the "amendment" was received with some cheers and laughter.On the motion of Mr. KARSLAKE, a clause including within the scope of the Bill all securities guaranteed by Government, was agreed to. -Mr. NORWOOD moved the addition of a clause allowing trust money to be lent on the security of borough rates.After a few words from Sir R. PALMER, the clause was negatived without a division, and the Bill passed through committee. LAW OF LIBEL. On the question that the Libel Bill be read a third time Mr. AYRTON suggested that the Bill should not be proceeded with in the present state of the House. Mr. GOLDSMID thought they ought to proceed. The Bill had been well considered in committee, and it had met the approbation of all parties connected with the press.Mr. AYRTON said if the Bill was to proceed he would like to make a few remarks on it. It had never been considered by the House. He did not believe it was discussed by the House. The question they had to discuss was whether the press was to be put under exceptional legislation. He believed the great safety of the press lay in its being subjected to the ordinary operation of the law of the land. They might depend upon it that if special legislation were resorted to in favour of the press that would soon be followed by special restrictions laid upon the press. It was here moved that the House be counted, when several members walked out, and among them Mr Ayrton himself. As only thirty-three members were present, the House adjourned at ten minutes past nine. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS. sufficient facility would be afforded, as it would enable in the Corporation of London, whose functions shall Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the By extending the effect of clause 2 to all actions By reducing the limit of annual value or rent, And by giving power to plaintiffs or their Progress of the SESSION. From the beginning On the motion of Mr. PRICE a return was ordered of all appointments made by the Master of the Rolls and several Vice-Chancellors in England under the The Lord Chancellor's Bill for repealing statutes Companies Act 1862, of provisional official liqui- which have become obsolete, spent, or superseded, dators and official liquidators, with the names of the weighs nearly 21b., and fills 242 folio pages. This companies and the liquidators, and the dates of the instalment of the expurgation of the statute-book several appointments (in continuation of Parlia-extends from the 1st of William and Mary to the mentary Paper, No. 386, of Session 1866.) 10th of George III. To the Honourable the Commons of the United King dom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament The humble petition of the Metropolitan and Sheweth, That your petitioners have perused the Bill now before your Honourable House, intituled "An Act to amend the Acts relating to the Jurisdiction of the County Courts," and although your petitioners rejoice that the great unnecessary trouble and expense now continually entailed on plaintiffs of having to attend the County Court to prove uudisputed claims would be saved in certain cases by the qualified resort, proposed by clause 2, to what may be termed a system of entering appearances in the County Court in disputed cases, and conclude that a fear of subjecting ignorant persons to having judgment by default for the recovery of unjust claims obtained against them has caused such proposal to be restricted to actions "for the price or value of goods or chattels sold and delivered to the defendant to be dealt with in the way of his trade, profession, or calling." Yet your petitioners feel that so great a grievance to the vast number of other plaintiffs would still remain, that they venture to submit that such proposal should be extended to all actions for the recovery of debts, and are of opinion that sufficient protection to the ignorant THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.-The Lord is not to apply to a prorogation at the close of a SALES BY AUCTION.-The new Act by which the GUARANTEE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. — Mr. - J. A. Smith has a Bill before the House of Commons SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. one of a firm of solicitors, fraudulently concealed LIABILITIES OF LEGAL PARTNERSHIP. — W., from a mortgagee that a certain estate belonging to a client was incumbered. All the members of the firm except G. became insolvent. G.'s estate was held liable for the tort of W.: (Sawyer v. Goodwin, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 622. V.C.S.) ACTION BY ADMINISTRATOR FOR TESTATOR'S SALARY.-A contract for work to be personally done by the party contracting is rescinded or determined, so far as regards the future only, by his death before its completion; but a right of action for salary in respect of services performed, which had vested in the party before his death is not thereby divested, and the administrator may sue: (Stubbs v. The Holywell Railway Company, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 631. Ex.) YEARLY HIRING.- Where a clerk is hired at a certain sum per annum" simply, the hiring is a hiring for a year, and, in absence of a custom to the contrary, he cannot be discharged before the end of the year: (Foxhall v. The International Land Credit Company, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 637. Byles, J.) DISTRESS ON HIGHWAY.-Part of a highway near a house was paved for a cart-stand, and it was held that the landlord of the house might seize a cart standing on the paved ground as a distress for rent: (Gillingham v. Gwyer, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 640. Lush, J.) PROBATE PRACTICE.-DISCOVERY.—Where, in a testamentary suit, the real question at issue was the capacity of the testator, the Court refused an application, made on behalf of the next of kin, for the production of all papers in the handwriting of the deceased, and in the possessubstance for a discovery, and not merely for the sion of the executors, the application being in production of scripts. Semble, that the Court of Probate has the power of discovery, but it will poor would be derived from the requirement that have power to appoint an inspector to examine the not exercise the power in the absence of any rule the plaintiff should make an affidavit of his debt. Your petitioners are also of opinion that clause 5 would occasion considerable injury to plaintiffs, as by virtually putting an end to the present concurrent jurisdiction of the superior courts where the plaintiff and defendant reside more than twenty miles apart, it would greatly increase the number of cases to which the grievance mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this petition is incident, and that, often to the positive injury of the defendants, the costs of judgment by default in the superior court being generally much less than those of obtaining judgment in the County Court. Clause 5 would put a plaintiff who considered he had good cause for bringing his action in the Superior Court at the great disadvantage of having, after such costs were incurred, to take the risk of the judges refusing to certify for or allow them, and your petitioners are of opinion that clause 7 enabling defendants to apply to a judge at chambers to remove certain actions to the County Courts, offers an ample remedy for any existing grievance to defendants on this head, and renders clause 5 unnecessary. With reference to Clauses 11 and 12, the 20%. annual value or rent proposed to be made the limit of the jurisdiction to be conferred on the County Courts in actions of ejectment, or in which the title to any hereditaments shall come in question, appears to your petitioners disproportionately high when measured by the standard of the jurisdiction of the same courts in actions for the recovery of debts; and they beg, therefore, to suggest that if the limit in such two clauses were reduced from 20 to 54, company's accounts at the expense of the company, on the subject: (Peacock v. Lowe, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 641. Prob.) SOVEREIGN STATE.-ACTION BY.-The United States is a Sovereign State, and as its form of ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT COMMITTEE.