eleven, Basinghall-st. Com. Fonblanque; Pennell, off. ass.; Watson and Broughtons, Falcon-square, sols. Date of fiat, May 22. Bankrupt's own petition. RUDMAN, JOEL, oilman and British wine dealer, Union-st. Bath, June 3 and July 7, at twelve, Basinghall-st. Com. Fonblanque; Pennell off. ass.; Berkeley, Lincoln's-innfields, sol. Date of fiat, May 13. G. Bishop and B. Pell, distillers, Finsbury, pet. crs. TEMPEST, JOHN, and TEMPEST, WILLIAM HOLDER, share brokers, share dealers, and coparnters in trade, Leeds, June 8 and July 2, at eleven, Leeds, Com. Burge; Hope, off. ass.; Sudlow and Co. Chancery-lane, and Middleton, Leeds, sols. Date of fiat, May 18. Bankrupts' own petition. WATTS, WILLIAM, builder and carpenter, Cheltenham, June 9 and July 7, at half-past twelve, Bristol, Com. Stevenson; Hutton. off. ass.; Packwood, Cheltenham, band Sabine, Bristol, sols. Date of fiat, May 21. Bankrupt's own petition. WILKINSON, JAMES, grocer, Manchester, June 16 and 30, at twelve, Manchester; Pott, off. ass.; Hammond, Furnival's-inn, and Messrs. Bennett, Manchester, sols. Date of fiat, May 22. Bankrupt's own petition. Meetings at Basinghall-street. Gazette, May 22. Bell, W. merchant and underwriter, Fenchurch-st. City, June 12, at one, aud. and June 19, at twelve, further div.Blacklocks, R. innkeeper and carrier, Lydd, Kent, June 12, at twelve, div.-Dickinson, G. Adams, T. and Macfarlane, M. B, calico printers, Cheapside, June 12, at one, joint div. and sep. of Graham.-Innell and Cookes, varnish manufacturers Little Queen-st. June 19, at eleven, aud.-Martin, A. linen draper, Sturminster Newton, June 16, at eleven aud. -Morphew, W. linen draper, Sevenoaks, June 28, at twelve, aud.-Ross, A. and Ogilgie J. army agents and bankers, Argyle-st. Middlesex, June 12, at eleven, aud. and June 17, at twelve, further joint div.-Withers, J. dealer in sheep, Bushey, June 16, at one, aud.-Wolton, J. C. ironmonger, Halstead, Essex, June 13, at one, div. MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Buchanan, W. merchant, Old Jewry-chambers, June 16, at half-past one.-Emanuel and Emanuel, goldsmiths, Bevis Marks, June 16, at one. Hipwood, J. H. merchant, Cornhill, June 17, at eleven.-Innell and Cookes, varnish manufacturers, Little Queen-st. June 19, at eleven.-Smyrk, E. fringe manufacturer, Hill-st. June 17, at eleven. Gazette, May 26. Blacket, and Earith, jun. warehousemen, Gresham-st. June 18, at eleven, aud.-Blyth, J. grocer and cheesemonger, Chelmsford, May 30, at one (adj. March 21), last exam.Bucknell, S. carman, Hendon, June 18, at eleven, aud.-Burnett, E. merchant, Lime-st. city, June 16, at two, first div.-Earp, G. B. ship broker, City, June 17, at eleven, aud.-Ensoll, R, draper, Broad-st. Bloomsbury, June 16, at half-past eleven, div.-Gilpin, W. army clothier and agent, Villiers-st. Strand, June 16, at half-past twelve, div.-Harriss, J. butcher, Leadenhall-market, June 16, at eleven, aud-Kinghorn, D. J. baker, Crawford-st. June 17, at twelve, aud.-Metcalfe, T. carpenter, Princes-st. May 30, at twelve (adj. March 27), last exam.-Moir, G. bootmaker, John's-row, June 16, at half past one, aud.-Starbuck, R. shipwright, Gravesend, June 18, at eleven, div.-Tebbutt, J. auctioneer, Cambridge, June 17, at half-past eleven, aud.Thompson, J. grocer, Norwich, June, 17, at eleven, aud.Tubb, T. cowkeeper and milkman, Palace-row, New-road, June 16, at half-past eleven, div.-Scholefield, J. cutler, Cheapside, June 17, at eleven, aud. sen. farmer, Llanthoysaint, May 29, at twelve, Bristol.Saughman, J. Liverpool, May 26, at eleven, Liverpool.Scott, B. gardener, Bath, June 5, at eleven, Bristol.-Tildesley, J. butcher, May 26, at twelve, Liverpool. MEETINGS AT BASINGHALL-STREET. Barclay, J. clerk, Clapham, June 9, at twelve, Liverpool. MEETINGS IN THE COUNTRY. Bertinchamp, G. J. June 9, at twelve, Liverpool. Gazette, May 22. Court of Review of May 20), last exam. of W. Edmond.- MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Partnerships Dissolved. Bodley, W. C. and C. ironfounders, Exeter, April 28.Brooks, J. sen. and jun. and J. M. calico printers, Manchester and Crawshaw-booth, and flax spinners, Bolton, so far PETITIONS TO BE HEARD IN THE COUNTRY. as regards J. Brook, May 7. Debts paid by the remaining partners.-Davidson, R. and Weatherhead, G. blacksmiths, Birmingham.-Bentley, W. carpenter, Birstall, May 26, at Bailey, T. S. butcher, Hampton-in-Arden, May 27, at one, North Shields, May 9.-Davison, J. and Stead, W. and J. eleven, Leeds.-Bigwood, S. late victualler, Bristol, June 4, grocers, Oldham, May 12. Debts paid by W. Fentem.stone merchants, Calverley, May 13.-Fentem, R. and W. at twelve, Bristol.-Booth, J. victualler, Liverpool, May 28, Foster, W. and Mansfield, J. E. grocers, Francis-place, at eleven, Liverpool.-Causefield, G. innkeeyer, Bradford, Hoxton, May 7. Debts paid by Mansfield.-Levy, A. S. and May 26, at eleven, Leeds.-Clough, W. beer seller, Leeds, Vaughan, J. C. wholesale merchants, Botolph-lane, May 1. June 4, at twelve, Leeds.-Dale, J. excavator, Idle, June 4, -Morewood, G. B., A. and J. R. and Lefferts, M. merat eleven, Leeds.-Feather, J. worsted spinner, Haworth, chants, New York, Dec. 31.-Muschamp, W. and J. B. and June 4, at eleven, Leeds.-Green, J. house agent, Leeds, Weighill, T. jun. linen drapers, Sunderland, April 18, 1842. Halifax, June 4, at eleven, Leeds.--Leonard, J. farmer, May 26, at eleven, Leeds.-Hoyle, J. manufacturing chemist, Debts paid by W. Muschamp and T. Weighill, jun.-Rus- Magor, Monmouthshire, June 11, at eleven, Bristol.-Meresell, R. and Ramsbottom, R. joiuers, Salford, Nov. 7.- dith, J. carrier, Hay, Breconshire, June 15, at twelve, Sowden, W. and Edwards, J. cabinet makers, Manchester, Bristol.-Mills, E. baker, Walcot, June 15, at eleven, Bristol. May 13. Debts paid by Sowden.-Smith, H. and Marshall,Newberry, W. sen. permit writer, Devonport, June 2, at D. general agents, Star-court, Bread-st. May 14.-Thirkill, eleven, Exeter.-Peart, T. fruiterer, Bradford, June 4, at W. and Leech, W. plumbers, Huddersfield, May 15. Debts paid by Thirkill.-Thorne, T. and Hooper, H. Newfound- eleven, Leeds.-Shattock, J. attorney, Bath, June 11, at eleven, Leeds.-Robinson, W. joiner, York, May 26, at land merchants, Bristol, May 16.-Westbrook, J. C. and eleven, Bristol.-White, W. T. grocer's assistant, Bradford, Brown, J. printers, Northampton, May 18.-Wilson, J. W. May 26, at eleven, Leeds.-Withell, P. farmer, Goodmanham, and Erskine, J. F. commission agents, Liverpool, May 1.Wise, H. and Restarick, J. plumbers, Walford, May 12.- maker, Hull, June 3, at eleven, Hull. Yorkshire, June 3, at eleven, Hull.-Westoby, G. boot Wyatt, A. and H. yeomen, Catherington, Sept. 29, 1844. Gazette, May 22. MEETINGS IN THE COUNTRY. Macclesfield, March 31, MEETINGS FOR ALLOWANCE OF CERTIFICATES. Meetings in the Country. green, Dec. 31. Debts paid by Fleming.-Forster, T. H. and Kennett, G. B. chymists, Haymarket, May 22.-Hall, W. and Parnil, J. maltsters, St. George's and Portbury, Sept. 29.-Hatton, E. and Smith, J. iron chest manufacturers, Smethwick, May 18. Debts paid by Hatton.-Hayward, J. and Broughall, J. attorneys, Oswestry, Dec. 31, 1844. Debts paid by Hayward.-Hertz, M. and Lowenthal, S. merchants, Bradford, April 30. Debts paid by Lowenthal.-Hollingworth, J. and Greatorex, J. lace manufacturers, Melbourne. May 18. Debts paid by Hollingworth.-Howe, A. Simpson, Gazette, May 22. Butler, E. iron merchant, Carrington, Basford, Notting- Lumford-mill, near Bakewell, so far as regards Howe, April W. and R. Hibbert, J. and Simpson, H. cotton spinners, hamshire, June 28, at eleven, Sheffield, first and final div.20.-Hubbard, C. J. and W. brewers, Stockwell, Jan. 31, Haselden, J. cotton spinner and manufacturer, Bolton-le- 1844.-Lattey, A. H. H. and P. P. surgeons, Baker-st. and Moors, Lancashire, June 16, at twelve, Manchester, to aud. Harley-st. May 19.-Moreland, B. and Pagden, T. iron and June 17, at twelve, second div.-Neilson, W. merchant, founders, Wenlock-basin, May 19.-Parker, C. and Percival, Liverpool, June 12, at twelve, Liverpool, aud.-Ogle, J. esq. J. iron founders, Newton, May 18. Debts paid by Parker. Pickwick, Wiltshire, and Walton, W. merchant, Liverpool, Phillips, H. and Whittem, J. S. agricultural agents, CoJune 12, at twelve, Liverpool, and. relative to the ship Van- ventry. Dec. 31.