error in the appointment of a person acting, or who may have acted, as a director, or that such person was disqualified, shall not invalidate acts done by him either alone or jointly with other directors before such discovery. Per Lord Cairns. -That the error of the directors in being satisfied with the execution of the transfer by a person becoming a director instead of requiring the execution of a deed, was such an error as was contemplated by the above section, and that all the acts done by the directors before such discovery were consequently valid and binding on the company. The case having been decided after so much difference of opinion, and the parties having been to a great extent responsible for the irregularity and confusion that occurred, no order as to costs was made. (Murray v. Bush, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 217. H. of L.)

DEBENTURE PAYABLE TO BEARER-NEGOTIABILITY PROMISSORY NOTE.-A debenture of a limited company, registered under the Companies Act 1862, payable to bearer on a particular day in the year 1872, with interest in the meantime, but liable to be "drawn" and paid off before that time, was sold by the company to M. in May 1869, and stolen from him in July of the same year. Plaintiff, at the end of the year 1871, pur. chased from one S., who had since absconded, this debenture, which had been "drawn in Oct. 1871, and demanded payment thereof from the company; but the company, having received notice from M. of the debenture having been tiff, who brought an action against the company stolen from him, refused to pay it to the plain

"

to recover the amount of it. It was found at the trial that the plaintiff had become the holder of the debenture for value, and without notice, and that similar instruments had been treated as negotiable: Held, that the plaintiff could not recover. Even if the instrument had not been under seal it would not be a promissory note on account of its liability to be drawn and paid off before the t me mentioned; and the custom of treating such instruments as negotiable, being recent, could not alter the general rule of law: (Crouch v. The Credit Foncier of England (Limited), 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 259. Q.B.)

Company Voluntary winding up-Three petitions -Liquidators-Supervision order. IN August last Mr. Blake, a holder of twenty-five shares in this corporation, presented a petition for a compulsory winding-up order. Two other petitions-one by Mr. Cook and one by Mr. Clapham-by much larger shareholders, were filed about the same time praying for a supervision order. Summonses to appoint liquidators were adjourned in order to give the company time to hold meetings. Accordingly a very numerously. attended meeting was held, when it was resolved to wind-up voluntarily, and to appoint the secretary, Mr. Latchmore, and Mr. Ford liquidators. At a subsequent meeting these resolutions were confirmed. The petitions now coming on to be heard,

Roxburgh, Q.C. and F. C. J. Millar, in support of a compulsory winding up, contended that the appointment of liquidators was invalid, as having taken place at the first meeting, and asked that any order to be made should be made on Blake's petition as having been the first advertised, though not the first presented.

Waller, Streeten, Southgate, Q.C. (Graham Hastings with him), Fischer, Q.C. (Somers Lewis with him), Langworthy and Law for other parties.

Sir G. JESSEL made one order on the three petitions for continuing the winding-up under the supervision of the court, and gave the costs of the three petitions. The carriage of the order was given to Mr. Cook, though advertised after Mr. Blake's petition.

Solicitors: J. J. Darley; Mercer and Mercer.

Re WESTERN OF CANADA OIL, LANDS, AND WORKS COMPANY (LIMITED). Company--Adjournment of petitions to wind-up— No steps taken-Order made. THE two petitions in this matter now came on for hearing, having been adjourned by the Lord Chancellor on the 4th August last, as reported in our issue of the 9th August, with a view to giving the company an opportunity of inquiry or arrangeIt will be remembered that the petitions had been filed by debenture-holders in respect of interest due on their charges. It now appeared that nothing had in the mean time been done, except sending to Canada a person who has not yet made any final report. Bagshawe, Jackson, Q.C., and Locock Webb for the petitioners.

ment.

Hon. R. Butler supported the petitions.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

MISSING WILL-PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION-EVIDENCE-DECLARATION OF TESTATOR. -A will, which had remained in the custody of the testator since the time of its execution, was not forthcoming at his death. A draft was propounded, and evidence of declaration was admitted to show an intention to adhere to the will. On the other side evidence was offered to show that the testator did not intend to leave his property in the manner in which it was disposed of by his Held, that such declarations were admissible, not will, and that he had destroyed it by burning it. as evidence of destruction, but of intention not to adhere to the will: (Keen v. Keen and others, 9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 247. Prob.)

SETTLED ESTATES-INTERIM INVESTMENT OF PURCHASE-MONEYS.-The purchase-money of land sold under the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act is cash under the control of the court for the purposes of investment under the General Order made in pursuance of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38, s. 10. Re Thorold's Settled Estate (L. Rep. 14 Eq. 31), followed; Re Boyd's Settled Estates (L. Rep. W. N., 1873, p. 113; 55 Law Times, 100), dissented from: (Re Taddy's Devised Estates, 29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 243. V.C. M.)

PORTIONS-ADVANCEMENT-GIFT OF SHARE OF RESIDUE BY WILL SATISFACTION. A

grandfather's will contained a trust term for raising portions for his son's younger children, and provided that in case the son should at any time during his life advance or pay any sum of money to or for the use of any of his younger children, then, unless the contrary should be directed by him, any sum so advanced should be in full or part satisfaction of the portion to which the younger child would have been entitled under the grandfather's will: Held (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls), that a gift by the son's will of a share of residue to one of his younger children was not a payment or advancement within the meaning of the proviso: (Cooper v. Cooper, 29 L. T. Rep. N.S. 321. Ch.)

COUNTY COURTS.

BRADFORD COUNTY COURT.
Sept. 26 and 30.

(Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Q.C., Judge.) HARTLEY (Administratrix) v. ThoмPSON. Administration-Transactions with adminis

trators.

A transaction with a person entitled to adminis. tration not validated after administration unless for the benefit of intestate's estate. After a decree in Chancery for the administration of the intestate's estate, the administratrix is not at liberty to ratify, or refuse to allow an action to be brought in her name to defeat the transaction (see Williams on Exors. 391, and the authorities there referred to.) Phillips, instructed by Dawson and Greaves, Bradford, for plaintiff.

Robinson (Berry and Robinson), Bradford, for

defendant.

