of that case he says, "The aid of this court was invoked and granted against the author of a deed of inspectorship who had set his inspectors at defiance. In that case, although there were no unusual circumstances to call for the court's interference the court appointed a receiver to the bankrupt's estate." We are very reluctant to differ with the Vice-Chancellor on the construction to be put on a case; but we think there were unusual circumstances in that case. The bill there prayed in effect that the debtor might be compelled specifically to perform covenants entered into by him, and that an injunction might be granted to restrain the debtor from interfering with the collection of his assets. And the grounds upon which Lord Justice Page Wood assisted the inspectors were, as he states in his judgment, that the bill alleged that the debtor was dealing with his property contrary to the covenants of the deed, and "the inspectors say they cannot prevent this, that irreparable mischief will ensue, and they ask for a receiver." Then he says "I feel no doubt that this court will interfere, where necessary, to prevent irreparable mischief from breach of covenant, although the property may have to be distributed in bankruptcy, and though the Court of Bankruptcy may be able to give the same relief." And a further ground for exercising the powers of the court was that a receiver was asked, and there was no instance of a receiver having been appointed by a Court of Bankruptcy. Now, in the case of Martin v. Powning, the appointment of a receiver was not asked, and it did not appear that "irreparable mischief" would be prevented by the exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction. As to the expediency of concurrent jurisdictions, we fully agree with Vice-Chancellor Giffard that, in such cases as these, there are abundant reasons why there should be one exclusive and not two concurrent jurisdictions. This is illustrated by Riches v. Owen, for there the court, although appointing a receiver, refused to have any hand in the administration of the assets. 1 THE NEW LAW COURTS.. THE Profession is very much indebted to Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN for resuming the discussion relative to the erection of the new Law Courts. It may fairly be said that there is no difference of opinion within the Profession as to the desirability of the site of the Thames Embankment. Esthetically, also, there is everything to be said in its favour. For all practical purposes it is indisputably the best. As Sir CHARLES points out, the Carey-street site is hemmed in all round with buldings. "The lofty pile of King's College Hospital would overlook it, and in the west and north-west would be the sordid and infectious neighbourhood extending through Clare-market to Drury-lane and Great Queen-street. With the exception of the Strand front Mr. STREET's imposing façades would be very imperfectly seen, and the Strand front would begin and end with itself, and would not be combined in one general view with any other buildings." bankment and by the wide street which has been opened from Westminster to Londonbridge. On the other side a new street would connect the law courts with Holborn. The space on the Thames Embankment is so ample that a carriage road might be made, with an easy gradient, which would set down the Judges and barristers at the doors of their courts; while, on the Strand side, the courts might be on a level with the street. The site already acquired is seven and a half acres. The Thames Embankment site is nine and a half acres, and every foot of it can be built upon. We should be able to take full advantage of Mr. STREET'S facade towards the Strand, because having both sides of the street in our own possession, except the Holywell-street block, the Strand might be widened to the necessary extent; and, on the other side, towards the Thames, we could erect a building worthy of our nation." Then as to the inconveniences of the Careystreet site, Sir CHARLES points out an enormous defect. The rise in the ground from the Strand to Carey-street is so considerable, that no Judge, however infirm, could be set down from his carriage at his court, but he must either mount about forty steps on the Carey-street side, or be hoisted up, like a ccal scuttle, to the same level. On the Strand side the number of steps will be about eighty. Nor is this all, for if Mr. STREET's plan is carried out, the spectators would have to go up one hundred steps by a corkscrew staircase "with steps only 5ft. long, narrowing to a point, technically called 'winders,' to the imminent risk of being pitched head-foremost in their descent by the pressure of the crowd behind." These are practical objections to the Careystreet site of the very greatest weight, yet, as Sir CHARLES points out, the Embankment site has perusal of his letter, which appeared in the Times of Tuesday, to our readers, and we trust sincerely that it will have the good effect of procuring in the ensuing session a reconsideration of the original scheme. never been considered. We recommend the A REPRIEVE. LAST week we published with a commentary the extraordinary confession of BISGROVE as to the murder in Somersetshire, and the consequent reprieve of SWEET, who had been convicted with him. Whether a sudden homicidal impulse arising in