"Boycott Baughman Brothers every day in the week." "Boycott Baughınan Brothers because they are enemies of honest labour." "Boycott Baughman Brothers' customers wherever you meet them." "The Lynchburg boys will begin to play their hand on Messrs. Baughman's boycotted goods in a short time. The battle will not be fought in Richmond only, but in all Virginia and North Carolina will be raised the cry, Away with the goods of this tyrannical firm.'" "Let our friends remember it is the patronage of the Chesapeake and Ohio, Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac, Richmond and Danville, and Richmond and Alleghenny railroads that is keeping Baughman Brothers up." "We are sorry to see the Exchange Hotel on the black-list. There will be two thousand strangers in this city in October, none of whom will patronise a hotel or boarding house whose name appears on that list." "The boycott on Baughman Brothers is working so good that a man cannot buy a single bristol-board from the 'rat' firm without having his name put upon the black-list." "The old 'rat' establishment is about to cave in. Let it fall with a crash that will be a warning to all enemies of labour in the future."

It was proved that the conspirators declared their set purpose and persistent effort to crush Baughman Brothers; that the minions of the Boycott committee dogged the firm in all their transactions; followed their delivery-wagon; secured the names of their patrons, and used every means short of actual physical force to compel them to cease dealing with Baughman Brothers, thereby causing them to lose from 150 to 200 customers and $10,000 of net profit. The acts alleged and proved in this case are unlawful, and incompatible with the prosperity, peace, and civilisation of the country; and if they can be perpetrated with impunity by combinations of irresponsible cabals or cliques, there will be the end of government and of society itself. Freedom, individual and associated, is the boon and the boasted policy and peculium of our country; but it is liberty regulated by law; and the motto of the law is "Sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lædas."

The plaintiff in error was properly convicted, and the judgment of the Hustings Court complained of is affirmed.Albany Law Journal.

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT АСТ, 1888.

51 & 52 VICT., cap. 21.

An Act to amend the Law of Distress for Rent.

1. Short title.-This Act may be cited as the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888.

2. Extent. This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland. 3. Commencement.-This Act, except as in this Act otherwise provided, shall come into operation from and immediately after the thirty-first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight.

4. Certain goods exempted from distress as under.-From and after the passing of this Act the following goods and chattels shall be exempt from distress for rent; namely, any goods or chattels of the tenant or his family which would be protected from seizure in execution under section ninety-six of the County Courts Act, 1846 [9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, s. 96], or any enactment amending or substituted for the same.

Provided that this enactment shall not extend to any case where the lease, term, or interest of the tenant has expired, and where possession of the premises in respect of which the rent is claimed has been demanded and where the distress is made not earlier than seven days after such demand.

5. Repeal of 2 W. & M., c. 5, s. 1, except where appraisement is required in writing.-So much of an Act passed in the second year of the reign of their Majesties King William the Third and Mary, chapter 5, as requires appraisement before sale of goods distrained is hereby repealed, except in cases where the tenant or owner of the goods and chattels by writing requires such appraisement to be made, and the landlord or other person levying a distress may, except as aforesaid, sell the goods and chattels distrained without causing them to be previously appraised; and for the purposes of sale the goods and chattels distrained shall, at the request in writing of the tenant or owner of such goods and chattels, be removed to a public auction room or to some other fit and proper place specified in such request, and be there sold. The costs and expenses of appraisement when required by the tenant or owner shall be borne and paid by him; and the costs and expenses attending any such removal, and any damage to the goods and chattels arising therefrom, shall be borne and paid by the person requesting the removal.

6. Extension of time to replevy at request of tenant.-The period of five days provided in the said Act of William and Mary, chapter 5, within which the tenant or owner of goods and chattels distrained may replevy the same, shall be extended to a period of not more than fifteen days, if the

tenant or such owner make a request in writing in that behal to the landlord or other person levying the distress, and also give security for any additional cost that may be occasioned by such extension of time: Provided that the landlord or person levying the distress may, at the written request, or with the written consent, of the tenant or such owner as aforesaid, sell the goods and chattels distrained, or part of them, at any time before the expiration of such extended period as aforesaid.

