will shine upon them should they come successfully out of the race. It is on this head that I have ventured to intrude myself on your columns. I will not weary you by urging the value of an education in the principles of jurisprudence, &c., preliminary to the subsequent erection of a superstructure of practical law in London. It is sufficient to say that Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir John Coleridge are among those who have given earnest expression to this opinion. Among living celebrities who in their day distinguished themselves in law studies at Cambridge I may mention the names of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Professor Maurice, Montagu Cha C., and the present Regius Professor. law tripos list was headed by the I depends upon the nature of the agreement between B. and In reply to "Articled Clerk," I would say that it (Q. 174.) CONVEYANCE-ACKNOWLEDGMENT.-In the case ment by A. The decisions of the last few years have given to or for the separate use of a feme corert, and even SITTINGS AND CAUSE LIST FOR Equity Courts. Court of Appeal in Chancery. (Before the LORD CHANCELLOR and LORDS JUSTICES.) Appeals. Harries v. Rees Hynam v. Dunn Austin r. Tawney. Dock Johnstone v. Hamilton Lewer v. Earl of Shaftes bury. (L.C.) Ennor で。 English and Phillips v. Hudson. L.C.) Grady r. Taylor. (L.C.) Kent Railway Company (L.C.) Thruston . Gaussen. (L.C.) Cooper v. Martin Watney r. Wells. (L.C.) North Stafford Steel, Iron, Cardiff Preserved Coal and combe Railway Company North Hallenbeagle Tin and Copper Mining Company, Limited, and Companies Act 1862-Appeal petition of Richard Knight from the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries Crump . Moretonhampstead and South Devon Railway Company Schneider r. Great Eastern Loosemore r. Davey Jarvis v. Allen On the sale of freeholds, a married woman joins in ། Haines v. Haines Edmonds v. Millett Howard r. Hunt Willett e. Johnson Pascoe r. Lyle Gelder r. Foster Dicconson v. Part Wood r. Wood Re Hale-Webster r. O'Con nor Holland v. Mortashed Semple v. Morris Honey . Great Eastern Heffer v. Martyn Jones v. Powell Hincks v Hincks Freeland v. Pearson Burnell e. Firth Johnson v. Bainton Eglin v. Dryden Sadler v. Pope Same v. Same Same v. Same Peter v. Jones Farington v. Parker V. C. Stuart's Court. Causes, &c. Hacker v. Jones Turner v. Chick Reece v. Great Eastern Rail way Company Wilde Sennett House v. Great Eastern Railway Company Powys v. Shrewsbury and Nugent . Great Eastern Batley v. London, Chatham, Elford v. Whitehead Finch v. Great Eastern Rail way Company Clayton v. Renton Smith v. Rayden Symmington a. Whitehead Acomb v. Landed Estates Company (Limited) Williamson v. Bates Surr v. Walmsley Tayler . Cox Miller v. Dyball Lucas v. Jones Mathews v. Mathews Stammer v. Elliott ! London, Hamburgh, and Robinson v. Neal Tucker v. Helder Swindell v. Marquis of Sligo Haynes v. Matthews Riddin e. Jarman Pope v. Great Eastern Rail- Smith v. Metropolitan Rail- Ashby v. Hester Hervey v. Hethorn Railway Company v. Great Railway Company Re Harrison's Estate Eastern Eastern Lehmann v. McArthur Haden v. Stourbridge Rail- Jowett e. Smith way Company Silver v. Coote Ronayne v. Ronayne Malcolm v. Dock Company, Etches v. Salter Lawton v. Price Murray e. Cockerell Countess of Harrington v. The Annual General Meeting of this society was held at the Freemasons' Tavern, on Wednesday, 19th Dec. 1866, Mr. Carter in the chair. There was a very full attendance of the members -a larger number, indeed, than were ever present at any previous annual meeting. The business was commenced by the reading of the committee's report, which was as follows: "Committee's Fourth Annual Report. "To the Members of the Legal and General Discussion Society. "The committee, in presenting their fourth annual report, have again to congratulate the members on the continued prosperity of the society. The total number of members now actually attending the society's meetings is fifty-six; and the several debates during the year have been well attended, and the number of speakers has increased. "The committee have also much satisfaction in reporting that the revised rule as to eligibility for membership has materially benefited and strengthened the society. "Dated