-Simpson, A. and Muller, W. hat manuguard, and joint div.-Owen, J. and S. merchants, Sheffield, facturers, Farnham-place, Gravel-lane, May 20. Debts paid June 19, at eleven, Sheffield, aud. and div.-Stanton, D. by Simpson.-Taylor, S. and Shouler, J. B. drapers, Leigrocer, Bristol, June 8, at eleven, Bristol, proof of debts.cester, May 15.-Ward, W. jun. and Grocock, D. W. and Sugden, J. and D. fancy cloth manufacturers, Springfield, in Kirkburton, and Huddersfield, both in Yorkshire, June 16, E. hosiers, Leicester, May 1. at eleven, Leeds, second and final div.-Wilkinson, C. M. wine, spirit, and beer merchant, Ulverston, Lancashire, June 15, at twelve, Manchester, aud. and June 16, at twelve, first div.-Wingfield, W. common brewer, Masborough, Rotherham, Yorkshire, June 19, at eleven, Sheffield, aud. and div. Wren, T. sharebroker, auctioneer, and furniture broker, Preston, June 16, at eleven, Manchester, aud, and June 17, at twelve, div, Insolvents Petitioning the Courts of Bankruptcy. Gazette, May 19. PETITIONS TO BE HEARD AT BASINGHALL- Cable, G. baker, Chelmsford, May 26, at half-past twelve. Gazette, May 26. - Allen, E. T. apothecary, York, June 20, at eleven, Leeds, aud.Blundell, J. pawnbroker, Wigan, June 10, at twelve, Manchester (adj. April 20), last exam.-Briggs, R. cotton manufacturer, Ulverstone, June 8, at twelve, Manchester, proof of debts. Broadhead and Halcro, stockbrokers, Leeds, June 20, at eleven, Leeds, sep. auds.-Buttrey, J. commission agent, Manchester, June 10, at twelve, Manchester (adj. May 6), to choose assigneess.-Clark, B. corn factor, Leeds, June 20, at eleven, Leeds, aud.-Cousen and Co. worsted spinners, Bradford, June 22, at eleven, Leeds, aud.-Edmond and Edmond, merchants, Liverpool and Bombay, June 12, at eleven, Manchester (by order of the ton, R. governess, Waltham-row, May 26, at half-past PETITIONS TO BE HEARD IN THE COUNTRY. From the Gazette of Friday, May 29, W. tailor, Richmond, Surrey.-Boyd, J. and J. hop mer- Frederick Dodsworth, esq. THIS G. G. Kirby, esq. Managing George Henry Lewes, esq. THIS Office unites the Benefit of a Mutual Association with the Security of a Proprietary Company, and offers to the Assured the following advantages: 1. Credit until death, with privileges of payment at any time previously, for one-half of the premiums for the first five years, upon Assurances for the whole of Life,-a plan peculiarly advantageous for securing Loans. 2. In Loan transactions the lender secured against the risk of the borrower going out of Europe. 3. Sums assured to become payable AT GIVEN AGES OF 4. Policies indefeasible; fraud alone, not error, vitiating DEATH, if previous. them; and in case the Renewal Premium remain unpaid, the Assurance may be revived at any time within six MONTHS, upon satisfactory proof of health, and payment of a trifling fine. 5. Officers in the Army and Navy, and persons residing abroad, or proceeding to any part of the world, assured at low rates. 6. Immediate, Survivorship, and Deferred Annuities granted; Information and Prospectuses furnished, on application at the office. ? THE REGISTRATIONS. THE FOURTH EDITION of the REGISTHERATION of ELECTORS' ACTS, incorporating the Reform Act and other recent statutes, and the decisions of the Court of Common Pleas on Registration Appeals, with Introduction and copious Index. By EDWARD W. COX, Sales by Auction. CHESHIRE.-About eight miles from the City of Chester. R. SOLICITORS AND GENERAL LIFE DIRECTORS. Es, and latent ver, price 55. 6d. boards; half-bound, M. W. W. SIMPSON has received in- FONBLANQUE, JOHN S. M. Esq. St. John's-wood. 7s. 6d. interleaved, 6d. JOHN CROCKFORD, 29, Essex-street, where also, The REAL PROPERTY STATUTES of the last Session, with Notes and Index. By G. S. ALLNUTT, "Esq. Barrister-at-Law, price 4s.. The SMALL DEBTS ACT. By EDWARD W. Cox, Esq. Barrister-at-Law, price 25. The NEW RULES AND ORDERS IN CHANCERY, with Notes, and a copious Index. By G. S. ALLNUTT, Esq. Barrister-at-Law, price 3s. Sales by Auction. Periodical Sales (established in the year 1803) of Rever sions, Life Interests, Annuities, Policies of Assurance, Advowsons, Next Presentations, Rent Charges in lieu of Tithes, Post-obit Bonds, Tontines, Debentures, Ground Rents, Improved Rents, Shares in Docks, Canals, Mines, Railways, Insurance Companies, and all Public Undertak. ings. structions from the proprietor to offer for SALE by AUCTION, at the Royal Hotel, Chester, on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, at Two o'clock in the afternoon, in twelve lots, exceedingly valuable FREEHOLD ESTATES (exonerated from land-tax), consisting of a most desirable and substantially-built residence, recently enlarged and improved, lawn, pleasure-grounds, walled gardens, &c. and several conveniently arranged farms, with superior agricultural buildings attached, public-houses, cottages, &c. The property is desirably situate in the townships of Manley and Kingswood, in the parish of Frodsham, and distant about eight miles from the city of Chester. It contains collectively 1,100 acres of productive arable, pasture, and wood land, at present in the occupation (excepting the residence and about 161 acres in hand) of highly respectable tenants, at rents amounting, with the estimated value of the property in hand, to 1,8001. per annum. Upon the property are most valuable quarries, with an abundant supply of white stone for building purposes. It abounds with game, and is within easy distances of three packs of hounds. ASSURANCE SOCIETY, AUDITORS. Ayrton, W. Scrope, esq. Dorset-square. PHYSICIAN. David Lewis, M.D. Finsbury-place, West. BURGEON. Bransby B. Cooper, esq. F.R.S. New-street, Spring-gardens BANKERS. SOLICITORS. Particulars, with plans annexed, may be obtained of G. J.The London and Westminster Bank (Bloomsbury Branch). Mr. Simpson annexes some observations made by him at MESSRS SHUTTLEWORTH and SONS and to a great extent represented the individual, and cer respectfully inform the public, that upwards of 40 years' experience having proved the classification of this species of property to be extremely advantageous and economical to vendors, and equally satisfactory and convenient to purchasers, the PERIODICAL SALES of reversionary inte rests, policies of insurance, tontines, debentures, advowsons, next presentations, all securities dependent upon human life, shares in docks, canals, mines, railways, and all public undertakings, will be continued through 1846, as follow: ESSRS. SHUTTLEWORTH and SONS are instructed to include in their next Periodical Sale of Reversionary Interests, &c. appointed to take place at the Mart, on FRIDAY, JUNE 5, at Twelve, the valuable REVERSIONARY INTEREST of a gentleman in his 35th year, in a moiety of the sum of 98,0977. 6s. 8d. and the accumulations of 3,000l. per ann. during the life of a lunatic, aged 47; the life interest of a gentleman in the sum of 18,1321. sterling; reversionary interests in 4,5761. and 9151. 28. 7d. Consols; the contingent reversion to the sums of 1,2001. and 8337. life 30 against 61; the life interest in a rental of 421. per annum, derived from six leasehold houses in Vine-street, Minories; the ditto, with dividends, arising from the sum of 2,6561., 5s. Three per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities, life 73; the ditto in the dividends arising from the sum of 1,200/. life 30 against 61; a policy of assurance for the sum of 1,0001. effected with the Promoter Life Assurance Company, 22nd of April, 1837, lives 47 and 45; a ditto for the sum of 500l. with accumulations, effected with the Equitable Assurance Society, Dec. 1817, life 58; a ditto for the sums of 2,500l. and 1,500l. effected with the London Life Association; a ditto for the sum of 4,000l. effected with the Norwich Union Society. A Bond of his Royal Highness the late Duke of York, for the sum of 7897. 178. 6d. with interest at 5 per 100 Shares of 101. each, paid in full, in the Patent Galvanized Iron Company, at present paying a dividend of 81. per cent. The reversionary interest to one-eighth of the proceeds of ten freehold houses, situate in Church-street, 2,0501. Three per Cent. Consols; also to one-eighth part of Edmonton, let at rents amounting to 1437. per annum; an annuity of 171. 