small stipend, the jury must have been of opinion that the case was a very aggravated one when they gave damages to that amount. In Re Marsh, Cresswell's Reports, 28, and several subsequent cases of a similar character, the court always measured the remand by the amount of the verdict on the whole of the case. He called upon the court to remand the insolvent without going into any further inquiry, bearing in mind that the jury gave one hundred pounds damages. Coffey and Levy for the insolvent.-The cases did not apply. Sheppard's case was an authority in their favour. The marginal note of the case was, "in cases of trespass the court must hear the facts to judge of the malice." That was all they required; and there were recent cases conclusive on the subject. Marsh's case, cited from Cresswell, was one of crim con., and was of that class where malice formed the gist of the action, and where the court was warranted în remanding upon referring to the pleadings and the amount of the verdict. The amount of the verdict in the present case had nothing to do with the judgment the court was bound to give upon being satisfied that there was no malice in the transaction. The jury who gave that verdict were exclusively Protestant, by some contrivance or other, in a city where Catholics were more than three to one, as compared with Protestants. There was not a single Catholic on a jury to try a case between a Protestant and Catholic clergyman. So that the verdict lost all its moral weight, and in no respect was it a criterion by which to judge of the real merits of the case. With regard to the law of the case, and the right of the court to hear the facts in order to judge of the malice, the authorities were conclusive. In Re Nolan, 22 L. T. Rep. 108, it was held that where an assault had been made and damages awarded by a jury against an insolvent for a malicious injury, the court will hear the facts to judge of the malice, and if it appear that the assault was without provocation, will hold that in law there was malice. In Re Lindus, 22 L. T. Rep. 35, which was an application to admit to bail, the declaration in the action, which was for trespass and false imprisonment, was referred to, to ascertain if malice appeared to be charged by the pleadings; and it having so appeared it was sufficient evidence of that fact; but if it had not appeared, then the court would have inquired into the facts to judge of the malice. On the whole the court would not be warranted in pronouncing judgment in the matter without hearing the facts in evidence. The JUDGE said he was clearly of opinion that he ought to hear the evidence in order to judge for him self whether the assault was or was not malicious. The statute specified a variety of cases where malice formed the gist of the action, and in these cases he had only to look to the record and the amount of the verdict, in order to judge of the length of the remand; disposed to give judgment in the case without hearing then the amount of the verdict would be the criterion any further evidence. by which he would measure the length of the remand; but as he believed malice was no element in the case, then the amount of the verdict had nothing to do with his judgment. He was sorry he did not stop the case when the Rev. Mr. Smyly gave his evidence, for there was nothing in it to warrant a charge of malice against the Rev. Mr. Hughes. On the whole it was a case where the insolvent was entitled to an immediate discharge. Counsel for the insolvent said, they wished to ask their client a few questions. The Rev. Mr. Hughes was then examined. He said that on the day in question, he had not known the Rev. Mr. Smyly he did not believe he was a Bible-reader. At the time he turned back to remonstrate with the Rev. Mr. Smyly, he did not entertain the slightest malice or illwill towards him, nor did he ever entertain the slightest illwill or malice towards a Bible-reader. He never struck the Rev. Mr. Smyly at all-what occurred was a mere scuffle, and he could not tell why his counsel put upon the pleadings an admission that he did beat him and kick him. One thing was certain, he never entertained the slightest illwill towards him then or since. His HONOUR delivered judgment.-He said both the rev. gentlemen had given their evidence in a very creditable manner, and he wondered there had been so much about so trivial a case. It was just that species of case that the Legislature contemplated should be inquired into before an insolvent should be adversely dealt with on the ground of malice. Taking the whole case as it stood, and without attempting to discuss the verdict of the jury, or allude in the most remote degree to its constitutions, and supposing that all that had been sworn on the trial was true, there was not in his opinion any evidence of that species of malice contemplated by the statute. The Rev. Mr. Smyly gave his evidence fairly-it was just as he gave it on the trial, but there was nothing in it to show that the Rev. Mr. Hughes was actuated by malice. The facts of the case were conclusive even against a supposition that there was anything like preconceived malice in it. The Rev. Mr. Hughes was on the road about his lawful business; the Rev. Mr. Smyly was there too. Each was unknown to the other; and he believed that although the Rev. Mr. Smyly did not intend to insult him, the Rev. Mr. Hughes was of a contrary opinion-he conscientiously believed that insult was intended for him, and he returned back to remonstrate with the rev. gentleman, when the unfortunate scuffle occurred which led to the action on the part of the Rev. Mr. Smyly; but who could for a moment say that there was anything like malice in the origin of the transaction? Perhaps, if the Rev. Mr. Hughes had acted wisely, he would have gone on and never minded him; but believing that an insult was intended he returned and had the conflict out of which the unfortunate action arose; and even though he then assaulted him, and that the jury gave damages to what might, considering the circumstances of the defendant, be considered a large amount, that was by no means evidence that malice was an element in the original transaction, where all the circumstances occurred accidentally. The cases cited by Mr. Exham did not apply; they were of that class where the statute made malice the gist of the action, and left the court nothing to do but to look to the pleadings and the verdict in measuring the length of sent case, nothing with regard to the injury being In looking to the pleadings in the pre The rev. gentleman was discharged forthwith. BANKRUPTCY. Tuesday, June 12. The registration of a bill of sale under the new Act does not affect the previous law, and therefore goods, assigned by such registered bill, if in the possession of the bankrupt, will be deemed to be in his order and disposition. His HONOUR gave judgment in this case.