statute, so as to be chargeable by reason only of payment of any principal, interest, or money, by any other or others of the co-contractors, codebtors, executors, or administrators. MANUAL OF LEADING CASES IN By A. K. ROLLIT, LL. D. 1. Partial, i. e. must embrace only a limited which contracts have been declared void on the area, or a particular class of persons. 2. Founded upon some consideration; and 3. Reasonable: (Gale v. Reed, 8 East, 79.) It is impossible to consider these elements of a valid contract in restraint of trade in entire separation, inasmuch as the reasonableness of such contracts is dependent on considerations involving continual reference to the decisions upon the questions of limitation and considera Tried Hilary Term 1711, in the Queen's Bench. tion. Indeed, no such contract can be considered [Reported, 1 P. Wms. 181.] Principles Illustrated. The leading case of Mitchel v. Reynolds is an illustration of the application of the legal principle that regard for the public welfare is the highest law to contracts in restraint of trade. Upon this principle it was decided in the leading case that although contracts in restraint of trade are prima facie void, on the ground that they are prejudicial to the public welfare, and at variance with public policy; yet that such contracts, if partial, founded on consideration, and reasonable under the circumstances, and if these facts appear upon the face of the instrument by which the contract is created, are not inconsistent with public policy, and are valid and binding on the parties. OUTLINE OF THE CASE. This was which was an action of debt upon a bond conditioned to be void if the defendant should not exercise the trade of a baker within the parish of St. Andrews, Holborn, in which he had assigned to the plaintiff the lease of a messuage and bakehouse. The defendant pleaded that he was by trade a baker, and that the said bond, being in restraint of trade, was void in law; to which plea the plaintiff demurred. Parker, C. J., in delivering the resolution of the court, points out that the validity or invalidity of contracts in restraint of trade is dependent not upon the form of the engagement, i. e. whether it be by simple contract or obligation under seal, but upon the existence or absence of a consideration, and upon the generality or limited nature of the restraint in point of locality. Voluntary restraints upon trade, or restraints by agreement of the parties, are: 1. General. 2. Particular. General restraints, however created, are without exception void, whether with or without consideration: (Cro. Jac. 596.) Particular restraints, or restraints limited to a particular locality, are valid if founded upon a - consideration and reasonable. 2. Because they are easily capable of great abuse and oppression, and tend to the creation of monopolies. 3. Because an unlimited restraint can be of no adequate use to the obligee, and cannot fail to be most oppressive to the obligor. Upon these unimpeachable grounds the law presumes all restraints of trade, where nothing more appears, to be bad; but if the circumstances are set forth, that presumption may be excluded, and the court is to judge of those circumstances and determine accordingly; and if upon them it appears to be a just and honest contract, and one neither oppressive nor prejudical to the interests of the public, it ought to be maintained. For these reasons judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff. General restraints of trade have been from a very early period considered void; partial restraints, if reasonable, have been upheld on principles of general expediency. So early as the reign of Henry V. in an action on a bond conditioned not to use the trade of a dyer, Hull, J. threatened the plaintiff with imprisonment, and in a subsequent case Anderson, J. observed that the defendant "might as well bind himself not to go to church." Since the decision of the leading case of Mitchel v. Reynolds, which has been followed in the cases of Gunmakers' Company v. Fell, Willes, · 388; Gale v. Reed, 8 East, 83; Chesman v. Nainby, 2 Str. 739; and in Young v. Timmins, 1 Tyrwh. 226, where the authorities are collected, it has been a recognised principle of the law that a restraint of trade, however created, must, in order to be valid, be: reasonable which fails to comply with the requirements of the courts upon those points. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of a contract in restraint of trade then is dependent partially on the area embraced, partially on the nature of the consideration, the circumstances of the particular case, and the probable requirements of the public. No definite or inflexible rules for the construction of such contracts can be extracted from the decisions of the courts, which have been governed by a variety of considerations. It is, however, clear that, in order to be deemed reasonable and valid, the restriction must not extend over a district larger than is adequate or necessary for the protection of the contractee: (Hitchcock v. Coker, 6 A. & E. 454.) Upon this principle, where the stipulation was that the defendant should not practise as a dentist in any place where the plaintiff might have been practising before the expiration of his, the defendant's, service with the plaintiff, it was adjudged void: (Mallan v. May, 11 M. & W. 653.) : The following restraints have been held sufficiently partial to be deemed reasonable :business within half a mile: (Chesman v. Nainby, In the trade of a linendraper, not to carry on supra). London: (Mallan v. May, supra.) In the case of a tallyman where the limits were the city of Westminster and the bills of mortality: (Cormer v. Clark, 7 Mod., Oct. edit. 230.) of a surgeon: (Hayward v. Young, 2 Chit. 407.) So twenty miles round a town in the instance Five miles in the case of a butcher: (Elves v. Crofts, 10 C. B. 241.) The same distance in the case of a cowkeeper: (Proctor v. Sargent, 2 M. & G. 20.) One mile in the business of a fruiterer: Pemberton v. Vaughan, 16 L. J. 161, Q. B.) London and 150 miles from thence was held not to be an unreasonable_restriction upon an attorney: (Bunn v. Guy, 4 East, 190, and see on this case Bozon v. Farlow, Meriv. 472.) In the canvassing book-trade, a covenant not to carry on the business within 150 miles of the General Post-office, or in Edinburgh, or Dublin, or within fifty miles of either, or in any town of Great Britain or Ireland where the plaintiff might then have, or have had within the six months preceding, an establishment, was held reasonable and valid: (Tallis v. Tallis, 1 E. & B. 391.) And in the business of a horsehair manufacturer, the space comprised within a radius of 200 miles of Birmingham, although it included the whole of England and Wales, with the exception of parts of Northumberland and Cornwall, and portions of Scotland and Ireland, was held to be a reasonable exclusion: (Harms v. Parsons, 9 Jur. N. S. 145.) The decision of the M. R. in this case proceeded chiefly on the ground that the business in question was in the hands of a few persons, and it therefore became necessary that the limit of exclusion should be extensive. A restraint against running any coach on a particular road is reasonable and binding: (Gale v. Reed, 8 East, 79.) In Gale v. Reed a covenant not to carry on the business of a ropemaker during life, except on Government contracts, and to employ the plaintiff solely in the manufacture of goods to be supplied