-The government is republican, the state itself stands committee sat on Tuesday, and examined Mr. Hope- in the position of a foreign monarch suing in Scott, the eminent barrister. His evidence was England, who sues not in his representative but directed to a legal exposition of the provisions of in his individual character, for in all-relations the Act of 1851, and its inefficiency because it was with foreign governments, the public property ignored on the one hand, and avoided on the other. of his country is assumed to be vested in him. He intimated how it would become mischievous if If discovery were required the state would be invoked and put in force. He stated that jurisdic-bound to name some person to give it: (The tion was necessary to the Roman Catholic Church, United States of America v. Wagner, 16 L. T. Rep. and therefore required territory, and this was as much exercised before the Papal brief of 1850 as since. He was of opinion that the Roman Catholics required the repeal of the Act of 1851, and nothing more. They thought the best thing that could be done in this country for them was to let them alone. At present the law recognised only to repress them. Instancing the inefficiency of the Act of 1851 and all such policy and action, he said what then took place had a very considerable influence in causing his own adhesion to the Catholic Church. N. S. 646. Chan.) HEIRS AT LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. ILSLEY (Martha H.), West-hill, Cowes, Isle of Wight. Next of kir to come in by Oct. 25, at the chambers of V. C. S. WARDER (Alfred W.), 36, Bedford-square, Brighton, M.D. Next of kin to come in by July 2, at the chambers of the M. R. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. CHORLTON-UPON-MEDLOCK RECHABITE LOAN SOCIETY.-Creditors to send in by Aug. 13 their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to T. W. Gillibeaud, Georgestreet, Manchester. Nov. 5, at half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon, at the chambers of V. C. W., is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such claims. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT.-Mr. J. S. Mill, M.P., in by Aug. 15 their names and addresses and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to J. Young, 16, Tokenhouse-yard, LonNov. 4, at noon, at the chambers of V. C. M., is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such claims. don. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BROTHERS (Francis), Scarsdale-terrace, Kensington, Middlesex, parish clerk. July 22; J. G. Shearman, solicitor, 36, Jermyn-street, St. James's, London. July 29; V. C. W., at noon. COOTE (C. T.), 11, Queen's-gardens, Bayswater, and 1, Gloucester-place, Hyde-park, Middlesex, M.D. Aug. 19; Holmes and Impey, solicitors, 12, Bedford-row, London. Nov. 1; V. C. S., at noon. COUSENS (James), Woodlands-terrace, Blackheath, Kent, GILBERT (Henry), 15, Peel-place, Kensington, Middlesex, noon. at noon. JONES (Jenkin), Aberystwith, master mason. Sept. 2; F. W. Pouton, solicitor, Ellesmere, Salop. Nov. 5; V. C. M., at noon. LAMBERT (John), the Holmes. near Bentham, Yorkshire, yeoman Aug. 10; W. R. and H. A. Gregg, solicitors, Kirkby Lonsdale, Westmoreland. Oct. 30; M. I., at eleven o'clock in the forenoon. MAY (Thomas), the Temple, London, gentleman. July 23; A. W. Irwin, solicitor, 6, Gray's-inn-square, London. Aug. 3; V. C. W., at noon. 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 other claimants sooner appear.] DAVIS (T. H.), Orleton-upon-Tame, Worcester; and BURY (John), of Bewdley, gentleman. 55. 158. 6d. New Three per Cents. Claimant, T. H. Davis, survivor. GOMM (Catherine), Bramdean, Hants, spinster. Dividend on 39007, New Three per Cents. Claimant, E. R. W. W. Yates, ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD CIRCUIT. Abingdon, July 12.-Mr. Justice Shee presiding in the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice Mellor in the Civil Court. There was only one cause to be tried, and when that was disposed of, criminal cases were tried in both courts. The calendar contained the names of 13 prisoners, against whom there were 2 charges of rape, 1 of attempt to conceal birth, 1 of perjury, MILES (John), Pontymixter, Monmouthshire, ironfounder. 1 of burglary, 2 of housebreaking, 1 of malicious Sept. 1: T. M. Llewellin, solicitor, Newport, Monmouthshire. Nov. 5; V. C. M., at noon. 1 of poaching, and 2 of larceny. damage, OSMOND (Sarah), 44, Davies-street, Grosvenor-square, LonOxford, July 15.-The commissions were opened don, widow. July 27; Keene and Marsland, soiicitors, 77, here on Saturday afternoon. Mr. Justice Mellor o'clock in the forenoon. attended Divine service at St. Mary's, yesterday. PANNELL (Wm.), Northumberland-place, Westbourne-grove, Paddington, Middlesex, carpenter. July 30; E. S. Stephen-One undefended ejectment constituted the civil son, solicitor, 7, Great Queen-street, St. James's-park, business of the assizes. The calendar contains the Aug. 7; M. R., at eleven o'clock in the forenoon. names of 18 prisoners, whose offences are of an RENAUD (H. R.), Limmer's Hotel, George-street, Hanoversquare, London, hotel proprietor. Aug. 1; F. Robinson, ordinary character. solicitor, 36, Jermyn-street, St. James's, London. Nov. 1; V. C. W., at noon. RUSHWORTH (Edward), Kingston-upon-Hull, solicitor. July 30: E. C. Little, solicitor, Stroud, Gloucestershire. Aug. 8; V.C S.. at noon. STEEDS (James), Batcombe, Somersetshire, yeoman and innkeeper. July 30; J. Balch, solicitor, Bruton, Somersetsetshire. Aug. 8; V. C. M., at noon. THOMAS (Joseph), Kensington, near Liverpool, gentleman. Lower Thames-street, London. Aug. 3; M.' R., at eleven Oct. 19; G. Robins, solicitor, 3, Guildhall-chambers, 32, Basinghiall-street, London. Oct. 31; V. C. M., at noon. TWYMAN (Thomas), Quobleigh, Bishopstoke, Southampton, Esq. Aug. 1; G. T. Porter, solicitor, 4, Victoria-street, Westminster. Aug. 6; V. C. M., at noon. WARDER (Alfred W.), 36, Bedford-square, Brighton, M.D. July 20; Palmer, Eland, and Nettleship, solicitors, 4. Trafalgar-square, Charing-cross, Westminster. July 27; M. R., WILSON (R. C.), 2, Stranraer-place, Maida-hill, Paddington, Middlesex, and 37, Drury-lane, wine merchant. July 30; Routh and Stacey, solicitors, 14, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury, London. Aug. 8; V. C. S., at noon. at noon. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ANDREWS (J. T.), 13, Gloucester-place, Cheltenham, retired coachman. Aug. 29; R. Wheeler, solicitor, 2, Regentstreet, Cheltenham. Essex. BEDDALL (Josiah), Ryland's Farm, Steeple Bumpsted, Essex, farmer. Sept. 12; J. H. Blood, solicitor, Mitham, BOWMAN (James), Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, gentleman. Aug. 12; J. Harwood, solicitor, 90, Cannon-street, London. CHAMBERS (Edmund), 44, Wilsted-street, Euston-road, St. Pancras, Middlesex, egg merchant. Aug. 23: Sole, Turner, and Turner, solicitors, 68, Aldermanbury, London. CORRIE (T. G.), 17. Sutherland-place, Pimlico, Middlesex, Esq. Aug. 12; G. C. Greenway, solicitor, Warwick. DYER (Thos.), Forest-bil, Surrey, M.D. Aug. 1; S. G. Robinson, solicitor, 52, Gresham-house, Old Broad-street, London. EVERETT (Martha), 19, Bedford-square, London, spinster. Sept 1: Tylee, Wickliam, and Moberly, solicitors, 14, Essexstreet, Strand, London. FITZGERALD (Sir J. G. D), Thurham-ball, Lancashire, Portman-square. London, and Castle Ishon. Cork, Bart. Aug. 31; Frere, Cholmeley, and Forster, solicitors, 28, Lincoln'sinn-fields, London. GILES (Wm.), Great Guildford-street, Southwark, saddler. Aug. 18; Sturmy and Diggles, solicitors, Hibernia-chambers, London-bridge. Bristol. GUILLEBAUD (Rev. Peter), Sea-grove, Clevedon, Somerset- HEARN (J. J.), 6, Yonge-park, Seven Sisters'-road, Holloway, MUDDEMAN (Wm), Bridge-street, Northampton, merchant. Nov. 1; C. Britten, solicitor, 2, St. Giles'-square, Northampton. ORD (Walter), Peel's-grange, Alwinton with Holystone, Northumberland, farmer. Sept. 2; B. Woodman, solicitor, Morpeth. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. Durham, July 15.