-This was a petition of William Ashley, praying the court for a declaration in his favour as to the right to certain goods and chattels claimed by him under a bill of sale from the bankrupt, which was given by way of security for 2301, money lent to the bankrupt by Ashley, a copy of such bill of sale having been duly filed in pursuance of the Act of last session (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36), intituled "An Act for preventing Frauds upon Creditors by Secret Bills of Sale of Personal Chattels." The goods in question were taken and retained on behalf of the assignees of the bankrupt as having been by the consent aud permission of the true owner in the possession, order or disposition of the bankrupt, at the time he became bankrupt, and whereof he was the reputed owner, and the question raised turns upon the reputed ownership. It was contended that, since the Act for the registration of bills of sale, no visible ownership in goods and chattels assigned by a bill of sale, of which a copy was duly filed, could give a right to the assignees of a bankrupt under the 125th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act; that the filing a copy of the bill of sale, with the power of search given by the Act, took the goods out of the reputed ownership of the bankrupt. I have looked to the Act, and it appears to me to be clear that the 125th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act is not affected in this respect by the provisions of the Act for the Registration of Bills of Sale. It is obvious, from the words of the preamble, that the Act was intended for the further protection of creditors, to prevent frauds by secret bills of sale. With that view it requires an act to be done in order to complete a title in certain cases under a bill of sale of personal chattels, but it does not make a title good which would have been bad before. As was laid Register Act (see the cases of Robinson v. McDonnell, down by the court with regard to the former Ship but then came the action of tort, or trespass to the property or person of the plaintiff. There was no doubt that there might be trespass to the person or property of a plaintiff without malice having anything whatever to do with the transaction; and if nothing malicious appeared on them, and it was only upon 5 M. & S. 228; Kirkley v. Hodgson, 1 B. & C. 597; with regard to malice appeared on the pleadings, which he admitted would be evidence if it did appear there, how could the court know whether there was malice in the case or not without hearing evidence? He would therefore hear the evidence and judge for himself. The Rev. Mr. Smyly was then examined. He stated that he was on the road near Dunleer, in the county of Louth, on the day the assault was committed; the Rev. Mr. Hughes was also on the road the same day; he did not know who he was, and he believed the Rev. Mr. Hughes did not know him. Mr. Hughes passed him on the road, and then turned back and accused him of having cast offensive matter on him; he denied that he did so, when Mr. Hughes called him a ruffian and assaulted him. There was no injury done him by the assault that rendered it necessary to consult any medical person-it was a sort of scuffle. The JUDGE said, the rev. gentleman had given his evidence very fairly, and he was very much the remand. hearing the evidence that the court could properly judge whether malice was au element in the original transaction or not. He would ask any one who heard the two rev. gentlemen examined, to say was there the slightest ground for believing that the Rev. Mr. Hughes had the slightest malice or illwill towards the Rev. Mr. Smyly? The amount of the verdict was strongly relied upon, as being conclusive that in the minds of the jury they believed there was malice on the part of the Rev. Mr. Hughes. That was a fallacy; in a civil action for injury to persons or property, the verdict might be for a very large amount, although malice was never thought of in the transaction. A great deal had been said about the constitution of the jury, but with that he had nothing whatever to do. The jury gave their verdict according to the best of their skill and judgment, and neither with the constitution of the jury or the amount of their verdict did he intend to interfere in the most remote degree in the judgment he was about to pronounce. If he thought there was malice in the original transaction, and Monkhouse v. Hay, 2 Brod. & Bing. 120), certain forms are made necessary to the validity of transfers, which antecedently would have been good and valid without them; but it was never intended by the Legislature that a compliance with those forms should give validity to a transfer which antecedently would have have been bad and invalid. It is true that the Act for the registration of bills of sale contains provisions for enabling persons to search the registers; but this cannot be done without the payment of a fee, and I think persons are not bound to have recourse to a search; besides, the bill of sale might have been satisfied (although satisfaction be not indorsed on the copy), and the circumstance of the bankrupt having continued in possession might have induced others to believe that such was the fact. If, however, the Legislature had intended that the registration of bills of sale should restrain the operation of the bankrupt law as to reputed ownership, it would have expressed its intention clearly, as it has done with regard to transfers of ships, both in the proviso to the 125th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, and in the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 101, s. 72. I think, therefore, the petition of William Ashley must be dismissed. DUBLIN. (Before Mr. Commissioner MACAN, Q.C.) Re THOMAS FERRALL Mortgage-Usury-Vivâ voce depositions-Affidavits made out of court. Where a mortgage was executed before the late Act repealing the usury laws was passed, and a contrivance resorted to by which a much larger amount was inserted in the mortgage-deed than was actually received by the mortgagor, it will be set aside for usury. Viva voce depositions made in open court are of much greater weight as evidence than affidavits made out of court and afterwards filed. The bankrupt was an auctioneer and valuator in Dublin, and in the course of his business had several transactions with the late Commissary General Luscombe, to whom he executed a mortgage of certain household property in Dublin, the validity of which was disputed by the assignees of the bankrupt on the ground that it was tainted with usury. The matter came before the court upon charge and discharge. Harty for the assignees. Hearne for the mortgagees. The facts appear in the judgment. It was The COMMISSIONER said, the mortgage purported to be for 5007., and it would appear by a receipt on the back of the deed that that sum was actually paid; but even documents under seal were no more than prima facie evidence of the facts stated in them, which were still capable of being refuted by clear and satisfactory evidence. pressed on him that the affidavit of the mortgagee verifying the charge was sufficient evidence of the truth of it, when coupled with the fact that the transaction was never impeached by the bankrupt himself. The affidavit of the mortgagee was merely formal, stating that the person making it believed the facts contained in the charge to be true. But that affidavit was defective, for it did not state, as it should have done, that a certain sum in pounds, shillings and pence was due over and above all just and fair allowances and credits. He could not, from the vague and general nature of that affidavit, ascertain how much of it he was to take as sworn upon the actual knowledge of the mortgagee himself; how much upon the information of others; or what portion of it was made up from his calculation and belief; it could not, therefore, be considered as an answer to the facts stated by the bankrupt upon his vivá voce examination in that court, where he was open to crossexamination of counsel on the part of the mortgagee; and such open viva voce examinations under the solemnity of a court of justice, and subject to the rigid examination of counsel on both sides, were of far more weight and of much greater value in investigating the truth than a mere deposition cautiously prepared in private and then placed upon the files of the court. The statement of the bankrupt in reference to the mortgage of General Luscombe was in substance, that the whole amount of cash actually received by him on foot of that transaction was 414., although the mortgage was for 5001. The device resorted to seemed ingenious enough, but still it