of that Act, which was passed to prevent a great public mischief, but which does not interfere with the liberty of testators. "This,' he went on to say, "is a benefit given by the testator to a private club, and not to a charity, and the question whether it was not a perpetuity was one with which the Vice-Chancellor does not appear to have dealt. If this had been a devise in favour of the existing members, and they had been at liberty to dispose of the property, it might not have been a perpetuity, but looking to the intention of the testator it would have already been a gross breach of trust if while this library existed they had so dealt with it." The decision of the court below was accordingly reversed on the ground that the devise was void on account of perpetuity. In Cadell v. Palmer (1 Cl. & F. 372) the House of Lords acted upon the principle that a limitation by way of executory devise, which is not to take effect until after the determination of a life or lives in being, and a term of twenty-one years, as a term in gross and without reference to the infancy of any person, is a valid limitation, but not if to the term in gross of twenty-one years be added the number of months equal to the longest or ordinary period of gestation. Accordingly a decree of the court below declaring that a limitation by way of executory devise, which was not to vest until after the expiration of a term in gross of twenty years from the decease of the survivor of twenty-eight persons who were living at the testator's decease, and of whom seven only were to take interests under the devise, was affirmed. Where a testatrix left the residue of her property to the Dominican Convent at Carisbrooke, payable to the superior for the time being and the sisters of St. Paul at Selley Oak, near Birmingham, payable to the superior thereof for the time being, ViceChancellor Wickens held that the gift to the sisters at Selley Oak was a valid bequest good as to pure, but bad as to impure or mixed, personalty; and that the bequest to the Dominican Convent was good altogether. Having gone over various questions the Vice-Chancellor turned to the question of perpetuity. "The question," said he, "remains whether the gift to the Dominican Convent, which seems to me not charitable, is void for perpetuity." It was argued that it was a gift in trust for the purposes of a perpetual institution, and therefore, on a perpetual trust, and Carne v. Long was relied on. That case, however, did not, in his Honour's opinion, decide that a gift to a perpetual institution not charitable was bad-for instance a gift to a club, or to a limited company; but merely that the gift was a gift which the trustees could only give effect to by holding the property for ever and applying the income according to the rule. In this case, however, the gift was to be paid to the superior for the time being, and would be subject to no trust. The Community of Sisters at Selley Oak were considered by his Honour as a voluntary association for the purpose of teaching the ignorant and nursing the sick, and undistinguishable from any of the numerous voluntary associations established in London, such as the Scripture Readers, Home Missionaries, or Anglican Sisters of Mercy, in which zealous persons unite for the purpose of performing charitable functions: (Cocks v. Manners, 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 869.) Vice-Chancellor Hall had, in Re Clarke's Trust (L. Rep. 1 Ch. Div. 497), a case in which Carne v. Long was again applied. The petitioner contended that a gift made by the testator to a friendly society was, if a good charitable gift, a gift to a private society, and that such private charity having been dissolved, the testator's gift to charity determined, and the fund must therefore be applied cy pres for charitable purposes. The society was one whose members were to provide by subscriptions and fines a fund to be distributed for their mutual benefit in cases of sickness, lameness, or old age. Poverty of the member at the time of his sickness or lameness, or in his old age, was not required to entitled him to an allowance. His Lordship accordingly came to the conclusion that the society was not a charitable institution. The legacy, when paid, augmented the society's funds; but, inasmuch as such funds were not clothed with a charitable trust, their character was not wholly varied by such addition. The gift was in the following terms: "I give the sum of £500 sterling, further part of my residuary personal estate, to be laid out and kept invested in some one of the public stocks or funds of Great Britain in the names of such persons as shall be nominated from time to time to be trustees thereof by the friendly society called, &c. . . . upon trust to apply the dividends and income thereof in aid of the funds of the said society." His Lordship came to the conclusion that the gift was invalid as aiming at creating a perpetuity as in Carne v. Long; and the fund was ordered to be paid to the petitioner, who was the representative of the executor and residuary legatee of the testator. The Chief Baron came to the conclusion in Re Dutton that cases such as Carne v. Long and Thompson v. Shakespeare were in point, and went to show that where, by the constitution of a club, seciety, or other institution not a charity, there is nothing necessarily to put an end to its existence, so that it may last an indefinite time and the gift is made in such terms as to make the subject of it an accession to the capital or permanent property of the club, or other institution, and not a sum to be brought into the annual accounts of the institution as part of its yearly income to be disposed of by the then existing members, then there is in such a case a tendency to a perpetuity, and the bequest is void. The judgment of the County Court judge was affirmed, and leave to appeal refused. It will be noticed, however, that the Exchequer Division was careful to affirm it, not on the ground that the institution was a charitable one, but on the ground that the bequest was void as tending to create a perpetuity. AUTHORITY OF BUSINESS MANAGER TO BUY ON CREDIT, THE law of plaintiff and agent contains numerous questions of difficulty, and amongst them must be reckoned those with which the Common Pleas dealt in the recent casa of Daun v. Simmins (40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 556). The real point in that case related to the extent of the authority of the manager of a public house, but it involved some important principles of law. The action was brought by a spirit merchant against the owner of a public house for spirits supplied to the defendant's manager. The manager was authorised to order spirits of two persons only, but not of the plaintiff. When the agents were sent in the defendants repudiated the acts of his agent and refused to pay. