above-mentioned Bill. Some minor alterations, however, are unnoticed, because they consist chiefly in the removal of slight defects and inaccuracies in the language of the various statutes which are substantially re-enacted,

Sect. 5. Abolishes all common law offences not provided for by the Act. The effect of this will be to do away with the following offences: Oppression at common law, extortion at common law, champerty, maintenance, being a common barrator, refusing to serve an office, being a common scold, refusing to receive a guest at an inn, and all conspiracies, except those specifically mentioned in the Bill (as to which see sects. 77, 79, 102, 126, 127, 149, 180, 284, 419, 420, 421), or in some other statute.

8. Directs the punishment of death to be inflicted in private in all cases, and not, as at present, in cases of murder only.

9. Abolishes solitary confinement. It has already been practically superseded by the 28 & 29 Vict. c. 126, s. 17, which makes separate confinement general.

10. Lays down a general rule as to the manner of flogging and whipping.

13. Gives power to the court to discharge a prisoner without a verdict being given, if the court thinks the accused person deserves no more than a nominal punishment, such discharge to be equivalent to an acquittal.

15. Embodies the existing law, but the law as to the effect of previous convictions is altered by provisions in various parts of the Act. At present every one who is convicted of felony after a previous conviction for felony is liable to penal servitude for life. By the code increased punishment is provided by several sections for persons convicted of certain specified offences after a previous conviction for any offence involving dishonesty:" (See sect. 6, sects. 275, 308, 380.)

66

17. Forbids cumulative sentences to be passed so as to inflict more than two years continuous imprisonment, and empowers the court to pass a sentence of penal servitude instead of imprison

ment.

23. Abolishes the present plea that a married woman acts under compulsion when she commits an offence in her husband's presence, and lays down a definite rule as to the effect of compulsion in all cases.

25-70. This part of the Act in the main represents the existing law as to the circumstances which excuse or justify acts which would otherwise be crimes, and, more particularly, the law relating to the degree of force which may be used in arresting offenders. Such alterations as it makes are, for the most part, made necessary by the abolition of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. There are, besides, a few special alterations in particular cases, notice of which will be given on the margin of the draft Bill which the commissioners propose to annex to their report. It lays down a definite rule as to the suppression of dangerous riots, not materially varying from Lord Chief Justice Tindal's charge to the grand jury after the Bristol Riots, but more explicit and complete. (See sects. 48-53.)

71. This repeals the old law as to accessories and principals; substantially the same object is effected in a different way by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 94.

74. Under the present law an attempt to commit an offence under circumstances making its commission impossible; e.g., attempting to pick a pocket which has nothing in it, is not an indictable offence. Sect. 74 reverses this.

75. The definition given of high treason omits treason by killing the Chancellor, &c., and treason by violating the king's eldest daughter, being unmarried. The definition is also so framed as to exclude the wide construction put in some cases upon the words of 25 Edw. 3, st. 5, c. 2, as to levying of war.

78. The offence of being accessory after the fact to treason, is punished, not as at present with death, but with penal servitude for life as a maximum. The same punishment is given for misprision of treason (which is redefined).

84. It may be doubted whether this section does not carry the law as to what constitutes an unlawful assembly a little further than it goes at present.

99. This section makes it a specific offence to take part in, or promote, a prize fight. It is somewhat doubtful at present on what ground prize fights are illegal, though they have more than once been held to be so.

111. Punishes judicial corruption with fourteen years' penal servitude as a maximum; the offence at present is a common law misdemeanour. 112. A similar punishment for corruption in the case of ministerial officers of justice.

113. Punishes official corruption with seven years' penal servitude as a maximum, instead of fine and imprisonment, which is the present punishment.

119. Defines perjury so as to omit the materiality which is included in the present definition. 120, 121. Increase the maximum punishment of perjury from seven years' penal servitude to penal

servitude for life, where it is committed in order to procure a conviction for offences punishable with death or penal servitude, and to fourteen years in all other cases.

125. Creates the offence of fabricating evidence punishable with seven years' penal servitude as a maximum; e.g., a man puts a bullet in a particular place in order to cause it to be believed that A. who fired a gun to frighten B., fired it with intent to murder him).

127, 128. Provide increased maximum punishment (from imprisonment with hard labour to seven years' penal servitude) for conspiracies and other attempts to pervert justice.