-Lord Chief Justice Bovill arrived in this city on Saturday afternoon, and proceeded at once to open the commission at the courthouse for these assizes. Yesterday morning his lordship attended divine service at the Cathedral, with the usual state, attended by Mr. William Scurfield Gray, the high sheriff. Mr. Justice Montague Smith did not arrive until this afternoon. The calendar contains an entry of the names of 31 prisoners, and of 4 persons out on bail. Of these, 2 are charged with murder, several with robbery with violence, and there are some long perjury cases. The murder cases, however, turned out, one to be a concealment of birth and the other a case of manslaughter; and although the trial of this number of prisoners must take some time, there does not appear to be any case which will take long to try, or which will be of any great interest. The cause list contains an entry of 19 ca es, of which 4 are marked for special juries, and it is said that 3 other causes have been omitted from the list. It is very gene rally said that several causes have not been entered because it is believed that there is not time to try them. The commission day at Newcastle is fixed for Thursday next, and, as to-morrow is the first day for trying causes, there are but two days and a half for one judge to try about 20 causes. If any one of these chances to be a long cause it will be impossible to try all the list. HOME CIRCUIT. Hertford, July 16.-The cause list contained the names of seventeen cases, of which, however, three were undefended, so that really there were only fourteen cases to be tried, of which six were special jury cases. Most of the common jury cases were disposed of in the course of the morning, and there was nothing in them of any interest. The assizes concluded on the following day. NORFOLK CIRCUIT. Oakham, July 13.-The business of the Norfolk Circuit commenced at this place, where the commission for the county of Rutland was opened by Mr. Justice Byles on Friday. There were two common jury causes for trial and an indictment for child murder, in which the grand jury threw out the bill. Leicester, July 16.-The commission for the county and borough of Leicester was opened by Mr. Justice Byles on Monday afternoon, and, after attending Divine service, his Lordship proceeded to try the only two prisoners who were in the borough calendar. Their offences were burglary and uttering false coin. PLUMMER (John), 99. Pentonville-road, Clerkenwell, Middle- Derby, has conferred on Sir George Marcoran, late sex, cotton manufacturer. Aug. 10; Terrell and Chamberlain, solicitors, 30, Basinghall-street, London. SALMON (George), 5, Belvoir-terrace, Trumpington-road, Cambridge, gentleman. Aug. 1: Sumpter and Crane, solicitors, 8, Freeschool-lane, Cambridge. TENNENT (Louisa A. J.), Bexhill, Sussex, spinster. Aug. 26; Blakeley and Beswick, solicitors, 10, Bedford-row, London. WAMBEY (S J.) Selhurst-park-house, South Norwood, Surrey, and the Library-chambers, Middle Temple, London, D.C.L. Sept. 1; J. L. Grover, solicitor, 4, King's Benchwalk, Temple. WILSON (S. B.), 30, Bucklersbury, London, and 7, Frederick'splace, Gray's-inn-road, Middlesex, architect and surveyor. Aug. 21; H. Dinn, solicitor, 40, King-street, Cheapside, London. WOOLLEY (Hy.), Ashby-road, Middlesex, gentleman. Sept. 29; S. P. Clare, solicitor, 9, Fenchurch-street, London. The Queen, on the recommendation of Lord member of the Supreme Council of Justice in the Ionian Islands, the Grand Cross of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. THE BREADALBANE PEERAGE.-The House of Lords, sitting as a Court of Appeal, gave judgment on Tuesday morning in the case of Campbell v. Campbell (the Breadalbane peerage case), which was argued some time since. There were present the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, Lord Westbury, Lord Colonsay, and Lord Cairns. Their lordships delivered judgment seriatim, the result being that the decision of the Court of Session, which was appealed from, was affirmed. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH LAWYER. NOTE. The current Law under this Department is noted by T. W. SAUNDERS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Practice of Magistrates' Courts," &c.] NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. RATEABILITY OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.— In the first case the apps. are the chief constable of the county of C. and the inspector of police, and the occupiers of buildings and offices provided for the purposes of the county constabulary, which was established under stat. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 93. The buildings in question were erected under stat. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 88, and in addition to the necessary domestic accommodation of the apps., who are required, as a condition of their appointment, to reside upon the premises, comprise rooms used as a place of deposit for records, police stores, cells, magistrates room, a room for stamping weights and measures, &c. The county police are annually inspected by a Government officer, who reports as to their efficiency. If the report be satisfactory, a grant is made by the Government in aid of the police rate, but the grant is not compulsory, and may be withheld if the Government think proper to do so. In the second case the justices of the county of L. were assessed as the occupiers of the Castle of L. The castle was formerly a portion of the Duchy of Lancaster, was subsequently united to the Crown, and has since formed part of the Crown property. It is used by the justices (in whose custody it is, and who appoint a person at a salary to take care of it) for the purposes of county records, and also for holding the sheriff's the assizes, quarter sessions, and for keeping the court, the county court, for meetings of the turnpike road commissioners, the highway board of the district, sittings of the revising barristers, and other similar purposes: Held, that in both cases the premises were exempt from rateability as being occupied for the service of the Crown, and therefore not within 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1: (Reg. v. St. Martin's, Leicester, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 625, Q. B.) FISHERY.-A custom to claim a licence to fish on payment of a fee is bad, because it admits that the claimant cannot lawfully fish without the leave of the owner of the fishery, and that the enjoyment is at the will of the owner and not as of right: (Mills v. The Mayor, &c., of Colchester, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 626, C. P.) ASSAULT-MANSLAUGHTER.-A previous summary conviction for an assault is not a bar to an indictment for manslaughter founded on the same facts: (Reg. v. Morris, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 636, Cr. Cas. Res.) MARLBOROUGH-STREET POLICE COURT. (Before Mr. TYRWHITT.) Tuesday, July 15. R. v. MITCHELL AND OTHERS. c. 25. Conspiracy-Master and servant-Threats-6 Geo. 4, An agreement by masters not to employ any workman who is a member of a trades union is not an offence within the statute.-6 Geo. 4, c. 25. This was a charge against the defendants, who are members of the Master Tailors' Association, charging them with "unlawfully conspiring, combining, confederating, and agreeing, together with divers others, by divers unlawful means and devices, to force and endeavour to force certain persons hired and employed as journeymen tailors to depart from their hiring and work, and preventing and endeavouring to prevent certain journeymen tailors from hiring themselves to and accepting work and employment, and to induce certain journeymen tailors to belong to an association, and to molest and obstruct certain journeymen on account of their not belonging to a certain association." Coleridge, Q.C., and Ribton for the prosecution; and Ballantine, Serjt., Sleigh, and F. H. Lewis for the defence. Coleridge, Q. C., said-I appear, with Mr. Ribton, for the prosecution, for the purpose of bringing to bear the 6th George IV., c. 25, against certain persons now before you. Of course, it is plain that these proceedings arise out of the strike now going on, which has produced so many disadvantages to both sides, and a desire on the part of the workmen to see whether the law, if it be law, which has been attempted to be put in force against them, should not be put in force under circumstances of a similar kind against the masters. The 6th George IV! makes no distinction between masters and workmen; and there is no doubt that what unlawful for workmen to do is not the less unlawful for the masters if they contravene that statute. The only question is, if the evidence makes it out, whether 1 180 masters, having done certain things, have not brought themselves within the statute. We say that they have broken the statute, the words of which are-"If any person shall by violence to the person or property, or by threats or intimidation, or by molesting, or in any way obstructing another, force, or endeavour to force, any journeyman, manufacturer, workman, or other person, hired or