far supported by the judgment of a brother Roberts. This is a very important case, and His HONOUR.-Certainly. What is more, I Solicitors for the plaintiff, Argles and Rawlins. DERBY COUNTY COURT. (Before W. F. WOODFORDE, Esq., Judge.) STANLEY v. PEACH. Action against an accountant. THIS was an action by a greengrocer, named latter part of the rule is introduced by the word for it. Now, I do not hesitate to say that on the question of damages I have had great difficulty in arriving at a judgment. The cases are very bare indeed of authority, and this is a mere dictum of Baron Alderson, which is not to be found, I believe, in the other reports of Hamlyn v. The Great Western Railway Company. Still it is a report in a book of reports; I have found it, and it is consistent, as I have said before, with the principle which is quite familiar to us in cases of contract. Therefore, although I freely admit that I have felt great doubt on the matter, I have come to the conclusion that I am bound by that principle enunciated by Alderson, B., and therefore I give judgment for the plaintiff for £11 10s. I should say that I am so altogether a sum of £35 17s. Mr. Stanley was called in support of this statement, and in cross-examination by defendant affirmed that he thought Peach the defendant was a solicitor. Defendant admitted that the facts stated were generally correct, but he had never represented been paid out of it. His HONOUR said he was sorry to have to give judgment, for the present was one of a kind of cases, the fewer of which there was the better for the public; as to the defendant, he did not wish to say anything harsh against him; he had been in the habit of attending that court, but it appeared that he held himself out as an accountant, and as "a legal referee"-in other words, he held himself out to the public as one ready to undertake anything that an accountant or a solicitor could do. By this means he got the public to come to his office. When the plaintiff was in difficulties he was recommended to go to Mr Peach, who would "pull him through." Then £10 was at once demanded and extracted from the plaintiff and from the plaintiff's creditors. Plaintiff said he understood this to be in full for any expense to which he was put by reason of his undertaking to pull him through his difficulties. To this defendant now said it was only in regard to expected charges, and they had a receipt given by him "on account of charges," as if he expected a larger account of charges. This sum of money fendant. Defendant then advised the valuation of his effects, and the son buys the things-really this transaction would not bear the light. A number of creditors afterwards met at Mr. Peach's office but no one was there to meet them. He hardly liked to use the terms pro perly applicable, but here were goods taken at a valuation and the proceeds handed over to Mr. Peach. Then a meeting of creditors was called, but when the time came no Mr. Peach appears, and had then been told by Mr. Peach that a garnishee considered it a kind of writ of attachment, so was not at all satisfactory, but he did not like strong terms, and he would simply give judgment. Mr. Peach had admitted altogether £37 16s. 6d. of the money, and he had paid out £6 19s. 4d.; he would therefore hand over the remainder, and the question then was whether he had done any. thing for the £10. The whole of this sum of £10 was not intended, he thought, to be for charges, and it would therefore appear as part of the funds of the creditors. He should reduce the £37 168. by £6 19s. 4d. only, and make the order accordingly. MARCH COUNTY COURT. (Before EDMOND BEALES, Esq., M.A., Judge.) HOWE v. LOVELL. Roads-Fences-Liability to maintain-Inclosure Act. HIS HONOUR read the judgment in this case of Homersham Cox, Esq., who presided at the last court, as follows: The advocates for the plaintiff and defendant in this case have bestowed upon it great care and attention, which it well deserves on account of the general importance of the questions at issue. The particulars of the plaintiff's claim state that the "defendants illegally seized and distrained a certain black mare be. longing to the plaintiff, and impounded the same at Chatteris." At the hearing it was admitted that the plaintiff's mare went on to the defen. dant's close through a gap in the defendant's hedge, which hedge the defendant had for more than twenty years repaired, and that the defendant impounded it, and that it had gone on to the close from an adjoining parish road, not a highway. It appears by the evidence that the mare was illtreated in the pound and consequently died. The main question was whether the defendant was under the obligation to repair the fence, because if he were, it was by his own negligence that the mare got through the fence, and he could not lawfully impound it. If I am correctly informed as to the situation of the close, it is part of land formerly commonable or waste ground at Chatteris, which was the subject of several Acts of Parliament of the reign of George III. One of these, passed in 1793, recites an earlier Act in the twenty-third year of that reign for regulating these commonable lands and obliging the owners of several parts to fence the same. The Act of 1793 refers to a decree of the Court of Chancery made so long ago as the first year of the reign of Charles I., by which the repairing of the fences was charged upon certain "common. able messuages and tofts in Chatteris," and makes fresh regulations respecting the fencing. But by a later Act (1809, 49 Geo. 3) for inclosing these and other lands, the provisions of the former Act respecting the manner of using the said commons were repealed, and commissioners were appointed for dividing, allotting, and inclosing the said open fields and commons in the parish of Chatteris. The Act, among other things, directs that the herbage and grass on the roads and droves through the said lands shall be let and demised annually, subject to such rules "as to feeding the said roads and droveways, and as to charges to be made in case the cattle shall stray from one road or droveway to another, or into any adjoining ground or grounds" as the pro prietors should think proper. The mare, in respect of which damages are claimed in the present case, strayed from one of these roadways, which had been let by auction to two persons who are not parties in this action. The letting was not made subject to any rules as to straying of cattle. These seem to be the material facts; and I have now to consider the law applicable to them. The case of Boyle v. Tamlyn (6 B. & C. 329), shows that in general a man is not bound to repair his fences so as to exclude his neighbours' cattle, and that the mere fact that for twenty years he has repaired the fences is not of itself evidence that he is bound to do so. But in a more recent case, Barber v. Whitely (34 L. J. 212, Q. B.), it was held that where waste land was inclosed under an Inclosure Act, a jury might presume that the grantee of the inclosure had taken it subject to the obligation to fence against the waste; for the