135, 136, 138. Several alterations are made in the law as to escapes and rescues by these sections, which punish peace officers and officers of prisons facilitating the escape of prisoners more severely than other such offenders.

141. This provision for the punishment of blasphemous libels is substituted for 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 35, as amended by 35 Geo. 3, c. 100. By these Acts the expression of certain opinions on religious subjects is subjected to punishment. By sect. 141 blasphemous libels are punished; but the expression, in decent language, of religious opinions, is protected.

144. The present punishment for unnatural offences is ten years' penal servitude as a minimum. The minimum punishment is abolished by this section.

146. Acts of indecency are at present indictable only if committed in a public place. By subsection (b) of this section they are made punishable if they are done with intent to insult or offend any person anywhere.

147. This section is believed to represent the law as to publishing obscene productions, but it states it more distinctly than it has hitherto been stated.

148. By the present law (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 49) it is an indictable offence by false pretences, false representations, or other fraudulent means, to procure any woman or girl under twenty-one years of age to have illicit carnal connection with any man. This section prefixes the words, "from motives of lucre," to the words quoted.

152. Declares that non-repair of highways and other such nuisances are not to be deemed to be criminal offences, though they are proceeded against by indictment.

153. Subjects the offence of selling things unfit for food to hard labour as well as imprisonment.

158. Is believed to state in substance the present law as to indignities to dead bodies; yet it does so in rather more general terms than those in which the law has hitherto been stated.

161. Confines the duty of masters to provide necessaries for apprentices, to apprentices under sixteen years of age. The obligation is not so confined by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 26, which was founded on 14 & 15 Vict. c. 11, s. 1, passed soon after the conviction of Sloane for ill-treating a servant.

168. Decides that it is not murder to procure a person's death by false evidence. This may, perhaps, be regarded as a moot question at present. 170. Settles the case as to killing by any influence

on the mind.

174, 175. Define murder in such a manner as to avoid some of the constructions put upon the expression "malice aforethought."

176. By the present law it is doubtful whether any provocation, except a blow or the sight of adultery, will reduce murder to manslaughter. Sect. 176 makes "any wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control," sufficient for that purpose.

183. Provides a punishment for aiding suicide. As the law now stands, this offence makes the offender an accessory before the fact to murder. 185, 186. These sections punish women who neglect to obtain assistance in childbirth, with intent that the child should not live, or with intent to conceal the fact of the birth of the child. They are intended to provide for cases of child murder which, in the present state of the law, often go unpunished.

188. By the present law (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 21, 22), attempts to strangle, &c., in order to commit a crime, are punishable by penal servitude for life and flogging. Sect. 188 extends this to attempts to render persons incapable of resistance to crimes by violent means other than attempts to strangle.

207. The offence of rape is so defined as to include the commission of the offence by the personation of a husband, and by false misrepresentations as to the nature of the act. This embodies the effect of certain decisions which however, are not altogether consistent.

209. The maximum punishment for an attempt to ravish is raised from two years' imprisonment and hard labour, to seven years' penal servitude. 211. An obvious mistake in the drafting of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 94, s. 4 (carnally knowing children under thirteen), is corrected.

212. The offence of killing a child in the act of

birth, but unborn, is provided for. At present it appears to be unprovided for; at least, it is not punished by any express enactment.

216. As the law now stands it is doubtful whether a person who marries a second time during the life of his wife, believing her to be dead, but within seven years of the last occasion on which he saw or heard of her, is guilty of bigamy. The case of R. v. Gibbons (12 Cox C. C. 237) decides that he is. The case of R. v. Moore (Cox C. C. 544) decides that he is not. Section 216 is framed in accordance with R. v. Gibbons.

218, 219. These sections differ to some extent from 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 53 and 54, in the drafting of which there seems to have been some mistake or confusion.

under sixteen is raised from five years to seven 221. The punishment for the abduction of girls years' penal servitude, the definition of the offence being narrowed to cases in which the object of the abducter is to have carnal knowledge of the girl, or to cause her to be so known. 241. The maximum punishment for threatening to publish a libel in order to extort money, is raised from three years' imprisonment and hard labour to five years' penal servitude.

244-5. The whole of the law as to the things which are the subject of larceny is recast, everything being rendered capable of being stolen except things growing out of the earth of the value of less than 1s., and except game and other wild animals, as to which the law is left as it is.