to a particular class of persons, was held sufficiently partial to be reasonable. In this case it will be noticed that the limitation is personal, not local. It must be remembered that these contracts must be either locally or personally limited, and that a contract in restraint of trade, which is limited in point of time, but unlimited in area, cannot be upheld: (see Ward v. Byrne, 5 M. & W. 561; and Hinde v. Gray, 1 M. & Gr. 195.) In order to enable a more accurate judgment to be formed upon what, in any case, may be considered a sufficiently limited restraint, we propose to enumerate a few of those cases in ground of including too extensive an area. Thus, in the case of a dentist, a district 200 miles in diameter was held an unreasonable restriction: (Horner v. Greaves, 7 Bing. 735.) So within 600 miles of London, in the case of a perfumer: (Price v. Greene, 16 M. & W. 34.) Indeed, "600 miles from any particular spot in this kingdom is out of all reason and absolutely void." In this case, however, the defendant, having covenanted that he would not, during his life, carry on the trade of a perfumer " within the cities of London and Westminster, or within the distance of 600 miles from the same respectively," the Court held that the covenant was divisible, and was good so far as it related to the cities of London and Westminster, though void as to the residue. When the restraint is limited in point of area, the distance is to be measured by a straight line drawn upon the horizontal plane from point to point: (Lake v. Butler, 24 L. J. 273, Q. B.; Duignan v. Walker, 28 L. J. 867, Ch.) Secondly, on the point of the consideration, although the cases lead to the conclusion that an adequate consideration is an essential element in a valid contract in restraint of trade, the tendency of recent decisions has been in support of the more modified proposition that the consideration must not be merely colourable: (Hitchcock v. Cocker, 6 Ad. & E. 439); indeed, in Archer v. Marsh, 6 Ad. & E. 966, the Court decided that the parties must act in accordance with their own view as to the adequacy of the compensation, which was declared to be the principle affirmed in Hitchcock v. Cocker, and 15 M. & W. 657. approved by Alderson, B., in Pilkington v. Scott, The consideration must, however, be disclosed on the face of the contract, whether it be under seal or by parol. under the particular circumstances. It must Lastly, the contract must be reasonable not furnish more than an adequate protection to the interests of the contractee; it must not be oppressive to the other contracting party; and it must not unnecessarily infringe on have been considered by the courts reasonable the probable requirements of the public. What restrictions have been gathered from the cases cited in reference to the points of limitation and consideration. The restraint usually imposed upon the vendor of the goodwill of a business from opposing the purchaser by carrying on business in the immediate neighbourhood is manifestly a reasonable and proper one, and one which is conducive to the interests of the public by enabling men to dispose of all the fruits of their industry. So the covenant frequently entered into by clerks and apprentices not to solicit business from the customers of their masters, and not to practise or trade within a reasonable distance of their master's place of business, are not only reasonable, but, owing to the unrestrained choice which they afford to employers of securing the most able assistants, quite consonant with the public wellbeing: (Sainter v. Ferguson, 13 Jur. 828, C. B.) So on the formation or dissolution of a partnership, a provision in the instrument securing the other member or remaining members of the firm against future competition in their business from the joining or seceding member is a usual and proper provision, provided the restriction be reasonably limited in point of space: and generally a restriction upon trade, if founded upon some consideration, limited in extent, and reasonable, will be supported by the courts. The leading principle by which the courts have been guided in construing such contracts must not be lost sight of. As contracts in general restraint of trade have been deemed void on the ground of their tendency to discourage enterprise, industry, and a beneficial competition; so reasonable contracts in partial restraint of trade have been countenanced and upheld, not only because they may be of advantage to the parties, but on the higher principle that by their permission the public interests are consulted, since such stipulations afford to the employer an unrestrained choice of assistants, and remove the inducement which might otherwise exist to conceal from them the skill and experience which would render their competition dangerous. When, however, men have sought to presume upon this principle by extending the restraint beyond what the necessary protection of the contractee would require, its sovereignty has been invio-Graham, a solicitor; the second a Mr. Armstrong, a lably maintained by the judges. 2 Upon the principle of their inconsistency with public policy several other species of contracts have been declared illegal. Among the most important are contracts entered into under duress; those involving champerty (campi partitio) and maintenance; marriage; brokage; contracts; and contracts to facilitate marriages; contracts to influence testators; agreements expressly or virtually in restraint of marriage, and contracts tainted with simony: (see 31 Eliz. c. 6; 12 Anne, st. 2, c. 12, 8. 2; and Fox v. The Bishop of Chester, Tudor's Leading Cases in Conveyancing.) So contracts contra bonos mores, contracts interfering with the administration of justice, and those providing for the sale or exchange of public offices of trust, are instances of the violation of the principle illustrated by the leading Such contracts, equally with those in general restraint of trade, are opposed to the general interests of the public, and to the fundamental principles of legislation, and cannot, therefore, be either enforced or sustained. case. but that creditor apprises the solicitor for the arranging trader that he has a mortgage and will rely on it; and although he takes no part in the arrangement proceedings, the assignees send him a dividend warrant for his composition, which he receives and puts to the credit of his mortgage-debt, this will not be held to be such an acquiescence in the arrangement proceedings as to level his security to the same position as ordinary creditors, and he will be allowed to put the dividend to the credit of his. mortgage-debt, and to prove on the estate for the difference, on the trader afterwards becoming bankrupt. This case came before the court upon charge and mortgagee, in support of the charge. Kernan, Q. C. discharge. Purcell, Q. C., for Mr. M'Dermott, a for the assignees. Miller, J. said it appeared by the charge filed by Mr. M'Dermott, a mortgagee, that on the 14th Sept. 1855 the bankrupt gave him a bond, and warrant of attorney, on which judgment was entered, which judgment was registered as a statutable mortgage. The discharge of the assignees stated that on the 20th March 1863 the bankrupt petitioned the court tion, which was ultimately paid; that Mr. M'Dermott as an arranging trader, offering a certain composiwas returned in the schedule of the trader as an unsecured creditor; that he had regular notice of the whole of the