could not evade the law as it then stood with regard to usury. When the bankrupt was in treaty for the loan, General Luscombe said he had a carriage to sell, the price of which was only 50l., and the bankrupt at once agreed to give that sum for it, and he actually got 450l. in cash, together with the carriage, for 502; but he was called upon to pass his bill for the carriage, which he did, and ultimately paid, by an instalment of 10%., and a renewal bill for 40%, which bill he actually paid; so that of the 4501. originally received he paid back 501. Well, then, he had the carriage on hand which he sold for 147.; so that, in point of fact, all he ever got on foot of the 500% mortgage was 4147. If that statement were true, it would be unbecoming to enter into any argument, or cite any authority to show that, as the law then amount of the valuation of the furniture, the assignees having sold it after a notice served on them that that claim would be made. The trustees also claimed the costs they had been put to. stood, it was a case of gross and glaring usury. It and furniture to trustees; it was held that such effects, (Before Mr. Commissioner PLUNKETT.) Wife's chattel property-Reputed ownership. The bankrupt was a grocer residing in Peter-street, Dublin, who had, a few years previous to his bankruptcy, married a widow who was then the owner of the house, the furniture, and the stock-in-trade, where the business was carried on. On the occasion of the marriage, a settlement was made vesting the whole o the furniture in trustees, for the sole and separate use of the wife, notwithstanding her coverture. This furniture remained in the joint possession of the bankrupt and his wife, till the time of the bankruptcy, when it was sold by the assignees as goods and chattels in the bankrupt's possession at the time of the bankruptcy, with the consent of the true owners the trustees of the settlement. Creighton, Q.C. for the assignees.-There was nothing to take the case out of the ordinary rule of the order and disposition clause in bankruptcy. The furniture no doubt belonged to the wife at the time of her marriage, and was made the subject of a settlement. The trustees then became the true owners, and with their consent it was left in the possession of the husband up to the time of the bankruptcy, for there could be no such thing as a separate possession by a married woman who lived with her husband. The case of Jarman v. Woollaton was clearly distinguishable, the wife being a sole trader according to the custom of London. In the case of Darby v. Smith, 8 T. R. 82, the property of a widow was, on her second marriage, assigned to trustees in trust to suffer her husband to enjoy it, on condition that he would pay to the children of his wife's first marriage a certain annuity by instalments. The property consisted of furniture and other chattels; the bankrupt remained in possession for seven or eight years, and the day before the bankruptey the trustees repossessed themselves of the goods: it was held that this was fraudulent against creditors, and that the assignees were entitled to them. In the present case there was no removal at any time out of the bankrupt's pos➡ session, and he thought it quite clear that the assignees were entitled to it under the reputed ownership clause in bankruptcy. The COMMISSIONER said it appeared to him that where a woman was the absolute owner of chattel pro perty before her marriage, and that property was settled on trustees for her sole and separate use, free from the control or interference of her husband, although it afterwards remained in their joint possession till the time of the husband's bankruptcy, it did not pass to his assignees under the reputed ownership clause. In the present case, there was no dispute about the fact that the whole of the furniture in question had belonged to the wife before her marriage, and it was equally certain that it was settled to her sole and separate use, free from the control of her husband, and that he was to have no right whatever to it unless he survived his wife. In the case of Darby and Preist the husband had the actual possession of the furniture, upon the condition of paying the wife's trustees a certain sum of money by instalments, and then the very day before the bankruptcy they were taken out of his possession with a view to defeat the operation of the bankrupt law; and that was properly held to be a fraud on creditors. He thought that case did not apply to the present, and that the trustees were entitled to be paid the amount at which the furniture was valued, for they sent a copy of that valuation to the assignees and cautioned them not to sell. Having taken that precaution and having apprised the assignees of the nature of the claim and furnished them with a copy of the deed of settlement, he thought the trustees were also entitled to their costs out of the estate. Re RICHARD SMITH. Kernan, for the bankrupt's wife and her trustees, now claimed to be paid, not what the furniture was sold for, but the amount of its valuation by competent valuators who had sworn to the value. The assignees | Reckless trading-Allocation of salary of public officer were apprised that the wife and her trustees claimed it, and that, if sold, they would claim on the estate for the full value. The reputed ownership clause did not apply where the chattels put in settlement were the property of the wife bfefore her marriage. In Jarman v. Woollaton, 3 T. R. 618, and Haselenton v. Gill, in a note to that case, 620, it was held that where a woman, before her marriage, with the consent of her intended husband, conveyed all her stock-in-trade on active duty-Suspension arrears. Where a bankrupt calls his creditors together at a time when his assets will pay ten or twelve shillings in the pound; and where he has lost his own capital, he cannot be accused of reckless trading. The court will not allocate the salary of an officer engaged in the public service, and it has no control over suspension arrears, which will not be paid unless the certificate is granted. The bankrupt in this case was a baker; he also held sal situation in the Dublin Post-office, ata salary of 1601, a-year ; after considerable o opposition he passed his final examination, and now came before the court for his certificates Hasket opposed the immediate granting of it, on the ground of reckless trading. And he also applied to have a portion of his salary allocated to the payment of his creditors. The bankrupt succeeded his father in a prosperous business, and in the course of little more than a year he incurred debts exceeding 8904 without being able to show that he sustained any particular loss; his expenditure was extravagant, and if it were a losing trade, he ought to have called his creditors together sooner, and stopped the business. He had a salary of 1601. ayear as a clerk in the Post-office, and the court under the 38th section of the last Bankrupt Act had perfect power to make an order allocating a portion of it towards the payment of creditors, to be received by his assignee, and distributed by him when it amounted to a sum that would warrant the striking of a dividend. The section provided that the commissioner might order such portion of the pay, half-pay, salary, emolument or pension of any bankrupt, as on communications from the said commissioners to the Secretary of War, or the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, or Excise, or the chief officer of the department to which the bankrupt may belong, or may have belonged, or under which such half-pay, emolument or pension, may be enjoyed by such bankrupt, &c. If the court allocated a reasonable sum and communicated with the Post-office authorities, it would be confirmed, and the creditors would get the