246. Theft is so defined as to make a fraudulent conversion, and not an unlawful taking, the gist of the offence. This alteration in the definition involves a variety of alterations in detail which cannot be fully explained in this note. The most important of them is that many offences specially provided for in the Larceny Act fall under the general definition of theft given in the draft code.

253. This section provides that if a husband and wife are living apart from each other, either shall be capable of stealing anything which, by law, is the property of the other. It also provides that anyone who assists a wife or husband in carrying off the property of the husband or wife shall be guilty of theft. By the present law, if a man receives from a wife the property of the husband he is not guilty either of theft or receiving stolen goods, unless he commits adultery with the wife.

265, 266. There is some slight difference between these sections, and 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, ss. 27 and 29.

263. Puts stealing in railway stations or from railway carriages on the same footing as stealing from ships or docks.

264. Provides a special punishment for stealing by picklocks, &c.

269. Makes it an offence to bring into England or Ireland things stolen abroad.

296. Punishes extortion by threats to accuse of any crime whatever. The offence is at present confined to extort by threats to accuse of certain specified crimes, as to which see sect. 295.

306, 307. These sectious, to some extent, extend the law as to having possession of housebreaking implements by night, and introduce into it some new distinction: (See 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 58)..

309. This section extends the law as to receiving stolen goods to the receipt of goods obtained by any indictable offence, e. g., forgery.

Part 30. This corresponds to 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, and the common law offence of forgery, as to which see sect. 336. The part is drawn on the principle adopted in the Act of 1861, of enumerating classes of instruments the forgery of which is an offence. The enumeration is more complete than the one given in that Act. Sect. 331, as to the forgery of contracts, is new; so is sect. 335, as to the forgery of telegrams. Sect. 336, which is the equivalent of forgery at common law, gives a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment and hard labour, in cases in which, at present, hard labour could not be given.

Part XXXI.-Preparation for forgery. This part includes much of what is included in the Forgery Act. The sections referred to have been redrawn; but are not, it is believed, materially altered.

362. The definition of counterfeit coin is so framed as to include coin filed and then re-milled so as to conceal the filing.

367 (b). Creates a new offence: preparing metal for coining counterfeit gold or silver.

371 (c). The same as to foreign coin. 400. The maximum punishment for the offence of severing hopbinds is reduced from fourteen years' penal servitude to seven.

402. The maximum punishment for damaging toll bars is raised from six months' hard labour to two years.

Part 35. Punishes threats, conspiracies, and attempts to commit offences in cases not specially provided for in the earlier part of the code; such conspiracies and attempts are, for the most part, at present common law misdemeanours, punishable by fine and imprisonment. By the provisions of this part they are subjected to a punishment

two taxing masters should be constantly in attendance for the sole purpose of taxing costs, delay in which-especially in the case of Chancery business often entails serious inconvenience if not injustice to suitors. We have called attention to these matters in ample time to allow of at least partial remedies being provided before the Long Vacation comes upon us, to be otherwise attended with the usual growling and grumbling on the part of solicitors and suitors in the public press.

IN another column we publish a letter from our correspondent, Mr. James Rawlinson, upon the subject of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Bill, calling attention to the principal features of this proposed measure. Some very practical observations and suggestions made by Mr. Russell Cover at the recent annual general meeting of the Legal Practitioners' Society have found expression in this Bill which though accomplishing some useful reforms, leaves room for many other improvements in the same direction, We are glad to notice that solicitors of five years standing will in future be eligible for the office of master of the Supreme Court of Judicature. Practising barristers of five years standing are also eligible. An uncertificated solicitor could not be a practising solicitor within the meaning of this qualification, but it is not easy to define what constitutes a practising barrister. Our correspondent makes a very fair suggestion which might usefully find a place in the bill referred to, namely, that for the office of Chancery taxing master and Chancery chief clerk, persons appointed must be solicitors of five years standing, though, as we think, as regards Chancery taxing masters, it would not be easy to find competent men among those solicitors who have only practised for such a period, and the same remark applies of course with still greater force where a barrister is selected to fill the office of master of the Supreme Court. Mr. Rawlinson also calls attention to another important point, namely, that there is at present a provision in the Bill which will in the future enable the authorities to reduce the salaries paid to the officers which the Act will create. It is not at all creditable that measures of this kind should be allowed to pass through Parliament without the impress of the views and opinions of solicitors upon them. It might very fairly be urged that members of the Bar are not by their calling and occupation fitted to fill the office of taxing master, or Chancery chief clerk, but any attempt to expunge this provision would undoubtedly prove futile. It would, we think, be equally fair, or at least not more unfair, if provision were made that solicitors of twelve years' standing should be eligible for the office of judge of the High Court.

