in the bill of the solicitor having the conduct of the action, provision of course being made that any additional costs occasioned by the issue of separate certificates should be borne by the person applying for such separate certificate, unless otherwise allowed in the discretion of the taxing master, or in the discretion of a chief clerk, in case the issue of such a certificate should be authorised upon a summons at chambers. This would depend upon the particular practice instituted in the event of the adoption of our suggestion. THE vacation judges are Mr. Justice Stephen and Mr. Justice Bowen, both recently appointed to the bench, and for Chancery business Vice-Chancellor Bacon's court and chambers will be used. Mr. Gloster will officiate at the Chancery registrar's chambers, room 136, at the Royal Courts of Justice. The Chancery vacation registrar's are Mr. E. J. Cobby and Mr. H. J. Jackson. On Tuesdays only in every week during vacation, the vacation Chancery registrar in attendance will make alterations necessary in orders to be acted by the Chancery paymaster. Some days in the week the Chancery registrar's chambers will be open from ten till eleven a.m.; on other days from eleven till one o'clock. Why on earth should they not be open from ten till one o'clock every day of the week, during vacation? Such hours would hardly be likely to kill anyon in consequence of excessive work during that time. Some of the official printed notices referred to above were dated Aug. 10 (Sunday)!! A CASE of Leete v. Leete, which will be found amongst the reports accompanying our present issue, suggests that there are some solicitors who are under misimpressions as to the extent to which a solicitor's lien for costs can be properly exercised. This was an application by a wife praying the Divorce Court to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage, and the case now came before the court on an application by the wife, to compel her former solicitors (a change of solicitors having taken place during the conduct of the proceedings) to refund a balance of a sum of money which had been paid to them as her solicitors for alimony under an order of the court. The solicitors opposed on the ground that they had a lien in respect of costs, and Sir James Hannen decided that a solicitor can have no lien for costs upon moneys received by him on behalf of his client solely on account of alimony. Viewed from the solicitor's point of view, the case appears to involve a hardship upon him; and yet, looking at the case from a general point of view, it is difficult to take exception to the de cision of the court. On Wednesday last the vacation judge (Mr. Justice Stephens) had in his paper twenty-one motions upon notice served for the present week. Among these as many as three motions related to applications against solicitors. VACATION BUSINESS. Wednesday, Aug. 13. (Before STEPHEN, J., Vacation Judge.) BENBOW v. Low. Injunction to restrain interference with business of misappropriating a sum of £3500, and that he would be unable to repay any portion of the trust moneys taken by him, which he might otherwise do by exercising his office of coroner. He was ordered to be committed recently by the Master of the Rolls, unless within a month he paid into court a large sum of trust moneys which he had misappropriated. The month had now elapsed, but he had not yet actually been imprisoned, and this application was made to prevent the same. Cracknall, for the applicant, referred to Barrett v. Hammond (L. Rep. 10 Ch. Div. 285). John Chester opposed the application. STEPHEN, J. said that he had read the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the motion, and that the only ground he could see raised that he should be let out was because he was going to be tried for stealing the money. He did not feel disposed to let him out on that ground or because he could not exercise his office of coroner. mind it was quite right that when a man took trust money he should be imprisoned. As far as he was concerned he should certainly not let him out or prevent him going to prison. The motion would be refused with costs. To his THIS was a motion by the plaintiffs, who con- Willis Bund for the motion. Byrne, for the defendants, opposed, and referred to Thorley's Cattle Food Company v. Massam (L. Rep. 6 Ch. Div. 582;) Saxby v. Easterbrock (L. Rep. 4 C. P. Div. 339). Willis Bund in reply. STEPHEN, J. said that all the defendants had done was to write certain lawyer's letters for the protection of their property in America in the course of legal proceedings instituted by them in that country. In his opinion this did not constitute such an injury as to call for the present interference of the court, and he therefore refused the motion with costs. Re JAMES AND GEORGE SLATER. HEIRS AT LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. and kin to come in by Oct. 25, at the chambers of V.C. H. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK GARFORTH (W. and J.), LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up SERVIAN COPPER AND IRON COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BLACKNELL (Geo.), Bury Mill End, Hemel Hempstead tration of the estates of two testators by two Middlesex, gentleman. Sept. 5; Spyer and Son, solicitor, 1, Winchester House, 53A, Old Broad-street, London. Nov. 4; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. Nov. 3; Farnborough, Hants, Esq. Oct. 1; G. N. Emmet, Jun., LE MIERE (Auguste F. C.), 162, St. John-street, Clerken- NOTHING can be clearer than that sect. 35 of the Solicitors Act 1843 prohibits persons other than solicitors, from suing out writs of summons, &c., and such an offence is a contempt of court; and sect. 36 provides in like manner in the case of County Court process. Then, again, sect. 32 of the same Act prohibits solicitors from allowing their names to be made use of in any action, &c., upon the account or for the profit of any unqualified person; and for such an offence a solicitor shall and may be struck off the roll, and for ever afterwards be disabled from practising, and the unqualified person shall and may be committed to prison for any term not exceeding one year. From information which is before us, it seems that offences within one or more of these sections are being pretty openly committed at Manchester, between a firm of debt collectors on the one hand, and a certain solicitor on the other. The debt collectors have a large staff of clerks, and we understand that already this year they have issued many hundreds of writs. We have a letter before us from the debt collectors, sent by Barrett, said he knew nothing of the receiver STAMPER (Jno.), Waverton, Wigton, Cumberland, yeoman. them to an applicant in reply to their advertisement for a common law clerk. The case appears to us to involve serious consideration. We have frequently during the last twelve months received communications about this case, and we cannot understand why the Manchester Law Society does not institute a searching inquiry with a view of laying the result of such inquiries before the Chief Law Society in London. It appears to take a good deal to disturb the equanimity of Manchester solicitors. It is one thing, and bad enough for unauthorised persons now and then to issue a writ of summons by means of the improper use of the name of a solicitor, but it is quite another thing for a firm of unauthorised and unqualified persons, by using a particular solicitor's name, to issue, say, a hundred writs a week; and it is not very creditable to the profession in Manchester that such a state of things should continue. Bramwell Davis for the plaintiff in West v. Barrett, submitted that it was clear a reciver largely interested in the property, ought to