benefit of it. There was also a sum of about 80%. suspension arrears due to the bankrupt, which would be paid him on obtaining his certificate, and the assignees also claimed that sum as a debt due to the bankrupt. Levy for the bankrupt. The COMMISSIONER said, it was the first time an application had been made in that court to allocate the pay or pension of a public officer, and without very express authority to warrant him he would not make any rule on the application. Suppose he had the power to recommend an allocation, and he believed he had, he did not think he ought to make it in a case where a public officer was actively employed in the public service, and in the performance of a duty that required his attention night and day; on grounds of public convenience it ought not to be done. If the bankrupt's pay were stopped to any amount that could benefit the creditors, he could not be expected to perform his duties with that efficiency which the public service required. If he had a retired pension and were free to devote himself to other pursuits, the case might be different. With regard to the arrears of pay it was optional with the Post-office to pay them, but at all events the condition that would entitle him to them would be the granting of the certificate, and after that the assignee could have no claim to them. As to the bankrupt's conduct as a trader he thought it was without reproach. He brought his wife's fortune, 4007, into the business and lost it, and he had besides to make good a deficiency of 1607. in his fathers assets. So that he lost more himself than any creditor, and after all the losses his estate paid 10s, in the pound, and would pay a further dividend of small amount. He thought, when a trader called his creditors together at a time when his assets were capable of paying 10s. or 128. in the pound in the Bankrupt Court, he could not be accused of reckless trading. Had he gone on as most traders did till his assets were all wasted, then the case would ad ball weltos! DUBLIN. Fas; unicenabs To July 1855. 1ST DE (Before Mr. Commissioner PLUNKET.) Re WILLIAM MORROW BRADBERRY Partners - Joint and separate estate-Proof of solvent partner against the separate estate of the bankrupt partner. Where one partner draws out the partnership money, and applies it to his own separate use, the solvent partner, by averring in his proof that he paid the partnership debts, and debited himself with half the loss, will be allowed to prove on the separate estate ·for the advances made by him, when these facts are not controverted, trouble; The COMMISSIONER said he did not clearly see why the proof of Irwin was resisted by the general credi adators. In the first place, it was he who created the principal part of the fund applicable to the separate estate, by bringing in the 4002, the purchase-money of the houses, without putting the assignee to any in the second place, day and date were given in the proof for every shilling advanced by Irwin. But it was objected that no account, was taken between the partnership and separate estate; he thought that objection was met by the averment in the proof that Irwin paid all the partnership debts, and debited himself with half the losses. If that allegation were not true, it ought to be controverted, and that would be a substantial objection to the proof; but no such thing was alleged, and Irwin having thus discharged the partnership liabilities, and debited himself with his proportion of loss, he would, upon taking the account, be to the surplus, if there were any; and if the joint estate turned out insufficient, then he would be at liberty to prove against the separate estate for the difference. With regard to the observations made as to Bradberry dealing with the partnership money as if it were his own, he would only say that he treated his partner very badly; but that was no reason, his proof should be rejected. Proof admitted, The bankrupt was a brick manufacturer in Belfast, and carried on business in partnership with a person named Irwin, under the name of Bradberry and Irwin. Bradberry understood the business, but had no capital, and Irwin put in a sum of 750%, leaving his partner to manage the business, which turned out unproductive. Bradberry was in the grocery trade, and had also entered into building speculations, by which he contracted debts on his own account, and having failed in the payment of them, a separate commission was issued against him. It appeared from his separate schedule, and the account presented to the court, that he drew out of the partnership concern the money put in by Irwin, and applied it iu the building of houses, which he mortgaged for a sum of 3001. Upon Bradberry stopping payment, there was a meeting of his creditors, when it was agreed by the majority of them that Irwin, his partner, should purchase the houses for a sum of 4001, subject to the mortgage, and they were accordingly assigned to him; but in the meantime a creditor, who was no party to the arrangement, issued a separate commission against Bradberry; and Irwin brought in the purchase-money, and lodged it to the credit of the separate estate, upon which he now sought to prove for the moneys that had been drawn out of the partnership, and applied to the building of the houses by his partner. Levy, in support of the proof.-A solvent partner, who pays the partnership debts, and debits himself with his proportion of any loss that may have been sustained, has a clear right to come in and prove on the separate estate for the advances made by him for his own use. If upon taking the partnership accounts partnership purposes, but applied by the partner to in respect of the transactions of the partnership, he is the bankrupt is found indebted to the solvent partner entitled to prove on the separate estate: (Ex parte Terrell, Buck, 345.) The proof, as prepared, averred the fact that Irwin had paid the partnership liabilities, and debited himself with half the loss. 1 the claim made. One partner had no right to prove Creighton, Q.C., for the general creditors, resisted against the estate of another partner until the accounts between the joint and separate estate were taken by the official assignee, and the result certified to the court. No such thing was done in the present case. Besides, by Irwin's own showing, he did not that where one partner permitted the other to pay in think he was entitled to prove at all. It was decided and draw out the partnership moneys from time to time, and deal with their banker as if the money was his own, and to treat it in his own separate name, such an acquiescence of one partner in what necessarily gave the other the whole control over the joint property, prevented him from proving on the separate estate for the moneys thus dealt with. The fact of Bradberry having possessed himself of this alleged partnership property was within the knowledge and with the approbation of Irwin; and it having been dealt with as the separate property of Bradberry, EXTENDED JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTSThe County Courts Commission having published its report, and made its suggestions as to the extra jurisdiction which these courts should possess, allow me, through the medium of your valuable and widely circulated journal, to inquire whether appeals in matters of bastardy, and in cases arising under the game laws, might not, with much convenience, be transferred from the quarter sessions to be heard and determined by a County Court Judge, either with or without the assistance of a jury. The present system of appearing before a tribunal, partly composed of the justices who made the order appealed against, is far from satisfactory, and entails unnecessary expense, which might be avoided with justice to the appellant and satisfaction to the public. I shall be glad to see this matter discussed by your experienced readers, and remain, &c. A CAMBRIDGESHIRE SOLICITOR. Aug. 28, 1855.