the prosecution; and the other was a case of considerable importance and interest.

Northampton, March 5.-The county calendar contains the names of 37 prisoners, the borough calendar those of 10, and the offences charged are murder, manslaughter, burglary, housebreaking, forgery, concealment of birth, receiving stolen goods, and larceny. The cause-list contained 7 causes, three of which are to be tried by common and four by special juries.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

Warrick, March 1.-There are 21 causes for trial in the Crown Court. There are 41 criminal cases for trial, which is rather a large number after the Winter Assizes of last December. The quality of crime, however, is very light, no fewer than 25 of the cases being Sessions cases of a most ordinary character.

OXFORD CIRCUIT. Worcester, March 5.-The commissions were opened here yesterday. The cause-list contains 12 entries, of which four are marked for special juries.

The Oel says that Mr. Coleridge, Q. C., M.P., has consented to act as one of the Commissioners to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Schools Bill.

THE LAW LORDS.-The following was addressed to the Times:-"Towards the close of your report of my speech in the House of Commons on Friday night occurs the sentence, "You have a good many eminent law lords there (i.e., in the House of Lords) now; and, although several of these eminent men are not likely to leave descendants behind them, others are; and, if I were one of those descendants, I should very much regret the indiscreet zeal of my ancestor in accepting the dignity." Nothing could be farther from my intention than to express myself in such a manner with respect to any particular persons, much more with respect to the whole body of the present law lords; and I am satisfied that there is an inaccuracy in this portion of the report. I spoke not of the present law law lords in particular, but generally of the legal creations of late years; and what I mean to say, and believe myself to have said, was that among them there was probably some cases in which the descendants of the first peer might have good reason to regret the acceptance of the dignity. I do not trouble you with the correction of other inaccuracies, unavoidable in so long a report upon such a subject.-I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, ROUNDELL PALMER.-6, Portland-place, Feb. 23."

Mr. Welch, the Registrar of the Le ds Bankruptcy Court, has arranged with his creditors, the condition being that he sets aside one-half of his salary for the liquidation of his debts.

The death of Mr. Maxwell Hamilton, Crown Solicitor for the Irish North-East Circuit, will place several lucrative offices available to attorneys at the disposal of the Government. The appointment is worth 2000 a year, and it is stated that it will be divided into three parts.

house on Sunday, Jan. 6, during the prohibited hours.
Two of them lived within a short distance of the
defendant's house, had been employed that morning in
driving cattle from the wharf, and on finishing their
work had gone into the house for refreshment. It
was contended that these persons, having left their
houses, gone to the wharf and taken cattle to the
market, were travellers :

Held, that they were not bonâ fide travellers within the
meaning of the Act.

The information charged the defendant, the pro-
prietor of the White Horse Hotel, in the Metropo-
litan Cattle-market, Islington, with keeping open
his house for the sale of spirits, &c., within the
prohibited hours on Sunday, Jan. 6.

he should contend that the landlord was bound to have served him. It was absolutely necessary that men employed as these drovers were should have proper refreshment, and here it was not shown to be otherwise. In the case of Taylor v. Humphries, which was taken on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the Court stated that the intention of the Legislature by the prohibition was to promote the better observance of the Sabbath in general, and in particular by excluding those who yielded too much to the attraction of the public-house from their accustomed haunts to bring them to places of worship, and so to paths of piety and virtue, and it was further stated that this intention of the Legislature might also be in part promoted by inducing resort to the beauties of nature at the proper season, and by allowing wholesome refreshment, needful for the more comfortable enjoyment thereof. It could not be contended here that those drovers had gone to the defendant's house for the purpose of sotting. They had gone there on legitimate purposes of business, and even the distance they had travelled rendered them travellers within the meaning of the Act. In the case he had cited Erle, C. J. had held that the word "travellers" ought to be construed to include all who are abroad, either from a desire to enjoy country sights and sounds, or from any motive of business or pleasure except desire for excessive drinking, and that any supply of refreshment needed by reason of such faring abroad ought to be construed to be refreshment for a traveller. He also contended that the defendant had acted bona fide in this case, and that the onus of proof, that the parties served were not travellers, was on the police, and remarked that Erle, C. J. had held that if the publicau believed, and had reason to believe when he supplied the drink, that he was supplying refreshment to a traveller, he ought not to be convicted. He should contend that, whether a man was travelIling for business or for pleasure, the innkeeper was bound to serve him. In the case of Peache v. Colman, decided in the Court of Common Pleas, 35 L. J. N. S. 118, the appellant kept a public-house outside the Sevenoaks Railway Station, which was a mile from Sevenoaks. On Whit Sunday, after the arrival of several excursion trains, and before halfpast twelve in the day, several persons were in his house drinking; two were Sevenoaks persons, but the only evidence as to the appellant's knowledge that they were there was his remark (upon his attention being called to them as they left) that he was not aware that Sevenoaks persons were there. The Court in that case held that the justices were not bound to convict him on a charge under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 49, s. 1, for having his house open illegally.

Besley appeared for the defendant.
Police-inspector William Odell, said:-At twenty
minutes to twelve o'clock on the morning of the
6th Jan., I was passing through the cattle-market
with a constable, when I saw a man coming out of
the side gate of Mr. Tilke's house in the yard, and I
also saw two men leave the side door of the house.
The man who was just coming out of the gate sud-
denly turned round and walked into the house in a
hurried manner. I followed quickly after, and
found him knocking his stick on the counter. I
saw seven men in front of the bar, and they all left
the house in a hurried manner. I asked the defen-
dant who those men were, and he said they were
drovers. They had the appearance of labouring men,
and not that of drovers. I then went into the
parlour and found nine men there, and in answer to
my question who they were, Mr. Tilke said they
were lodgers. The two men who left the house
before I entered had the appearance, one that of a
slaughterman, and the other that of a labouring
man. I asked Mr. Tilke who those men were who
left the house, and he said he did not know that
there were any, but if there were any he assumed
they were drovers. With that I left the house.
visited the house again at twelve o'clock.