a torpid mind in the manner we described was insanity in fact, although undoubtedly not such in law, we propose to consider in another article. But the HOME SECRETARY has decided the question by respiting the murderer, to the great discontent, as it is asserted, of the majority of the inhabitants of Somersetshire. We are, however, inclined to approve of the resolution of the Home Office. Capital punishment is not inflicted for vengeance sake, but for example; its object is to deter others from the commission of the like crime. But persons acting under the insane impulse that operated upon BISGROVE would not be deterred by the knowledge that forfeitures of their own lives would be the penalty of the deed. The very characteristic of the crime is the absence of rational motive, the presence of an impulse that takes possession of the whole mind and excludes all other influences. The perpetrator is not the master of his own actions any more than is a somnambulist or a fever patient in delirium. If ordinary motives had their usual sway, he would not have killed his companion. But they were asleep or overpowered by the one haunting thought. If he had been seized at that moment of temptation and it had been possible to analyse the state of his mind, he would doubtless have been pronounced by all to be, then a lunatic. Whether it is or is not desirable for the sake of society that such lunatics should escape the consequences of their lunatic acts is a question for statesmen, upon which there is much to be said upon both sides; but the mental physiologist would certainly, without hesitation, pronounce it to be a case of lunacy-not the less real because it may have been temporary, and such a condition of mind is not to be influenced by fear of consequences. On the other hand the Embankment site has everything to recommend it. As pointed out by Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN, "there is no ventilator or reflector like a tidal river, and it has this peculiar quality, that the open space cannot be curtailed. The site bounded by the Thames Embankment, the Strand, the Temple, and Somerset House is the most central in London; and yet, for space, and light, and air, it could hardly be better if it were in the heart of the country. Immediately in front is a road 100ft. wide, with a railway underneath, which will furnish constant and rapid conveyance to and from all parts of the town; and beyond the road is the river, with steam passenger boats constantly plying to and fro. The communication with the City would be infinitely more convenient by the new street going direct to the Mansion House from the end of the Embankment, than it would be by Cheapside, St. Paul's, Ludgatehill, Fleet-street, and the Strand, to the Law Courts on the Strand and Carey-street site. The connection with the Houses of Parliament and the public offices by the Thames Embankment would be equally direct. The BANKRUPTCY UNDER THE CROWN. south side of the river is joined to the north side THE new Treasury minute inflicting heavy by several railway and other bridges; and the penalties upon servants of the Crown becoming general facility of communication will be much pecuniarily embarrassed is of considerable comincreased by the new road on the southern em-mercial importance. The persons affected are not only the civil servants themselves, but their creditors also. Tradesmen are accustomed to consider Government appointments good security for a certain amount of credit, for in the event of bankruptcy they might get a charge on the income. Now, a person employed by the Crown enjoys no such exceptional position. If he becomes pecuniarily embarrassed, so as in the opinion of his superiors to impair his efficiency as a public servant, he may lose his appointment, and his creditors get nothing. We would point out, for the benefit of possible creditors of civil servants, that they stand in a different position to officers in the naval and military services. Civil servants do or do not lose their appointments. Officers in the services may retire on half-pay, and thus have something to give their creditors year by year, or may sell out, and enable their creditors to realise an immediate dividend. By regulations issued in 1868 the authorities are given a discretion as to each particular case occurring in the services, and we are led by those regulations to believe that only in the event of decidedly dishonourable transactions would extreme measures be taken. Civil servants, on the other hand, have no such retreat from an embarrassed position. This fact, however, being known to the commercial community, it is to be hoped that one class of persons only will suffer, namely, money lenders. To a very considerable extent their occupation for the future will be gone, and we are sure there are few persons who will regret it. They debase the law by calling in aid its process, and it would do much to raise its credit if it were less frequently invoked by usurers and tallymen. THE HISTORY OF LAW. PROBABLY there are several views concerning what a history of law ought to be, and also regards English law a very prominent difficulty concerning the utility of such a history. As has been found in the uncertainty surrounding the origin of much of it, an uncertainty which can never be removed, and which can only be explained with