-Law Times.is Neta = INTELLIGENCE, 43 Bloomsbury, p........... 9,452 51 Brighton, p. larger amount of salaries have been appropriated. 8,170 Those names in italics are the circuits to which the Those marked p. are the circuits to which the minimum salaries are appropriated. be wholly different. Under all the circumstances of Irwin could not come in and prove, more particularly largest amounts of money were sued for in 1854, and the case he thought the bankrupt entitled to an immediate certificate, and that the court would not be warranted in recommending an allocation out of the salary of a public officer who was earning it; but the assignee might bring that point again before the Immediate certificate granted. court, if so advised. the partners. But there was some doubt that the as no settlement of accounts had taken place between rupt to the building of the houses, for the houses money was so taken out and applied by the bankwere not built for nearly two years after the alleged advances were made; on the whole, he thought the proof ought to be rejected in toto, or referred back to the assignees to have the account taken. Levy in reply. 2. The following are the circuits on which the the sums sued for in 1853 are added :Circuit. 1854. £51,058 1853. £56,088 $49,055 44,194 43,888 45,094 41,063 39,287 39,842 35,509 39,045 26,518 88,895 35,968 38,179 $4,671 37,526 33,582 36,606 32,458 Glamorganshire........... 30 7 Salford 12 Halifax 9 Stockport.. .......... 36,299 25 Wolverhampton ........ 34,688 33,386 eleven, Romsey.-Penna, E. tailor, mercer, clothier and outfitter, Truro, Sept. 7, at eleven, Truro.-Ross, J. labourer, Pudsey Calverley, Sept. 8, at eleven, Bradford.-Salt, G. baker, Hertford, Aug. 28, at eleven, Hertford.-Williams, H. shipwright, Newport, Oct. 3, at twelve, NewportWilliams, Sept. 14, at eleven, Merthyr Tydn). 29,579 some rule of law. Mr. Bolton further argued that Mr. 36,274 19.33,408 Farwell had raised the charge for admission; and 86,051 29,216 that he should prove that a contract had been entered 29,335 into that not exceed 20%. 31,597 that when he first saw Mr. Farwell respecting the 29,786 transfer, he said the expense would not exceed 201.; 19,608 and that upon his saying, "You admitted Mr. Morgan 26,784 for 174.," Mr. Farwell said, after referring to his books, 27,477 "You're right," giving him the impression that he 21,843 should have to pay a similar amount.-Mr. Rutter, Oldham.....nte 28,629... 22,502 solicitor, and Mr. Dent, solicitor, were examined, and 28,590 25,325 deposed that they considered Mr. Farwell's fees too 28,149 24,123 high; the former stating that the question was being 27,471 29,827 taken up by the Solicitors' Society.-Mr. Kenealy 27,279...... 25,621 replied, and his Honour having directed the jury as The circuits printed in italics are those to which to their verdict, they returned a verdict for the plainthe minimum amount of salary is appropriated. tiff for the full amount claimed.-His Honour gave 3. The following are the circuits on which the Mr. Bolton leave to move that the verdict should be largest number of plaints for sums above 207. were set aside on points of law which he had raised-Watentered eli qnersair kins by Coventry, vol. 1, p. 386-that the fees must Circuit be paid quantum meruit. 26,455 Mr. Boltone, fine and fees fendant, who deposed M. accountant and registrar of marriages, Merth ASSAULT ON A LEGAL OFFICER AT STAINLAND.At Ward's-end on Saturday, before the West Riding 298 magistrates, Mr. Levi North, one of the bailiffs at the 252 Co. C. accused James Furness of resisting him in the 138 execution of his duty. Furness pleaded guilty. 210 North stated that in company with another bailiff, 171 named Rothwell, he went to defendant's house at 210 Stainland to distrain on his goods for debt. The de237 fendant stated that he could not pay, whereupon he 198 (North) proceeded to remove his goods, with the 154 assistance of Rothwell. While the latter was outside, 206 the accused seized him (North) by the shoulders, "shoving" him towards the door, and at last kicked him out of the house. He then went for the constable (Beaumont), and under his protection, proceeded to carry out his orders. A further assault, however, took place, for as North was removing a cleaver from a hook, the defendant seized him again, took the cleaver from him, and would, North believed, have killed him with it but for the assistance of the constable. Furness was fined in the full penalty of 51., with the alternative for nonpayment of two months' work at the treadmill. 193 201 159 183 13 SheffieldIKI..JA..Zu.d. 188 179 In 1853 the Mayor's Court at Birmingham was abolished; its jurisdiction was limited to sums under 201. But looking at the increase of causes on circuits 30, 13, and 12, it is evident the increase of causes on circuit 21 has not arisen from the abolition of the Mayor's Court. As respects table 2, the most remarkable increase is on circuit 23. The number of plaints on circuit 28, in 1858, was 7833, and the amount sued for 19,6034; yet in 1854 the number of plaints were 8493, and the amount sued for 30,2557. PRACTITIONERS IN COUNTY COURTS.-Mr. Denny applied to the Chief Commissioners of Insolvency, that Mr. C. Stoddart, an attorney, might be admitted to practise in prison cases in the Maidstone County Courts. The learned counsel said, the application was of importance, as the object was to throw open in prison cases the practice in the County Courts to the whole Profession. This court has regulated the admission of county attorneys under the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 101, but, by the Solicitors Act, passed some years afterwards, an attorney had a right to practise in any inferior court on signing the roll. The Tydfil 40J 10 MA Gazelle, Aug. 28. Dagange badani Back, J. groom and coachman, Lewes, Sussex, Sept, 4, at twelve, Lewes.-Butler, R. baker, mealman, dealer in flour, coals, wood, bacon, and offal, Burnham, Sept. 17, at half-past Sept. 18, at twelve, Tredegar.-Danells, W. pork butcher and ten, Windsor.-Davies, D. boot and shoe maker, Rhymney, eating-house keeper, Brighton, Sept. 8, at ten, Brighton. Dickens, J. bonnet blocker and straw bonnet maker, Luton, Aug. 29, at eleven, Luton.-Fielden, G. woollen and fancy cloth manufacturer. Kirkburton, Sept. 10, at eleven, Holmfirth-Flowerday, W. journeyman baker, commission agent, T. draper, grocer, and general shopkeeper, Llanidloes, Sept. and general dealer, Drypool, Sept. 7, at ten, Hull-Jerman, 18, at eleven, Llanidloes-Jones, J. draper, grocer, and provision dealer, Brierley-hill, Ebbw Vale, Sept. 18, at twelve, Tredegar. Jones, J. licensed victualler and dealer in earthenware, china, and glass, Luton, Aug. 29, at eleven, Luton.Mason, W. tailor, grocer, tea and provision dealer, Cardiff, Sept. 21, at eleven, Cardiff-Mower, H. miller, baker, and corn dealer, Briston, Sept. 22, at half-past ten, Holt,-Plummer, M. grocer and general dealer, and straw bonnet and hat manufacturer, Luton, Aug. 29, at eleven, Luton-Bowley, R. W. straw bonnet and straw hat manufacturer and plait stationer, librarian, and dealer in music and musical instrudealer, Luton, Aug. 29, at eleven, Luton.—Wright, E. ments, Brighton, Sept. 8, at ten, Brighton. Gazette, Aug. 31. Baddock, J. tailor and agent for the sale of paletots, Aylesbury, Sept. 14, at ten, Aylesbury-Baker, E. retail brewer and gun finisher, Birmingham, Sept. 15, at ten, Birmingham. Bennett, W. tailor and shopkeeper, Tavistock, Oct. 6, at ten, head-bridge, Bury, Oct. 3, at eleven, Bury.-Chellingworth, Tavistock.- Birch, A. journeyman joiner, Lord-street, WhiteT. T. civil and mechanical engineer, Small Heath, Sept. 15, at ten, Birmingham.