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff was that the defendant put his agent in the business as general manager to carry on the business; and that, inasmuch as the agent was left in possession of the premises, there was a holding out of him by the defendants as having authority to make binding contracts, which estopped the defendants from proving that he had no authority. The license was taken out in the name of the defendant but was left in the possession of the manager. The invoices, too, were made out in the name of the defendant. The action was twice tried, and on both occasions the jury found for the plaintiff. A rule nisi, however, was granted for a new trial on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the jury, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The grounds of the plaintiff's claim were twofold, but these might be easily resolved into one, namely: that the defendant had held out the agent as possessing the requisite authority, and was therefore liable with the respect to such holding out. There is a great variety of illustrations contained in the law books. The principle upon which they depend is that, if one person employs another in a character which involves a particular authority, he cannot by a secret reservation divest himself of that authority. Hence we have another inquiry raised in Daun_v. Simmins : did the character with which the agent was invested as manager render the instructions of the defendant with respect to the to the persons with which he was to deal nugatory so far as concerned a third person without notice. In the early case of Pickering v. Busk (15 East. 38) the plaintiff, the true owner, had brought goods through A. who was a broker and agent for sale. At the plaintiff's desire the goods were transferred into the name of A. who afterwards sold them. The action was brought to recover the goods. Lord Ellenborough ruled that the transfer by the plaintiff's direction authorised A. to deal with them as owners with respect to third persons, and that the plaintiff who had enabled A. to assume the appearance of ownership to the world, must abide the consequences of his own act. The jury found for the defendants. Upon the argument of the rule to set aside that verdict his Lordship made use of his often quoted observations with respect to the limits of an agent's authority, remarking that "Strangers can look only to the acts of the parties and to the external indicia of property, and not to the private communications which may pass between a principal and his broker; and if a person authorises another to assume the apparent right of disposing of property in the ordinary course of trade, it must be assumed that the apparent authority is the real authority. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that a broker's engagements are necessarily and in all cases limited to his actual authorities, the reality of which is afterwards to be tried by the fact. It is clear that he may bind his principal within the limits of the authority with which he has been apparently clothed by the principal in respect of the subject matter." In a more recent case (Summers v. Solomon, 26 L. J. 301, Q. B.) one of the defendants' shops was under the management of his nephew who was in the habit of ordering goods of the plaintiff in the name of the defendant, who paid for them. In Nov. 1855 the plaintiffs received two orders for jewellery from the nephew. The goods were sent and acknowledged by the defendant as ordered by him. On the 7th March 1856 the nephew absconded and obtained on the 10th, 14th, and 20th of the same month, a quantity of jewellery the subject of the action from the plaintiff. The court was of opinion that there was evidence for the jury that the nephew had authority to order the goods, the question being whether the defendant had so held the nephew out, as to lead the plaintiff reasonably to suppose that he was the defendants' general agent for the purpose of ordering goods. Many of the reported cases relate to persons who hold themselves out as partners. The principle of those cases is of very general application. The principles of law that relate to the liability of a person who holds himself out as a partner were explained by Chief Justice Tindal in Fox y. Clifton (6 Bing. 776). The holding oneself out to the world as a partner, as contradistinguished from the actual relation of partnership, imports at least the voluntary act of the party so holding himself out. It implies the lending of his name to the partnership, and is altogether incompatible with the want of knowledge that his name has been so used. In the ordinary cases of its occurrence, where a person allows his name to remain in a firm, either exposed to the public over a shop door, or to be used in printed invoices or bills of parcels, or to be published in advertisements, the knowledge of the party that his name is used, and his assent thereto, is the very ground upon which he is estopped from disputing his liability as a partner. The decision of the Queen's Bench in Edmunds v. Bushell and another (L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 97) throws some light on the subject. In that case the defendant A. carried on business in two different towns: in the one he traded as B. and Co. There he employed the defendant B. as his manager to carry on the business in his own name. The drawing and accepting bills of exchange was incidental to the carrying on a business of the like kind, and was proved to be so; but there was an agreement between B. and A. that B. should neither accept nor draw bills. Nevertheless B. accepted a bill in the name of B. and Co. This bill was taken by a banking company for a valuable consideration, and B. was shortly afterwards dismissed. It had also been agreed between A. and B. that B. should receive as salary one-half of the net profit derived from the business carried on in his name. The main question upon the argument was whether A. was liable for the act of B. The Court acting upon the principle already adverted to, came to the conclusion that B. must be taken to have had authority to do whatever was necessary or incidental to carrying on the business, and that he could not be divested of his apparent authority as against third parties by a secret reservation. A comparison of this case with that of Dunn v. Simmins will show that they differ in some important particulars. That the limits of an agent's authority will not be gathered from his private instructions, was the principle upon which the well-known case of Whitehead v. Tuckett (15 East. 400) was decided. There the plaintiff purchased some hogsheads of sugar of the defendant's brokers. Then the defendant refused to give up on the ground that the brokers had been entrusted with the sugar with a limited authority. The sugar in question had been purchased and paid from their own names by the brokers, and lodged in, their own warehouse, but sold under the price directed by the defendant. A verdict for the plaintiff was found on the ground that the extent of the authority was to be gathered from the recognised mode of dealing. None of these decisions is a direct authority in support of the argument that a manager, under the circumstances of Daun