lord was not likely to have granted it without this obligation, and so to have subjected the tenants of the manor whose cattle pastured on the waste to the burthen of keeping their cattle from trespassing on the inclosed land. The principle of this case seems to me applicable to the case before me. When the lands at Chatteris were inclosed, the Inclosure Act provided that the herbage of the droves run ning between the inclosed lands should be let and demised from year to year. Unless the fences on either side of these roads or droveways were kept up, it is obvious that the cattle pasturing on them would be liable to stray on the adjoining closes. Clearly not the persons to whom the droveways But who were the persons to keep up the fences? were let from year to year. It is not reasonable to suppose that the Act intended that persons having only such a very brief interest should repair the fences. It seems clear that the obligation was intended to be imposed on the owner of the closes. It follows that the defendant in this case having suffered a gap in his edge to remain unrepaired had no right to impound cattle which strayed through it. There must be, therefore, a judgment for the plaintiff; but as I am satisfied that the value of the mare has been exaggerated, I think the justice of the case will be met by a judgment for £2 and costs. Judgment accordingly. MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT. Equitable jurisdiction of County Court-Contribution-Charge. PLAINTIFF, defendant, and three other persons were sub-lessees (for the residue of a term of ninety-nine years, less a few days) of distinct and equal parcels of certain hereditaments in Manchester, which under the original lease were sub. jest to a chief rent of £15. payable to the Dean and Canons of Manchester (the original lessors). The lessors of the sublessees had reserved rents in the several subleases amounting in all to more than the original chief rent, and had covenanted to pay the original chief rent and indemnify the sablessees therefrom. Some two years before the present suit, the lessors of the sublessees disappeared, and the original chief rent being in arrear, the dean and canons levied it upon the sublessees. Under threat of distress on the property comprised in his sublease, plaintiff had been compelied to pay to the dean and canons the whole of one year's chief rent as it became due. Plain. tiff received from the three other sublessees the sum of £9 as their contribution towards the year's chief rent so paid by him, but defendant refused to contribute anything. Plaintiff there. fore prayed that the amount which ought to be paid by defendant to plaintiff as contribution towards the 215 so paid by plaintiff might be ascertained, and that it might be declared that the same was a charge on the property comprised in the defendant's sublease, and that defendant might be ordered to pay the same with costs on a short day, and that in default the said property of the defendant might be sold or a receiver of the rents and profits thereof appointed, and that the moneys thence arising, or a competent part thereof might be applied in payment of the sum found to be due to plaintiff, together with all His HONOUR d'rected an account to be taken before the Chief Clerk as to the sums paid by plaintiff and defendant respectively to the dean and canons on account of the chief rent, and to state the balance (if any) due to either party on the footing that each was liable to contribute to the extent of one fifth of the whole chief rent. Costs were reserved. Before the Chief Clerk. G. Edwards again appeared for plaintiff. A. Smith for defendant. Defendant proved payment to the dean and canons of £ 10s. 5d. on account of the chief for the year previous to that for which the plaintiff had paid the whole rent, and it was admitted that plaintiff had paid nothing towards the rent for that year. It was contended on behalf of defendant, that as he had paid more than his fifth share of the chief rent for one year, and that as plaintiff hal paid nothing for that year, defendant was entitled to set-off the £4 103. 5d. paid by him in full discharge of plaintiff's claim. It was maintained, on behalf of plaintiff, that each party was liable to the other for one-fifth only of the sum actually paid by him on account of the chief rent, irrespective of the amount of the payment, and that defendant could only set off one fifth of the £410s. 5d. paid by him against the £3 claimed by the plaintiff. The Chief Clerk decided in favour of plaintiff's contention, and found a balance in his favour of £2 1s. 10d. Dec. 8. On the matter coming before his Honour for final decree, his HONOUR approved Chief Clerk's report, and, defendant agreeing to pay the amount so found to be due from him, the following order was made:-" To stay on payment within one month of the sum of £2 1s. 10d. and costs to be taxed; in default, plaintiff to be at liberty to draw up order confirming Chief Clerk's report, and to enter up decree according to the prayer of the plaint, with costs." NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT. (Before R. WILDMAN, Esq., Judge.) BIRCUNISHAW Some discussion arose as to whether his Honour had jurisdiction in the matter. In reply to a question from the judge, Edwards said the matter arose through the defendant υ. MIDLAND RAILWAY COM- writing, enclosing a card, and offering to collect PANY. Railway unpunctuality. Young, of Birmingham, for the defendants. The plaintiff stated that on the 14th Sept. last he took a ticket at the Nottingham station for Huddersfield. He intended to travel by the twelve o'clock train from Nottingham which, according to the company's time bills, should arrive at Huddersfield at 3.45 p.m. The route he was to travel was first to Trent junction, where he would have to change into another Midland train and travel to Normanton; at the latter place he woul i change again into a Lancashire and Yorkshire company's train and travel to Huddersfield. The train left Nottingham punctually, but the plaintiff had to wait fifteen minutes at Trent for the train forward, and he ultimately arrived at Normanton too late for the Lancashire and Yorkshire train. The plaintiff had to wait two hours at Normanton for another train to Huddersfield, and afterwards arrived there at 6.5, nearly three hours after the time he expected to be there. The consequence of this delay was that he could not transact the business that day that he went to Huddersfield about, and incurred an hotel bill and other expenses during the night, and suffered loss of time. He claimed for this 30s. The ticket issued to the plaintiff contained a notice that it was issued subject to the conditions of the company appearing on the time bill, and the following is one of the conditions: "Time-tables, from Sept. 1 until further notice, shewing the times at which the trains may be expected to arrive at and depart from the several stations. But their departure or arrival at the times stated is not guaranted, nor does the company hold itself responsible for delay or any consequences arising