On the Second Floor above the Court Floor (in centre only), Registrar in Lunacy, Visitors in Lunacy, Masters in Lunacy. In the Clement's-inn Front. On the Floor below the Court Floor, Record On the Court Floor, Vice-Chancellor Stuart's chambers, Record Keeper (Probate and Divorce department) Inland Revenue ditto, Seats and Correspondence ditto. On the Floor above the Court Floor, Record Keeper (Probate and Divorce department), Registrar's office (Admiralty department), Marshall's office ditto, Record rooms ditto. A Record tower for wills, divided into two fireproof compartments, stands detached from this front, but communicates, by means of a stone bridge, with the Record Keeper's rooms. CENTRAL BLOCK. In the South Side. On the Ground Floor, various entrances for Judges, jurors, witnesses, barristers, &c.; rooms for architect and clerk of works, and for reporters. On a Mezzanine Floor, witnesses' rooms, Jury rooms, and Jury waiting-rooms, Consultation and Counsel and Attorneys' rooms. On the Court Floor, Judges' and Judges' Clerks' dining-rooms, with direct access by stairs from this quadrangle, and with two staircases from central hall (level of which is 10ft. below level of dining-rooms). In the East side. In the North Side, the seven Courts of Equity, with the Lord Chancellor's in the centre. In the West Side, Ecclesiastical Court, Admiralty Court, Probate and Divorce Court, Court of Exchequer. In the South Side, Court of Exchequer, Ex- The Central Block contains also, III. THE HEIGHT FROM THE GROUND, OR THE The Ground Floor (Carey-street) is 12ft. 6in. The Floor below the Court Floor is 5ft. 6in. The Second Floor above the Court Floor of the There would be a bridge over the Strand at THE LAW OF REPUTED OWNERSHIP. THE Court of Exchequer Chamber has overruled a decision of the Queen's Bench arrived at under the pressure of decided cases, to this effect: that the interest of a dormant partner in the partnership stock passes to the assignees upon the bankruptcy of the ostensible partner, under sect. 125 of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act 1849. the case of a dormant partner who leaves his share of the goods and chattels of the partnership in the possession of the ostensible trader. WHERE IS CAPTAIN CHITTY? UNWILLING as we are to open a wound, we feel bound to put forward the interrogatory which appears at the head of this paragraph, because it will be in the recollection of our readers that some time since we pointed out the danger of the collapse of the Inns of Court Volunteer Corps, and thereby brought down upon us a flat denial from a newly-fledged legal contemporary. We from Captain CHITTY, and some strong abuse were utterly wrong in our facts and in our deductions. The diminution in the numbers was entirely attributable to ordinary and unavoidable circumstances; and if we remember rightly our young contemporary-a fly-sheet to the Law Journal Reports, like the affidavit delivered with a plea in abatement-charged us with sinister motives and dishonesty. We were supported in and on Tuesday last we find that journal reiteour then statements by the Pall-Mall Gazette, rating the statement which, when uttered by us, was flatly contradicted. We allude to the following paragraph: It is stated that the Oxford Rifle Corps is in addressed its members on parade last week, and told articulo mortis. Its commandant, Colonel Bowyer, them that, unless they attended more regularly and in greater numbers, he should be compelled to resign, as he considered his own reputation endangered by the present condition of the corps. Since Colonel Brewster's death a collapse has also been imminent in the Inns of Court corps, chiefly through the neglect and inefficiency of the present officers. Where then, we ask, is Captain CHITTY, that he is not again instantly up in arms against this scandalously false allegation of an imminent collapse? It is worth while to trace the course of decisions upon this subject, which we will do in the words of the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of the Queen's Bench in giving judgment (see Reynolds v. Bowley, L. Rep., 2 Q. B. 46, 47). The first case in which the question arose, is the case of Coldwell v. Gregory, 1 Price 119, in which the Court of Exchequer held that, under circumstances precisely similar to those in the present case, the goods left in the possession of an ostensible partner, in which the dormant partner was jointly interested, were not in the possession of the bankrupt as reputed owner with the consent of the true owner, so as to be within the provisions of the then Bankrupt Act (21 Jac. 1, c. 19), s. 11. That decision, however, did not find favour with the great authority in these matters, Lord ELDON, who evidently entertained serious doubts as to its propriety in Ex parte Dyster, 2 Rose 256, and the result of those doubts appears to have been that a case was sent to the Court of Queen's Bench for its opinion. That case was Ex parte Enderby, by the counsel for the plaintiff, Mr PARKE, 2 B. & C. 389, and it was pointed out afterwards PARKE, B., and Lord WENSLEYDALE, that the case in the Exchequer, Coldwell v. Gregory, was directly in point, and that the court could not decide in favour of the assignees without overruling that case. Nevertheless the Court of Queen's Bench, after an elaborate argument, did decide that the partnership property was in possession of the bankrupt as reputed owner, with the consent of the true owner, so as to be within the Bankrupt Act. In the case of Smith v. Watson, 2 B. & C. 406, the attention of the court being directed to the case of Coldwell v. Gregory, BAYLEY, J. says, "That case was considered by this court in Ex parte Gilpin (same case as Er parte Enderby), and we certified that a secret partner was within the statute;" and BEST, J. says, "I could not have signed the certificate sent in that case unless I had satisfied myself that the decision in Coldwell v. Gregory cannot be supported." Therefore, it is quite clear that the It is said by his friends in his excuse that the Court of Queen's Bench did intentionally over-law is defective, and that no remedy being prorule, by the report which is made in Ex parte vided for an admitted wrong, the law, and not Enderby, the decision in Coldwell v. Gregory, and the administrator of it, should be blamed. that in the subsequent case of Smith v. Watson, the Court determined to abide by the opinion which they had already expressed. "That being so," concluded COCKBURN, C. J., "we must take it, according to the decision of this court, that Coldwell v. Gregory is not law; in other words, that property left by the secret partner in the possession of the ostensible partner is property within the statute, that is, property in the possession of the bankrupt as reputed owner with the consent of the true owner.' THE HOME-OFFICE. MR. GATHORNE