v. Simmins, had authority to pledge his employer's credit. The question is, therefore, whether they support such a proposition. It certainly cannot be laid down as a universal proposition that such a manager has implied authority to buy on credit. The court thought there was no evidence of such authority to be inferred from the circumstances of the case, and by the application of Order XL., r. 10, gave judgment for the defendant. It is at least satisfactory to find that upon a motion for a new trial, where the court has the necessary materials before it, final judgment may be given, thus saving the expense of another trial. LEGISLATION AND JURIS PRUDENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS. BILL. Thursday, June 19. After some remarks from Lord SELBORNE, THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second ON Wednesday there was issued as a Parliamenreading of this Bill, the object of which is to es-tary Paper a letter written by the Lord Chief tablish a central office in which will be performed Justice of England to the Attorney-General, under all the business now transacted in the various date the 11th June, as follows:offices connected with the operation of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts. Lord SELBORNE suggested that if the time of the official referees was not fully occupied in the discharge of the work assigned to them, they might be advantageously employed in other work. references had not been so great as was expected, and he had suggested that the referees should take some of the work devolving on the chief The LORD CHANCELLOR said the number of clerks in chambers. The work in chambers was very heavy and the suggestion he had made had been acted upon. The Bill was read a second time. the House of Commons. "Dear Mr. Attorney-General,-Having carefully considered the Bill now before Parliament for establishing a code of indictable offences and I cannot but take a lively interest, and having the procedure relating thereto,' a measure in which arrived at the conviction that the Bill ought not to pass without very many corrections and amend ments, I am induced to trouble you the conduct of the Bill having been most properly committed to your charge-with such observations as occur to me upon it. "Let me assure you that I approach the subject in no hostile spirit, either from disbelief in the results of codification or from any want of appreciation of the merits of the work embodied in the present measure. PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL. The House went into committee on this Bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. "I have long been, for reasons on which it is On Clause 2, unnecessary here to dwell, a firm believer in, not Lord COLERIDGE called attention to the fact only the expediency and possibility, but also in that, under this clause, it was provided that the the coming necessity of codification; and I have public prosecutor and his deputies in the country rejoiced, therefore, at the favourable reception should be appointed by the Home Secretary and which the proposal to codify our criminal law has not by the Attorney-General. He objected to this received from the Press as of good omen. But it arrangement, and moved as an amendment that would, I think, be much to be deplored if the eager the appointments be made by the Attorney-desire to see the law codified-entertained by the General, who from his legal knowledge would be public, of whom few have perhaps taken the better able than the Home Secretary to make the trouble to study the details of the measure, and selections. He disclaimed any hostility to the still fewer are in a position to appreciate the legal present Home Secretary; this was a piece of difficulties which present themselves-should lead patronage forced on that right hon. gentleman by to the adoption of a statement of the law still imperfect and incomplete. For, not only would this THE LORD CHANCELLOR reminded the noble be a misfortune as regards the work itself and the and learned lord that the House of Commons pro-administration of justice under it, but any failure vided the funds for the institution of this peculiar in this our first attempt at what can properly be office of director of prosecutions, and it required termed a code would engender a distrust of this that the responsibility should be in the hands of method of dealing with the law which would retard the Home Secretary. He thought the House of all further attempts at codification for an indeCommons was quite right in doing that. The po- finite period. sitions of the Home Secretary and the AttorneyGeneral in the administration of the criminal law were essentially different. The Home Secretary was the head of a great department and he was responsible to Parliament for the general system of the administration of the criminal law of the country. The Attorney-General was responsible only for the way in which he discharged the duties of his own office; it was the Home Secretary who might be called upon to account to Parliament as to the manner in which, generally, justice was administered in this country. "Let me next say that I see in the present Bill every encouragement to persevere in the attempt to codify the criminal law. "It is impossible not to appreciate the vast amount of labour which has been bestowed on the work by the commissioners, or the great learning and research displayed in it. I am, indeed, astonished that they should have done so much in so short a time. It was impossible they should do more. And a serious mistake was, I cannot but think, made in supposing that so great and difficult a work as that of stating the criminal law in all its voluminous details, with a due regard to arrangement and classification, in language carefully selected, avoiding on the one hand the cumbrous, prolix, inartificial, and bewildering phraseology of our statutes, and, on the other hand, taking care that the terms used shall be which is intended to come within it, could possisufficiently comprehensive to embrace every case which, consistently with a due regard to their bly be effected in the comparatively short time for judicial duties, two members at least of the commission could devote themselves to the work. I am not, therefore, surprised at the signs of haste which are apparent in many parts of the Bill, and more particularly the latter part of it, relating to procedure. having collected abundant materials for a com"We have to thank the commissioners for plete and perfect code. But I cannot concur in thinking that they have as yet presented us with such a code; and I am bound to say that, in my opinion, a great deal remains to be done to make the present code a complete and perfect exposition, or a definitive settlement of the criminal law. Not only is there much room for improvement as regards arrangement and classification, but the language used is not always perspicuous, or happily chosen, while the use of provisoes, an objectionable mode of legislation, is carried to an unusual excess, nor is the intention always clear; and, what is still more important, the law is, in many instances, left in doubt, and I am bound to say, in my opinion, not always correctly stated. As to this, however, I ought to add that I am often left in doubt whether particular passages are intended to be a statement of the existing law or a proposed alteration of it. With regard to the avowed alterations of the law, some of which are of a somewhat radical and daring character, I will say no more for the present than, while change may be desirable, in some instances the change proposed-I refer particularly to the admissi bility of an accused person as a witness-would be, as I shall be prepared to show by-and-by, & grievous mistake. 