By Mr. COOKE.-I visited the house three times
altogether. There were persons in the parlour on
each occasion, who Mr. Tilke said were lodgers.

Cross-examined by Besley.-I visited the house at twenty minutes past eleven, at twenty minutes to twelve, and at twelve o'clock. When I went in the second time I am sure that the same men in front of the bar rushed out. I did not see any vessel or drinking glass in any of their hands. There were marks of pots and glasses on the bar. I have summoned the defendant for Sunday trading, three

times.

dant's house is one of the large inns in the new Besley, for the defendant, stated that the defenMetropolitan Cattle-market at Islington, belonging to the corporation of the city of London. These houses are intended chiefly for the accommodation of persons having business in the market. Defendant's house is principally resorted to by cattle salesmen and drovers, the former of whom lodge there, usually coming from the country, some on Saturday nights and others on Sunday mornings, for the purpose of inspecting and superintending the THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK OF SCOTLAND.-On cattle consigned to them for sale, and of giving Friday last week Mr. George Patton, ex-Lord Advo- necessary instructions to their drovers as to fetching cate, presented to the Court of Session, her Majesty's cattle from the wharves and lairs to the markets commission, appointing him to the office of Lord on Sunday for Monday's market. The salesmen Justice Clerk of Scotland and President of the Second usually direct their drovers to wait upon them on Division of the Court of Session. In conformity Sunday mornings for instructions at the defendant's with ancient custom the judge elect was remitted to house. He should show that salesmen were comprobation," the court having the privilege of test-pelled to transact their business on Sundays, as the ing the qualifications of all who receive judicial market commences before daybreak on Mondays, appointments. Accordingly, the Lord Probationer and most of the cattle come into the market on proceeded to the Outer House, where he sat in com- Sunday, or rather into the adjoining lairs, and he pany with Lord Jerviswoode, and heard two cases should contend that the licensed houses in the pleaded, his opinion on which he afterwards re- market were intended expressly for the accommoported to the court. On Saturday morning the Lord dation of the drovers and salesmen. He should call Probationer sat at the clerk's table in the first divi- witnesses to confirm the statements he had made, sion of the Inner House, and heard a case argued at and he had no doubt but that the magistrate, after the bar, on which he gave his opinion to the court. hearing the witnesses, would dismiss the complaint. Their lordships were pleased to "sustain the trials" Mr. Naylor, a master drover, deposed that he of the Lord Probationer, who was then duly sworn resided at Walworth, and went to the defendant's into office and invested in the judicial gown. The house every Sunday to see his employers, and the Lord President then called him to the bench under drovers in his employ had to come to him to get the title of Lord Glenalmond, and directed him, as instructions. On the morning in question both he Lord Justice Clerk, to take his seat at the right and his men had been to the Dublin Wharf to get hand of the chair in full court, and in the presiden- cattle off the boats, and had driven them to the tial chair of the Second Division. Lord Glenalmond, market, and then went to the defendant's house and amid the cheers of a crowded court-room, ascended had some bread and cheese. the bench, and, shaking hands with the judges and bowing to the Bar, took his seat on the Lord President's right. The title of the new judge is derived from his lordship's property of the Cairnies, in Glenalmond, Perthshire.

MAGISTRATE AND PARISH
LAWYER.

CLERKENWELL POLICE COURT.
Jan. 1867.

(Before Mr. COOKE, Police Magistrate.)
REG. v. TILKE.

Public-house-What is a bona fide traveller. Certain drovers attending the cattle-market on Monday, frequented the defendant's house for refreshment and transaction of business. Several of them were in the

Inspector Odell said that one of the slaughtermen he saw leave the house only lived a short distance from the defendant's, and opposite to the constable who was a witness in the case. He should like to have that person summoned to give evidence.

In answer to Mr. COOKE, Mr. Naylor said that one of the drovers engaged in driving the cattle from the wharf resided in Maiden-lane, within a few yards of the market, another at Walworth, and the other at Bethnal-green.

Besley submitted that they were travellers, and were entitled to be served. The recent decisions in the Superior Courts were in his favour. The drovers in question-and who it was admitted had been served with necessary refreshments-were travellers within the meaning of the Act, and even if it had been proved that the man who resided at Maidenlane had gone to the house and had been served with refreshment before he started to the Dublin Wharf,

Mr. COOKE said-The summons is taken out under the 2 & 3 Vict. s. 42, and under that section Mr. Tilke has been summoned for unlawfully keeping his house open for the sale of beer otherwise than for the refreshment of travellers or lodgers. The facts lie in a small compass. The defendant's house is much frequented by the owners of cattle, who arrange with their drovers to meet them there on the Sunday morning to receive orders for the Monday's cattle-market On the day in question the police entered the house between eleven and twelve o'clock, and found several persous in the parlour, some drinking and some engaged in writing, and as the police have made no point of that I may take it for granted that they were lodgers, and as such had been supplied, and so far as that is concerned no offence has been committed. But at the same time it was shown that there were seven or eight other persons at the bar, and it was endeavoured to be shown that they had not been served; but when the police entered the barmaid was engaged in removing glasses from the counter, and the learned counsel endeavoured to make out that she was only clearing up the bar, and making preparations for opening the house at one o'clock. That clearly was a mistake, for upon the girl being put into the box she stated that she had served ale to two or three persons who had been standing in front of the bar. It was contended that those persons so supplied at the bar were travellers within the meaning of the Act, they being drovers. It was also shown that two of such persons lived within a short distance of the public house, and that they had that morning been engaged in driving cattle from the Dublin wharf, and had on their work being ended gone to the defendant's house for refreshments. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that these drovers should be designated and treated as travellers, and it was also contended that it was necessary for the informer to make out the exception, as the onus of proof did not lie with the defendant. It was quite clear that there were persons at the bar that could not be considered as travellers. I am bound to say that the cases cited by Mr. Besley, and to which I have referred, throw a very great light on the class of persons who should be considered as travellers; and had it not been for the very high authorities I should not have construed the word so liberally in the cases of Taylor v. Humphreys and Peache v. Colman. I consider that a very large and liberal interpretation has been given to the word "traveller." I should be unwilling to go one step beyond those decisions, whilst there] continued to