therefrom." Young contended that there was no case made out against the company. Under the condition the contract was not to carry within a specified time, but within a reasonable time only, and it was not enough for the plaintiff simply to refer to the time-table and say that those times had not been kept, he must do more than that, and must prove that the times had not been kept in consequence of some negligence on the company's part, which the plaintiff had failed to prove in this case. The case of Hurst v. Great Western Railway the debts. Stratton-We say that as the defendant has never been in Shrewsbury your Honour has no jurisdiction. His HONOUR said he was of opinion that he had jurisdiction in the case. If there was no defence he should give judgment for the plaintiff. Stratton was about to address the court when Craig interposed, observing that he (Mr. Stratton) was not a solicitor. He was simply an agent, and he had no right to appear as an advocate. It had been ruled over and over again that the agents of such societies were not entitled to be heard. His HONOUR said he could not allow Mr. Stratton to enter upon the merits of the case. Edwards. I have the power to raise an objection to his appearing at all, because he is not a solicitor. His HONOUR.-But no right to insist upon it. Edwards. I have not yet raised the objection. Stratton (rather superciliously). He (Mr. Edwards) is not superior to the judges, whatever he may be. His HONOUR (to Stratton). - What evidence have you here? Stratton. I ask simply to be allowed to take the same position as a wife who appears for her husband. His HONOUR. -That is another matter alto gether. Craig said, as the senior practitioner of that court, he objected to Mr. Stratton appearing as an advocate. It would not be allowed in any other court. His HONOUR said he had allowed Mr. Mason to appear for the Great Western Railway, but it was in cases in which he had peculiar knowledge. He was also a servant of the company. This case was very different. Craig. We are more liberal than they are in other places. I have never objected if a cashier who has kept the books has appeared in a case. But this is different. This is an agent travelling about the country for the purpose of collecting debts. Stratton. This is the first time I have been objected to. His HONOUR pointed out that there was no sweeping general rule judicially propounded against hearing such persons, and that being so he thought it would not be fair to the defendant to give judgment against him without hearing what he had to say. Either they must hear this Company (34 L. J. C. P.) was referred to. His HONOUR declined to nonsuit. Young then called witnesses to prove that the train from Trent to Normanton was one which started originally from London at 8.55 a.m.; that on the date in question the jet tube of the engine burst in the course of the journey, the consequence of which was that the engine had to be run with a less pressure of steam and lost time. It was proved that the engine was examined before starting on its journey. He then contended that there distinct understanding that the defendant paid was no guarantee as regards the running, and, therefore, as the delay arose from circumstances beyond the company's control, they were not responsible. His HONOUR then nonsuited the plaintiff. SHREWSBURY COUNTY COURT. Agent not allowed to appear. In this case the plaintiff, a surgeon practisingin Shrewsbury, sought to recover £13, the amount of debts which had been collected by the defendant. A Mr. Stratton, of the firm of Stratton and Co., "public accountants, auditors, and 'arbitrators,' and professional trustees," London and Birmingham, appeared and said he was employed to appear as agent for defendant Gray, of South. ampton. His HONOUR said he could not allow it. Stratton remarked that he had never been refused yet. His HONOUR. There are many of my brethren who object to this kind of thing. Stratton. I say your Honour has no jurisdic. tion. His HONOUR. -Are you come to say that? Stratton. No; but to fight the case upon its merits. Chandler. Your Honour would give him a latitude which you will not give to us. Edwards, who appeared for Mr. Willett, said he must object to Mr. Stratton appearing in the case. A correspondence took place, and subsequently Mr. Gray received several sums of money from Mr. Willett's patients. The arrangement was made between Mr. Willett and Mr. Gray, who lived at Southampton. His HONOUR said the proper place to sue was where the defendant resided. Edwards-But the arrangement was made here, Mr. Gray undertaking to collect the debts. person or adjourn the case. Edwards. We have taken the trouble to bring Mr. Willett hereand a number of witnesses. If the case were adjourned it must be on the Chandler. We shall have writing and managing clerks appearing here. His HONOUR. - Lawyers' clerks I refuse to hear. Edwards.-Lawyers' clerks are much better fitted to appear than this agent. Stratton. I am pleased that I have astonished the lawyers of Shrewsbury. His HONOUR. -I do not allow Mr. Stratton to appear as an advocate. I don't allow any one to come here as an advocate who is not a solicitor. I allow a defendant's servant to come and present letters. All I should allow Mr. Stratton to do would be to put in anything his principal has sent him to bring. the case. Edwards-How can he constitute himself an agent in this case? He has nothing to do with Chandler-He comes representing some society. His HONOUR.-I think I will lean to the objection which has been taken. I thought it might be expedient for the plaintiff to make an exception in this case so far as to allow him to appear, but if you do not desire to have that done I can adjourn the case. I certainly should feel some difficulty in giving judgment against the defendant when he has sent a person to represent him, when there is no Act of Parliament and no gene rally established rule against allowing A, B, or C to appear for another. I will go further, and say that, although out of courtesy one is in the habit of calling the learned gentlemen who appear before me advocates, and though really acting as advocates day after day by the theory of the County Court system, they really appear before me only as attorneys, and they have no power to appear before me in any other character. I do not allow this person (Mr. Stratton) to appear before me as an advocate, and I have nothing to do with him as such. I think there is something strongly objectionable in accountants appearing before me as advocates. I should only allow this person to attend and hand in any documents. Edwards-I should object to Mr. Stratton cross examining Mr. Willett. His HONOUR-Oh, I should not allow that. The Registrar has suggested a difficulty. How is this person to find the defendant? Chandler-Quite so, your Honour. Craig-The court has a certain guarantee for the good conduct of solicitors in connection with their undertakings. If agents are to be admitted, your Honour would place us in a false position. His HONOUR-Your objection applies to persons who come before the