7. Distress to be levied by certified bailiffs.-From and after the commencement of this Act no person shall act as a bailiff to levy any distress for rent unless he shall be authorised to act as a bailiff by a certificate in writing under the hand of a County Court judge; and such certificate may be general or apply to a particular distress or distresses, and may be granted at any time after the passing of this Act in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act. If any person holding a certificate shall be proved to the satisfaction of the judge of a County Court to have been gulty of any extortion or other misconduct in the execution of his duty as a bailiff, he shall be liable to have his certificate summarily cancelled by the said judge.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt such bailiff from any other penalty or proceeding to which he may be liable in respect of such extortion or misconduct.

A County Court registrar may exercise the power of granting certificates hereby conferred upon a County Court judge in cases in which he may be authorised to do so by rules made under this Act.

If any person not holding a certificate under this section shall levy a distress contrary to the provisions of this Act, the person so levying, and any person who nas authorised him so to levy, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.

8. Power to make rules.-After the passing of this Act the Lord Chancellor may from time to time make, alter, and revoke rules

(1.) For regulating the security (if any) to be required from bailiffs;

(2.) For regulating the fees, charges and expenses in and incidental to distresses; and

(3.) For carrying into effect the objects of this Act.

9. Repeal.-Sections forty-nine, fifty, fifty-one and fifty-two of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883 [46 & 47 Vict., c. 61], are hereby repealed from and after the commencement of this Act, but this repeal shall not affect anything done or suffered before the commencement of this Act under these sections.

THE TEMPLE NEWSPAPER LAW

REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL.

MCGOUGH V. LANCASTER BURIAL BOARD.- Burial Board. -Statutory Powers.-Sale of exclusive right of burial and of erecting Tombstone.-Glass shade and wire covering enclosing wreath of flowers.-Removal as Unsightly and Dangerous.Usual and reasonable Ornament.-Rights of grantee limited by Grant.-Defendants had provided a burial ground, and, in pursuance of the powers conferred on them by 15 and 16 Vict., c. 85, and 16 and 17 Vict., c. 134, sold and granted to the plaintiff, the exclusive right of burial in perpetuity in their cemetery, the right of constructing a tomb or burial place, and of erecting any gravestone or monument. Plaintiff afterwards placed on the grave a wreath of artificial flowers enclosed in a glass case protected by a covering of galvanized iron wire. The defendants removed this wreath, glass and wire, without notice to plaintiff, on the ground that it was unsightly and against their rules (founded on supposed danger to workmen) to allow such glass shades to be placed on graves. The Lancaster County Court Judge gave judgment for plaintiff, holding the ornament to be usual and reason. able. A Divisional Court (Wills and Grantham, JJ.) reversed his decision. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ.) affirming the judgment of the Divisional Court: That the plaintiff could only obtain what the defendants had the right by statute to sell, and had sold, and that his rights did not include that of placing the shade and covering on the grave, and that Section 38 of 15 and 16 Vict., c. 85, gave the defendants a right to remove them. Ashby v. Harris, L.R. 3, C.P., 523, distinguished.

In Re MARKS. Ex parte JONES.-Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) Act, 1887 (50 and 51 Vict., c. €6, s. 2, subs. 3, 4).—Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict., c. 71, s. 54).—Application of later Act to proceedings under Act of 1869.-Discharge conditional on entry of Judgment for balance of unsatisfied provable Debts.Adjudication had been made in 1883 under Bankruptcy Act, 1869. The bankrupt applied for his discharge under Section 2 of The Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) Act, 1887, and

registrar, under subsec. 3 of that section, granted the discharge on condition of his consenting to entry of judgment against him by trustee for balance of unsatisfied debts provable in bankruptcy. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley and Bowen, L.JJ.): That the registrar was right, for that the provisions of Section 2 of the Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) Act 1887, were not inconsistent with Section 54 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