employed in any manufacture, trade, or business, to depart from his hiring, employment, or work, or prevent, or endeavour to prevent, any journeyman, manufacturer, workman, or other person not being hired or employed from hiring himself to or from accepting work or employment from any person or persons, or if any person shall use or employ violence to the person or property of another, or use threats, or intimidation, or shall molest or in any way obstruct another for the purpose of forcing or inducing such person to belong to any club or association, or if any person shall, by violence to the person or property of another, or by threats, or intimidation, or by molesting, or in any way obstructing another, force, or endeavour to force, any manufacturer or person, carrying on any trade or business, to make any alteration in his mode of regulating, managing, conducting, or carrying on such manufacture, trade, or business, or to limit the number of his apprentices, and the number and description of his journeymen, workmen, or servants, every person so offending shall be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three calendar months." Now, sir, you will observe that the latter part of the clause,' on a fair construction of its terms, is directed against workmen, only to prevent them from dictating to masters the limit they should put to the number of workmen they should employ, or impose terms as to the mode in which they should conduct their business. It is manifest the first part points to workmen only, and is used for the protection of msaters only. But the same remark does not apply to the entire portion of the section. I have read both in order to direct your attention to the fact that the first part is general and applicable to employers and employed. The second only applies to persons who employ workmen. What is this first part? It is, if a person endeavours, by molesting or obstructing, by threats or intimidation, to force, or endeavour to force, any workmen to depart from his hiring he shall be guilty of an offence created by the statute. Mr. TYRWHITT.-Does not this rather apply to journeymen interfering with other journeymen? Coleridge, Q. C.-The Act says "any person." Mr. TYRWHITT.-The whole of the preamble appears to me to be directed to workmen. Sect. 5 appears to apply to the masters. However, it comes to the same thing-if an act is legal, it must not be carried out by illegal means. Coleridge, Q. C.-A party might offend in two ways-if he acted alone he might come under the third section; if in concert he would be amenable under common law. Mr. TYRWHITT.-The charge before us is for conspiracy to do an illegal act. Coleridge, Q.C.-I submit it is not legal for the masters to combine, as I shall prove them to have done. I have thought it my duty to point out the distinction between the first and the last part of the section, and my argument is that the first part applies to the rich man as well as the poor man. As you have suggested, the fifth section expressly extends to masters, who may meet together about the rate of wages or time of work and not be liable to punishment or penalty. But what we say is that masters, in the exercise of their power, which, for the sake of argument, I will say is lawful if exercised individually, have agreed to compel workmen to agree to certain things-to dictate terms to workmen in their employ-and that if they refused to comply with those terms they were at once to be discharged from their employment. The terms of the masters were that the workmen must not belong to the union society, and that they must enter their names on the registry in Air-street. If workmen did not comply with these requisitions they were dismissed from their employment. Now I do not say that if the masters had acted alone there would have been any reason to doubt their right to do these things. They had a right to say they would not give further wages or continue workinen in their employment if they did not comply with terms, however objectionable and unreasonable. A master has a right, in the exercise of his discretion, to dictate such terms as he might think fit, on which he would employ workmen. There was nothing illegal in a master dictating terms to his workmen, however absurd or arbitrary. But there is another view of the question, and it is this, that the present prosecution is intended to try-it is whether masters can continue to dictate terms to their workmen and to say-if a breach of those terms is committed we will not have anything to do with the workman. I will show you, beyond doubt, there having been disputes between masters and men for a long time, principally about the uniformity of a time-log, that the masters met together and agreed upon certain resolutions, which resolutions were communicated in some way to the persons who were acting on behalf of the men. I will further show that while the masters so acted, the men were excessively anxious to bring matters to a friendly arbitration, and that this feeling was met by the masters with a determination not to submit to arbitration, and by a resolution in which they dictated to the men certain terms, leaving to the men one duty, that of submission. Two or three of the masters and some of the parties included in this prosecution sent out the terms reluctantly. They felt bound to stand by the association to which they belonged. They reluctantly, therefore, called on their workmen either to give up belonging to the union and to register themselves in the office in Air-street, or to leave their employment. This, the masters stated, was not done in consequence of any proceedings against the men, but in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the masters, by which they were bound; they, the masters, proceeding simply on the terms of that agreement to act against the workmen. I may say that such proceedings could hardly be adopted without the greatest injury being done to the workmen. It requires no argument or statements to show that such things cannot be done without the greatest possible injury being inflicted on those against whom they were put in force. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the resolution is not the question; the question simply is whether it is right to enforce these terms, and if not right then the parties making them have subjected themselves to the penalty the Court has power to award against them. I do not know at present how my friend intends to shape his defence, so I will not trouble your worship at present with cases which have been decided in the courts of common law during the last two or three years, on the subject of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of combinations of workmen. If the law is applicable to the combination of masters as against workmen, then it is for you, sir, or some tribunal, to settle the question whether masters can do what the workmen cannot. I propose only to call such witnesses as will, I hope, be sufficient to induce you to send the case where the law will be fully discussed, and where, whatever may be the rights of the respective parties, justice will be done. James England: I was formerly in the employ of Messrs. Mitchell and Harris, tailors, Cornhill. A few days ago Mr. Harris It was like handed me a circular (a circular produced). the one produced, but I do not think it is an exact copy. The circular was read by the clerk, and was as follows: Master Tailors' Association of the United Kingdom. Sir, I am desired by the committee of this association to annex for your information copies of three resolutions passed at the bi-monthly meeting of this association, held under Rule XV., on Monday, the 30th June.-I am yours, obediently, N. F. PEACH, Secretary. Resolved,That after hearing the report of the subcommittee appointed at the last general meeting to consider the establishment of a non-union house of call, this meeting is of opinion that it is desirable to establish a register office for non-unionists as suggested, and that the same sub-committee be instructed and empowered to take all necessary steps at once to carry out their views as expressed in the report. Resolved,-That after the formation of this registry office, the members of the Master Tailors' Association will give to men who have their names registered there the preference in employment, and the members of the Master Tailors' Association will give no work whatever to union men. Resolved,―That the thanks of this meeting be given to the chairman for his courtesy and able conduct in the chair.