may be, is allowed to give evidence of the adultery. So anomalous & state of things onght not to be allowed to continue. The present Judge Ordinary, Lord Penzance, repeatedly expressed himself to that effect, and the Bill, as drawn, under which the parties to the marriage are made admissible as witnesses in all suits in the court had met with his Lordship's approval. Again, in actions for breach of promise the parties are excluded, while in an action for seduction, and in cases of affiliation, the woman is competent to enter the witness-box and give evidence. He therefore proposed to make the parties in actions for breach of promise admissible as witnesses, and in criminal cases to allow husband and wife to give evidence for or against each other, but not to be compelled to disclose the communications which may pass between them during the marriage. That was the first object of the Bill; its second would probably encounter more serious objection. At present, before witnesses could be examined they had to take an oath or make an affirmation under certain terms; but there were many cases in which persons could not say that it was contrary to their religious belief to take an oath, and who yet had a conscientious objection to it; and there were others who did not believe in the doctrine of future reward and punishment. In both these cases the evidence of such witnesses was excluded; and thus it happened that the conscientious and honest man was distrusted, while the dishonest man, who was troubled with no scruple, was allowed to enter the witness-box and be examined in the case. As to the second class of witnesses, a singular instance had fallen within his own professional experience, It was his duty, some a soldier at Maidstones ago, to prosecute of two young girls, of the ages of sixteen and eighteen. They were found weltering in their blood by a baker, who came up immediately after the murder, and saw the murderer walking away from the spot. He was therefore the best witness to identity. He was accordingly called for the purpose; but when questioned as to his religious in future reward an-l punishment, and his evidence, though he was in every way a respectable man, was, in consequence, excluded. The bill, therefore, proposed to make all testimony admissible without the sanction of an oath or affirmation, and to allow the judge or jury, as the case may be, to decide on its trustworthiness. He did not want to abolish oaths by the Bill. His object was to put an end to inquiries as to the religious belief of witnesses, and that when parties objected to taking an oath a form of affirmation should be presented to them, to which he would attach the penalty of perjury. He should reserve any further observations until he heard the arguments S. the barbarous murder belief, he at once admitted that he did not believe Bill, and related some of his forensic experience in order to show the great importance of the change which it proposed to make in the law of evidence. Many cases which now baffled judges and juries might be settled in a few minutes by allowing the parties themselves to be examined as witnesses.- -Mr. V. HARCOURT said that all the arguments used in favour of the Bill went to the full extent of examining and cross-examining a prisoner on his trial. Persons accused of adultery have been exempted from giving evidence, because it is thought that a case of this kind has a closer analogy to a criminal than to a civil proceeding. It is, no doubt, a matter for grave consideration whether a prisoner shall not be allowed to give evidence; but that is not the question now, and whenever any legislation takes place with respect to it, it will require most careful and deliberate consideration.Mr. AMPHLETT was in favour of this Bill, although he admitted that, if it passed, it would be necessary to go much further. For his own part, he could see no reason why a prisoner should not be allowed to give evidence on his own behalf. It is said that a guilty man may commit perjury in order to save himself; but he did not think we ought for this reason to deprive an innocent man of the advantage of giving evidence which may lead to his acquittal. Mr. DENMAN having briefly replied.The amendment was negatived, and the Bill was read a second time. SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. RESTITUTION SUIT-PROCEEDINGS IN FORMER SUIT-PLEADING.-In a wife's petition for reștitution of conjugal rights the husband's answer. alleged all the circumstances and the evidence in a former suit for judicial separation, on the ground of his wife's cruelty. It also alleged that the husband allowed his wife 2604 a year to live separately from him, and it set out at great length a series of subsequent acts tend ing to show his wife's insanity. The court on motion to reform the answer, directed all the particulars of the cruelty and the former suit to be struck out, and the fact of the suit simply to be pleaded. It also struck out the allegation of the allowance; and, as to the insanity, directed that only such facts, should be pleaded as tended to show that it was unsafe for the husband to live with his wife: (Radford v. Radford, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 279. Div. & M.) DISSOLUTION SUIT-CRUELTY AND ADULTERY -CONDONATION PERMISSION TO CALL FRESH that were to be urged against the Bid the second lution, the evidence of cruelty was limited to EVIDENCE REFUSED.-In a wife's suit for dissoHILL, in moving that the Bill time that day six months, observed that his objec- two or three isolated acts of violence very tions to the Bill referred principally to those slight in their character, which had been con. clauses which released witnesses from the respon-doned by a cohabitation of nearly a year after sibility of swearing under the high and solemn sanction of an oath. He also objected to the Bill because it seemed to him not to be the right way of dealing with the subject. In his opinion there was only one way of doing so, and that was by embodying in one measure all the statutory enact ments relating to oaths and the law of evidence. If the House was prepared to change the law so as to allow prisoners to be examined as witnesses, he thought there should be a fuller inquiry before so important a step was taken. There was a wide distinction between admitting as witnesses the respondent and co-respondent in the acts alleged. The evidence of the adultery charged with a servant girl, was that the husband had been seen to kiss her once, and that a neighbour had heard noises at night in the servant's room. On the other side a witness who had lived in the same house some time stated that the respondent and the servant always slept in their own rooms. The court held the adultery to be not proved, and the cruelty, therefore, to be condoned. The court refused to hear further evidence offered at the partner to whom the more active part in the business was allotted. Lord D. was recommended by them to execute certain trust-deeds with a view of facilitating these arrangements, of which A. and B. were the trustees. These deeds contained the usual powers of attorney. On Lord D. leaving this country for the Brazils in 1865, he executed a very full power of attorney, appointing Lady D. and B. his attorneys to receive moneys, settle accounts, and do all necessary acts during his absence. He remitted from the Brazils a bill for 5000l. odd payable to the joint order of Lady D. and B. Lady D. indorsed this bill to B., who received the proceeds. B. subsequently absconded from this country, having misappropriated a siderable portion of the plaintiff's moneys. The firm had charged in their general bill of costs con for all the transactions and business done for the * plaintiff, either as trustees under the deed of trust, or for negotiating the bill for 5000l., and for all the attendances, &c. &c. of their partner B. On bill filed by Lord D. for discovery, and an account seeking to make all three partners in the firm liable for the moneys due to him: Held, that all the three partners were equally liable to account for the general moneys received by them, or either of them, and the usual accounts against them directed. A separate account directed as to those transactions in which the two partners were the trustees of the deed: (Dundonald v. Masterman and others, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 271. V.C. J.) INTESTACY-GRANT AD COLLIGENDA BONA TO A CREDITOR.