His HONOUR.-This was an action of detinue for the illegal detention by the defendant of certain stuff pieces, the damages being laid at £50. The plaintiff is the administratrix of Joseph Hartley, who died on the 13th Sept. 1872, intestate and insolvent. He was a stuff manufacturer in a small way of business, and employed weavers who wove his pieces at their own homes on commission. The defendant was one of such weavers, and at the intestate's death was creditor' for work done as a weaver, for £40, or thereabouts. Several of the other weavers in the village were creditors for work done as weavers, and had woven pieces in their possession which they claimed and were entitled to retain by way of lien as security for their debts. Shortly after the intestate's death, one Bently, who was

a

supplied, being unable to obtain payment of his debt from the plaintiff, sent round to some of the weavers who had pieces in their possession, paid them the debts for which they held the pieces as security, and they gave up the pieces to him, and these he endeavoured to sell or otherwise make available for his debt, to the prejudice of the defendant and other bonâ fide cr ditors of the inand the defendant, on the 2nd Oct. 1872, consulted testate. Under these circumstances the plaintiff Messrs. Dawson and Greaves, of Bradford, as to the proper course to be adopted to protect the estate for the benefit of the creditors, and the advice given was that the plaintiff should take out letters of administration with as little delay as possible, and that in the mean time money should be found by some friend to take the pieces out of the hands of the weavers on payment of the debts due to them, and thereby secure the surplus value of the pieces for the benefit of the estate, and the suggestion was made that the defendant should find the money for the purpose, but he did not then agree to do so. The solicitors then received instructions from the plaintiff and defendant to prepare the necessary documents for The deobtaining letters of administration. fendant agreed to be one of the sureties in the administration bond, and a Mr. Waterhouse was On the following day named as the other. (3rd Oct.) the plaintiff, defendant, and Waterhouse, called and executed the bond and other 27th Oct., some delay having occurred in remit necessary papers, and the grant of administration was afterwards duly obtained, but not until the ting the money required for payment of the stamp and official fees. On the 7th Oct. the defendant, of the weavers who held pieces, upon which they accompanied by the plaintiff, went round to several had liens, paid them the sums due to them, and took from them the pieces they then held. The sum paid by the defendant amounted to £15 25., and the pieces taken by the defendant are the pieces for the detention of which the action is brought. Early in November 1872, an administration summons was taken out in Chancery by a creditor for the administration of the intestate's estate. This summons was served on the plaintiff. She took it to her solicitors, Messrs. Dawson and Greaves, who appeared for her upon it; and on the 11th Nov. the common decree for the adminis

66

tration of the intestate's personal estate was made. The usual advertisements were afterwards issued for creditors, and under them the defendant made a claim as creditor for £61 10s. 6d. (which included the £15 2s. paid by him to the weavers), and this claim was duly allowed. The defendant having the pieces in his possession, Messrs. Dawson and Greaves, as solicitors of the plaintiff, by the direction of the chief clerk, applied to the defen dant to deliver the pieces to them for the purposes of the administration, offering to pay him the money he had advanced to pay off the weavers with interest and costs. The sum actually offered (and which Messrs. Dawson and Greaves were ready to pay defendant) was £18, which was more than sufficient for those purposes. The defendant refused to receive the money or to deliver the pieces. He insisted upon retaining them; his words were, He would not have the money; he would stick to what he had got." He was then asked whether he had the pieces in his possession. He said he had sold some, not saying how many or for how much, and the rest he had, and they were worth £40 and £50. This course of proceeding by the defendant having been communicated to the chief clerk, Messrs. Dawson and Greaves, as solicitors for the plaintiff, were directed to bring this action in the name of the plaintiff. After being served with the summons the defendant communicated with the plaintiff, and prevailed upon her to endeavour to stop this action by giving a notice to the registrar of this court that the action had been brought without her authority, and he procured an attorney at Leeds to draw up a notice to that effect, and which the plaintiff signed, and this notice has been put in evidence by the defendant, with some correspondence which afterwards passed between the attorney and Messrs. Dawson and Greaves upon the subject. If the plaintiff had adhered to the notice she was thus induced to sign, she would through her ignorance have been led into committing a contempt of the Court of Chancery, for which she would have been liable to be committed, and if not actually imprisoned, would have subjected herself to the payment of what to her would have been a large sum for costs. The facts as stated by me have been proved upon the evidence of the plaintiff and Mr. Greaves, and the plaintiff, as far as she could, showed her willingness to acknowledge a right in the defendant to retain the pieces to cover his own debt. And on behalf of the defendant it was urged that, as the defendant took possession of the pieces in question with the authority of the plaintiff, although that transaction took place before the grant of administration, yet as such grant was afterwards obtained, and before the

name.

withdrawing from the case, and it was not for his Honour to say whether he had thereby rendered himself liable for costs. The horse belonged to his client, and was at livery at the Royal Hotel in his It was not in Mr. Maule's possession, but Mr. Maule was authorised to sell it, and had an interest in it. That being so, he presumed that it was hardly necessary for Mr Marshall to see the fifteen witnesses, as no doubt he knew what his case was before he seized the horse. The horse was in another man's stables, and he submitted under all circumstances he was not entitled to costs. He further submitted that the examination of the witnesses was premature, especially seeing that he had not subpoenaed the witnesses out of the district.

Marshall submitted that it rested with an attorney to consult his own convenience in what order he saw his witnesses, especially in a case which might involve some annoyance to the witnesses themselves.

decree in the administration suit was made, the transaction which would have been good at law if it had been completed after the grant, would be validated by relation, and Williams on Executors, p. 391 (6th edit.), was relied on as an authority for that proposition; but on examination it will be seen that the cases there referred to are exceptional instances and do not support the defendant's contention. And in the same work the cases of Doe v. Glenn (1 Ad. & Ell. 49) and Morgan v. Thomas (8 Ex. 302) are cited, which show that the relation exists only in those cases in which the act done is for the benefit of the estate, or there be fraud; as where a man takes goods as executor de son tort, sells them, receives the purchasemoney, then takes out administration and brings an action to recover the very goods he has sold and been paid for. Here the estate was benefited only to the extent of the money paid by the defendant to redeem the pieces from the weaver's, and that money the defendant has been offered before action brought and he refused it, insisting upon retaining the pieces for his whole debt, thus doing the very wrong which he complained of when done by Bently, and thus making his detention a wrongful act as to the whole. There being evidence that the value of the pieces he now has is between £10 and £50, and the defendant not having given any evidence as to how many pieces he sold or what he received for them, I am justified as against the defendant as a wrongdoer in treating the value of the whole of the pieces detained by him as £50, and judgment will be entered against him for that sum, with costs. Although the defendant refused the offer to pay him his advances, he may still have a claim in equity to be repaid that sum, which claim he may bring forward in the administration, but over that I have no jurisdiction or control. If, however, the plaintiff is authorised and consents to make the deduction now, and the amount can be agreed upon, the judgment may be reduced accordingly, and the judgment may be still further reduced, if Liability of attorney for expenses of witness. the defendant will give up the pieces he now holds In this case the plaintiff is a road-maker, and the and their value can be agreed upon, such value being the amount of the further deduction, but defendant a solicitor. The action was brought to unless these matters are consented to, the judg-in which he alleged Mr. Chesshyre required his recover £2 2s., the plaintiff's expenses in a case ment will be entered for £50 and costs; and the defendant will take such further steps elsewhere as he may be advised. If the Judicature Act were now in operation I could give complete relief, but at present I have only the jurisdiction

of a Court of Common Law.