-Freeborn, W. milkman, Southampton, Sept. 17, at ten, Southampton-Green, G. coach proprietor and carrier, Oldham, Sept. 7, at twelve, Oldham.---Hawkins, S. pearl button manufacturer, Birmingham, Sept. 15, at ten, Birmingham. Jarman, W. bill sticker, Bridgwater, Sept. 10, at nine, Bridgwater. Jessop, S. refailer of butcher's meat, A. toy dealer and bazaar keeper, Blackpool, Sept. 19, at butter and eggs, Oxford, Sept. 15, at ten, Oxford.-Luvate, eleven, Poulton-McCrone, A. travelling draper and tea dealer, Ipswich, Sept. 14, at nine, Ipswich. Midgley, M. B. canvasser for periodical publications, Eccleshall Bierlow, Sheffield, Oct. 3, at twelve, Sheffield.-Parry, H. saddler Sheffield, Oct. 3, at twelve, Sheffield,Nicholls, G. tailor, Pwllheli, Sept. 19, at eleven, Pwllhell. Phillips, R. C. victualler and provision dealer, Combe Down, Moncton Combe, Sept. 8, at eleven, Bath.-Pritchard, P. plumber, painter and glazier, Newtown, Sept. 19, at eleven, Newtown. Schofield, S. mechanic, Oldham, Sept. 7, at twelve, Oldham. Sept. 15, at ten, Birmingham-Smith, J. furniture dealer, -Smith, E. brazier and tin-plate worker, Birmingham, Ipswich, Sept. 14, at nine, Ipswich.-Startin, J. coach builder, Birmingham, Sept. 15, at ten, Birmingham Upton, J. hatter and provision dealer, Moseley, Birmingham, Sept. 15, at ten, Birmingham.-Williams, T. musician, pianoforte tuner and organist, Oxford, Sept. 15, at eleven, Oxford: 19 Gazette, Sept. 4. noom van adema Adkins, J. beer retailer and journeyman brush maker, Act was the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73. Application had been jumped from the carriage. In doing so he missed the Curer, Berkhempstead, Sept. 10, at eleven, made to Mr. Espenasse, the judge of the court, and he was not inclined to admit more than two attorneys to practise in prison cases. The business was likely to be augmented by the Cinque Ports Act, which would take effect in September. The Chief Commissioner explained the practice of the admission of attorneys in county cases. He was not going to alter the practice without conference with his colleagues, and, therefore, nothing would be taken by the motion. A. boot and shoe maker, Wickham Market, FRIGHTFUL ACCIDENT.-On the 23rd ult,, Mr. John Cooper, assistant clerk to the County Court, met with a horrible death at the Dudley station of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway; and his son, four years old, was also so fearfully mangled that no hope whatever is entertained of his recovery. The deceased, who was generally respected, had been to Stourport on a visit, and was returning home. He arrived at Dudley by the train due at 8.45; and according to the testimony of the railway officials, he jumped out of the carriage before it was brought to a stand, being anxious to get to the booking-office of the South Stafford in time to obtain a ticket for Walsall, and proceed there by the train then ready to start. Before leaving the carriage he picked up his little boy in his arms, with whom he platform and fell between the coping of the platform Sept. 21, at two, Woodbridge-Busby, T. journeyman baker, and the step of the carriage. The latter being still in Flaunden, Sept. 10, at eleven, Chesham - Capper, J. Jun. motion, the unfortunate man was crushed and rolled saddler and collar maker, Tunstall, Wolstanton, Sept. 19, at along in this position for about 30 yards until the ten, Hanley.Clarke, J. greengrocer, chimney sweeper and fishmonger, Reading, Sept. 20, at half-past ten, Reading. train stopped; so firmly was he jammed in that it Cooper, T. blacksmith and shoeing smith, Falkenham, Sept. was necessary to use a lever to raise the carriage from 21, at two, Woodbridge.-Davidson, M. car driver, Everton, that side before he could be extricated. He was then Walton-on-the Hill, Sept. 24, at eleven, Liverpool-Daysh, J. dead, being frightfully mutilated, the ribs crushed in, butcher, Wickham, Oct. 3, at eleven, Portsmouth. Evans, W. Journeyman pofter and contractor, Cae Bricks, Swansea, his back broken, and part of the flesh torn off with the Sept. 18, at ten, Swansea-Erening, J. cattle dealer and cloth and adhering to the coping. The poor child Mrmer, Howgate, Moresby, Sept. 25, at ten, Whitehaven. was still firmly grasped in his arms, and when re- Foz, J, H. bookkeeper, Litherland, Sept. 24, at eleven, Liverleased was found, though still alive, in a most pitiable pool - Garrington, FC, Walsall Harding, J. retailer of E. currycomb maker, Darlaston, Wedstate. Both the thighs were broken, the collar bone Hesbury, Sept. dislocated, and two of its fingers cut off. An inquest beer and chair maker, Chinnor, Sept. 13, at twelve, Thame. was held on Monday at the Grand Turk. -Harding, R. beer retailer and chair maker, Chinnor, Sept. 13, at twelve, Thame Ibbery, J. J. railway station master, able discontent, however, has since been manifested Liverpool, Sept. 21, at eleven, Liverpool-Johnson, H. jourin the town at the composition of the jury, several of neyman currier, Leicester, Sept. 19, at ten, Leicester.-Lane, them being connected with the railway. Mr. Mooney, 3. farmer, Trull, Sept. 21, at nine, Taunton.-Putnam, W. the station-master on the South Stafford line, was tailor, draper and hatter, Bloxwich, Sept. 21, at ten, Walsall objected to, and great complaints have since beenShrimpton, W. needle maker, Long Crendon, Sept. 13, at made relative to Mr. Booth, of Walsall, being one of the jurymen, as, being a resident of Walsall, he had no right to act in that capacity, The evidence of a Mrs. Pumford was so opposite to that given by the railway officials that the inquest was adjourned. ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF A COPYHOLD ADMISSION FINE AND FEES.-An action was tried before Mr. Serjeant Clarke, the judge of the Wolverhampton County Court, on Saturday last, in which Mr. Farwell, as steward for the Duke of Cleveland, sued Mr. Tildesley, a factor, at Willenhall, for the balance of 8., alleged to be due on his admission into the lord of the manor's court, as purchaser of two houses from a Mr. Morgan, of Willenhall.-Mr. Kenealy, who appeared for the plaintiff, opened the case to the jury. He stated that Mr. Farwell had reduced the lord's fine from 281. to 18., in consequence of requisite repairs to the houses, which sum, together with fees, stamps, &c., made the amount of admission 28%. The defendant refused to pay that amount, and consulted a solicitor. The result of that interview, however, led to the opening of the court, and whilst Mr. Farwell was proceeding with the customary formalities, the defendant asked if he would take his cheque for 10%, to which Mr. Farwell assented. Mr. Tildesley thereupon sat down and commenced writing, but as soon as the books were made up, the documents signed, and the transfer from Morgan to Tildesley effected, the latter snatched up the documents, and putting 17 on the table, said, "That's all the money I shall give you." 31. had subsequently been paid into court, making, with the 17%. previously paid, 201. The plaintiff and Mr. Mor-W. labourer and assistant miller, Load House, Alstomfield, Sept. gan corroborated this statement; when Mr. Bolton, who appeared for the defendant, submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, first, on the ground that the steward's fees and charges were mixed up with the lord's fine; and secondly, because he had no right to ap--Sloane, J. hairdresser, tobacconist and dealer in fancy propriate the money paid by the defendant to the defraying of his own charges, but ought to have put it to the account of the fine to the lord of the manor. No bill of items had been delivered by Mr. Farwell, which might have been assessed and ascertained by Insolvents. Petitions to be heard at the County Courts, Burnett, J. dealer in cement and carter, Lansdowne Mews, 18, at eleven, Ashbourne-Henry, R. P. first lieut. marines, Thame Smith, J. builder, carpenter and joiner, likeston, Sept. 27, at ten, Belper.Stockwell, J. beer retailer, baker and shopkeeper, Dudbridge, Stonehouse, Sept. 12, at ten, Stroud.Suett, R. farm servant, Bromborough, Sept. 14, at ten, Birkenhead - Whichello, B. butcher, Bensington, Sept. 19, at eleven, Wallingford.