proceedings; and that subsequently he was sent the amount of his dividend upon foot of the composition, which he kept; and that, under those circumstances, he ought not to be allowed to prove on the estate of the same trader who became he apprised the agent for the arranging trader, and bankrupt. So far the discharge of the assignees was true; but Mr. M'Dermott made an affidavit that his manager, that he had a mortgage, and would rely on it, and that he would take no part whatever in the arrangement proceedings; and he did not take any part. That affidavit was uncontradicted. Notwithstanding all this the assignees sent him his dividend like the other creditors, which he kept, and gave credit for on foot of his mortgage-debt. Miller, J., after delivering a very elaborate judgment, the bankrupt's estate for the sum due on foot of his mortgage, after giving credit for the dividend received: (Re J. T. Ferrall, Feb. 26.) brewer; and the third a Mr. Gibson, a clerk of petty sessions. It was objected to Mr. Graham that pointing an attorney to the office if there was any there was a rule in the Superior Courts against apother eligible candidate. Mr. Gibson was objected to on the ground that the duties of his office as petty sessions' clerk took him away frequently from Enniskillen; but to this it was answered that the places at which he had to attend were all within the district over which his commissionership would extend. The Court appointed Mr. Gibson, Whiteside, C. J. dissenting, and expressing an opinion that the existed, rested on no reasonable foundation, and that rule against the appointment of solicitors, if it Mr. Graham should be appointed. The other judges expressed their opinion that the rule existed, that it was a proper one, and that no persons were more anxious to have it adhered to than the attorneys themselves. Fitzgerald and George, JJ. considered that the fact of Mr. Gibson already holding an office which required him to travel about in his district, and so made him more accessible to many classes of the people, made him the most eligible candidate, and Fitzgerald, J. especially considered it wise for public purposes that the person holding the responsible office of petty sessions' clerk should have as much dignity as possible added to his position: (Re Graham seeking to be a Commissioner, Jan. 31.) EJECTMENT-LIBERTY TO DEFEND.-Concannon, LL.D., for the defendant, moved for liberty to file a defence to an action of ejectment on the title, the JUDGMENT MORTGAGE.-In this case a question that he held under a subsisting lease. It appeared time to plead having expired. The defendant alleged arose between the petitioner in the first matter and that before action brought the defendant agreed to the petitioner in the second matter as to whether a give up possession upon getting a receipt for a year's judgment could be registered as a mortgage under rent. On the 8th Dec. last the landlord's agent atthe 13 & 14 Vict. c. 53 against an ecclesiastical tended to receive possession. The receipt, however, benefice. Master Fitzgibbon delivered an elaborate had not been given, and the tenant did not attend. judgment, reviewing the cases and statutes bearing The ejectment was then served. Defendant wrote on the subject, and held that the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 53 complaining of the service, but still asking for the was only a substitution for the older remedy for enforcing judgments, and that, as a judgment-creditor receipt, and offering possession. This letter was not could not, before the passing of this Act, have sued answered, and the landlord persevered in his eject- decided that the mortgagee had a right to prove on ment. The Court granted the motion, and, in conout an elegit against an ecclesiastical benefice, a judg-sequence of the tenant's delay, plaintiff's costs to be ment-mortgage was not now a charge upon ecclecosts in the cause: (Kane v. Mulloy, Feb. 11.) siastical property: (Luby v. Dixon; Hone v. Dixon, Feb. 20.) SUMMARY OF IRISH DECISIONS. fund in court. (From the Irish Law Times.) CHANCERY. ROLLS COURT. PATENT-CONSTRUCTION - EVIDENCE-ACTS OF OWNERSHIP.-A piece of land on the Shore-road, at the mouth of the river Lagan, at Belfast, was taken by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners under the powers of their Act. The land, before it was reclaimed, was between high and low water mark in ordinary tides. The purchase-money was lodged in court. On the 21st Feb. 1859 an order was made by the late Master of the Rolls referring it to Master Litton to inquire and report who was entitled to the There were three claimants before the master: first, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, claiming in right of the Crown; secondly, the Marquis of Donegall, who claimed under two patents of the 9th May 1604 (2 Jac. 1). and the 20th Nov. 1620 (19 Jac. 1), whereby "the fisheries and fishing places, of what kind soever, of all the river of Lagan, and the ground and soil of all the said river, &c." were granted to Sir Arthur Chichester; thirdly, the Earl of Ranfurly, Lord Templemore, and Mr. Thomas M'Clure, who claimed under a patent of the 5th Nov. 1605 (3 Jac. 1), a grant to James Hamilton of the territory of Clandeboy, which is adjacent to the land in question, and is described in the patent as bounded by "the bank of the Bay of Knockfergus (now Carrickfergus) towards the north." The master made his report in Feb. 1861, finding in favour of the last-mentioned claim, and the Crown and Lord Donegall both moved to vary the report. The motions came before the late Master of the Rolls in Feb. 1862, and were directed to stand over until the decision of the House of Lords in Donegall v. Templemore, in which the same questions of title as those in this case were involved. That appeal was compromised, and the motions were renewed in last Michaelmas Term, and were at argument for several days. The Master of the Rolls gave judgment, deciding against Lord Donegall's title, in accordance with the decision of the majority of the judges in the Exchequer Chamber (9 L., C. L. R., 374), on the ground that what was called the river Lagan in 1620 terminated at the ford of Belfast, higher up the river than the land in question, which he therefore held not to pass by the patent to Sir A. Chichester. His Honour held that acts of ownership on other parts of the shore of the Bay of Carrickfergus were admissible to show that the shore passed by the patent to James Hamilton, and decided, on the construction of that patent, and the evidence of user, in favour of the title of Lord Ranfurly, Lord Templemore, and Mr. M'Clure. The master's report was accordingly confirmed without costs of either motion to vary it: (Re The Belfast Dock Act and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1865, Jan. 14.) COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. COMMISSIONER FOR TAKING AFFIDAVITS--ATTORNEY -In this case there were three applications for the office of commissioner for taking affidavits in the town of Enniskillen. The first applicant was Mr. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. USE AND OCCUPATION-EVIDENCE-INVALID CONTRACT.