to one of the other official receivers. Rule 323в is reached his lodgings he complained to his daughter, entirely new, and will be most useful in practice. By who happened to be with him on circuit, of his work it, where there are two or more official receivers at- overcoming him, but talked cheerfully of resigning and tached to the district of the same Court, any one of going on the Continent, went to bed, and died next them may, without any transfer of the receivership, morning. The death of Mr. Justice Manisty resembles take and perform any business and duties of any other most that of Justice Wightman. The learned judge in receiver. Rule 329A is also an exceedingly useful the week before last occupied himself with the work supplement to the old rule 329. That rule provides and amusement which forms the life of a judge during that an assistant official receiver, appointed by the the sittings. He had been trying common jury Board of Trade, shall be an officer of the Court, like causes all the week, and on Thursday dined in the the official receiver to whom he is assistant, and may Middle Temple Hall on Grand Day, when it represent him in all proceedings in Court, or any ad- was a matter of general remark how well he ministrative or other matter. Further assistance is now bore his years. He seems to have gone on to provided by rule 3291, by which, in the absence of the Gray's Inn, where he was a master of the bench, with official receiver, any officer of the Board of Trade duly Lord Morris to help entertain the excellent company authorised for the purpose by the Board of Trade, and gathered there. Next day he finished a part heard case, any clerk of the official receiver duly authorised by him but on the approach of the time for adjourning the Court in writing, may, by leave of the Court, act on behalf of in the afternoon he was observed not to be taking a the official receiver, and take part for him in the public note of the evidence, which up to the time of his seizure examination of the debtor, in any examination before he had taken, and which, as we are told on the authority the Court under section 27 of the Act, and on any of the Lord Chief Justice, were as clear and his handunopposed applications to the Court. writing as delicate and distinct as if he had many years of life before him. He was carried out of Court to his private room, and later in the evening was driven to his house, where he died seven days after the attack.

Is a bill of sale in which the interest is stated as a lump sum in accordance with the form in the schedule annexed to the Act of 1882? It was once established The history of the life of Justice Manisty has the not law that it was (Wilson v. Kirkwood, 48 L. T. Rep. very common feature that he was in turn solicitor, 281; Thorpe v. Cregeen, 55 Law J. Rep. Q. B. 80). barrister, and judge. It has been said that he did not Then came Myers v. Elliott, 55 Law J. Rep. Q. B. 233, come to the bar through the usual avenues. No doubt, in which the Court of Appeal intimated a contrary at the time when he was called, it was not usual for an opinion, but could not make their view binding, attorney or solicitor to be called to the bar, but in these because the point did not really arise in the days a solicitor of five years' standing may be called to case before them. Last week, however, in Blanke- the bar, without keeping any terms, upon passing the stein v. Robertson, the point arose before Justices examination for admission to an Inn of Court. Even Denman and Wills, and they followed the dictum this slight barrier can be overcome on the certificate of of the Court of Appeal, and held a bill of sale two members of the council of the Incorporated Law in which the interest was stated in a lump sum void Society that he is a fit and proper person to be called under the Act. It was really a mistake of fact on to the bar. The reason why Mr. Manisty, who in 1847 which the earlier decisions were founded. Mr. Justice had for twelve years prospered as a solicitor, entered Chitty, who decided Wilson v. Kirkwood, considered his name as a student at Gray's Inn, it is said, that the rate was stated, because it could be easily cal- was that he wished as a barrister to win a case which culated, and 'Id certum est quod certum reddi potest.' he had lost as a solicitor. Three years afterwards he Mr. Justice Wills points out that, where the amount is was called to the bar. As a junior he had a large pracpayable by the usual method of a number of monthly tice in Westminster Hall and on the Northern Circuit instalments, the rate of interest, if ascertainable at all, in the class of cases usually called heavy commercial can only be determined by an application of the higher cases. His acuteness in detecting the real points of his mathematics, far beyond the ordinary borrower on a bill case and his energy in enforcing them, with the store of sale. of learning which he had accumulated, brought him success. His fame at this period of his career is commemorated in a song which is still sung on the Northern Circuit, in which all the briefs were said THE circumstances of the death of Sir Henry Manisty to fall into Manisty's red bag. He rapidly, twelve add one more name to the list of judges who, in the years afterwards, obtained a silk gown in 1857, and Queen's reign, have received their mortal stroke on the although he did not become the leader of the Northern bench while discharging their judicial duties. Of these Circuit, except, perhaps, in the sense that he was senior Justice Talfourd, who was struck with apoplexy while Queen's Counsel, he held his own on circuit and in delivering his charge to the grand jury at Stafford at Westminster Hall in cases requiring careful treatment the spring assizes of 1854, and died after only a few of knowledge of the law or a knowledge of the place moments had elapsed, was the only judge who actually where to find it, which is almost equally good, and the expired on the bench. Baron Watson, at the spring power of putting the point and driving it home on the assizes of 1856 at Welshpool, has just concluded his bench. As a judge, the most recent case of importance charge to the grand jury, when he was seized with in which he took a prominent part was the case of Regina apoplexy and died very shortly afterwards. Justice v. The Bishop of London. In the Divisional Court the Wightman, on December 10, 1863, at the York Lord Chief Justice had to hold the scales between Assizes spent the day in trying a complicated case Baron Pollock and Justice Manisty, the one being in which lasted the whole day. His summing-up was favour of the bishop and the other in favour of the masterly, and the hall was crowded. When he Crown. The weight of the judgment of Justice

SIR HENRY MANISTY.