have must be appointed, and that his clients, being most the conduct of the order. LUCAS (Harriet). Penang Cottage, Claremont-road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. Sept. 10; Wm. C. Cripps, solicitor, Tunbridge Wells. Oct. 30; M.R., at twelve o'clock. MILLER (Thos.), St. Petersburgh-place, Bayswater, Middlesex, gentleman. Oct. 1; J. Addison, solicitor, 7, Walbrook, London. Nov. 3; M.R., at twelve o'clock. O'REILLY (Francis G), Scarboro', Esq. Sept. 4; Jno, E. T. Graham, solicitor, Scarboro'. Oct. 31; M.R., at eleven o'clock. Cozen Hendy, for the defendants in West v. on both motions. Phipson Beale for the plaintiff, in Barrett v. nominated in West v. Barrett, and that, although usual reference to chambers. Dunn, and Watson, solicitors, Darlington. Oct. 80; Oct. 1; Robt. Benson, solicitor, Wigton. Oct. 81; V.C. M.. SHACKLETON (Thos.), Keighley, York, coal merchant. Sept. 1; Alexander Neill, solicitor, Bradford. Oct. 29; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock. STEPHEN, J. directed the usual reference to chambers, to appoint a receiver, one order to be STONE (Elizabeth), formerly of the Globe House public house, made in both motions, and the plaintiffs in West v Barrett ought to have the conduct of the order. Re LEWIS GREENE FULLAGAR. Chart-st, Hoxton New Town, late of 32, Myddleton-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, widow. Sept. 21; T. Child, soli citor, 2, Paul's Bakehouse-court, Doctor's-commons, London. Oct. 30; V.C. H., at twelve o'clock. WEEKS (Thos. B.), late of 2, Western-terrace, Green Lanes and formerly of 115, St. John-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, solid leather manufacturer. Oct. 1; E. Hughes, solicitor, 2, Gresham-buildings. Basinghall-street, London. Nov. 3; M.R., at eleven o'clock. WALTON (Edwd,), Huddersfild, tobacconist. Sept. 20: Henry Barker, solicitor, Huddersfield. Nov. 4; M.R.; at eleven o'clock. YELDHAM (Stephen A.), 50, King-street East. Hammersmith, Middlesex, market gardener. Sept. 11; W. Hor-ley, solicitor, 11, Bull and Mouth-street, London. Nov. 3; M.R., at eleven o'clock. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. AUSTIN (Sarah), Admaston, Salop, widow. Sept. 12; Palin, Wade, and Thomas, solicitors, Shrewsbury. ALSOP (Christine), 74, Clissold-road, Stoke Newington, Middlesex, widow. Sept. 1; Watney and Co., solicitors, $4, Clement's-lane, London." BRYANT (Chas.), Huntingdon, draper. Sept. 6; Jennings and Burton, solicitors, Burton-on-Trent, and 17, Gracechurch-street, London. BULMAN (Thos. W.), Whitley Park, Northumberland, Esq. Oct. 1; Clayton and Gibson, solicitors, Guildhall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. BRIGHAM (Saran Ann), Shipton, Market Weighton, York, spinster. Sept. 1; Powell and Sargent, solicitors, Pocklington. BEEVERS (Wm.), Pool, near Otley, and of Airedale Mills, Kirkstall-road, Leeds, cloth finisher. Sept. 15; W. B. Craven, solicitor, 6, East Parade, Leeds. BADDELEY (Louisa), 42, Uxford-terrace, Hyde Park, Middlesex, spinster. Sept. 15; White, Borrett, and Co., solicitors, 6, Whitehall-place, Westminster. BROWNE (Anne), formerly of Chisledon House, near Swindon, Wilts, late of Priory Lodge, Reading, Berks, widow. Sept. 1; Crowdy and Son, solicitors, 17, Serjeant'sinn, Fleet-street, London. BULT (Geo. F.), 42, St. John's Wood-road, Middlesex, Esq. Aug, 31; Jarvis and Triscott, solicitors, 22, Chancery-lane, Middlesex. BOCKLEY (Jno.), formerly of Birmingham, plater, late of Erdington, Warwick, gentleman. Dept. Su; J. Baker, solicitor, 40, Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. BRENNAN (Emma), Southampton Livery Yard, Morningtoncrescent, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, widow, cab proprietress. Sept. 8; G. Castle, solicitor, 38, Poultry, London. Oct. 1; BUTT (Ann), formerly of Bath, afterwards of Wirksworth, COGDON (Lieut.-Col. Geo. W.), 3, Barrington-villas, Shooter's COLVIN (Helen), Heathside, Weybridge, Surrey, spinster. Sept. 1; Freshfields and Williams, solicitors, 5, Bankbuildings, London, CARTER (Jas.), Littleworth, near Faringdon, Berks, farmer. Oct. 11: Crowdy and SoD, oncitors, Faringdon. CONSTANTINE (Richd.), Thorpe, Bornsall, York, farmer. Aug. 30; Ge.JRobinson, solicitor, Bank-building, Skipton. EDWARDS (Chas.), Prior Cottage. Seven Sisters-road, Holloway, Middlesex, gentleman. Oct. 7; G. R. Burn, solicitor, 6, Bell-vard, Doctor s-commons, London. ENGLISH Thos., M.D., formerly of 128, Fulham-road, late of 10, Thurloe-place, South Kensington, Middlesex. Oct. 1; Wansey and Bowen, solicitors, 25, MoorgateLondon. FLETCHER (Geo. H.), formerly of Liverpool, late of Barrow Hedges, Carshalton, Surrey, merchant and shipowner. Oct. 1; Wansey and Bowen, solicitors, 28, Moorgatestreet, London. FITZGERALD (Jno. P.), Boulge Hall, Woodbridge, Suffolk, Esq. Sept. 13; White, Borrett, and Co., solicitors, 6, Whiteha l-place, Westininster. GOULD (Betty), Scales. Aldingham, Lancaster, spinster. Sept. 17; W. Butler and Son, solicitors, Dalton-in-Furness, Lancashire. GROVES (Ann), formerly of Arbour-terrace, Commercialroad East, afterwards of 56, Beaufort-street, Chelsea, late of 35, Mildmay-road, Kingsland, Middlesex, widow. Sept. 29; J. Pendergast, solicitor, 354, Commercial-road, Middlesex. GODFREY (Thos. S.), Balderton Hall and Newark-uponTrent, banker. Sept. 23; W. Geare, solicitor, 57. Lincoln'sfields, Middlesex. Oct. 29; M.R., at twelve o'clock. GILES (JOS.), Fasley, near Bridgnorth, Salop, farmer. Sept. 16: K. Peck, solicitor, 56, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex; Oct. 81; M.R., at twelve o'clock. GOODA (Thos. Wm.), Southtown, otherwise Little Yarmouth, Suffolk, whitesmith Sept. 1; F. D. Palmer, solicitor, 1, South quay, Great Yarmouth. GOLDING (William), Oak Villa, Wood Green. Middlesex, geutleman. Sept. 30; R. A. Kelley, solicitor, 88, Great James-street, Bedford-row, Middlesex. HAMMOND (Rehd. B.), formerly of Hampstead Norris, and lately of Newbury, both in Berks, tarmer. Oct. 31; Blandy and Witherington, solicitors. 1, Friar-street, Reading. HARNE (Henry), Ramsbottom, Lancaster, power loom overlooker. Sept. 8; Woodcock and Sons, solicitors, West View, Haslingden. HOLLOWAY (Jenima), Seddler's Arms, Cheltenham, widow. Sept. 30; F. G. Pruen, solicitor, 11, Regent-street, Chel tenham. HIRSCH (Jacob F.), 31, Great St. Helen's, London, Copen- HUDSON (Jno.), Larch How, near Kendal, Westmoreland, JOURDAN (Elizabeth). Chobham Lodge, Chobham, Surrey, spinster. Sept. 8; Hill and Co., solicitors, 39, Old Broadstreet, London. JOULE (Jno. S.), late of Coton House, near Milw ch, Stone, Staffs., and theretofore of bury Bank, Stone, gentleman. Sept. 29; Wm. Saben, solicitor, Stone. JEFFERY (Henry), Summerford, Withyham, Sussex. Esq. Sept. 29: Davies and Hunter, solicitors, Abchurch House, Sherborne-lane, London. JOHNSON (Wm. E), 219, Walworth-road and 98. High-street, Peckham, Surrey, grocer. Oct. 1; E. Wayman, solicitors, 2, Silver-s reet, Cambridge. MACNALE (Wm.), Skipton, York, physician and surgeon. Aug. 30; Geo. Robinson, solicitor, Bank - buildings, Skipton. MORTON (Mary), 128, High-street, Sutton, near Macclesfield, widow. Sept. 10; J. Grundy, solicitor, 11, Warren-street, Stockport. MURRAY (Garrett O'Moore), 100, Rue des Martyrs, Paris. Sept. 10; Dixon and Co., solicitors, 10, Bedford-row, Middlesex. MANSELL (Wm.), St. Julian's Friars, Shrewsbury, gentleman. Sept. 12; Palin, Wade, and Thomas, solicitors, Shrewsbury. MUNK (Wm.), 4, Southernhay, Exeter, gentleman. Sept. 1; F. W. Munk, solicitor, 55, Lincoln's-in-fields, Middlesex. NUTT (Henry), Whaplode, Lincoln, farmer. Sept. 30; Jno. P. Sturton, solicitor, Holbeach. ORME (Lieut. Col. Wm. H.), Brockhurst, Guernsey. Nov. 4: Chapman and Co., solicitors, 26, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. OVERTON (Selina A.), 62, New-street. Doddington-grove, Kennington, Surrey, spinster. Sept. 5; J. H. Grant, solicitor, Kennington Cross, Lambeth, S.E. OLDERSHAW (Francis P.), Warrington-crescent, Middlesex, gentleman. Aug. 31; R. P. Oldershaw, solicitor. 