-Action for use and occupation. The defendant traversed the permission of the plaintiff. The jury found that the defendant had entered into possession of the premises in 1856 under a verbal contract of sale, and had paid a sum of money then, not as rent, but as purchase-money. The judge directed a verdict for the defendant, holding that the contract of sale, though not valid under the Statute of Frauds, was good evidence to rebut the implication of a contract for use and occupation sought to be raised by the plaintiff, but reserved leave for the plaintiff to move the court above. Plaintiff having obtained a rule accordingly, the Court discharged the rule, holding the judge's direction right: (Corrigan v. Woods, Jan. 14.) CONSOLIDATED CHAMBER. to his address in Australia. Defendant's father had SETTING ASIDE PLAINT-DESCRIPTION OF PLAIN- A ESTATE AND INVESTMENT STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. THERE has been a sudden revival from the great depression of last week, consequent upon the collapse of the Fenian insurrection. Consols have again advanced 1 per cent., and foreign stocks have shared the improvement. The report of the Great Western operated for a time to cause a fall in railway securities; but it was seen to be an exceptional case, and confidence speedily revived. Railway debentures, too, have recovered somewhat of the confidence that had been shaken by the decisions of the courts, though they are still out of favour. The fluctuations of the week were as follows: do. 1864 Do. do 5c. Jan 1872 Ex. Bills, 1000Z. 1007. and 2001 a Ex. div. ... e ... COURT OF BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. CREDITOR HOLDING MORTGAGE RECEIVING DIVIDEND IN AN ARRANGEMENT MATTER-ACQUIESCENCE.-Where a trader petitions the court under the arrangement clauses, and returns a f 3 per cent. March 148. prem.; 4 per cent. June 173.prem. creditor having a mortgage as an unsecured creditor, g 3 per cent. March 15s. prem. h 3 per cent. March 11s. prem.. c 3 per cent. March 88. prem.; 4 per cent. June 15s. prem. d 3 per cent. March 8s. prem. e 5 per cent. Aug. 1873, 103. The following are the latest prices of some of Leasehold house and shop, No 335, Mile-end-road, let at 42?. per annum, term 55 years unexpired, at 64. 88. per annumthe principal companies : sold for 4501. Messrs. ELLIS and SON have for sale, on Tuesday, some important leasehold property in Fenchurch-street; extensive premises on St. Dunstan's-hill, Great Tower-street; leasehold premises in America-square, and a freehold residence at Gravesend. Messrs. WOOD, LANGRIDGE, and Co. will offer on Thursday, a freehold family residence on the banks of the Thames. Tuesday, March 12. By Messrs. GADSDEN, ELLIS, and SCORER, at the Mart. Leasehold premises, situate No. 65, Lombard-street, for upwards of 36 years in the occupation of Messrs. Overend, Gurney, and Co., together with the adjoining house, No. 13, Birchin-lane, term 28 years unexpired, at 600 per annum -sold for 29,5007. Freehold residence, No. 3, Codrington-terrace, Ladbroke-road, Notting-hill-sold for 18007. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, CLARK, and Co. Freehold estate, situate in the parish of Doddinghurst, Essex, known as the Hall Farm, comprising a dwelling-house, outbuildings, and 15-4a. 3r. 2p. of arable and grass land sold for 600s. Freehold, 5a. 1r. 8p. of wood land, situate near the abovesold for 110/. Freehold house, situate in Lower Sydenham, let at 301. per annum-sold for 7007. Ditto, ditto, let at 221. per annum-sold at 2501. Freehold proprietary chapel, situate as above-sold for 450. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER. Leasehold residence, No. 1, Craven-villas, Ealing, estimated annual value 754: term 84 years unexpired, at 87. 10s. per annum-sold for 9601. Leasehold residence, No. 5, Healy-street, Prince of Wales'road, Kentish-town, estimated to produce 45. per annum; term 98 years from 1852, at 67. 10s. per annum-sold for 4701. By Mr. P. D, TUCKETT. Leasehold residence, No. 81, Mornington-road, Regent's-park, let on lease at 50l. per annum; term 72 years unexpired, at 10% per annum-sold for 5751 Leasehold residence, No. 82, Mornington-road, let at 60. per annum; term and ground-rent similar to above-sold for 6351 Leasehold residence, No. 24, Woburn-place, Russell-square: also stabling in Tavistock-mews; term 95 years from 1802, at 501. per annum-sold for 4901 Copyhold, The Silver Lion beerhouse, No. 146, King's Crossroad. let on lease at 20% per annum-sold for 3001 Leasehold, two houses and shops, situate on Surbiton-hill, let on lease and producing 551. per annum; terms 73 years unexpired at 6 per annum-sold for 7157. Leasehold, four residences Nos. 1 to 4, Woodside, Long Ditton, let on lease at 100. per annum, term 84 years unexpired at 201. per annum-sold for 12301. Leasehold residence, known as No. 1. Holland-terrace, Hol land-road, Kensington, let at 50% per annum; term 94 years from 1856, at 8. per annum-sold for 515 Leasehold, six residences, Nos. 3 to 8, Holland-terrace aforesaid, let at 45. per annum, each terms similar to above, at 87. per annum each-sold from 500l. to 5501. each. Freehold, two residences. Nos. 14 and 15, Verulam-terrace, Ths Grove. Hammersmith, producing 80l. per annumeold for 1115 Wednesday, March 13. Earl GRANVILLE asked whether it was the intention of the Government to lay upon the table of the House any information with respect to Reform in addition to that which had been collected by the late additional statistics had been called for by the Government. -The EARL of DERBY said that no Government or produced. All the statistical inforMessrs. NORTON, TRIST, and Co., will sell, on mation which they had was already before ParliaFriday, valuable leasehold premises in Lombardment. Several motions had been made in the House street, an attractive residential property at Norwood, and an elegant family residence at Clapham-park. On the 26th inst. Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER will offer some desirable freehold property near the Bank of England, and an absolute reversion to property amounting to 1950 The above sales will all take place at the Mart, Tokenhouse-yard. REPORTS OF SALES. NOTE -The Reports of the Stock Exchange are officially supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names are registered there will oblige by reports of their own sales. Monday, March 4. By Mr. WHITTINGHAM, at the Guildhall Coffee-house. Freehold building land, fronting Chatterton and Fope-roads, Bromley, Kent. Lots 1 to 111 comprised previous sales. Lot 112-sold for 85. Lot 116-sold for 641 Lot 122-sold road, Bromley-sold for 714. of Commons for the production of that information in a more compact form, and, of course, the same motions could be made in that House. The following were nominated the Select Committee on the Limited Liability Acts:-Mr. Watkin, Mr. Goschen, Lord F. Cavendish, Mr. G. G. Glyn, for 44. Lot 123-sold for 44. A plot fronting Walpole- Mr. Brett, Lord R. Montagu, Mr. S. Cave, Mr. Friday, March 8. By Messrs. FAREBROTHER, LYE, and WHEELER, at the Mart. Frechold residence, with gardens, grounds, and paddock, containing 5 acres, situate at Thames Ditton, Surrey-sold for 27501 Hubbard, Mr. Graves, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Alderman Salomons, Sir G. Montgomery, and Mr. Vance. THE LAW OF LIBEL. Leasehold, three residences, Nos. 299, 301, and 325, Vauxhali- by Sir C. O'LOGILEN, who explained that its main The second reading of the Libel Bill was moved principle is to make the speaker of libellous matter bridge-road, producing 228. per annum; terms 57 years unexpired, at 107. per annum each-sold for 2560 at a public meeting liable, and to relieve from liability the publisher of a faithful and accurate report of a libellous speech, unless he shall refuse to publish an explanation. It also provides that a plaintiff shall not recover costs unless he is awarded more than 51. damages, and (extending the principle of Lord Campbell's Act) permits a defendant to pay a sum of money as damages into court, and thereby if the jury should think the sum sufficiententitle him to recover costs from an unsuccessful plaintiff. It is also provided that, when money is so lodged in court, a judge at chambers shall have power to compel the plaintiff to give security for costs before proceeding farther. The other clauses of the Bill relate chiefly to points of pleading, the most important clause being that which prohibits indictments for libel being preferred without the leave of the Attorney-General.