In Re BULLEN. Ex parte ARNAUD.-Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 and 47 Vict., c. 52, s. 28, subsec. 6).—Right of Debtor having but one Creditor to Petition for Adjudication.-Other Secured Creditors. -Suspension of Discharge.-Adding Condition of entry-up of Judgment. The debtor had himself presented the Bankruptcy petition. He had two fully secured creditors and a third, A., partly secured. A.'s debt after allowing for value of his security amounted to £443. The only other debts were £3 due to water company and £12 10s. for quarter's rent, both payable in priority. The assets, independently of property comprised in the securities and exhausted by them, were not worth more than £57 10s. The official receiver reported bankrupt had not kept proper books, and had traded after knowledge of his insolvency, and a registrar had on this account suspended the order of discharge for three months. A. opposed the granting of the order of discharge, on the ground that the bankrupt could not in the circumstances have presented the petition for the benefit of creditors in general, but to defeat an execution levied by himself, and contended that any discharge granted should only be conditional on the bankrupt consenting to entry of judgment against him at suit of trustee for balance of A.'s debt. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley and Bowen, L.JJ.): That in the circumstances and there being no evidence that the bankrupt would have any property except by means of his earnings, no such condition ought to be annexed to the discharge; and that the question whether a debtor having but one creditor could petition for adjudication and obtain his discharge did not arise, there being secured creditors as well as A.

In Re EMERY. Ex parte OFFICIAL RECEIVER.-Bills of Sale Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict., c. 36).-Re-registration of Bill of Sale.Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 31, ss. 11,14, and 23).— Invalidity for want of. Subsequent Registration by Judge's Order. -This was an appeal from a decision in Bankruptcy. The bankrupt executed a bill of sale in October, 1857, which was duly registered under the Bills of Sale Act, 1854. It was not registered on the passing of the Bills of Sales Act, 1878, but on April 30, 1881, Huddleston, B., made an order purporting to be pursuant to Section 14 of the last-mentioned Act for re-registration, which was then effected. The furniture comprised in the bill of sale was, at the commencement of the bankruptcy, in the apparent possession of the bankrupt. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Lindley and Bowen, L.JJ.), affirming Cave, J. That the bill of sale, having become invalid for want of registration, had not been revalidated by the re-registration subsequently effected, and the furniture in question passed to the trustee; for that Section 14 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, applied only to bills of sale falling within Section II, and that the bill of sale in question was not, and therefore was not saved by Section 23 of that Act.

CHANCERY DIVISION.

In Re LAMBERT'S TRADE MARK.-Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883 (46 and 47 Vict., c. 57, s. 81).-Ministerial Duty.-Right of Appeal.-Person Aggrieved.-Evidence of Deception.-Similarity calculated to Deceive.-Trade Mark Rules, 1883-Application by W., registered owner of trade mark, consisting of design of a pipe, for goods in Class 12 ("Cutlery and Edge-tools "), Sched. 3, of Trade Mark Rules, 1883. W.'s trade mark is an old Sheffield mark, assigned many years ago by the Cutlers' Co. L. is registered owner of a trade mark-a pipe and dart-in respect of goods in Class 6 ("Machinery") and Classes 12 and 13 ("Metal Goods not within other Classes"). This mark was also an old Sheffield one, which had passed, after several assignments, to L. Both marks had been originally granted nearly 200 years since-W.'s in 1694, L.'s in 1698. L. had been registered by the Cutlers' Co. on the Sheffield Register, and subsequently on the London Register. W., who had given notice of opposing registration, appealed to the Comptroller, under Section 81, subsect. 12, of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, and now moved, by way of appeal, to set aside the Comptroller's decision that he had no juris diction to interfere with the Cutlers' Company, who had refused to consider the opposition of W.-and refer the case back for hearing by the Cutlers' Co.; and, in the alternative, that the entries in the London and Sheffield registers might be expunged. Held (by North, J.): That the action of the Cutlers' Co. under Section 81, subsect. 2, of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, was ministerial only; that W. had no right to oppose, and that no appeal would lie; also, that even if that were not so, there was no such similarity as was likely to deceive and no evidence of deception, and that W. was therefore not a person aggrieved within subsection 12.