be any such offence. Mr. Besley contended that the drovers in question having left their homes, gone to the wharf, and taken the cattle to the market, were travellers; but I am clearly of opinion that they were not privileged more than any other of the public, and that, having come from the wharf that morning, and finished their work, they could not under the name of travellers, go to the defendant's house and seek refreshments before the lawful hours of opening. They should have gone to their homes, and the fact that some of them resided in the neighbourhood is another strong reason against my coming to a conclusion that they were bona fide travellers. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case I must inflict a high penalty -one that will give the defendant the right to appeal, and of the two I would rather that he should appeal, if he is so advised, for I am not, as I have before said, willing to give a larger interpretation of the word "traveller" than that in the cases cited. As the defendant has before been convicted of a

similar offence, I must order him to pay a penalty of 47. and the costs.

Mr. Robert Pryor, of High Elms, Watford, has been appointed chairman of the quarter sessions of

THE PROSECUTION OF MR. EYRE.-The following
has been addressed to the Editor of the Times:-
"Sir,-The attorney of the Jamaica Committee has
published his letter to me of the 22nd ult., but has
forgotten to append my reply.-I beg the favour of
your allowing me a small space to rectify the omis-under the Joint-Stock Companies Act.
sion by publishing in your columns my answer to
Mr. Shaen's letter.-I am, your most obedient
servant,
"J. ANDERSON ROSE.

has been unreasonable, or has sought to make a
grievance."

The above company was summoned for unlawfully refusing to allow Mr. Josiah Harris to inspect the register of shareholders at their office, as provided

"11, Salisbury-street, Strand, March 5."
Dear Sir.-In reply to your letter. I beg leave to inform
you that Mr. Eyre, adhering to the decision of his counsel
and friends, declines by any act of his own to coun-
tenance or aid the Jamaica Committee in their murder

prosecutions.

It is too obvious to need any reiteration on my part that
our casual conversation had no reference to proceedings
at Bow-street, which, indeed, I have reason to know you
did not yourself contemplate at the time you spoke to me.
The motive you then professed was courtesy to Mr. Eyre.
The reason you now give for wishing Mr. Eyre to leave
his home and come to London to be prosecuted for
murder is, that by his doing so the Jamaica Committee
would avoid "great expense and inconvenience."
considerations are not likely to have any weight with Mr.
Eyre or his advisers.-I am, &c.,
To William Shaen, Esq.

These

Straight (barrister) appeared for the complainant.
Mullens (solicitor) for the company.

Mr. Josiah Harris said he lived at 16, Park-road, Brompton. About twelve months ago he purchased from the secretary of the company one hundred shares for 3501., but he had absconded, and he got neither shares nor money. On the 1s Feb. last he bought two parcels of ten shares each, and went to the office to see if the calls were all paid up, but found they were not. He got a form from the office, went to the bankers, paid up the calls, and deposited in the office in due form the notice of transfer. On the 18th Feb. he called at the office and asked to be allowed to inspect the register, but the transfer clerk told him that the books were in a bad state and were not in the office, but in the hands of Mr. Moates, the accountant to the company. He replied that they should not be at any other office; the accountant ought to be there. That was between eleven and one o'clock. He called again on the

the Liberty of St. Alban, in the room of the Earl of JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW 23rd about twelve o'clock, and asked to see them; Verulam, who lately resigned.

At the Privy Council Office on Friday, Lord Southampton took the oath as lord lieutenant of the county of Northampton, in the presence of the Lord President, the Right. Hon. Spencer H. Walpole, the Right Hon. H. Corry, and the Right Hon. Gathorne Hardy.

JOURNAL.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

GENERAL.

RAILWAY-PUBLIC CONVENIENCE -BREACH
OF CONTRACT.-Suit by landowner to compel a
railway company to make a road and bridge and

of the plaintiff's land in the manner in which
they had by deed agreed to make them, the
company having, on motion for an injunction,
been allowed to proceed with the works in
another way, under the usual undertaking. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were
bound by the contract "to interfere with and
obstruct the then present lodge-road as little as
possible, consistent with the deviation thereof
thereby authorised," had not made their railway
at the level and in the direction of the line

but the clerk told him that if he would give notice to the company he could see them between the hours of eleven and one o'clock on the following Monday morning. He called again on the Monday, between two and three o'clock, and applied to see the register, but the same clerk told him that he was very sorry, but he had received instructions not to show the register except between eleven and

more shares to be transferred to his name.

In cross-examination by Mullens, Mr. Harris said he was an oil manufacturer at Gildersome, near Leeds, and had carried on business there for about but not at the company's office, and on different twelve months. He had seen the register of shares, business altogether. He saw the register at Mr. Moates' office on the 19th Feb., but not for an inspection. He was shown all he asked to see. He had obtained a list of shareholders up to the sixth call, but it was not correct.