court in the same way as solicitors, and not to persons who come as wives, relatives, or shopmen. Stratton-I do not come as a solicitor. His HONOUR-But you do; you have objected to my jurisdiction. The hearing of the case was adjourned for a time. When it was heard his Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff. The action was for £22 10s. as damages resulting from the negligence of defendant as attorney. In opening the case, Wright said that his client, an accountant, purchased a plot of land in Upper Whitworth-road, Plumstead, for £160, in Feb. last, and engaged Mr. Hughes to prepare the conveyance, Mr. Hughes being well acquainted with property in the neighbourhood, and, moreover, a member of the District Board of Works, having special facilities for ascertaining if there were any parochial charges upon this particular plot. With deference to the learned judge, he submitted that, according to law, an attorney in such a case was bound to use not only average skill but reasonable care to protect the interests of his client. It was his duty to ascertain, as far as in him lay, if there was any incumbrance upon the property, and in pursuance of that duty he should have tendered requisitions in writing to the representative of the vendor, inquiring if there was any incumbrance. The property, however, was conveyed without these investigations being made, and on the 30th March plaintiff completed the purchase by paying the money. On the 6th June Mr. Hughes wrote to inform him that there was a charge of £22 10s. upon the property for paving works done by the Plumstead Board, and requesting him to pay it. To this the plaintiff wrote to reply that the former owner should have paid it, but Mr. Hughes wrote again to say, "I am afraid the amount is a charge upon the land, whoever holds it, and I should have deducted it from the purchase money if I had been aware of it." His HONOUR.-How do you say the defendant should have made himself aware of this incumbrance. Wright. He should have tendered requisitions. As he did not, I contend that he has been guilty of negligence. His HONOUR.-Oh, no. Wright. I hope to satisfy your Honour of that, but I also say he should have ascertained the fact as a member of the district board. Plaintiff was then called and related the circumstances of the case, the end of which was that he was summoned in October at the police court, and ordered to pay the £22 to the board, which he did at once. In cross-examination, he said that he bought the property by auction, without reading the conditions of sale, simply because he found that it was going cheaply. He now saw by the 10th condition that the property was sold subject to all easements, &c.; but Mr. Hughes had, notwithstanding, told him that he should have deducted the amount from the purchase money if he had been aware of it. He knew that the road was paved, but did not think of asking the auctioneer if the paving was paid for. He had since been told that the previous owner, Mr. McCullum, had bought the land twelve years ago for £175, but he knew nothing of Mr. McCullum when he made the purchase, and understood that he was now in Canada. Hughes. Did I not write to you in July to say that I should be happy to enforce payment for you from Mr. McCullum, but if you persisted in re. garding me as personally liable I should have nothing more to do with the matter?-You did. Are you aware that a statement of the case from your point of view appeared in a newspaper? -I am. Do you know that copies were sent to the members of the Board of Works and various other persons?-I read in the local paper that the paper had been "freely circulated." You have known since July that I disputed your claim upon me, and was ready to meet you in this court?-Yes. His HONOUR. If you did not go to the auction to buy this land, how did you know that it was going cheaply?-I saw by the size of the land, with 100ft. frontage. A clerk of the police court, was called to produce the magistrates' books, and prove the order to pay. Mr. F. F. Thorne, surveyor of the Plumstead board, proved other formalities. He said that he had great difficulty in finding who was the owner of this property, as Mr. McCullum was for some years in Turkey, and was still abroad. His name appeared in the books as McLennan, by mistake. Wright wished to ask Mr. Thorne if Mr. Hughes was a ratepayer, but His HONOUR objected, saying that his position as a ratepayer could not be imported into his duty as a solicitor. Mr. Thorne, however, was pressed to answer the question, and replied that he had no books to which he could refer upon the point. Hughes asked if he was a member of the board in 1872, but Mr. Thorne could not say, and Hughes himself said that he was not. Mr. W. Farnfield, solicitor, said he acted for the vendor in this matter, and that he received no requisition from Mr. Hughes as to the property. Wright. From your experience as a solicitor is it not usual to tender requisitions?-Itis usual, but when the property is in the locality and the title is known, it is usual not to do so in order to save expense, especially if the property is small. Cross-examined: I did not myself know of this paving contribution being due. I do not call it an incumbrance; it is not an incumbrance on the land. I received instructions in reference to this matter from the auctioneer in 1872. I never, before this case, thought of going to the board at Charlton for information. In preparing the conditions of sale I inserted a provision that all outgoings should be paid by the vendor, not thinking that there was any such charge as this. This charge was nothing more than an arrear of rates. His HONOUR. -Just as a 5s. water rate? Mr. Farnfield.-Precisely. Wright. It would not have made much differ. ence in the expense to have made inquiries at the Board's offices ? Mr. Farnfield. No, it might have been done by a letter. would be 63. 8d. (a laugh). Have you made such Wright. And that, if I am not too delicate, inquiry in any case since this. Mr. Farnfield.-I have in one instance. Hughes then addressed the jury for the defence. He said he was glad that the case had not broken down without giving him the opportunity of stating his case. He said that, knowing the title of this land, and seeing on the conditions that all outgoings were to be paid by the vendor, he did not imagine that there was any other liability. When he discovered that this £22 10s. was due to the Board, he pointed out to Mr. White that he ground of action against Mr. McCullum, and he endeavoured, assisted by Mr. Farnfield, to intercept the money which had been remitted to Canada. He informed Mr. White, however, that he had been employed simply to convey the land and examine the title; and how could he be held responsible for certain information not coming to his knowledge? He had inserted in the conveyance a clause that the property was to be transferred free of incumbrance, which gave Mr. White ground of action, but because Mr. McCullum happened to be in Canada, Mr. White had no right to turn upon his solicitor. He would have taken any trouble to