-By order of the committee. N. F. PEACH, Secretary. Witness continued: The paper to which my attention was called was signed by Mr. Lewis, the president, and I believe the secretary. After reading the resolution, I asked Mr. Harris if he did not think it was unjust to destroy the union which had been established by the workmen, and he said he had no feeling in the matter either way, but that he had been advised to join the masters' association, and as he had done so, he was bound to act according to their instructions. Afterwards Harris asked me if I did not think we were driving the work into the cheap shops. I said I thought the masters were assisting in doing so as much as the I have not worked for them since. They gave me no reason for not giving me work. Mr. Harris desired me to read the resolution. men. Ballantine, Serjt., submitted that with respect to the defendant Lewis his name had never been men tioned, and there was an end of the case as far as he was concerned. Mr. TYRWHITT.-As well as I can comprehend the matter the charge lies between Mitchell and Harris. There is no case against Mitchell nor against Adeney or the others. Ballantine, Serjt.-The only case, then, is against Harris, and Harris cannot conspire by himself. I ask you, sir, as a lawyer, as I would ask the judge, whether you think it necessary for me to go on with this matter? Coleridge, Q.C.-The way I venture to put it is this, that resolutions were passed apparently at a meeting of master tailors; that Mitchell and Harris directed the attention of the master tailors to a portion of them, that portion containing conditions that no master belonging to the association should give work to a union man; that is direct evidence against any one belonging to the association-direct evidence in law-of conspiracy, by combining to give no work to union men. It is an illegal thing to combine together to limit the class of men the masters shall employ, and to do injury to a certain class of men employed in the trade of tailors. One person may have a right to do certain things, but if three or four combine with the object of affecting the fair gains of men working for their bread, that we say is an illegal act, subjecting the parties to punishment. Mr. TYRWHITT.-If two men meet in a room, and say they will not employ men because they belong to the union, could that bring them within the If masters, seeing that there meaning of the Act. is a strike, met and said the workmen want more money-we will not employ union men because they ask higher prices, but will give the preference to other men, does that form such a conspiracy as the law contemplates? It is but common sense, if one the other party to say, "We will not pay it." That I cannot see that party says, "I will work only for such prices," for cannot constitute a criminal act. the means used are illegal, and the evidence does not attack the difficulty in any way. One witness, who has given his evidence very fairly, cuts up the case "Vexatious Indictment Act," by which magistrates entirely. Fortunately there is an Act, called the can be compelled to send certain cases for trial. I will not decide this case, but if asked by the prosecution I will send it to another court. It appears from a parliamentary return, that since the 16th July last Lord Derby s Government have appointed 323 new justices of the peace. The names of those appointed in each city and borough in England and Wales are given in the return. Mr. Nathan Kimberley, treasurer to the borough of Birmingham, whilst engaged in his public duties on Wednesday, was seized with illness, and had to be assisted home by two of his clerks. He did not rally, and died at about four on Thursday morning, having remained speechless down to that time. Mr. Kimberley was seventy-two years of age. He had been an officer of the corporation, in different capacities, for about eighteen years, and he had held the appointment of borough treasurer since 1858. The late treasurer was much respected for his upright conduct, his uniform courtesy and willingness to oblige, and his unremitting attention to the duties of his office. Duchy CORONERS' FEES.-A return has been issued of the fees paid to the following coroners, from the 30th March to the 29th June, inclusive:-West Middlesex: salary, 1947.; expenses, 1537. 4s. Central Middlesex: salary, 4251.; expenses, 7321. Os. 6d. East Middlesex: salary, 5147. 68. 6d. ; expenses, 6631. 178. 6d. Westminster: salary, 1407; expenses, 1741. 8s. of Lancaster: salary 131. 12s. 4d.; expenses, 152.148.9 The totals showing that there had been paid to the following coroners for the quarter-Mr. Bird, 3472 4s.; Dr. Lankester, 1,1577. Os. 6d.; Mr. Humphries, 1.178. 48.; Mr. Bedford, 3147. 3s.; Mr. W. J. Payne, 29. 78. 1d.; making the gross total, 8,0267. 11s. 7d. CONVICT ESTABLISHMENTS.-The annual report of the convict establishment at Western Australia has just been issued. From this it appears that on the 31st Dec., 1866, there were 3305 convicts in the works, 1442 ticket-of-leave holders in private sercolony, 1762 of whom were employed on the public vice, 75 classed as invalids, and 17 in the lunatic asylum, there being also nine conditional release holders. During the past year 580 convicts arrived from England, 50 died in the colony, and three were executed. The return of ticket-of-leave holders for 1866, who were then earning their own livelihood, was greater by 95, and the number of magisterial sentences less by 49 than those of the previous year. stationed in the district of Fremantle, 287 in Perth, of men employed on the public works, 780 were 227 in Swan, 137 in Plantagenet, aud 130 in Victoria, other smaller numbers being located in the districts of Murray, Sussex, Toodyay, Wellington, and York. From a statement of expenditure for the year ending the 31st March, 1866, it is found that the sum for the convict service amounted to 77,572, and that for the military service to 32,112, making a total cost of 109,6841. REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND panies incorporated under it, as an incident of CONVEYANCER. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WHAT IS AN INTEREST IN LAND?-An umpire, appointed under the 27th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. found by his award that a railway company had in and by the execution of their works occasioned a diminution of light to the premises of the claimant under that Act, and that the said premises were consequently rendered less convenient and suitable for the purposes and requirements of the trade or business of a wool warehouse keeper, carried on therein by the claimant, than they otherwise would have been; the damages were assessed at 656%, and the umpire also found that notwithstanding this diminution of light the saleable value of the claimant's interest in the said premises was not diminished, and that, except the damage to the trade, the claimant would not sustain any damage to the premises: Held, in action upon this award by the claimant against the railway company, that these damages were awarded for injury to an interest in land within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act: Held, also, that an omission to attempt to settle the claim by a single arbitrator was no objection to the umpire's award under the 25th section: (Eagle v. Charing Cross Railway Company, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 593. C. P.) their incorporation, the power of accepting bills of exchange or issuing negotiable instruments, but it leaves it to the memorandum and articles of The P. Railways Company was incorporated association to confer or withhold such a power. under the Act, and by its memorandum its main objects were stated, and it was provided that the company might do whatsoever they, from ducive thereto: Held, that under this provision time to time, should think incidental or conthe power of accepting bills or issuing negotiable instruments was conferred. The articles of association provided that the board of directors should have the general conduct of the company's business, and especially the doing of all things, and the making and performing of all contracts, which in their judgment were necessary and proper for carrying into effect the object mentioned in the memorandum: Held, ferred to was delegated to the directors, although that under this provision the power above rethere was no mention, eo nomine, of bills of exchange, &c. The order of Malins, V. C. was affirmed; but as it had proceeded solely upon the ground that the Companies Act of itself conferred the power, the appeal, though dismissed, was dismissed without costs. Although when the bills were given there was no debt due from the acceptors to the drawers, a judgment recovered upon the bills by bona fide holders for value without notice is one which this court will not set aside: (Re The Peruvian Railways Company, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 644. L. JJ.) CLERKS AND SERVANTS TO PUBLIC COMPANIES.Mr. Church, the chief clerk in Chancery, has decided there is in bankruptcy, to pay clerks or servants in that in winding-up cases there was no provision, as full; they can only rank as creditors. CONSTRUCTION OF WILL.