It is worth while noting the way in which fraudulent tradesmen are dealt with in Switzerland. The other structures over a certain specified portion one o'clock. He had in the mean time sent in five police tribunal of Zug has just condemned a landowner, who had been convicted of putting water in his milk, and had thus caused a loss to the purchaser, a retail milkman, to eighteen months' imprisonment, the loss of civil rights, and costs. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. - -A supplement to the London Gazette of Tuesday contains a minute of the Privy Council, revoking so much of the several orders, dated April 14, April 27, May 26, June 22, and July 31, in the year 1866, respectively, as contains provisions prohibiting the admission of cattle into the districts mentioned in the said orders, or enables the local authority therein to make regulations respecting the admission of cattle into their respective districts, and so much of the orders dated

May 26, Oct. 24, and Oct. 30, in the year 1866, respectively, as contains powers for licensing the holding of fairs.

CURIOUS CONSEQUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. -A convict, condemned to death in Belgium, whose

sentence had been commuted to hard labour for life, has just been delivered up to the French authorities. His name is Vital Donat, of Panillac, in the department of the Gironde, and he was formerly a merchant at Bordeaux. He was condemned to death by a sentence of the 13th Nov. last at Antwerp, for having in that city, where he had taken refuge in the false name of Willis Romero Donatry, wilfully set fire to certain combustibles for the purpose of burning one or many ships, being also convicted of forgery. He is now about to take his trial in France as a fraudulent bankrupt, and for the forgery of bills of lading to the value of nearly a million of francs. His position is somewhat strange, for he escapes from a sentence of hard labour for life to undergo a

trial which can entail at most hard labour for a definite period, and should he be acquitted, which is not, however, very likely, there seems to be no way

mentioned in the plans of their works; and that
the bridge and road which they had constructed
were not in accordance with the specifications
in the contract, and in other respects interfered
with the plaintiff's access to the house and
grounds. The M. R. dismissed the bill without
prejudice to the plaintiff's bringing such action
or actions for breach of contract by the defen-
dants as he might be advised: Held, on appeal
(reversing the decree of the M. R.), that, even
admitting that the road and bridge could not be
made in the way laid down in the plan in the deed
without going over the plaintiff's land, yet, as
the company had before the M. R. given their
consent to that, the objection was gone. Then
as to danger to the public, that was not to de-
prive the plaintiff of his right to enforce the
agreement. If the injunction had been granted
the railway could not have been made, and the
utmost inconvenience which the public could
suffer now would be that the traffic must be sus-

pended. The company had deliberately entered
into an agreement with the plaintiff, and it did
not follow that the injury occasioned by the

Mul ens pointed out that the Act compelled the company to keep the register at their office ready for inspection "for at least two hours a day during business hours," and not for the whole of the business hours. Mr. Harris could see the register at the office every day in the week between the hours of eleven and one o'clock. The fact was that the secretary to the company had taken advantage of his position and absconded with their money. The directors had obtained a warrant at the Mansionhouse against him and hud also offered a reward for is apprehension. In consequence of his defaications the directors had been obliged to put the books into the hands of an accountant to ascertain their real position, and while that was being done the books were away from the office for a time.

Sir R. W. CARDEN said it appeared to him that Mr. Harris wanted to make a grievance. He did not think that there was any evasion of the Act such as was contemplated by it. He must dismiss the

Mr. Harris protested that a shareholder had

authorities for crimes committed in Belgium, and for by which he can be given up again to the Belgiau breach could be compensated for by damages. no right to make such an assertion unless he did it

which he has been there sentenced.

THE PROPOSED DISFRANCHISEMENT OF GREAT YARMOUTH.-At a special meeting of the Towncouncil of Great Yarmouth, held on Tuesday, the mayor (Mr. E. P. Youell) proposed the adoption of a petition against the proposed disfranchisement of the borough, which was seconded by Mr. C. E. Bartram, and agreed to unanimously. Annexed are a few extracts from the petition :-"From the development of the important fisheries off this coast, the excellent roadstead, the natural harbour

attractions as 8

and navigation, through which a large part of Norfolk and Suffolk are supplied and from its favourite watering place, this borough and port is one of the most important on the Eastern coast; and Parliamentary proceedings, both public and private, require the constant attention of its members, not only for the benefit of the borough population and the populous districts near and adjoining it, but also for the public interest. The present population of the borough is about 40.000, and the number of its inhabited houses about 8000. The commissioners appointed to inquire into the corrupt practices at the last election reported that there were then on the register 1647 10. householders, and that of those 430 persons received bribes. On the present register there are 1686 10%. householders, but eighty-five of those who were reported as receiving bribes are no longer on the register, and there are now, therefore, 1341 out of 1686 electors who have not been bribed.

The plaintiff retained his right to have the
agreement specifially performed: (Raphael v. The
Thames Valley Railway, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1.
L. C.)

who has obtained a judgment for the amount of
DEBENTURE-HOLDERS.-The debenture-holder,
his debt and interest, secured by a mortgage of
the company, will be considered only as a trustee
for the other debenture-holders in the same posi-
tion as himself, and an inquiry will be directed
in chambers if it will be for the benefit of the

debenture-holders generally that a receiver, who
had appeared in the cause, should interpose to
make the judgment available for all: (Bowen v.
N. S. 8. V. C. W.)
The Brecon, &c. Railway Company, 16 L. T. Rep.

MANSION-HOUSE POLICE-COURT.
Friday, March 1.

(Before Sir R. W. CARDEN.)
THE FRONTINO AND BOLIVIA GOLD MINING
COMPANY.

Right to inspect register of shareholders-Costs.
Any two hours in one day may be appointed for the
inspection of the register of shareholders of a com-
pany, and it is not open to a shareholder to demand
inspection whenever he chooses.