Re NORWICH TOWN CLOSE ESTATE.-Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853-1869.-Summons to Administer Trust under.-Existence of Charitable Trust Disputed.-Scope of the Acts.-Necessity that Charitable Trust shall be Established before Proceedings under Act to Administer.-In an action brought by S. and others on behalf of themselves and all other the freemen of Norwich against Norwich Corporation and the Attorney-General, claiming (inter alia) a declaration that the corporation was seized of a certain estate in Norwich in trust for the freemen of that city. Kekewich, J. decided the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration sought, but declined to direct a scheme to be settled, though counsel for the Attorney-General, contending there was a charitable trust, had asked that might be done. This judgment, however, was "without prejudice to any other proceedings that might be taken by the defendant, H.M.'s Attorney-General, in that behalf." The Attorney. General then issued a summons intituled, "In the matter of the Norwich Town Close Estate Charity and in the matter of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853-1869." The plaintiffs in the action contented the trust was not a charity. Held (by Kekewich, J.): That the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853-1869, were directed to the administration of trusts found to be charitable, and that until the Attorney-General had established by independent proceedings the existence of a charity no summons could issue thereunder for the settlement of a scheme for its regulation and management.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

REG. v. JUSTICES OF DEVONSHIRE.-Summons for unlawfully taking Rabbits on Common.-Claim of Right.-Inability of Justices to Agree.-Application for another Summons for Same Offence.-Refusal of Justices to grant.-Mandamus.—Appli. cation for mandamus to justices to issue a summons on an information for unlawfully taking rabbits on T. Common. The prosecutor was the Lord of the Manor of T. The defendants asserted a right to kill rabbits on T. Common, and this assertion was in accordance with the general belief of the inhabitants of T. On a former summons it appeared the defendants had asserted a right as inhabitants, and the Court, holding there could be no such right, sent the case back to the justices, who were equally divided in opinion. On the hearing in the present case, the defendants set up a right to kill rabbits on T. common, on the ground that, (1) the locus in quo was part of the ancient demesnes of the Crown, and that the user was evidence of a Royal Charter conferring the right on the corporation of T. in trust for the inhabitants, (2) that Devonshire (within which T. Common was situate) was a royal forest, and that a certain charter granted by King John before his accession to the throne applied to T. Common. The justices could not come to a decision, and the prosecutor thereupon applied for another summons on the same information; this not being granted, the present application was made. Held (by Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., and Manisty, J.): That the application should be dismissed, but without costs, for a mandamus ought not to issue to compel justices to come to a decision when they had been unable to do so after several hearings: the proper course, in case of inability to agree, for justices to take is to dismiss the

summons.

HONOURS AND APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. JAMES MILWARD, solicitor, of Pershore, has been ap pointed Clerk to the Pershore Board of Guardians, Assessment Committee, School Attendance Committee, and Rural Sanitary Authority, and Superintendent Registrar for the Pershore District.

Mr. JOHN BOOTH LAZENBY, solicitor, of Newcastle-uponTyne, has been appointed Conservative Registration Agent for the borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Mr. Lazenby was admitted in 1884.

Her Majesty has been pleased to confer the honour of Knighthood on Mr. PETER HENRY EDLIN, Q.C., assistantjudge of the Middlesex Sessions. He is the third son of Mr. Edward Colsill Edlin, of Mortlake, Surrey; was called at the Middle Temple in Trinity Term, 1847; and subsequently joined the Western Circuit. He took silk in 1869. He was appointed Recorder of Bridgewater in 1872, and assistantjudge of the Middlesex Sessions in 1874. Sir Peter is chairman of the Metropolis Assessment Sessions, and a bencher of the Middle Temple, of which Inn he acted as Deputy Treasurer during the treasurership of master H.R.H. the Prince of Wales.

Mr. WILLIAM Sealey Fisher, solicitor, of Wirksworth, has been appointed Registrar of the Wirksworth County Court, in succession to the late Mr. Joseph Francis Kingdon. Fisher was admitted in 1877.

Mr.

Mr. WILLIAM HARPER, solicitor, of Bury, has been appointed a Magistrate for that borough. Mr. Harper was admitted in 1836.

CAPEL COURT.