18, King's Arms-yard. Moorgate-street, London. Oct. 27; V.C.H., at twelve o'clock. PAYNE (Philip), Old Peacock Inn, Aston-street. Birming ham, licensed victualler. Sept. 0; W. Cottrell, solicitor, 17, Temple-row, Birmingham. Oct. 31; V.C.H., at twelve o'clock. PARRY (Thos. J.), 11, Botanic-road, Edge Hill, Liverpool, underwriter. Oct. 1; Suir and Co., solicitors, Abchurchlane, London. PARRIS (Jno. W., Farnham, Essex, farmer. Sept. 15; Jno. D. Taylor, solicitor, Bishop's Stortford, Hertford. PYNE (Wm. W., South Lancing, Sussex, schoolmaster. Sept. 3; W. W. Brown, solicitor, 22, Basing hall-street, London. RICHARDSON (Samnel), 1. Eaton-villas, Talsgrave, Scarborough, gentleman. Sept. 20; J. and H. F. Gadsley, solicitors, 15, Tenant-street, Derby BUDD (Rev. Richd.), Ebberston, York. Sept. 10: Silvester and Son, solicitors, Beverley. BENDLE (Jas. D.), M.D., Park Hill, Clapham Park, Surrey. Sept. 1; Jas. Girdlestone, solicitor, 3, Albany Court-yard, Piccadilly, Middlesex. SLY (Jas.), Antelope Hotel. Dorchester, innkeeper. Sept. 8; R. N. Howard, solicitor, East-street, Weymouth. Nos. 48 to 47, Crosby-row, and 5 to 11, Cottage-place, freehold-sold for £2020. Nos. 4, 49, and 50, Crosby-row, and 1 to 4, Cottage place, freehold-sold for £1110. Nos. 1, 2, and 5, Crosby-row, freehold-sold for £970. Nos. 1, 2, and 8, Laxon-court,freehold-sold for £460 THE fullest information, with regard to the recently established Honours Examination of the Incorporated Law Society (U.K.), was published in our issue of the 26th April last, page 466. We say so in consequence of numerous inquiries SMETHURST (Jno.), Blanchard, near Wigan, colliery pro- lately received from law students asking for prietor, Sept. 80; Wood and Co., solicitors, 29, Brasenose-particulars in reference to such examination. street, Manchester. o'clock. SHORT (Thos.), 258, Bethnal Green-road, Middlesex, baker; SMITH (Felix V.), 3, Lyall-street, Hanover-square, Middlesex, Esq. Oct. 10: Farrer. Unvry, and Co., solicitors, 66, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Middlesex. STRONG (Leonard), late of Comster, Caithness, N.B., and Richmond House, Kew, Surrey, and formerly of 25, Hyde Park-place, Middlesex, Esq. Oct. 1; Davidson and Co., solicitors, 29, Spring-gardens, London. Strand, Middlesex. SHIERS (Thos.), Clapham, Surrey, draper. Aug. 30; Geo. Robinson, solicitor, Bauk buildings, Skipton. SEELA (Jos.), Hooton Pagnell, York, farmer. Sept. 18; T. S. Verity, solicitor, 12, French-gate, Doncaster." TANNER (Margaretta C. A.), 20, Roval-crescent, Bath, widow. Oct. 6; Abbott and Co., solicitors, S, New-inn, TRULL (Geo.), Colchester. Oct. 1; Henry C. Wisbey, solicitor, Colchester. TURNER (Wm.), formerly of Hanley, Stafford, butcher, late of Worley Barracks, Essex, a private in the 2nd Battalion of H.M.'s Regiment of Coldstream Guards. Sept. 15; Joshua Mayer, butcher, Hanover-street, Hanley. TAYLOR (Sir Alexander), Krt, M.D., Pau, France. Sept. 15; Geo. A. H. Capes, solicitor, ible Hedingham, Essex. TARRAWAY (Thos.), formerly of Yarra Bend Asylum, near Melbourne, Victoria, afterwards of Devonport, late of Naas, near Dublin, dispenser. Sept. 6; E. O. Gard, solicitor, 6, St. Aubyn's-street, Devonport. WARREN (Alexander), Sunderland, sewing machine agent. Sept. 15; Bridges and Co., solicitors, 23, Red Lion-square, Middlesex. WILLIS (Wm.), Basingstoke, saddler. Sept. 20; Soul and Brooks, solicitors, Basingstoke. WHITE (Charity), Palmer's Villa, Elstree, Hertford, spinster. Sept. 30; R. A. Kelley, solicitor, 35, Great James-street, Bedford-row, Middle-ex. WYATT (Catherine E.), Framlingham, Suffolk, spinster. Oct. 7; Norton and Co., solicitors. 6, Victoria-street, Westminster. WHEELWRIGHT (Wm.), formerly of Newbury Port, MasFachusetts, U.S.A., late of Gloucester Lodge, Gloucester Gate, Regent's Park, Middlesex, Esq., Oct. 1; Freshfields and Williams. solicitors, 5. Bank-buildings. London. WARDLE (Mary), 14, Sydney-street. Fulham road, Middlesex, widow. Sept 5; Walls and Co., solicitors, 11, Queen Victoria-street, London. WARREN (Henry H.), Brasenose College, Oxford, and the Inner Temple, London, and 16, Gay on-road, Hampstead, Middlesex Esq, barrister-at-law. Sept. 1; Nicol and Co., solicitors, 39, Lime-street, London. WHITE (Lady Mary J.), 63, Cambridge-terrace, Hyde Park, Midolesex, widow. Sept. 1; Crowdy and Son, solicitors, 17, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet street, London. REPORTS OF SALES. Friday, Aug. 1. By Messrs. BEADLE and Co., at Chelmsford, Chelmsford-Moulsham-street, the Militia Barracks, contain ng freehold area of 14 acre-sold for £3750. By Messrs. GLASIER and SONS, at the Mart. THE elementary work selected by the examiners for the Intermediate examination of persons under articles of clerkship, for the years 1880 and 1881 is Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of Eng land, the 7th or any subsequent edition. AN INTERMEDIATE Examination will be held in the hall of the Law Society, Chancery-lane, London, on Thursday, the 6th Nov., at ten o'clock a.m. WHERE articles expire between 10th Jan. and 15th April, candidates may be examined in January; if between 14th April and 22nd May, candidates may be examined in April; if between 21st May and 2nd Nov., in June; and if between 1st Nov. and 11th Jan., in November; or, of course, at any subsequent examination. Fortytwo days' notice at least is necessary for these examinations, the same to be calculated up to the first day of the examination. See No. 23 of the new regulations under the Solicitors Act 1877. Peckham-Nos. 153 to 161, Bird in-Bash-road, freehold-sold Arthur Ellis, a member of your society, and five for £60. No. 25, South-grove, freehold-sold for £175. Nos. 18, 20, and 22, King Arthur-street, term 62 years-sold for £455. Upper Holloway-Freehold ground rents of £83 168. per annum-sold for £2195. Kentisa Town-Ground-rent of £5 15s. per annum, term 69 years-sold for £0 meetings have been occupied with business. Two debates have been held with the United 1878, at Clement's-inn Hall, at which the subject Law Students' Society-one on the 10th Dec. for discussion was: "Is free trade without reciprocity consistent with sound commercial prin JENKINS (Alexander H.). 17, Hyde-park-gardens, Middlesex, solicitor, Alcester. Nov. 6; V.C.H., at twelve o'clock, LIVESAY (Geo. N.), 7, Trinity-terrace, Mile-end, Middlesex, master mariner. Sept. 6; Mrs H. P. Livesay, 24, We.lng. ton-road, Charlton, Kent. LLOYD (Lieut. Col. Wm. K.), Broa lwater Down, Tunbrid e Wells, Kent. Sept. 1; B.un rtt and Co., solicitor, 10, King's Bench-wa.k, Temple, London. LOTTIE (Oscar Jos.), 61, Seymour-street, Hyde Park, Middlesex, gentleman. Sept. 6: Wild and Co., solicitors, 104, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapsice. London. MAY (Samuel), 32, Budge-row, London (who had no fixed residence), but was at his decease, a traveler in the employ of Millington and Hutton, 32. Budge-row, wholesale stationers. Nov. 1: Pratt and Hodgkinsons, solicitors, North-gate, Newark-upon-Trent. £1200. No. 2, Hides-street, freebold-sold for £370 By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, at the Mart. -sold for £900. to 22, King's-place, freehold-sold for £1750. Nos. 41 and 42. Croshy-row, and 6 to 10, Union-place, freehold-sold for £1120 Lecture Hall of the Law Institution, at which the subject for discussion was : "Ought the rights and privileges of landowners to be curtailed?" Both the joint debates was held on Tuesday, and occupied the place of ordinary meetings of the