have recovered this money for Mr. White, but he had been badly treated, and he felt it to be his duty to himself and other solicitors, to make a stand. He believed that he had brought about this trial by firing the first shot in suing Mr. White for his charges at the last court, and he was glad to have had the subject fully discussed. The business had given him great pain, but he believed the jury would agree that he had done all that he could have been expected to do, although, in consequence of this case, it might be thought desirable hereafter to ask, "Is the paving paid?" Feeling that his reputation was involved, and that he was free from blame, he asked the jury, should they be of the same opinion, to say so in no equivocal terms. Mr. Furlong was then called, and said that he sold the property by auction without being aware of any incumbrance upon it. His HONOUR, in summing up, quoted observations as to the duties of attorneys from Lord Campbell, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and others. Lord Campbell said, "Against barristers in England and advocates in Scotland, luckily no action can lie; against attorneys they may, but only if they are guilty of gross negligence. It would be monstrous to say that an attorney shall be responsible for falling into what must be considered only a mistake. All that we can expect is that he shall be honest and diligent." His Honour then proceeded to say that there was no proof of gross negligence in this case, and that, even supposing Mr. Hughes had committed the errors of omission attributed to him, the plaintiff had not lost his £22 in consequence thereof; for if he had made requisitions to the attorney of the vendor they would have been fruitless, and if he had inquired at the Board of Works he would probably have failed to recognise the property in the name of a fictitious person. The jury immediately found a verdict for defendant. Costs of defendant were allowed. Hughes informed His Honour that the Board of Works had now had an index made to facilitate search in similar cases. BANKRUPTCY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. COMPOSITION - REGISTRATION OF RESOLU TION-DEBTOR'S REFUSAL TO ANSWER CREDITOR'S QUESTION-MATERIALITY OF QUESTION -BANKRUPTCY ACT 1869, s. 126. The 126th section of the Bankruptcy Act 1869 provides that, when a debtor wishes to compound with his creditors under that section, he shall, unless prevented by sickness or other cause satisfactory to such meetings, be present at both the meetings at which the extraordinary resolution to accept the composition is passed, and "shall answer any in. quiries made of him." A refusal by the debtor to answer a material question put to him at the meeting by one of his creditors is sufficient to in. validate a resolution passed by the requisite statutory majority of the creditors in favour of a composition, and to induce the court to refuse to register the resolution. But to render such a resolution invalid on this ground, the creditor must put his question plainly and distinctly, and in such a way as to make its materiality apparent to the meeting. One of the creditors of a compounding debtor, who professed to carry on business as a sole trader, saw a letter which purported to have been written by the debtor to another creditor and which led him to suspect that the debtor had a partner in his business. He accordingly instructed his solicitor to attend the first meeting of the creditors on his behalf, and to question the debtor as to this supposed partnership. The solicitor, instead of asking the debtor plainly whether he had a partner, asked him whether the letter in question was in his handwriting, and, the debtor having answered in the negative, he asked him whether it was written by his authority. The debtor's solicitor requested to see the letter before this question was answered. This request was refused, and thereupon the debtor, by his solicitor's advice, refused to answer the question. The creditor's solicitor asked no further question, nor did he even explain to the meeting the object of his questions about the letter. The resolution having been passed by the requisite majority, the creditor opposed its registration on the ground of the debtor's refusal to answer the question. Held (affirming the decision of the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy), that the debtor was entitled, before answering the question, to have the advice of his solicitor as to its materiality, and that as the creditor's solicitor had not put his question in such a way as to enable the debtor's solicitor or the meeting to judge of its materiality, the debtor's refusal to answer the question was no ground for annulling the registration: (Ex parte Mackenzie; Re Helliwell, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 421. Ch.) BILL OF EXCHANGE - ACCOMMODATION AC. CEPTANCES REMITTANCE TO MEЕТ АССЕРТANCES - SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION - LIEN.-It was agreed between T., a London merchant, and Messrs. S., a firm carrying on business at London and Shanghai, that T. should from time to time accept bills to be drawn upon him by Messrs. S. on the security of the bills of lading of goods to be consigned by them to their house at Shanghai for sale, and the net proceeds of the sale were to be remitted to the London house, which was to pay them over to T. Amongst other transactions carried out in pursuance of this agreement, T., in March 1873, accepted two bills at six months' sight for £825 and £750 respectively against goods, and sent the bills of lading of the goods to Messrs. S.'s house at Shanghai. They sold part d of these goods in two lots for £247 and £757, an paid the proceeds of the sales, together with those of other sales, into a bank at Shanghai to their own credit, and on the 26th July with those two sums, and with other moneys, they purchased drafts on London for £1198 and £1000, which they remitted to their London house "to our credit," and in their letter of that date inclosing the drafts they sent lists of sales with which they credited their London house, and which comprised the two sales for £247 and £757. The drafts, on reaching London, came into the hands of the trustee in the liquidation of Messrs. S., who had filed a liquidation petition in Aug. 1873. Held (reversing the decision of one of the registrars) that there was no specific appropriation, so as to entitle T. to receive the £247 and £757 out of the remittances of £1198 and £1000 in payment pro tanto of his acceptances for £825 and £750: (Ex parte Cooper; re Scheibler, 31 L. T. Rep. N.S. 417. Ch.) COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. Tuesday, Dec. 8. (Before Mr. Registrar KEENE.) Re ELLIOтт. Chidley. I don't know why you should assume this, sir. Mr. Elliott, you will remember, was residing at Eastbourne at the time, and Lewes was the only place at which he could then present his petition. He then had no residence in London, although he had formerly resided and had a place of business here; but both had been given up. As a matter of fact, the resolution fell to the ground in the way I have already stated, and I say further that you have not before you at the present moment one scrap of evidence that there ever was a petition at all; and, therefore, I ask you to deal with this matter in the ministerial capacity in which you are at present acting. The REGISTRAR.