CHELTENHAM COUNTY COURT. Friday, Nov. 1.

(Before C. SUMMER, Esq., Judge.) MORSE v. SOLOMON.

His

Costs in interpleader-Application. F. Marshall applied for costs in this case. Honour would remember that a short time ago he committed a young gentleman named Maule for a term for non-payment of a judgment debt. It having come to Mr. Solomon's knowledge that Mr. Maule had an interest in a horse, the animal was seized instead of executing the warrant of commitment, but Mr. Morse subsequently claimed it as his, and under circumstances that led him (Marshall) to believe it was nothing less than a conspiracy between two or three who were concerned in it to make out the horse to be his property, and not Maule's. He had had a great deal of trouble in getting up the case, and had examined fifteen witnesses, several of whom he subpoenaed, and it was only within the last three days that Mr. Gabb, Mr. Morse's attorney, had sent him a note saying he disclaimed the horse. He therefore asked his Honour to order costs as in an ordinary

case.

Gabb, on behalf of Mr. Morse, submitted that it was not a case in which his Honour ought to order costs, the circumstances being somewhat peculiar.

The Registrar explained to his Honour the circumstances under which the action was brought. The horse was seized by Mr. Solomon, and Mr. Morse paid the amount into court, under protest, in order to recover possession of it, and then brought the present action, which he had since withdrawn from.

Marshall said the action was withdrawn last Tuesday, after all the work had been done.

Gabb then submitted whether his Honour had power to order costs. The money which Mr. Morse had paid to redeem the horse had been paid into court, and then they had withdrawn the case, and had given notice they had withdrawn it. It was a case in which Mr. Marshall's client ought to think himself very fortunate if he got the money at all, and if it had gone on, there was some doubt what the result would have been.

His HONOUR.-So Mr. Marshall says. Gabb, resuming, said at all events the matter was arranged, and there was no object in bringing it into court. There were, he submitted, no rules to enable his Honour to order costs as in an ordinary action. The plaintiff had the power of

His HONOUR had no doubt he had the power to allow costs in a case of interpleader, as well as other actions. He thought for this purpose the 174th rule made summonses in interpleader cases operate exactly as summonses in ordinary cases. He therefore thought that the notice of abandonment not having been given within five days, the execution creditor was entitled to costs. With regard to the point Mr. Gabb stated that it was necessary he should ascertain what witnesses were material, it would be very inconvenient for him to do so. He thought the much more convenient course was to leave it to the Registrar, and if either party was dissatisfied the matter might then come before him by way of appeal: and if it should be considered necessary, he should be glad to confirm the ruling of the Registrar. Costs to follow, as in ordinary cases.

attendance.

WILLIAMS v. CHESSHYRE.

Stroud, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that the case arose out of an interesting law. suit, in which his friend was concerned for Mr. J. B. Ferryman, who was summoned before the magistrates at the instance of the town commissioners, for not paying the demand made upon him for the making of certain roads in Nauntoncrescent. His friend carried the case to a suc cessful issue, and before the case came on at the police-court he employed the plaintiff. Ches shure: " Mr. Ferryman emploved him."] Well, Williams's case was that Mr. Chesshyre employed him, and that he told Mr. Chesshyre he had several men at work at Prestbury, but Mr. Chesshyre said, "You go along and see this road, and I will his friend took Williams to the locus in quo, and pay you what is fair and reasonable." Upon that there he made his investigation, and afterwards attended before the magistrates, and he (Stroud) believed that Williams was one of the chief means whereby his friend obtained his triumph at the police court. For that Williams had made his charge of two guineas, and his Honour would say whether it was reasonable. The other question was whether Mr. Chesshyre was liable.

The plaintiff was sworn, and bore ont this statement. He created laughter by stating that the reason Mr. Chesshyre would not pay him was stone on the road when there were 3in. because he would not swear there was only lin. of Chesshyre said, "You come, and whatever you charge I will pay you."

Mr

sworn, and

Chesshyre, the defendant, was to for Mr. Ferryman, who was a gentleman of stated that he was concerned in the case referred fortune. Before the case came on he recommended Mr. Ferryman to have a road-maker to examine the roads, and accordingly Mr. Ferryman himself went to Mark Williams, and they went together to the road. He wrote to Williams and told him that Mr. Ferryman would pay him what was right, but a charge of two guineas was absurd. He said he would advise Mr. Ferryman shyre) never promised to pay him personally. to pay what was reasonable, but he (ChesMr. Ferryman was a gentleman of fortune and able to pay his own witnesses, and was quite willing to pay any reasonable charge.

His HONOUR, with regard to the general question as to the liability of an attorney to pay a witness's expenses, said he was not liable unless he made himself so. He did not like to decide the case simply on the ground that the plaintiff was bound to make it out, and had left it in doubt. He thought he ought to take the bolder course, and say the defence was made out. He did think that Williams believed he was employed for Mr. Ferryman; but he could not see why he preferred Mr. Chesshyre's credit to the principal's in the

matter.

Judgment for the defendant, with costs.

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT.

Wednesday, Nov. 3.

Ex parte RINGROSE; Re GIBSON. Bill of sale-Stock in trade purchased since the bill-Liquidation.

THIS case raised some important points in connection with the subject of bills of sale. It appeared from the affidavits filed in the case, that Mr. John F. Gibson, draper, of Long Buckby, in consideration of £120 advanced to him by Mr. John Ringrose, of the same place, assigned by bill of sale to the latter gentleman, in May 1872, all the stock in trade and furniture which to him were or thereafter should be on his premises, as security for the repayment of the said sum. There was a power given to Ringrose to take peaceable possession of the property after default made by Gibson in payment on demand. On the 4th August in this year Ringrose demanded payment of the £120 to be made on the 8th. Gibson did not pay, house, and told him he intended to realise and on the 9th Ringrose went to Gibson's his security. On Gibson's representations, however, Ringrose consented to wait until the 11th to see if Gibson could find a person to purchase the goods privately, so as to enable him to repay Ringrose. No purchaser being found, on the 11th Ringrose said he should at once realise his security. There was some conflict of testimony as to what passed at the latter interview; but it appeared that early on the morning of the 12th Gibson went to Northampton after sending a letter to Ringrose to inform him of the fact. Ringrose at once instructed Mr. North, an auctioneer, to take possession and sell the goods. North proceeded to Gibson's house at ten in the morning of that day, and, finding the house locked, was unable to seize the property. At two p.m. Gibson filed his petition for liquidation of his affairs; a receiver was at once appointed, and at about six p.m. the receiver took possession, and was immediately followed by North, who also put in a man on behalf of Ring

rose. It appeared that nearly all the stock in trade then on the premises had been purchased since the execution of the bill of sale.