66

The

Spanish lady named Martinita Redondo against the executors of a deceased English gentleman. The claim was for instalments of a pecuniary allowance, which, according to the plaintiff, the deceased, for himself, his executors, and administrators, agreed to pay to the plaintiff in consideration of her continuing to reside abroad. claim alleged that she had remained abroad at all times since the agreement, and had now come temporarily to England for the purpose of substantiating her claim, which the executors refused to admit. The defendants obtained an order from Mr. Justice Lindley that the plaintiff should give security for costs, on the ground that the plaintiff being domiciled abroad, in the event of her being unsuccessful, the defendants would find considerable difficulty in recovering them. On appeal, however, the Divisional Court held that it was a definite rule of practice that unless the plaintiff was actually resident abroad at the time of the application no such security should be given. From this decision the defendants appealed.

Fullarton appeared for the defendants; Lumley Smith for the plaintiff.

The case was argued on the 17th May at considerable length, and the court reserved their judgment, which they proceeded to deliver this

morning.

valuable practical experience. The discussion was opened by Mr. Dodds, a member of the Council of the Chief Law Society, who moved: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that in lieu of probate and administration duty, which is now payable according to unequal rates upon the personal estate of deceased persons, and in lieu of legacy duty, which is now payable at various rates and various times in respect of each separate gift by will, and each separate share of an intestate's estate, one duty only should be levied, at a uniform rate upon the value of the personal estate of every deceased person.' Mr. G. B. Gregory, also a member of the Council of the Law Society, moved the following amendment, which was adopted by 131 votes to 24, while Mr. Dodd's motion was negatived by 131 votes to 89; to leave out from the word " expedient to the end of the motion, in order to insert the words "to reconsider and revise the progressive rates of probate and administration duty, and to afford greater facilities for the assessment and settlement of legacy and succession duties upon future or contingent events, and for the relief of executors, administrators, and trustees in respect of the same.' This amendment was seconded by Mr. Goldney, the member for Chippenham, who practised as a solicitor for many years. We trust that Mr. Gregory's Lord Justice THESIGER, after reviewing the amendment will soon find expression in the report of a select committee, with a view to legis. authorities, both at law and in equity, at conlation. The thanks of the Profession are also due of decisions were in favour of the view taken by siderable length, and showing that a long course to Mr. Dodds for bringing this matter under the the Divisional Court, said that in the face of those attention of Parliament, and the learned gentle-authorities the Court had no course open to them man's views, as embodied in his motion, are not but to dismiss the appeal. There was clearly a without supporters in the ranks of the solicitors' Profession, while for ourselves we prefer the settled rule of practice that in order to obtain terms of Mr. Gregory's amendment. We ought security for costs it was necessary to show that to add that since the discussion in Parlia- time of the application. The rule might from one the plaintiff was actually resident abroad at the ment, Mr. Gregory has addressed a letter to a daily newspaper, in which he says that his pro- would not be convenient to extend the number of point of view be productive of hardship, but posal is that executors and trustees should be empowered to give notice to the Inland Revenue cases in which plaintiffs could be prevented from Office that they were about to divide any fund in proceeding without giving security. their hands, and inquire if such office had any claim for duties upon it. If no such claim was made within a reasonable time, that such executors or trustees should be exonerated from personal liability to any future claim. That where a legacy was left to one person for life or for a limited interest, with remainder to another, the executor or trustee should have power to pay the duty upon the entire interest in such legacy in one amount. That where there had been unreasonable delay on the part of the office in enforcing a claim for succession duty against an estate or the trustees of it, say for ten or fifteen years, the beneficial owner should not be liable to pay interest for the duty during that period, but for the principal only. These suggestions are not entirely without objections, but if adopted they would constitute a large improvement on the existing state of things.