society. The average length of the ordinary meetings has been 2 hours 9 minutes; the average attendance at these meetings has been nineteen; the average number of speakers, eight; and of voters, twelve. The largest number of members attend ing any one ordinary meeting was twenty-eight, the lowest ten. Mr. Fargus retired from the committee on the 3rd Dec. 1878, and Mr. T. B. Napier was elected in his place. Mr. J. E. Stevens retired from the committee on the 4th Feb. 1879, and Mr. W. R. Lloyd Jones was elected in his place. During the past session thirty-six members have been elected, but two of them allowed their election to become void by not paying their entrance fee and subscription within one month after election. Thirteen members have retired, and one has died. There are now 237 members on the roll of the society-the highest number on record. Your committee have held eight meetings, at which seventeen legal questions have been considered and fifteen approved for debate. During the past session Mr. A. L. Antill and Mr. F. D. Faithwaite have obtained honours at the final examination at the Law Institution, and Mr. Eady was placed in the Honours List at the Bar final examination in Trinity Term. Amongst the resolutions come to by the Society during the session are the following: "That in future the annual reports of the committee shall be printed and circulated among the members." "That the following section be added to Rule V. of the General Rules: Sect. 2, members of Country Law Students' Societies shall be admitted to the society without payment of the entrance fee on their election." " "That the present system of granting dispensing orders, and admitting persons to practise as solicitors whose educational fitness has not been previously tested by the preliminary or some equivalent examination is highly injurious, and that the secretary do communicate the views of this meeting to the council of the Incorporated Law Society." "That it is desirable that the Society should become a corporate member of the Social Science Association, and that the treasurer and secretary be instructed to take the necessary steps therefor. "That two prizes of books, of the value of £5 58. and £3 3s. respectively be given to the two best speakers during the session, excluding past and present members of the committee and former winners of the first prize, the decision to be by general ballot at the annual meeting in July." Your committee believe that the printing and circulation amongst members of the annual reports will tend greatly to the advantage of the society by increasing the knowledge of, and interest in its affairs by those members who, because they reside at a distance from town, or have their time occupied by more important business, are unable to attend the debates. Of the members who have joined the society during the past session, three have done so under the rule which admits members of county societies without payment of entranae fee. Your committee hope that the privilege accorded by this rule to country societies may be the means of inducing the establishment of more intimate rela tions between these societies and ourselves. The resolutions on the subject of dispensing orders was passed at the instance of Mr. M'Colla, seconded by Mr. Hemsley. It was in pursuance of the resolution laid before the council of the Incorporated Law Society. The resolution to become a corporate member of the Social Science Association was carried into effect on the 26th March, and the Society has exercised its right of nominating three members to represent it in the association by electing Messrs. Ellis, Van Sommer, and Napier for that purpose, until the close of the present session of the Asso ciation. The number of meetings which during the past sion have been devoted to business is unusually large. This has been the result of the large number of motions made, and of the interest they aroused in the society. Although these meetings devoted to business have been lost for purposes of legal discussion, your committee cannot regard this as wholly unsatisfactory; for it undoubtedly shows a lively interest in the affairs of the society, and a desire to promote its prosperity. At the same time your committee feel that it would be much to the advantage of the society if the energy thrown into the discussion of motions was also manifested in the debates, which form the real business of the society, and more particularly in those upon legal questions. They have to regret that the legal questions, although carefully selected, and always involving points of importance capable of very considerable argument, frequently fail to attract many members to the debate, and are aften treated with a superficiality which renders the discussion of little value. Your committee have to notice the same backwardness in members to comply with the 21st of the general rules and supply questions appropriate for discussion, as has been shown in former years. Those members of our society who are engaged in the study of text-books must constantly have suggested to them questions appropriate for discussion, which, if framed with care and supported with apt citation of cases, might well be laid before the society to the advantage both of the proposer and of all who attend the debate. If members would be readier in this respect, your committee would find their labours considerably lightened, and the society at large would be benefitted by the co-operation of a larger number of minds in the selection and framing of questions for discussion. Your committee are pleased to report that the average number of speakers and voters show a slight increase, at the same time they cannot but think that there is room for improvement, and that a society so large as ours should show still higher average. The society has maintained its position during the past session, but it is characteristic of successful communities to be progressive and it is the confident hope of your committee that the future will show not merely a maintenance but an increase of efficiency. Students' Queries. articled clerk, who has just passed the intermediate, to READING FOR THE FINAL.-Would you advise an adopt the limit given by your reviewer in the inclosed criticism on Tudor's Leading Cases? MANCHESTER. [Every articled law student, before presenting himself for his final examination, ought certainly to make Cases on Real Property.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.] himself thoroughly familiar with Tudor's Leading ADMISSION ON THE ROLL OF IRISH SOLICITORS.-I shall be obliged by your telling me what steps it is necessary for a solicitor, having served his articles in England, to take in order to qualify him for admission on the roll of solicitors for Ireland? X. Y. [Ireland not being a colony, the Colonial Attorneys' Relief Acts do not apply; therefore we know of no means by which a solicitor can procure admission on the roll except by service under articles, and passing the examinations, &c. No doubt there ought to be some facilities to meet such cases.