SEVERAL new investments have been regisNew tered during the past few days, which should Companies. have considerable attractions for those seeking sound industrial outlets for surplus capital, not the least amongst them being Dan Rylands Limited. This company is started for the purpose of acquiring the lands, works, wharves, plant, stock-in-trade, patent rights, and goodwill of the business now carried on by Dan Rylands at Stairfoot and other places, of a bottle, box, wire-twisting and mineral-water machinery manufacturer. The present firm is one well-known in the mineral-water trade, having already an extensive business in all parts of the world, and Mr. Rylands has been an extensive exhibitor of machinery at most of our exhibitions. As the inventor of various improvements in bottling apparatus, gas storage, &c., he has for some years successfully and satisfactorily catered for the requirements of aerated-water makers. It is proposed to raise £130,000 in 14,000 preference shares of £5 each, and 12,000 ordinary shares of £5. The first directors are to be Thomas Dymond, J.P., W. T. Howroyd, J. McEwen, and Dan Rylands, the last-named gentleman holding a considerable amount in the company, and continuing in the management. When the full prospectus of Dan Rylands Limited is before the public, the required capital will doubtless be speedily subscribed. The Cartez Mines Limited, of £300,000 in £1 shares, is promoted for the purpose of purchasing and working certain properties in Eureka, County Nevada, known as the Cortez Mines. The business will be taken over as a going concern with Mr. Simeon Wentan as managing director, to whom it is proposed to pay the sum of £2,400 per annum for his services in that capacity, he holding upwards of 100,000 shares in the company. The Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Company Limited is started for the purpose of carrying on the business now known as the Gloucester Wagon Company, at Gloucester and elsewhere. The capital is £350,000, in shares of £7 each with power to increase the capital. The old company, for the purpose of re-construction, goes in liquidation, with Henry Turner Simpson as the official liquidator. The Sheffield Telephone Exchange and Electric Light Company, with a capital of £60,000 in £10 shares, propose purchasing and carrying on business for some years past carried on by Mr. John Tasker in Sheffield, and known as the Sheffield Telephone Exchange. In this case there already exists the nucleus of an extensive trade, and with the increasing demand for electric light in this busy and advancing town, should, under skilled and careful management, prove at least a local success. proviso is attached to the articles of association, that each director of the company must hold not less than 20 shares in the capital of the company.

The Stock

the

A

Since last week, the run upon British Railway Stock-North British, in particular-has Market. continued. Respecting the company mentioned, there seems no limit to the anxiety of all classes of operators to bull the stock; and yesterday's closing prices marked as high as 124, being a rise of 3 on the day. For a railway stock, this is a most important advance; but I much question whether it will remain at this inflated figure. Caledonians sympathised with North British and rose i at one part of the day, though a portion of this advance was lost at the end of the day. Southern lines ruled stronger than last week's quotations, and, with the fine weather continuing, I quite expect to see my remarks of the last few weeks completely realised. Already, Brightons and Chathams are much higher than when I suggested their purchase, and, though not benefited to the same extent, SouthWesterns show increased and increasing firmness.

American Railways.

The past few days have been somewhat antagonistic to further advances in these securities, but I do not think the bear disposition just now prevailing is likely to last; but that, on the contrary, prices will be recovered, and still higher figures be quoted. Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul had a bad day of it yesterday, losing, at the end of the day, 13. Union Pacifics, Central Pacifics, Philadelphia and Readings, and Wabash, all suffered, though to a lesser extent. Lake

Canadian Railways.

Shores were steady, and in such demand that an advance of was scored. The fall since the closing of last account on Philadelphia and Readings has only been about, and I think by next account we shall find they have advanced sufficiently to recover this loss and also show a margin of profit, whilst Union and Northern Pacifics will both improve. Grand Trunks did not long hold their advance, and up to yesterday had continued slipping back until they had almost touched their old prices of 10-101. Yesterday, however, after a strong bear had been running nearly all day, they rallied, and were in some request at 11. Canadian Pacifics were barely quoted, and any attempt to deal was met in silence by holders. How long this will continue I will not venture to prognosticate, but I must repeat the advice I have for some weeks been offering, that Canadian Pacifics are worth buying at any figure under 60. As they closed yesterday at 58, there is a fair margin of profit open, if my anticipations turn out correct. I have noticed lately a very good firm buying big lumps when offered at a fraction under current rates, and, it is worth noting, these astute fos have not yet attempted to unload. As they are a very good barometer in this market, I feel certain, in my own mind, the turn of Canadian Pacifics is not far away.

After a lot of beating about, it is evident The Mexican that extensive buying is going on by "the Railway. old firm" of Mexican Rails; it is only fair therefore to anticipate another rise in both Ordinary and Preference, the first-named look at present rates the best line for a dabble.