Hensman (Norfolk circuit), instructed by Leake, of Long Buckby, now asked the court for an order that the furniture and the proceeds of the stock in trade, which had been since sold, should be given up to Mr. Ringrose. He argued that although at law goods not in existence could not be assigned, yet that there was a sufficient "new act on the part of Gibson to show his intention that the after acquired goods should pass to Ringrose, but if not, such goods, as soon as they came on to the premises, passed to him in equity. That being so, were they the goods of another person in the possession, order, and disposition of the bankrupt, with the consent of the true The bankruptcy commenced at two p.in. on the owner at the commencement of the bankruptcy? 12th August, but at ten a.m. Ringrose had done all that was lawful and reasonable in trying to take possession. He therefore did not consent to Gibson's possession.

Shoosmith, on behalf of the trustee for the creditors, opposed the application, and contended that Ringrose had not done all he could to get possession. He had allowed Gibson to remain in have seized on the 8th of August. As to the after possession until the last moment. He ought to acquired goods, Gibson had not consented to their passing to Ringrose. The property in them therefore remained with Gibson. Numerous cases were quoted during the argument.

that fact.

His HONOUR said the case was one of conit had lasted a long time its nature fully justified siderable importance and difficulty, and although He was of opinion, however, after trade and furniture on the premises at the comcarefully considering the arguments, that Ringrose was entitled to the whole of the stock in mencement of the bankruptcy, and made an order accordingly.

READING COUNTY COURT.
Thursday, Oct. 23.

(Before J. H. STONOR, Esq., Judge.) WILSON v. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COM

PAVY.

Carriage of goods-Personal luggage. THE plaintiff in this case is a horse dealer living in Reading, and the action was brought to recover £14, the value of some horse clothing belonging to the plaintiff which the defendants lost at Chester, in course of conveyance from Reading to Holyhead, on the way to Dublin.

Gledhill appeared for the plaintiff. The defendants were represented by Mr. Mason, from their Paddington office.

Gledhill stated that the plaintiff was from time to time going to Ireland to purchase horses, and in the winter time he took with him sets of horse clothing, which he put upon the horses he purchased. He had taken them as passengers' lug. gage. On 30th Sept. 1872 plaintiff took a third

SWANSEA COUNTY COURT. Monday, Nov. 3. (Before T. FALCONER, Esq., Judge.) LEWIS AND WIFE v. WILLIAMS. Construction of will-Vesting of legacy. Arthur Williams, of the South Wales Circuit, instructed by Brown and Collins, appeared for the plaintiffs.

Howell, Llanelly, for the defendant.

His HONOUR gave the following judgment: In this case I forced on the hearing at the last court, and the result illustrates how easily the facts of a case can be ascertained without the formality of pleadings. One David Williams, who died in 1855, in his will dated the 24th May 1863, devised and bequeathed to his wife Anne, a certain farm called Ffolsyrefel, and an annuity of £6 for the term of her natural life should she continue unmarried, and he devised the same farm to the defendant, his grandson William Williams, and his heirs after his wife's decease, on condition that the first two years' rent should be paid to the testator's daughter, Anne Morgan, widow, and subject to a sum of £14, to be paid annually to his son William, during his life, which was to com. mence two years after the defendant had possession of the said farm. Anne, the wife of the testator, died in 1870, but Anne Morgan, the widow and the daughter of the testator, died two years before her mother-namely, in 1868. It is alleged by the plaintiffs, who are the personal representatives of Anne Morgan, the daughter, that during two years next after the decease of Anne Morgan, the testator's widow, the said farm was let for £50 a year, and it is prayed that it may be declared that the defendant is a trustee of this amount of the rents for the two years next after the decease of Anne Morgan, the daughter of the testator, for the plaintiff, Sarah Anne Williams. There is no interest given by the will to the

widow of the testator. This interest, intended for the benefit of the daughter, is not to take effect until the death of the mother. The interest is not that of a fixed sum as a principal sum of money, the payment of which was delayed, but of rents divisible at an uncertain time from the farms, and these rents were not of a certain amount. The rents were to be paid as they might accrue during the two years after the death of the mother. The claim of the plaintiff seems to be founded on the authority of the case of Wright v. Wilkin (31 L. J. Q. B.; 6 L. T. Rep. 221), where there was a bequest of numerous legacies to various persons of certain definite sums of money, giving an immediate interest to the legatees in such specified sums of money, and the testator devised to the defendant in the action certain real and copyhold estates, and the residue of her personal estate on the express condition that within twelve months he should discharge and pay the legacies, and the testatrix charged and made chargeable her real and personal estate, with the payment of the legacies. The court held that the devise was not a condition working a forfeiture on its non-performance, but a trust. But these facts materially differ from the case before me. Here no interest was intended to pass until the determination of the life estate There is no bequest of a sum certain, the payment of which was delayed. The legatee died during the existence of the life estate of the testator's wife, and it appears to me that under the authority of the case of Pawlett v. Pawlett and others, in dealing with real estate there has existed no interest transmissible to the executors of Ann Morgan, the daughter of the testator.

The plaint was therefore dismissed.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. Friday, Nov. 7.

(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR (Selborne) and MELLISH, L. J.)