128.4d. secured upon funded property, life 59. Policy for the sum of 1,000l. with a bonus thereon of 2791. making together the sum of 1,2791. effected with the Mutual Assurance Society, life 53, annual premium, 341. 6s. 8d; a ditto for 1,000l. in the same office, effected 6th Feb. 1835, life 53, annual premium 341. 17s. 6d. ; a ditto for the sum of 1,000l. with a bonus thereon of 1847. making together the sum of 1,1847. effected with the Atlas Assurance, life 54, annual premium 337. 18.8d. ; a ditto for 4001. effected with the London Life Association, age 47, reduced premium 41. 108.9d.; a ditto for 1,000/. effected in the same office, life 48, reduced premium 101. 85.9d.; a ditto for 1,0001. effected in the same office, life 53, reduced premium 47. 16s. 3d; and a ditto for 5007. effected on the same life, in the same office, reduced premium 41. 16s. 3d.-Further particulars may be obtained of Mr. Bockett, solicitor, 68, Lincoln's-inn-fields; Mr. J. W. Powell, solicitor, Mint-yard, Canterbury; Messrs. Vallance and Vallance, solicitors, 20, Essex-street, Strand Mr. Godsell, solicitor, 6, Lincoln's-inn-fields; Messrs. a'Beckett and Simpson, solicitors, Golden-square; Mr. J. C. Fourdrinier, solicitor, 1, Scott's-yard, Bush-lane; of Mr. Lake, solicitor, 10, New-square, Lincoln's-inn; Mr. G. Clark, solicitor, 28, Finsbury-place; of Mr. Fawcett, solicitor, Jewin-street; at the Auction Mart; and of Messrs. SHUT. TLEWORTH and Sons, 28, Poultry. Messrs. John and William Galsworthy, Ely-place. PROSPECTUS. This Society is now completely registered, and prepared to transact all the usual business of Life Assurance. It is based upon a principle which will combine the benefits of Mutual Assurance with the guarantee of a Subscribed Capital of ONE MILLION STERLING. Whilst perfect security is thus given, the number and character of the Shareholders (consisting of nearly 500 Members of the Legal Profession), will command a large amount of business, and consequent advantages will arise to the Assured. Tables of Premiums have been prepared expressly for this Office, by F. G. P. NEISON, Esq. F.L.S., calculated on the nearest approximation to the real law of mortality. These Tables will be found to afford peculiar encourage. ment to the assurance of young lives. They embrace parti. cipating and non-participating scales. In the participating class, the Assured will be entitled to have four-fifths of the profits divided amongst them periodi cally, either by way of addition to the amount assured, or in diminution of premium, as the parties may elect. No deduction will be made from such profits for interest of capital. or for a guarantee fund. The Premiums may be paid half-yearly or annually, or by a single payment. Assurances may be effected through any respectable Soli. citor, or by writing to the Secretary. "The attendance at this sale was exceedingly numerous, lective respectability, as well as opulence, of the sister counties. Mr. Simpson, previous to opening the sale, ventured to address his audience at some length on the allabsorbing subject of the contemplated (and, he hoped, certain) abolition of the corn-laws. He acknowledged that, till within the last year, he had been a thorough-going protectionist. After a three years' test, however, of Sir Robert Peel's measures, added to his extensive experience up to the present period, in the letting and sales of landed property, he was now free and proud to confess that sliding and other scales had fallen from his eyes; the result of which was, that he was now a thorough-going anti-protectionist, from an honest and firm conviction that rents which had been set on fair and liberal principles (within the last seven years) of 'Live and let live,' would be permanent: and he fearlessly stated that the year's purchase on such rentals had risen within the last six months, and in all probability would continue to rise on the settlement of the great question in respect to free trade in corn, &c. For the truthfulness of these statements, Mr. Simpson referred to recent lettings and sales, which have been published, not only by himself, The Directors meet on Thursdays at Two o'clock; but but by other auctioneers and land agents. The consumption Assurances may be effected on any day, by applying between and demand of an increasing population (in the ratio of about the hours of Ten and Four, at the Offices of the Society, 1,000 per day), the capital, skill, industry and enterprise of where Prospectuses and all other requisite information may Englishmen, in addition to the easy and inexpensive transit be obtained. CHARLES JOHN GILL, of their produce to the first markets in Europe, would Secretary. form such a counterpoise as would enable us to compete successfully with the miserably uncultivated lands and minds of TAND-IN-HAND FIRE and LIFE INexotic growth. Instead, therefore, of the motto of 'agitate, agitate,' let us, said he, substitute that of cultivate, Blackfriars, London.-Instituted in 1696.-Extended to Life cultivate; and let landlords assist improving tenants, by Insurance, 1836. Immediate, Deferred, and Survivorship making advances (in the nature of improvements in drain-Annuities granted. age, &c. &c.) of the additional capital which may be required, charging for the same at the rate of four per cent. on that The Hon. William Ashley. Hence the Sir Felix Booth, bart. expenditure which shall be judiciously laid out. tenant farmer will reap an additional benefit of at least ten The Hon. Sir Edward Cust. per cent. and a permanent improvement of the value of the John Lettsom Elliot, esq. farm (quasi landlord) will supervene. Mr. Simpson stated, James Esdaile, esq. that in his humble opinion, Sir Robert Peel was (at least) one of the greatest, most talented, and fearlessly honest mi nisters that had ever lived in the tide of times." Surgeon-F. Hale Thomson, esq. 48, Berners-street. Its Annual Income being upwards of In 1841 the Company added a Bonus of 21. per cent. per The Bonus added to policies from March, 1834, to the 31st The important advantages offered by the plan and constitution of the Life Department of this Society are That insurers are protected by a large invested capital upon which there is no interest to pay, and for which no deduction of any kind is made, which enables the Directors to give the whole of the profits to Insuring Members. That the profits are divided annually amongst all members of five years' standing, and applied towards reducing Life Insurance to the lowest possible rates of premium, the abatement for the years 1842, 1843, and 1844, being at the rate of 451. per cent. and for the years 1845 and 1846, 501. per cent.; that is, a policy taken out on or before the 24th of June, 1841, at an annual premium of 1001. will be charged 50%. at this year's premium, and it is expected that an equal abatement will in future be annually made. That persons insuring their own lives, or the lives of others, may become members. That persons who are willing to forego participation in the profits, can insure at a lower rate than that charged to members, The following table will shew the effect of the reduction of premium made by the society on members' policies that have been five years in force. Age when Insured Page separated from the mills by a public road, and was not necessary for carrying on the plaintiffs' works; that the construction put on the Act by the company was a reasonable one; whereas that contended for by the Court of Queen's Bench ......................................................... 202 plaintiffs was repugnant to the general object of the 206 Act, which intended to authorize the construction of 209 a railway at all events. Court of Common Pleas Court of Exchequer Commissioners' Courts-London 202 212 Before the argument for the defendants was conLEGISLATOR-Summary. .............................................................. 213 cluded, the Master of the Rolls said he did not doubt Business of Parliament..................... 213 that the legislature and the parties themselves, when The Lords' Report on the " Burdens on Land" 213 the Act was passed, contemplated a future agreement. MAGISTRATE-Summary.. 