-The SOLICITORGENERAL gave a general assent to the principle of the Bill, though thinking that in some respects the excessive powers proposed to be given to the press would require consideration. For instance, the public meetings to which the exemption was to apply would have to be more strictly defined, for men not worth the cost of an action might go to public meetings for the purpose of making libellous statements, and the sting and damage of their statements would be in the publication and wide circulation of them. He concurred unreservedly in the proposal to make the speaker liable, but suggested various points-such as the provisions regarding costs, and requiring the consent of the Attorney-General to indictments for libel-on which the Bill was susceptible of amendment.—Mr. NEWDEGATE was opposed to lightening the responsibility of newspaper proprietors, believing that to that sense of responsibility the high tone of the press in this country was very much owing, and pointed out that reporters were generally better judges of what was libellous than speakers. The grievance lay rather in the publication of a libellous speech than in the mere utterance, and he warned the press that by claiming too wide a licence it might destroy its present freedom. As to the clause limiting indictments, he preferred that the discretion should be with the Court of Queen's Bench rather pointed out that a newspaper editor was only than with the Attorney-General.—Mr. C. BUXTON relieved from his responsibility when his report was accurate and faithful, and after he had intimated his willingness to insert an explanation.—Mr. T. been made out for the Bill, and inculcated the CHAMBERS remarked that no case of grievance had necessity of great caution in relaxing the securities under which the press enjoyed its present liberties. -Mr. ROEBUCK supported the Bill, remarking that it provided all the opportunities for explanation and apology which an honest man could desire, while it would defeat the devices of dishonest attorneys whose only objects were to get up actions and swell costs.-Mr. BAINES maintained that he who originally uttered a slander was the man to be punished, and not the newspaper proprietor who republished it in perfect good faith, and pointed out that the knowledge that what they were saying would be printed made speakers more cautious, and the publication of slanders in a definite form prevented exaggeration of them.-Mr. HENLEY expressed some hesitation in assenting to a proposal to attach the penalties of libel to merely spoken words; and after some observations from Sir G. BOWYER, Mr. SYNAN, and Mr. MILNER GIBSON in support of it, the Bill was read a second time, and on the suggestion of Mr. WALPOLE, was ordered to be referrred to a Select Committee. CRIMINAL LAW BILL. The House went into committee on this Bill Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2, which was amended, Mr. HURST moved its omission from the Bill. The object of the clause is to empower the judge before whom a person is tried on indictment to condemn the prosecutor in costs in the event of his being of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for the prosecution. Such a principle is unknown to the law, and may work mischievously in deterring persons from instituting prosecutions in bona fide cases.Mr. R. GURNEY, in support of the clause, reminded the committee of the undoubted fact that, despite of the Vexations Prosecutions Act, a number of prosecutions are still instituted for private motives and private purposes. Such cases have frequently come before him, and no one can deny that, if a prosecution be unfounded and unreasonable, the costs should fall not on the defendant, but on the prosecutor. With respect to the principle of condemning a prosecutor in costs, it already exists in the case of libel, and it is not therefore, open to the objection on the score of the clause, both on the ground of its principle and novelty. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to action for damages lies against a person who prosewide application. As the law at present stands an reasonable cause, and it consequently affords an cutes another with malice and without just or ample remedy in the case of malicious indictments. Under the clause a prosecutor might be condemned by the judge of a Superior Court or the Attorneyin costs even though the prosecution was ordered General. -Mr. Serjt. GASELEE objected to the clause, and suggested that the best thing to be done was to get rid altogether of the grand jury system. The committee divided. The numbers were-For the clause, 93; against it, 64. Majority for, 29. Several other clauses were agreed to, and progress reported. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. EQUITY PRACTICE-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.—A chief clerk may, at the instigation of official liquidators, issue a summons to compel witnesses to attend before a special examiner. The objection to this procedure that the witnesses were not bound to obey, because they could not have the assistance of counsel before a chief clerk, was overruled: (Re The Nowgong Tea Company, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 47. Rolls.) COMPLEXITY STATEMENT. A decree had been made in a suit, and the accounts, inquiries, and directions necessary in pursuance of it were difficult, complex, and voluminous. The plaintiff was hereupon allowed to prepare a statement of all the points to be decided in the suit, to take out a summons for the hearing of the statement, and to adjourn it into court for the direction of the judge before drawing up the minutes of a decree to be made on the further consideration of the cause: (Brown v. Gellatly, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 48. Rolls.) INTERPLEADER-COSTS.-Under a writ of fi. fa. obtained by A. from this court, the goods of B. were seized by the sheriff, and advertised for sale; pending the sale B. became bankrupt, and thereupon the sheriff received notice from the official assignee in the bankruptcy not to remove or sell the goods. Shortly afterwards the sheriff was ordered by this court to make a return to the writ, and accordingly the sale took place. Subsequently the sheriff filed an interpleader bill against A. and the assignee in bankruptcy, alleging that both were threatening proceedings against him for the amount realised by the sale, and praying to be allowed to pay it into court, and for costs: Held, that it was a proper case for interpleader, and that the sheriff was entitled to his costs: (Child v. Mann, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 49. V.C. S.) ARREST ON CAPIAS-MISNOMER.