The

in this court, with a view to a liquidation of his affairs by arrangement or composition. His creditors resolved to proceed by liquidation; the usual steps were taken, and Lewis Voisey was appointed trustee 20th A 1g. 1873, but on proceeding to realise the property of the debtor he found one John Edwin Jones had already taken posses sion of the household furniture and stock-in-trade by virtue of a bill of sale purporting to have been given to him by the debtor on the 19th April to secure the sum of £355 and interest, and that he had sold or caused to be sold nearly the whole of the household and trade effects of the debtor. Whereupon a summons was taken out calling upon the said John Edwin Jones to show cause why the said bill of sale should not be declared void and ordered to be given up and cancelled, and why the said John Edwin Jones should not be called upon to account to the trustee for all the property of the debtor which had come to the hands of the said J. E. Jones or his agents under the said bill of sale or otherwise. The case came on for hearing before me on the 23rd Oct., Mr. Smyley, of Manchester, representing the trustee, and Mr. Kirby, of Liverpool, the claimant under the bill of sale. When the bill of sale was produced, it purported to have been given for an existing debt of £350 and a further advance of £5 only, and to assign everything in the shop and dwelling-house (except a trifling amount of book debts, books of account, and wearing apparel), unless the sum of £355 and interest should be paid instantly on demand in writing. Mr. Kirby admitted that such a bill of sale would no doubt amount to an act of bankruptcy under ordinary circumstances, but in this case he contended it could not be so considered, inasmuch as the bill of sale was in effect taken in exchange for a security of greater value, viz., a promissory note, signed both by Wilson and his mother, who is quite able to pay, and which Jones gave up when the bill of sale was given; and even then Mr. Kirby expressed Jones's readiness to surrender all advantages under the bill of sale provided he could get back the promissory note he had given up when the bill of sale was executed. answer to that is that in point of fact the goods have been sacrificed by a forced sale, and in point of law that this is not a question between Jones and Wilson, but between Jones and the creditors of Wilson, who may have given him credit on the strength of the very stock in trade and furniture comprised in the bill of sale. Jones may not have intended to take an unfair advantage of anyone, but the object of the bill of sale was manifestly to enable him to sweep everything away, to the exclusion of all except himself who might have given credit to Wilson; and if a man chooses to hold out another to the world as a man of substance when in reality he is only a man of straw, he must take the consequences. A conveyance of a man's whole property to secure a past debt is fraudulent within the 2nd sub-section of the 6th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, and voidable as an act of bankruptcy, no matter what the consideration may have been: (Re Wood, L. Rep. 7 Ch. App. 302.) Mr. Kirby then contended that as Jones had taken possession on the 21st July, and the debtor did not petition until the 25th, and no trustee was appointed until nearly a month after, Jones could not be ousted, inasmuch as this is a proceeding in liquidation under sect. 125, and not a proceeding in bankruptcy under sect. 6. The 4th sub-section of sect. 125 says, 66 Cote accordingly on receiving Deveze's The liquidation by arrangement shall be deemed letter, sent a clerk to reclaim the letter enclosing to have commenced as from the date of the apthe bills to Deveze of London, and as through pointment of the trustee," and there is no prosome mistake he had not complied with the re- vision as in bankruptcy that the title of the trustee quirements of the post office, the letter was sent shall relate back to any act of bankruptcy. Citing on and reached Deveze on the 16th Jan. On the Jones v. Harber (6 Q. B. 77), Lomax v. Burton 17th Jan. Deveze filed a liquidation petition, and (L. Rep. 6 C. P. 107), Ex parte Todhunter (L. Rep. the trustee subsequently obtained possession of 10 Eq. 425); but in the case of Ex parte Duignan, the bills contained in the letter. The registrarre Bissell, decided by the judge of the County having refused to order them to be returned to Court of Warwickshire, upheld by Bacon, C.J.) Cote, he appealed. (L. Rep. 11 Eq. 604), and affirmed by Lord Hatherley and the Lords Justices (L. Rep. 6 Ch. App. 605), it was held that the title of the trustee appointed in liquidation relates back in the same manner as the title of a trustee under a bankruptcy. Mellish, L.J., in that case observed, "No doubt the words of sub-sect. 4 do create some difficulty, but they cannot control the other part of the Act, which clearly makes the property vest in the trustee as in bankruptcy," and James, L.J., said, “There was no bankruptcy here, but it seems to me clear that the liquidation by arrangement is only different in the machinery by which the same object is to be obtained; and the creditors are not to be in a worse position because they prefer dealing with the property themselves, instead of dealing with it under the Court of Bankruptcy. The inten tion of the Act is that the same property shall be given to the creditors in each case." I, therefore declare the bill of sale to be void as an act of bankruptcy, and order that all moneys re ceived by the said E. J. Jones, or his agents by virtue of the said bill of sale, be accounted for

Ex parte COTE; Re DEVEZE. Bankruptcy-Remittance on general accountStoppage in transitu. THIS was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Registrar Murray, sitting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy. The debtor, Deveze, carried on business as a general merchant at London and at Lyons, his house at the latter place being managed by his father. The appellant Cote carried on business as a banker at Lyons. Deveze was in the habit of remitting to Cote bills drawn upon persons trading in France and Italy, in exchange for which Cote used to remit him bills drawn upon persons carrying on business in England. On the 11th Jan. 1873, Deveze wrote to Cote enclosing a bill of that date, payable at three months, drawn upon Messrs. Montagu, of Milan, for 26,732 lire 80 cents., and another bill on a French merchant. On the 14th Jan. Cote posted at Lyons a letter to Deveze, enclosing certain bills on firms in London. At half-past five in the evening of the same day, Cote received a letter from Deveze, the father, stating that he had received a telegram from the London house as follows: "Montagu refuses to accept bills. Tell Cote to hold bills of Montagu, and remit nothing." By the regulations of the French post office, the sender of a letter can reclaim it at any time before the departure of the mail.

De Gex Q.C. and Winslow for the appellant. Davey and Finlay Knight, for the trustee. Their LORDSHIPS held that the appellant was entitled to have the bills returned to him, inasmuch as he with the assent of the debtor intended and attempted to reclaim the letter containing the bills, and it would be wrong to hold that a mistake as to the mode of reclaiming the letter had the effect of making the property in the bills pass contrary to the intention of both parties to the transaction.

Appeal accordingly allowed.

WARRINGTON COUNTY COURT. Tuesday, Nov. 11. (Before J. W. HARDEN, Esq., Judge.) VOISEY V. JONES. Liquidation—Bill of sale-Consideration-Money advance and promissory note. IN reference to this case, which was heard at the last court day, his HONOUR now gave his decision in the following terms: On the 25th July 1873 Mr.

by the said E. J. Jones with costs, such costs not to include the costs of the proceedings before me on the 7th Aug. last.

Bretherton applied to his Honour to make an order upon the trustee for the return of the promissory note in his possession, which was surrendered by Jones on the execution of the bill of sale by Wilson.

The application was opposed by Mr. Moore, on the ground that Mrs. Wilson, one of the guarantors to the note, was not before the court.

His HONOUR declined to make the order, and left it to Mr. Bretherton to consider what further course he would take in regard to the application.

LEGAL NEWS.

IT is stated that Government have determined to give Mr. Vernon Harcourt the refusal of the Solicitor-Generalship.

PATENTS.-From the recently-issued Report on Patents it appears that the aggregate surplus income, on balance of accounts, from 1852 to last year amounts to 1,612,9281.

HON. J. BANCROFT DAVIS has presented to the Bar Association of New York a set of booksseventeen in number-containing a full report of the proceedings of the Geneva arbitration.

THE NEW VICE-CHANCELLOR.-Mr. Charles Hall, the new Vice-Chancellor, took his seat for the first time on Thursday morning, in his court in Lincoln's-inn, and proceeded to dispose of the business in the list for the day.

ON Monday evening next, the 17th inst., the opening meeting of the session of the Social Science Association will be held at their rooms in Adam-street, Adelphi, when Mr. Thomas Webster, Q.C., F.R.S., will read a paper "On Copyright as affecting the Property of British Authors in Foreign Countries." The chair will be taken at eight o'cloak.

SOLICITORS ELECTED MAYORS 1873-4.-Folkestone-Mr. William Wightwick (2nd time); King's Lynn-Mr. J. O. Smetham (5th time). Mr. Wil. liam Nichols Marcy, solicitor, Bewdley, and clerk of the peace for the county of Worcester, who resigned the office of town clerk in May last, after forty-one years' service, was unanimously elected mayor of the borough of Bewdley on the 10th inst.