214 The company had not attempted to come to any terms with the plaintiffs, but, standing on what they conceived to be their strict right, had entered upon the ........ 214 land, and marked out a line according to their own 216 construction of the Act. And his lordship having suggested a compromise, the case stood over. Rating of Literary Institutions LAWYER-Summary.. PROMOTIONS, APPOINTMENTS, &c.. COURT PAPERS.. LEGAL INTELLIGENCE......... 214 ......... 214 214 HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN, &c. WANTED.. 216 LEADING ARTICLES Conveyancing Sham Lawyers.. BIRTHS, MARRiages, and DEATHS Practice of Sales (continued) J.......! Money Market................ GAZETTES ADVERTISEMENTS. THE REPORTS? Equity Courts. BLY 216 217 217 219 TANT LORD CHANCELLOR'S COURT. April 30 and May 2. be tried at law. " ject to the provisions of the Act, including, amongst others, this clause. It was said that a restricted meaning must be given to the words "mills, lands, and buildings." Why? It was said they must mean either those employed in the factory, or those which were, strictly, cut by the original line of railway; that some or other restrictive meaning must be given to them. But his lordship did not find anything in the Act to warrant that construction. And he thought it was intended, that, provided an agreement could be made, the railway should be constructed but not otherwise. Another argument was, that supposing there must be a railway, it was to be constructed on a parallel line, and at a certain distance from the original line; but there was nothing in the Act to shew that. If any one of these constructions had been meant, it might have been clearly expressed. There would have been no difficulty in expressing any one of them. And if any one of them was the meaning of the parties, why was it not clearly stated? The observations of Lord Cottenham bore upon this subject, and he must consider his opinion of great weight, because he never had shown the least disposition to press hard the construction of these Acts against railway companies. On the contrary, he had always shewn a disposition to uphold them in the possession of the powers given to them by Parliament. Lord Cottenham said that you must look to the agreement between the parties, and not to the consequences of it." So here there might be very exorbitant terms demanded, but he had nothing to do with that. But taking the words of the clause as the expression of the agreement between the parties, he thought it was that they should not enter upon the lands, coming nearer than the south-east end of the bridge. He thought the agreement could not be altered without the aid of Parliament. He did not see how he could put a construction on the Act that these persons offered. He regretted the course the parties had taken, should be compelled to give up their land for the price and he could not but think that if there had been acom Act passed, it might have been effected. It happened munication with a sincere view to an agreement after the in this case that these gentlemen possessed the whole tract of land between the utmost boundaries of deviation; and it was a peculiarity here, that by their refusal to come to an agreement they would stop the construction of the railway. But was that not known to the parties at the time the clause was agreed to? Was it not then seen that if there should be no agreement there could be no railway? His lordship thought it was the duty of the company, as to all those things which depended on agreement, to have settled them before they began to cut. And he was of opinion, that upon the true construction of the clause in question, the railway company could not make the railway through the plaintiffs' land except by agreement with the plaintiffs, and that, therefore, he must grant the injunction. No compromise having been effected, the Master of the Rolls gave judgment, and remarked on the hard ship to which individuals were sometimes exposed by the imperial power exercised by Parliament in taking 217 away from their private property, at a price, and for 219 an object in which they had no voice. By the exer219 eise of this power they were deprived of that to which they had, perhaps, attached their fortunes, and in the enjoyment of which they felt the greatest interest, and by the loss or violation of which their situation in life might be entirely altered. The exercise of this imperial power was solicited only because it would contribute so much to the public good as to make it for the general benefit that the rights of private property should be violated. And Parliament were in all cases bound to consider whether the public good did make it necessary to violate private property. This Court had always looked on undertakings of this sort on these principles; and unless the parties obtaining these powers from Parliament were able to shew that they could complete the whole of the unConstruction of clause in Railway Act, providing for part of it. The hardship on individuals had of late dertaking, they had not been allowed to execute any compensation to a particular person whose property been the subject of more anxious consideration, pro. was likely to be affected by the railway. Where the language of a clause in a private Act of Par-works which had occasioned that consideration. It bably owing to the frequency and the vastness of the liament is obscure, and the point involved is, whether was a rule, that where property did not possess any a railway company is entitled to take possession of a peculiar value, Parliament would apply that which particular property, and upon what terms the Court had become an ordinary rule in such cases. But of Chancery will direct the point of construction to if the property was valuable, and to which the This was a motion, by way of appeal from the deci- owner might be considered to be particularly attached, Parliament would encourage agreements besion of the Master of the Rolls, on the behalf of tween the parties, if willing to come into them. Messrs. John and William Gray, for an injunction to And if that could not be done immediately, restrain the above railway company from proceeding would refer the parties to an agreement to be in the construction of the railway over certain lands entered into between themselves at a future time, belonging to them. The plaintiffs were the owners of and such, it appeared to his lordship, had been the cotton mills and lands thereto adjoining, situate at case here. In the last year certain parties were Darcey Lever, in the county of Lancaster, and the soliciting Parliament for leave to make a railway company originally proposed to carry their line which passed through lands occupied by the plaintiffs through the buildings and lands connected with the in this cause. The plaintiffs conceived that the promills, so as to intersect them. This, however, was perty was of peculiar value, which was not to be deopposed by the plaintiffs before the parliamentary termined in the mode adopted in ordinary cases, and committee on the bill, and an agreement was come to they opposed the bill. It appeared from the evidence which was embodied in the Railway Act. The pro- that the opposition was successful, and that unless tection of the plaintiffs was provided for by the 92nd some arrangement could have been entered into the clause of the Company's Act; after reciting that the bill would not have passed. And in that state of plaintiffs were the owners and occupiers of certain mills, lands, and buildings, situate at Darcey Lever, things an attempt was made for a compromise and through which the line of railway, as delineated on successful; possibly both parties were in such a state of agreement. Unhappily for all parties that was not the plans and sections referred to in the Act passed, mind that they could not come to any agreement after it was enacted, "that it should not be lawful for the communicating with each other. After having failed company, without the consent of the plaintiffs, to to come to an agreement or any terms specified at The LORD CHANCELLOR, after hearing the arguconstruct the railway nearer to the said mill lands and that time, this clause was, by consent, inserted