EVEN well-to-do people sometimes venture to make their own last will and testament. The will of a deceased celebrated physician was recently before with the assistance of another physician. After the Probate Court. It had been prepared by him the will had been executed it appears that an alteration or erasure had been made in the attestation of an irregular character, and almost endangering the validity of the document under the Acts of Parliament relating to the signature of testators and of attesting witnesses. In cases where the registrars think it at all doubtful whether a will should be admitted to probate, though uncontested, from circumstances connected with its execution, it is invariably submitted to the consideration of the President of the division to decide the question. Such was done in this instance, and the learned judge in allowing probate to go in solemn form, as prayed on behalf of the executors, expressed surprise that two gentlemen of such eminence in their profession should together have succeeded in producing so faulty a document, and remarked that if solicitors attempted to prescribe for physicians' patients, the result attained would probably be a failure to produce the desired effect, similar to that in the present case. We trust that the observation of the learned judge will not be overlooked by the medical faculty.

certain cases in equity which seemed to point to Lord Justice BAGGALLAY concurred, adding that a different rule really proceeaed on an entirely different principle. In them the security was given, not because the plaintiff was a domiciled foreigner who would leave the country after the Court by giving a false description of his residence trial, but because the plaintiff had deceived the

on his bill.

Lord Justice BRAMWELL said that the ques

different.

tion being what was the rule of practice, he could not but agree with Lord Justice Thesiger's elabo rate exposition of the law on the subject. At the same time, he thought the practice ought to be wished for security for costs because the plaintiff, What was the result? A defendant being a foreigner domiciled abroad, and having no goods in England, could not be compelled to pay costs if unsuccessful, but would go abroad and could not be touched. That was the mischief to be guarded against; and in order to do that you must not inquire whether the plaintiff would at the time of judgment be out of England, It was, no doubt, quite right to administer justice leaving no property behind him, but whether he was actually abroad at the time of the application. dence in our courts; but this rule seemed to him with even hand to foreigners and give them confi to work injustice. At the same time there could be no doubt what was the practice, and the appeal must be dismissed.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

QUEEN'S

BENCH DIVISION. Monday, May 26. (Sittings in banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and MELLOR, J.) THE NICHOLSON INCORPORATED

บ.

LAW SOCIETY. This was an action by a solicitor at Bedford against the Incorporated Law Society, as registrars of solicitors under the Solicitors Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), for not giving him a certificate of registration as a solicitor, and there was an application on the part of the society to stay the action as frivolous and vexatious, under these somewhat remarkable circumstance-It appeared that for some reason the attorney had ceased to practise and take out his certificate, and in Nov. 1872, he applied to be re-admitted to practise, and Mr. Justice Lush, upon his ex parte application and on the usual affidavit that he had not practised while he had ceased to be certificated, ordered that he should be re-registered and receive a certificate of registration. The Incorporated Law Society, however, intending to apply to set aside the order, at once took out a summons to set it aside, and after some little delay they succeeded a few weeks afterwards in setting it aside, and on affidavits obtained an order from Mr. Justice Denman to that effect. In June 1876, the attorney applied to the Master of the Rolls on fresh affidavits, on which his Honour, while declaring that Mr. Justice Denman's order was right on the materials

before him, thought fit to set aside his order and direct that the solicitor be registered on condition of his paying the duty for registration (£6) for the five years that had elapsed and a nominal fine of 58. In the meantime, however, a month before this, he had brought two actions against some solicitors at St. Neots for maliciously instigating Mr. Justice Denman te set aside the original order. The two actions were consolidated and tried together before Mr. Justice Grove on the 5th, 6th, and 7th Nov. 1877, when the jury, after a three days' trial, found in favour of the defendants in both actions, the costs being taxed at £240, which it was alleged, had not been paid. Then, in June 1878, he brought an action against Mr. E. W. Williamson, the secretary of the society, for not giving him the certificate of registration in accordance with the original order. This action was tried before Lord Coleridge, who, on reading the statement of the plaintiff's case, at once directed a non-suit on the double ground: (1) that Mr. Williamson was only the secretary of the society and their servant and could not give a certificate; and (2) that after the lapse of years a party could not bring an action at variance with a judge's order never set aside, the order of Mr. Justice Denman setting aside the original order being still in force. The costs of that action were taxed to the society for £150, and these also, it was alleged, had not been paid. Then the present action was brought, in which it was complained that the secretary, after the original order, had refused to give him his certificate. The statement of claim had been delivered, and the society, before pleading, appled to stay the action as frivolous and vexatious on the twofold ground that the action could not be maintained at all, or that if at all, only for nominal damages, and that the cause of action was substantially the same as in the former actions, in which the costs had not been paid.