THE WINTER CIRCUITS.-Up to the time of going to press the times for holding the winter circuits had not been fully fixed. So far as at present arranged they stand thus: Division 1 (Mr. Justice Keating), Stafford, Nov. 29; Worcester, Dec. 6; Hants (Winchester), Dec. 11; Somerset (Taunton), Dec. 18. Division 2 (Mr. Justice Archibald), Leeds, Nov. 29; Chester, Dec. 10; Glamorgan (Cardiff), Dec. 15; Gloucester, Dec. 19. Division 3 (Mr. Baron Pigott), Kent (Maidstone), Dec. 1; Sussex (Lewes), Dec. 4; Essex (Chelmsford), Dec. 8; Surrey (Kingston), Dec. 11; Warwick, Dec. 15. Division 5 (Mr. Justice Quain and Mr. Baron Pollock), Manchester, Nov. 29; Liverpool, Dec. 10. The number of cases in each division already given will no doubt be considerably increased before the "commission day."

THE INNS OF COURT.-At the general examination of students of the Inns of Court, held at Lincoln's-inn-hall, on the 30th and 31st of October, and the 1st of November, 1873, the Council of Legal Education awarded an exhibition of twentyfive guineas per annum, to continue for a period of three years, to Sidney Woolf, of the Middle Temple; and certificates that they have satisfactorily passed a public examination to the Hon. William Ashburnham, Messrs. Thomas Barclay, William Houstan Boswall, of the Inner Temple; and Christopher Cavanagh, of the Middle Temple; Montagu Clementi, Walter Wilson Leroux Cosser, James Sutherland Cotton, and Edward Morton Daniel, of Lincoln's-inn; George St. Leger Daniels, of the Middle Temple; Madgwick George Davidson, of Lincoln's-inn; William Oldham Dawson, of the Inner Temple; John William Edwards, of the Middle Temple; William Evans and Reginald Gray, of the Inner Temple; William Manning Harris, of Lincoln's-inn; Jesse Herbert, Robert Johnson, and Sydney Twentyman Jones, of the Middle Temple; William Frank Jones, of Lincoln's-inn; Cecil George Kellner, of the Inner Temple; James Knighton, of the Middle Temple; John Gilbert Kotze, of the Inner Temple; William James Laidlay and John Kirkwood Leys, of the Middle Temple; William Samuel Lily, of the Inner Temple; John Page Middleton and Frank Normandy, of the Middle Temple; Alfred Nundy, of Lincoln's-inn; William Blake Odgers, of the Middle Temple; James Patten and James Biggs Porter, of the Inner Temple; Arthur Horatio Poyser, of Lincoln's inn; Meering Bloomfield Seager, of the Middle Temple; William Sheepshanks, of the Inner Temple; Samuel Stephens, of Lincoln's-inn; Edward Storr, of the Inner Temple: William John Tanner, Harold Thomas, and John Tweedie, of Lincoln's-inn; Henry Vansittart, of the Middle Temple; James

Wallace and Arthur Welch of the Inner Temple; Charles Henry Wharton, of the Middle Temple; Sydney Edward Williams, of Lincoln's-inn; Robert Wilson and William Henry Charles Wilson, of the Middle Temple; and Arthur Yates, of Lincoln's-inn. At an examination of students of the Inns of Court in Hindu and Mahommedan Law, and laws in force in British India, held at Lincoln's-inn-hall, on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of October, 1873, the Council of Legal Education awarded to Messrs. George William Cline, of the Middle Temple; Thomas Von Donop Hardinge, of the Inner Temple, Charles Dalton Clifford Lloyd, of Lincoln's-inn, George McWatters and Raj Kissen Sen, of the Inner Temple, John Tweedie and Henry Charles Creighton Wood, of Lincoln's-inn, certificates that they have satisfactorily passed an examination in the subjects above mentioned.

PRESENTATION TO A SOLICITOR.-A new Town hall for Lewes, built by public_subscription on some land belonging to the Lewes Provision Market having just been completed, the following vote of thanks, emblazoned, framed and glazed, and surmounted with the Lewes arms, was on Saturday last presented to the clerk. It bears the following: "Lewes Town and Record Room. At a meeting of the Commissioners of the Lewes Provision Market, held at the above room, on Tuesday the 7th October, 1873. It was moved by Mr. Frederick Flint, seconded by Mr. Thomas Bruce, sen., and carried unanimously, That the best thanks of the Commissioners of the Lewes Provision Market be given to Wynne E. Baxter, Esq., their Clerk, for the able and efficient manner in which he has discharged the duties appertaining to that office, and also for the services rendered by him during the construction and completion of the New Town and Record Room, and that the High Constables of the Borough of Lewes be requested to have a copy of this resolution illuminated and presented to him-(Signed) Robert Crosskey, Chairman, Senior High Constable of the Borough of Lewes."

MICHAELMAS TERM, 1873.-FIRST DAY.
I.-Preliminary.

Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. II.-Common and Statute Law, and Practice of the Courts.

6. State the enactment of "The Common Law Procedure Act 1854," as to actions on lost instruments.

7. Should the loss be pleaded, what course should the plaintiff's attorney take?

8. When should coverture be pleaded in abatement, and when in bar?

9. How may a judgment be obtained against a British subject residing out of the jurisdiction? 10. In what case, and how, may a party producing a witness impeach his credit? 11. State what the law is as to stoppage in transitu.

12. What is the effect of a plea denying the agreement, with respect to the evidence necessary for the plaintiff in an action on a guarantee ? 13. Explain the axiom "Actio personalis moritur cum persona," stating exceptions to the rule. 14. What claims may be set-off?

15. State the periods of limitation under the statutes in respect to simple, and special contract claims.

16. In what cases is infancy a defence? In what not? 17. What is the pleading rule as to defences arising after the commencement of an action? 18. What is necessary to make an equitable defence a good defence to an action?

19. Describe a good tender, showing how a tender may be invalidated by the mode in which it is made.

20. State some of the provisions of the Carriers' Act (11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68) as to carriers' liability for loss of goods exceeding the value of £10.

III. Conveyancing.

24. B. buys 1000 acres of land which are conveyed to him in fee simple. He dies intestate, leaving a grandson (issue of a deceased daughter), a great grand-daughter (issue of a deceased son), and two daughters. Who will be entitled by descent to B.'s land? Give an authority for your answer.

22. If lands are devised charged with the pay. ment of debts alone, or charged with the payment of debts and legacies together, or charged with legacies only, can the devisee in either, and, if in either, which, of those cases make a good title to a purchaser or mortgagee without his being obliged to look to the discharge of such debts and legacies ?