Costs will be allowed where it appears that the applicant

on oath.

Sir R. W. CARDEN said he took no notice of what had been said; he only took the case as it appeared before him. He would protect Mr. Harris against any company, but looking at the evidence, it appeared to him to be a most vexatious affair.

Mullens applied for costs, and Straight opposed the application.

Sir R. W. CARDEN said he should certainly allow two guineas costs.

OVEREND AND Co.-At a meeting of some of the principal creditors of Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited), Mr. Charles Oppenheim, by whom it had been convened, submitted a proposition to the effect that he should be authorised to negotiate an arrangement with the shareholders for the payment of the creditors' claims by instalments of 11s further dividend by the 31st Dec. 1867, and 5s., the balance, by the 31st Dec. 1868, the creditors agreeing to give up all demands for interest, which was almost unanimously adopted, Mr. Oppenheim being requested to send a circular to all the creditors asking for their assents.

MERCANTILE LAW.

--

But if the transfer of a delivery-order passes the property, the receipt of it does not constitute a sufficient acceptance under the Statute of Frauds (Bentall v. Burn, 3 B. & C. 423), without a presentation to the warehouseman, and a contract by him to hold the possession of the order.: (Farina v. Horne, 11 M. &. W. 119; Searle v. Keeves, 2 Esp. 598.)

COUNTY COURTS. SHREWSBURY COUNTY COURT. Tuesday, Feb. 12.

after. This was held a wrongful conversion by | M. acted upon the delivery-order until there B. Williams, J. held that A. was entitled to arose a rumour of B.'s insolvency, upon which NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. recover the full value of the goods, while the M. presented the order to A., and received a SECOND AGREEMENT.-In order that a second rest of the court considered that he was only fresh order from him addressed to L., the wareagreement which is not within the Statute of entitled to the damages actually incurred, which house keeper. A. received the sugars under the Frauds may supersede a prior agreement which in this case were merely nominal. The case direction of S. before this order could be acted is, it must amount to an absolute and not an would seem here to have turned upon the fact upon. It was held that the possession had never implied rescission: (Noble v. Ward, 14 L. T. that B. was not entitled to treat the warrant as changed, and therefore the vendor might enforce Rep. N. S. 672. Ex. Ch.) more than a pledge until default in payment, his lien: (2 H. of L. Cas. 309.) In Kingsford v. COTTON CONTRACT- ARBITRATION. A con- rather than upon the operation of a dock-warrant Merry, 26 L. J., N. S., 88, Ex., Wightman, J. tract for the sale of cotton to arrive from India, in general. In Lucas v. Dorrien (ubi supra) a said, "The mere possession with no further March or April shipment, was made subject to bankrupt had pledged sugars in the West India indicia of title than a delivery order is not suffi the rules of the Liverpool Cotton Brokers' Asso- Docks to defendants, and had indorsed the dock- cient to entitle a bonâ fide pawnee of a person ciation. By these rules the name of the ship warrants to them. After the bankruptcy came fraudulently obtaining possession from the true is to be given to the buying broker within two to the knowledge of the defendants, they owner to resist the claim of the latter in an calendar months after the date of the shipment obtained some of the sugars under the orders, action of trover." There the pawnee had fraunamed in the contract; a dispute arising out of but the dock company refused to deliver the dulently obtained the transfer of certain casks of the contract is to be referred to the association, remainder. None of the goods had been trans- acid to his name under a delivery-order, and had each party appointing one, or in default of ap-ferred to the names of the defendants in the handed over the dock-warrants to the defendant pointment by one of the parties, the president is dock-books. It was held that the property as security for money advanced, by means of to nominate two arbitrators; there is a right of passed under the warrants, the expressions we which the defendant had obtained possession. appeal against the award to the committee upon have quoted above being used in the course of payment of a fee. Notice of the shipment of the the judgment. In Zwinger v. Samuda (ubi supra) cotton was given to the buyer in the month of one Roebuck had purchased coffee with money June, more than two months after it was advanced by the defendant, and had placed it on actually shipped, but within that time of the the dock-books in the name of D. Samuda, in end of April, which the seller alleged to be the trust for the defendant. Afterwards Roebuck meaning of the contract. The buyer refused to agreed to sell to the plaintiffs a copy of the accept the cotton and appointed an arbitrator, dock-warrant for cash to be paid on Aug. 17. but the seller declined to refer any question but On the 16th he showed the defendant 1000l., and the difference in value in order that an allow- said that he wished to get credit with his ance should be made. The president nominated banker by depositing that sum, but that if the two arbitrators, whose award against the seller defendant would give up to him the original was made within two hours of their nomination, dock-warrant, he would give him a cheque for no opportunity being given to either party to be 530l. Defendant signed an order for delivery heard: Held, that a plea alleging the award to to at the foot of the delivery notes, and be void on account of these facts was no answer gave them to Roebuck, who received from the to an action by the seller against the buyer for plaintiffs the cash agreed upon on the 16th, and not accepting: (Thorburn v. Barnes, 16 L. T. Rep. transferred to them the delivery-notes, to be N. S. 10. C. P.) filled up by them with their own or their agents' name. At the same time he instructed his bankers to dishonour the cheque he had given to the defendant, who thereupon stopped the delivery to the plaintiffs. It was held that the dock-warrants enabled Roebuck to get payment from the plaintiffs, and that defendants were bound thereby. In Spear v. Travers, 4 Camp. 251, the defendants, on Nov. 2, 1814, bought sugars and received a dock delivery-order, which was immediately lodged with the dock company, and the company entered the sugars in defendants' names, and gave the usual cheque or certificate. On Nov. 4, defendants sold to M., and on the 25th M. sold to G., when the cheque or certificate indorsed by the defendants was delivered to him. G. accepted a bill for 9501. drawn on him by M. at seventy days. On Jan. 6, G. transferred the certificate to the plaintiff as a security for 2000l. On Jan. 16, G. stopped payment; next day the defendants gave the dock company notice not to deliver. On Feb. 17, they applied for a duplicate certificate, alleging that the former had been lost, and on this certificate they obtained the sugars: Held, that the plaintiff might recover in trover, as the right to stop in transitu was gone.