a result more or less satisfactory, according to the research and ability of the historian. We look for first principles, and we find many wrapped up in scarcely intelligible custom, others utterly lost, and others, as we have said, so thickly surrounded with uncertainty as to be hardly recognised as principles at all. As conspicuous illustrations of this we may name the tenure of land and the procedure of trial by jury. No legal problem has given rise to more diversity of judicial opinion than have the questions for instance of the origin of certain classes of tenantry, and the rights of lord, tenant, and stranger upon manorial land; whilst the Law Amendment Society has in vain offered prizes in the attempt to elucidate the origin and growth of trial by jury. This being so, it is quite clear that a history of law must to some extent be imperfect. Before the period of statute law there were few means of recording the progress of jurisprudence, and this being so, the early landmarks were lost. With reference to general history, HALLAM has expressed the opinion that the modern student may content himself with going no farther back than the reign of HENRY VII., and we have our doubts whether there is any practical good to be gained by proceeding further back than REEVE has gone for the purpose of writing a history of English law. Mr. W. F. FINLASON, however, is of a different opinion. He has undertaken to edit a new edition of Reeve's History, the first volume of which is now before us; and in his introduction to this edition he says, “it seems obvious that in any work on legal history, as it is important, as far as possible to trace laws and institutions to their real origin, however remote, it is necessary to go back to the period when regular laws and civilised institutions first existed in the country, because however much its laws may have been (as in our own was certainly to a great extent the case) the growth of custom and usage, subject to a change in course of time, yet it must be that the rise and growth of civilised customs and laws must have been mainly influenced and determined by the earliest civilised institutions existing in the country, the primitive source whence they were in all probability originally derived." And the Roman institutions being those with which the barbaric customs first came in contact, Mr. FINLASON goes to the Roman law to enlighten us as to the origin of our legal principles. We apprehend, however, that many customs resisted the civilising influence of the Roman invasion, and in their uncultivated state gave birth to the laws which we are in the habit of enforcing day by day, especially in matters affecting real property. Indeed, from the course of his remarks, we see that we are not indebted to the Roman law for anything earlier than the system of division of land amongst individuals who sub-granted to the inferior people. This was in its inception the military tenure. But apart from this, as many of our readers probably know, there were Saxon husbandmen who maintained their customs for a very considerable period. And these customs are some of those to which we refer as probably having been unaffected by the civilising influence of the Roman occupation. though of little practical moment, and we would 11th Oct. 1867, are given in the tables under the head of bankruptcy, as shown in the returns prepared by the chief registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy, and presented to Parliament pursuant to the Act. The cases in which probates or administrations Courts are shown in the returns furnished by the of wills were granted under decrees of County district registrars of the Court of Probate. Returns of the proceedings of the County Courts under the jurisdiction in equity, conferred by the Act of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 99, have been furnished by the treasurers, as obtained by them from the registrars, for the year 1867, and will be found abstracted in the tables, in continuation of the abstract for the preceeding fifteen months given in the statistics for 1866. A distinguishing feature of Mr. FINLASON'S dissertation is that he does not, as did REEVE, thrust entire treatises into his text; but, by examining those treatises, and considering their effect, he sees by their light the advancement made in our legal system. Thus, for instance, he takes the great work of GLANVILLE as showing the marked advance made in the reign of England and Wales, including metropolitan courts County courts are held at 521 different places in HENRY II. There are several instances in which have no jurisdiction in bankruptcy; 325 of We are not disposed, however, to question which we cannot follow our author in his the courts are held monthly; the remaining 196 too carefully the utility of considering the logical deductions, and one of them has reference once in two months. The number of places at influence of Roman institutions upon the state to the above-mentioned writer. Mr. FINLASON which courts are held in each circuit, and the of the law before REEVE began to write his his- says that the work of GLANVILLE was an era in number of days of sitting on each circuit in 1867 tory. For we find that incidentally Mr. FIN- our law. This we submit is impossible; and the are shown in the table. For circuit No. 6, in which LASON