HARDY is a strong man; but were he not, he would appear strong following such a predecessor. Mr. WALPOLE was certainly the weakest man that ever presided at the Homeoffice. His short reign was one series of blunders and failures, which nearly shipwrecked the Government as well as himself. No matter what the business, he contrived to botch it. He substituted obstinacy for firmness, and maudlin for humanity. He was the only man in England who could not see the injustice of TOOMER'S conviction, and he submitted only to the most importunate remonstrances and the prospect of a hostile division in the Commons, assigning the worst reasons for a good act done with a bad grace. In strong contrast with this slow reprieved the wretch convicted of brutally doing of right was the readiness with which he murdering his wife. But his most grave, and in possible consequences most fatal, feebleness was shown in the history of the Hyde-park meetings. First he closed the park at the risk of a riot; then he let the mob into the park without restriction; then he suffered them to be in the park and to hold meetings there without obstruction; and then he gave them notice not to meet there, and held out no obscure threats that he would not suffer them to speak, and brought the soldiers to town, and had special constables sworn in, all the while knowing that he had no practical powers by which he could prevent the meeting, and not intending to prevent it. In plain truth, this was a mere attempt to frighten by big talk and black looks, which failing of their object, the people against whom the blank cartridge had been fired indulged in hearty laughter at him, as well they might. Also a Central Hall. -This hall is raised so as This decision the Exchequer Chamber has to be level with the galleries of all the courts. reversed, and the law now stands thus: The It is to be used by witnesses, jurors, and parties" order and disposition" clause (which stands as to suits, but not by the general public. sect. 193 of the new Bill) has no application to This misstates the nature of the complaint preferred against Mr. WALPOLE. It is not that he did not disperse the meeting by force, but that, knowing his powerlessness, he pretended to the possession of power and lowered the dignity of his office by using threats which he knew well he could not execute. Add to this the ridiculous history of the negotiations with Messrs. BEALES and BRADLAUGH. One day weeping to them; another day making a bargain with them to keep the peace for him; then telling them they should not go to the Park, but making no effort to prevent them; and finally serving them with notices which he knew to be shams, and after saying "You shart" giving tacit permission by publicly the anabiiy excuse. The wank na fione Secretary, who is cie a Juux firmnes as well as miness mending is the fate of Den Cam asilet the fauts of his Home If it fans as ir numsed the pick credit the u de generisty of the FRECER: ITCHEL I I WIen inmit ze al should have ramel toe it I was posstue that sun i teat d the Sume-office could be enlared TBC Fek BAUT he has a suzeser vi se umecedents are full of promise. gor and framess have marked his official or her. A wide field is opened to him for the exercise of those qualities, whereby to redem the reputation which his predecessor had destroyed of the occupier to be rated and pay rate reped of such buse, and such perspur stay be walle accordingly, and the verseers stal EVE DUGO the owner that the porquer bus so siammed as afore said, and the forth the wher shall be discharged from his hablity to be rated or pay any ne default in payment of such rate as "bereiter respect of such house u the occuper muS mentioned. never consented to join. If amalgamation was to This question is about to assume still greater WHAT IS AMALGAMATION? pease the business of other assurance comBass: 2 carry on the business of fire and life abstrace and that of a loan company; to Larkins Salty: to advance money on houses, de, att so patase land. Afterwards the Empure Company was wound-up, and some shareRouters of the City and County were placed upon the Les of ontributories of the amalgamated somptues They objected that the sale or amalZa vas laid being uitra rires, the BLhlem Ios seing of the ke nature, and there fore than they were sharebauders in the City and COLLTY Company only, which was still in legal And to the Court held. Vice-Chan cturor Wore remarking that it was difficult to define exactly the meaning of the term amaiyamotion." DLL" de Bald Tho was not sufficiently potent 20 COAL DEL & #zarenouder in one company to enter ascotes of another company totally ** stjerne. It escld not make a a cooters of the objects of THE NEW COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER (Regulations as to Rating.) 1. The full rateable value of every house in a book. 2. In every borough forms of claims to be used by overseers. shall return an answer stating the amount of rate, 5. The overseers on the receipt of the claim, and 7. Where the occupier of any bruse having claimed to be rated and to pay 1 tes as aforesaid in respect of a dwelling-bouse makes default in payment of the rates dae from him, the overseers gi give notice of such default to the cwhen, and there upon the habity of the owner to be rated and to pay rates in respect of such house shall revive in the same manner in all respects as if n. claim had been made by the occupier; but the owner shall be tied if the occupier is liable under a ne the default so made by the ocopier by adding w with him to pay the rate, to compensate himself for any rent due or socruing due from the coruper sty sain which be as owner has thus become liable to pay on account of rate by reason of the default of the occupier, and shall have the same remedies fr recovering the same as if it were rec: in arrest: bu no notice shall be given to the owner by the everseers under this section of the default of the pop until the overseers have served notice on the occupe stating their intention to apply to the owner for payment of the rate due, and the occupier has n default in paying such rate for seven clear days afr the receipt of such notice. All expenses incurred by the overseers under this section shall be deemed be expenses incurred in the registration of votes and shall be all wed accordingly. SUMMARY OF IRISH DECISIONS. (From the Irish Law Times, COURT OF CHANCEEY. PRACTICE-PETITION BY CORPORATION-VERIFY ING AFFIDAVIT.-Price moved in this case for a summary order of reference. The petition was verted in extenso by the affidavit of the solicitor of the insurance company, but the affidavit omitted to state that the solicitor was the proper officer to verify the petition on behalf of the petitioners, or that he was acquainted with the affairs of the company-le Lord Chancellor: In the case of a corporation its immaterial who makes an affidavit on their behal provided it appears that the party making it has a knowledge of their affairs. Let the solicitor for the company in the present case make a short affidavi stating if such be the fact, that he has knowledge of the affairs of the company, and of the matters referred to in the cause petition: (Scottish Notwen Iisurance Company v. Egre, April 29.) ROLLS COURT. 