In this market gold shares have been all The Mining Market. the rage lately, especially Indian investments. Nundydroogs have gradually crept up until they cannot now be bought under 35s. When I first recommended these shares they could have been got in big lumps at 20s, and this only three months ago. Mysore Gold are very steady, and there are plenty of buyers at anything under 3. Nine Reefs remain out of favour, and at 135. are well worth holding, as, though the reports from the mine at the present moment are not satisfactory, still the property is so extensive and the veins in various parts of the mine so changeable, that the next report may be as favourable as the last one was unfavourable. Several of the Transvaal companies are beginning to look up, amongst them Moodies, which now cannot be bought under 13, with every appearance of going stronger; the latest report from the company shows that there are 725 claims rented or leased, of which claims 5 are already producing returns, and from 796 tons of ore crushed by claim holders, 573 oz. of gold has been recovered. The company during the month of August have crushed 92 tons from their own reserve, which has yielded 57 oz. These figures are not very extensive; but it must be remembered that gold seeking on the vast Moodies estates is as yet only in its infancy, whilst the fact that as many as 725 claims are taken up shows how extremely sanguine miners in this part of the globe are of ultimate success. Copper remains firm, and, though not so extensively dealt in during the past few days, the bears have been so terribly worsted that it is scarcely likely they will return to the fight for some time to come.

MERCATOR.

WILLIAM HENRY BUMPUS, STOCKBROKER AND MINING SHARE DEALER, 44, THREADNEEDLE STREET, LONDON, E.C. (Established 20 years at this address), transacts business in Mining Shares of every description. English and Foreign Stocks, Colonial Government Bonds, Railways, Banks, Financial and Miscellaneous Shares, and all Securities dealt in on the London Stock Exchange. Mr. Bumpus devotes Special Attention to Legitimate Mines, and is in a position to afford reliable information and advice to intending investors and others in the selection of Shares either for Investment or Speculation.

The present is a most favourable opportunity for investing in Sound Mining Securities, a judicious purchase of which at the low prices now ruling will, in all probability, result in large profits within the next few months. Cornish Tin Mines-Special Business. Indian Gold Mines, South African Gold and Diamond Mines, Queensland and New Zealand Gold Mines, American Gold Mines, Copper Mines, Lead Mines. Mr. Bumpus has large transactions in the above, and can execute orders at close market prices. Send for Investment List (free on application). All Business receives Personal Attention. W. H. BUMPUS, 44, Threadneedle Street, London, E.C. (Established 1867). Telegraphic Address :—" Singular, London." [Advt.

PUMP COURT.

The Temple Newspaper and Review.

CURRENTE CALAMO.

De Lege; de Omnibus Rebus et Quibusdam Aliis.

THE report of the Board of Trade on the operations under the Bankruptcy Act induced us last week to give a few interesting statistical items. The following additional items may be useful. Amongst publicans and hotel-keepers there were 342 failures in 1887, against 331 in 1886; builders 289, against 255; brick and tile makers 14, against 14; butchers 101, against 81; bakers 128, against 104; Agriculturists 295, against 332.

THE accountant profession, so closely allied to the profession of the law, has lost one of its greatest ornaments in the person of the late Mr. John Young, whose death at Carlsbad, on the 17th inst., we have to record with regret. The deceased gentleman, who was a member of the eminent firm of Turquand, Youngs and Co., has for many years enjoyed the confidence of the highest financial circles, and his loss will be greatly felt. It is not too much to say that he was beloved by all who knew him, and a more genial and kind-hearted gentleman it would be impossible to find. R.I.P.

THE Earl of Durham, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Durham, has nominated to the Commission of the Peace for the county Mr. Thomas Appleby, shipowner, of Greatham and West Hartlepool, and Mr. Thomas Richardson, jun. (Mayor of Hartlepool), engineer, Hartlepool. Mr. Richardson is already a justice of the peace for the borough of Hartlepool.

WITH reference to the Solicitors' (Ireland) Bill, the Committee stage of which will probably be taken up on the reassembling of Parliament, it is announced that Mr. D. A. Quaid and Mr. William Walker, Secretary to the Law Clerks' Association of the City and County of Londonderry, had an interview with the Irish Solicitor-General, when he promised to carefully consider the proposed amendments on behalf of the law clerks. Last week Messrs. Quaid and Walker waited on the Lord Mayor, M.P., who promised his cordial support to the amendments. They have had assurances of support from various other members of Parliament.