treats of most interesting questions, one point is unimportant, except for the purpose of Liverpool is situated, there are two judges. For of which we have already named. "The system procuring accuracy of expression. Undoubtedly each of the other circuits there is one judge only, of trial under the Roman law was," he says, GLANVILLE'S work pointed out the growing im-The following are the number of plaints in the "the original of trial by jury, with which, in all portance of procedure, and the era of legal history rach heading in the returns with reference to the whole of the county courts, and the totals under essential respects, it was identical." This is which he illustrated was a remarkable one in eecovery of debts for the year 1867, in comparison certainly a new light, many writers of authority this respect. Criminal procedure was making with the number for the preceding year, and with being of opinjon that we derived our system of rapid advances, and civil procedure was assumthe average of the seven years 1859 to 1865 injury trial from Germany. And we would still asking the regular and symmetrical shape of the clusive. our author to consider whether because under Roman system. Our author then uses BRACTON Average, 1867. the Roman system there were judices legis and to show the advance upon the reign of HENRY II. judices facti, the latter were necessarily the model made in the reign of HENRY III., and he notices Total plaints entered (includof our jury system. Indeed, he says, as if ad- that in the celebrated treatise of that writer we mitting the doubt, "at all events trial by jury, have the first formal treatises upon our law as so often supposed to be of essentially English a whole; GLANVILLE having dealt with a part of origin, was part of the Roman system." Mr. it only. Mr. FINLASON here rejoices again that FINLASON shows, to our mind, too strong a "it is impossible not to see that in a great degree tendency to believe in everything Roman. He it is founded upon, if not almost copied from, will not allow that anything pertaining to the the Roman law." Britons survived the Roman occupation, nor will he credit the Saxons with anything but a large amount of barbarism. Both STEWART in his "View of Society in Europe," and also GURDON allude to the foundations of the feudal association as having been laid by the Goths and Vandals, built upon by the Danes and consolidated by the Saxons. These institutions being thus consolidated, we can see when the influence of the Roman civilisation was felt, for the system of subtenancy commenced soon after. Lord CoкE did not think of attributing the creation of Saxon manors to the influence of the Roman occupation, for beyond ascertaining the fact that they comprised demesnes and services, he declined to venture, being of opinion that he who did so would be accounted more curious than judicious. We cannot follow Mr. FINLASON in his conclusions, that because the Saxons were barbarians they could have no notions concerning sovereignty. From the authorities which he cites in his notes, it is clear they had so far such notions that each predatory clan had its chieftain, and it is very easy to see that out of such an association might have sprung a welldefined notion of sovereignty. Our author says it is idle to suppose that laws and institutions could have emanated from the Saxons, because, though compiled in Saxon times, they at that time had them not themselves. We cannot assent to this reasoning, and we think it would not be so idle as our author supposes to give the Saxons credit for originating some of those rules and laws which he would claim exclusively for the Romans. Of course it is one thing to say that they could have given birth to legal principles and rules of procedure, and it is another to say that they made them what they appear to have been in later times. We see in the earliest state of our law what Mr. FINLASON (p. xii.) calls the blending of law and custom. The law was Roman, the custom was Saxon; "and," as our author says, "the history of our laws and institutions from the time of the Saxon invasion is a history of this gradual progress, and of a struggle between the principle of reason represented by the Roman law, and the principle of custom, represented by the rude usages of the barbarians." Our only difference with Mr. FINLASON is concerning the result of this struggle. We believe that many of the Saxon customs prevailed in the struggle, and still flourish, whilst he thinks that the Roman law overrode the Saxon customs, and moulded all subsequent law and all subsequent procedure. We have discussed this matter rather fully, as it is a subject of considerable importance, ing the cases sent from the Causes determined: With a jury Judgments: For plaintiff sent or admission 213,291 fault 1859-65. ..... 942,181 795,548 889 425,127 542,560 426,016 310,377 275,339 164,426 524 757 9,138 9,060 9,230 We cannot here follow Mr. FINLASON page by As to the scheme adopted by Mr. FINLASON It only remains to be said in conclusion that JUDICIAL STATISTICS FOR THE (Continued from page 146.) The proceedings in the County Courts in the The proceedings in the County Courts under the Issued ment:Issued. goods:Issued. Sales made Total amount for which plaints entered £1,894,611 LORD MAYOR'S COURT. entered was 6084, exceeding the number in the Proceedings in actions.