1862 COMPANIES ACT WINDING-UP-BASK RUPTCY.-The petition was presented for winding up the Kingstown Royal Marine Hotel Company. The petitioners were creditors of the company for balance of 3400% under a contract with them be company, who had brought an action for their deli build the hotel. Several of the creditors of the company appeared; among others, Messrs. Jamesca They served the summons and plaint on the fo the solicitor of the company to confess judgment on March 1867, and received an undertaking from the 1st April following. Before the latter date the petition in the matter was presented, and on the 3th March the Lord Chancellor made an order directing all proceedings by execution against the company t be stayed until the 17th April, but refusing to prevent such creditors as were entitled to do so from mortgages. The Messrs. Jameson opposed the orga marking judgment or registering their judgments as unless it was made without prejudice to their righ to issue execution. Palles, Q. C. for the petitioners; Daniel, for Messrs. Jameson, contended that an order under this Act had not the same effect as an order in bankruptcy, and relied on Re Great Ship Compng, 10 Jur. N. S. 4; Re London Cotton Compart, La Rep, 2 Eq. 53; Anderson's case, L. Rep., 3 Eq. 337, as entitling them to have their right to issue execution reserved. The Master of the Rolls (April 25) said sending the case to the Court of Bankruptly that, on consideration, he saw no advantage in On the contrary, questions might, and probably would, arise in this case which it would be more therefore make an order of reference for winding the company in this court, and direct that t practice under the former winding-up Acts should psy, ex parte Cockburn, April 24.) be adopted: (Re Kingstown Royal Marine Hotel Com should QUEEN'S BENCH. Jurorant, and which he had make an entry in the rate-book declating the liability The prisoner had been arrested shortly before the ESTATE AND INVESTMENT STOCK AND SHARE MARKETS. STEADILY improvement advances, marked by returning confidence and a growing demand for all kinds of investment. The funds have reached 93; even railway shares and debentures have recovered, some as much as 5 per cent., and every foreign stock, save Spanish, stands at higher quotations in all the markets in Europe. It is now plain that the extreme point of depression has been passed, and that they who can afford to buy and hold will gain 20 per cent. by Christmas. For these pleasant prospects we are indebted to the decisive action of the Conference, and the apparent settlement of the Reform question. We have had a year of trouble and gloom; we may now look for a year of returning prosperity. The fluctuations of the week were as follows: ENGLISH FUNDS. STOCKS. Canadian Gov. 6 p. c. Jan. and. 585,808 Canadian Gov. 5 p. c. Inscribed Stock 1,135,800 N. S. Wales Gov. 5 p. c. 1871-76 Jan. and July Paid. Closing Prices Thursday 3,671,800 N. S. Wales 5 p. c. 1888 to 1893, Jan. and July 100 98 100 100 85 87 100 84 86 100 95 96 100 87 88 100 103 10441 100 87 88 150,000 New Zealand 6 per cent. 1,000,000 Ditto 5 per cent. 751,660 S. Australian Gov. 6 p. c. 1878 and upwards 7,000,000 Victoria Gov. 6 p. c. April and October 100 104 106 100 106 107 ESTATE MARKET. THE List of Estates for sale during the summer and autumn is rapidly growing. The improved aspect of affairs is bringing into the market large quantities of land that have been waiting for better times. There is now scarcely a county in England that does not offer to purchasers some desirable investments. As a register of the estates for sale will be convenient for reference by the solicitors for buyers, we propose to keep one, arranged according to counties. Solicitors and auctioneers, desirous of inserting any properties in it should forward the parFri. Sat. Mon. Tues Wed. Thur ticulars, stated briefly; and for this no charge is made. 931 92 934 90 91 91 98 ... ... ... ... 90 a 91a91a91 ... Mr. JAMES BEAL will sell, on June 6, the Effingham Estate near Dorking; also the Indian Farm, Effingham; freehold cottage properties 91 at Effingham; and a rectorial rentcharge. 91 919 112 112 112 112 112 219 103 103 Do. do. 5c. Jan 1872 Ex. Bills, 1000%. 26s. b Do. 5001. 26s. b 219 219 ... 3 Bc. 26s. b 26s. b238. b India Certificates a Ex. div. 843 103 ... REPORTS OF SALES. NOTE. The Reports of the Stock Exchange are officially supplied in the following list. Auctioneers whose names are registered there will oblige by reports of their own sales. Thursday, May 16. By Messrs. BEADEL, at the Mart. Freehold residential property, known as "Stanstead Bury," Stanstead Abbots. Herts, comprising a residence with grounds, stabling, farmhouse, homestead, and 100a. Or. 39p. of arable and wood land, let on lease at 3001. per annum sold for 9800/. Freehold, 57a. 3r. 13p. of grass land, situate about half a mile from the Roydon station, Herts-sold for 57001. Freehold, the Rye House," situate in the parish of Stanstead Abbotts, Herts, with its grounds and fisheries, comprising the "King's Arms Hotel"-the remains of the old Rye House-and 24a. 1r. 39p. of land-sold for 50001. Freehold, 8a. 3r. 34p. of building land, and the Rye House Wharf, situate in the parishes of Hoddesdon and Stanstead, Herts sold for 15901. Freehold farm, known as Coney-hall, situate in the parish of Burnham, Essex, comprising residence, homestead, and nearly 500 acres of land-sold for 16,500. The advowson and perpetual right of presentation to the rectory of Horsted Keynes, Sussex; income of the living about 600l. per annum; present incumbent aged 68 years By Mr. J. ROBINS, at the Guildhall Coffee-house. Leasehold ground-rents (for 561 years), producing 247. 138. per annum clear, secured upon eleven houses, Nos. 1 to 11, Park-terrace, Earl's-street, Kensington-sold for 3651. Friday, May 17. By Messrs. NORTON, TR IST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart. Freehold residence, known as Dunoon-house, Clapham, with stabling, also a ground-rent of 51. per annum, secured upon two cottages in the rear-sold for 18501. Leasehold residence, No. 57, Doughty-street, Mecklenburgh-square, let on lease at 751. per annum; term 99 years from 1802, at 8. 