-The estate of an intestate consisted chiefly of a number of small debts. It once, and that the deceased's business should be was important that they should be collected at carried on without interruption. The next of kin resident in this country renounced administration, and the court made a grant ad colligenda to a creditor, but ordered the next of kin abroad to be cited, and the debts collected to be paid into the registry: (In the goods of Stewart 20 L. T. Rep. N, S. 279. Prob.) Action by a solicitor. Wallis appeared for the plaintiff. Field for the defendant. From the plaintiff's statement it appeared that the account was for law costs and payments, the chief portion of which related to the conveyance to the defendant of some property at Brighton. The reasonableness of the charges was not disputed. March last, executed a deed of composition for the The defence was, that Mr. Wheeler had, in benefit of his creditors, which had been assented to by the necessary proportion of such creditors. Field produced the deed and the protection under the Bankruptcy Act in support of the defence. and examining parties in civilce cases close of the case of cruelty subsequent to the accounts filed, with the deed or office copies of and, if this were so, what was the use of making parties to the suit compellabie to give evidence! The ground for doing so was to elicit the truth; but he thought it would tend to degrade the law of evidence, and render the testimony of witnesses less weighty and reliable. The hon. and learned gentleman having touched upon some of the clauses which appeared to him to be most objectionable, concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill. Mr. WHEELHOUSE thought it most undesirable that persons, if competent as witnesses, should be compellable to give evidence. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said there had been a time when parties supposed to be interested in a case were debarred from giving evidence, but they did away latest act alleged in the petition, and which the petitioner in her evidence had sworn to be the last committed: (Topper v. Topper, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 279. Div. & M.) HEARING IN CAMERA.--The power of the court to hear cases in camera being derived from the Ecclesiastical Courts through the 22nd section of the Divorce Act, does not apply to the dissolution of marriage. The court, therefore, ordered a wife's petition for dissolution on the ground of her husband's sodomy, to be heard in open court, though parties were willing that it should be heard in private: (C. v. C., 20 L. T. Rep: N. S. 280. Div. & M.) with that when the late Lord Denman introduced ALIMONY WIFE'S INCOME.-Inallotting a an Act admitting interested parties as witnesses. permanent alimony in cases of judicial separaHe thought they might go further, and leave to tion the court is bound to follow the principles the judge and jury to sift the truth of the evidence of the ecclesiastical courts: (Haigh v. Haigh, by cross-examination, instead of making the law 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 281. Div. & M.) declare such evidence to be inadmissible. (Hear, LIABILITY OF SOLICITORS-SOLICITORS ACTING hear.) Upon the whole, then, he was in favour of AS TRUSTEES.-Lord D. wishing in the year the principle of the Bill, and he owned it did not 1864 to have professional advice and assistance appear to him that the hon and learned gentleman in arranging with various creditors as against opposite showed sufficient reasons for opposing his father's estate, to whom he was sole executor, the second reading.-Mr. LOPES felt bound to give his cordial support to the Bill of the hon. and also with reference to his own affairs, was and learned member for Tiverton, and thought it introduced to a firm of solicitors (A. B. and C.) would form a most valuable addition to the Act to carry out various special arrangements, and of 1851.—Mr. Serjeant Dowse supported the the general settlement of his affairs. B. was the Wallis said that Mr. Cousins would have accepted the composition with the other creditors, had he not considered that Mr. Wheeler had acted fraudulently towards him. He therefore declined his other creditors. He quoted the case of to be bound by Mr. Wheeler's arrangement with Bramble, v. Moss, L. Rep. 3 C. P. 458; 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 241, to show that the affidavit and them, and the Gazette and other particulars must be produced. He also contended that by the Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1868, the defendant's attorney should have produced the list and statement required to be filed, or office copies, and the original assents of the creditors and their proofs, taining the advertisement required by the General or office copies, with the local daily paper conOrders to be inserted in it. He also made several other objections. His HONOUR ruled that Mr. Wallis's objections against his decision if he pleased. were fatal, and said that Mr. Field could appeal Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs on the higher scale, to be paid in a week. Field applied for stay of execution to give time to appeal, but his Honour refused the application. ADMISSION OF SOLICITORS. Easter Term 1869. The Master of the Rolls has appointed Saturday, the 8th May 1869, at the Rolls Court, Chancerylane, at half-past two o'clock in the afternoon, for swearing-in solicitors. above day must leave his common law admission, Every person desirous of being sworn in on the or his certificate of practice for the current year, at the secretary's office, Rolls-yard, Chancerylane, on or before Friday, the 7th May 1869. N.B. The papers of those gentlemen who cannot be admitted at common law till the last day of term, will be received at the secretary's office up to twelve o'clock at noon on that day, after which time no papers can be received. LUCAS (Rudd), Long Ashton. Somerset. Dividend on The Solicitor-General for Scotland has been appointed a member of the Scotch Law Courts HEIR-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. BATTYE (George), Brown-hill, Cartworth, Kirkburton. May at one. BIRCH (George), Halos Owen, Worcester. May 12; J. Small- 24: V.C. S.. at one. June 11: V.C. S., at twelve. M. R., at eleven. ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS.-The number of original applications to be admitted as attorneys during the present term is 99, in addition to many renewed applications. Mr. Adam Thom, the prosecutor of Overend, Gurney, and Co., announces that he will personally conduct the prosecution at the approaching trial. Against the leaders said to be retained on the other side of all the branches of the Bar, Mr. Thom says he confidently pits his case in all the simplicity of its undeniable strength; while the technical question of guilt or innocence, avowedly the only matter at issue, he calmly leaves to the judicial representatives of God and the country. In the meantime, as Mr. Thom will have all the trouble, he invites the public to pay the costs. THE CASE OF MADAME RACHEL.-The writ of error obtained in the case of Reg. v. Sarah Rachel Leverson, to reverse the judgment of five years' Queen's Bench to-day. Mr. Mellish, Q. C., and Mr. Gibbon will appear for the defendant; the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, and Mr. Poland will represent the Crown. The Act under which bail was given is the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 68, and it provides in all cases where judgment is affirmed should not be reckoned. The error assigned is that the time during which a defendant is at large whether the court pronouncing judgment was properly constituted. C. Britten, solicitor, Northampton. June 3; V.C. M., at penal servitude, is to be argued in the Court of FREEMAN (Edith), Long Buckley, Northampton. May 22; HANDLEY (Sampson). Coton Mills, Stafford. May 19; C. LITTLE (W. J.), Anderton-house, Maker, Cornwall, May 19; 27: V.C. M., at twelve. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. BOOTH (George), Gorton, Lancaster. June 1: Messrs. BRUNT (Wm.), Marston, Bedford. May 1; W. Browne, solicitor, Bank-chambers, Nottingham. Bath. Birmingham. COLE (Thos. H.), The Green, Wick and Abson, Gloucester. mons. Jun 19; H. and B. J. Ford, solicitors, 23, Southernhay, GREEN Elizabeth), North-crescent, Hertford. June 24; BOWNESS-RETIREMENT OF MR. J. H. TAYLOR. -The public. throughout the large district in and around Windermere, over which his extensive practice extended, will regret to hear that Mr. J. H. Tavlor, solicitor, of Bowness, is compelled through ill-health, to retire from the fatigues of business. During the whole of his career, Mr. Taylor has identified himself with the general interests of the beautiful neighbourhood in which he resides, and has been an active promoter of everything for the advancement and improvement of Bowness in particular. To him, more than to any other man, may be attributed the introduction into Bowness of that needful piece of sanitary and improving machinery, the Local Board of Health, whose operation has been productive of so much good to the scene of its application. He is also one of the promoters of the new Windermere Water Works Company. In addition to his private practice, Mr. Taylor officiated as magistrates' clerk of the local and Ambleside Petty Sessions, and he also held a number of important public offices in connection with the administration of justice in all its varied and numerous ramifications. Altogether, he has practised, in Bowness, some twenty-five years; and his retirement, especially the motives which have impelled it, will be regretted by all those whose affairs brought them into connection with him. We cannot but hope, however, that under the influence of repose, the gentleman may long continue to pursue a life of public utility, relieved of the harassing cares incident to close confinement to a naturally trying LUDLAM (Jeffery), 16, Sussex-place, Regent's-park. June 1; and fatiguing profession. We may add that Mr. Parkin and Pagden, solicitors. 5, New-inn. MARCHANT John, jun.), Hertford, solicitor. Aug. 15; Spence Taylor will be succeeded in his practice and apand Hawkes, solicitors, Hertford. MORDAN (Francis), Albion-lodge, Holloway, and 326, City-pointments by Mr. John Fisher, late of Masham, road. June 14; Jno. Mills, solicitor, 2, Brunswick-place, OSBORN (Samuel), 19, Manor-terrace Brixton. June 14; Ellis and Crossfield, solicitors, 16, Mark-lane. PACKHAM (Ann), 18, Duke-street, Brighton. June 1; Chas. Lamb, solicitor, Ship-street, Brighton. REDHEAD (Lawrence), 70, Lower Thames-street. June 1; Young, Jones, Roberts, and Co., solicitors, 2, St. Mildred's court, Poultry. E. R. Spence, solicitor, Hertford. May 31; J. Richardson, solicitor, 15, George-street, Mansion House. 30; Cook and Holmes, solicitors, Wokingham. JONES (Chas. W. York-town, Frimley, Ash, Surrey. June KINDRED (Frances), 56, Clynton-road, Mile End-road. City-road. RIMMER (Elizabeth), Wallgate, Wigan. July 24; E. T. gardens. and Dorman, solicitors, 23, Essex-street, Strand. VINE (Frederick), Silver-hill, St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Sussex. Farmington Lodge, Gloucester; BANK OF ENGLAND. Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each, in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] ELLIS (William), Minories, auctioneer. Dividend on 2507. Reduced 3 per Cents. Claimants, Jno. C. Walton and Robert Ellis. LIABILITIES OF A SOLICITOR.-A novel and rather serious question, involving a constitutional principle, has been raised in the Court of Common Pleas in connection with the last election petition for Youghal. Mr. Barry, a solicitor, made some strong observations upon the judgment of the Court declaring the election void. The attention of their Lordships was attracted by a report in the Cork Examiner of a speech delivered by Mr. Barry, and he was directed to attend and explain the following passage : But while he deplored the loss of Mr. Weguelin, he should complain publicly, through the press of the country, of the manner in which that gentleman had been treated by the hon. judge who tried the case. In doing so he did not speak from himself; he appealed to the judgment of the learned judge, delivered by him at the close of the Youghal election petition. (Mr. Barry then read that part of the decision of Judge O'Brien, as reported by the reporter of the House of Commons, in which the learned judge stated his intention to submit the meaning of the word 'corrupt' to the Court of Common Pleas, and said what he complained of was that the learned judge, having expressed his intention of so reserving the application of the term, yet, in the case subsequently made by him for the consideration of the Court of Common Pleas, decided himself on the meaning of the word, contrary to the intention he had pre viously expressed.) Was that just, fair, or honest ? Did that maintain law in the country? No judge should have done so. Was it not a sad thing to think that, because of the pusillanimity-he could call it nothing else-of that man, they should be deprived of such a man as Christopher Weguelin? All he could say was that, while he deplored his weakness, he still more deplored the Court to which the matter was afterwards referred. He could tell them more. When Mr. Justice Keogh made use of the words, "it was treating made easy," and wanted to laugh them out of court, Mr Isaac fought, but all to no use, for the Court had been well Butt stood up like a man, and reasoned and argued and trained beforehand. Mr. Barry attended and read a statement to the I make this affidavit from my desire in every possible way to manifest my respect for this honourable court, and for any order which the court shall be pleased to make. I am advised, and believe, that the speaking of the