No. 102.

A CORRESPONDENT of the Manchester Guardian writes :"From time to time one hears a good deal of large retainers to eminent counsel to go abroad, such as Serjeant Ballantine's £10,000 to defend the Gaikwar of Baroda, and the preliminary fees of the counsel for the Nizam and Abdul Huk before the recent House of Commons Committee. I hear of a case in which a member of the Sierra Leone bar, who is a native of West Africa, is receiving £3,000 to appear before the Privy Council in a case coming from the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone."

AT the commencement of the Michaelmas sittings, the following Queen's Bench Divisional Courts will sit. The first Court, sitting in Queen's Bench Court I., will take on Mondays and Tuesdays ex parte motions on the civil side and opposed motions on the civil side; and on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays they will take the new trial paper. The second Court, sitting in the Lord Chief Justice of England's Court, will take on Mondays and Tuesdays ex parte motions on the Crown side and the Crown paper; on Wednesdays and Thursdays they will take ex parte motions on the civil side and opposed motions on the civil side. They will also sit on Fridays and Saturdays to take ex parte motions on the Crown side and the Crown and Revenue papers. The third Court, sitting in Queen's Bench Court VI., will take on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the special paper. They will also sit again on Fridays and Saturdays in every week, taking on those days ex parte motions on the civil side and opposed motions on the civil side. A fourth Court will sit in Queen's Bench Court VII, on every day in the week to take the business connected with the Crown paper. There will also sit at nisi prius for the first two weeks of the sittings, one Court for the trial of London special jury actions, two Courts for the trial of Middlesex special jury actions, two Courts for the trial of London and Middlesex common jury actions, and one Court for the trial of actions without juries.

THE acting vacation judge, Butt, J., had an interesting motion before him last week. Mr. Ferdinand Strousberg applied ex parte through his counsel for an injunction against the eminent firm of Linklaters, solicitors, and others (1) to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Linklaters, from allowing to remain issued with or in the hands of the Sheriff of Middlesex a writ of delivery dated the 8th of September, 1888, and intitutled in the matter of the Dundee Suburban Railway Co., and cancellation of the said writ; (2) to restrain the defendants, Horatio David Davies and William Alpheus Higgs, or either of them, from executing or putting in force the said writ of delivery, and from in any way taking possession or interfering with the land and chattels in the said writ of delivery referred to; (3) damages and costs. For the plaintiff it was said that the order had been made by a Scotch Court; there was no plaintiff or defendant in an English Court; the Rules of Court, 1883, ord. 48, rr. 1, 2, had not been complied with, nor was the writ of delivery in Form No. 10 of Appendix H. The Scotch order was enrolled in Chancery on the 23rd of August, 1888, but the defendants had not given the plaintiff the reference to the order: ord. 61, r. 19, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883. The plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction over next Wednesday, and it could not do any harm. The learned judge, in refusing the application, said that he assumed that the order to enforce which the writ of delivery was issued under order 48 of the Rules of

the Supreme Court, 1883, was properly made by some judge. He strongly objected to granting interim injunctions on the ground that they would do no harm. A great deal of harm might be done. He should only grant an interim injunction if it was clearly shown that the writ had been irregularly issued. The writ would not have been issued except to enforce an order under ord. 48, r. 1, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883; that order was not forthcoming. He was not satisfied, without seeing that order, that there had been any irregularity; he therefore refused the motion, but gave leave to serve notice of motion for next Wednesday.