this 19th Dec. 1866. (Signed) "W. E. JONES, Chairman." On the motion of Mr. Stock, seconded by Mr. J. S. Taylor, the report was received and ordered to be entered on the minutes. The secretary then read his half-yearly report, which was as follows: "Secretary's Ninth Report. "To the Members of the Legal and General Discussion Society. "Gentlemen,-It affords me much pleasure, in layKershaw v. Acomb ing before the society my usual half-yearly report of Hall v. Booth its proceedings, to be able to say that in every respect Fiddeye. Stanway Rhodes v. Whitehead the recent meetings have been most satisfactory. Leycester v. Norris Not only has the attendance of the members conLadbrook v. Nunn siderably improved, but the debates have been Payne . Morris carried on with greater spirit than at any previons McGregor v. Western Railway Com- period of the society's history. The Great pany Wednesday, February 6 first. Friday, March 1 The trials by jury in the Court of Probate will be taken The Judge will sit in chambers at eleven o'clock to hear summonses, and in court at twelve o'clock to hear motions, on Tuesday, Jan. 15, and each succeeding Tuesday until Tuesday, March 19, inclusive. All papers for motions must be left with the clerk of the papers before two o'clock on the preceding Thursday. LAW SOCIETIES. UNITED LAW CLERKS' SOCIETY. "My present report extends from 4th July to 19th Dec. 1866, both inclusive. During that period the following subjects have been debated, viz., 'Conservative Administration;' New Bankruptcy Bill;' Amalgamation of Superior Courts of Common Law; Theatres and Music Halls; ' and 'Equalisation of Poor-rate.' No meetings were held in the long vacation, hence the small number of questions discussed since the date of my last report-I am. Gentlemen, yours faithfully, (Signed) "FRANCIS K. MUNTON, "Honorary Secretary. "Freemasons' Tavern, 19th Dec. 1866." Mr. E. Kinns moved and Mr. Dugget seconded the report being received, and the motion was carried. The Treasurer (Mr. Toombs) read his report of the society's funds, showing a satisfactory balance in favour; and on the motion of Mr. E. Kinns, seconded by Mr. Andrews, the report was received. The Secretary (Mr. F. K. Munton) then rose to tender his resignation. He said that it was with much regret that he felt himself called upon to resign the post which he had held from the formation of the society. He thought, however, that the society had now attained such a position that it could afford to spare his services, and this reflection considerably lessened his difficulty. Many of his friends round him were aware of the main canse of his resignation. They knew that his professional. engagements had recently accumulated upon him, and that consequently he was about very shortly to dissever himself entirely from any other business than his own practice, the responsibility of which latter demanded his increased and undivided attention. He trusted, however, that he should long continue a member of the society, and, assuming that the meeting did him the honour of electing him on the committee, he should be pleased to afford any assistance in his power to the gentleman who might succeed him. Mr. W. E. Jones proposed the following resolution: "That this meeting, whilst it accepts with regret the resignation now tendered by Mr. Munton, of the office of secretary, in consequence of other engagements preventing his giving attention to the duties, desires to express to him its sense of his services and its thanks for the valuable assistance which he has rendered from the foundation of the society to the present time-a period of four yearswhich assistance, in the opinion of this meeting, has so materially occasioned the marked success which has attended the society. The meeting also desires to tender its good wishes for his future welfare." Mr. J. H. Mote seconded the resolution. The resolution was put and carried by acclamation, and Mr. Munton returned thanks. The secretary (Mr. G. H. Kinns), in an admirable speech, returned thanks for the honour which had been conferred upon him, and stated that every effort on his part should be devoted to keeping the society in its present prosperous condition. of these, Mr. Crighton was particularly energetic, To