W. Murray, for the society, in support of the application, urged that no action lay for nonobedience to a judge's order, and that, accordingly, the Solicitors Act made provision for a remedy in any case of error by an application to a judge of the court or the Master of the Rolls, and in this very case such an application had resulted in redress; and, further, even if an action could ever be maintained, it could not be maintained after the order had been set aside, and here the order of Mr. Justice Lush to reinstate the plaintiff had been set aside a few weeks after it was made and had ceased to exist, so that it could not be

the foundation of an action, or, at all events, only for nominal damages.

Vesey Fitzgerald, on the part of the plaintiff, urged that if the action was maintainable at all it

would not be stopped in this way, and that the action was maintainable for withholding the certificate during the time which elapsed before the order to reinstate the plaintiff was set aside. Murray, in reply, urged that when an order was set aside it ceased to exist altogether and was destroyed ab initio.

The Court in the result adopted this view, and came to the conclusion that the action was not maintainable at all, and so they stayed the proceedings.

WESTMINSTER POLICE-COURT.

A SOLICITOR'S CLERK AND THE JUDICATURE STAMPS.

HEBER STERNBERG, a managing clerk to Thomas Duerdin Dutton, solicitor, of 40, Churton-street, Pimlico, was charged with stealing one sovereign and other sums, the moneys of his employer.

Mr. William Frederick Charnock, clerk and cashier to Mr. Dutton, having given evidence in support of the statement,

Edward Clough, detective serjeant of the B. Division, proved the apprehension of the prisoner at the offices of Mr. Cosedge, in Clifford's-inn. He was employed there. He said nothing when the warrant was read. In his pocket was found a letter addressed to Mr. Casadye by Mr. Dutton. Mr. Dutton said he had considered it his duty to inform Mr. Cosedge of the conduct of the prisoner; but the letter had never reached its destination, and was found opened in the pocket of the prisoner.

Mr. D'Eyncourt granted a remand for a week. JERSEY (ST. HELIERS) POLICE COURT. Thursday, May 22.

letters which

citor.

(Before Mr. GIBAUT, Magistrate). Opening letters-Serious charge against a soliPHILIP LE BRUN, solicitor on bail, was charged by Centenier G. F. Perrot on a report, with having knowingly and wilfully opened several were addressed to Frederick Richardson Le Brun, another solicitor, and one of standing the caution which had been made him. the Denunciators of the Royal Court, notwithAlso, with having used language towards the complainant calculated to a breach of the peace. The charge dated back, according to the Centenier's report, as far as 1875, the dates of the several letters being respectively the 6th July and the 14th Aug. 1875; the 4th April, the 15th April, and the 9th May 1879. The report further stated that on the complainant remonstrating with the accused respecting his conduct in opening his letters the latter replied, "If you are imor words in that pertinent I'll smack your ears,'

sense.

The accused was defended by Advocate Westaway.

The affidavit

The Centenier put in an affidavit made by the complainant, and sworn to before W. L. De Gruchy, Esq., Jurat, on which the charge was based, as also the envelopes of the several letters alleged to have been opened. stated that the complainant formerly occupied an office in the Royal Square, where the accused also has an office, and removed in the early part of this year to Hill-street, which was announced in the public prints by means of advertisements. It letters were delivered at the office of the accused. also detailed the circumstances under which the read in detail by the Centenier. The affidavit, which was a lengthy document, was

Blakeney, Esq., Postmaster. These were about to

Several witnesses were called, including E.

be heard viva voce, when

Advocate Westaway raised a question on a point of law, and said that this was only a "reclame' on the part of the complainant to advertise himself. Every means had been made by his client to induce him not to press the charge, but his demand to that effect was quite letters had been delivered with others at Mr. unreasonable. The simple fact was that the Philip Le Brun's office and opened by mistake.

The Magistrate.-That remains to be proved, whether, as the report states, that the letters, were opened knowingly and wilfully.

The complainant deposed to receiving the opened letters; he had repeatedly cautioned the accused, and on one particular occasion in open court on speaking to him he threatened to assault him in the way described in the affidavit and the

report. He had given every publicity to his removal of office, and when the question of that the apology should be a public one and inapology was raised all the complainant asked was serted in the newspapers.