Manisty was first tested by his delivering it before the clause have no application to children under the his brother as junior judge. After pondering for age of sixteen, the decision in the former case can some months, the Lord Chief Justice inclined towards no longer be accepted as law. That being so, the only his brother Manisty, and this view of the case was up- applicable statutory enactment in such cases is that of held by the Court of Appeal. He tried the case of 4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 76, s. 71, to the effect that an illeMembury v. The Great Western Railway Company, gitimate child is to retain its mother's settlement up to which is now the highest authority on the application the age of sixteen. In the case under discussion no of the maxim Volenti non fit injuria.' When he evidence was given at quarter sessions to show that the tried the case of Adams v. Coleridge in 1884, and pauper's mother, who was admitted to be living, had although he was criticised unjustly, he showed a any settlement, nor that there had been any failure on sturdy independence of public opinion characteristic the part of the union, to which the child had become of himself and not universal in these times. All the chargeable, to make inquiries to discover it, and the cases that came before him were tried with patience question was as to whether, in the absence of informa and fairness, and in a manner satisfactory, so far as tion as to the mother's settlement, the order for the may be, to all parties. removal of the child to the place where it was born was It has been said that he had no humour; but there properly made. In these circumstances the Court judged is a tale told of the judge that some time ago he con- it expedient to go back to first principles. The law as to sulted an eminent physician on the state of his health. settlement derived by parentage is stated by Mr. Justice When questioned as to his diet, he replied that he Coleridge in Regina v. The Inhabitants of All Saints, drank good part of a bottle of port a day. The Derby, 14 Q. B. Rep. 216; 19 Law J. Rep. M. C. 14, physician said, 'That will not do; we must knock off as follows: It is an established principle that every that.' The judge complied for a fortnight, and came English subject has a settlement by birth prima facie— back to say that he was no better and rather worse. that is, till an acquired settlement is shown; until The physician suggested that perhaps after all the then, it is no more than prima facie; and when it change of habit had done more harm than good and is ascertained that a father or mother has an English advised him to return to his usual habit. Whereupon settlement, that is the settlement of the child.' This the judge said, 'That is all very well; but how about principle, however, was capable of being used as an the arrears ?' The physician shook his head at this argument on both sides of the question, for while, on judicial devotion to clearing his list, but it is not im- the one hand, it was desired to apply it to the child, possible that the second prescription helped the judge on the other it was urged that it applied with equal to do what is the duty of every good judge-keep force to the mother, who must by presumption of law down the arrears.' be taken to have a settlement, and that the true effect of 4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 76, s. 71, was to cast on the parish, to which the child had become chargeable, the burden of finding that settlement, or proving that none existed, before it could get rid of its charge. On the whole, the Court concluded that where there is no evidence of the settlement of the mother of an illegitimate child, and no failure to make due inquiries is shown, the right conclusion is that the child is entitled to its birth settlement, that being its prima facie settlement until another is proved.

SETTLEMENT OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. WHERE is the settlement of an illegitimate child under the age of sixteen whose mother's settlement is unknown? Is such a child removable to the place in which it was born? or does section 71 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 76), cast on the parish to which the child becomes chargeable the burden of discovering the mother's settlement? This was the question raised last week before Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Hawkins in the case of The Guardians of the Headington Union v. The Guardians of the Ipswich Union. Up to the date of the statute 4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 76, the only settlement of an illegitimate child was its birth settlement. Section 71 of that Act, however, provided that such a child should have and follow the settlement of its mother until it should attain the age of sixteen or acquire a settlement in its own right. It was for some time thought that section 35 of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), had further affected the position of these children; and in pursuance of that view the Court of Appeal held in the case of The Guardians of the Northwich Union V. The Guardians of the St. Pancras Union, 58 Law J. Rep. M. C. 73, that an illegitimate child under sixteen, whose mother had since acquired a derivative settlement, did not take the settlement which its mother had at the time of its birth, but was to be deemed, under the last-mentioned section, to be settled in the place where it was born. Inasmuch, however, as that decision was delivered in November, 1888, and the House of Lords has since expressed a clear opinion in the case of The Guardians of Reigate Union v. The Guardians of Croydon Union, decided by them in August last, that the provisions of

Unreported Cases.

TRIALS WITHOUT JURIES.

THE RIGHT TO RECEDE FROM A FRIENDLY SOCIETY.

ON January 24 and 25, before Mr. Justice Mathew, without a jury, the case of Green and others v. Hendry and others was tried. It was an application for a mandamus commanding the defendants to grant to the plaintiffs a certificate of secession, which by section 10 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1887, is required by the plaintiffs for production to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, in order that the plaintiffs' lodge might be registered as a society under the Friendly Societies Acts. The facts were as follows: The plaintiffs are the trustees of the Old British Oak Lodge, Leeds district, of the Ancient Noble Society, and the defendants are the trustees of the Bolton Order of United Odd Fellows, Bolton Unity Friendly Unity Friendly Society. In 1888 the lodge wished to secede from the Bolton Unity Friendly Society, under rule 33 of the society, which is as follows: Should a lodge feel desirous at any time of seceding from the order, the secretary shall first summon a special general meeting. Every member shall have fourteen days' notice thereof, and the summons calling the meeting shall require