advance the prosperity of the society and encourage good feeling among the members was ever his object, and his memory will be cherished by all who knew him with affectionate regard. As On the election of the committee for the year a practitioner of the highest honour and integrity, 1867, Mr. J. H. Mote proposed the following of superior intelligence and ability, combined with names:-Mr. J. Carter, Mr. J. F. Dugget, Mr. F. K. most courteous and conciliatory manners, your comMunton, Mr. T. C. Greenfield, and Mr. J. S. Tay-mittee hold him up as a model for imitation by all who, whether out of office or in office, seek to advance the welfare of the society. lor. Mr. E. Kinns seconded the nomination of these gentlemen, and the proposal was carried unanimously, the hon. treasurer (Mr. D. R. L. Toombs) and the hon. secretary (Mr. G. H. Kinns) being ex officio members of such committee. A vote of thanks was then given to the officers of the society for their services during the past year; and, on the motion of Mr. Munton, seconded by Mr. Debenham, the next meeting was fixed for Wednesday, the 9th Jan. 1867, on which occasion a question on the recent political speeches of Mr. John Bright will be considered. All communications in reference to the society are now to be addressed to the secretary, Mr. G. H. Kinns, 30, Great George-street, Westminster, S.W. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES- At the Annual General Meeting of the society, held at the Queen's Head Inn, in Pilgrim-street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the 6th Dec. 1866, Mr. Dees, president, in the chair, the report of the committee was read, and adopted. The accounts were audited, and a balance of 31. 1s. 2d. found to be in the hands of the treasurer. Messrs. Thomas Ward Stewart, John Gibson Youll, Cuthbert Johnson Dove, and John Atkinson Newbiggen, were duly elected members of this society. The following gentlemen were elected officers for the ensuing year: Mr. Edward Mather, President; Mr. John Hunter, Vice-President; Mr. R. R. Dees, Treasurer; Mr. James Radford, Mr. Willian Daggett, Secretaries. The standing committee were appointed as follows: Mr. George Armstrong, Mr. William Chartres, Mr. L. M. Cockcroft, Mr. John Brunton Falconar, Mr. J. L. Forster, Mr. Thomas George Gibson, Mr. George William Hodge, Mr. John Theodore Hoyle, Mr. C. H. Stanton, Mr. Joseph Willis Swinburne, Mr. Robert Spence Watson, with the officers of the society. The thanks of the meeting were voted to the president for his able and courteous conduct in the chair. The following report was presented by the standing committee: The Session of Parliament being mainly occupied by discussions upon the "Bill to amend the Representation of the People," there has been little occasion to consider legislative measures affecting the Profession, and in other respects, the duties devolving upon your committee have been lighter than usual. A Bill to regulate the Sale of Land by Auction was introduced into Parliament by Lord St. Leonards, of which the details were fully considered. Your committee were in communication with the Incorporated Law Society upon several of them which were considered to be objectionable, and the Bill was ultimately withdrawn. A Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill was also brought before Parliament, but was not proceeded in. Valuable communications have been received from the Liverpool Law Society, on the desirableness of appointing additional judges and altering assize courts. Upon these subjects deputations from the Manchester as well as Liverpool Law Society waited upon the Earl of Derby at Knowsley, and were favourably received. His Lordship requested a written statement of what was suggested, which was sent. A proposed rearrangement of the legal year was under consideration by the Liverpool Law Society at their general meeting on the 21st ult., and the attention of our society is requested thereon. But though the past year has been somewhat uneventful, it has been marked by the loss of one of our members who long exercised a happy influence in the society-we allude, of course, to the death of the late senior secretary, Mr. Crighton, which took place on the 28th Feb. He was elected to office at