in the ments, directed an action to be brought by the plainbuildings, or any of them, than the south-end of Act. Now the clause was this; it recited that John tiffs against the company, that the legal construction Lever-bridge." And the 93rd section enacted, "that the company should not in, or during the construc- Gray and Wm. Gray were the owners and occupiers of the clause might be tried in a court of law. tion or progress of the railway, or works, divert or Lever, through which the line of railway, as deline- VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND'S of certain mills, lands, and buildings, situate at Darcy obstruct, or in any way injure, the gates belonging to ated on the plans and sections, passed; and it the plaintiffs, connected with their works at Darcey enacted that it should not be lawful for the company, Lever, under a penalty of 7501. for each day of the without the consent of John and William Gray, or occurrence of such diversion, obstruction, or injury, the owner and owners for the time being, of the said above the damage sustained, nor obstruct the carrying on of the plaintiff's works under a like penalty." mills, lands, and buildings to construct the railway The railway company, without asking the consent nearer to the said mills, lands, and buildings, of the plaintiffs, had entered upon certain land be- or any of them than the south-east end of Lelonging to the plaintiffs, adjoining to the land on in marked "One." The company were not to conver-bridge, delineated on the said plans, and therewhich the mills and buildings connected therewith struct the railway nearer to the mills, lands, and were situated, and had marked out a line running buildings, not nearer to any specified part thereof, from west to east, from the south-east end of Lever- but not nearer to the mills, lands, and buildings than bridge, parallel to the line originally marked out in the east end of the Lever-bridge. Now the collective their plans, but removed from the line a distance ex- description or names, mills, lands, and buildings, inceeding the space between the south-east end of the cluded the whole of the premises of which John and bridge and that point of their original line which was William Gray were the owners and occupiers. But nearest to the bridge. The plaintiffs contended that the company could not, without their consent, take they were the owners and occupiers of the whole of any part of the land belonging to them situate at not seem to be attended with difficulty. The Messrs. the property in question. The words themselves did Darcey Lever, though not immediately connected with the mills, or essential to the carrying on their Gray contended that the company must not come works. The company, on the other hand, insisted nearer to the estate, that is, to any part of it, without that if such was the right construction of the Act, the their consent, than the south-east end of Levermaking of the railway at all would depend on the bridge. They must stop there. But it was concaprice of individuals, because the whole of the land tended that that could not be the construction, between the deviation lines at this part of the railway ther there was anything to overcome the natural conand the real question between the parties was, whebelonged to the plaintiffs; that the primary object of the legislature was, that a line should at all events struction of these words. It was said that this conbe constructed, but that it should not be constructed struction would make the construction of the railway so as to interfere with the full enjoyment of the plain- not be, because it was intended that a railway should depend on the will of these individuals, and that could tiffs' mills; that the land proposed to be taken was be constructed. But it was to be constructed sub VOL. VII. No. 166. From that order the defendants, the Railway Com pany, appealed to the Lord Chancellor, and the arguments turned upon the construction of the clause, and the apparent consistency of its literal construction with the intention of the legislature to grant powers to the company to make a railway. appeal. injunction. COURT. HARRIS v. DAVISON. Judgment-Sec. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110-Annuity-Leasehold estates. A judgment had been registered against a party entitled to an annuity, which was secured by a covenant and an assignment of certain leaseholds.-Held, that the judgment operated as a charge upon the annuity and the interest of the annuitant in the leaseholds, under the 13th section of the above statute. By an indenture bearing date the 26th May, 1835, for certain considerations therein stated, William Davison covenanted with one Jane Lock, that he the said William Davison should pay unto the said Jane Lock, during her natural life, an annuity of 201. by commence on the 24th day of June then next. And quarterly payments; the first payment thereof was to it was thereby further witnessed, that for the considerations therein mentioned, he the said W. Davison did bargain, sell, and assign unto the said Jane Lock, certain leasehold property therein mentioned, to hold the same unto the said Jane Lock for the term of mentioned, upon trust, for securing to her the eighty-eight years, granted by an indenture therein payment of the said annuity, and the performance of the covenants on the part of the said W. Davison therein powers, in case the said annuity falling into arrear, to The indenture contained also certain contained. sell the leaseholds and purchase a government annuity of 201. out of the moneys arising from such sale. On the 23rd April, 1839, a judgment at law for 411. was, by the said John Harris, entered up against Jane Lock, and the same was signed and entered up of record in the Court of Common Pleas, and registered. John Harris filed his amended bill in June, 1842, ROLLS COURT. Friday, May 8. cation was to be reckoned, the plaintiff was late; but he contended that the 41st article of the 16th Order only applied to the second clause of the 4th article of the 14th Order. The motion to dismiss in that case is too soon, and we are in time in obtaining the order BIDDULPH v. LORD CAMOYS. Practice-New orders-Lunatic-Guardian-Husband to amend. and wife. praying that it might be declared that the judgment 4 so obtained by the plaintiff operated as a charge upon the said annuity, and the arrears thereof, and the estate and interest of the said Jane Lock, in the aforesaid hereditaments and premises comprised in the aforesaid indenture of the 26th May, 1835, for the payment thereof, and for an account and sale. Bethell and Wilcock for the plaintiff. Campbell, for the defendant, Jane Lock, contended that the annuity was not within the terms of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. The annuity was a mere personal annuity secured by a covenant with an assignment of the leasehold, for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to sell and buy a government annuity; but that it formed no interest in land. The first question was, whether it was within the scope of the 11th section, which empowered the sheriff to deliver execution of "all such lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, and hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments of copyhold or customary tenure as the person against whom execution is so issued, or any person in trust for him, shall have been seised or possessed," &c. This annuity does not fall in with any of these; it is more like a rent to which distress is incident; and no power of distress is given here. Nothing is included in the Act that is not expressed, and everything therein mentioned is freehold." Leaseholds" are not expressed therein. Copyholds would not have been included, unless they had been actually mentioned. The recital of the Act expresses the intention of the Legislature. "Whereas, it is expedient to give judgment creditors more effectual remedies against the real and personal estate of their debtors than they possess under the existing law." This is worked out by the 16th sec. as to eligit, by sec. 12 as to money, and by sec. 13 as to really. Now, under the old law, the sheriff could not have sold the annuity, it being a chose