-I think that the right and proper thing would be for Mr. Rooke to go to the court. Rooke. I hope, sir, that you will not put upon me the obligation of doing this. What I desire to do on the present occasion is to take my rights under the former liquidation, and I say that I ought not to have thrown upon me the responsibility of going from you to the court. The REGISTRAR. I think that it is certainly quite right and proper that you should have come here, and the court is very grateful to you for having done so. Is it not competent for the court upon oath ? Bankruptcy Act 1869-Registration of resolutions in a case like this to examine the debtor himself -Duties of a registrar. Chidley applied to register. F. H. Rooke (Nisbet, Rooke, and Daw) opposed on behalf of Mr. J. H. Warner. Rooke. I appear here, sir, on behalf of Mr. J. H. Warner, who is a member of the Bar, and a creditor under the former liquidation. He proved his claim under the former liquidation. The REGISTRAR.- What has been done under this liquidation? Rooke. That was a petition which was filed by the debtor in the County Court of Lewes, Sussex. He then described himself as living at Eastbourne, in the county of Sussex, and as being within the jurisdiction of the Lewes Court. The first meeting was held at Lewes, when a similar proposal to that which has now been made was put before the court, viz., that he should have his immediate discharge on payment of virtually nothing to the creditors. The REGISTRAR. - What were his liabilities? Rooke. The liabilities were £7000, the assets under £100. The creditors at the meeting refused to accept this proposition. Chidley. I certainly must protest against this, as it is a most irregular proceeding. There is no sort of evidence upon which you could act, and for all I know this statement may be a mere fiction. Rooke. I admit that Mr. Daw is my partner, but I have nothing whatever to do with him in the capacity referred to. Chidley. Are you his partner? Rooke. I have already said so. There is a great deal more behind this case than would appear upon the face of it. Chidley. I wish to ask you, sir, whether you consider yourself as being anything more than a ministerial officer in this matter? The REGISTRAR.-I don't think that I am. Chidley. Then I ask you, sir, to register these proceedings; and if, having done this, anyone interested in the case thinks that you have done so irregularly, let him go to the court; but I cannot say that this is a proper course to be taken upon this occasion. Rooke. If it were not for the fact that it is one of your own decisions, I should like to call your Honour'sattention to the case of Sidney v. Wiggins. The REGISTRAR. But you have not registered, and you have nothing at all to go upon but the petition. If, however, you tell me that you intend, as a creditor, to go and have the resolution registered in the Lewes Court, I shall certainly allow the present proceedings to stand over. Chidley. I object, sir, most strongly, to any thing of the sort. I say that you are simply acting in a ministerial capacity, and I ask you to register these proceedings. Rooke. The registrar has already given me permission to make a statement, and in continuation I may say that under the circumstances already mentioned one of the creditors moved a resolution to the effect that upon the payment of 1s. in the pound, which would only have required about £150, that the debtor should then be discharged. We have not had any notice of the second meeting to confirm this resolution. Rule 284 states that the resolution should be filed in the court, and upon default proceedings could have been taken to compel registration; but we have been prevented from doing this by reason of the second petition and the fact that the resolution was not registered; but it is open to the court, although the resolution may not have been regis- | registration. tered, to register it; and, this being so, the right of registration still being with us, I contend that the debtor cannot come here. The REGISTRAR. -How comes it that in the month of October Mr. Elliott could go to Lewes and present a petition, and having done this, two months afterwards should come here in December and present a similar petition to this court? Because if in the first instance he had to go to the court at Lewes his creditors must have resided in that neighbourhood; but then he changed his residence, and we find him here. Chidley. The fact is, that the debtor having been resident at Eastbourne, gave up his resi. dence there and came to London. If this case should go anywhere else the first thing that we should ask would be something in support of these statements, which are now being made, as I contend, irregularly; but we have no evidence whatever up to the present moment, and I protest most strongly against this procedure. Furthermore, I tell you, sir, that as a matter of fact, there was no resolution carried at the Lewes meeting at all, and the petition therefore fell to the ground. No resolution such as has been mentioned appears upon the proceedings. The REGISTRAR. - What I want to know is, why did Elliott go to Lewes and present a petition there, and state that he was within the jurisdic. tion of that court, where the debts arose, to be liquidated by the officer of the Lewes Court? and having done this in the month of October, why should he have come here and sworn a precisely similar state of things, asking me to administer in the month of December? It seems to me that there must be something wrong about this. Rooke. I propose, sir, that we should have the debtor sworn, in order that we may ascertain the facts. The REGISTRAR. -Very well; let the debtor be sworn, and if the evidence is sufficient I will delay Chidley. I protest against this proceeding. The REGISTRAR.-You must not put objections in the way. Henry Charles Elliott sworn (the Registrar here directed that a shorthand note should be taken). Chidley. I must protest against this proceeding. The REGISTRAR.-Let the debtor be examined if Mr. Rooke chooses to examine him. Examined by Rooke: -Q. You were in business formerly as a solicitor, in Waterloo-place, Pall Mall?-A. In Regent-street. Q. You have also resided at Eastbourne. A. Yes. Q. Did you, sometime in October, while residing at Eastbourne, file a petition for liquidation in the County Court of Lewes ?-A. I did. Q. Can you give us the exact date of that peti tion?-A. I cannot. Q. Where are those proceedings? Who has them?-4. I have not them. I believe that they are at Mr. Barrow's. Q. What is his address ?-A. 30, Ludgate-hill. Q. Is he a solicitor?-A. I believe he is. Q. Did you not give papers to him for the first meeting ?-A. I never had them in my hands. Q. What do you mean when you talk about the papers?