8s. per annum-sold for 7201, Leasehold residence, No. 58, Doughty-street, let on lease at 70%. per annum; term and ground-rent similar to above Leasehold residence, No. 59, Doughty-street, let on lease at 751. per annum; term and ground-rent similar to above Leasehold residence, No. 60, Doughty-street, let at 751. per annum; term and ground-rent same as above-sold for By Messrs. RUSHWORTH, JARVIS, and ABBOTT. Freehold business premises, No. 76, Upper-street, Islington, also a dye-house and three cottages-sold for 32801. per annum-sold for 6051. Leasehold stabling, coach-house, and rooms, Nos. 1 and 2, Rose and Crown-yard, King-street, St. James's-square, let on lease at 1201. per annum, term 34 years unexpired, at col. Leasehold cabinet shops, coach-houses. stabling, and two houses, situate in Lee's-mews and Steel's-court, North Audley-street, Grosvenor-square, let on lease at 100l. per annum, term 20 years unexpired, at 36%. per annum-sold Leasehold residence, No. 8. Thayer-street, Manchester-square, let at 75% per annum, term 19 years unexpired, at ld. per annum-sold for 6404. Leasehold cottage villa, No. 1, the Terrace, Kennington-park, let at 60. per annum, term 761 years from 1844, at 127. per for 5751. annum-sold for 6851. Leasehold, two residences, Nos. 5 and 6, Moore-park-road Fulham, let at 351. per annum each, term 97 years from 1855, at 127. per annum-sold for 3551. each. Monday, May 20. By Messrs. NORTON, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co., at the Mart. Freehold plot of building land, situate on the high road between Streatham and Croydon-sold for 1207. Freehold plot of building land, situate as above-sold for 1707. Ditto-sold for 1200/. Freehold nursery garden, with house and premises attached, containing 2a. Or. 8p., situate in the parish of Faringdon, Berks-sold fər 650l. Freehold nursery garden and meadow, containing 3a. Or. 2p., situate as above-sold for 6601. Freehold house and close of arable land, containing 3a. Or. 24p., situate as above-sold for 6601. Freehold public-house, known as the Bull, situate in Londonstreet, Faringdon, Berks-sold for 5501. Tuesday, May 21. By Messrs. ELLIS and SON, at the Mart. Freehold residence, situate in Half Moon-lane. Dulwich, let at 701. per annum-sold for 10001. Freehold residence, situate as above-sold for 11751. The underlease for 17 years unexpired of the suite of six offices, Nos. 11 and 12, Fenchurch-street, City; term 21 years from 1863, at 550l. per annum-sold for 1251 By Messrs. FURBER and PRICE, at the Guildhall Coffee-house. Freehold cottage ornée, known as the Poplars, situate on Clay-hill, Bushey, Herts-sold for 1015. LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS. THE ALABAMA CLAIMS. In reply to Earl RUSSELL,- -The EARL of DERBY said that the correspondence between the English Government and that of the United States with respect to the reference of the Alabama claims to arbitration is still going on. The difference between While we have asked the two Governments is this. the Cabinet of Washington to specify distinctly the points which they wish to be referred to arbitration, on the contrary, they contend that the correspondence which has passed between the two Governments should be referred en bloc to the arbitrator, and that he should then give an award on the whole case. To that, however, we could not assent, as it would submit to the arbitrator points which we cannot leave to his decision. The correspondence between the two Governments has, however, been carried on in a very friendly spirit, and there is every hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be arrived at. TITHES. Lord LYTTELTON moved for return of all tithes commuted and apportioned under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c 71, from 31st Dec. 1860, to 31st Dec. 1866, distinguishing between those assigned to clerical appropriators, parochial incumbents, lay impropriators, schools, and colleges (in continuation of No. 118 of 1861). The return was ordered. SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BILL. Lord REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it had received the almost unanimous approval of all the joint-stock banking companies, and he felt certain their Lordships would have no difficulty in assenting to the second reading. The Bill had its origin in the late commercial panic, during which a dead-set was made against the banking companies by persons dealing in shares, and making the prices quoted unfavourable or otherwise, as suited their schemes. These operations were carried on by persons who did not possess a single share in any company, and it was to counteract all this that the present Bill was introduced, by which it would be enacted that the names of all holders of bank shares should be registered and published, so that all parties should know who held them. One objection raised against the Bill was, that it would act as a restriction on the purchase of shares, and be of damage to their value; but the best answer to this objection was the fact that those who were most anxious to have the Bill passed were those most interested in the banking companies themselves.. Another objection raised to the Bill was that it proceeded on the principle of Sir John Barnard's Bill, which had become inoperative, but from the changed circumstances of the time it was not at all likely that would be the case with the present Bill -The Bill was then read a second time. ADMIRALTY, DIVORCE, AND PROBATE COURTS BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, replying to a question from Lord CRANWORTH, made a statement of the great increase in the business of the Admiralty Court, and of the arrears in the Divorce Court, which he considered rendered the appointment of two additional judges absolutely necessary in the public interest. He further referred to the great pressure of business upon the Northern Circuit, which he proposed to divide, and to assign one portion of the business to the new judges contemplated in the Bill.-Lord CRANWORTH Condemned the scheme, maintaining that the present judges of the Admiralty and Divorce Courts were sufficient for the disposal of the cases that came before them, especially if certain changes which he suggested in respect of marine cases were adopted. He denied the necessity for the appointment of new judges, and thought that if the sittings in banco of the common law courts were held before three instead of four judges the present judicial staff was adequate to all was brought up in custody of Buck, one of the summoning officers of the court, upon a warrant charging him with having attempted to corrupt Robert Tubbs, Esq., a Middlesex magistrate, and chairman of the bench of magistrates for the Kensington division, in the performance of his duty as such magistrate, by sending him a sum of 40%. to induce him to grant, or assist in obtaining a grant, of a licence under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, for the sale of excisable liquors. The information on which the warrant had been granted was as follows: Robert Tubbs, Esq.