in action. This obligation did not pass by the mere delivery of the deed, and the intention of the 12th sec. was to affect such obligations by execution only, and not by judgment. Judgment was intended to bind lands; but personalty was only to be affected by execution. The words in sec. 12 are the same as those made use of in the Statute of Frauds, with the addition of "any estate or interest whatever," which means, however, no more than "in any manner or wise," as in the Statute of Frauds. The words in the last mentioned statute have received their judicial meaning in the case of Scott v. Scholey (8 East, 467), where it was determined that an equitable interest in a term could not be taken in execution, which construction must be held to extend to this Act. This interest is certainly of an anomalous character, but it is not included in the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. lunatic, not so found by inquisition, and his wife, residing out of the jurisdiction, were served with subpoena to appear and answer in a suit in which the lunatic was interested in right of his wife on motion for leave to enter an appearance for them, and that the solicitor appearing for the wife should be appointed guardian to the lunatic, the Court required an affidavit that the husband and wife had the same interest. The MASTER of the ROLLS.-Easter vacation is not excluded from the time for replications generally, but only in the cases coming under the directions of the 41st article of the 16th Order, both clauses of the former article being qualified by the final words. There will be no order, therefore, but that the plaintiff pay the costs. Common Law Courts. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Friday, May 22. TANNER v. Moore. sideration. Cooke moved for leave to enter an appearance in this suit, for Edward Henry Dayrell and Lucy his wife, who are residing out of the jurisdiction of the Court. On the 23rd of January last, an order was made, directing the service of a subpoena to appear and answer under the 32nd Order of May, there being an affidavit that the lunatic was a necessary party to Pleading-Assumpsit-Executed or executory-Conthe suit, and the Court observing that such an order could do no harm, as no farther step could be taken without a fresh application. On the 10th March the subpoena was accordingly served, the requisites of the order of the 23rd of January (see 6 Law T. 429) being complied with. Notice of motion to appoint a soliicitor, under the 32nd Order of May, guardian of the lunatic was also given for this day; and it was asked to allow the appearance to be entered in the terms of the motion, and that the solicitor appearing for the wife should be the guardian. The MASTER of the ROLLS.-Does it appear that the husband and wife have the same interest? Cooke.-Yes, it is stated in the bill. The MASTER of the ROLLS. That won't do; there must be an affidavit that the husband has no interest adverse to the wife. Cooke.-An affidavit to that effect shall be produced. ELDERTON v. LACK. Practice-Enlarging publication. Interrogatories had been prepared and left with the examiner on the 24th of April, and the day for passing publication was the 2nd of May; the Master refused to enlarge publication to allow time to take the evidence, but a month was allowed for that purpose, on payment of costs. Elderton, on the part of the plaintiff, in this case, on the 30th of April last, moved to enlarge publication till the 1st of August next, and the motion was allowed to stand over till this day, that an application might be made to the Master, a special application not being necessary. The Master refused, and the motion was now renewed. Instructions had been given on the 10th of March last for preparing interrogatories, which it was sworn were left with the examiner on the 24th of April. But publication being to pass in due course on the 2nd inst. enlargement became necessary. ley, 377.) We do not wish to shut out the evidence. Let them pay the costs, and enlarge till the second day of next Term. The MASTER of the ROLLS.-Mr. Lee's view is just. You, Mr. Elderton, must pay the costs, and let publication be enlarged for a month. Then take any step you think right. The VICE-CHANCELLOR. I think it is. In the first place, the words in sec. 13 are much the same as those in sec. 11. And the statute being remedial, Lee (with him Heathfield).-The replication in this ought to receive a liberal construction, because the cause, which is a cross cause (there being another main purport is to give an effectual remedy against cause in Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce's Court) was the property in compensation for depriving the cre- filed on the 13th of March, 1845; and though they ditor of his power of screwing out his debt by means could have examined witnesses in the other cause, the of personal constraint. The intention is not the pu- interrogatories are not brought in here till the 24th of nishment of the debtor, but the payment of the debt. April. The opposition to the motion is entirely on The language of the 13th sec. is even more copious account of the delay in preparing the interrogatories. than that of the 11th, and its effect is, that a judg-(Pascally. Scott, 1 Phil. 110; Ward v. Eyles, Mose. ment already entered operates as a charge upon all lands, tenements, rectories, advowsons, tithes, rents, and hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments of copyhold or customary tenure. Indeed, I cannot conceive a set of words more expressly framed to set forth lands of any description, though it may be a question whether lands held in ancient demesne are comprehended. The Act contemplates that recourse may be had to a Court of Equity to perfect the charge, for it says, "every judgment creditor shall have such and the same remedies in a Court of Equity against the hereditaments" (that is, the word "hereditaments" describing every species of property) charged by virtue of this Act, or any part thereof, as he would be entitled to in case the person against whom such judgment would have been so entered had power to charge the same hereditaments, and had by writing under his hand agreed to charge the same In this case the answer was filed on the 14th of with the amount of such judgment debt and interest February, and became sufficient on the 28th of March; thereon." Now was it not competent for Jane Lock, and the time for filing a replication, therefore, by the by writing, to constitute herself a trustee of the term 37th article of the 16th Order, expired on the 25th assigned in trust for the purpose of procuring pay-of April. No replication was filed within the time, ment? Was it not such an interest in land as she and on the 27th of April a notice of motion to dishad power to charge? Doubtless she might, by an miss for want of prosecution was served on the agreement in writing, have given the plaintiff the be- plaintiff, which now came on to be heard. Meantime, nefit of such power; and a judgment was obtained however, but after the 25th, the plaintiff obtained an in the same manner, and the plaintiff is entitled to order to amend. his relief by means of carrying the trust into execution for the purpose of paying the amount due. 4 declaration in assumpsit stated that, in consideration of J. T. (the plaintiff's testator) agreeing to stay proceedings against J. B. M. if J. B. M. should die in his father's lifetime, the defendant promised, within six months after the father's death, to pay to the plaintiff's testator 1651. The agreement, given in evidence, was in this form: "I, &c. (the defendant) in consideration of natural love and affection, and in consideration of J. T. having agreed to stay all further proceedings at law against J. B. M. if J. B. M. shall die in the lifetime of his father, will, within six months after his father's death, pay to the said J. T. 1651." Held, that this agreement was founded upon a continuing consideration, and that, therefore, it supported the declaration. Assumpsit, by plaintiff, as executor of John Tanner. Tanner agreeing to stay an action, and all proceedings The declaration stated, that in consideration of John at law against one John Bailey Moore, the defendant promised and agreed, that if the said John B. Moore should die in the lifetime of his father, he, the defendant, would, within six calendar months after the death of the father of the said J. B. M. pay to the said John Tanner the sum of 1651. It then alleged the death of the said J. B. M. in the lifetime of his father, the death of the father, and that, although more than six months had elapsed from the death of the father, yet the defendant had not paid the said sum of 1651. either to the said John Tanner in his lifetime, or to the plaintiff as executor. Plea-Non assumpsit. At the trial the following agreement was given in evidence by the plaintiff :- Tanner v. Moore.