-A. I should say the proceedings. I refer to the papers connected with the proceedings. Q. Did you hand them to Barrow?-A. He took them from off the table himself. Q. From what table?-A. The table around which the meeting was assembled. Q. You mean at the meeting at which you made a statement of your affairs.-A. Yes. Q. And these were the papers which Barrow has?-A. Yes. Q. At that meeting several of your creditors proved their debts?-A. Yes. Q. Were those proofs handed to Barrow?A. Yes; some of those proofs I have myself, I think. Q. Which of them have you yourself?-А. І cannot tell from memory, Q. Amongst them was there that of Joseph Henry Warner ?-A. Yes. Q. Formerly a member of the Chancery Bar?A. Yes. Q. He proved his debt, and the proof was produced at this meeting P-A. Yes. Q. Who was the chairman at this meeting ?A. Captain Mackenzie. Q. And the proof was marked by the chairman ? -A. Yes. Q. At this meeting did you make a proposal for liquidation, coupled with a proposal for immediate discharge ?-A. Yes. Q. Was it carried?-A. It was not carried. Q. Did the creditors who opposed the resolution make a counter proposal that you should pay 1s. in the pound composition?-A. They did. Q. Within what period was this to take effect ? -A. Within three months. Q. And this was put to the meeting by the chairman?-A. Yes. Q. Was it declared to be carried?-A. Yes. Q. And a resolution to that effect was drawn up in the meeting upon paper?-A. I think so. Q. And the creditors present signed it? A. I don't remember that. Q. Mr. Barrow was the gentleman who prepared whatever papers were prepared?-A. Yes. Q. You did not see them presented yourself?A. I did not. Q. You did not sign them?-A. No; I did not sign anything. Q. Was the resolution carried at that meeting registered at Lewes within three days?-A. I cannot say. I should say not. Q. After that Mr. Barrow took the papers with him back to London?-A. Yes. Rooke (to the registrar).- There is another gentleman here who was present at the meeting if you want any confirmatory evidence. Chidley. Really, sir, you do not mean to assume a document which is not produced ? Rooke. That is a matter for the registrar. Chidley. And I ask the registrar to perform what is his simple ministerial duty, which is to register these proceedings, and to have you, if you choose, to go to the court and test what he has done. This I contend is the only proper course to be taken. Chidley. You have not had his evidence to the fact that the resolution was carried. Rooke. He says that the resolution was carried, but he is not sure that it was signed. Chidley. But unless it was signed it could not be registered, and therefore it was no resolution at all. This was decided years ago in Sir William Russell's case, and I say as a matter of fact that there was no resolution at all. (To the witness.) Q. By how many persons was this resolution of 1s. in the pound signed ?-A. I do not think that it was signed at all. I have no recollection of its being signed at all. [Daw here made an observation to the witness.] I am quite prepared to be corrected by Mr. Daw, who says that it was signed. Daw. It was signed by all the creditors present. Chidley. But was it signed by those who were proxies? Were there any gentlemen holding proxies in the room ? Witness. Yes, several. Q. Do you know whether they signed?-A. I do not. The REGISTRAR. --- Where they friendly to you? -A. Some were friendly. Rooke. We have the fact that they rejected the proposal. Chidley. And we have the fact that the resolu tion was not signed. I ask that these proceedings may be registered. The REGISTRAR.-I am sorry to say that I must refuse to register, and I do so upon this ground: the petition comes before me prima facie, with a representation of three-fourths in number and value of the creditors. It is now represented to me by Mr. Rooke, who appears on behalf of Mr. Warner, a creditor who has proved his debt under another pending petition. Chidley.-That, sir, is what I object to. I say that you have no evidence of any pending peti. tion. The REGISTRAR. We have had it from the debtor that a petition is still pending in the Court of Lewes, and under this petition before the Court of Lewes we have the same creditors, the same assets, the same debts dated October 1874, as we have before the court at the present moment. The debtor was then desirous of doing what he is now doing, namely, to have a resolution passed for liquidation by arrangement. The creditors objected, saying "No, pay us a shilling in the pound, and we will let you free;" but even to this small arrangement the debtor did not agree, and now he comes here in the month of December, only two months subsequently, and endeavours to pass through a liquidation by arrangement. This court has a concurrent juridisction with the court at Lewis. We are a part and parcel of the same court. The proceedings of the one court could be used as proceedings in the other, and I am not satisfied that the debtor in this case has acted as he ought to have done, and therefore I refuse registration. Chidley. I fancy, sir, that if there had been any resolution passed under the first petition, you would have a copy of it sent up from the court at Lewes; but there is certainly no such thing here. Registration refused. (Before the CHIEF JUDGE.) Ex parte ВоTTING; Re BoOSTEL. Composition-Trustee under-Proof of creditor- THIS was an appeal from an order of the County Roxburgh, Q.C. and F. Octavius Crump were for the appellant. De Ger, Q.C. and Horton Smith supported the order of the County Court. THE next preliminary examination will take place on Wednesday, the 10th, and Thursday, the 11th Feb. 1875. Ole calendar month's notice is requisite. CHANCERY VACATION. - The Christmas recess is appointed to commence on the 24th inst., and end on the 6th proximo, both days inclusive. JUDICIAL SERVICES. In the last financial year the pensions for judicial services in Great Britain amounted to £58,681 3s. 3d., and in Ireland to £17,258 18s. 8d. THE German Government has entered an action in the ecclesiastical court against the Bishop of Paderborn and lodged an application for his deposal. The bishop has refused to make a defence or take any notice of the proceedings. SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. - The Lord Mayor, who has been a member of this association from its commencement, has promised to preside at its next anniversary festival, which is appointed to take place on the 25th May next. THE Northampton Chamber of Commerce has issued a circular suggesting an amendment of the secure consent of not less than half the num A CONTEMPORARY gives the following defini. term "accountant"is used as vaguely as "agent"; sional accountants, to whose ability and honour confidential transactions are confided. THE IRISH SOLICITOR-GENERAL. It has been finally arranged that Mr. Plunket, Q.C., is to be the Solicitor-General, with the understanding that he is not to seek a judicial office, but to continue the pursuit he has selected of a political career. The legal business will be done in Dublin by others, and his time, according to the plan now