-O. and H. were partners, and a debt was incurred by the partnership. It was held that H. could not be arrested on a capias directed against O. That was more than a case of mere misnomer, and is ground of for an action: (De Mesnil v. Dakin, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 68. Nisi P.) field. Pocklington is an innkeeper and contractor living at Sheepsbridge. The circumstances out of which the present charge arose are as follows:-In 1864 a Mr. Samuel Ibbetson became the occupier of a farm of 100 acres at Stonelow. About 50 acres of the farm, consisting of grass land, is just on the border of the Duke of Rutland's moors, which are largely stocked with grouse. Mr. Ibbetson followed a system which is not uncommon near the moors, of laying down corn for the grouse to feed upon, and then firing at them while on the ground from a hut loopholed for that purpose. Mr. Ibbetson and his friends, among whom was Cutts, were very successful at this pastime. Occasionally six or seven birds were killed at a single shot, and several hundred grouse were killed in the course of the season. The Duke of Rutland attempted to buy the shooting, and offered 10s. all kinds of game except grouse, and to shoot an acre for it, with liberty to Ibbetson to shoot besides over other lands of the duke. According to Ibbetson he was very desirous of closing who promised to give him the same amount as was with this offer, but was dissuaded by Cutts, offered by the duke. Accordingly, in the season of 1865 the shooting was kept for the benefit of Cutts, who employed a keeper, and either he or his keeper used to shoot nearly every day, and to carry off the game that was killed. The duke's keeper then attempted to drive the grouse off Ibbetson's land. An action was thereupon commenced against them at the suit of Ibbetson. According to the statement of the latter, the action was commenced by Cutts without his knowledge or sanction, and when he complained of that proceeding Cutts promised to indemnify him against all liability, and the action was thereupon allowed to proceed.. It was found that the duke's keepers were wrong in the course which they had taken, and the sum of 25l. was paid into court, and the action settled. The keepers then attempted to keep the birds on the duke's land, and for that purpose formed themselves in line, and, whenever they saw the grouse approaching Ibbetson's land, drove them back again. A second action in the name of Ibbetson, but without his knowledge, was then commenced against the keepers by Cutts, Cutts, however, promised to guarantee him against all costs, and so Ibbetson raised no objection. This action came on for trial before a special jury at the Spring Assizes at Derby, in 1866, and resulted in a verdict for the keepers. The defendant's costs of that action were taxed on the 28th March at 1437. 13s. 8d., and from that point began the series of events which were the foundation of the present charge. TESTAMENTARY SUIT-PRACTICE.-A testatrix, a married woman, executed a will by virtue of a power reserved to her. The marriage was sub-quested by Cutts's London agent to give time for a sequently dissolved, and the will destroyed, but under circumstances which, it was alleged, did not amount to a revocation. The husband having become bankrupt, a caveat was entered by his assignee, but a difficulty was raised in the registry as to its warning by the plaintiff, the residuary legatee, who propounded the will: The Court held that the caveat ought to be warned: (Ming v. Ming, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 69. Prob.) HUSBAND'S PETITION-CONNIVANCE DAMAGES.-On a husband's petition for dissolution of marriage in which damages were also claimed, the jury found that he had condoned his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, and that he had also connived at her adultery with a former paramour, and they assessed the damages at one farthing. The Court held that the claim for damages was unfounded, and dismissed the petition with the costs both of the respondent and co-respondent: (Adams v. Adams and Colter, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 69. Div.) MIDLAND CIRCUIT. (Before LUSH, J.) Charge of Conspiracy against Derbyshire Solicitors. John Cutts, George Edward Gee, and Robert Pocklington, were charged with fraud and conspiracy, under circumstances which appear below. Overend, Q. C., Bristowe, and Beasley conducted the prosecution. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Vernon Blackburn, and Tennant defended Cutts. Maule, Q. C. and Shepherd defended Gee. Fitzjames Stephen and Cave defended Pocklington. The defendant Cutts is an attorney practising at Chesterfield, of which place he is town clerk. Gee was at the time of the transactions which form the subject of the present charge an articled clerk of Mr. Butts, but is now an attorney practising at Chester According to the case for the prosecution a writ of fa. was going to be sent down on Wednesday, the 29th March, directing the Sheriff of Derbyshire to levy upon Ibbetson's goods the sum of 1437. 13s. 8d., which he was liable to pay for the costs of the action, which would have been executed on the next day. On the 29th, however, the attorneys of the Duke of Rutland, who was of course, the real defendant in the action, were refew days, in order that the costs might be paid. After a little demur they consented to give time until the 4th April. In the meantime, on the 29th March, Cutts sent Gee to Stonelow with a letter for Ibbetson, telling him that the costs would be taxed that day at a little under 90%, and must be paid at once, and sending also a statement of account under which Ibbetson was a debtor to him of 312l. 98. 7 d., including the costs of the second action. According to Ibbetson this account was for the most part fictitious, and the proper balance was only 60%. 19s. Ibbetson thereupon told Gee that he did not owe Cutts the money, and that as to the law costs, it was arranged that he should not pay them, upon which Gee said, "You will not be asked for the money." Gee then produced a mortgage ready drawn up for 3127. in favour of Cutts upon a mill of Ibbetson's, which had cost him altogether 2000. Ibbetson objected to sign the mortgage, upon which Gee said that it was only to cover Mr. Cutts, and Ibbetson then signed. The mortgage was ante-dated a month, in order, as Gee said, to look better. Gee then told Ibbetson that there was an execution out against his person and his goods, that he had better leave home for a time, and over" the goods to some one, and that if he was unable to find anyone he would procure some one for the purpose. On the 31st March a valuer was sent over to Stonelow by Gee, who made a rough valuation of Ibbetson's effects. Shortly after Cutts procured Pocklington for the "turnover." At Cutts' request Ibbetson went to Chesterfield on the 4th April, and an interview took place between Cutts, Ibbetson, Gee, and Pocklington. According to Ibbetsons's account, before the interview took place, he complained of having to go away, and said that he had no money. Cutts, however, told him that he would be locked up if he did not go, and that he should have 10%. to pay his expenses for a few weeks, that Cutts would pay the expenses of the farm while he was away, and would settle accounts with him on his return, and that if Ibbetson would trust him, and leave everything to him, all should be right. Accordingly, Ibbetson signed several docu **turn