words read to me by the Right Hon. Judge Keogh from the report in the Cork Examiner newspaper would amount to an offence for which, if established against me, I should be liable to penal consequences. I therefore humbly submit to this honourable court that I ought not to be compelled to answer anything as to that report, or to meet any charge connected with the same until a charge is preferred against me in a specific form, and supported by evidence such as I can meet. For any disrespect to this court, or to any member of it, or to Judge O'Brien, into which I might have been unguardedly betrayed, I should be ready to express the deepest contrition, and humbly to ask the pardon of the court. I am deeply conscious that any such disrespect would be an offence requiring from me the fullest atonement; but I am advised that, consistently with my position as an elector of Youghal, and as an attorney, I ought not now to consent to answer as to matters which are calculated to involve me in penal consequences without any evidence before the court to call on me to answer. I therefore humbly pray that this honourable court may be pleased to dispense with my making any further or other answer in reference to the said matter. Their Lordships then retired from the Bench, case. BREAKFAST-EPPS'S COCOA -GRATEFUL AND COM FORTING. The very agreeable character of this preparation has rendered it a general favourite. The Civil Service Gazette remarks:-"The singular success which Mr. Epps attained by his homeopathic preparation of cocoa has never been surpassed by any experimentalist. By a thorough knowledge of the natural laws which govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful application of the fine properties of wellselected cocoa, Mr. Epps has provided our breakfast tables with a delicately flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctors' bills." Made simply with boiling water or milk. Sold by the Trade only in lb. JAMES EPPS lb., and 1lb. tin-lined packets, labelled " and Co., Homœopathic Chemists, London." THE BENCH AND THE BAR. Mr. Serjeant Barry, Solicitor-General for Ireland, and late M. P. for Dungarvan, has accepted the vacant judgeship of the Landed Estates Court, Ireland. detectives are hard at work getting up information, and when they have got the names and addresses of persons who have sinned against the law, the police intend to institute a whole series of prosecutions. None of those concerned in the traffic of spec tickets are to be allowed to escape, and We regret to announce the death of Mrs. Charles several hundred persons will be prosecuted. The Cavendish, which occurred at her residence at police have resolved to put down the traffic with a Ryde, Isle of Wight, after a lingering illness of strong hand. In about three weeks' time another several weeks. The deceased lady was the only series of prosecutions will be commenced, and the daughter of the Right Hon. Sir Alexander Cock-parties then assailed will be the agents on commisburn, and was married in June 1863, to Mr. Charles prosecutions will cause considerable commotion sion and the owners of betting exchanges. These amongst thousands of persons. William Cavendish, son of Gen. the Hon. Henry TESTIMONIAL TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR.— papers, he appointed W. H. B. and another daughter, M. J. B., his "sole executors." The court held that the use of the words "sole executors" in the last will implied the revocation of the appointment of executors in the former will, and granted probate of the three papers as together forming the will of the deceased, to W. H. B. and M. J. B., the executors named in the will of 1860. (Re Baley, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 278. Prob. Ct.) before her death, and destroyed the second. It WILL-REVOCATION.-B. made two wills just was held that as the act of destruction was not accompanied by a simultaneous declaration of intention, the first will was not thereby revived: village of Hatherley, near Glocester. A testimonial REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND (Re Weston, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 330. Prob.) fund is being raised, and has already reached the sum of 800l., contributed by 450 subscribers, whose subscriptions varied from sixpence to three guineas, the maximum receivable. The testimonial is to take the form of a portrait of the Lord Chancellor, to be painted by G. Richmond, R.A., and which will be presented with a suitable address to Lady Hatherley. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH NORWICH CITY JUSTICES. (Before the Right Worshipful the MAYOR and Public-houses Closing Act 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 64, s. 5.) On an information for keeping open house for the sale or consumption of excisable liquors and beer between the hours of one and four as prohibited by this section: Held, that the fact of the door being open at half. past one, and several persons found in the house with spirits in glasses before them, was not sufficient proof that the defendant was a licensed victualler, and that he was keeping open his house contrary to the statute. Charles Andrews, landlord of a public-house called the "Cinque Unique," was summoned for having, on the 9th inst., his house open for the sale or consumption of excisable liquors and beer between one and four o'clock, contrary to the statute. Linay (managing clerk to Sadd, solicitor), appeared for defendant. P. C. Pilch stated that on the morning in question, about half-past one, he saw the door of the house open and walked in, and found six men and one woman standing near a counter on which were two glasses with gin in them, one rum and one ale, and on calling the attention of the landlady to the time she replied it was the fault of the customers. Did not see anything sold or consumed. This was all the evidence offered in support of the information. Linay submitted that there was no legal evidence before the Bench that the defendant was a licensed victualler; and secondly, that there was no evidence that any spirits or beer had been sold or consumed after one o'clock, which was necessary to constitute the offence charged, and that view was borne out to some extent by the decision in Cates v. South, 1 L. T. Rep. (N. S. 365, and other cases. The BENCH did not consider there was sufficient legal evidence to convict. Summons dismissed accordingly. FEMALE CONVICTS.-Orders have been given by the Government that the whole of the women confined in the Parkhurst prison, Isle of Wight, shall be removed to the new convict establishment just finished at Woking. The first batch-100 in number-left the Isle of Wight on Friday. A motion in the case of Henry Walsh v. E. Meadows Dunne, justice of the peace for the Queen's County, has, from its peculiarity, caused some interest in the Irish Court of Queen's Bench. On the 24th Dec. last Walsh was imprisoned for seven days," with hard labour," by Mr. Dunne for contempt of court in having "licked" instead of kissing the book when being sworn. cautioned, but nevertheless "licked' the book three times. The Lord Chief Justice decided that the magistrate had no power to add hard labour to the sentence. The Legislature did not even confer upon him (the Chief Justice) the power to do so. He was CONVEYANCER. ELEMENTARY PRECEDENTS IN CON VEYANCING. (a) A Collection of practical Forms designed for professional Use, and suited to the Emergencies of actual Practice, with Notes. (Continued from page 472.) 