-I live at 55, Harley-street, in the county of Middlesex, and am one of the magistrates for the said county, and chairman of the bench of magistrates for the Kensington division of the county. A man of the name of George Edward Gurney has applied for some years past for a spirit licence for the beershop called the Earl of Cardigan, in the Marlborough-road, Chelsea, and the grant of such licence has always been refused by the magistrates. He applied again this year; and the day for hearing the applications for new licences was Tuesday the 19th March 1867. On the 11th March I received a letter, of which the following is a copy: Honoured Sir,-Trusting that you will not feel offended, but pardon the very great liberty, having struggled very hard in my house for eleven years to maintain my family, and without any complaint from the police; honoured sir, and be my friend at the coming licensing day, and for if you will take my case into your very kind consideration, which will be ever most gratefully felt by your very obedient servant, G. E. GURNEY. Committee in the House of Lords which we hopo may survive the impending massacre of the innocents. We may say of it as was said of Zoar,-Is it not a little one? We have indeed private reasons for wishing it well, as its provisions were originally suggested in these columns. The Bill in question is a Bill by which the Courts of Admiralty and Probate are to be consolidated and to be put under a chief justice and two puisne judges, two of whom will be available for the purpose of going circuit. It will thus be easy to divide the old Northern circuit in half, making Lancashire-perhaps with the addition of Cumberland and Westmoreland-a circuit by itself, and making Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland into a new circuit. The old Midland circuit would be reconstituted as it was before the changes which were made four years ago. We have more than once pointed out the advantages of such a change, though it cannot be regarded as final by anyone who has an adequate notion of what the administration of justice ought to be, but it would certainly remove at a very small expense one considerable and irritating scandal in the existing administration of justice. Of the two objects which the bill has in view, both are no doubt important. The Divorce Court, like most of the other courts in London, is considerably in arrear, though the duties of the judge of the Court of Admiralty, even when those of Dean of the Arches and of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are added to them, are far from being overwhelming, even in these days of religious litigation. Put the two or three courts into one, Earl of Cardigan, Marlborough-road, Chelsea. and the business would not be excessive. The The envelope was addressed to me, and marked court would be well able to keep up with it, and to "private." It appears not to have passed through spare two of its judges for the circuits. On the the post-office, but to have been delivered by a other hand, a new circuit is absolutely necessary. messenger. I opened the letter, and found inclosed Just after the close of the spring assizes we pub-in it bank-notes to the value of 40%. I communicated lished a letter showing what was the condition of things on the Midland circuit, on which with the assistance of several commissioners who sat at nearly every assize town for several days together, twenty causes were left to stand over till the summer. On the Northern circuit the business was got through, but only just in time to enable the judges to come up to London for the beginning of Easter term. The amount of private hardship which is inflicted by this can be estimated only by those who see it. To put off the trial of twenty causes for several months is like keeping open a set of wounds for the same period. The delay, the anxiety, the expense of legal proceedings, are proverbial; and it constantly happens that when everything has been arranged and is actually ready for trial, the injury done by putting the trial off is greater than the value of the matter in dispute. It must be remembered, too, that the hardship is far greater on circuit than in London. A cause not tried at the summer assizes has to wait till the following spring, and if it is left untried at the spring assizes, it has to wait from three to four months. This of course tends to discourage the local administration of justice, and to bring causes up to be tried in London which do not properly belong to London, and which tend to overburden lists which are already much too heavily weighted.--Pall-Mall Gazette. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH [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. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.- A concealment attempted by depositing the child while living in the corner of a field, leaving it to die from exposure, where the dead body was afterwards found, is not within the statute, which refers only to the concealment of the dead body of the child: (Reg. v. May, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 362. Cr. Cas. Res.) EVIDENCE-PRACTICE.-The court approves the established practice of admitting witnesses for the prisoner to prove that they would not believe the witnesses for the prosecution on their oaths: (Reg. v. Brown, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 364. Cr. Cas. Res.) PERJURY-APPRENTICE.-After the expiration of his apprenticeship B. summoned his master for wages, and gave false evidence. It was held that, whether or not the statute required the complaint to be made before the expiration of the apprenticeship, the justice had general jurisdiction over the complaint, and therefore that perjury could be assigned upon it: (Reg. v. Proud, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 364. Cr. Cas. Res.) BOW-STREET POLICE COURT. An Innkeeper attempting to bribe a Magistrate. George Edward Gurney, the keeper of a beershop, the Earl of Cardigan, Marlborough-road, Chelsea, these facts to my brother magistrates, and on the 29th March I wrote to Mr. Secretary Walpole on the subject. On the 10th April I received another letter, by post, of which the following is a copy: April 8, 1867. Honoured Sir, I humbly beg that you will pardon this liberty. The object I have in writing is to ask your honour whether you received my letter and the contents sir, I hope you will pardon this freedom.-I am, honoured on the 9th March, that I left at your house. Honoured sir, your very obedient, humble servant, GEORGE E. GURNEY, Earl of Cardigan, Marlborough-road, Chelsea. To Robert Tubbs, Esq. That letter contained an envelope stamped and directed to Mr. Gurney, Earl of Cardigan, 102, Marlborough-road, Chelsea. Mr. Stephen Ellis, inspector of the R. division of police.-I know the handwriting of George Edward Gurney, who was formerly a constable of the R. division of police.-The two letters (produced) are in his handwriting. 