66 Being thus of opinion that, while the work of codification thus begun should be carried out, the passing of the Bill in its present condition would really be a misfortune, compared to which delay would be of little importance; for, after all, the administration of the criminal law, when once the facts of a case are ascertained, seldom presents much difficulty; but, on the other hand, seeing that Parliament is not likely, and, indeed, can scarcely be expected to go into the details of such a measure, unless indeed a select committee were appointed for the purpose, I am led to invite you to go through the Bill with me, and to consider how far my suggestions may tend to the improvement and perfecting of this important measure. The Lord Chief Justice, then, in the course of 18 pages, expresses his criticisms on the Bill. In a postscript he adds:-"I have been in formed on reliable authority that it has been pro-able proportion of the litigious business undertaken SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. MR. EDMUND KIMBER, of Queen-street, London, has given notice that at the annual meeting of the Incorporated Law Society on the 11th July next, he will move the following resolutions :-"1. That the annual meeting of the society ought to be held at some less busy period of the year, when the members would have more time to discuss questions which concern the welfare of themselves and their clients. 2. That the library ought to be placed on the same footing as those of the Inns of Court, and that, subject to certain guarantees and securities, the books should be lent out for short periods to members of the society." On the motion for the adoption of the report he intends also to draw the attention of the society to the continued waste of professional time at judges' chambers, notwithstanding the new regulations, and to the almost daily increasing and unnecessary trouble and vexation to which solicitors are put in the practice of their profession, and in the honest discharge of their onerons duties to their clients and the public at large. These questions deserve to be fully discussed by the members of the society. A "LAW STUDENT" has made a horrible dis- 46 MESSES. MILLER AND SON, solicitors, of East India Chambers, 23, Leadenhall-street, London, write to us disclaiming all knowledge of the issue of a circular letter headed, "To Traders and others," which we printed in our columns on the 7th inst., and which circular was signed Miller and Son." We think it will transpire that this signature has been adopted by some persons whose names are not on the roll of solicitors. THERE is a case in the Reports accompanying our issue of the 14th inst. which is of peculiar interest to solicitors. It is a case of Pringle v. Gloag, in which a question of solicitor's lien arose. Two partners quarrelled, and one brought an action for power to act as he did, and discharged the rule, with costs. GROVE, J. said the only doubt he felt in the matter was with respect to a judgment by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Baker v. Oakes (46 L. J. 246), where it might be gathered A CASE of Lloyd v. Jones, lately reported (40 application to be made in court was a condition from some of the expressions used that a formal L. T. Rep. N. S. 514), is of interest to all solicitors. There was a petition under the Solicitors Act of precedent to a party being deprived of his costs. 1860, s. 28, praying for a charging order on certain Appeal meant to go to this length, or that their He did not think, however, that the Court of properties, the subject of proceedings in Lloyd v. Jones, and the petitioner alleged that the plain-with regard to the facts of the case before them. judgment could properly be so read, if considered The decision then given really meant, as he understood it, that unless the judge dealt with the question at the time he was functus officio and could not deal with it at chambers afterwards. If the 55th section was to be construed as im porting a condition precedent, it applied as much to "the court" as to "the judge.' If, there fore, no application was made at the trial, the but such applications as the present had been Divisional Court could not entertain it at all; other meaning must be given to the section, entertained by the courts, and therefore some and that meaning, in his opinion, was that the question was one which "should be dealt with at the trial." LOPES, J. was of the same opinion. The quescould make an order preventing costs following tion was whether a judge sitting at Nisi Prins the event of his own motion, without a direct application asking him to do so. It could not have been intended by the Legislature or by the Court of Appeal that where a plaintiff recovered utterly undeserving of costs, the judge should be a verdict owing to some technicality, but was prevented from exercising the salutary power of control over them merely because no formal application was made. He agreed that the rule should be discharged. Henn Collins asked for leave to appeal. GROVE, J. said, as the judgment they had given turned upon the construction to be put on a judg ment of the Court of Appeal, he thought it respectful to that court and fair to the plaintiff that an opportunity should be granted for taking the case to that court. Leave to appeal granted. tiff's solicitors had recovered for their clients would be. COMMON PLEAS DIVISION. dissolution of the partnership, and it was found (Sittings in Banco before GROVE and LOPES, JJ.) on the accounts that a sum was due from one to the other, from say A. to B., and B. was ordered to pay Á.'s costs of the proceedings, and the result was that there was a final balance found due from B. to A. A. absconded without paying the sum due by him to B. B. claimed a set-off of the sum of money found due to him from A. Upon this A.'s solicitor steps in and claims a lien on the costs which B. was ordered to pay to A., and the question was whether the solicitor can sustain his lien so as to shut out B.'s claim of a set-off. The Master of the Rolls decided that a solicitor's lien is not a lien by title paramount, and added in his judgment, "There is no harm to the solicitor, he is not compelled to work for an insolvent client.' We are not prepared to take exception to the learned judge's judgment in this case, but with some of his