95. Notice demanding possession of goods. To A. B., of &c. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MORTGAGE COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.-S., being possessed of lands conveyed to him subject to a covenant not to carry on any nuisance, except brickmaking, sold two plots of them in 1842 to L., and thereby covenanted to complete certain roads, L. covenanting for himself, his heirs, and assigns, for the subdivision of the plots sold, and the erection thereon only of houses, which were described. In this conveyance S. covenanted to As attorney for Mr. C. D., of &c. [claimant], and produce the deed of conveyance to himself. S. afterwards conveyed to numerous persons other duly authorised by him in this behalf, I hereby portions of the lands comprised in the last-men-give you notice and require you forthwith to deliver tioned conveyance, notices of the conveyances to whom were indorsed thereon. By a deed dated in Feb. 1846, after reciting that S. had agreed to repurchase from L. the lands sold to him, and that Messrs. L. and R. had agreed to pay the purchase-money on behalf of S., L. conveyed the said lands to L. and R. in fee, upon trusts of an indenture, executed a few days before, by which S. had mortgaged property to L. and R. to secure advances to him, which included the 96. Notice of claim to goods seized under bill of purchase-money which they were to pay to L. sale, or writ of execution. These trusts were, for sale of the mortgaged To A. B., of &c., Mr. C. D., his attorney, E. F., property, to the usual effect. L. and R. fore- officer in possession, his assistants, and others. closed S., and puisne incumbrancers, and the I hereby give you, and each of you, notice as mortgaged premises were conveyed by them to attorney for Y. Z., of &c., that the goods, chattels, the plaintiffs in the present suit (which was and effects, seized by you under colour or pretence instituted for the administration of the estate of of a bill of sale, alleged to have been given by one in which they were directed to be sold. The said A. B.,"] belonging to the said Y. Z., and not J. L., for whom they were trustees) by an order G. H. to the said A. B. [or if seized under writ say :"pretence of an execution issued at the suit of the which had been conveyed to L., and reconveyed and each of you, further notice that, unless you appellant became the purchaser of these lots to the said A. B.; and as such attorney I give you, by him, which were sold under conditions which forthwith deliver up possession to the said Y. Z., stated the restrictions in the conveyance to S., of the said goods, chattels, and effects, so seized and mentioned that other lots were liable to other by you, or some or one of you, an action at law will restrictions, but did not refer to the restrictive immediately be commenced against you for recovery covenants as to buildings in the conveyance to thereof and for redress. L. The appellant, therefore, objected to the day of title on the ground that those restrictions were in force; but their Lordships held (affirming the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster), that, as S. was bound only by the covenants in the conveyance to himself, and those relating to the roads, and might, after his conveyance to L., have dealt with his other property as he thought fit, and agree with L. to put an end to, or vary, the covenants as to building; he had not deprived himself of any rights in these lots by the intermediate sales to other parties; that the restrictive stipulations as to buildings were only between S. and L., and the benefit thereof was not attached to the other property which S. reserved to himself when he sold to L.; that a vendor in the position of S. will not be assumed to have intended to limit his power of dealing with his estate; that there was no distinction between bis rights over the lands which he possessed throughout and those which were vested in him by the repurchase from L., and, therefore, that the appellant's objection to the title failed, and the plaintiffs alone could make a good title without the concurrence of other parties: (Keates v. Lyon, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 255. L. JJ.) LEASE AGREEMENT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.-In three letters B. agreed to take the lease of a house of C. on terms which C. accepted. Afterwards C. refused to grant the lease on those terms, on the ground that there was a verbal understanding that B. should expend 1000%. in repairs, and now objected to such a covenant. A THE BETTING WORLD AND THE INTENTIONS decree was made for specific performance. (Dear OF THE POLICE. It may, perhaps, be interesting. Verity, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 268. V.C. Stuart.) Two WILLS-SOLE EXECUTORS.-A testator to betting men and others to know the nature of the next move of the police authorities with regard made a will and codicil in 1856, in both of which to the "business of betting." An order has been he appointed his son W. H. B. and his daughter privately issued to prosecute all persons found P. B., his executors. In a subsequent will, exedealing in "specs" or showing "spec" bills. The cuted in 1860, confirming the two preceding I beg to give you notice that by deed dated &c., and made between A. B., of &c., of the one part, and me, the undersigned C. D., of &c., on behalf and with the assent of the therein mentioned undersigned creditors, of the said A. B., the said A. B. thereby conveyed all his estate and effects to me absolutely, to be applied and administered for the benefit of his creditors, in like manner as if he had been at the date thereof adjudged bankrupt. And I further give you notice that in execution of the trust thereby reposed in me, I am in possession under the said deed, and that the goods seized by you under execution, against the said A. B., are not the goods of the said A. B., but the property of me as aforesaid, and you are hereby required forthwith to withdraw from possession of the same. day of C. D. [trustee]. 98. Notice to builder to proceed according to contract (c). I hereby give you notice and require you forthwith to proceed diligently, and in a proper and workmanlike manner, with the erection and com (a) By THOMAS WILKINSON, Esq., Liverpool. commencing an action of trover in order to prove the (c) The contract to which this notice has reference is Precedent 51. pletion, pursuant to your contract with me, dated &c., of the dwelling-houses, situate &c. And that in case you shall neglect or refuse to proceed with the erection and completion thereof, in manner aforesaid for days after the service hereof that I shall then enter into and upon the said premises, and employ such other builders and workmen as may be necessary to complete and finish the said buildings, at your risk and expense, or sell the same either finished or unfinished, as I may be advised. And that I shall take all such proceedings by sale, or otherwise, as may be requisite for the purpose of completing the said contract, and obtaining payment of all such moneys as shall be owing to me under the said contract, without any further day of notice. Dated the 18 C. D. [proprietor]. 