-A testatrix gave to trustees 1000l. Stock in an assurance company to receive the dividends and increase, and after paying an annuity, the remainder to be laid out in Consols to accumulate during the annuitant's life, and on her death, the accumulations with the 1000%, to be equally divided between all the children of W. L. as they should attain his or her age of twenty-one years, with a gift of the residue to W. L.: Held, that the gift to the LIQUIDATORS.-In the evidence given before the children was contingent, and that those only who Commons' Select Committee on the Limited Liability were born when the eldest attained twenty-one,official liquidators of public companies appointed Act, this session, some notice naturally occurs of and attained twenty-one, could take: (Locke v.) by the Court of Chancery in the several cases that Lamb, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 616. V.C. M.) "ISSUE, CHILD OR CHILDREN."-Devise of land, &c. to S. B. for life, and to trustees, and from and after the decease of S. B., to preserve contingent remainders to "all and every the issue, child or children, of the body of the said S. B. lawfully to be begotten, in such shares and proportions, manner and form, as he the said S. B. at any time during his life" or by will "shall limit or appoint, give or devise the said premises, and in default of such issue," to J. B., W. B., and J. B. sons of the testator, and to their respective heirs and assigns for ever, to take as tenants in common: Held, that S. B. was entitled to an estate for life only; that the words "issue, child, or children" must be taken to have been used in the sense of "children" and to be words of purchase, and therefore that the children of S. B., upon their father's death, were entitled to take distributively in fee, by implication from the power of appointment: (Bradley v. Cartwright, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 587. C. P.) MORTGAGE PRIORITY-NEGLIGENCE.-B. contracted for the purchase of an advowson. He then executed an indenture charging property already in mortgage in fee to C., and the advowson with 25004 to C. with a covenant to convey the advowson as soon as the purchase should be completed. This was done, and then B. borrowed 1000%, from D., giving him a charge on the advowson, with power of sale and deposit of the deeds, without notice of C.'s charge. C. never got a conveyance of the advowson nor deposit of the deeds. On a bill for foreclosure by his representatives, it was held that he must be postponed to D.: (Layard v. Maud, 16 L. T. Rep. Ñ. S.618. V.C.M.) JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. LIABILITIES OF RAILWAYS-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.-B. being at a station, and wishing to cross the line, where there was no footpath, and which was unlighted, while doing so, fell into a hole and dislocated his shoulder. The company were held not to be bound to light the line at a place where there was no recognised footpath: (Paddock v. The North-Eastern Railway Company, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 649. Bramwell, B.) POWER OF A COMPANY TO ACCEPT BILLS.-The Companies Act 1862 does not give to com come before it. A witness states that there are nearly 260 companies in liquidation, and their aggregate capital is about 90,000,000l. He says that nearly one-fourth of these companies are in the hands of one firm, consisting of three partners, each of whom would have on an average twenty companies to liquidate, and could not give more than about twenty minutes a day to each, on an average. Another firm, with four partners, have an average of nine and a half companies each, and could give about three-quarters of an hour a day to each, if they had no other business to attend to; but their other business is very large. The powers of liquidators are very great. Mr. Newmarch is inclined to say that at present we live under a constitution of Queen, Lords, Commons, and liquidators. Lord Romilly said to the committee, "Unquestionably these liquidators are making very large fortunes; they admit it frankly." The immense amount of money passing through their hands leads the court than of less known men. to lean rather to the appointment of eminent firms The liquidators are, almost uniformly accountants; but Mr. Church, one of the chief clerks of the Rolls Court, stated to the committee that merchants, bankers, or managers of joint-stock companies would be as efficient-and indeed more so-but they are unwilling to undertake the charge. The security given is, says Lord and he has had apprehensions that if a great official Romilly, commonly that of a joint-stock company, liquidator failed, the amount of suretyship might be too great for the company to meet. V. EQUITY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS. 41. Assets.-Legal assets are property which creditors may make available in a court of law for the payment of debts, as having devolved upon or been recoverable by the executor or administrator, as such, for that purpose, simply by virtue of his office. Equitable assets are property which creditors payment of debts simply by virtue of an express can only make available in a court of equity for disposition of the property, which must be carried into effect by a court of equity. Legal assets, even in equity, are administered according to their legal priorities. But equitable assets, with the exception of antecedent liens and charges in rem are admiinis(a) By Richard Hallilay, Esq., author of "A Digest of the Examination Questions and Answers," &c. (b) The questions are given ante p. 126. tered pari passu, without regard to the priority of debts: (Smith's Man. 242, 6th edit.; Silk v. Prime, 2 Tud. L. C. Eq. 88, in notes, 2nd edit; Hallilay's Digest, 280, 4th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, 48, No. 7.) force a contract either for or against an infant or 42. Contracts of infants, &c.-Equity will not enmarried woman, for the remedy must be mutual: (Hallilay's Digest, 310, 4th edit.; Smith's Man. 227, 8th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, 48, No. 7.) the contract, for in such a case it might be decreeing 43. Specific performance.-Equity will not enforce precisely what the parties did not intend; and if any terms are to be supplied, it must be by parol evidence, which would be contrary to the Statute of Frauds: (Smith's Man. 228, 8th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 273, 4th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, 48, No. 7.) 44. Equal equities.-The court will not do anything, but leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law, if any: (Smith's Man. 20, 8th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 258, 4th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, 48, No. 7.) injunction the publication of the letters against the 45. Private letters.-Equity will so restrain by consent of the writer, for the receiver has only a qualified property in them; the property beyond the purposes for which they were sent being in the sender: (Hallilay's Digest, 303, 4th edit.; Smith's Man. 410, 8th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, 48, No. 7.) 46. Legacy-Charge.-If A. takes the specific legacy he will be bound to pay the debts, for he cannot take that without its burden; and as to the residue, he is not entitled to that until all the debts Examination Reporter, p. 48, No 7.) are paid: (see Matt. Exors. 208, 2nd edit.; Law 47. Chose in action. He is so bound, even without notice, unless the chose in an action was a bill of exchange or a promissory note, for he stands in the place of assignor: (Row v. Dawson, 2 L. C. Eq. 736, Examination Reporter, p. 48, No. 7.) in notes, 3rd edit.; Smith's Man. 247, 8th edit.; Law 48. Election-Instance.