concluding observations with regard to solicitors we cannot agree. There was certainly harm to the solicitor, as it strikes us. It is fair to assume that he was relying upon the costs to be paid by the opposite party by which to pay himself the costs due to him from his client. We are probably within the mark in saying that a consider TURNER v. HYLAND. Costs-Practice. THIS was a case which raised a point of practice Bigham showed cause. Henn Collins supported the rule. The COURT were of opinion that the judge had APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK ATHENIAN MARBLE COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send LAST DAY OF PROOF. DAVIES (Thos.), Lower Mill, Llanshidian, Glamorgan, miller. July 31; Richd. W. Bear, jun., solicitor, Swansea. Aug. 4; M.R., at eleven o'clock. FYSH (Jas. H.), Stamford, Esq. July 22; Jos. Phillips, HENSLER (Fredk. A.), Bristol, provision merchant. July KELLY (Wm. L.), 13, St. Helen's-place, London, Consul- KNIGHT (Edwd.), Pitchcombe, Gloucester, farmer. July 14: H. F. A. Davis, solicitor, 36, Essex-street, Strand, Middlesex. July 22; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. LEACH (Jas.), 65, Peppercroft-street, Milton-next-Gravesend, Kent, gentleman. July 11; T. Sismey, solicitor, 11, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet-street, London. July 18, V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. LORD (Chas.), formerly of Grantham, afterwards of Blooms. bury-place, Brighton and Margate, linendraper. July 15; E. Isaacson, solicitor, Margate. July 29; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. LITTLEWOOD (Geo.), Birkhouse Farm. Cumberworth, York, NEWDICK (Alfred), Cupola Farm, Mildenhall, Suffolk, RIVIS (Thos. W.), Newstead House, Norton, York. July RYDER (Jas.), Liverpool, and Arequipa, Peru. June 30; SPICER (BOYS.), Marden, Kent. July 14; Jno. W. Mempes, TEALE (Jas.), Cross Keys Inn, Water-lane, Holbeck, Leeds, WILLS (Wm. R.), Fair View, Wylde Green, Sutton Coldfield, CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ATKINS (Jno.), Radmer House, Beckenham, Kent, gentleman. Sept. 1; Palmer and Co., solicitors, 24, Bedfordrow, Middlesex. ALEXANDER (Isabella), Eglingham, Northumberland, widow. July 19; Robert Middlemas, solicitor, Alnwick. BEEVOR (Rev. Edwd. R.), Heveningham, Norfolk. July 12; Edwd. P. Simpson, solicitor, Lambland, Norwich, BOWER (Pinder), Rillington Low Moor, Rillington, York, farmer. June 30; Arthur H. Jackson, solicitor, Malton. BOWERMAN (Chas.), 101, Jamaica-road, Bermondsey, Surrey, gentleman. July 28; R. Wilson, solicitor, 87, Bedfordrow, Middlesex. BURGESS (Jas.), Waddington-terrace, Ely, Cambridge, gentleman. July 10; Geo. S. Hall, solicitors, Marketplace, Ely. BLANE (Capt. Geo.), R.N., 21, Prince's-gardens, Kensing ton, Middlesex. July 17; Birch and Co., solicitors, 68, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. BACKSHELL (Wm. B.), 19, Burghley-road, Kentish Town, Middlesex, surveyor. Aug. 15; W. T. Elliott, solicitor, 5, Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn, Middlesex. BAYKES (Lieut.-Col. Wm. H.), 26, Gay-street, Bath. Aug. 1; Petgrave and Hodgkinson, solicitors, 4, Haringtonplace, Bath. BAYNES (Jane E.), 26, Gay-street, Bath, widow. Aug.1; Petgrave and Hodgkinson, solicitors, 4, Harington-place, Bath. CARTER (Elizabeth), Ship inn, and Royal hotel, Laytham, Lancaster, widow. July 25; J. Gerrard, solicitor, 21, Acresteld, Bolton. CARD (Wm.), Hartfield, Sussex, farmer. Aug. 1; Messrs. Hasties, solicitors, East Grinstead. CRABTREE (Jas.), Ashton-under-Lyne, joiner. July 14; Jno. Clayton, solicitor, Warrington-street, Ashton-underLyne. S.E. CADMAN (Edwd.), Eckington, Derby, farmer and maltster. July 31: Alderson, Son and Dust, solicitors, Eckington, CAVELL (Jno.), the Green, Deptford, Kent, file cutter. July 26; Marchant and Purvis, solicitor, 8, George-yard, Lombard-street, London, and 140, High-street, Deptford, CHARLTON (Edwd.), M.D., Suffolk House, Hastings, and 234, Marylebone-road, Middlesex. July 24; A Drew, solicitor, 11, John-street, Bedford-row, Middlesex, CHURCH (Thos. C.), 66, Geneva-road, Brixton, Surrey, solicitor. July 19; E. H. Biggin, solicitor, 61, Chancerylane, London. CUMMINGS (Jao.), Rothbury, Northumberland, yeoman. Coop (Wm.), 29, Henry-street, and 37, Cheapside, Bolton, cotton spinner and ironmonger. July 19; Ryley and Haslam, solicitors, 26, Maudsley-street, Bolton. CHURCH (Jno.), Handforth, Chester, block printer. July 10; Tay and Broadbent, solicitors, 2, Park-parade, Ashtonunder-Lyne. DAVIES (Maria), Burlington House, Dover, spinster. Aug. 1; Mercer, Edwards, and Co., solicitors, Deal. DAWES (Wm.), Cheltenham, relieving officer. July 15; F. and E. Griffiths, solicitors, 2, Crescent-place, Cheltenham. ETRILLARD (Antoine N.), 6, Wren-road, Camberwell, Surrey. July 31; J. F. Allen, 22, Church-street, Camber well. EAST (Wm. F.), Buckland, Dover, carrier. July 10; W. FOURDRINIER (Henry W.), formerly of 12, Sherborne-lane, HEBDIN (Jas.), Morden-villa, Lee-park, Blackheath, Kent, Esq. Aug. 1; Pilgrim and Phillips, solicitors, Churchcourt, Lothbury, London. HAYWARD (Thos.), Rose and Crown, 9, London House-yard, St. Paul's-churchyard, London, licensed victualler. July 23; Layton and Co., solicitors, 29, Budge-row, London. HIBBERT (Hubert A. T.), Hillmorton, Rugby, Warwick, Esq. July 22; J. and C. Longbourne, solicitors, 7, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. HARRISON (Mary), formerly of North Cerney, Gloucester, late of 14, Victoria-street, Gloucester, widow. July 31; Burrup and Cozen, solicitors, 3, Berkeley - street, Gloucester HOLT (Robt.), Bent Farm, Heaton Norris, Lancaster, farmer. Sert. 1; Crowther and Clayton, solicitors, 16, Booth-street, Cooper-street, Manchester. JARVIS (Jas.), Whittington, Staffs, gentleman. July 31; JOHNSON (JOS. G.), Bentley Old Hall, near Doncaster, and Barnsley, York, chemist and druggist. July 12; Newman and Sons, solicitors, Barnsley. KNIGHT (Rchd.), 7, Westbourne-terrace North, Middlesex. gentleman. Sept. 18; J. J. Cridland, solicitor, 27, Bed: ford-row, Middlesex. LEAH (Fredk.), Louth, Lincoln, gentleman. Sept. 6; Jno. H. Bell, solicitor, Townhall, Louth. LAMBERT (Jas.), Clewer, Berks, miller. July 14; Long, Durnford, and Lovegrove, solicitors. MANFIELD (Jno. W.), 78, Bury-street, Salford, chemist. MOLYNEUX (Rev. Canon Sir Jno. W. H.), Bart., Sudbury, REECE (Richard M.), 21, Cavendish-road West, St. John'swood, and 14, Furnival's-inn, Middlesex, gentleman, July 21; M. J. Letcher, solicitor, 14, Furnival's-inn, London. ROWE (Jas.), Alver-lane, Alverstoke, Southampton, beerhouse keeper. July 26; Blake and Reed, solicitor, 14, Union-street, Portsea. ROTTGER (George R. W.), Abertillery, Monmouth, clerk. July 12; Colborne and Ward, solicitors, Victoria-chambers, Newport, Mon. SCRIVENER (Elizabeth), 31, Spencer-road, Putney, Surrey, spinster. July 19; Heath and Parker, solicitors, 12, St. Helen's-place, London. SMITH (Jno.). Wickham Arms, Brockley-road, Kent, licensed victualler. July 28, Nash and Field, solicitors, 