31st Jan, referring to what the officer had done, said: The officer took 54 on account, and since that the defendant (meaning Mr. Robertson) had gone through the Bankruptcy Court, and was now living in lodgings. He had no property that could be seized. The facts were that the defendant had not gone through the Court of Bankruptcy, and had, among other goods, office fittings and furniture to the value of 150l. Mr. Melly soon afterwards expressed his regret for having erroneously alleged that the plaintiff was bankrupt, but added that he believed he was justified in stating that the plaintiff had no property to seize, the officer having returned on the warrant nulla bona. For the defendant it was contended that the statement was made by the defendant judicially in his character of magistrate, and bona fide believing it to be true, and that therefore it was a privileged statement. Leave was reserved to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit or a verdict upon these points, and the case went to the jury, who by their verdict negatived any malice on the part of the defendant, and assessed the damages at one farthing. A verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for one farthing, subject to leave to move. DUBLIN.-M CAFFERTY'S CASE.-With the exception of Baron Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Morris, all the Irish common law judges pronounced opinions upon the points reserved in the case of Captain M'Cafferty, lately found guilty of high treason. The conviction was affirmed by nine of the judges, Mr. Justice O'Brien alone dissenting. Mr. Justice George, who, as junior judge, began, held that all the insurrectionary acts done after M'Cafferty's arrest were done by command of the Directory, of which he was a prominent member, and should be regarded as the acts of the prisoner himself. On the point of two witnesses being necessary to prove an act of treason, he held there was abundant corroboration of the approver Corydon. Judge O'Hagan thought that even if the evidence of Corydon were eliminated from the case, there was a crowd of Keogh thought that if the direction of the judge untainted witnesses to prove the overt acts. Judge who tried the case swerved at all from the strict line it was in favour of the prisoner and against the Crown. Judge O'Brien's dissent rested on a nonsatisfaction, as he considered, of the treason statute. It was not, in his opinion, sufficient to prove by more than one witness the occurrence of the overt acts alleged, unless there was more than one witness to prove the prisoner's responsibility, and his connection with those overt acts. When M'Cafferty's case had been thus decided, Meany's appeal was pronounced upon, seven judges sustaining the conviction-Whiteside, Monahan, Hughes, T. D. Fitzgerald, Keogh, Deasy, and George: and four taking the opposite view-Pigot, O'Brien, Baron Fitzgerald, and O'Hagan. Mr. Justice Morris having been, as Attorney-General, prosecutor in the case, did not sit to hear the appeal. Poland, the barrister instructed by the Solicitors to the Treasury, conducted the prosecution. He stated the facts as set forth in the above information, and suggested that the object of inclosing a stamped directed envelope in the second letter was this. Mr. Tubbs might return the 40, as the licence had not been granted. The licensing magistrates could not deal with the case as one of contempt of court, which would be the course to be JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW taken by a Court of Record. They had, therefore, thought it necessary to bring the case before this court, that people should see that such attempts to corrupt the bench could not be passed over with impunity. JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WINDING-UP. The information was then read over, and the prisoner identified by Inspector Ellis. PRACTICE-COSTS-SET-OFF.- An order was Buck, the warrant officer, stated that he appre-made, on the petition of a shareholder, and the hended the prisoner at the Earl of Cardigan's. Upon costs ordered to be taxed, and paid by the liquihearing the charge, the prisoner said "Yes. I took dator. A call was asked for before, but made the letter myself containing the money and left it, payable after, the order. The liquidator was not and I did not think I was doing anything wrong." The prisoner, who declined to say anything, was permitted to set off the costs against the call: (Re The General Exchange Bank, 16 L. T. Rep. remanded for further examination. N. S. 338. M. R.) James, Q. C. and Potter were counsel for the wound-up, and does not apply to the transfer or plaintiff. Brett, Q. C. and C. Hutton for the defendant. The plaintiff is a house agent at Liverpool, and the defendant (Mr. George Melly) is a magistrate of the borough. The action was brought for an alleged slander spoken by the defendant on the bench of magistrates, at Liverpool, on the 31st Jan. 1867, that the plaintiff had on several occasions been under the following circumstances:-It appeared fined, at the instance of the Health Committee of the Liverpool Town Council, for not carrying out certain sanitary arrangements which that body were authorised to enforce under the provision of their Improvement Act. In Nov. 1865 the plaintiff was fined 201, and afterwards repeated applications were made for payment, and ultimately he paid 51. on account, intimating to the officer that he had no goods which the officer would seize. Hearing from the officer what had taken place, Mr. Melly on the sale of the whole concern. The 161st section of the Act, which does sanction such a transfer, applies only to cases where the company is Wound-up voluntarily. A scheme was proposed for the transfer of the business of company A. to company B., after which company A. was ordered to be wound-up compulsorily, but was supervision of the court. Certain shareholders eventually wound-up voluntarily under the in company A. applied for and were allotted shares in company B. in lieu of their shares in company A., and on the understanding that the transfer would be completed. The Court, however, held that the transfer could not be effected. The shareholders then applied to the court for an order to rectify the register of members in company B. by striking out their names therefrom. Held, that their names must be struck Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron, and that these Judges, or any three of them, shall from time to time have full power and authority to make such rules and orders for the better management and government of the said office, agreeable to the form and true intention of this Act, as they shall find convenient and necessary.' "Sect. 4 provides for the payment of treble damages and full costs of suit by any such registrar who shall be lawfully convicted of any neglect, misdemeanor, or