The Magistrate expressed his regret that such a case should have come before him, especially between two persons of the same profession. After a repetition of the offence the accused should have been careful not to do it a third time. He did not suppose the letters were opened wilfully and with a desire to know the complainant's In the business, but there was gross negligence. absence of culpability he could not adjudicate upon the matter, but he strongly advised the accused to make an ample apology as a solicitor and a gentleman, and he hoped a recurrence would not take place.

up another order, whereas only 3s. had been paid, as the stamp showed. He (Mr. Dutton) had also discovered that the prisoner had in two actions charged for twenty summonses and orders when n fact they had never been in existence.

The case was then dismissed.

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless some other claimants sooner appear.]

Montagu-square, and WALTON (Chas.), of Bucklersbury, Esq. Two dividends on the sum of £2016 3s. 9d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said C. Walton. BRYMER (Jno.), of Bath, banker, and TUGWELL (Henry Wm.), of Bath, banker, one dividend on the sum of £1500 Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said H. W. Tugwell.

FISHER (Emily Augusta), of South Parade, Weston-superMare, spinster. £150 Reduced Three per Cent. Anuities. Claimant, Emily Augusta Fowler, wife of Chas. W. L. Fowler, formerly E. A. Fisher, spinster.

JOLLANDS (Chas. Edwd), of 2, Belle-vue, Tenby, South Wales, Esq., one dividend on the sum of £1905 158. 1d. New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said C. E. Jollands. SECRETAN (Isaline Annie Marie), of Brockham, Surrey, spinster, £86 168. 11d. New Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Elizabeth Henrietta Secretan, spinster, administratrix to Isaline A. M. Secretan, spinster, deceased. STEVENSON (Wm.), of 65, Lucas-street, Commercial-road east, mariner, and STEVENSON (Hannah Mary), his wife, £10 Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, the said Wm. Stevenson, the survivor.

WILTON (Frances Marshall), of Wilton-terrace, Peckham,
widow, and WILTON (Mark), a minor. £53 10s. 3d. Three
per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Mark Wilton, for-
merly a minor, now of age, the survivor.
WORKMAN (Caroline), of Bloomsbury-place, Brighton,
widow, £2612 168, 3d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claim-
ant said Caroline Workman, widow.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK
WINDING-UP ACTS.

BEDWORTH COAL AND IRON COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition
for winding-up to be heard June 14,before the M. R.
BRITISH ALLIANCE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (LIMITED.-
Creditors to send in. by June 23, their names and addresses,
and the particulars of their claims, and the names and
addresses of their solicitors (if any), to F. B. Smart, 53.
Cannon-street, London, the official liquidator of the said
company. July 1, at the chambers of V.C. M., at twelve
o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating
upon such claims.
GENERAL WORKS COMPANY (LIMITED).-Creditors to send
in by June 18, their names and addresses, and the particu-
lars of their claims, and the names and addresses of
their solicitors (if any), to F. W. Snell, 1. George-street.
Mansion House, London, the official liquidator of the said
company, June 27, at the chambers of V.C. B., at twelve
o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudi-
cating upon such claims.

MILLER (GEO.) AND COMPANY (LIMITED.)-Creditors to send in, by June 27, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to Robert Richards, iren merchants, Sunderland, the liquidators of the said company, July 4, at the chambers of the M.R., at twelve o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

ONWARD CEMENT CO. (LIMITED).-Creditors to send in, by June 20, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to H. Brown, 7, Westminster-chambers, Victoria-street, Middlesex, the liquidator of the said company. July 4, at the chambers of the M,R., at eleven o'clock, is the time appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF.

BAKER (Wm. K.), M.D., Howden, York. June 28; Geo. England, solicitor, Howden. July 7; M. R., at eleven o'clock. BARNICOT (Thomasine), 83, Avenue-road, Regent's Park, Middlesex, widow. June 18; Heather and Son, solicitors, 17, Paternoster-row, Middlesex. July 2; M. R., at eleven o'clock. BOSWORTH (Wm.), Twycross, Leicester, nurseryman. July 1; Wm. B. B. Cheatle, solicitor,, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicester. July 10; V.C. H., at ten o'clock. COLLINGBOURNE Jas. S.), Wandsworth, Surrey, pawnbroker and salesman. June 10; N. Joardain, solicitor, 45, Ludgate-hill, London. June 19; V.C. H., at one o'clock. COOPER (Jas.), 199, Brompton-road, Middlesex, licensed victualler. June 24; J. C. Pawle, solicitor, 11, New Inn, Middlesex. July 4; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. COCKERELL (Sydney J.), 13, Cornhill, London, and Wayside, Coperscope-road, Beckenham, Kent, coal merchant. June 27; T. C. Greenfield, solicitor, 84, Basinghall-street, London. July 11: M.R., at eleven o'clock. CORRANCE (Geo. E,), 6, Rue Monsigny, Boulogne-sur-Mere, France, Esq. June 30; C. E. Baker, solicitor, 22, Great George-street, Westminster. July 21; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