-The number of actions preceding year by 297, or upwards of 5 per cent. There were also 7 ejectments in 1867, against 19 in 1866, and 10 apprentice petitions, against 8 in 1866. The total amount for which actions were entered in 1867 was 139,4851., exceeding the amount in 1866by 46081., or 34 per cent. Amounts for which actions entered.-Of the number of actions entered 60, or 0-1 per cent., for 218., or 0-2 per cent. of the total amount. were under 5.; 1878, or 308 per cent., for 14,267., or 10-2 per cent. of the total amount, were for 51. and 261 per cent. of the total amount, were for 101 and under 101.; 2533, or 416 per cent., for 37,414., or under 201; and 1617, or 26.5 per cent., for 88,5361., or 63.1 per cent. of the total amount, were for 201. and above. Other proceedings.-The other proceedings of the Court in actions are shown in the table under the headings of, orders to stay proceedings; judgments for plaintiff; judgments on apprentice petitions; judgments for defendant; verdicts; verdicts for claimants on precepts to assess compensations under railway Acts, &c., of which there were 68, for a total amount of 509,7281.; executions; certiorari; procedendo; writs of trial; and judgment summonses. Proceedings in foreign attachments.-The number of foreign attachments issued was 904, being less than the number for the preceding year by 120. the amount for which attachments were issued was 593,3881., being less than the amount in 1866 by 597,7991., or more than half (501 per cent.) Of the attachments issued 355, or 39.2 per cent., for 320,2471., or 539 per cent. of the amount, were withdrawn and settled by the parties. The other proceedings may be seen in the Table under the heading of verdicts; judgments; bills of proof; certiorari; and procedendo. The average attachment was 6561.; in the preceding year it was 11631. There were further 4 bills of complaint on the Equity side of the Court. Of these proceedings there were 2 in 1866. The total amount of fees was 42861. on ordinary proceedings, and 48241. on Brayne v. The Great Western Railway Company. Harrower v. Hutchinson. Special case Hudston v. Midland Railway Company. Appeal [Mr. Francis for defendant Sturgeon Prideaux and Criddle. Special case Moved Hilary Term 1868. MIDDLESEX-Henderson v. Squire MIDDLESEX-Cary v. Dawson Tried during Term. [Mr. Hawkins [Mr. H. James MIDDLESEX-Hooper v. Sibsey. (Part heard.) [Mr. D. Keane [Mr. M. Chambers [Serjt. Ballantine Mr. D. Seymour [Serjt. Ballantine [Mr Field [Serit Ballantine [Mr Field LONDON-Moore v. North London Rail. Co. LONDON-Same v. Same [Mr. H. Matthews for defendant Simmons LONDON-Southey v. General Steam Navigation Com pany LONDON-Same v. Same LONDON-Westwood v. Carter LONDON-Culverwell v. Powell KENT-Doust v. Slater CORNWALL-West v. Dodd MANCHESTER-Taylor v. Chester. argued with this rule) YORK-Marks v. Feldman [Sir G. Honyman [Mr. M. Chambers [Solicitor-General [Mr. H. Lloyd [Mr. Daly [Mr. Kingdon (Demurrer to be [Mr. Pope [Mr. Field YORK-Burn . Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company Tried during Term. MIDDLESEX-Soleman v. Portbury Moved Trinity Term 1868. MIDDLESEX-Peckitt v. Forster [Mr. Overend [Mr. Huddleston [Mr. Hawkins [Mr. Kemplay [Mr. Murphy [Mr. Merewether [Mr. D. Seymour [Mr. Raymond [Mr. H. James Tried during Term. [Mr. Serjt. Parry [Mr. D. Seymour MIDDLESEX-Kimbray v. Draper Moved Michaelmas Term 1868. Gray v. Maley. Demurrer. Bradshaw v. James. Special case Beckitt v. Hull Local Board of Health. Special case Warner . The London and North-Western Railway Holford v. Gamble. Demurrer Evans v. Bignold. Special case Musgrave v. Inclosure Commissioners for England and Commings v. Heard. Demurrer Gibson v. Mayor of Preston. Demurrer MIDDLESEX-Corbet v. Worcester City and County LIVERPOOL-Mayor of Liverpool v. Churchwardens of BRADFORD - Farrar v. Close GLAMORGAN-Reg. v. Rhymney Railway Company LINCOLNSHIRE-Brackenborough v. Thorsby ESSEX-Reg. v. Lord of Woodham Walter Manor SURREY-Reg. v. Metropolitan Board of Works Hull LANCASHIRE-Ashworth v. Hepworth Trowsdale v. North British Railway Company. (Special case. Remitted to arbitrator) Dingey v. Mayor, &c., of London. Demurrer MERIONETHSHIRE-Reg. v. Cambrian Railway Company Callaghan v. Doliven. Appeal ISLE OF ELY-Golding v. Stocking MIDDLESEX-Reg. v. Metropolitan District Railway Co. ESSEX-North v. Barnard ESSEX-Barnard v. North GLAMORGAN-Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Co. MIDDLESEX-Reg. v. Inhabitants of Exeter MARGATE-Lawrence v. Ingmise MARGATE-Margate Pier and Harbour v. Town Council of Margate SURREY-Reg. v. Overseers of Maldon Tuesday Tuesday Court of Common Pleas. SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS-IN TERM. Middlesex. Jan. 12 | Tuesday.......Jan. 26 ..........Jan. 19 The Court will not sit in London during Term. Respondents' Agents. Thursday, Jan. 28. Law (app.) v. Maillard (resp.) Perkin (app.) v. Town Clerk of Wakefield (resp.) .Feb. 16 The Court will sit on Mondays at 11 a.m. and on all other days at 10 o'olock. The Court will sit in Middlesex in Term by adjournment from day to day until the causes entered for the respective Middlesex sittings are disposed of. Norwich......... Glocester New Windsor Bewdley. EXCHEQUER ERRORS. For Judgment.; Earl of Derby v. The Bury Improvement Commissioners For Argument. English and F. C. Company v. Arduin General Steamship Company v. British Colonial Steamship Company Siner and wife v. The Great Western Railway Company Spill v. Maule Parkes v, Prescott Ferrar v. The Commissioners of Sewers Popplewell v. Hodgkinson Criminal Court of Appeal. This court will sit on Saturday, the 23rd day of January, at ten o'clock. NOTE.