fraudulent practice in the execution of his office. "Sect. 11 enacts, 'That every such register or master shall be allowed for the entry of every such memorial as is by this Act directed the sum of one shilling and no more, in case the same do not exceed 200 words, but, if such memorial shall exceed 200 words, then after the rate and proportion of 6d. a hundred for all the words contained in such memorial over and above the first 200 words; and the like fees for the like number of words contained in every certificate or copy given out of the said office, and no more, and for every search in the said office one shilling and no more.' "Sect. 12 provides, That every such register or master shall give due attendance at his office every day in the week (except Sundays and holidays) between the hours of nine and twelve in the forenoon, and the hours of two and five in the afternoon, for the dispatch of all business belonging to the said office; and that every such register or master, as often as required, shall make searches concerning all memorials that are registered as aforesaid, and give certificates concerning the same under his hand (if required by any person), testified by two credible witnesses.' "The officials no longer make searches and give certificates as above required, but solicitors are compelled to make such searches themselves. "The index kept in the said office is an annual series of lists of memorials arranged under the initial letter of the surname of the grantor of the estate or incumbrance entered in the order in which such memorials are brought in for registration. "The fees for registering memorials charged in the said office are much greater than those allowed by sect. 11 of the Act, being (as appears by a return printed by order of your honourable House on the 16th July 1862) 7s. for memorials not exceeding 500 words, and 6d. for every 100 words over that number. The return adds,The fees provided by the Act 7 Anne, c. 20, were altered, as the present registrars are informed, in the year 1768, in pursuance of an arrangement between the then registrars and the public, and have since that period been always received in accordance with the amended scale. They are not aware of any special authority for the alteration.' "Instead of the 1s. search fee, which the Act evidently contemplated as the whole expense for searching in respect of each transaction, a separate search fee of 1s. is now charged for each name searched, against. "Thus in the common cases of sales of property in mortgage, or belonging to joint owners, where search is to be made against both vendor and mortgagee, or against all the joint owners, several search fees are charged (unless the joint owners happen to be co-trustees), and where within sixty years property has frequently been mortgaged or changed owners, the number of searches requisite, and therefore of fees payable, are enormously increased. "Charges are also made for the inspection of any memorials found on such searches. ex "For several years past your petitioners have, by communications, first to the registrars and afterwards to the judges, been endeavouring, but with very partial success, to obtain reforms in the office in question. "Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Before BOVILL, C.J. and a Common Jury.) Friday, May 17. WETHEY V. MOORE. Shaw and Bowen were counsel for the plaintiff, and Cole, Q. C. for the defendant. This was an action against a Mr. Moore, an attorney at Wimborne, Dorsetshire, to recover 3501. 5s. on a promissory note. He had been let in to defend the action on an affidavit that he had been induced to make the note by fraud. However, it appeared that there was no foundation for such a defence, for an account was produced in his own writing showing that he was indebted to the estate of a Mr. Roberts in about that sum, and that he wrote the promissory note himself to secure the debt, making it payable to the plaintiff, borrowing, however, money from stamp, and an additional sum of 31., for which he the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Chitty, to pay for the gave Mr. Chitty a cheque that was dishonoured. The defendant also pleaded that he was discharged from the debt by his bankruptcy. The defendant's discharge in bankruptcy was in May 1865. Chief Justice asked what the defendant intended to At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the Lord do, as he had placed himself in a very serious position by his affidavit imputing fraud to the plaintiff and Mr. Chitty, with whom the settlement of accounts took place. By the advice of his counsel, the defendant consented to a verdict for the plaintiff for 3647. 15s., principal and interest, the plaintiff undertaking to allow 421., received since the action commenced from the sale of property on which Mr. Roberts had a second mortgage. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. GELLIVARA COMPANY (LIMITED).-Petition for winding-up to be heard before V. C. M., on May 31. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIMITED). -Petition for winding-up to be heard before M. R., on June 1. RAMSGATE VICTORIA HOTEL COMPANY (LIMITED).--Creditors to send in by June 17 their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors (if any), to S. Lovelock, 34, Colemanstreet, London. June 27, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at the chambers of M. R., is the time appointed for adjudicating upon such claims. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BROWN (William), Brixton-rise, Brixton-hill, Surrey, gentleman. June 7; Lewis and Watson, solicitors, 27, Pudding lane, London. June 17; M. R., at eleven o'clock in the forenoon. COOKE (Frederick), Boston, Lincolnshire, solicitor. June 13; O. T. Alger, solicitor, 37, Bedford-row, London. June 20; V.C. S., at noon. DAVIS (Samuel), 7, Clement's-inn, Strand, Middlesex, gentleman. June 14; J. C. Dalton, solicitor, 3, George-yard, Lombard-street, London. June 24; M. R., at eleven o'clock in the forenoon. June 27; T. Jones, solicitor, Llandovery, Carmarthenshire. July 3; V.C. S., at noon. LANCASTER (John), Salford. June 17; E. B. Tate, solicitor, 16, Princes-street, Manchester. July 1; M. R., at noon. LAWTON (Maria S.), Royal Avenue-terrace, Chelsea, Middlesex. June 29; G. T. Gastrell, solicitor, 36, Lincoln's-innO'HARE (John), Northampton, draper. fields, London. July 6; V.C.S., at noon, June 18; J. Whitehouse, solicitor, 48, Lincoln's-in-fields, London. June 27; V.C. M., at noon. THISTLETHWAITE (Richard), Caperby, Aisgarth, Yorkshire, "It appears by the return already quoted, and by a further return printed by order of your honourable House on the 10th April 1867, that the duties of the registrars have almost invariably been performed by JONES (Wm.), Dyffryn, Bettws, Carmarthenshire, auctioneer. deputy, that the salary of such deputy is 4007. per annum, and that in 1866 the amount of fees received at the office was 12,5647. 