made to Mr. Baron Martin at chambers, for a writ of
habeas, that the defendant might be brought up to be
heard on the matters of his petition and schedule, but
that learned judge refused the application on the
ground that it was made by Mr. C. V. Lewis on
behalf of the insolvent, he being his attorney in the
matter of the insolvent, but gave permission for
another application to be made on the part of a credi-
The present application was therefore made,
supported by an affidavit and a statement of the facts
of the case.

tor.

Mr. Lewis said he was a creditor on the schedule, and applied that the defendant might attend the court on his adjourned examination, which was appointed for the 13th November.

hundredweight, ton, shall no longer be ambiguous in
themselves, or dependent for their meaning on local
custom, but when used simply shall have the mean-
ing given by the Act; but that a contract expressed
to be by a certain number of pounds shall be valid,
notwithstanding it may conflict with the regulation
as to the meaning of the words stone, hundredweight
and ton, contained in the first part of the section.
This section, indeed, does not, in terms, prohibit any
kind of contract; it imposes on certain words a cer-
tain sense; they must be understood in such sense if
the contract itself does not show that they are used in
a different sense. If it does show that a different
sense is intended, perhaps it might be impliedly void
under the first part of the section; but if in a diffe-
rent sense a multiple of a pound avoirdupois is ex-
pressed, it is rendered valid by the proviso at the end
of the section, by being exempted from the effect of
the first part of the section, and left to the validity
which it had under the 5 Geo. 4, c. 74, s. 9. The
plea, therefore, as it does not show that the contract
was not for a multiple of a pound, shows no defence
under sect. 11 of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 63. Sect. 21 of 5 &
6 Will. 4, has been suggested as affecting this case;
but, on a careful examination, it appears that that
section applies only to the actual weights and mea-
sures, which it requires to be according to the standard,
to be properly stamped, and not to be light
or otherwise unjust, and that the provision (that
every person who shall use any weight or measure
other than those authorised by this Act, or some ali-
quot part thereof, as hereinbefore described, or which
has not been so stamped as aforesaid, or which shall
be found light or otherwise unjust, shall forfeit a sum
not exceeding 51.; and any contract or sale made by
any such weights shall be wholly null and void; and
every such light or unjust weight shall be forfeited)
applies to cases of the use of, or contract for sale, &c.,
by certain actual and particular weights unstamped,
light, or different from the standard, and not to con-
tracts not having reference to such actual weights or
measures. That a sale by and denomination of mea-
sures different from the imperial is not comprehended
in the prohibition in sect. 21, of using any measure
other than those established by the Act, would also
appear from the consideration that sect. 6 prohibits a
sale by and denomination of measures not imperial,
under a penalty of 408., whereas the use of a prohi-
bited measure is, by sect. 21, subjected to a penalty
of 51. Thus, having examined all the enactments
which have been suggested as affecting the contract
in question, it appears that there is nothing in them
to deprive it of that legality which it commonly has
at common law. It follows that the judgment of the i
Court of Ex. should be affirmed.

(Novel and important application.) This was an application, made by Mr. C. Vallancy

up by Stone, and was now in his possession. Goods had been received from the insolvent to the value of 241, but no more could be obtained from him. Upon Stone applying to insolvent to carry out the terms of his agreement, he had referred him to the court where the document was deposited, and stated that he had no power to act, being insolvent. Under these circumstances he (counsel) thought that it was just and right to call upon the provisional assignee either to carry out the agreement or return it to the creditor, as without it he could neither remove the insolvent, who had obtained possession of one house, nor claim the rent of the other, and the interest of the mortgage-debt not being paid, the mortgagee would foreclose, and Mr. Stone would lose his interest in the property entirely.

HIS HONOUR asked under what system of insol- When he entered into the agreement with the insolvency the case was to be heard?

Mr. Lewis said it was under the Protection Act. HIS HONOUR wished to know whether the court had the same powers to examine witnesses under the Protection Act as in prison cases?

Mr. Lewis answered affirmatively, and produced the order of the Chief Commissioner of the court to the governor of the Holloway Gaol, which he had refused to obey, and the only remedy to get the case heard was by a writ of habeas.

His HONOUR observed that the rule was settled in Mr. Cobbett's case that a defendant was not entitled to a writ of habeas to be present, but that as a witness he could attend. In the present case he thought he had power to order the defendant to be brought to the court, but not merely for his own benefit, but to be examined as a witness.