the annual meeting in Dec. 1837, upon the death of Mr. Edward Hemsley, and retired from ill-health in Dec. 1862. During the quarter of a century in which his services were especially devoted to the society, many important measures came before it, such as the establishment of the District Courts of Bankruptcy, and of the Probate Court, the extension of the Burgess and non-Burgess Courts, &c. In the first In Dec. 1862 he was elected president, but the state of his health rendered him unable to take any active share of its duties. His funeral was private, but it was deemed proper, on the part of the society, to send an intimation of it to the members, of whom a considerable number attended. LEGAL OBITUARY. NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMES is contributed by SHERMAN, ALEXANDER, colonial shipping agent, Leadenhall-st. Pet. Dec. 27. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Bol. Kearsey, Backlersbury. Sur. Jan. 14 SNOW, HENRY RICHARD, builder, Whitstable. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Goldrick, Strand. Sur. Jan. 14 THOMPSON, JOHN JULIAN, boatbuilder, Plough-rd, Rotherhithe, and Pet. WARD, JOHN JAMES, Journeyman coachbuilder, Woodford. Sur, Jan. 15 WATTS, JOHN HENRY, drysalter, Bond-ct, Walbrook, and manu- ALLEN, WILLIAM, traveller for a wine and spirit merchant, Longsight, BULLIMORE, ROBERT. jun., victualler, Great Yarmouth. Pet. Dec. 27. BUTTERWORTH, THOMAS TAYLOR, farmer, Dudley. Pet. Dec. 19. CARRINGTON, JOHN, out of business, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & CLARKSON, JAMES, boot and shoe maker, Newcastle. Pet. Dec. 27. DAVIES, WILLIAM, late joiner, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. & O. A. DODD, RICHARD, screw bolt manufacturer, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 22. THE late Walker Skirrow, Esq., Q.C., of Lincoln's- EASTWOOD, JAMES, and EASTWOOD, JOHN, cottonspinners, Green- THE GAZETTES. Professional Partnerships Dissolbed. Gazette, Jan. 1. PONTIFEX, JOHN; WEST, THOMAS; and PONTIFEX, MARSHALL, Bankrupts. Gazette, Jan. 1. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. BOOKER. GEORGE, farm labourer, North Baddesley. Pet. Dec. 27. Pet. BROWN, CHARLOTTE, spinster, baby-linen manufacturer, Edgware-rd. DUNN, JAMES, greengrocer, Larkhall-la, Clapham. Pet. Dec 28. HALES, DAVID, previous builder, Forest-hill. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. KAILL, JOHN, acrobat, Rathbone-pl, Oxford-st. Pet. Dec. 27. Reg. OSBORN, JABEZ, grocer, Aldershott, Pet. Dec. 27. Reg. Pepys. Strand. Sur. Jan. 12 ROWE, JOHN REDFERN, out of business, Freemantle. Pet. Dec. 28. SHACKELL (and not Sheckell as before advertised), JAMES, tobacco- O. A. Chamberlin. Sol. Wiltshire, Great Yarmouth. Sur. Jan. 15 LEWIS, JOHN, basket dealer, Merthyr Tydfil. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. & MCDONALD, WILLIAM, blacksmith, Keswick. Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. & MILLER, JAMES CULLIFORD, block and mast maker, Sunderland. NICHOLSON, GEORGE, grocer, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. & O. A. OSBORNE, WILLIAM, Bideford. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. & O. A. Rooker. PARHAM, JAMES, jun., formerly dealer in cattle, Templecombe. Pet. PYBAND, HENRY, out of business, Sheffield. Pet. Dec. 27. Reg. SAWYER, SAMUEL, baker, Southampton. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. & O. A. SMYTH, WILLIAM, general dealer, Normanton. Pet. Dec. 17. Reg. & STEWARDSON, NATHANIEL THOMAS, jun., provision dealer, Norwich. TAYLOR, ROBERT, boot and shoe dealer, Rochdale. Pet. Dec. 27. THOMAS, SAMUEL, late Saint George, near Saint Asaph. Pet. June 12, Gazette, Jan. 4. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basingball-st. BILLINGTON, MATTHEW, builder, Hornsey-rise. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Jan. 15 CLARK, HENRY BOON, miller, Whittlesford. Pet. Jan. 2. O. A. Ed- HANCOCK, JOHN, contractor, White-sq, Clapham. Pet. Dec. 28. 0. A. SCOTT, THOMAS WILLIAM, draper, Bishopsgate-st-without, and SHARPE, JOHN, wine merchant. High-st, Hoxton. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. THORNTON, JAMES FRANCIS, journeyman shipwright, Woolwich. WOOD, BENJAMIN HIGGINS, commission agent, London-rd, Lower |