COTTON CONTRACT — ARBITRATION.-Upon a cotton contract to arrive, the seller guaranteed the cotton to be equal to sample, and it was agreed that in case the quality proved inferior to the guaranteee, a fair allowance should be made by arbitration. The bulk turned out to be composed of a different and inferior kind of cotton from that in the sample, and required different machinery for working it. The purchaser offered to submit to an arbitrator the difference in value between the sample and bulk in order to estimate the allowance to be made; the seller declined arbitration upon any point, unless the question as to whether he might refuse to accept the cotton should also be submitted. To this the seller refused to consent, and the purchaser then repudiated the contract: Held, in an action by the seller against the purchaser for not accepting, that the latter was not answerable for the failure to arbitrate; that the guarantee related to the quality and not to the species of cotton, and that the repudiation of the contract was justifiable: Held, however, that a plea alleging only that the bulk was not equal to sample was bad: (Azemar v. Casella, 16 L. T. Rep. Ñ.. S. 14. C. P.)

READINGS IN MERCANTILE LAW. SYMBOLIC DELIVERY OF Goods. (Continued from page 809.) DOCK WARRANTS AND Delivery Orders.— We shall make a few remarks and cite a few cases upon the effect of transferring a deliveryorder or a dock-warrant. With respect to a dock-warrant, Burrough, J. says, in Lucas v. Dorrien, 7 Taunt. 278: "This instrument is perfectly well known to all traders, and it is also known to them that the goods pass by indorsement of it;" and Parke, J. said the dock-warrants "were the key of this property;" but in Zwinger v. Samuda, the Court (Park, J. dissentiente) had guarded against the notion that dock-warrants were transferable by indorsement: (7 Taunt. 265). And in a later case (Johnson v. Stear, 33 L. J., N. S., 130, C. P.), Williams, J. said, that dock-warrants must not be considered as a symbol of the property; "they are," he said," a means of coming at the possession of a thing which will not admit of corporal delivery." There a dock-warrant for certain brandies was deposited by A. with B. as security for a loan to be repaid on a certain day, and in default B. was to be at liberty to dispose of the pledge. A. became bankrupt, and B., before the day for payment, entered into an absolute contract for the sale of the goods; he handed over the dockwarrants on the day for payment, and the vendee took actual possession of the goods the day

(Before J. W. SMITH, Esq., Q. C., Judge.) STUTTLE. HORNBY.

Payment into court-What it admits. James Stuttle, Upper Pulley, the proprietor of a thrashing machine, sued the Rev. R. Hornby, Lythwood, for the recovery of 31. 13s.. alleged to be due for work done. The sum of 17. 8s. had been paid into court, which defendant declined to receive in full satisfaction of his claim. A set-off was also pleaded.

Craig, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that as the defendant had paid the sum of 17. 8s. into court, he should like to know if it was to be taken asked the question in consequence of the rule of court, which he understood his Honour had laid down at the last sitting.

as an admission of the cause of action or not. He

His HONOUR said he did not lay it down as a rule; he merely gave a decision upon one particular case, and he considered that decision to be perfectly in accordance with justice. Some person or persons, unknown however, had taken upon themselves to misrepresent what he had stated upon quarter, some remarks upon his decision in the case the subject; and this had elicited, from a certain alluded to. Those remarks were sent to him; and he had had a conversation with some of his most experienced registrars upon them, and their opinion was that the persons who wrote them did not know what they were writing about. He thought, however, he would take the opportu nity of looking more fully into the matter, and if he did lay down a rule, it would not be one that any person could call an absurdity. He might perhaps direct his registrars not to hand any money over that had been paid into court until after the hearing of the case, unless it were accepted by the plaintiff in full satisfaction of the claim, otherwise it would be an evident injustice. He had made inquiries upon this subject, and he found that in several of his courts this was the rule; and he had been effect for his protection, which he felt inclined to do. asked by one registrar to make a distinct rule to that He could not sufficiently deprecate the unauthorised use of las official name to a thing which he had never done. He did think, that of all the unprincipled things in the world, to make use of any man's name in this manner was the most unprincipled, and more especially so that of a judge. It was humiliating, indeed, to think that any man could be guilty of such conduct. They could not tell the injurious effect it might have upon a man in his position, who in a manner was utterly defenceless, notice everything of the kind that appeared in the it being derogatory to his position, as a judge, to court he had had but one object in view, and but public newspapers. one motive, and no one should deter him from carrying out that object to the best of his ability.