IN the Edmonton County Court, Dr. Benjafield, of Church Street, Edmonton, sued Mr. Baker, a solicitor, of 17, The Avenue, Kew Gardens, for £12 in respect of medical attendance and medicine supplied to defendant's wife, and some of the children, between July 10 and September 2, 1887, the patients then residing in Edmonton. Defendant was married in 1864, and there were several children. The wife was the daughter of Sir Peter Pole, and, in 1873, the husband and wife separated, the disagreement being on religious grounds, the lady being a Roman Catholic. She afterwards lived at various places, and eventually became the occupant of Lamb's Cottage, where the services of the plaintiff were given. Plaintiff was aware that she was living apart from her husband, and was informed that he had only been to see his wife at Edmonton two or three times. She told the plaintiff that her husband was in arrears with his payments to her for her maintenance. Plaintiff did not know that she was living on her own income. She was debited in plaintiff's ledger because the address of the husband was not known, and plaintiff did not send in an account to Mrs. Baker, because she left the neighbourhood suddenly. Finding where the defendant resided, the plaintiff forwarded the bill to him.-The defence was that defendant's wife had no authority to pledge his credit. There was a marriage settlement, under which defendant paid £120 a year to his wife's trustees, and after the separation £3 a week in addition to his wife. Last year Sir Peter Pole died, and the defendant's wife came into possession of £230 a year, derived from £584 Reduced 3 per Cent. Consols, £4,834 New Consols, and £1,300 on mortgage at 5 per cent. When this income became available defendant ceased to pay the £3 per week, but continued the £120 a year to the trustees; and, before the death of her father, defendant said his wife regularly received £5 per month from her parent in addition to the £3 per week.-Defendant's counsel contended that the plaintiff must prove that the wife of defendant did not receive sufficient for her maintenance.-The judge ruled otherwise. It was, he said, thrown upon the defendant to show that there was an agreement under which his wife was to receive from him a specified sum, and that she was not to apply to him for more. There was no evidence to establish that; on the contrary, defendant had been sued for debts

which had been contracted by his wife after the separation and had consented to judgment. Besides, according to his own admission, he did not keep the payment of £3 per week up after a certain date, and, in the absence of the deed of settlement, there was only defendant's own word that his wife was receiving £230 a year, or anything. There would be a verdict for plaintiff (less 155. for medicine supplied to a son over age), with costs.

Mr. Charles J. D. Andrews, solicitor, was summoned by the South Metropolitan Gas Company for 13s. 7d. for gas supplied. Mr. Andrews said the claim was for gas sup plied at the Liberal Central Committee rooms at the last Deptford election. Under the 29th section of the Corrupt Practices Act, every account must be sent in within fourteen days of the day of election, and, as this was not done by the gas company, he was precluded from paying the bill, and he would be guilty of an offence under the Act if he did so. He was the agent for the Liberal candidate, and would be quite ready to pay the claim if he could do so in safety. Mr. Patmore, collector for the company, said the gas was cut off on March 14, and the claim sent in on the 15th. Mr. Andrews said the election took place on February 29. He wrote to the company explaining his difficulty, and stating that if the secretary could suggest any way out of the difficulty he should be happy to consider it. This letter was left unanswered. Mr. Fenwick said he would look into the whole matter, and adjourned the case for a week.

STOCK EXCHANGE QUOTATIONS.-SEPT. 21. Paid-445., Alliance Assurance, 8, 9; 1, British Law Fire, 1; 5, Commercial Union, 24, 25; 3, English and Scottish Law, 7, 8; 50, Guardian Fire and Life, 78, 80; 10, Imperial Life, 28, 30; 2, Lancashire, 6, 6; 1, Law Guarantee, 13; 12, London, 51, 53; 61, North British and Mercantile, 43, 44; 50, Phoenix, 250, 260; Sun Fire, 440, 450; 10, Sun Life, 107, 110.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 51 AND 52 VICT., c. 41, s. 85.

REGULATION OF BICYCLES, &c.

(1.) The provisions of section twenty-six, sub-section five of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, and section twenty-three, sub-section one, of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, in so far as it gives power to the council to make bye-laws regulating the use of carriages herein referred to, and all other provisions of any public or private Acts, in so far as they give power to any local authority to make bye-laws for regulating the use of bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines, are hereby repealed, and bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts; and the following additional regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon such carriage:

(a.) During the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, every person riding or being upon such carriage shall carry attached to the carriage a lamp, which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted, as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the carriage;

(b.) Upon overtaking any cart or carriage, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger, being on or proceeding along the carriage way, every such person shall within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart or carriage, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise, give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the carriage.

(2.) Any person summarily convicted of offending against the regulations made by this section, shall for each and every such offence, forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding forty shillings.