-ED. STUD.'S DEPT.] MAGISTRATES' LAW. It was NEW ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. THE RACECOURSES LICENSING ACT 1879 (42 & 43 VICT. c. 18). THIS was not a Government measure. introduced and carried through Parliament at the instance of private members, and, whatever may be its ultimate success, there can be no doubt that it has been put together somewhat clumsily and inartistically. The preamble itself involves an absurdity. It recites that "whereas the frequency of horse-races in the immediate vicinity of the metropolis is productive of much mischief and inconvenience, and the holding of such races in thickly populated places near the metropolis is calculated to cause, and does in fact cause, annoyance and injury to persons resident near to the places where such races are held." Now, if the holding of such races does in fact cause annoyance and injury, why say that it is calculated to cause them? But, again, it would seem that it is not the persons who reside in the actual places where the races are held, but those who reside near to such places, 'who are the whose annoyance and injury are the especial objects of the protection of the statute. persons The 1st section, when defining a horse-race, states it to mean any race in which any horse, mare, or gelding shall run, or be made to run, in competition with any other horse, mare, or gelding. Now, if a horse runs a race at all, we imagine it is made to run. But the draftsman would seem to imagine that a horse might run a race of its own accord, but if so, why should there be any penalty for the wilful act of a horse in running a race for its own amusement? From the peculiar wording also of the section it is a matter of much doubt, since the words horse, mare, or gelding are distinctively used, and we have it further specified as description, run in competition with any other horse, mare, or gelding," whether a horse running in competition with a mare or a gelding, or in fact any one of the three running in competition with one of the three not of its own kind, would be within the meaning of the section. Can it be said that, if a gelding runs a race with a mare, it runs in competition with any other horse or any other mare? Or, if a mare runs against a horse (which in this case means a stallion), can it be said that it runs in competition with any other mare or any other horse? To have made the probable intention of the Legislature clear the words "or any one of them "should have been added. To have made the section still more clear the animals should be referred to in the plural and not in the singular, since, as the clause at present stands, it is open to the argument that a race as between two animals alone is intended. We pass over the sections providing for the granting of a licence for horse-racing, and invite attention to sect. 5. That section enacts that " Any person who after the said 25th day of March 1880 shall take part in any horse-race in any open or inclosed land or place for which a licence is required under this Act, and for which a licence has not been obtained, shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of ten pounds, or an imprisonment not exceeding two months." Now, the first question that arises upon reading this section is, what constitutes "taking part in any horse-race?" We presume it must mean being intentionally present, either as actors or spectators, just as the persons present at a prizefight would be deemed to be taking part in such an exhibition. But, as a spectator at an unlicensed horse-race might be perfectly ignorant of whether it was licensed or not, and might really have no means of knowing the fact one way or the other, it seems rather hard that such a person should be subjected to a £10 penalty or a two months' imprisonment! The fact of taking part in the horse-race is all that is required to constitute the offence-having reasonable ground for knowing that the horse-race is not licensed, not being an ingredient. A question again arises as to the penalty. The words are "be liable to a penalty of ten pounds.' Now, this is a fixed sum, and there is no power conferred upon the justices to mitigate it. The usual power of adjudication is, not exceeding a certain sum, or not exceeding a certain sum and not less than a certain sum. Thus, if a justice determines to fine, he must now fix the amount absolutely at £10; but if he orders imprisonment he may mitigate it, and may even direct it for a day only! In connection with this part of the subject there is this further difficulty. The penalty attaches to any person who "shall take part in any horserace. Now, is a person who takes part in a horse-race? If there are ten horse-races on the number of horse-races to be fined £10 for each same day at the same place, and the person takes part in all of them, is he to be fined £100? Had the words been "shall take part in any horseracing," one penalty only would be incurred, however many races may have taken place. This further remark may be made upon the section. One justice alone may adjudicate. The section speaks of an adjudication upon summary conviction, without (as in most statutes dealing summarily with offenders) declaring that the court of summary jurisdiction shall consist of two or more justices. To give to a single justice the power to fine or imprison to this extent, appears to be somewhat remarkable, if not extraordinary. This observation becomes the more justifiable which enacts that "Any person who shall be the when we take into consideration the 6th section owner or lessee or in possession or occupation of any open or inclosed land or place for which a. licence for horse-racing is required under this Act, after the said 25th March 1880 without such and upon which any horse-race shall be held licence having been obtained, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction thereof shall be punishable for any such offence with fine or imprisonment at the discretion of the court, such fine not to be less than £5, nor more than £25, and such imprisonment not to be less than one month, nor more than three months." This is certainly a strangely worded section, and, if carried out according to its language, the simple fact of a person being the owner of land upon which an unlicensed horse-race takes place may subject him to being indicted, fined, or imprisonment, knowledge of the illegal purpose for which the land is used, not being an ingredient in the offence; and thus a non-resident landowner who has let his farm to a tenant, and may be himself residing hundreds of miles away, may be indicted under this section for an act of which he has been in perfect ignorance. Why also the offence under this section should be an indictable misdeameanor, when that under the 5th section is punishable only upon summary conviction, it is difficult to understand. Certainly under the 6th section imprisonment for not more than three months may be awarded, whilst under the 5th section the maximum punishment is only two months. But surely the difference of one month in the discretionary imprisonment cannot be a reason for making the offence triable at the sessions as an indictable misdemeanour. But again, as regards the pecuniary penalty which, under the 5th section, is the full sum of £10 upon summary conviction; the court, upon the trial of an indictment, may reduce it to any amount down to £5; so that the higher tribunal may in fact impose the lesser penalty. This indeed seems to be a very blind way of legislating. It is very much to be regrette that Acts of Parliament should be framed and passed in the careless and negligent way we have pointed out. Difficult indeed becomes the task of our judges in construing such defective compositions, and vast is the time wasted in our courts in endeavouring to understand the meaning of an Act which by a little foresight might have been made clear and consistent. Metropolis Sewage, &c., Company, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 537.) Per Malins, V.C.