adopted, will be chiefly given to the legislation of the Irish department in London. The Morning Mail states that this arrangement will enable the Government to choose the fittest man for judicial office, instead of the politician next in the running, and will so far be an advantage. An important accession to legal journalism, and especially to the current literature of modern international law, is the Journal de Droit Interna For the appellant it was argued that the functional Privé. This journal is published in Paris, tions of a trustee appointed under Rule 279 were totally different from those of a trustee under liquidation. The former was merely a conduit pipe to convey the composition to the creditors, and could not reject a proof. Reference was made to the terms of sect. 126 and to Rules 282, 311, and 313. Counsel also cited the Birmingham Gas Light Company, re Adams (24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 639); Ex parte Peacock, re Duffield (28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 830); and Ex parte Warterers (29 L. T. Rep. N. S. 907). BACON, C.J., adopting a suggestion made by counsel for the appellant, said he thought the proper course was to have the amount of the creditor's debt ascertained in the County Court, he would then be entitled to his composition. The order would be that the order below should be discharged, that it be inquired what is due to the appellant, and if the composition was not paid on that amount the court had power to enforce it. The trustee under a composition had no power to reject a proof. There would be liberty to apply, and the costs would be reserved. Order of the County Court discharged THE Solicitor-General (Mr. J. Holker) and Mr. Ludlow Cotter received the honour of knighthood on Saturday. THE Observer states that Sir John Karslake, whose eyesight has long been failing, underwent an operation on Thursday week. The result has been temporary blindness, but there is still every reason to hope that the operation may lead to his ultimate recovery of sight. and edited by Mancini, De Mangeat and Clunet, TAKING OUT AND RENEWAL OF CERTIFI- THE recent meetings of the British law associations have developed an unusual amount of interest in the subject of law reform. A large number of papers on a large number of topics have been prepared and read by members of the legal profession. [Reference is here, no doubt, made to the meeting of the Incorporated Law Society at Leeds.] These papers, several of which we have previously laid before our readers, evince rare powers of testing the social and legal wants of Great Britain. The lawyers of that country do not consider statesmanship and political economy to be beyond their sphere of discussion. And in far ahead of their brethren on this side of the Atlantic. Contrast the action of the British law amendment societies with the action of the New York Bar Association in reference to the Consti. tutional Amendments. The attitude of the American Profession as represented by the New York association is that of mere plodders in paths already beaten, without interest or influence in producing needed reforms. We protest against this indifference of the Profession in this country in respect to vital questions intimately connected with jurisprudence.-Albany Law Journal. PROFESSIONAL RECEIVERS AND TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY, &c. The following letter by a Sheffield solicitor is referred to by us in another column: "I am glad to observe that a Sheffield solicitor has called public attention, through your columns, to a great evil which has become engrafted upon the last Bankruptcy Act, and the practice thereunder. It was intended by the framers and promoters of that Act that creditors should take into their own hands, as much as possible, the winding-up of their debtor's estates; but, unfortunately, they have allowed this good intention to be in a great degree fustrated by leaving themselves and their interests in the hands of accountants. It is painful to see the eagernes with which a cloud of accountants attend first meetings of creditors, armed with proofs and office of trustee. I maintain that in most caser, THE NEW IRISH LAW OFFICERS.-The Right Hon. John Thomas Ball, LL.D., of Merton, in the county of Dublin, Queen's Advocate in Ireland, and Attorney-General, who has just been nominated Lord Chancellor of Ireland, is the son of the late Major Benjamin Marcus Ball, of the 40th Foot. He was born in the year 1815, and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he took his Bachelor's degree with high honours in 1836. He was called to the Irish Bar in Michaelmas Term, 1840, and has been a bencher of the King's Inns, Dublin, since 1863. In 1850 he obtained the honour of silk, was succes sively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General for Ireland during Mr. Disraeli's administration in 1866. He has been one of the Parliamentary representatives of the University of Dublin since the year 1868. He was created an Honorary Doctor of Laws at Oxford in 1870, and was sworn a Privy Councillor in 1868. Dr. Ball married, in 1852, Catherine, daughter of the Rev. Charles R. Elrington, Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin. Mr. Henry Ormsby, Q.C., the present Solicitor-General, who now succeeds Dr. Ball in the Attorney-Generalship, is a mem ber of a good Irish family, very many of whose members have been graduated at Trinity College, and is a year or two older than the new Lord Chancellor. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he took his Bachelor's degree in 1834-two years previous to his lordship-and was called to the Irish Bar in Michaelmas Term 1835. He was nominated a Queen's Counsel in 1858, and was ap pointed Solicitor-General in 1868 under Mr. Disraeli, and resumed his post on the return of his party to place and power last spring. Mr. Ormsby has never held a seat in the House of Commons. The Hon. David Robert Plunket, Q.C., who succeeds Mr. H. Ormsby as Solicitor-General, is the fourth, but third surviving, son of John Span, third Lord Plunket, by Charlotte, third daughter THE Tichborne Claimant's wife, on being sum- so far as the meetings of the law amendment of the late Right Hon. Charles Kendal Bushe, and moned before the Lymington magistrates for poor societies of Great Britain have any influence, it consequently a grandson of the first Lord Plunket, rates on Saturday, refused to pay any claims as is on the side of legal reform and progress. They the great orator and lawyer, who held the Great Orton's wife, but stated that she would meet all not only do not shirk the important duty of Seal in Ireland from 1830 to 1834, and again from legal claims on her as Lady Tichborne. A distress assisting reforms already initiated, but they 1835 to 1841. He was born on the 3rd Dec. 1838, was granted, but it is to be held over for a few days. suggest and originate new schemes of reform. In and was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, this regard the legal profession in England stand where he took his Bachelor's degree in 1859. He |