-Election is the choosing between two rights by a person who derives one of them under an instrument in which a clear intention will devises B.'s property to C., and bequeaths B. a appears that he shall not enjoy both. As if A. by legacy, B. will be put to his election whether he will keep his own property or forfeit the legacy, or take the legacy and forfeit his property: (Smith's Man. 263, 8th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 297, 8th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, p. 49, No. 7.) 49. Donation.-The burden of proving the transaction fair falls on the person taking the benefit. Proof that the donor knew and understood what he was doing shows such fairness; unless the donor stood in a confidential relationship towards the donee, for then a further proof of how the intention to benefit was produced must be given. If proper proof be not given, equity will set aside the gift on the principles of public policy: (Huguenin v. Bazeley, 2 L. C. Eq. 528, et seq., in notes, 3rd edit.; Smith's Man. 102, 8th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, p. 49, No. 7.) 50. Donation.-In the following cases: Between parent and child; guardian and ward; trustee and cestui que trust; attorney and client, &c.; and the court protects the owner of the property against those having an influence over him: (see references, supra.) 51. Voluntary gifts, &c.-A voluntary instrument, although affecting no transfer of property, which creates valid legal obligation, will have effect given it in equity, and the debt created thereby will be allowed to be proved against the assets of the deceased, and will rank before legacies, but will be bond will be preferred, however, to interest upon postponed to simple contract debts. A voluntary debts not by law carrying interest: (see Ellison v. Ellison, 2 L. C. Eq. 257, in notis, 3rd edit.; Law Examination Reporter, p. 49, No. 7.) 52. Solicitors' Bill.-The bill may be taxed after payment under special circumstances. The order should be applied for within a year after delivery of motion or petition; and the special circumstances the bill of costs. The application is by special usually relied on are (1) where pressure has been exercised by the solicitor and immediate payment required; and (2) where there is error or overcharge in the bill; (see Ayck. Pr. 657, 7th edit.; Law Examination Reporter, p. 49, No. 7.) 53. Damages.-Yes; in all cases where the court can grant an injunction, or award specific performance: (see fully Hallilay's Digest 296, 4th edit.; 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27; Law Examination Reporter, 49, p. No. 7.) 54. Enforcing Decree.--The payment of the money or costs may been forced by attachment, or by fi. fa., entry of the order. The delivery up of the land by or elegit, on the expiration of a month from the writ of assistance: (see Hallilay's Digest 357, 358, Reporter p. 50, No. 7.) 4th edit.; Hallilay's Suit, 71, 72; Law Examination 55. Ignorance of Law.-This maxim applies to equity as a general rule, as, if A. and B. give their joint bond to C., and C. releases A. supposing B. would remain liable, C. will get no relief in equity on the ground of mistake of law. So if A. has a COUNTY COURTS. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SUITS BY NEXT FRIENDS.-In a suit instituted on behalf of infants by their next friend in the County Court, the judge, in the absence of the necessary undertaking by the plt. to be answerable for costs, dismissed the plaint: Held, on appeal, reversing the decision of the County Court judge, that the plaint ought to have been allowed to stand over until the requisite undertaking had been duly signed and annexed to it: (Williams v. Williams, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 581. V.-C. S.) SHERIFFS' COURT. (Before Mr. Commissioner KERR.) COLNAGHI v. ROBERTSON. Important decision under the Newspaper Act. This was an action to recover a sum of money for advertisements inserted in the Illustrated Weekly News. Cotton, on behalf of the defendant, did not dispute the order, nor that the advertisements had been inserted, but he urged that plaintiff was not entitled to recover upon the ground that it was an illegal publication, and that the order for the advertisements had been obtained under a representation that proved incorrect. The fact was, that the person who obtained the order stated that the paper would be considerably enlarged and improved, and this was not done. His HONOUR.-You say that the newspaper is an illegal publication. How do you show this? Cotton. It is not registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament. His HONOUR.-Have you evidence of that? Cotton. I have been to the Stamp Office, and I ascertained that the paper was not registered. There was a case in question in the superior court, and it was decided that a non-registered publication was illegal. The Act of Parliament is very precise upon the question. His HONOUR.-What do you say to this, plaintiff? Plaintiff.-1 was not aware that the paper was not registered. My impression is that all the provisions of the Act have been complied with. Cotton. The defendant's solicitor informed me that you had not registered, and that he should have to write to you upon the subject. His HONOUR.-It appears that the newspaper is an illegal publication, and I must nonsuit plaintiff with costs. Plaintiff nonsuited. THE NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW. [NOTE.-Practitioners will oblige by forwarding new points decided by the County Courts, opinions of counsel, doubts and difficulties that may arise in their practice, and queries, for this department of the LAW TIMES.] COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. (Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.) Abuse of the "Deed Clauses." Application was made to his Honour to appoint a sitting under a deed case, the circumstances of which were peculiar. The leave of the court had been obtained to issue execution under a deed, the second which the debtor had executed; and he had thereupon made a third deed, as was contended, with intent to defeat the order of the court. R. Griffiths now asked for a sitting to examine the debtor under the third deed. He referred to a decicision of the Lords Justices in the case of Cowen, to the effect that where there was anything like trick or contrivance the Court would not give effect to the deed. His HONOUR said the abuses practised under the guise of deeds of composition and arrangement were perfectly frightful. He had heard of a case where a deed promised a composition payably by quarterly instalments, and as soon as ever the first instalment came due the debtor was prepared with a new deed. He granted the sitting applied for. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. GUARANTEE SOCIETY-SURETIES.-By 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 11 (incorporated with the Building Societies Act, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 32), certain officers of building societies are, if required so to do by the rules of the society to which they belong, to be bound in a bond in a form prescribed in the schedule to the Act, with two sufficient sureties for the faithful execution of their offices. The rules of a certain building society require the manager to give security in 2007, as provided by the Act. The directors require him to obtain a policy of a guarantee society in the amount, which he procures, and has to keep on foot at his own expense. Is he bound also to find the two sureties and be bound in a bond with them? I have heard that there is something in some Act of Parliament respecting guarantee societies in similar cases to this. Can any one give me a reference? K. Y. N. NOTES AND QUERIES ON POINTS OF PRACTICE. N.B-None are inserted unless the name and address of the writers are sent with it, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee for bona fides. Queries. dated the 10th 278. EXAMINATION.-A.'s articles are June 1863, and consequently expire on the 10th June 1868. When is the earliest time A. can be examined? (Not admitted.) Are there no means of having him examined before the Trinity Term Examination 1868? An answer will oblige. J. H. E. 52, Lincoln's-inn-flelds, London, W.C. 279. OBSTRUCTION OF LIGHT.