Mr. Lewis said Mr. Baron Martin declined to grant the application he had made to him, as it was on behalf of the insolvent, but suggested that a creditor had a right to apply. He (Mr. Lewis) now applied in the manner pointed out, and apprehended that as creditor his Honour would grant the application, so that the case might be heard in the Insolvent Debtors' Court.

His HONOUR expressed himself in favour of the application that a writ of habeas might issue for the defendant to attend the court and be examined; but before he granted it he would consider the matter, and give his opinion by simply granting or refusing the application.

REPORTS OF INSOLVENCY CASES.

Saturday, March 24.

(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
Re ROBERT WILLIAMS.
Agreement for the purchase of property.

An insolvent having entered into an agreement for the
purchase of certain property, becomes unable to carry
out the terms of the contract by reason of his in-
solvency, and deposits the agreement in court :
Held, that this agreement, if of no value to creditors,
may be given up to the parties interested.

Macrae moved for a rule upon the provisional as-
signee to show cause why he should not carry out the
terms of a certain agreement, bearing date 16th Oct.
1854, entered into between Benjamin Stone and the

vent, he had no idea that he was in insolvent circumstances, and it was in some sense a most dishonest transaction on the part of the insolvent. Although this application might not be within the letter of the 68th section, it was quite within its spirit and the intention of the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS doubted his power to interfere.

The Registrar (Mr. Ingpen) did not recollect any order of a similar nature to have been made by the Court.

Caarten (amicus curia) referred to the case of Wells (suprà) before Mr. Commissioner Law, as being the same in principle. After some discussion, The COURT granted a rule upon the provisional assignee in the terms of the motion.

Rule upon provisional assignee granted. March 29.-The rule was made returnable this day. The provisional assignee objected to the order prayed, upon two grounds: first, that the agreement was not in his possession, but was filed in the office of the court pursuant to the statute; and, second, that it was not an agreement for a lease nor a lease under sect. 50 of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, but simply an agreement for the purchase of property; and therefore it was not within that section to call upon him to determine whether he would or would not accept such lease or agreement for a lease.

Macrae, contrà, argued that the order prayed for was just and reasonable, and the principle involved in this motion had been sanctioned in the case of Wella by the Chief Commissioner Law.

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS granted the application upon the authority of that case.

Re EDWARD CHABERT. Arrest on mesne process-Jurisdiction to discharge prisoner-Final order.

Held, that upon granting a final order, there is jurisdiction to discharge a prisoner who has been arrested and held to bail under the authority of a judge's order, and who has been again rendered by his bail to custody.

This insolvent came up to-day for his final order, which was granted. He was still in custody; his. application for a discharge ad interim under the

Lewis, for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring the defen- insolvent, or why he should not give up posses- 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 6, having been refused upon the

dant, now in Holloway Gaol, before the Insolvent Debtors' Court, to be heard under the Act. The circumstances of the case were of a novel character. The defendant, it will be remembered, was secretary of the Deposit and General Life Association, and was indicted at the Central Criminal Court by the company for embezzlement, and being convicted, was adjudged to eighteen months' imprisonment, with hard labour, in the Holloway Gaol. Before his conviction he had filed his petition and schedule in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, under the Protection Act, and obtained his interim order. When the day of hearing arrived he was in prison, under his sentence,

and an application was made to the Insolvent Debtors' Court for an order to bring him up for examination, which order the Chief Commissioner granted. The governor of the gaol, however, refused to obey the order of the learned commissioner, as it was not sufficient authority to him. An application was then

ground that the section only authorised the court to
discharge a prisoner "in execution," and the protec
tion granted only protected him from all process
except
"arrest upon mesne process," and as this in-
solvent's bail had rendered the insolvent into custody,
he was still only in custody upon mesne process:
(24 L. T. Rep. 304)

Reed, for insolvent, hoped that the prisoner having now obtained his final order, the court would order

sion of the said agreement.
The agreement
recited that two houses in the Caledonian-road were
leased to Mr. Stone, who had then mortgaged them
to Messrs. Miller and Horne, of King William-street,
solicitors. He subsequently agreed to sell his re-
maining interest to the insolvent for 5401., to be paid
by three bills of exchange for 100%. each, payable at (
four, five and six months respectively after the date
of the agreement, and the remaining 2407, to be paid
by supplying ironmongery goods to that value from him to be discharged.
time to time as required. Upon the payment of the
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS doubted his power to
bills, Mr. Stone agreed to execute a legal and proper make this order. Having been arrested upon the
assignment of the premises mentioned in the agree-authority of a capias issued out of the Court of Ex.
ment for a lease to the insolvent. From the date of by order of Mr. Baron Alderson, he was bailed under
this agreement the insolvent was to have possession the statute, but having been again rendered to close
of the houses, and be entitled to receive the rents, custody by his bail, he thought he ought to apply to
paying rates and taxes and interest upon mortgage. the learned judge for a discharge.
The first bill due pursuant to this agreement became
due, but not being paid by insolvent, was taken