- For anything that the creditors could prevent, the day after the registration of the resolutions, the trustee might have discharged the debtor from all his debts, and he might have forborne to take any steps to prosecute those claims which are the subjects of suits now pending. This was not the honest exercise of the discretion which the statute contemplated when it gave to the creditors the power by a maDIGEST OF BANKRUTCY DECISIONS IN jority to bind the minority. Such resolutions BANKRUPTCY LAW. 1878. (Continued from page 268.) REGISTRATION OF RESOLUTIONS. are not lawful. There is nothing in the statute, nor is there any precedent in the decided cases, which permits any persons, whether creditors or not, constituting an individual a trustee, manager, becomes bankrupt a set-off is allowed. The engagement to take shares is equivalent to having paid down the money, and it remains, paid or not paid, a fund to satisfy the creditors. It has been established that there can be no set-off here. The fact that the deceased shareholder's estate is being administered by the Court of Bankruptcy, and is insolvent, cannot alter the law so estab lished: (Ib.). SETTLEMENTS. Where the statement of a debtor who had filed and owner, with all the powers over the subject-perty, subject to his wife's life interest, to such a liquidation petition showed no assets available for distribution among his creditors, and the creditors nevertheless passed a resolution for a liquidation by the requisite majority. Held that the registrar was justified in refusing to register the resolution, or it evidently could not have been passed bona fide in the interest of the creditors, and was an abuse of the procedure of the court: (Ex parte Aaronson, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 243.) The provisions of the 3rd sub-sect. of the 125th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, that at a meeting of creditors summoned under that section the debtor shall answer any inquiries made by him, extends only to proper and material questions, and the meeting has the power of preventing improper and immaterial questions being put to him, but this power must be exercised honestly, and its exercise is open to review by the court. A resolution that the debtor's discharge shall be granted when the trustee shall certify his consent thereto in writing is ultra vires and invalid, the creditors having no power to delegate to the trustee the power of granting the debtor's discharge conferred upon them by sect. 125, sub sect. 9. The statement of affairs of a debtor who had filed a liquidation petition showed that his debts amounted to £44,000, and his actual assets to £120 only, but that he had claims to a very large amount (the money value of which he could not estimate) in respect of which he had instituted two actions in the Chancery Division, which had not yet been tried. At the first meeting of the creditors the debtor was examined with reference to those claims by one of the creditors who was a defendant to the actions in the Chancery Division. to him on the ground that they were put for the The debtor refused to answer the questions so put purpose of obtaining evidence for the defence of the actions. Another creditor, who was afterwards appointed trustee, having stated to the meeting that he would, for the benefit of the creditors, prosecute the claims in the two actions at his own risk, the creditors therefore resolved by the proper statutory majority that the debtor's affairs should be liquidated by arrangement, that the debtor's discharge should be granted when the trustee should certify his consent thereto in writing, and that as the matters forming the subject of the questions put to the debtor were sub judice, the debtor was perfectly justified in refusing to answer them. Held, by James and Brett, L.JJ., reversing the decision of Bacon, C.J., Cotton, L.J. dubitante, that with the exception of the resolution granting the debtor his discharge at the discretion of the trustee, which must be struck out, the resolutions ought to be registered, inasmuch as the opposing creditors, on whom the burden of proof lay, did not prove that the claims made by the debtor in the two actions were worthless, and one of the creditors having undertaken to prosecute the actions at his own risk, the creditors were justified in resolving upon a liquidation, which the ulterior motions with which the question as to the claims were put, justified the meeting in stopping such questions: (Re Hope, 38 L. T. Řep. N. S. 762.) Resolutions passed by a large majority of the creditors of a debtor are not binding upon a very small minority if the resolutions passed are of such a nature as to preclude the possibility of their being for the benefit of the general body of the creditors, Therefore where a debtor's statement of affairs showed debts amounting to £43,897 8s. 3d. and cash assets £120, the only other asset being a claim in an action then pending which, if successful, was estimated to produce £100,000, and resolutions were passed by a large majority of the creditors whose debts exceeded £40,000 for a liquidation by arrangement, and the appointment of a trustee without a committee of inspection, and which was subsequently registered. Upon an application under the 127th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 to vacate the registration; it was held that the resolution ought not to have been registered, and that the debtor ought to be adjudicated bankrupt, notwithstanding that the deb of one of the two dissenting creditors proved at the meeting, and a defendant in the above action, consisted of the costs of a successful demurrer thereto then under appeal: (Ex parte The matter of the estate, power to sue or to forbear to sue, and whether he sues or not, to discharge the debtor from all obligations: (Ib.) One of the defences of the aforesaid creditor to the action was the Statute of Limitations. At the meeting under the liquidation, that creditor asked the debtor how long since it was that he believed he had a claim against him; but the debtor declined to answer, upon the ground that that matter was sub judice. Held, that he was bound to answer: (Ib.)] Where any one of the votes in favour of a resolution to discharge a liquidating debtor has been procured by mala fides on the part of the debtor, the registration of the resolutions will be vacated, although the statutory majority in favour of the discharge would remain if the vote so procured were struck out. An application to vacate the registration of a resolution on the ground of fraud is not an appeal which must be brought within twenty-one days under rule 143 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1870. The debtor was ordered to pay the costs of the unsuccessful appeal not exceeding the amount of the deposit: (Ex parte Baum, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 36.) Per James, L.J.:-What security has the court that the malpractices proved may not have extended to the admission of other debts? When some fictitious debts are proved to have been admitted, what security is there that other debts were not admitted upon equally fictitious grounds? If one man has been bribed or has been purchased, what security can the court have that the same thing has not been done with regard to others? Exactly the same principle applies as in cases of proved that a candidate, either personally or bribery in parliamentary elections. If it can be the whole election must be set aside. The same through bis agent, has bribed one single elector, principle must apply to all these transactions. It real practice: (Ib.) is almost impossible to prove the full extent of the Any objection to the description of a debtor in the advertisements in the Gazette must be taken befor the registration of the resolutions passed by the creditors: (Ex parte Cooper, Re Green, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 260.) The rule that on the winding-up of a limited company, a contributory, who is also a creditor of the company is not entitled to set-off against calls made before or in the winding-up, either his debt or any dividend which may come to him on his