99. Notice to determine partnership. (a) To A. B., of &c. I hereby give you notice, pursuant to the provision in this behalf, contained in our partnership articles, that it is my intention to determine our co-partnership on the expiration of calendar months from the time of your being served with day of this notice. Dated the 18 C. D. 100. Notice to carriers (b) by vendor of goods not to deliver same to purchaser. Railway Company and to A. B., goods manager, at cases of To the their 103. Notice to vendors of land contracted to be sold I beg to give you notice that by an agreement There is great and real alarm in some quarters at the result, which is now scarcely disputed, the immediate supremacy and speedy establishment of Romanism in Ireland. But, after all, is there anything so very terrible in this? Romanism in these days is not what it was; is it not better than the "no religion at all," which is the condition of the masses of our own population? Protestantism has failed to make converts in Ireland, and in England it has not penetrated to the hearts of the multitude. Even with the Dissenters in England, and the Presbyterians in Scotland, hatred of the Established Church has been more powerful than love for Protestantism, insomuch that they have not scrupled to sacrifice the latter to the former. Roman Catholicism has adhered steadily to its principles, and is now reaping its reward in a triumph which will go far to redeem its reverses at the Reformation. In eighteen months its great rival in Ireland will be swept away. In ten years its greater English rival will fall use the victory it has won. for JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW before it also. May it wisely and temperately count JOURNAL. I beg to give you notice that which were delivered by me to you, at carriage to and now in your possession, and lying at your station, in street, undelivered, addressed by me to Messrs. C. D. and Co., of &c., for shipment, at the request of Messrs. E. F. and Co. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS of &c. [purchasers], are my own property, and that I WINDING-UP PRACTICE PRODUCTION OF am the vendor thereof, and that the said goods are Books.-The liquidators of a company desired now in transit, and were purchased from me by the to summon for examination the secretary said E. F. and Co., by whose direction I forwarded of a banking company with whom the acthe same for shipment to the said C. D. and Co., and that the said E. F. and Co. have since become witness to a transfer of shares in the comof G., who had acted as attesting insolvent and suspended payment, and that the said C. D. and Co have no claim to or interest what-pany in liquidation; and as agent between the ever in the said goods. And I further give you notice not to deliver the said cases, or any of them, to the said C. D. and Co., or to any other persons or person, but to hold the same to my order and for my use. And I hereby undertake to indemnify you from all loss, damages, and expenses, to be sustained by you, by reason or in consequence of your retaining the said goods, in pursuance of this notice, and that if you deliver the same contrary thereto I shall hold you responsible for all loss or expenses I may sustain by reason thereof. Dated the day of 18 To A. B., of &c. [mortgagor]. Please to take notice that by an indenture dated &c., and made between C. D., of &c., of the first part, E. F., of &c., of the second part, and G. H. and J. K., of &c. of the third part, in consideration of the intended marriage between the said C. D. and E. F., and for other considerations therein mentioned, the said E. F., with the privity and consent of the said C. D., did grant and assign unto the said G. H. and J. K.. their executors, administrators, and assigns, all that sum of £ invested with other moneys in the names of the said E. F., and her sisters F. F. and G. F., on security of a mortgage, dated &c., of hereditaments and premises, situated in street. , from you and all interest then due, or thereafter to accrue due, upon the same, together with full power to sue for, recover, and receive and give effectual leases and discharges for the same, to hold the said moneys unto the said G. H. and J. K., their executors, administrators, and assigns, upon certain trusts therein mentioned. Dated the day of 1 18 Y. Z. trustees' solicitor]. transferor and transferee, had been kept. The PRIVATE BILL PRACTICE-LOCUS STANDI. A railway was proposed to run near a chapel and schools beyond the limit of deviation. The trustees were held to have no locus standi to Correspondence. THE IRISH CHURCH.-The interests of the laity appear to be lost sight of in the present Bill before Parliament, for prior to the Reformation the poor had an interest to the extent of one quarter in the revenue of all church property and poor rates, and church-rates were unknown. Hence the term the poor man's church. If disendowment takes place, why not allow some of the property to return to ancient Roman Catholic uses, namely, the relief of reduce local poor rates? Again, prior to the the poor, by funding some of the property to Reformation the parish churches had free sittings to all parishioners, and are they now to be handed over to become Congregational property, to the prejudice of the laity? The glorious Reformation has cost us something in blood and money, and great wars, hence our National Debt; but do not let us be put under further disabilities. A LAYMAN. LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. QUESTIONS FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION. EASTER TERM 1869.-FIRST DAY. I. PRELIMINARY. Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. II. COMMON AND STATUTE LAW AND PRACTICE 6. A. buys a horse of B. and pays for it by a bill of exchange; the horse proves unsound, and is resold at a less price by A. Is this any defence to an action on the bill of exchange brought by B. against A.? 7. What essential right must the plaintiff in ejectment possess as to the land sought to be rein the cases respectively of a tenancy from year to covered, and what step must be taken before action Year and a tenancy at will? covenant) remove, and at what time? 9. Under what circumstances may actions for malicious prosecutions, &c., brought in the Superior Court, be remitted to the County Court? (30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 10.) 10. What is the meaning of "costs in the cause," 102. Notice to trustee of appointment by married oppose it on the ground of incovenience which and of "costs in any event " woman of share and all interest under will. To A. B., of &c. [trustee]. I beg to give you notice that by indenture dated &e.. and made between B. B., wife of A. B, of &c., of the one part, and me the undersigned C. D., of &c., of the other part, for the considerations therein mentioned, the said B. B. did thereby direct and appoint that you or other the trustee or trustees for the time being of the said will should thenceforth during the life of her the said B. B., pay unto me, my executors, administrators, and assigns, the interest, dividends, and annual produce of the share of the personal estate of the said B. B., bequeathed to her and her children, and of the investments, in which the same might be laid out, whether such share were the original share of the (a) As to death of partner giving such a notice before it expires, see Bell v. Nevin, 15 W. R. 85. (b) See hereon Litt. v. Cowley, 7 Taunt. 168; Stokes v. La Rivière, cited 3 East, 397; and Jackson v. Nichol, 5 Bing. N. C. 518. would prevent the religious services from being WINDING-UP-PRACTICE.