23. A testator being possessed of (1) fee simple

lands, (2) stock in the funds, (3) mortgages of freehold interests in lands, (4) mortgages of lease. hold interests in lands, (5) furniture, (6) money at his bankers, and (7) money owing to him in business, devises and bequeaths all his real and personal property to trustees, to be divided amongst charitable institutions. State if the will will take effect as to the whole property, or, if not, as to what parts it will be inoperative, and why?

24. H., by his will, gives a legacy of £500 to his wife's sister (a stranger), and directs his executor to pay it on her attaining twenty-one. She survives H., and dies under twenty-one. Who is entitled to the legacy, and why?

25. If, say, 100 acres of land be limited by deed, or devised by will, to H. for life, remainder to his right heirs, what estate does H. take? and state what governs the construction of such limitation. 26. A tenant for life, with power of leasing, mortgages his estate. Is he thereby prevented from exercising his power? May or may not stipulations be made on the mortgage for the exercise of such power, and what would in ordinary cases be proper?

27. What is meant by the merger of a term ? and what are the requisites to effect it?

28. Where terms of years are created by settlements; what are the events usually expressed in the proviso for cesser of such terms?

29. What separate right has a mortgagor or mortgagee to lease premises which are in mortgage? and what would be the lessee's tenancy holding a lease from one of them without con

currence of the other?

30. Within what period must an estate vest when limited by way of future use or executory devise? From what time is such period reckoned? 31. A woman, having real property, marries without any settlement. What interest in that property does her husband acquire on the mar riage? and has he any, and, if any what, powers over it?

32. A married woman is entitled to money secured by bond. Her husband dies in her lifetime before the bond is paid off. Who becomes entitled thereto ? If the woman dies, leaving her husband and a child, who can recover the money?

33. What powers are usually inserted in marriage settlements where large estates are limited in strict settlement, and by whom and under what authority are they to be exercised?

34. State the difference between a jointure and a dower? How is the former constituted, and how does the latter arise?

35. In what form should a mortgage of leasehold property be taken ?-and state, shortly, what provisions should be inserted in it.

SECOND DAY. IV.-Preliminary. Questions 36 to 40 inclusive.

V.-Equity and Practice of the Courts.

41. Explain the meaning of the maxims, "He who seeks equity must do equity," and " Equity considers as done that which ought to be done." Give an instance of the application of each of such maxims.

42. State the different kinds of trusts recognised by our courts of equity.

43. Define an implied trust, a resulting trust, and a constructive trust. Givè an example of each.

44. In the absence of a clause empowering trustees for sale to give receipts, can a purchaser from them pay his purchase-money without being bound to see to the application of it? State the authority for your answer.

45. In the absence of any direction on the subject in a will, from what time, and at what rate, is interest on pecuniary legacies payable; and what are the exceptions to the general rule ?

46. If a pecuniary legacy be given to a creditor of the testator, in what cases will it be considered an extinguishment of the debt, and in what cases will it be otherwise?

47. State the distinction between a legal and an equitable debt; and give examples of each.

48. Are foreign judgments regarded in equity as specialty or simple contract debts; and to which class are Irish judgments considered to belong?

49. If real estate be charged by will with the payment of the debts of a testator, will such charge have the effect of reviving a debt which is statute-barred ?

50. Is an executor, under the usual decree for the administration of an estate, entitled to retain a debt due to him (though statute-barred) in preference to other creditors of equal degree ? 51. State some of the objections to an equitable mortgage as a security.

52. Within what time, after the coming in of the last answer (where there are more defendants than one), must the plaintiff in case of need, obtain an order to amend his bill, and within what time after the date of the order must the amendments be made?

53. Under what circumstances will biddings be opened; what time is allowed for the purpose; and what steps must be taken by the person desirous of opening the biddings?

54. When a bill of discovery (not seeking relief) has been filed, and an answer put in, at what time, and by what means, can the defendant obtain his costs ? 55. In what cases, if any, will the court deprive a father of the custody of his children, being minors ? Mention cases, if any, in which such power has been exercised, and the grounds on which the court has interfered.

VI.-Bankruptcy.

56. What is the amount of the debt or debts due to the petitioning creditor or creditors requisite to found an adjudication in bankruptcy against a debtor ?

57. State some of the principal acts of bankruptcy.

58. From what time is the bankruptcy deemed to commence ?

59. State, generally, what property is, and what property is not, divisible among the bankrupt's creditors.

60. What are the rights and powers of the trustee in bankruptcy with respect to unmarketable shares in companies, or land burdened with covenants ?

61. What debts are entitled to priority of payment ? 62. What are the rights of a landlord for arrears of rent due from the bankrupt?

63. Have the creditors any, and what, power of removing the trustee in bankruptcy, and appointing another trustee in his place?

64. What settlements by the bankrupt are void against the trustee in bankruptcy?

65. What is the mode of proceeding if a debtor desires to liquidate his affairs by arrangement? 66. What is the effect of bankruptcy on a person being a member of the House of Commons? 67. What is the effect of bankruptcy of one of several partners in a firm ?

68. What are the conditions on the fulfilment of which the court is authorised to grant the bankrupt an order of discharge?

69. What are the liabilities of an undischarged bankrupt to the creditors under his bankruptcy. 70. State some of the principal cases in which a bankrupt will be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction be liable to imprisonment ? VII. Criminal Law, and Proceedings before Magistrates.

71. What are the three great classes into which crimes are generally divided?

72. To which of these crimes does embezzlement of money by a clerk amount; and what is the punishment for it?

73. How does a conviction of felony affect the property of the prisoner?

74. How far are strikes or combinations of workmen to raise the price of labour lawful, or the reverse?

75. Is evidence by comparison of handwriting admissible in criminal cases?

76. In what case can a person indicted and discharged recover costs from the prosecutor ?

77. Is housebreaking felony or misdemeanor, and what is the punishment for the offence? 78. What is the local extent of the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court?

79. If A. steal a coat in Middlesex and is found with it on him in a county beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, where should he be tried for the larceny ?

80. How many justices of the peace must attend to constitute a court of quarter sessions in a county beyond the Central Criminal Court? 81. Can a convicted felon give evidence, or be a juryman?

82. In what cases can husband and wife give evidence against each other?

83. How far is the evidence of an accomplice, with promise of pardon, admissible ? 84. Is duelling, where death ensues, murder or manslaughter?

85. What is the general rule in criminal cases as to the admissibility in evidence of the declararations of dececased persons ?

CORRESPONDENCE OF THE

PROFESSION.