In Harman v. Anderson, a bankrupt had bought butters lying in the warehouse of the defendants, who were wharfingers, and had received a delivery order and invoice, the goods being transferred to his name. This was held a complete delivery and the right to stop in transitu gone. Lord Ellenborough went so far as to say that the delivery-note would be sufficient without any actual transfer in the dock-books: (2 Camp. 243.) In Stonard v. Dunkin, 2 Camp. 344, it was held that the wharfingers could not qualify the effect of a delivery-order by giving in evidence a custom that delivery under it was not held complete until the goods in question (malt) had been remeasured. But in Lackington v. Atherton, 7 M. & G. 360, where certain timber was deposited in the West India Docks, in the name of A., the importer, which was sold by him to B., and which B. afterwards contracted to sell to C., who accepted a bill for the amount, B..giving him an invoice and a delivery-order, the dock company refused to deliver except to A.'s order; C. became bankrupt, and his acceptance was Craig asked, was he to understand that he must dishonoured: Held B. might stop in transitu, and prove his case in the usual manner, or was the paythat he was not estopped by the delivery-order. ment into court to be considered as an acknowledgHere A. does not appear to have given an order.ment of the ground of action? In M'Ewan v. Smith, S. the owner of sugars sold them to B., and gave him a delivery-order on A., taking a bill of exchange for the price. B. sold them to M.. and transferred the deliveryorder to him. The sugars lay in L.'s warehouse "from A. on account of S." weighed and invoiced by A. on S.'s order. Neither B. nor

Since he had attended that

His HONOUR said he had laid down no general rule upon the point; and he should not do so until he hitherto had done, decide each case according to he had fully considered the matter. He should, as

its own merits.

Corbet Davies, who appeared for the defendant, said he perfectly coincided with the remarks of his Honour. Indeed, such a rule as that alluded to by

his learned friend, Mr. Craig, would have the effect of frustrating justice to the utmost extent.

His HONOUR to Mr. Davies :-Why did you pay this money into court?

Davies said it was paid in full satisfaction of the claim, it being believed by the defendant that that was all that was fairly due. It had, however, been paid before a solicitor was consulted, and if it had been accepted by the plaintiff nothing more would

have been heard of the case.

James Stuttle. Upper Pulley, was then called, and stated that, owing to the stack which they had to thrash being wet, they were delayed some time before they could commence work, thereby causing some loss. He also stated that defendant did not lend his horses for the removal of the engine, &c. to the next farm at Brompton according to custom and as was agreed upon.

In reply to Davies, plaintiff asserted that he provided the proper number of men for working the engine. Defendant's men were only employed to clear away the wet portion of the stack. A boy was employed, but plaintiff had paid him already.

George Eox, in the employ of the plaintiff, deposed to having arranged with Mr. Jessop, defendant's bailiff, for the engine. He gave corroborative evidence as to the wetness of the stack and the delay caused thereby. Defendant's men did nothing but remove the wet straw. The work was finished soon after three o'clock in the afternoon and it was agreed that the horses be furnished by the defendant for the removal of the machine early next morning. They were not supplied, and other horses had to be obtained.

By Davies. Did not tell Mr. Jessop that the machine would only have to be removed three or four miles.

Henry Fox gave similar evidence; and Mrs Stuttle, the wife of the plaintiff, proved that some of the items in the set-off were larger than was agreed upon.

exchange; and therefore, where an attorney on
the 13th July drew and handed to the plaintiff
a cheque in the name of the partnership firm for
901, dated the 20th July and payable to bearer,
and received from the plaintiff in exchange for
such cheque 80%., for the purposes, as he informed
the plaintiff, of a client of the firm, it being
arranged that plaintiff was to have 10% for
the week's forbearance: it was held that this
was not distinguishable from giving a bill of
exchange at seven days' date, and consequently,
according to Hedley v. Bainbridge (ubi sup.), it
was a transaction not binding on the defendant,
the non-assenting partner of the firm, and no
action was maintainable against him thereupon:
(Forster v. Mackreth, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 23. Ex.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

Wednesday, March 6.
(Before the LORDS JUSTICES)
Ex parte CLELAND, re CLELAND.
What is trading?

This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Perry, the Commissioner of Bankruptcy at Liverpool, confirming an adjudication of bankruptcy which had been made against Mr. William Cleland. The act of bankruptcy upon which the adjudication was made was one which could only be committed by a trader, and the question was, therefore, whether Mr. Cleland was or was not a trader. He held a lease of a slate quarry in Wales, and there manufactured slates, which were sent to Port Madoc for sale. The method of working the quarry was to employ gangs of men, to whom portions of the quarry were let, and Mr. Cleland was in the habit of selling to these men gunpowder for the purpose of blasting, and tools for the purposes of their work. The petitioning creditor was a carpenter and joiner, and he was employed by Cleland to build an engine-house, For the defence, Davies called Mr. Jessop, the a weighing-machine, and some barracks for the bailiff, who denied that any delay was caused by the workmen employed in the quarry. Some iron unfitness of the stack for thrashing; or that he had was required for the purpose of these buildings, refused to supply the horses for the removal of the and Cleland happening to have some iron, bought machine. One of the horses had lost a shoe; and for other purposes, which he did not require for besides, the defendant's man did not go for the those purposes, it was agreed that that iron should horses till it was so late they could not be spared. be used in the proposed buildings. In the account When the machine was engaged, Fox said it would between Cleland and the petitioning creditor the only have to be taken to Fox Farm or Emstrey, latter was charged with the market value of this whereas afterwards he wanted it removed to Bromp-iron, and credited with it on the other side of the ton, a muca greater distance. Plaintiff, too, had not account. The Commissioner considered that this employed sufficient men to work the engine; and transaction as to the iron made Mr. Cleland a trader, defendant had to make up the deficiency with his and he accordingly confirmed the adjudication. It own men. In the last stack plaiutiff was perhaps appeared that the petitioning creditor had attempted delayed an hour or so. Thirty shillings were to examine Mr. Cleland with reference to some claimed for the removal of the machine. alleged trading in London, and that the commissioner would not allow these questions to be put, because he held that the Liverpool Court had no jurisdiction with respect to any trading out of its own district, even though the alleged bankrupt had resided or carried on business in that district.