-A petition was pre- A SUCCESS UNPRECEDENTED-MARAVILLA COCOA IS PERFECTION. The Globe says "Taylor Brothers' Maravilla Cocoa has achieved a thorough success, and supersedes every other cocoa in the market. For homœopaths and invalids we could not recommend a more argeeable or valuable beverage." Sold in packets only, by all Grocers.-[ADVT, 11. What is the limit of the jurisdiction of the County Courts where title comes in question ? 12. How are the costs of the cause apportioned when the plaintiff takes out of court money paid in by the defendant, in respect of a particular sum or cause of action, but who goes on for more, and is defeated as to the residue of his claim? 13. What is the rule as to allowing applications to set aside process or proceedings on the ground of irregularity? 14. State the cases in which a defendant has the right of set-off, and when not. 15. Define a simple contract, and state its essentials at common law. 16. X., Y., and Z. are sued jointly on a promissory note, and judgment recovered against X. alone. They are also sued with the like result, for breaking and entering a close; has X. a right to contribution from his co-defendants in either case? 17. What is the rule at common law as to inte rest on a debt, in the absence of any agreement to pay interest? 18. Smith obtains judgment against Brown, to whom Hobbs is indebted. How can Smith obtain the benefit of this debt? 19. When does distress for rent lie? 20. What is the rule for reckoning days not expressed to be clear days? 21. Some kinds of personal estate may, and some may not be bequeathed to endow a hospital. Mention one which may, and one which may not, be so bequeathed. 22. Land held for an estate in fee-simple is devised to A. for life, and after his death to the heirs of his body, and he has a son who is a minor. Can the estate in fee during the life of A. and the minority of his son, be vested in a purchaser; and if so, how and by whom? 23. What is necessary to the validity of a conveyance of a fee-simple estate in land for the endowment of an almshouse? 24. Land held for an estate in fee-simple is devised to A. for life, with remainder to his first and other sons, successively in tail general. A. enters into possession and dies, and B. his eldest son succeeds him and dies, and B.'s eldest son C. Do all, or any, and which of these persons A. B. and C. take by purchase or by descent? succeeds. 25. Land is devised to the use of A. and his heirs in trust for B. and his heirs. A. disclaims the devise. In whom are the legal and equitable estates respectively vested? 26. An estate in fee-simple in land is conveyed in mortgage to A. who dies intestate. How can the land be vested again in the mortgagor discharged from the mortgage? 27. A woman, owner of an estate in fee-simple in land, marries and has children. What estate or interest in the land has the husband during her life, and after her death? 28. A. having purchased land for an estate in fee-simple, dies intestate, leaving a son B., and a daughter C. by his first wife, and a son D. by his second wife. B. dies intestate and unmarried. Who is entitled to the land on the death of B., and why? 29. A., an only child, became possessed of land for an estate in fee-simple, as the heir at law of his mother-B., also an only child, became possessed of land for an estate in fee-simple under his mother's will. A. and B. both die intestate and unmarried, each leaving an only brother of his father, and an only brother of his mother surviving him. To whom will the lands of A. and B. respectively go, and why? 30. A testator bequeaths a legacy to a son and a legacy to a nephew. The son and nephew both die before the testator, and both have children. Do the legacies lapse, or, if not, to whom are they payable? 31. Land is limited by settlement to A. for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, and is charged with a jointure to his wife for her life, if she should become his widow, and with portions for younger children. The settlement contains no power of sale. Can the land be sold in the lifetime of A., and during the minority of his sons! And, if so, by what means, and with whose concurrence? 32. A. being possessed of an estate in fee'simple in land, mortgages the estate to B. to secure repayment of a loan-should A. afterwards die intestate possessed of ample personal estate, then, as between the land and the personal estate, which is ultimately liable to the repayment of the loan, and why? 33. A. and B. are joint tenants in fee-simple. C. and D. are tenants in common in fee-simple. A. dies in the lifetime of B., having devised all his real estate to E. C. dies in the lifetime of D., having devised all his real estate to F. What interests do E. and F. respectively take under the devises to them? 34. Can the owner of an estate in fee-simple in land convey the land to A., a bachelor, for life, with remainder to his son for life, and if not, why? 35. A testator devised land to A. and his heirs, but if A. should die under age, to B. and his heirs. Can B. during A.'s minority vest his expectancy in a purchaser? If so, how, and under what authority? QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION. EASTER TERM, 1869. I. Preliminary. Questions 1 to 5 inclusive. II. From Chitty on Contracts. 6. Describe shortly the three descriptions of contracts known in English law. 7. When it is sought to establish an agreement by letters between the parties, what must be the terms of the answer relied on to complete the contract? 8. By what law is a contract, made in a foreign country, to be expounded, if it comes before an English court? 9. What is a del-credere commission, and how does it affect the responsibility of an agent acting under it ? 10. What is the general rule by which the existence of a partnership may be tested? 11. Define a sale of goods. damages by reason of the defendant having, on the 3rd Nov. 1868, shot and killed a dog of the Scotch terrier breed, the property of the plaintiff. The facts that the defendant did then shoot the plaintiff's dog (which was known by the name of Rags), and in a wood called Asses Grove, and that that grove was the property of the defendant's father, Gen. Wood, were admitted. With those admis 12. How does the 17th section of the Statute of sions, the evidence adduced at the hearing was as Frauds affect contracts for the sale of goods? III. From Williams on the Principles of the Law of Real Property. [All the following questions are framed with reference to Williams on the Principles of the Law of Real Property, 8th edition. The first 150 pages.] 13. What, according to Williams, was one of the simplest and most natural divisions of property in times of but partial civilisation; and how did the two great classes of property begin to ac quire two other names, more characteristic of their difference, and what were those other names? (PP. 6, 7.) 14. In which of the two classes are leases for terms of years placed, and for what reason? (pp. 8, 9.) 15. Besides the division ef property before alluded to, Williams mentions another classification which deserves to be mentioned. What is that classification? (pp. 10, 11.) absolute owner of land. What, then, can he hold 16. Williams says that no man is, in law, the in land? (p. 17.) by certain unities. What are those unities? 17. A joint tenancy is said to be distinguished (p. 128.) 