-Wrigley, J. draper and fent dealer, Liverpool, Sept. 14, at ten, Birkenhead. 1 3.69 918323 Gazette, Sept. 7. flame to brisbivib Armishaw, J. private watchman, Cheslyn Hay, Sept. 29, at nine, Wolverhampton.- Davies, D. waggoner and timber hauler, Llanfechen, Sept. 21, at ten, Llanfyllin, Evens, W. fishmonger and greengrocer, Horsley-heath, Tipton, Sept. 28, at nine, Dudley.-Fraser, D. retailer of wines, spirits and and beer, Wolverhampton, Sept. 29, at nine, Wolverhampton. Freeman, J. painter, plumber and glazier, Stradbrooke, Sept. 17, at two, Eye.-Green, J. butcher and farmer and victualler, Sedgeley, Sept. 28, at nine, Dudley-Groves, J. joiner and beer-house keeper, Bell Vue, Carlisle, Sept 21, at ten, Car lisla-Hadlow, J. W. baker, Boughton-under-Blean, Sept. 21, at twelve, Faversham.-Hartland, J. carpenter and builder, Gomall, Sept. 28, at nine, Dudley-Holloway, H. boatman and huckster grocer, West Bromwich, Sept. 22, at ten, Oldbury.-Knight, G. E. sen, nurseryman, seedsman and market gardener, Wolverhampton, Sept. 29, at nine, Wolverhampton. Martin, T. brickmaker, Princes-end, Tipton,” Sept. 28, at nine, Dudley-Southall, J. boatman, Bilston, Sept. 29, at nine, Wolverhampton.-Stringer, J. gird iron manufacturer, Willenhall, Sept. 29, at nine, Wolverhampton. -Tweedy, J. widow, lodging-house keeper, Cambridge, Sept. 18, at ten, Cambridge.--Walker, T. engine driver, Castlefields, Dudley, Sept. 28, at nine, Dudley.-Whitehouse, J. huckster and publican, West Bromwich, Sept. 22, at ten, Oldbury, Gazette, Sept. 11. Atkinson, T. manufacturer and repairer of clocks, watches and nautical instruments, South Shields, Sept. 27, at ten, Durham.-Beilby, Rev. J. incumbent of Feniscowles, Feniscowles, Oct. 1, at eleven, Blackburn.-Bradshaw, S. trainer of race horses and veterinary surgeon, Warminster, Sept. 18, at twelve, Warminster.-Caton, J. sen. butty collier, Wolstanton, Sept. 19, at ten, Hanley.-Donovan, H. D. stay and corset maker, Cheltenham, Oct. 3, at ten, Cheltenham. Gibson, C. publican and wheelwright, timber dealer and farmer, Manchester, Oct. 1, at twelve, Manchester.-Hall, W. bricklayer, Openshaw, Manchester, Oct. 1, at twelve, Manchester-Harrison, C. baker and provision dealer, Sutton, Prestbury, Sept. 20, at eleven, Macclesfield.-Jackman, J. grocer and general dealer, Coppins-bridge, Whippingham, Isle of Wight, Sept. 28, at ten, Newport.-Jacob, R. miller and millwright, Felin Newydd, Sept. 29, at ten, Aberystwith. -Murphy, T. potatoe merchant and fruit agent, Manchester, Oct. 1, at twelve, Manchester.-Rees, W. miner, Cwmavon, Sept. 15, at eleven, Neath.-Roth, H. coal merchant and ship broker, Sunderland, Sept. 26, at ten, Sunderland - Taylor, R. bricklayer and builder, Leamington Priors, Sept. 28, at ten, Warwick.-Turner, J. saddler and harness maker, Ryde, Isle of Wight, Sept. 28, at ten, Newport.- Watson, C. jun, grocer and baker, Newport, Isle of Wight, Sept. 28, at ten, Newport. -Woollett, T. lodging-house keeper, and tailor, Hastings, Oct. 1, at eleven, Hastings Gazette, Sept. 14. Atkinson, R. miller, flour dealer and corn factor, Lovatt Mill, Radford and Basford, Oct. 23, at twelve, Nottingham.Barnard, W. subsorter at the Brighton Post-office, and teacher of dancing, Brighton, Sept. 22. at ten, Brighton.Baxter, J. J. chemist and druggist, Heigham, Sept. 29, at ten, Norwich.-Brown, H. L. chemist and druggist, Chichester, Sept. 26, at eleven, Chichester.-Dean, E. clothier and general dealer, Brighton. Oct. 6, at ten, Brighton.Duckworth, J. book-keeper, Limefield. Oct. 3, at eleven, Bury. -Francis, T. hatter, Swansea, Sept. 18, at eleven, Swansea.Fuller, W. saddler and harness maker, Minster, Thanet, Ramsgate, Sept. 18. at ten, Ramsgate.-Hendy, W. baker, grocer and draper, Hermitage, Emsworth, Sept. 26, at eleven, Chichester-Hickery, J. journeyman tile maker, Upper Easton, Bristol, Sept. 27, at half-past ten, Bristol-Ibery, J. J. railway station master, Liverpool, Sept. 24, at eleven, Liverpool.-Morgan, G. victualler and omnibus proprietor, Crewe, Church Coppenhall, Sept. 20, at eleven, Nantwich.-Mutton, B. horse dealer, Canterbury, Sept. 19, at ten, Canterbury-Stephens, E. boot and shoe maker, Swansea, Sept. 18, at eleven, Swansea.--Winter, W. brush maker, Norwich, Sept. 29, at ten, Norwich. Gazette, Sept. 18. Berwick, W. stonemason and builder. Irthlingborough, Oct. 16, at twelve, Wellingborough.-Cherry, M. draper's assistant, Saint Albans, Sept. 21, at eleven, St. Albans.Clark, J. baker and confectioner, Ashford, Sept. 24, at ten, Ashford.-Clark, W. brewer, victualler, and farmer, Puckeridge, Sept. 24, at eleven, Hertford.-Cook, G. W. butcher and wheelwright, Ware, Sept. 24, at eleven, Hertford.-Dyke, R. J. mason and bricklayer, Great Chart, Sept. 24, at ten, Ashford.-Lee, J. grocer and provision dealer, Kelsall, Sept. 21, at ten, Chester.-Thorn, G. brickmaker, North End, Stoneham, Oct. 2, at ten, Southampton.- White, J. fruiterer and confectioner, Maidstone, Oct. 2, at twelve. Maidstone.Young, W. carpenter, Shirley, Oct. 2, at ten, Southampton. Gazette, Sept. 21. Aris, J. journeyman carpenter, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham.-Bowdler, A. bricklayer, Madeley, Oct. 6, at ten, Madeley.-Dyson, W. H. grocer and provision dealer, Dunstable, Sept. 26, at eleven, Luton.-Ellis, J. boot and shoe manufacturer, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham. -Everatt, D. butcher, Belton, Oct. 8, at one, Thorne.Green, A. builder and bricklayer, Stoke-by-Nayland, Oct. 18, at twelve, Hadleigh.-Gardner, W. jun. milliner, hosier, and journeyman machinist, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham.-Green, R. H. N. (known as R. H. Green and H. Green), butcher, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham.-Jenkins, T. clerk to a beer retailer, Abersychan, Trevethin, Oct. 4, at twelve, Pontypool.-King, G. cabinet maker, Marlborough, Oct. 10, at twelve, Marlborough.-Lewis, T. engineer and clerk and sub land agent, Carmarthen, Oct. 4, at ten. Carmarthen.-Manton, G. builder, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten. Birmingham.-Millner, J. lodging-house keeper and licensed victualler, Hanley Castle, Malvern Wells, Oct. 10, at ten, Worcester - Moore, J. G. sen. hairdresser and tobacco dealer, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham.-Normansell, H. coal dealer, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham. -Pepper, J. huxter and provision dealer, and plumber and glazier, Birmingham, Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham.-Russell, W. carman and retail brewer, Birmingham. Oct. 6, at ten, Birmingham. Shipley, E. beer-shop keeper and cabinet maker, Milton-next-Gravesend, Oct. 5, at ten, Gravesend. INSOLVENT ESTATES. Apply at the Provisional Assignee's Office, Portugal-street, Lin- Aberdare; Cardiff.-Tillotson, T. T. out of business, Bradford; York.-Turner, J. case manufacturer, Sheffield; York. -Walker, G. journeyman baker, North Shields; MorpethWhite, W. C. builder, Landport, Southampton; Winchester, -Wiley, R. master mariner, Chirton, Tynemouth; Morpeth -Williams, C. out of business, Ardwick, Manchester; Lancaster. Williams, J. farrier, Little Durneston-street, MaryChester. Witham, J. ont of business, Horsforth, Woodside, Leeds; York.-Wood, H. staymaker, Little Titchfield-street, Cavendish-square; Debtors' prison.