NOTE.-This Department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. LAW AGENTS.-I inclose you a circular and scale of charges which were received by my firm this morning, in an envelope marked private (and well it might be), from some people calling themselves "Law Agents and Accountants, Joint Stock Companies' Registration Agents, and Law Stationers," hailing from Southampton-row. It is truly astonishing how such people are allowed to

trespass on the rights of the legal Profession, but it is even more singular that they should send their circulars to solicitors themselves. You will observe that their circular offers, or is supposed to offer, very great inducements to the country practitioner, as it states that their scale enables him to secure to himself nearly the full benefit of his charges; but I am sure all respectable country practitioners would prefer transacting their business through their London agents. The Incorporated Law Society should really take notice of letters of this nature, but it seems to view all inroads upon the rights and emoluments of the Profession with perfect apathy and indifference. BRUTUS.

PRACTICE IN THE COLONIES.-May I ask the favour of your inserting this letter in the next publication of your widely diffused and influential journal. I write, Sir, to ask the opinion of your self (if I am not asking too much), as also to obtain the opinions of some of your readers who are best calculated to give reliable information on the subject of this letter, which is undoubtedly one which affects very closely a great many young members of the Profession, and many who, like myself, are lawyers in embryo. I have for some time past been surprised to see the very large number of applicants for admission as attorneys at each term, and I feel sure that all of them cannot be provided for, or at least as gentlemen with good education should be, out of the law business done by our branch of the Profession, unless, indeed, the public, taking our sad circumstances into consideration, with a charitable intent, should become more than usually litigious. The question of emigration suggests itself as a remedy to many minds, my own included, and it is upon this important subject I ask the favour of your opinion, and the insertion of these few lines. If a gentleman has passed through his articles here in England, and has been admitted, would it be necessary for him to serve under fresh articles in one of our colonies (Australia for example) in order to enable him to practise there as a solicitor? Would thus going to Australia, after having been articled here, necessitate an entirely new course of legal study? What would be some of the greatest difficulties and disadvantages of an English solicitor thus emigrating? I have often heard the question of the advisability of "trying the colonies" suggested by young law. yers and those about to become such. Indeed, as far as I can see and hear, the subject engages many minds, so that I feel assured that if you would answer these queries you would not only be obliging myself, but also would be conferring a great benefit on the Profession, especially its younger members. There is no prospect, so far as I can see, of the demand for legal labour increasing, and, this being so, if the labour increases, as it appears to be doing fast, it can only have one effect, namely, that the remuneration for that labour must decrease, which decrease, I am sure, the man who has paid so heavily for his legal education, admittance, and certificate to practise, as most men do, cannot possibly bear. Under these circumstances then, Sir, would it not be beneficial to the Profession at large if the emigration of some of its members took place? tions.

AN INQUIRER.

THE INTERESTS OF THE PROFESSION.-I fully agree with the editorial remarks which appeared in the LAW TIMES of the 1st inst., and with what was written by your correspondent, "A. B.," in the same impression. When that gentleman wrote, "Solicitors should combine, and, by acting in concert, uphold their privileges and secure their full emoluments," he hit upon the true and only remedy for most of the professional ills from which we suffer. Even our bucolic fellow-subjects in Warwickshire have recently taught us the power of combination. The present and past administrations have had to yield to the effects of well-concerted joint action, although they may have regarded acknowledged grievances urged by individuals without such combination with supreme contempt. The practical question is, How are solicitors to combine? I would suggest the formation of a new Solicitors' Association with head quarters in the metropolis and a branch in every county town in England and Wales. As the object is to make it truly represent the just requirements of the Profession at large, the subscription should be small (say a guinea or half a guinea a year), so that as many as possible might be induced to enrol themselves as members. It should have a general meeting of its members once a year in London, and occasional meetings in the large provincial towns, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Nottingham, &c., which should be the seats of the district com. mittee meetings. At such general meetings the general and district committees should be appointed, and the requirements of the Profession thoroughly discussed and a programme agreed upon. One of the chief objects of this association must be to have the "lower" branch of the Pro

fession properly represented in the House of Commons, and all future legislation watched by the society, and its influence brought to bear upon it. It is consoling to know that we have at least two eminent London solicitors in Parliament at the present time. One object of the society, I propose, must be to increase that number until solicitors are fairly represented in the Lower House. There are, to my knowledge, several counties in England which do not possess any local law society, and I have observed that where such is the case, the esprit de corps is much lower than in those counties where such societies exist. The society need not wait for a building, there is a magnificent quadrangle at the Inns of Court Hotel in London, which would accommodate all who would assemble at the annual meeting, and I know of public rooms in all the other towns I have named where similar accommodation could be obtained. I do not profess to give anything like a detailed scheme. I, at present, have only sketched a very rough outline, but I trust that those, who like myself, have the interests of the Profession at heart, and recognise its requirements, will join me in elaborating a scheme which shall, at some future time, deserve the acknowledgments of our branch of the Pro fession. AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OF TEN YEARS' STANDING.

13. LEGACY DUTY.-J. G. by deed settled his real and personal estates upon trustees in trust, first for himself during his life, and upon his decease to convert the said estates into money, and out of the same money to pay to A. T., his sister-in-law, £70, and the remainder thereof to his nephew J. T. The settlement contains no power of revocation. Is the legacy to A. T., his sister-in-law, subject to legacy duty? if so, at what rate of duty per cent ? R. H. J.

15. POWER.-A. has a power of appointment of freeholds "by writing under his hand and seal." Can the power be exercised by a will according to the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26) and not sealed? The Act provides (8. 10) that if executed as there set forth a will shall be a valid exercise of a power of appointment notwithstanding a further solemnity is required by the instrument giving the power. But see West v. Ray (K 393). Is sealing not an "additional solemnity" within the Act? See also Prideaux (4th edit., vol. 2, p. 269).

A. B. A.

16. CONVEYANCING.-A., by arrangement with B., pur chased freehold and copy hold land to be conveyed to C. (the son of A. and son-in-law of B.). The contract was in the name of A., to whom by mistake the land was afterwards conveyed, the purchase-money being paid by devising other lands, given all his residuary, real, and B. A. died, having by his will dated in 1868, after personal estate, to two trustees upon trust to convert and divide the proceeds amongst his children living at his decease. The above mistake was not discovered until the estate had been wound-up, when, upon learning the facts the testator's other children agreed to any course requisite to rectify the error. The testator left five children, including two married daughters an ia daughter now a minor. One of the trustees is now of unsound mind, but it is believed he understands the position of the matter sufficiently to execute any necessary deed. advisable to take, and would any deed which may be What course, under the circumstances, would it be executed require acknowledgment by the married woman?

SUBSCRIBER.

17. SALE OF GOODS-STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-Is a cheque for the value of goods over £10, drawn by the purchaser, and delivered by the purchaser of the goods to the him as payment for the goods sufficient to satisfy the vendor at the time of the purchase, and accepted by statute as "something in earnest to bind the bargain or in part payment," no part of his goods having been