48., while the penses were only 30897. 15s. 3d., leaving a balance of 94741. 8s. 9d., of which one-fourth was taken by the Queen's Remembrancer, and paid into the Treasury, in pursuance of the Act 22 & 23 Vict. c. 21, s. 7, and the remaining three-fourths were divided between the three sinecurist registrars, the net amount received by each being 23687. 12s. 2d. It is just, however, to add, that out of this amount each registrar has had to contribute a sum of 2001. towards the expenses of a new registry office. "The labour of searching the index accessible for the statutory fee of 1s. has become so great, that for some years past a lexicographical index has been compiled by or under the direction of the registrars; but for each search in such last-mentioned index a fee of 2s. 6d. instead of 1s. is demanded and paid. "With reference to this fee of 2s. 6d. for searching the lexicographical index, the additional expense attending the compilation of such index can hardly be pleaded as a justification for increasing the statutory fee of 1s. to 2s. 6d. in the face of the large surplus annually derived from the other fees taken in the office. In several other public offices (those of the Probate Court and the Common Pleas Registry of Judgments, for instance) the use of a lexicographical, or mainly lexicographical, index is now afforded without any additional charge being made in respect of searches therein. July 5; V.C. S., at noon gentleman. June 29; G. A. Nesfield, solicitor, Scarborough. WATTS (George Edward), Admiral, C. B., Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. June 18; Ilore and Sons, solicitors. 52. Lincoln s-inn-fields, London. June 28; V.C. S., at one o'clock in the afternoon. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. C. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent. ATTRILL (Thomas), India-arms Inn, Gosport, innkeeper. June 8; R. R. Wilkinson, solicitor, 5, Clarence-square, Gosport. BRACH (Thos.), 19, Amherst-road, East Hackney, Middlesex, cork merchant. July 17; Fielder and Sumner, solicitors, 14, Godliman-street, Doctor's-commons, London. BOLTON (Frances), 50, Finch-street, Liverpool, spinster. May 31; J P. Harris, solicitor, 20, Cable-street, Liverpool. inn, London. BIRCH (G. A. W.), Yarmouth, Esq., a lieutenant in H. M.'s navy. July 1; Birch and Ingram, solicitors, 68, Lincoln'sinn fields, London. BURTON (Alice), 9, Martlett's-court, Bow-street, London, widow. July 10; W. Hammond, solicitor, 8, Furnival's BYAN (Rev. R. B.), Petersham, Surrey, July 6; Hicks and Sons, solicitors, 5, Gray's-iun-square, London. CHANCE (Edward), 2, Coleman-street-buildings, and 47}, Moorgate-street, London, merchant. June 30; Needham, Power, and Needham, solicitors, 1, New-inn. London. DEROUBAIX (A. T), 1. Napier-terrace, Dalston, Middlesex, Esq. June 24; Pearce, Phillips, and Pearce, solicitors, 66, Gresham-house, Old Broad-street, London. GALSWORTHY (Silas), 52, George-street, Portman-square, gentleman. June 1; F. H. Jeanneret, 5, Danes'-inn, Strand, London. GALLIMORE (Isaac), Hermitage Farm, Cranage, Cheshire, farmer. June 7; Hall and Janison, solicitors, 6, Essexstreet, Manchester. GREEN (Edward). Ludham, Norfolk, farmer. June 15; Fosters, Burroughes, and Robberds, solicitors, Norwich. HART (John), Torquay, Devon, and 65, Norfolk-terrace, Westbourne-grove, Bayswater. Esq. July 10; T. F. Jennings, solicitor, Uxbridge, Middlesex. HILL (George), Walcot-hall, Diss, Norfolk, farmer and horse dealer. July 1; Muskett and Garrod, solicitors, Diss. HORSFALL (John), Leeds, merchant. July 1; Blackburn and Sons, solicitors, 63, Albion-street, Leeds. HUMPHRY (Geo. E.), 11, Portland-street, Southampton, dentist. July 1; Green and Moberly, solicitors, South ampton. HUNTER (Anthony), The Earl Cathcart, Munster-street, LECKIE (J. H.), 3, Courtland-place, Kensington, Middlesex, Esq. July 10; Harris and Mee, solicitors, Bishopsgatechurchyard, London. MACKINTOSH (A. F.), Leamington, Warwickshire, Esq. NISBET (Caroline), 3, Park-street, Bath. June 24; H. C. OXENHAM (Caroline N.), 25, Newland-street, Kensington, PEARSON (Robert), Boston Spa, Yorkshire, tailor and draper. SCHILLING (Hy.), 12, Richmond-terrace, Brighton, gentleman. July 31: Stevens and Haselwood, solicitors, 8, Glocesterplace, Brighton. SMITH (D. S.), Heath-lodge, Hanwell, Middlesex, Esq. July 1; Deane and Chubb, solicitors, 14, South-square, Gray'sinn, London. STONE (T. A.), Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square, London, surgeon. June 19; Hull, Stone, and Fletcher, solicitors, 6, Cook-street, Liverpool. TAYLOR (Henry), Blackpool, Lancashire, gentleman. June 20; E. Brierley, solicitor, Blackpool. TYMAN (Thos.), Highams Farm, Goudhurst, Kent, fariner. VISGER (Harman), Bristol and Frenchay, Gloucestershire, UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each, in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] COWPER (Mary), Suffolk-street, Pall-mall, spinster. 1377. 38. 8d Three per Cent. Consols. Claimant, said M. Cowper. MISS FRAY.-Lord Zetland's terror-that most litigious of lady's maids, the irrepressible Miss Fray -was again in the Court of Common Pleas on Thursday week. On this occasion the defendant was a Mrs. Owens, the widow of a solicitor deceased twenty years ago, whom Miss Fray suspected of retaining certain valuable title-deeds in which she had an interest. But as Miss Fray could not show what the deeds were, or that Mrs. Owens had ever had them in her possession, or that any deeds of the kind had ever existed, the jury, under the direction of Lord Chief Justice Bovill, found a verdict for the defendant. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. THE SUMMER CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.- The judges of the common law courts will assemble on the 6th proximo to choose their summer circuits and, according to "time immemorial," the chiefs will have the first choice. LORD BROUGHAM.-The Carlisle Journal says:"During the last two or three weeks there have been various accounts published regarding the health of Lord Brougham, some of which have been written in such a discouraging and desponding tone as to create much anxiety and alarm amongst his lordship's family connections and friends. We are glad, however, to be able to state, on the best authority, that his lordship's health had so much improved up to the commencement of the present week that there was every probability of his returning again to his seat, Brougham Hall, Westmoreland, before many days. Should his lordship's health continue to improve, as it is to be hoped it may, it is his intention to leave Cannes with Mr. William Brougham and family for Paris on the 19th inst., en route for England." NEW JUDGES.-In the midst of the storm about the compound householder a Bill has passed through |