-I, the undersigned Wm. B. Moore, the attorney and brother for the above defendant, in consideration of natural love and affection, and in consideration of the plaintiff's having agreed to stay all further proceedings at law against him, hereby promise and agree, that if the said John B. Moore shall die in the lifetime of his father, I will, within six months after the death of his father, pay to the said plaintiff 1657." A verdict was found for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to move to enter a nonsuit. Crowder, Q. C. in a former Term obtained a rule accordingly; against which Greenwood, in last Easter Term (Tuesday, May 5), shewed cause.-The consideration stated in this declaration is proved. The agreement shews a continuing consideration, which may be alleged as either executed or executory. (Payne v. Wilson, 7 B. & C. 423.) An agreement to stay proceedings paullulum is not a good consideration for a promise; but an agreement to stay generally, or for a reasonable time, is. (Com. Dig. Action on the Case on Assumpsit, B. 1, 12, and cases there cited, where it is said that indefinite forbearance shall be intended perpetual forbearance.) Now, this was an agreement to stay proceedings at all events until six months after the death of the father, and the term "having agreed" may be construed to mean "having agreed, agreeing, and still continuing to agree," as the word audibibnkas is translated in the note to Clarke's Homer (Iliad 1); it is, therefore, such an agreement as will support this declaration. (Butcher v. Steuart, 11 M. & W. 857; Thornton v. Jenyns, 1 Man. & G. 166.) Crowder, Q. C. and Merivale, contrà. This declaration is founded upon an executory consideration, otherwise it would be bad for want of an averment of request. [WIGHTMAN, J.-Suppose this case: that in consideration of the plaintiff having agreed to pay a weekly sum for a long time, the defendant promised to pay a round sum on a certain event, would it be necessary to allege that consideration to be "on request?" Yes. [WIGHTMAN, J.-Is it not a continuing consideration?] No; the agreement is the the performance may be incomplete. [WIGHTconsideration; that is complete when made, though MAN, J.-Then you contend that you need not aver performance?] Certainly; the usual allegation of mutual promises contains no averment of the performance. [PATTESON, J. - The old form of alleging mutual promises was in the past tense.] Yes; "in consideration that A B, at the request of C D, had promised." The having agreed to release a third person is no consideration; if the agreement had been in consideration of staying proceedings, instead of in consideration of a past agreement to stay, it would have been otherwise. If an executed consideration is spent, it is no consideration for a future promise. That is the rule to be collected from all the cases cited, and especially Thornton v. Jenyns (1 M. & G. 166); but when the promise is one which the law will imply from the consideration, as that a tenant will cultivate in a husbandlike manner, a past consideration is sufficient; but even then it must be alleged on request. [Lord DENMAN, C.J. referred to Shenton v. James (5 Q. B. 199), and PATTESON, J. to Goodman v. Chase, 1 B. & Ald. 297.] All the cases are collected in a note to Osborne 7. Rogers (1 Wm. Saund. 264). But here the promise is not one which would be implied by law from the consideration. (Roscorla v. Thomas, 3 Q. B. 234.) The passage in Com. Dig. is no authority for the plaintiff in Butcher v. Steuart (11 M. & W. 857), the words were, having released,"-not, "having agreed to release;" and the release would be a continuing consideration, though an agreement to release is not. Payne v. Wilson; Wain v. Warlters (5 East, 10), and Saunders v. Wakefield (4 B. & A. 595), are also quite distinguishable from the present case. (Raikes v. Todd, 6 Ad. & E. 846.) Cur. adv. vult. 44 JUDGMENT. pending negotiations, was argued upon the first day | patent, even if it be valid in point of law. Upon The arguments were purely of a scientific nature, JUDGMENT. Lord DENMAN, C.J.-This was an action for infringing a patent. A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, a motion has been made for a new trial, partly on the ground that there was no infringement of the patent by the defendant, but also and principally that the patent itself is void, because the alleged invention is not new. That invention is, by the specification and the description of the drawings, both of which are referred to for the purpose, stated to consist in a mode of propelling vessels by means of one or more curved blades, set or fixed on a revolving shaft below the water line of the vessel, and running from stem to stern of the vessel; and it is added, that each of the curved blades is a portion of a curve, which, if continued, would produce a screw. On behalf of the plaintiff it was not contended that every part of it was new; but the invention consists in a new combination of those parts, the essential part of that invention being that the blades must be curved, and each a portion of a curve which, if continued, would produce a screw. First, as to the point of infringement, we DENMAN, C. J. In this case the declaration ran think it to be indisputably clear that most of the that in consideration of the plaintiff agreeing to stay component parts had been in use or known before proceedings in an action on a note, the defendant the date of the plaintiff's patent. This was estapromised to pay part in a short time. The written blished by proof of the earlier patents of Shorter, guarantee that was produced, appeared to be in con- Trevethick, and Commereau. In these, or some of sideration of the plaintiff having agreed to stay the them, the position of the machine, that is to say, the proceedings, and a rule for a nonsuit was obtained on aperture being in the dead wood, the direction of the that ground. The case of Roscorla v. Thomas (3 Q. shaft, with reference to the keel and stuffing-box and B. 234), was strongly relied on. The declaration ran curved blades, was the same; except, indeed, that thus: "In consideration that the plaintiff, at the re- those curved blades did not form each a portion quest of the defendant, had bought of defendant a of a curve, which if continued would produce a certain horse, the defendant promised the plaintiff screw. That, at least, was not shewn; and that, that the horse was sound, &c.," and we held that the as we have already observed, is the characteristic consideration being executed would not, though laid distinction of the alleged invention of the plainwith a request, support even an express promise, if, tiff, on which reliance is mainly placed. The as in that case, it were one which would not be im- question, therefore, as to the infringement comes plied by law. The case of Lenton v. James (5 Q. shortly to this; whether, in the defendant's machine, B. 199) was also cited; but there the question was curved blades of that particular description have been whether the instrument was a promissary note, which used or not? because, if they be not curved, but plain depended upon this, whether the money written on it or flat blades, it is obvious that by no number of rewas payable at all events; and we thought that the volutions would they, or by any possibility could they, consideration really was that which was stated on the produce a screw. We are quite aware that there was face of the instrument, and that it was not necessarily evidence that the blades in the defendant's machine