ments which Cutts presented to him, without inquiring or knowing what they were. These documents were a sale of all his effects to Pocklington, a receipt for 3007., and two bills of exchange for 2801. indorsed by him and Ibbetson, and handed to Cutts. No bargain was made between Ibbetson and Pocklington, and the former was paid nothing except the 20% to enable him to go away, and it was alleged that the sale was a mere sham to enable him to defeat the execution. It was arranged that Ibbetson's father should manage the farm during his absence under his directions, and that everything should be restored to him on his return. The next day Mr. and Mrs. Ibbetson left Stonelow, and went to London, where they lived in lodgings under a feigned name. In the meantime an execution was put in at Stonelow Farm, and the sheriff was met by a claim of Pocklington to the goods and effects there. An interpleader issue was directed to try to whom the goods belonged, which came on for trial at the last Summer Assizes for Derby in last July. At that trial only Pocklington and Gee were called as witnesses, who alleged that the sale to Pocklington was bonú fide, and that the latter had paid 3001. for the effects, made up of the two bills of exchange and cheque above-mentioned. The result was that Pocklington had a verdict. Ibbetson was not called as a witness, and knew nothing of the action, and the duke's advisers, suspecting that the account given at the trial was not true, advertised for Ibbetson, offering a reward to anyone who would give information as to where he was. son was at that time in great want, and very tired of hiding, and dissatisfied at the turn events had taken. Mrs. Ibbetson accordingly went to Derbyshire, and had an interview with Mr. Nesfield, the duke's agent there, the result of which was that Mr. Nesfield wrote two letters to Ibbetson asking for an interview in London. One of those letters was sent Ibbet by post, and the other by a messenger to Ibbetson's father at Stonelow. The messenger was accidentally met on the way by Pocklington, who promised to deliver it for him. The messenger accordingly gave Pocklington the letter, who kept it, and on his pocket opened. apprehension a few days after, it was found in his At that time the Union Bank of Sheffield had taken out a writ of ca. sa. against Ibbetson in an action in which Cutts had acted as Ibbetson's legal adviser. Pocklington would seem to have shown Mr. Nesfield's letter to Cutts, for Cutts rode in haste to Sheffield, told the manager of the Union Bank of the interview which was going to happen, and of the place where it would arrested before it took place. The manager, howbe, and requested the manager to have Ibbetson and accordingly an interview took place between ever, refused to act upon the information so obtained, Mr. Nesfield and Ibbetson at London, in the pre sence of Messrs. Eyre and Lawson, the duke's legal advisers. At that interview Ibbetson confessed to and the result was that the present proceedings were Mr. Nesfield the fraud which had been practised, taken. In cross-examination Ibbetson admitted that in 1865 he was in difficulties, and owed nearly 20007. He was at that time trying to compound with his creditors for 5s. in the pound. When Gee brought over to him the account in which Cutts claimed 3127. as being due to himself he carefully read the document over and put his initials to it, and would not say that the balance was not put in after he had examined it. He also admitted that some of the documents which he signed at Cutts's office were in his own handwriting. The trial lasted through the 12th and 13th, on which latter day the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. HARTWALL (James), Bridgwater, Somersetshire, gentleman. Next of kin to come in by April 9, at the chambers of M. R. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. BRITISH NATION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIMITED).— Petition for winding-up to be heard before M. R., on March 16. EASTERN ASSAM COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by April 1 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to F. Whinney, 8, Old Jewry, London. April 12, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at the chambers of MR, is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such clains. HAREHOPE GILL LEAD MINING COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in by April 10 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to F. Maynard, 19, Bread-street. London. April 26, at noon, at the chambers of M. R., is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such claims. HEYFORD COMPANY (LIMITED) -Creditors to send in by April 11 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to W. H. McCreight, 6, Raymond-buildings. Gray's-inn, London. April 25, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon at the chambers of M. R., is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such claims. GREIG (WI), Oxford-lodge, Garratt-lane, Tooting, Surrey, gentlem D. April 6; J. C. Hyett, solicitor, 28, Great; Coram-street, Brunswick-square, London. April 15; V.C. S.. at noon. HARWOOD (Charles), 1, Priory-leas, Folkestone, Esq., Judge PEARSE (P J.T.), 6, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London, POPE (Sarah), Goodhurst, Kent, widow. April 8; Monckton noon. READY (George), Sudbury, Suffolk, clothier and earthenware Ross (George), Burn-cross, Ecclesfield, Yorkshire, gentleman. SMITH (G. E.), Princes-street, Ware, Herts, gentleman. noon. SOUTHGATE (Josish), 1, Victoria-place, Larkhall-lane, Lam- THOMPSON (Abraham), the Tower of London, gentleman. WHITE (Richd.), Goodhurst, Kent, gentleman. April 8; Monckton and Monckton, solicitors, Maidstone. April 15; M. R.. at noon. WILCOX (Barnabas), Dudley, Worcestershire, currier. March 30; Skilbeck and Griffith, solicitors, 34, Bedford-row, London. April 15; M. R., at eleven o'clock in the fore noon. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. C. 35. street. Doctors'-commons, London. BAINES (Martha A. E.), Rottingdean, and the Highlands, BAYFIELD (Hy.), Prince of Wales, 6, Exeter-street, Sloane 77, Gresham-house, Old Broad-street, London. BOWERBANK (Rev. Lewis), Daniel-street, Bath. April 25; Graham and Lyde, solicitors, Mitre-court-chambers, Temple, London. BRUNDRETT (Thomas), Cornbrook-cottage, Cornbrook-place, Hulme, Manchester, gentlemau. May 13; J. Barrow, solicitor, 30. Brown-street, Manchester. CLARK (Joseph), Coach and Horses, Stoke Newington-green, Middlesex, licensed victualler. April 4; Glynes, Edell, and Glynes, solicitors, 8, Crescent, America-square, London. Cook (Thos), 5, Hereford-place, Bird-in-Bush-road, Peckham. Surrey, builder. May 1; Ingle and Gooddy, solicitors, 37, King William-street, London, FELL (John), Uxbridge-common, Middlesex, Esq. May 10; Druce, Sons, and Jackson, solicitors, 10, Billiter-square, London. SOUTHBY (R. J.). Appleton, Berks, Esq. May 20; D. Godfrey, STUBBS (R. G.), Grove-hall, Bow, Middlesex, gentleman. SUTTON (John), 7, Ham-terrace, West Ham-lane, West Ham, TAYLOR (Elizth.), 280, Camden-road, Camden-town, Mid- THEOBALD (Sarah), 10, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, London. TURNER (Eliz). Mortlake, Surrey, spinster. May 13; S. T. WARD (R. P.) 18, Stock Orchard-villas, Caledonian-road, UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the county, the sheriff's javelin men were superseded by the county police. Mr. Justice Byles presided in the Crown Court, and the Lord Chief Baron sat at Nisi Prius. There were only six canses entered. There were the names of twenty-five prisoners in the calendar, but none of the offences were serious. Exeter, March 9.