debt applies to the case where the estate of a deceased contributory is insolvent. (Re West Hartlepool Iron Company, 38 Limited, L. T. Rep. N. S. 139.) The 101st section of the Companies Act 1862, provides that the court may at any time after the making an order for winding-up the company, make an order on any contributory for the time being settled on the list of contributories, directing payment to be made of any money due from him, or from the estate of the person whom he represents to the company, exclusive of any moneys which he or the estate of the person whom he represents may be liable to contribute by virtue of any call made or to be made. In making such order, when the company is not limited, the court may allow to such contributory by way of set-off any moneys due to him or the estate which he represents from the company, but not any moneys due to him as a member of the company, in respect of any dividend or profit, provided that when all the creditors of any company are paid in full, any moneys due on any account whatever to any contributories from the company may be allowed to them by way of set-off against any subsequent call or calls. Per the Chief Judge.-If the contributory The Bankruptcy Act only makes void a covenant to settle any money or property wherein the testator had not at the date of his marriage any estate or interest, whether vested or contingent, in possession or remainder. A testator gave prochildren or remoter issue as she should appoint, who should attain twenty-one equally. A. one of and in default of appointment, to his children the testator's sons who attained twenty-one, being a trader, covenanted in consideration of marriage to settle any property of or to which he should will, whether by or in default of appointment. The become possessed or entitled under his father's widow appointed a share to A., and he afterwards became a bankrupt during her lifetime. Held, that A. had an interest at the date of the covenant, and it was not void against his trustees in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1869: (Re Andrew's Trusts, 38 L. T. Rep. Ñ. S. 137.) A settlement of leasehold property to which liability is attached, is of necessity a settlement for valuable consideration, and cannot therefore be avoided as a voluntary settlement under sect. 91 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, even though no other consideration was given. A. being subject to a possible liability as surety for D. assigned the lease of his farm and the chattels thereon to his children B. and C., they undertaking to pay him an annuity of £50. At the date of the assignment D. was insolvent, although it did not appear that this fact was known to B. and C. Apart from the property assigned to B. and C., A. had not suffi cient at the date of that assignment to discharge his liability as surety, and when upon the failure of his principal to pay the debt, he was called upon to do so, he made default and was subse quently adjudicated a bankrupt. Upon an applica tion by the trustee to have it declared that the assignment to B. and C. was void under sect. 91 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869. Held (following Price v. Jenkins, 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 237), that the assignment of the leaseholds was not voluntary on the ground that the assignment of leasehold property to which a liability is attached is necessarily a conveyance for valuable considera tion: (Ex parte Doble, 38 L. T. Rep. N. S. 183.) Per the Chief Judge. The question is whether this deed comes under the provisions of the statute others, and the answer to this depends upon the as having been made in fraud of creditors or circumstances of the case. Whether the lease contains a covenant against assignment without licence or not would not affect my decision. It has been stated by the Court of Appeal, and such statement is binding upon me, that if no fraud can valuable consideration. be proved the assignment of a lease is always for REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SUCCESSION DUTY - POWER OF APPOINTMENT- SUCCESSOR-SUCCESSION DUTY ACT 1853, ss. 2, 4.-Where the tenant for life and tenant in tail in remainder of settled estates bar the entail, and resettle the estates to such uses as they shall jointly appoint, and in exercise of such power create a new power of appointment in the tenant for life and a third person, those persons who become entitled under such second power, on the death of the tenant for life, must be taken to be successors to the first tenant in tail, and are liable to pay succession duty accordingly. S. was tenant for life in posses sion of certain estates with remainder to W. his eldest son in tail. S. and W. barred the entail and resettled the estates to such uses as they should jointly appoint. S. and W. appointed to such uses as S. and T., his second son, should jointly appoint. W. died in the lifetime of S., and after his death S. and T. appointed, subject to the life estate of S., the estate to the use of D., daughter of T., for life, subject to a yearly rentcharge to be paid to A., widow of S. Held (affirming the judgment of the court below), that the case was governed by The Attorney-General v Floyer (8 H. L. C. 477; 7 L. T. Rep. N. S. 47) and came within sect. 2 of the Succession Duty Act 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 51), and A. and D. were successors to W. as donor of the power appointment under which they took: (Charlton v. The Attorney-General, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 760. H. of L.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER SUPERFLUOUS LANDS-STIPULATION AS TO TITLE-CONDITION PRECLUDING INQUIRY-Held for Return OF DEPOSIT RESCISSION OF CONTRACT-FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT.-In 1877 the plaintiff entered into a written agreement with the defendant to purchase two pieces of freehold land. The contract stipulated that the title should commence with a conveyance of the land to a railway company in 1873, and that the purchaser should assume and admit that everything (if anything were necessary) was done and performed by the company to enable them to sell and effectually convey the said land as surplus land, and should not call for or require production of any evidence to that effect. There was also a condition that "if the purchaser shall fail to comply with the terms of this agreement, the deposit shall thereupon be forfeited to the vendor.' One of the requisitions on the title required some evidence to be furnished to the purchaser that a waiver of the rights of pre-emption conferred on the prior and adjoining owners by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1854 had been obtained. The vendor having declined to comply with this requisition, the purchaser brought an action for the return of his deposit, and for damages for breach of contract. The vendor then gave notice rescinding the contract and forfeiting the deposit. Pending the action, the vendor obtained a waiver of the rights of pre-emption, and eventually sold the property to an adjoining owner. Held (reversing the decision of Hall, V.C.), that the purchaser was bound by the contract to accept such title as the vendor had, and that, as the purchaser had insisted on an objection which by the terms of the contract he was precluded from taking, the vendor was justified in rescinding the contract and retaining the deposit: (Hammond v. Best, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 769. Ct. of App.) LANDLORD AND TENANT-NOTICE TO QUIT -OFFER OF A NEW TENANCY.