a continuing agreement. Butcher v. Steuart (11 M. were curved; but the models which were produced & W. 857) was also cited. That case goes further before the jury, and the blades, which were prothan the present, for there the declaration ran" in nounced to be curved, have been exhibited to us, and consideration that the plaintiff would procure the re- upon actual, and we may add, a most attentive consi. lease of the said Robert Steuart out of custody under deration, we were wholly unable to discover the slight the said writ the defendant promised ;" and the est tendency to curvature, or that the blades were agreement proved was in "consideration of your having otherwise than perfectly flat, like the plates of a smoke. released," but the Court thought that it might be jack; a specimen of which was also exhibited. Moreconstrued as a prospective engagement, and might over, it does seem to us highly improbable that the debe read; “I hereby engage, &c. in consideration of fendant, who was contending and attempting to prove your having thus released." Here the declara- that he had not infringed the patent, should produce tion says "in consideration of the plaintiff agree-models of such a shape as necessarily to destroy the ing to stay." Now that expression necessarily case which he was attempting to set up. On the other implies a continuing agreement till the action is point, however, whether the alleged invention be new, stayed. The words of the instrument, "having some of the observations already made have a material agreed," necessarily imply the same; for it would be bearing. It appears in the patents of Trevethick and absurd to suppose the defendant bound himself to pay Commereau already referred to, a screw of one or more the money in consideration of the plaintiff merely turns was in use, and in the description of his drawing having, at a past time, agreed to stay the proceed- to which reference is made by the plaintiff, in support ings. Unless the agreement was continuing at the of his specification, the use of a complete screw is time of the insertion of the words, and until the ac- mentioned. Would, then, the reduction of a complete tion was actually stayed, any other construction screw to an uncertain aliquot part or fraction of it be would not give the right meaning of fixed expres- an invention? We say uncertain, because the precise sions; and our opinion, therefore, in this case is, that section or portion of a screw which is to produce the the rule must be discharged. Rule discharged. FANCOURT v. THORN. Gray moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the following instrument, stamped with a note-stamp, ought also to have been stamped either as an equitable mortgage or agreement:-"On demand I promise to pay, or order, the sum of £ ; and I have lodged with the said the counterparts of leases signed by for ground-rent, let by me to them respectively as a collateral security." He cited Wise v. Charlton (4 Ad. & Ell. 786); Chitty on Bills, and Byles on Bills; Coote's Law of Mortgage, 200; Robertson v. Showler (14 L. J. N. S. Exch. 120; 13 M. & W. 609); Powell v. Edmunds (12 East, 16); Wharton v. Walton (14 L. J. N. S. Q.B.). Cur. adv. vull. On Monday following, the Court granted a May 22 and 26. LOWE V. PENN. Patent-Steam propellers. Is an invention for propelliny vessels new, which differs from those formerly known and used only in the reduction of a complete screw to an uncertain aliquot part or fraction? This case, after having stood over for a long time desired effect is not defined. "One or more curved Wednesday, May 27. REG. v. NEWTON FERRARS. Order of removal-Jurisdiction-Certiorari. An order of removal purported to remove the paupers from Stoke Damerel, in the county of Devon, and to be made by two justices in and for the borough of Devonport, not shewing in any way that Stoke Damerel was within their jurisdiction: Held, upon certiorari, that the order of removal was bad. A judge's order for a writ of certiorari to remove an order of Sessions confirming an order of removal, may be granted ex parte in the first instance, though a case has not been granted, and the writ issue in vacation. Rex v. Chipping Sodbury (3 N. & M. 164) is not cor rect. The Sessions had, on appeal, confirmed an order for the removal of a pauper, and had refused a case for the opinion of this Court thereon. On the first day of the vacation after the third Term from the day of confirming the order, Williams, J. granted a fiat absolute in the first instance, for a writ of certiorari to remove into this court the order of Sessions and the original order of removal. Subsequently a rule nisi for quashing both orders was obtained, against which cause was now shewn by Greenwood and Merivale.--First. The fiat for the writ of certiorari ought to have been granted nisi only, as no case had been granted by the Sessions, and it was to issue in vacation. R. v. Chipping Sodbury (3 N. & M. 104; Corner's Practice). It is admitted that in Archbold's Practice, p. 166, a different rule is laid down, but the reasonable practice is that suggested now. If an opportunity for shewing cause had been given, it would have been objected that notice had not been given to the justices who made the original order. This objection is in time, because the rule nisi to quash was the first notice of the certiorari which the respondents had. It is objected that the order of Sessions is bad, because it purports to confirm an order made by two magistrates of the borough of Devonport, for the removal of a pauper from "the parish of Stoke Damerel, in the county of Devon," and does not shew that the parish of Stoke Damerel is within the borough of Devonport. If this objection be good, an order of Sessions must shew everything that gives jurisdiction; but if the original order be sufficiently identified, the Court will presume the rest. Rowe, contrà.-The fiat for the certiorari has properly issued. The rule is, that the judge in Term or out of Term must exercise his discretion as to whether or not an opportunity shall be given for shewing cause against a rule for a certioruri. If there was an irregularity, the proper mode of objecting is by a distinct rule for quashing quia improvide emanavit. Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We will not trouble you further upon that point. If the case of R. v. Chipping Sodbury has been correctly reported, it was wrongly decided. Rowe.-Thirdly, the order of Sessions is bad. The Court will, in such an instrument, presume every thing that is not manifestly contradicted or repugnant. Here the order of Sessions describes the original order as one made by justices of Devonport, who remove from a parish in the county of Devon. That is an obvious anomaly. By the COURT.-That is our opinion. Rule absolute. (a) REG. U. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF ST. MARY, Under the 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, and 58 Geo. 3, c. 134, Church building Acts-Rates. Demurrer to the return to a mandamus to the churchwardens of St. Mary, Lambeth, to make a rate in the nature of a church-rate under 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, and 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, to pay interest due upon loans under these Acts. The return set out the loans between 1822 and 1826, and a number of successive rates subsequently made, and then alleged, in the words of sec. 25 of the latter Act, that these rates amounted to more than five shillings in the pound upon the annual value of the property in the parish. It appeared that this course had been ren1842, refused to enforce the rates actually made, bedered necessary, because the magistrates had, since cause of the supposed effect of this section. The Court called on Lush to support the return, but with out hearing the other side. The COURT gave judgment, that the clause in question had no such meaning; and that it did even refer to money lent, as this was, under the previous (a) The original order was also objected to as not shewing jurisdiction. The words were: "being two of her Majesty's borough of Devonport. The Court gave no decision upon this justices of the peace, having jurisdiction within and for the point. |