COLLINGWOOD (Winifred), 15, Cornwall-road, Westbourne Park, Middlesex. June 23; J. L. Jeans, solicitor. 1, Clement's-inn, Strand, Middlesex. July 7; M. R., a eleven o'clock.

COLE (Rev. Arthur R.), Hurstbourne Priors, Southmpton.
July 1; L. J. Maton, solicitor, 21, Cannon-street, London.
July 14; V.C. H., at ten o'clock.
DALE (Tamar 8.), Mill-street, Dockhead, Surrey, widow.
June 20; G. C. Sherrard, solicitor, 11, Lincoln's-inn-fields,
Middlesex. July 4; M. R., at eleven o'clock.
DICKINSON (Guyds), Melton Mowbray, Leicester. June 11;
Latham and Paddison, solicitors, Melton Mowbray.
June 18; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.
DORSETT (Mary S.), Columbia Lodge, Milverton, Warwick,
Spinster. July 1; Thursfield and Messiter, solicitors,
Wednesbury, Staffs. July 11; V.C. H., at one o'clock.
DOWNING (Jonathan), Gravesend, Kent, gentleman. June
16; D. Haines, solicitor, 24, Coleman-street, London.
June 30; M.R., at eleven o'clock.

FANNING (Maria S. U.), 4. Royal-crescent, Bath, spinster. June 9; A. R. Ford, solicitor, 4. South-square, Gray'sinn, Middlesex. June 23; M.R., at eleven o'clock. FROHAWK (Nicholas), East Dereham, Norfolk, Esq. July 10; Cooper and Norgate, solicitors, East Dereham. Juy 21; V.C. H., at one o'clock.

GARDNER (Henry), 1, Westbourne-terrace, Paddington, Middlesex, Esq. June 20; G. H. Long, solicitor, 4, Parkstreet, Windsor, Berks. June 27; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.

HAYES (Thos.), Boughton, Monchelsea, Kent. farmer.
June 16; Francis R. Howlett, solicitor, Maidstone, Kent.
June 30; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.
HART (Jno. B.). Peterborough, hotel proprietor. June 30;
Smedley and Mellews, solicitors, Westgate, Peterborough.
July 14; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.
HARRIS, (Jas.), Cheshunt House, Nightingale-road, Wood
Green, Middlesex, gentleman. June 23; Nelson and Co.,
solicitors. 18. Bennet's-hill. Doctor's-commons, London.
July 7: V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.

HEAD (Geo.), Wadham Lodge. Ealing, Middlesex, gentleman. June 13; Robt. H. M. Baker, solicitor, Newton Abbot, Devon. June 26; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. JENKINS (David), Gwernllan, Llansamlet. Glamorgan, gentleman. June 16; Chas. Norton, solicitor, Swansea, Glamorgan. June 26; V.C M, at twelve o'clock. LARDNER (Jane S.). Teignmouth, widow. June 25; Pearson and Whidborne, solicitors, Dawlish. July 9; V.C. H. at twelve o'clock

LAVENDER (Ann), Somersham, Hants, widow. June 5;
Richd. Jerwood, solicitor, 13, Furnival's-inn, Holborn,
Middlesex. June 12; V.C. M., at twelve o'clock.
LEWIN (Fredk. M.), Half-Way-street, Bexley, Kent, Esq.
June 24; Abbott and Co., solicitors, 8, New-inn, Strand,
Middlesex. July 8; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock.
LLOYD (Jno. D.), Alltyredyn, Cardigan, gentleman. June 10;
Jno. H. Barker, solicitor, Carmarthen. June 24; V.C. M.,
at twelve o clock.

MAGGI (Nicola L.), Cardiff, Glamorgan, shipchand'er. June 25; M. Morgan, solicitor, 18, High-street, Cardiff. July 7 V.C. M., at twelve o clock.