12, Queen-street, Cheapside, London. SHEPHERD, (Caroline), Ramsden, Oxford, widow. July 16; SCOTT (Timothy), Woodhill, Grimesthorp-road, Sheffield, cashier. Aug. 6; Burdekin and Co., solicitors, 41, Norfolkstreet, Sheffield. SILK (Thos.), 426, Commercial-road East, Middlesex, ship's husband. July 18; Chester and Co., solicitors, 11, Staple Inn, London. SHAW (Geo.), 3, Norfolk-terrace, Shakespeare-road, Brixton, Surrey, retired butcher. Aug. 1; Hores and Pattison, solicitors, 52, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. SPICER (Ann), formerly of 31, Camera-square, Chelsea, afterwards of 17, Gillingham-street, Pimlico, late of 9, Cadoganstreet, Chelsea, Middlesex, widow. Aug. 18; W. G. Slack, solicitor, 38, Guildford-street, Russell-square, Middlesex. TAYLOR (Mary Ann), Newmarket St. Mary, Suffolk, and of The Limes, Berners-street, Ipswich, widow. August 1; Robt. Fenn, solicitor, Newmarket. TAMLYN (Wm. H.), 7, Albemarle-row, Hotwells, Clifton, Bristol, gentleman. July 10; E. Bevan, 3, Albemarlerow, Hotwells, Clifton. TAYLOR (Geo.), Clayworth Field, Nottingham, farmer. Aug. 9; Newton, Jones, and Champion, solicitors, East Retford. sex. WAKE (Rev. LEONARD J.), Norwich. Aug. 14; W. A. Down- WILLIAMSON (Elizabeth), Cathedral-yard, Exeter, book. seller. July 15; J. W. Petherick, solicitor, 8, Southernhay, Exeter. WRIGHT (WM. T.), Crandon Park, near Ingatestone, Essex, late of Moorcroft House, Hillingdon, Middlesex, gentleman. August 1; w. H. Dunster, solicitor, 1, Henriettastreet, Cavendish-square, Middlesex. Essex, Chigwell-A plot of freehold land-sold for £100. A plot of market garden land, 2a. Or. 28p.-sold for £435. Bermondsey-Freehold ground rents of £380 per annumsold for £8180. The Yorkshire Grey beerhouse, freehold-sold for £635. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. Inquiries, as to Students' Societies, as to Service under Articles, as to the several Examinations, as to admission on the Roll of the Supreme Court, as to being called to the Bar, and as to taking out and renewal of solicitors' annual Certificates, should be addressed to the Editor (Law Students' Department). A CURIOUS advertisement appeared in the LAW TIMES of last Saturday. It was addressed To July 31; Tilleard and Co., solicitors, 34, Old Jewry, Counsel at the Bar," and indicated that the clerk London. MARSHALL (Alfred R.), late of 66, Braxfield-road, Brockley, Brighton. RADFORD (Nicholas), Southbrook, Brcad Clyst, Jevon, yeoman. July 31; Sparkes and Rope, solicitors, Crediton, Devon. ROGERS (Jno.), Hartlepool, mariner. July 21; W. Todd, solicitor, 26, Town-wall, Hartlepool. of a barrister was open to an engagement with other barristers. The advertisement contained had been twelve years with large firms of solicithe attractive announcement that the advertiser tors. What, then, is the association intended to be conveyed to the minds of barristers by the reference to large firms of solicitors? THE annual dinner of the United Law Students' Society was held at the Pall Mall Restaurant, on Wednesday last, at half-past seven in the evening. Mr. Serjt. Parry, who has for several years taken a real interest in the welfare of London law students, occupied the chair, and he was supported by several members of the Profession, among them the honorary officers of the society. The arrangements for the dinner were intrusted to Mr. F. B. Moyle, the honorary librarian of the society, who deserves credit for his successful efforts to make the gathering a success. Letters were read from several members of the Profession, regretting their inability to be present. A NOTICE issued from the Petty Bag Office, in April 1877, requires that no assignment of articles be made, but that further articles be entered into, reciting that the original contract has been put an end to by mutual consent (or by the death of the master, or as the case may be). AN INTERMEDIATE Examination will be held in the hall of the Society, Chancery-lane, London, on Thursday, the 6th Nov., at ten o'clock a.m. THE remaining days appointed for the final examinations of the Incorporated Law Society in 1879 are: Tuesday 4th, and Wednesday 5th Nov., at 10. Candidates are required, by the regulations of the 27th Nov. and 5th Dec. 1877, to give notice in writing forty-two days at least before the date of the examination to the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane, London. Candidates are also required at the same time to leave with the secretary of the society their articles of clerkship and any assignment thereof, or supplemental articles, and the certificates of their having passed the preliminary examination, or evidence of their exemption therefrom, and certificates of having passed the intermediate examination, together with answers to the questions as to due service and conduct. Prints of these questions can be obtained on application at the office of the Incorporated Law Society. A renewed notice must be given fourteen days. at least before the date of the examination. The fee payable on giving notice of examination. is £5, and for a renewed notice £2 10s. CALLS TO THE BAR. THE undermentioned gentlemen were on Wednes day called to the Bar: INNER TEMPE.-Charles Swinfen Eady, Esq. (holder of a certificate of honour second class, Trinity Term, 1879, of a studentship first class, Hilary, 1878, both awarded by the Council of Legal Education, and of a pupil scholarship in equity, awarded by the Inner Temple, July 1878), of the University of London, LL.D.; Charles Edward Munro Edwards, Esq., Oxford; Arthur Beilby Pearson, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; John Arthur Fyler, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Arthur Tewdyr Davies Berrington, Esq., Oxford; George Wilson Waterhouse, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Thomas Radford Potts, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Archibald Coysgarne Sim, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Lister Maurice Drum mond, Esq.; Thomas De Multon Lee Braddell, bridge; Alexander Keith Wyllie, Esq., Cambridge; Esq., Oxford; Ernest Hatton, Esq., B.A., CamThomas Lee Roberts, Esq.; Walter Boldero Paton, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Walter Charles Alan Ker, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Douglas Harry Coghill, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Ernest William Godfrey, Esq., B.A., Oxford; William Kellman Chandler, Esq., Cambridge; Balasundram Sam Shreenivassa, Esq.; George Henry Emmott, Esq., B.A., LL.B., Cambridge; Hubert Oslar Shepherd Ellis, Esq.,B.A. LL.B., Cambridge; Andrew Douglas Lawrie, Esq., B.A., Oxford; James Fawdington Skipper, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Herbert Thompson, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Clement Martin Le Breton, Esq.; John Ogle, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Alfred William Gee, Esq.; and Charles Andrew Pope, Esq., B.A., Oxford. MIDDLE TEMPLE. Hamilton Ross, Esq. Thomas William Lewis, Esq.; Allan Edward Catchelor, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Thomas