-The commissions for holding the assizes for the county of Devon and for the city of Exeter, were opened here yesterday afternoon by Lord Chief Baron Kelly. This morning the Chief Baron took his seat in the Nisi Prius Court, and the cause list then came out with twenty cases, eleven of which were marked as special jury cases. There were five prisoners for trial in the city. There were the names of thirty-one prisoners in the calendar for the county. The law business is heavier than it has been for some years. OXFORD CIRCUIT. Stafford, March 11.-The commissions were opened here on Saturday. The cause list contains an entry of twenty-two causes, of which eight are marked for special juries. The calendar contains the names of fifty-four prisoners. Among the offences are eight for manslaughter, two for attempts to murder, and one for murder. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. Manchester, March 12.-The calendar contains the names of sixty-one prisoners, one of whom is charged with murder; but generally the character of the offences is not serious. The cause-list has an entry of sixty-one causes, of which twenty-one are marked for special juries. The cases which have been tried hitherto in the criminal court have possessed little general interest. Nottingham, March 12.-The calendar is much county, of which the only one of any importance is lighter than usual. There are seven cases in the that of John and Mary Watson, who are charged with the murder of Henry Raynor, of Gedling. There are six prisoners in the town, all of whom are charged with offences triable at quarter sessions. There are thirteen causes for trial, of which two are to be tried by special juries. HOME CIRCUIT. DIVORCE IN AMERICA.-Divorce seems to have become sufficiently easy in Chicago. In the Tribune of that city there is a report of the case of Minnie Schultz v. Karl Schultz, which was a suit for divorce on account of adultery. The defendant pleaded guilty, and a decree to the wife was given at once. The entire legal process occupied, from the time of the filing of the petition, less than three hours, and the entire expenses amounted to ten dollars. JURIES.-The Solicitor-General has put his finger upon an abuse the popular endurance of which has always struck us as wonderful. He said, in the House of Commons, that common jurymen ought to be paid for their services; and he implied that one result of the present state of things is that trials are often cut too short for the attainment of the ends of assizes, which were opened yesterday, began to-day Maidstone, March 12.-The business of these justice through the impatience of the jury to get in both the civil and criminal courts.' The commisaway from their irksome task. The more, in fact, sion was opened by Mr. Baron Bramwell, who this the matter is looked into, the more preposterous does morning charged the grand jury, and sat in the the existing arrangement appear. Special jurymen are paid a guinea for each trial-an absurdly small Crown Court. The calendar contains the names of sum; common jurymen are paid nothing, but are fifty-n -nine prisoners, but the cases for the most part are allowed eightpence a mile for their travelling excomparatively minor offences, and, happily, there is penses. Can anything be more ridiculous? Judges not one of the gravest class. There is no charge of are paid many thousands a-year for their services; of maliciously cutting and wounding, or one of murder, only two of manslaughter, and not one attorneys and barristers divide portentous sums between them; but the unlucky juryman, who is highway robbery, or robbery or burglary with summoned from his counter, whether he will or no, violence to the person. There are, indeed, two to the damage of his business-that is, to the injury or three cases of the charge of rape, and one of his pocket-is locked up and starved while he or two of arson (in one of which, however, the prisoner was acquitted to-day), and there his pains. The nonpayment of jurymen, like so were two or three case of burglary, one of which many of our other venerable follies, is a relic of a also broke down, except as to the attempt, and these state of things long gone by. When trial by jury was appeared to be the most serious cases in the calendar. the great bulwark of popular freedom again the power known for many years, as regards the character of On the whole, a lighter calendar has hardly been of the Crown, it was but natural that men who came the offences charged. forward to stem the tide of tyranny should account With regard to the civil the work they did as carrying its own reward. As business likewise, although the number of causes one does not pay a martyr or a confessor for his entered was a little greater than usual-as many sufferings in a good cause, so it would have been particular interest; indeed, most of the common jury as twenty-six-none of them appear to be of any scarcely consistent to pay the men who courageously cases-about a dozen-were disposed of to-day by stood up for the freedom of their fellow-countrymen. Lord Chief Justice Bovill, who sat in the Civil But a juryman to-day is anything but a martyr or a hero. He suffers cnly from the long-windedness Court. This is the first circuit gone by the new box, and from the annoyance of being called against his first that on which for so many years he was so of the bar, from the uncomfortableness of the jury-Lord Chief Justice, and the Bar and the suitors are pleased that he should have chosen for his will from selling calicoes and sugars to decide on the fate of men for whom he cares not a straw. well known, especially as he is accompanied by And for this, while the special juryman, a richer another learned judge who also belonged to this man than he is, gets his guinea, he himself is con- circuit, and was, along with him, one of its leaders soled with eight pence a mile to pay his omnibus The special jury cases begin to-morrow. fare.-Pall-Mall Gazette. FELTHAM (John), Ball-alley, Lombard-street, London, and wearily decides on his verdict, and gets nothing for Winchmore-hill, Middlesex, banker. April 20; Hoppe and Broad-street, London. Wilkinson, Butler, and Wilkinson, solicitors, St. Neot's, Hunts. HICKMAN (Elizth. H.), Westow-park, Gloucestershire, widow. HOLLAND (Ann), Church-road, Kingston, Portsea, widow. Artillery. April 15; Hooper, Peck, and Maynard, solicitors, LLOYD (R. H.), Lombard-street, London, and Upper Tooting, LOVELL (Charles), Bow-lane, London, and 70, Red Lion-square MARSDEN (Win), 65, Lincoln's-iun-fields, Middlesex, M.D. April 15; Helder and Kirkbank, solicitors, 10, Gray's-innsquare, London. London. MCNAMARA (Arthur), 14, Castle-street, Finsbury, Middlesex, cestershire. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. Bedford, March 12.-The business commenced this MAGISTRATE AND PARISH [NOTE. The current Law under this Department is noted by NORWICH GUILDHALL. Saturday, March 9. (Before the MAYOR and other Magistrates.) If ale is found on a table in a beershop after the time appointed for the closing of the same, although the house be shut, it will justify a conviction. charged with having his house open for the sale of for the defendant. Police constable No. 53 deposed that on the night |