-A. builds a house upon land adjoining the property of B, and carries the building to the extremity of his land. both back and front, and places windows in the back of his house overlooking B's garden; this house has been built about twenty-two years, but B. now desires to erect a stable on his property at the rear of A.'s house, which will of necessity obstruct the light to the windows overlooking B.'s garden. Can A. maintain an action against B. for the erection of such stables on the plea that it obstructs the light to his windows? The property is situate in a small country village. W. L 280. STAMP ON DEED OF COVENANT FOR PRODUCTION OF DEEDS-I should be much obliged by any of your readers informing me whether a 10s. stamp would be proper on a separate deed of covenant entered into by B., a purchaser, with C., another purchaser, for the production of deeds on the sale of an estate, subject to a stipulation that the deeds should be delivered over to the largest purchaser, on his entering into a covenant for their production with the other purchaser? In Prideaux's Conveyancing, vol. i., p. 150, it is stated that such a deed of covenant, it is understood, would require a deed stamp of 11. 15s. It appears to me that such a deed of covenant, if bearing even date with, and reciting and executed at the same time as, the conveyance from the vendor to C, is a separate deed of covenant made on the sale of an estate and chargeable with a duty of 10s. W. (Q. 277.) SHARES IN RAILWAY COMPANIES-If "Merces" will refer to any Special Railway Act he will probably find The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 incorporated with it, and amongst its clauses he may observe the following, which will serve as a reply to his questions: Sect, 36: "If any execution, either in law or in equity, shall have been issued against the property or effects of the company, and if there cannot be found sufficient whereon to levy such execution, then such execution may be issued against any of the shareholders to the extent of their shares respectively, in the capital of the company not then paid up: Provided always, that no such execution shall issue against any shareholder except upon an order of the Court in which the action, suit, or other proceeding shall have been brought or instituted, made upon motion in open Court after sufficient notice in writing to the person sought to be charged; and upon such motion such Court may order execution to issue accordingly; and, for the purpose of ascertaining the names of the shareholders, and the amount of capital remaining to be paid upon their respective shares. it shall be lawful for any person entitled to any such execution, at all reasonable times to inspect the register of shareholders without fee." LAW LIBRARY. A LAWYER. A Manual of Marine Insurance. By MANLEY HOPKINS, Author of "A Handbook of Average, &c." London: SMITH, ELDER, and Co. THIS volume is not written by a lawyer for lawyers, but by a gentleman whose calling we presume to be either that of an average taker or an insurance broker-perhaps both. Either of these occupations must have compelled his acquirement of a very accurate knowledge of the law of marine insurance; and, as he is manifestly a thoughtful and industrious man, his large experience in the practical operations of that law must fit him peculiarly for the composition of a manual adapted for the use of merchants and others, to whom a purely technical work would have been almost unintelligible. But it is not, on this account, to be rejected by the lawyers. On the contrary, it is a recommendation to such a treatise, written by a thoroughly practical man, that it employs the language of the mer chant's office, for that is the language in which the lawyer ought to talk to his jury, and a perusal of these pages will help him so to talk. It may be recommended also to law students as any introductory book, that will give him a large amount of information, and be the best preparation for the harder reading of the legal textbooks on the subjects here treated of. A historical sketch of the nature, rise, and scope of marine insurance introduces the formal portion of the treatise. Then the author proceeds to describe the things that precede insurance, as the slip and representations; then the things necessary to an insurance, as the execution of the policy and the stamp duties, now reduced and made uniform. He next proceeds to the consideration of the policy itself, of which he gives a general description, and separate chapters are devoted to warranties, the premium of insurance, reinsurable and not insurable interests, and freight and advances. The threefold relation of assured, insurer, and broker are considered and described. The 10th chapter treats of the nature and constitution of mutual insurance associations, and the last of the conflict between law and custom. Most of the modern leading cases are cited at some length, and their results are very cleverly traced and applied to practice. There is, however, a defect that should be cured in a second edition: no reference is given to the reports whence the cases are cited. No lawyer would have omitted so material a part of a law book, and the absence of these references will much diminish the esteem in which it will be held in the office. This is the more to be regretted, as the information may have been so easily supplied. We congratulate Mr. Hopkins on his successful accomplishment of a laborious task. LEGAL OBITUARY. NOTE. This department of the LAW TIMES is contributed by EDWARD WALFORD, MA., and late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford, and Fellow of the Genealogical and Historical Society of Great Britain; and, as it is desired to make it as perfect a record as possible, the families and friends of deceased members of the Profession will oblige by forwarding to the Law TIMES Office any dates and materials required for a biographical notice. LORD JUSTICE TURNER. THE late Right Hon. Sir George James Turner, senior Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, F.R.S., D.C.L., who died at his residence, 23, Park-crescent, N.W., on the 9th inst., in the seventieth year of his age, was the ninth son of the late Rev. Richard Turner, B.D., incumbent of Great Yarmouth, by his second wife Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Thomas Rede, Esq., of Beccles. The family of Turner were settled for many generations at Keningham, in Norfolk; one of them. Francis Turner, born in 1662, and bred to the law, settled at Yarmouth, and became town clerk of that place, was s person of great literary attainments, and was the intimate friend of the poet Crabbe, by whose son, in the preface to his edition of the poet's works, he is spoken of in the highest terms of commendation. On the mother's side, Sir George Turner was descended from Sir Robert Naunton, Secretary_of State to James I., and author of "Fragmenta Regalia," and from his wife Mary, granddaughter of Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England, through whose wife Bridget, the daughter of John Paston, Esq., Sir George Turner was also descended from the ancient Norfolk family of that name, and from William Paston, Judge of the Common Pleas temp. Henry VI. Sir George was born at Great Yarmouth, on the 5th Feb. 1798, and was educated at the Charterhouse, whence he proceeded to Pembroke College, Cambridge, and graduated B A. as ninth wrangler, in 1819; he was soon afterwards elected a Fellow of his college, and took his degree of M.A. in 1822. His name having been entered at Lincoln's-inn, he became a pupil of the late Lord Cottenham, and in Shortly July, 1821, he was called to the Bar. afterwards he edited a volume of Chancery Reports, in conjunction with the late James Russell, Esq., Q.C. In May, 1840, he became a Q. C., simultaneously with Mr. Bethell, now Lord Westbury, who was two years his junior. He was the counsel for the Rev. Mr. Gorham before the Privy Council against the Bishop of Exeter. From 1847 to 1851 he was M.P. for Coventry in the Liberal-Conservative interest. As a member of the House of Commons, Sir George Turner introduced and carried the measure known as Sir George Turner's Act, which, with other minor improvements upon the cumbrous practice of that day, enabled the Court of Chancery to decide, upon a special case, questions in which the parties were agreed upon the facts. To him, also, in a great measure, as a member of the Chancery Commission, are due many of the great improvements in the practice of the court, which were effected in 1852, and he may be said to |