-Defendant was tenant from year to year to the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave defendant six months' notice to quit on the 1st May, and in the same document that contained the notice to quit gave him further notice that if he retained possession after the 1st May the rent would be increased and made payable in advance. Held (per Bramwell and Cotton, L.JJ., Brett, L.J. dissenting), that the notice to quit was a good notice, and was not affected by the fact that it was accompanied by the further notice: (Ahearn v. Bellman, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 771. Ct. of App.) WE print the following summing-up in extenso, KENT SUMMER ASSIZES, MAIDSTONE. (Before BAGGALLAY, L.J. and a Special Jury.) The Law of Distress. Kingsford and Dickens appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Tassell and Son. Day, Q.C. and Finlay, appeared for the defendants, instructed by Beale and Co. BAGGALLAY, L.J., in summing up, said :-I do not think that Mr. Day, on the part of the defendant, would deny that it is a great hardship on a man to have sheep belonging to him seized for the payment of a debt of another man. At the same time it must be borne in mind that if a person sends his sheep or cattle to be agisted on the land of another, the law subjects him to the risk, if a distress is put in on that property, of having his cattle taken under it. He has an opportunity of not submitting his cattle to such a risk; but if he runs the risk of sending his cattle that way, he must take the consequences. If he has an intimation that leads him to think that the person who is taking charge of his sheep is in difficulties, it is open to him, if he can succeed in doing so in time, to remove his sheep from the property, but if he is not successful in removing them-and that means a complete removal of the sheep-they still remain liable to that risk which the law imposes. Of course there must be no forcible interference with his attempt to remove them so as to keep them on the premises in order that they may be taken and sold under the distress. Nor on the other hand must there be that amount of interference, short of forcible interference, to lead the parties seeking to remove them to feel that they cannot possibly do so without some degree of violence or altercation. Again, with regard to the question of hardship: it is one of those hardships to which the present plaintiff subjected himself to the risk of when he sent his sheep to be taken care of by Goodhew. On the other hand, as comments have been made with reference to the conduct of Mr. Duppa, there may be reasons why he is not here to-day; but, at the same time, these lambs were on the farm of Goodhew's from July down to September, and this large amount of rent was due during the whole of that time; and although Mr. Duppa had the opportunity of putting in the distress from It for the cab to go round before it reached the house. Philpots says he went across some fields after he left the road, and arrived at a field belonging to Goodhew, where he saw some lambs. He passed through that field into another field which adjoins the house, and in which there were some lambs. He found Clarke in the field when he arrived there, Clarke having arrived there ten or fifteen minutes before, and was amusing himself by nutting. However, he finds Clarke there, and they begin to get the sheep together. It would appear, from what Clarke said, that the sheep were in two other fields, but at all events they began to gather the sheep together in this way. While doing that, they see in the field adjoining the house two men who have been called as witnesses, Bodiam and Kitney. Bodiam was the wood-reeve of Mr. Duppa, the landlord; and the other man, Kitney, was some person in his employment. I will now read to you what took place, according to Philpot's account, between him and Bodiam when they met. was nearly three o'clock when I arrived at Goodhew's farm. As I was walking along, a cab passed me about a mile from Budd's farm, two gentlemen being in the cab. I did not know them. I turned off across a field. I walked across a field into a field where the lambs were." Then he says when he first went into the meadow where the lambs were, there was no one there but Clarke. I began to collect the lambs together when I got into the meadow. Clarke helped me. All the lambs were not in that meadow. The greater part were in that meadow and the one adjoining, round the house. I walked through the first meadow into the second till I got to the house. When I was collecting the lambs round the house, Bodiam and Kitney made their appearance. I could not tell how many lambs I had got together. Clarke was helping me then. The lambs were marked with the letter "L." I said, "Well, Bodiam!" He said, "Well, what are you after ?" I said, "These lambs." He said, You cannot have them." I said, "Then I suppose I had better leave them alone." Whereupon he said, "You had," and then I stopped collecting the lambs-to use his own expression, "I stood stone still." Two gentlemen came up while Bodiam and I were talking. They came up the main footpath that led to the house. One of the two called Bodiam on one side, and went down somewhere near the cottage. They were away about five minutes. The gentleman when he came back asked me whose man I was. I told him. He asked me whether they were Mr. Wood's lambs. I said, "No, they belong to Mr. James Lake." He said he could not allow me to remove the lambs that day. He said, "If my master went to Mr. Hoare, the solicitor at Maidstone, there would be no difficulty in getting the lambs," and that ended the conversation. It was about five minutes after I began to collect the lambs that these two gentlemen came up to me. If I had not met them, I should have had the lambs out in another field, part of the adjoining farm called "Bumstead." Then he said that would not be his nearest way home. He said the lambs were scattered all over the farm. I had passed through one field where some lambs were to another field where some more lambs were.' That is the account that Philpots gives of the meeting that took place between himself and Bodiam. I do not think Clarke's account of the conversation is very different. He said he was in the field ten minutes or a quarter of an hour before Philpots came. "When Philpots came we went gathering the lambs. I saw no one there at the time. Bodiam and Kitney came up after we had been there five to ten minutes. I heard Bodiam say to Philpots we were not to have the lambs. I saw a cab. I remember two gentlemen getting out of it. That was about five or ten minutes after Bodiam came up." Then he says he saw Smith come, but that he did not hear him say anything to Philpots or any one else-that he was not near enough to hear what they said, though he could see them. Then he says they went into four meadows. That is the account that Philpots and Clarke give of that interview. Now, with reference to this you must bear in mind that Philpots said that when Smith and some one else passed him in a cab they were about a mile, or three quarters of a mile, from the farm. Of course there would be more rapid travelling in a cab to the farm than by Philpots, who was on foot, subject to this, that Philpots probably took a shorter cut across the fields. Then there is this observation to be made, What do Bodiam and Kitney say about this same transaction? Bodiam says he is wood-reeve to Mr. Duppa. He was sent to the farm by Mr. Duppa on the 24th Sept. He saw Philpots and Clarke. I did not know their names then, but I do now. Kitney was with me. It was about three or four o'clock. They were driving the sheep together, and had got a lot together. I said, "What are you after?" Philpots said, "I am going to drive these lambs away." I said, "If that gent gives you leave what's coming yonder, I have done with you." That was Mr. Smith. He was coming |