-The Associates' offices for the Queen's Bench are at 19, Chancery-lane, and for the Common Pleas and Exchequer of Pleas at 18, Chancery-lane.-Office hours. during Term and Sittings after Term 11 till 5, and. during Vacation 11 till 2. PETITIONS. LISTS OF ELECTION Appointed for Trial. Petitioners' Agents. Petitioners. Crozier Elkins Respondents. Hon. E. F. Gower ......... Coventry Bridgewater Westropp Kinglake and Van derbyl Warrington Guildford Salford Rylands Feb. 1 Onslow Jan. 19 Hereford Thomas Wyllie and Clive Stockport Walton 26 Bradford.. Bradford... Haley Smith Ripley Sir H. Edwards Sidebottom 8333 E. Reddish Plews, Tamworth. NEW TRIAL PAPER. For Judgment. Prince v. Knowles Eastwood v. Avison Besent v. Besent For Argument-Moved Hilary Term 1864. LIVERPOOL-Brabner v. McCann. (To stand over.) Moved Easter Term 1866. LONDON-G. S. N. Co. v. British Colonial S. S. Co. (To stand over.) [Sir J. Karslake Mored Michaelmas Term 1866. NOTTINGHAM-Sanderson v. Midland Railway Company. (Special order.) Moved Michaelmas Term 1867. Jan. 14 Ashworth, Morris, Baxter, Rose, & Co. E. De Gex Baxter, Rose, & Co. E. Sidgwick T. Hoskins Baxter, Rose, & Co. Van Sandau, Cumming, and Sons T. Hoskins Feb. 26 Sharpe asd Willi 9 Sir H. L. Bulwer Brashay Wood and Lancaster Ashton-under Lyne Clarke Mellor Smith Hartlepool... Gray Jackson [Mr. Temple Kingston-upon Pease Hull.. Taunton Dyke Williams T. Hoskins LINCOLN-Earl Beauchamp v. Inclosure Com. for E. and W. (Stand over.) MIDDLESEX-Whitehouse v. Scott. (Special order.) CARLISLE-The Mayor, &c., of Carlisle v. Graham and Moved Hilary Term 1868. [Mr. Huddleston Moved Easter Term 1868. [M. Temple [Mr. Keane [Mr. Milward [Mr. Quain Northallerton A. Co. (To [Mr. Quain Mr. Joyce [Mr. F. Stephens DORCHESTER-Mayor of Dorchester v. Ensor Mr. H. T. Cole Mr. H. T. Cole [Mr. Saunders Mr. J. J. Powell Mr. J. J. Powell [Mr. J. J. Powell be argued with Brecknock Hastings Burrill Lloyd ... Johns Lucas Richards Bell Popham Young Calthorpe Sutton Ryder [Serit. Robinson City of London... Way Mr. Keane Mr. Anderson [Mr. L. Temple Dover Southampton Campbell v. Dufaur. SPECIAL PAPER. For Argument. Demurrer. stand over) (Part heard. To Stafford Stafford Riche v. Ashbury R. C. and I. Company. Demurrer. (To Warwick, S. D.... Davis v. Haycock. Special case. (To stand over) Pethick v. Dyer. Special case. (To stand over) East Norfolk Railway Company v. The Great Eastern Norfolk, N. D.... Durham, S. D.... | Derby, N. D.. Derby, N. D.. Meyrick Torrens and Fowler Brassey, jun. North Hamilton Goschen, Crawford, Pochin Manners and Clowes Helliott Pegler Wile Colley Colman Hendy Longsden Coates LEGAL NEWS. WILLS AND BEQUESTS.-Her Grace the late Dowager Duchess of Sutherland died intestate. Letters of administration of her personal estate, which was sworn under 8000l., have just been granted by Her Majesty's Court of Probate. Her grace, who died at the age of sixty-two, was the third daughter of the sixth Earl of Carlisle, K.G., and married, in 1823, George Granville, Duke of Sutherland, who died in 1861, and has left issue three sons and four daughters. Her grace had held for many years the distinguished post of Mistress of the Robes to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. THE GAZETTES. Bankrupts. Gazette, Jan. 1. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. ASPELON, JOHN, hat manufacturer, Collingwood-st, Blackfriarsrd. Pet. Dec. 30. 0. A. Edwards. Sol. Silvester, Great Doverst. Sur. Feb. 1 BAKER, JOHN, and PERHAM, WILLIAM HENRY, stone masons, BROWN, JAMES, builder, Nelson-villas, Wandsworth rd. Pet. BROWS, JOHN, victualler, Rotherfield-st, Islington. Pet. Dec. 26. DAMOISEAU, CHARLES, sen., provision merchant, Little Newport- EVE, JOHN OVERY, out of business, Charles-st, Islington-green. FRYMANN, HENRY, out of business, Caroline-ter, Dalston. Pet. HOPE, WILLIAM, victualler, Cobham-rd, Stratford-new-tn. Pet. PENDRY, CHARLES EDWARD, lithographic draughtsman, Barns. POWELL, HENRY, oilman, Lancaster-pl, Notting-hill. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Marshall, Lincoln'sinn-fields. Sur. Jan. 15 RADLOFF, HENRY MARTIN, oil refiner, Dover. Pet. Dec. 29. O. A. Edwards. Sol, Sorrell, Great Tower-st. Sur. Feb. 1 READE, COMPTON, attorney, Malvern-lodge, Kilburn-park. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Norvall, Barge-ydchmbs. Sur. Jan. 13 Pet. SIMMONS, JOHN, contractor for public works, Victoria-chmbs, SIVELL, JOHN, cheesemonger, Kingsland-rd. Pet. Dec. 26. Reg. SPILLER, GEORGE, baker, Marshall-st, Golden-sq. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Marshall, Lincoln's-innfields. Sur. Jan. 13 STOCKER, ALFRED, ticket writer, Harrowgate-st, South Hackney. TAITE, FRANK, out of business, Windsor-st, Putney. Pet. THOMAS, DAVID RICHARD, grocer, Asylum-rd, Peckham. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Fulcher, Guildhallyd. Sur. Jan. 13 TURNER, THOMAS, wheelwright, Church-st, Watford. Pet. Dec. 20. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. King, Birchin-la. Sur. Jan. 13 WAGHORN, JOHN, dealer in agricultural implements, Hailsham. Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Godfrey, Hattongdn. Sur. Jan. 14 WEST, ELLEN, widow, professor of music, Ivy-cottage, Charlton. Pet. Dec. 24. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Messrs. Scard, Great St. Helens. Sur. Jan. 15 YOUNG, GEORGE, lamp manufacturer, High-st, St. Marylebone. Pet. Dec. 28. O. A. Edwards Sol. Scarth, Welbeck-st, Cavendish-sq. Sur. Jan. 25 YOUNG, THOMAS SHERWOOD, out of businers, Frampton-park-rd, South Hackney. Pet. Dec. 18. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Godfrey, Hatton-gdn. Sur. Jan. 18 To surrender in the country. ANTHONY, GEORGE, and ANTHONY, WILLIAM, contractors, Sheffield. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A. Rodgers. Sol. Fernell, Sheffield. Sur. Jan. 13 RIGGS, WILLIAM, ironmonger, Keighley. Pet. Dec. 24. O. A. BBusfield. Sol. Hodgson, Keighley. Sur. Jan. 13 BRIMACOMBE, RICHARD HENRY, painter, Falmouth. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. & O. A. Tilly. Sol. Tremewen, Falmouth. Sur. Jan. 12 BRUNGER, HENRY, wood dealer, Faversham. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. & O. A. Tassell. Sur. Jan. 12 BRUNKER, JOHN, brewer, Ystradyfodwg. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Wilde. O. A. Acraman. Sols. Henderson and Salmon, Bristol. Sur. Jan. 13 Sur. Jan. 11 COSBY, ELIZA, widow, Fradley. Pet. Nov. 12. Reg. & O. A. Birch. DAVISON, FREDERICK, cattle dealer, Rochester. Pet. Dec. 19. DIBB, WILLIAM, sen., farrier, Stanningley. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & Reg. & O. A. Acworth. Sur. Jan. 12 O. A. Robinson. Sol. Harle, Leeds. Sur. Jan. 15 FOGDEN, GEORGE, publican, Landport. Pet. Dec. 15. Reg. & Stone. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & O. A. Challinor. Sols. Messrs. HOCKEN, HENRY, coal merchant, Gwinear. Pet. Dec. 8. Reg. & O. A. Peter. Sur. Jan. 11 HOLLIDAY, THOMAS, joiner, Gorton. Pet. Dec. 18. Reg. Fardell. HOOSE, HENRY, ale dealer, Burton-on-Trent. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. JOHNSON, JOHN, tea merchant, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 23. O. A. Young. LEE, JOHN, timber sawyer, Birmingham. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & MORGAN, DAVID, currier, Bristol. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Wilde. NORCLIFFE, BENJAMIN, farmer, Rampton. Pet. Dec. 30. O. A. Young. Sol. Rex, Lincoln. Sur. Jun. 11 OLIVER, JAMES EDWARD, commission agent, Bedford. Pet. OXLEY, THOMAS WILLIAM, merchant's clerk, Hull. Pet. Dec. 29. SHIRREFF, JOHN, merchant, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 30. O. A. SMITH, JOHN, stationer, South Eston. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & WALKER, GEORGE, nurseryman, Humberstone. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Wilde. O. A. Acraman. Sols. Messrs. Hodges, Birming. ham. Sur. Jan, 12 WALLS, JOHN MAYOH, house painter, Little Bolton and Great Bolton. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & O. A. Holden. Sols. Edge and Dawson, Bolton. Sur. Jan. 13 WHARTON, GEORGE, dealer in articles of virtu, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Fardell. O. A. M'Neill. Sol. Storer, Manchester. Sur. Jan. 20 Pet. WOOLLEY, HENRY BRADSHAW, wine merchant, Hull. Dec. 31. 0. A. Young. Sols. Messrs. Rollit and Son, Hull, and Yewdall, Leeds. Sur. Jan. 13 Gazette, Jan. 5. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-st. ANDREW, FREDERICK THOMAS, printer, Offord-rd, Barnsbury. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Murray. 6. A. Parkyns. Sol. Biddles, South-sq, Gray's-inn. Sur. Jan. 18 ARCHER, JAMES, attorney-at-law, Finsbury.pl south, and Albion- BISHOP, ALFRED, banker's clerk, North Brixton. Pet. Dec. 29. 0. A. Edwards. Sols. Smith and Co., Bread-st. Sur. Jan. 25 BLAKE, ELLEN, wife of Charles Blake, Margaretta-ter, King's-rd, Chelsea. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol, Wat son, Basinghall-st. Sur. Jan. 15 BOOTY, CHARLES ABBOTT, photographer, Oxford, Pet. Jan. 1. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Poole, Bartholomew-close. Sur. Feb. 1 BUDDEN, GEORGE, chandler's shop keeper, Botolph-alley, Botolph-la. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Murray. Ò. A. Parkyns. Sol. Godfrey, Hatton-gdn. Sur, Jan. 18 CURRAN, JOHN, retired with honorary rank of Captain with halfpay, Gosport. Pet. Jan. 2. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Fluker, Symonds-inn. Sur. Jan. 21 EVERETT, FREDERICK, stockbroker, Erith, and Royal Exchange. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Durrant, Guildhall-chambers. Sur. Jan. 21 GELLIBRAND, EDMUND GEORGE TOLLER, commission merchant, HARRIS, JOHN REEVES, painter, Gaisford-st, Kentish-town. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Brougham. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Biddles, Southsq, Gray's-inn. Sur. Feb. 1 HEATLEY, WILLIAM, builder, Leytonstone. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Kerby, London-wall. Sur. Jan. 18 JONES, CHARLES, jobmaster, Ranelagh-rd, Harrow-rd. Pet. Dec. 30. Rez. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Kane, Southamptonst, King's-cross. Sur. Jan. 15 LEAL, HENRY, tallor, Brighton. Pet. Dec. 29. O. A. Edwards. Sols. Smith and Co., Bread-st. Sur. Jan. 25 LOADES, WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, professor of music, Charlotte-st Fitzroy-sq. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol Biddles, South-sq, Gray's-inn. Sur. Jan. 18 MARSH, FREDERICK NEWTON, oil and colourman, Plumstead Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Buchanan Basinghall-st. Sur. Jan. 14 MOGFORD, EDWIN, pastrycook, Oxford-st. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Cooke, King-st, Cheapside. Sur. Jan. 15 Moss, DAVID (known as George David Moss), bootmaker, Draperst, Newington Butts. Pet. Jan. 2. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Padmore, Westminster-bridge-rd, Lambeth. Sur. Feb. 1 MOSS, EDWARD, solicitor, Moorgate-st, and Norwood. Pet Nov. 28. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sols. Lawrence, Plews and Co., Old Jewry-chambers. Sur. Jan. 15 PAYNE, JAMES, poulterer, East Greenwich. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Wheatley, Symonds-inn, Chancery-la. Sur. Jan. 18 PERFITT, PHILIP WILLIAM, author, Cumming-st, Pentonville. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Brougham. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Goatley, Bow-st, Covent-gdn. Sur. Feb. 1 PINCHIN, HENRY, of no business, Hanover-pl, Rye-la, Peckham. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Fisher, Doughtyst, Mecklenburgh-sq. Sur. Jan. 15 READING, JOHN, retailer of beer, Surbiton-hill. Pet. Dec. 31. SHIPMAN, WILLIAM, bill broker, Clements-la, Lombard-st. STONE, THOMAS, fishing boat owner, Gorleston. Pet. Jan. 2. UPTON, THOMAS, fruitdealer, Dartford. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sols. Russell and Co., Old Jewry. chambers. Sur. Jan. 21 WELLS, THOMAS, watchmaker. Cambridge. Pet. Jan. 2. O. A. Edwards. Sols. Messrs. Cole, Essex-st, Strand. Sur. Feb. 3 WICKENS, HENRY, solicitor, Palmerston-bldgs, Old Broad-st. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Chidley, Old Jewry. Sur. Jan. 15 WILLIAMS, JAMES, gilder, University-st, and Tolmers-sq, Hampstead-rd. Pet. Jan. 1. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Kidder, John-st, Bedford-row. Sur. Feb. 1 Sol. WILLIAMS, RICHARD, plumber, Kilburn and Kingston-onThames. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Murray. O. A. Parkyns. Busby, Oxford-st, Regent's-circus. Sur. Jan. 18 To surrender in the co intry. ANDERSON, ADAM, gardener, Clarborough. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A. Newton. Sol. Bescoby, East Retford. Sur. Jan. 18 BARNES, JOSEPH, out of business, Bury. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. Macrae. O. A. McNeill. Sols. Sale, Shipman, Seddon, and Sale, Manches. ter. Sur. Jan. 21 BARNFATHER, ISAAC, ropemaker, Newtown, near Carlisle. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. & O. A. Halton. Sol. Wannop, Carlisle. Sur. Jan. 18 BIRLEY, THOMAS MCPHERSON, plumber, Sittingbourne. Pet. O. A. Patchitt. Sol. Ashwell, Nottinghain. Sur. Jan. 20 ELLIS, MOSES stone merchant, Halifax. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A. GIBSON, JOHN, dock policeman, Cardiff. Pet. Jan. 2. Reg. & O. A. Langley. Sol. Morgan, Cardiff. Sur Jan. 16 GILBERT, CHARLES HILARY, journeyman cabinet maker, Fordingbridge. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A. Johns. Sur. Jan. 13 GILES, WILLIAM, builder, Warwick. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. Hil. O. A. Kinnear. Sols. Hobbes, Slater, and Hobbes, Stratfordupon-Avon; and James and Griffin, Birmingham. Sur. Jan. 20 GLEAVE, JOHN, shoemaker, Patricroft. Pet. Dec. 16. Reg. & O. A. Hulton. Sur. Jan. 16 GOBBETT, JAMES, out of business, Newport. Pet. Dec. 29. Reg. & O. A. Roberts. Sol. Cathcart, Newport. Sur. Jan. 15 HAMPTON, JAMES, jun., horse dealer, Newport, Isle of Wight, and Fareham. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. O. A. Howard. Sol. Mackey, Southampton. Sur. Jan. 23 HAWKHEAD, WILLIAM CLAYBOROUGH, beerhouse keeper, Leeds. HUMPHREYS, ALICE MARY, barmaid, Bath. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. LEE, JOHN, wood turner. Birmingham. Pat, Dec. 20. Reg. Hill. LEWIS, REBECCA, chemist, Ebbw Vale, Monmouth. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A. Shepard. Sol. Plews, Merthyr Tydfil. Sur. Jan. 22. LYON, HENRY LATHAM, out of business, St. Helon's. Pet. Jan. 2. Reg. & O. A. Ansdell. Sol. Beasley, St. Helen's. Sur. Jan. 19 NICHOLLS, PHILLIP, innkeeper, Llanbadarnfawr. Pet. Dec. 22. Reg. & O. A. Jenkins. Sol. Atwood, Aberystwith. Sur. Jan. 20 NIXON, THOMAS JAMES, timber merchant, Jarrow. Pet. Dec. 3k.. Reg. Sydney. O. A. Laidman. Sols. Hoyle, Shipley, and Hoyle Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Sur. Jan. 18 NUTTALL, JAMES, commission agent, Old Swan, near Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 30. Reg. & O. A. Hime. Sol. Holden, Liverpool. Sur. Jan. 18 RAGGETT, MARY, bootmaker, Luton. Pet. Jan. 1. Reg. & O. A. Austin. Sol. Hicks, Strand. Sur. Jan. 19 RAMSHAW, SIMPSON, out of business, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Pet. ROCKETT, ANN, grocer, Stockland. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A Jan. 15 Sur. ROBERTSON, JOHN, joiner, Manchester. Pet. Dec. 28. Reg. Macrae SURRELL, JOHN, relieving officer, Hereford. Pet. Dec. 31. Reg. & O. A. Robinson. Sol. Gregg. Leominster. Sur. Jan. 20 THORNE, JAMES HENRY, commission agent, Liverpool. Pet. Dec 17. O. A. Turner. Sur. Jan. 18 |