-Woodburn, W. shoemaker and clogger, Withnall, Chorley; Lancaster. H. not in any occupation, Elizabeth-street, Pimlico; Queen's Gazette, Aug. 31. stick, R. W. general agent, Everton. Liverpool; Lancaster.- Gazette, Sept. 11. Arkwright, H. hand loom weaver, Preston; Lancaster.— Bower, J. T. D. out of business, Liverpool: Lancaster.Brice, E. foreman to a contractor, Old Suffolk-street, Commercial-road east; Debtors' prison.-Brown, J. shell fishmonger, Moorgate-street; Debtors' prison.-Buck, C. out of business, Hulme, Manchester; Lancaster-Carpenter, J. corn and coal merchant, Alresford; Winchester.-Carr, J. out of business, Salford; Lancaster.-Challiner, J. butcher and beerseller, Manchester; Lancaster.-Comerford, J. W. printer, Portsmouth; Winchester.-Crabtree, J. blacksmith and wheelwright, Burnley; Lancaster.-Day, J. painter and glazier, Ipswich: Ipswich.-Faunthorpe, T. victualler, Kingston-upon-Hull; Hull-Gant, J. journeyman tailor, Harwich; Springfield. Gough, E widow, Wolver out of business, Lower-place. Rochdale; Lancaster.-Cap-hampton; Stafford. Gourlay, J. book-keeper, Man- dishgate, Wigan; Lancaster.-Friendly. W. cap maker, Gazette, Sept. 4. mason of business, Pleasington, Blackburn.-Morgan, J. pork son Gazette, Sept. 18. Smeath, J. boot maker, Plough-cort, Fetter-lane: Debtors' prison.-Smith, G. foreman to timber merchants. Green-street, Bethnal-green; Debtors' prison.-Smith, J. joiner and builder, Chorlton-upon-Medlock; Lancaster.Stretton, W. pork butcher, Hercules-buildings, Lambeth; Surrey.-Taylor, T. wheelwright, Blackburn; Lancaster.-Titlow, R. tailor, Ipswich; Ipswich-Ware, E. builder, Newton-road, Westbourne-grove; Debtors' prison.-Warner, J. bricklayer's labourer, Nottingham; Nottingham.-Watson, D. labourer, Dewsbury; York.-Wetten, J. W. victualler, Bridge-road, Surrey: Debtors' prison.--Williams, J. parish clerk, Perranuthoe, Cornwall; Bodmin--Wood, W. land surveyor, Manchester; Lancaster.-Woolf, E. out of business, Cannon-street-road, St. George's east; Debtors' prison.-Yates, J. out of business, Salford; Lancaster, On Creditors' Petition. Abbott, J. in no business, Vagg, Yeovil; Wilton.-Allen, King, T. yeoman, Maida-hill, Paddington; Debtors prison. J. in no business, Westbourne-park-road; Debtors' prison.Toovey, J. lodge keeper, Workhouse, Croydon; Survey.Allen, R. out of business, Chapel-street, Stratford; Debtors' White, J. labourer, Brayton; Reading. prison.-Aubrey, E. grocer, Mal-teg Iron Works, Bridgend; Swansea-Bainbridge, J. out of business, Scacombe; Lancaster.-Balstone, J. baker, Tottenham-court-road; Debtors' prison.-Baxter, J. plasterer, Idle, Leeds; York.-Beesting, E. P. out of business, York: York.-Bentley, G out of business, York Castle: York.-Broadbent, W. jun, out of business, Wood Top, Erringdon; York.-Burniston, J. jun. ont of business, York; York. Butterworth, J. fuller, Helmshore, Haslingdon Lancaster.-Carp, H. labourer, Burnham; Wilton.--Carter, W. cab driver, Southwick, Durham; Durham. -Cartledge, W. journeyman seythe grinder. Sheffield; York. -Cooke, J. R. out of business, Kirkdale; Liverpool.Coultas, C. commission agent, Hunslet, Leeds; York.Curtis, G. hotel manager, Piazza, Covent-garden; Debtors' prison.-Dale, W. auctioneer, Patmos, Todmorden; Lancaster.-Fawcett, G. out of business, York Castle; York.Frost, J. B. M. shopman. Crown-place, Mile-end-road; Maidstone.-Gibbs, J. baker. Handsworth; Warwick.-Grainger, J. manufacturing chemist. Manchester; Lancaster.-Greathead, T. manager to a cheesemonger, Mount street. Lambeth; Surrey.-Hawkes, J. J. cigar manufacturer, Canal-road, Mile-end; Debtors' prison-Hill, G. in no business, Stony Stratton. Shepton Mallet; Wilton.-Hodgson, W. upholsterer, Leeds; York.-Holmes, H. F. retailer of milk, Canal-road. Mile-end; Debtors' prison.-Jarman, E. fishmonger, Barnwell, Cambridge: Cambridge-Jarvis, R. wharfinger's porter, Bottrell, R. civil engineer, 4s. 8d. (making 5s, 744.)-Butter-Wolverhampton; Stafford-Jones, H. H. boot and shoe maker, field, W. H. registrar of births, deaths and marriages, 11s. 11d. Greenwood, W. C. out of business, 9s. - Greenwood, J. woolstapler, 4s. 6d.-Pask, H. builder, 6s. 54d.- Wakeford, J. journeyman blacksmith, 6s, 5d. Bowers, C. G. silk manufacturer, 1a. 6d. Apply at the County Court, Macclesfield.-Brant, J. boot and shoe maker, 2s. 8d. Apply at the Conty Court, Windsor.-Burgess, J. Joiner and builder, 3d. Apply at the County Court, Macclesfield.-Greenfield, J. wheelwright, 98. 10. Apply at the County Court, Brighton.-Leigh, J. 28. 4d. Apply at the County Court, Macclesfied.-Parker, J. 28. 4. Apply at the County Court, Aylesbury. Cozens, J. H. grocer and general shopkeeper, second, 18. Apply at the County Court, Ashford.-Smith, J. P. skinner and wool merchant, (making 13s. 5d.), 6s. 9d. Apply to Mr. J. Phillpotts, attorney, Newport. Peters, H. 3s. 6d. Apply at the County Court, Cambridge. ESTATES VESTED IN PROVISIONAL ASSIGNEE. On their own Petitions. Ackers, R. tin-plate worker, Harborne; Warwick-Balderstone, J. joiner and builder, Pickup Croft; Lancaster.Brocklehurst, J. out of business, Wensley-fold, Blackburn; Lancaster.-Brooker, W. builder, Brighton; Lewes.--Browning, T. book-keeper, Gilda Brook, Pendleton: Lancaster.-Burridge, J. J. baker, Trafalgar-street, Walworth; Queen's prison.-Butler, H. C. rag merchant, New-road, Whitechapel; Debtors' prison.-Clarke, R. out of business, Norwich; Norwich.-Clayton, R. heald manufacturer, Heaton Norris; Laneaster-Cooper, J. out of business, Wigan; Lancaster.Cornwall, L. beerseller, Manchester; Lancaster.-Cranshaw. G. journeyman bleacher, Harpurhey, Manchester; Lancaster.-Crompton, A. out of business, Deansgate, Boltonle-Moors; Lancaster.-Crowther, T. coal agent, Liver pool; Lancaster.-Farrimond, T. Liverpool; LancasterFox, C. manager of a woollen felting factory, Carshalton; Surrey. Fraser, R. victualler, Milton-next-Gravesend; Maidstone.-Gravenor, T. farmer and miller, Wellington; Hereford.-Greene, W. L. attorney, Oxton; ChesterHarrisson, J. H. agent for the sale of manure, Dorsetplace, Dorset-square; Queen's prison.-Hibbert, J. brickmaker, Dutton, Preston; Chester. -Hilditch, S. railway clerk, Salford; Lancaster.-Hill, J. out of business, Ashtonunder-Lyne; Lancaster. - Hoare, J. grocer and general shopkeeper, Crawley; Lewes-Horrocks, S. emigration and general commission agent, Rochdale; Lancaster,-Jackson, J. toll-bar keeper, Wyke, Cleckheaton; York-Javan. J. T. wine drawer, Richard-street, Cornewall-road; Debtors' prisen. -Jones, T. out of business, Liverpool; Lancaster.-Knight, W. roller coverer, Oldham; Lancaster.-Lake, G. sen. bookkeeper, Greenheys, Manchester; Lancaster.-May, J. butter sale man, Skinner's place, Leadenhall-market; Debtors" prison. Millward, T. S. merchant, Tividale, Tipton; Stafford, Newton, R. manager of a silk room. Macclesfield; ChesterNorth, J. shovel and fender maker, Snigbrook, Blackburn; Lancaster.-Payne, G. marine store dealer, Union-street, Bishopsgate; Debtors' prison.-Pitt, C. profestor of dancing, Chorlton-upon-Medlock; Lancaster.-Potter, J. plumber and Middlesborough: York.-Kershaw, L. machine maker, Birstal; dealer, Werneth, Oldham; Lancaster.Samuel, S. journeyman glazier, Mansell-street, Goodman's-fields; Debtors' prisen. Sharples, A. Darcy Lever, Bolton-le-Moors; Lancaster.Simons, J. labourer, Brinklow; Warwick.-Spence, C. B. out of business, Nuneaton; Warwick.- Taylor, W. stonemason, Scholes, Wigan; Lancaster.-Thomas, J. tanner, Cilmaenllwyd; Carmarthen.-Walmsley, J. out of business, Church, Accrington; Lanenster-Weatherill, W. hemp dresser, Manchester; Lancaster.- Whipp, W. butcher, Whitworth, Rochdale; Lancaster.-Wilde, G. butcher, Liverpool; Lancaster. -Willan, J. earthenware dealer, Preston; Lancaster.-Woodward, A. retail dealer in ale, Manchester; Lancaster.-Zincraft, E. clerk in the telegraph office, Ashford; Maidstone. |