Macdonald, Esq., University of London, holder of a Scholarship in Equity and of a Scholarship in International Law, granted by the Middle Temple; L. C. D'Auvergne Lipscomb, Esq.; Frederick M. C. Mackarness, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Edward Bruce Hindle, Esq.; Lionel Henry Rosenthal, Esq., LL.B., London University, 2nd Class in Esq., B.A., Dublin; William Frederick Hamilton, Honours Trinity Examination, 1879, holder of a studentship in Roman Law, 1878; Thomas ChrisWilliam Robert Palmer, Esq., University of topher Down, Esq., University of London: London; Joseph William Thompson, Esq., LL.B. Cambridge, and B.A. London; Patrick Rose Smith, Esq.; Edward Henry George Kelso, Esq.; George Henry Withers, Esq., M.A., Oxford; Martin Joseph Blake, Esq., B.A., Dublin; Frederick M'Dermott, Esq.; Naoshi Sagisaka, Esq., University of Japan; Nobushige Iriye, Esq., University of Japan, Middle Temple scholar in Common Law; Alexander Ward, Esq.; Nicholas Joseph Synnott, Esq., B.A., London University; Arthur E. Chapman, Esq., B.A., LL.B., Cambridge: Augustus Beddall, Esq.; Herbert Louis Power Elles, Esq., B.A., Cambridge, Middle Temple scholar in Criminal Law. LINCOLN'S-INN. John Luckham Williams Andrews, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Henry Seton Karr, Esq., B.A., Oxford; John Burton Barrow, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Frederick David Maxwell, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Alfred Barnard Bassett, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Stuart Shepherd, Esq., LL.M., Cam bridge; Alexander Copland M'Nish, Esq., B.A., Oxford; William Embleton - Fox, Esq., B.A., Oxford; William George Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; William Edward Washbourne, Esq., M.A., Oxford; William Hugh Fowle, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; William Brown, Esq., B.A., Cambridge; Bagot Francis Molesworth, Esq. (Lincoln's-inn Scholarship in Equity, 1878), M.A., Cambridge, late scholar of King's College; Henry Walrond Simpkinson, Esq. (Lincoln's-inn Scholarship in the Law of Real and Personal Property, 1878), M.A., Cambridge, Fellow of St. John's College; Logan Shirres, Esq., (studentship in jurisprudence and Roman civil law, C.L.E., Trinity Term, 1877; Certificate of honour, second class, Trinity Term, 1879), B.A., Oxford; Thamas Coney Tunnard Moore, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Robert Sharp Borgnis Hammond, Chambers, Esq., B.A., Oxford; William BradfordEsq., M.A., Cambridge; James Lennox Hamilton, Esq., B.A., Oxford; Robert Frederick Norton, Esq. (studentship in jurisprudence and Roman civil law, C. L. E., Trinity Term, 1877, Lincoln'sinn Scolarship in the Law of Real and Personal Property, 1879), LL.B. and B.A., London; Thomas Almond Hind, Esq. (Lincoln's-inn Scholarship in Common Law, 1879; Thomas William Maude, Esq., M.A., Oxford, late of Balliol College; Villiers de Saussure Fowke, Esq., Exeter College, Oxford; Aubrey John Spencer, Esq. (studentship in jurisprudence and Roman civil law, C. L. E., Hilary Term, 1879), B.A., Oxford; Romer Edward Younghusband, Esq., Balliol College, Oxford. GRAY'S-INN. Henry George Watts, Esq., M.A., Oxford; Thomas Terrell, The eight following scholarships, awarded to students of the Middle Temple by the Masters of the Bench were announced in Hall on Wednesday evening:-Common Law-One first-class scholarship of 100 guineas to Alfred Aspinall Tobin, Esq., University College, Oxford; and one second-class scholarship of 30 guineas to Ralph B. Barry, Esq. Real and Personal Property. One first-class scholarship of 100 guineas to Robert Colin Ringrose, Esq., University of Edinburgh; and one second-class scholarship of 30 guineas to Frederick Hardyman Parker, Esq., University of Edinburgh, M.A. Equity-One first-class scholarshiy of 100 guineas to Arthur Robert Ingpen, Esq., University of London; and one second-class scholarship of 30 guineas to Hugh Owen Edwards, Esq., University of London. International Law.-One first-class scholarship of 100 guineas to William Edward Johnston, Esq., Barrister of the Australian Bar; and one second-class scholarship of 30 guineas to Thomas Macdonald, Esq., University of London. QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION-JUNE 1879. I. PRELIMINARY. II. FROM SMITH ON CONTRACTS-7TH EDITION. Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. 6. In what cases is it necessary that a contract should be reduced into writing? 7. How can a deed be invalidated? her husband's credit ? 10. How are contracts construed? whether a consideration be adequato or not? 12. Is it necessary to show upon the face of a guarantee the consideration for which it is given ? Give reasons for your answer. III. FROM WILLIAMS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF chaser" when used in connection with the descent 14. What is the right mode of enfranchising copyhold land when the lord and tenant are both sui juris and agree to the enfranchisement? sition, without her husband's consent, over real or 15. Has a married woman any power of dispopersonal estate which has been given to her for her separate use? the death of the mortgagee, who is the proper 16. If a mortgage of freeholds is paid off after porson to re-convey the mortgaged estate? Has the law on this point undergone any recent alteration? 17. For what period will the copyright endure and (3) of a book published after the author's (1) of a book published in the author's lifetime, death? 18. Will a general bequest of real or personal estate include real or personal estate which the testator has only a power to appoint as he may think fit? the date of the testator's death, or any later date, 19. Do general legacies carry interest as from and if so at what rate? IV. FROM HAYNES' OUTLINES OF EQUITY. of satisfaction, and distinguish it from perform20. State shortly what is meant by the doctrine ance. settled to the separate use of a married woman. house, (2) a life annuity, by a certain day but fails 23. A sum of £1000 is left by will in trust to be laid out in the purchase of land to be settled on A., B., and C., and their heirs in equal shares, and A. dies leaving an infant heir, who, with B. and C., brings an action to compel payment of the £1000 to them. What order would be made in such action? £1000 to trustees to be laid out in land to be settled 24. If a man on his marriage covenants to pay to the use of himself for life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder to the children of the marriage, remainder to his own right heirs, what will be the result on the trust for laying out in land if the wife predeceases the husband without issue? friend who ia a stranger in blood, and afterwards 25. If a testator gives a legacy of £5000 to a settles a similar sum on the marriage of that friend, will such friend be entitled to claim under both will and settlement? At Gray's-inn on Wednesday, Grand Day in Trinity Term was kept. The guests on the occasion included the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord O'Hagan, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Bramwell, the Right Hon. Spencer H. Walpole, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Justice Denman, Mr. Justice Stephen, Sir John Mellor, the Treasurers of Lincoln's-inn, the Inner Temple, and the Middle Temple, and the Preacher. Among the Masters of the Bench present were the protreasurer (Master Wilde), Mr. Justice Lush, Mr. Justice Manisty, Dr. Stephens, Q.C., Mr. Southgate, Q.C., Mr. Russell, Q.C., Mr. Fooks, Q.C., Mr. Henniker, Q.C., Mr. Parker, Mr. Wigg, Mr. Whishaw, Mr. Blount, Mr. Jolliffe, Mr. Carr, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Wheelhouse, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Collins, Q.C. Before dinner the pro-treasurer (Master Wilde) declared the award of the Bench in the competition for the scholarships specially provided by and founded in this society for its members as follows, namely: to H. C. Richards, Esq., as first in the examination in "the History of England, Political and Constitutional," the certificate of the society, awarding him their Bacon Scholarship of £45 per annum, tenable for two years; to M. C. Macinerney, Esq., for the best essay on "The Law relating to Sales of Land and Goods respectively, distinguishing and discussing the incidents with regard to the contract, title, QUESTIONS FOR THE FINAL EXAMINAand otherwise, peculiar to each," a certificate from the society, awarding him the "Lee Prize" of £25, founded by the late John Lee, Esq., Q.C., LL.D., late a Master of the Bench of the Society, as a prize for some essay on the "Laws of Justinian or on the Common or Statute Laws of our country." The treasurer announced the subject for the next Lee Prize Essay to be "The Effect of the Statute of Uses on the present system of Conveyancing, and whether it would be desirable to repeal that statute. in an action pending in the Chancery Division of 26. Can any interlocutory applications be made the High Court of Justice, and if so, what are the applications be made in any cases by any persons courses of procedure and can such interlocutory other than the parties to the action ? TION-JUNE 1879. I.-PRELIMINARY. Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. II. PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND PROCEDure. In matters usually determined or administered in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. Judicature Act of 1873 are assigned to the Chan6. State the heads of business which by the cery Division. 7. Define and classify trusts. 8 State the order (a) in which the claims against the estate of a deceased person are satisfied and (b) in which his assets are administered. 9. What power of disposition has a married her separate personal estate? How does such estate woman over (a) her separate real estate, and (b) devolve if she die intestate? has accepted office divest himself of the trust? 10. In what several modes can a trustee who be appointed in the absence of any power of ap11. In what several modes may (a) new trustees pointment in the trust instrument, (b) trustees obtain the assistance of the court in the administration of trust property. 12. Explain why, in general, specific perfor-mance of contracts relating (a) to personal property, and (b) to personal acts will not be enforced by the court. State the exceptions to these rules, and the reasons for such exceptions. of land affected by the Statute of Frands? What 13. In what way is a contract for the purchase acts of part performance will take such a contract out of the statute? titions Acts of 1868 and 1876, (b) the Infants' 14. Give briefly the general effect of (a) the Parrelating to the custody of infants. Settlement Act, and (c) the Act to amend the law 15. Explain the circumstances under which discourt, and state by what means (other than by solution of a partnership will be ordered by the be dissolved. the intervention of the court) a partnership may ment of claim, (b) as to the manner in which an amendment by the plaintiff of his writ and state16. Give the effect of the rules (a) as to the interrogatory may be objected to, (c) as to joinder with an action for the recovery of land, of some other cause of action, and (d) as to the time for appealing. 17. Under what circumstances will fraud in the prospectus of a limited company entitle a shareholder to have his name removed from the re gister ? John and James equally as tenants in common," 18. A testator bequeaths "£1000 to my sons is dead, and also one of Charles's children. What Charles, equally." At the testator's death James and £2000 to the children of my deceased son, becomes of their shares, and why? 19. A testator having, just before making his by his will specifically devised such estate to his will, purchased an estate in the name of his son, brother, leaving the residue of his property to the son. What are the latter's rights? for the time being £500, such sum to be applied 20. A testator bequeathed to the Vicar of Bray when necessary in repairing an existing tombstone, and the remainder to be applied for the benefit of the poor of Bray, and left the residue of his property to his nephew. What was the effect of the In matters usually determined or administered bequest of the £500? in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice. 21. What is a lien? And distinguish between a general and a particular lien. 22. By an authorised course of dealing a servant tradesman, on his master's credit. On one occawas in the habit of ordering goods from B., a sion, however, the master gave the servant money to pay for certain goods ordered of B. The serprice of the goods? And why? vant misapplied the money. Who is liable for the 23. In what case can a person maintain an action in respect of injury to property in which he has a reversionary interest, but is not in actual possession ? debtor his executor, either alone or with others? 24. What is the effect of a creditor making his Give reasons for your answers. 25. State shortly the law now in force with resale. Refer to any recent statute on the subject. ference to attestation and registration of bills of several contractors as regards the liability of the others? Give reasons for your answers. 26. What is the effect of a release to one of before action-What act must accompany the 27. Action for a money demand-defence tender statement of defence, setting up such tender, to make it available at the trial? 28. Action for recovery of a messuage or tenement -cause of action, nonpayment of rent or non-insurance. Can the defendant obtain any, and what relief, against forfeiture from a judge of one of the Common Law Divisions? Refer to any statute on the subject. 29. Has the court, or a judge thereof, any, and what power to make an order for preservation of property the subject-matter of the action, pendente lite? ment for recovery of any property other than land 30. State the various means of enforcing a judg or money. referred to in any pleading or affidavit, and sup31. How is inspection obtained of any document posing there exists no sufficient reason for re |