His HONOUR, in giving judgment, said, he did not think either the plaintiff or the defendant had fully proved his case. He should disallow 30s. from the plaintiff's claim, and 15s. from defendant's set-off, which would involve the payment into court by defendant of a further sum of 15s., but without costs.

THE NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW. [NOTE-Practitioners will oblige by forwarding new points decided by the County Courts, opinions of counsel, doubts and ditculties that may arise in their practice. and queries, for this department of the Law TIMES.]

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. REPUTED OWNERSHIP.-The lodgment of the scrip certificate of shares in a joint-stock company will not take them out of the order and disposition of the owner whilst they still remain registered in his name in the books of the company, and in case of his bankruptcy they will pass to his assignees: (Re Patrick Grehan, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 39. Ir.)

TRUST-DEED.-The addition to a deed of a schedule of creditors after registration avoids the deed: (Sellin v. Price, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. Ex. 21.)

TRUST-DEED - PLEADING. - Where in an action by a judgment-creditor the time between the registration of a deed and judgment does not give the debtor a practical opportunity of

pleading the deed, it will be allowed to be set up subsequently to an action upon the judgment: (Braun v. Weller, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. Ex.)

22.

ATTORNEYS-PARTNERSHIP-AUTHORITY.-In the absence of evidence of particular or general authority to draw, indorse, or accept bills of exchange, or of any recognition of the particular bill, an action is not maintainable against an attorney upon a bill of exchange indorsed by his partner in the name of the firm, on the ground laid down by Hedley v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B. 320; 11 L. J., N. S., 293, Q. B., that an attorney has no authority to draw, accept, or indorse bills in the name of the partnership so as to bind his partner. A post-dated cheque, if it be post-dated not by mistake, but intentionally, is in effect for all practical purposes a bill of

De Gex and Locock Webb appeared for Mr. Cleland,
and contended that the adjudication ought to be
annulled. There was no trading proved. The

manufacture of slates did not amount to trading,
because it was carried on upon Cleland's own land;
the sale of articles to the workmen was merely a
method of paying their wages, and the transactions
with respect to the iron did not amount to a sale at
all.

Bacon and Yate Lee appeared for the petitioning
creditor, and insisted that as Mr. Cleland's lease was
manufacturing and selling slates, the land was not
one merely of the slate rock, for the purpose of
his own, and therefore the business carried on by
him amounted to trading. At any rate, they con-
tended that if the court should hold that no trading
had been proved, the matter ought to be remitted to
the commissioner for further inquiry, inasmuch as
the Act only requires the place where the bankrupt
resided or carried on business to be within the dis-
trict of the court where the petition is presented,
and does not forbid trading outside that districts
from being proved.

Their LORDSHIPS held, that the facts upon which the commissioner relied, did not amount to trading; but, inasmuch as he had rejected the evidence tendered to him to prove trading in London, the case inquiry, and for that purpose might stand over till must be referred back to him to prosecute the Friday week.

(Q. 197.) PARISH CONSTABLE.-So far as can be gathered from the text-books, a parish constable, like others, is protected for anything done in the duties of his office, and I imagine notice of action to be therefore necessary: (see W. R. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 75.)

(Q. 201.) SIMONY.-I think the case referred to is Sweetv. Meredith, 31 L. J., N. S., 817, Ch. J. RAWSON.

(Q.202.) MORTGAGE-STIPULATION FOR COMPOUND Interest. No additional duty is required for interest, although bygone, either in the case of a bond, or warrant of attorney or mortgage: (see Coote on Mortgage, 3rd edit. p. 311, and the cases there cited.) J. RAWSON.

(Q. 205.) POOR LAW.-A. can be compelled to contribute towards the support of his daughter and grandchildren: (see Reg. v. Joyce, 16 Vin. Abr. 423.) С. Н.

LAW LIBRARY.

Select Biographical Sketches from the Note Books of a Law Reporter. By WM. HEATH BENNET, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-Law. Routledge. tical sketches of some of our great Judges THE very interesting biographical and anecdocontributed to the LAW TIMES by Mr. Bennet have been collected, with considerable additions, into a handsome volume, in compliance with the request of numerous readers who were desirous to possess them in a more permanent form. They well deserve the honour of a place in the library, for, although the lives of the great lawyers to whom these pages are devoted have been already given to the world by other more formal biographers, Mr. Bennet has told us so much that is in great part his own personal reminiscences, that his volume is a necessary and valuable supplement to other biographies.

Indeed, few note-books of passing events, where the incident or the ancedote is recorded at the moment of its occurrence, when the impressions are fresh upon the mind, and therefore Mr. Hemp, the officer, made proclamations of out-most graphically conveyed to paper, are so likely lawry in a number of cases.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

The following parties were "called in open Court with the usual ceremony:

to be fruitful of materials for biography as that
of a reporter. He sees the Judges and the most
distinguished members of the Bar day by day;
he hears the jokes, good, indifferent, and bad, that
come from the Bench and the Bar, and which,
because they relieve the gravity of the scene, are
sure to provoke laughter, however pointless they
may appear on repetition; he beholds human
passions in their presence and in their conse-
quences; he surveys humanity in all its phases,
and his ear is ever
open to catch whatever

is quaint or characteristic. The "ana" that

"Several measures of importance to the ProfesIn politics Mr. Helps was a Conservative. He sion were introduced into Parliament during the last managed the eastern division of his native county session, and received the attention of your comin that interest for twenty-five years. The hand-mittee, but, owing to political changes, the alterasome testimonial he received from the Conservative tions in the law were few and of no remarkable body, on his retirement from his active duties, suf- importance. It may, however, be well to direct ficiently testifies their appreciation of his zealous attention to the following:and judicious exertions in the promotion of their He also received testimonials from several of his clients in grateful remembrance of his exertions on their behalf.