18. Do any of these unities, and, if So, which of them exist in a tenancy in common? (p. 133.) 19. By what words can you, by one deed, give to A. a legal estate in fee-simple in land, and to B. an equitable estate in fee-simple in the same land ? IV. From J. W. Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence. 20. Give a short general definition of equity jurisprudence. Is it synonymous with natural justice? 21. State two of the general maxims of equity jurisprudence, and give an instance of the application of each. 22. Define actual fraud, and constructive fraud, and give instances of each. 23. If a vendor conveys real estate to a purchaser, and in the conveyance acknowledges the payment of the purchase-money, and also signs a receipt indorsed upon the conveyance for it, but does not in fact receive payment, what remedies has he, and against whom? 24. How can an equitable mortgage be created, and in what cases is an equitable mortgagee entitled to priority over a subsequent legal mortgagee? 25. Under what circumstances may a bill of interpleader be filed, and what is required of the plaintiff in such a suit? 26. If a man marries a ward in Chancery, with the consent of her guardian, and not knowing that she is a ward, is he deemed guilty of a contempt? V. Bookkeeping. 27. Give a general description of the system of book-keeping by single entry. 28. What is a day book, and what is a ledger ? and describe the process of posting from the former to the latter. 29. What is the difference between a day book and an invoice book? 30. What is a profit and loss account, and how is it made out? 31. Give specimens of entries in the book for bills receivable and payable. COUNTY COURTS. ROMFORD COUNTY COURT. (Before Mr. LEONARD, the Deputy of WILLIAM GURDON, Esq.) SOLOMON v. WOOD. The right to shoot dogs in pursuit of game. Semble, there is no such right unless there is immediate danger that the game will be killed. Bush Cooper, instructed by Rawlings, of Bishopsgate and Romford, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, a farmer, at Lambourne, in Essex, and tenant of Gen. Wood, lord of the manor of Lambourne, and Lord, instructed by Hicks and Son, of Gray's-inn, for the defendant, the son of Gen. Wood. The particulars, as set forth in the plaint were as follows: This action is brought to recover the sum of 201. as and for damages by reason of the defendant having, on or about the 3rd Nov. 1868, shot and killed a Scotch terrier dog, of the plaintiff. His HONOUR delivered judgment as follows: This was an action to recover the sum of 201. for to the value of the dog, and the circumstances the part of the plaintiff, so far as it is material, which led to its destruction. That evidence on may be summed up as follows: The plaintiff, and two of his witnesses, concur in describing the dog as good for shooting purposes, finding game, and would not take 107. for the dog, that money would destroying vermin. The plaintiff stated that he not replace it to him, but he would not swear that the dog was actually worth that or any other exact if he wanted such a dog he would gladly give sum. One of the plaintiff's witnesses stated that 101. for it; but, as he did not want such a dog he declined to say what he thought it was actually worth. The other witnesses whom the plaintiff called declined to say what they thought the dog was worth. The evidence on the part of the defendant is as follows: The defendant stated that he and a friend were out shooting, and that he was attracted towards the wood by the yelping of a dog, which he knew, from the cry, to be in when he got to the wood he saw nothing. He pursuit of either a rabbit or a hare, but that then sat down to luncheon. While at luncheon the dog came in sight in pursuit of a rabbit. The be kept on the look out for the dog. Eventually defendant said he was naturally irritated at what he saw. He then shot the dog. He swore that he firmly believed the dog would have killed the rabbit if he had not shot it. The rabbit was at the time about ten yards from the dog. He said that at the time when he fired the shot he did know whose dog it was. He, however, knew Rags, and afterwards recognised the dog. He said he had frequently seen Rags hunting alone. The defendant also said he was a good judge of dogs, and he believed Rags had no breeding points. He considered 5s, a good price for it. He afterwards was sorry for the dog. The witness Smith (who is in the employment of the defendant's father), and was out with the defendant and his friend on the occasion), in his evidence corroborates that of the defendant as to the dog being in pursuit of a rabbit. He deposes to the distance between the dog and the rabbit as being ten yards, and says that the rabbit could not have escaped if the dog In his cross-examination, had not been shot. however, two very material facts were elicited, namely, that the rabbit was within five yards of a hedge, and that the hedge was not full of holes. From the latter of these two statements I infer there were at all events some holes in the hedge. The witness designated the dog as a desperate poacher, and valued it at 5d. There were four other witnesses examined on the part of the defendant each of whom also spoke of the dog as a desperate poacher, but none of them said that they had ever seen the dog kill or catch anything. One of the four valued it at 2s. 6d., and another at a glass of beer. To these facts it should be added that General Wood ratifies and adopts the act of the defendant. In that state of facts, Mr. Lord, for the defendant, relied upon the following cases, namely, Deane v. Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489; Gordin v. Crump, 8 Mees. 782; Wadhurst v. Daunne, Cro. Jac. J. 45; Protheroe v. Matthews, 5 Car, & T. 581; Reads v. Edwards, 34 L. J., N. S., 182; Sutton v. Moody, Ld. Raym. 250; and Vere v. Lord Caudor, and King, 11 East, 568, as authority for the right of a landowner to kill a dog in pursuit of his game on his land. Deane v. Clayton was an action upon the case against the defendant to recover compensation for the loss of his dog. The defendant pleaded not guilty. In that case it appeared that the defendant, for the purpose of injuring dogs and foxes which might come in search of hares into his wood, caused several spikes called dog spears, with two sharp ends, to be screwed and fastened into several trees in the wood, so that each end might point along the course of some of the tracks which were frequented by hares. Those engines were placed at such a height from the ground as to allow a hare to pass under them without injury; but so as to wound and kill any dog that might happen to run against one of the sharp ends. In that case the judges were not agreed. Burrough and Park, JJ., considered that the acts of the defendant were unlawful, that if the plaintiff had been a trespasser the defendant could not have justified the direct killing of the dog, and that he could not justify doing that indirectly, which he could not have done directly. Dallas, J., on the other hand, in giving judgment for the defendant, said, "It is allowed to place spikes or glass on a wall, and if a party climbing over be thereby wounded or cut can he bring an action? And yet if I were to see a trespasser coming down my area, I could not drive the spikes into his hands, or cut him with the glass. Suppose that in order to separate his pro |