Reed submitted that the court had ample power to make an order discharging the prisoner. Sect. 22 of

7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, enacted "that the final order shall he tendered would give material information. The
protect the person of the petitioner from being taken commissioners in bankruptcy possessed the amplest
or detained under any process whatever in the cases power in this respect. Under sect. 6 of the 10 & 11
hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, from all process Vict. c. 102 it was enacted "that every commissioner
in respect of the several debts due or claimed to be of the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and
due at the time of filing the petition of such peti- every Co. C. shall have and exercise in the pro-
tioner." That section contemplated an arrest subse-secution of such petitions the like power and autho-
quently to the date of the final order, or a detainer
operating at the time of the final order. In either
event the final order was to protect the petitioner. In
this case the insolvent was detained under process in
respect of filing his petition. Sect. 29 declared that,
if the petitioner was taken or detained under any
process whatever for any debt or claim in respect of
which he was protected, the commissioner was autho-
rised to discharge and the officer was indemnified for
obeying the order.

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS thought that section applied to the case of a protecting order granted under the 28th section. This was a final order. If an application were made to a judge at chambers he had no doubt he would order a discharge; but he thought this court had no power to liberate the insolvent. He would, however, consult Mr. Commissioner Murphy on the point.

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS subsequently intimated that he had consulted Mr. Commissioner Murphy, who, being of opinion that sect. 29 was applicable to he should order a discharge to issue,

this

case,

It was, however, intimated to the learned commissioner that an application had been made in the mean time to Alderson, B., who being clearly of opinion that a final order did apply to the case of a person detained in custody on a capias, had ordered him to be discharged.

The order of the court for this purpose being there

rity in all respects under the aforesaid Acts as the
Commissioners of her Majesty's Court of Bankruptcy
and district Courts of Bankruptcy have heretofore had
and exercised on the presentation of petitions of in-
solvent debtors." All the powers of the commissioners
of bankrupts are transferred to this court,

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.-Yes; in matters of
insolvency, but I don't see in the Protection Acts any
provision empowering a commissioner to take affi-
davits for evidence at the public examinations of the
petitioner.

Nichols.-The commissioners have the same power of examining witnesses and obtaining who are believed capable of giving information respecting the property or dealings of the petitioner as the commissioners in bankruptcy, The commissioners are directed in cases of doubt to be guided by the practice in bankruptcy; and by the 245th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act 1849, the L. C., the V. C., &c., may take the whole or any part of the evidence either viva voce on oath, or by interrogatories in writing, or upon affidavit. His proposition was that in matters of insolvency this court possessed the same powers in this respect as the Courts of Bankruptcy.

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.-This statute (7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 5) states distinctly that we are to examine witnesses. The commissioner may compel the attendance of, and examine every person, &c. Nichols.-Yes; it states the subject of examination

fore unnecessary, no order of discharge actually and the powers of the commissioners, namely, the

issued.

Thursday, May 10.

(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)

PROTECTION CASE.

Re MOUNT STEPHEN WRIGHT, Quare, are the affidavits of absent creditors evidence receivable by the court in opposition to an insolvent's application for protection?

same as in bankruptcy.

Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.-Yes; but only the powers which they possessed in matters of insolvency. The power is limited by the language of the section, which is "to examine every person capable of giving any information," &c. During my practice, now of many years, there has never been a case of this sort, in which an attempt was made to oppose by affidavit; and I am of opinion that I have no power to receive

Held, that they are not evidence, and consequently will them for purposes of opposition. be rejected.

This insolvent came up for his examination upon his interim order.

Nichols appeared to oppose by affidavit on behalf of a large creditor named Mrs. Byron, residing at Lincoln. The learned counsel drew the attention of the court to the large amount of debts in the schedule without consideration, and in answer to the objection made by the court to the use of his affidavit, proceeded to con

tend that it might be used in opposition. By the 5th

section of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, the commissioner was
to have the like power, both for the seizure of the
property of the petitioner, and the examination of
him and of other persons as in bankruptcy.
"And
be it enacted, that upon such petition being filed, the
commissioner shall possess the like power and autho
rity touching the seizure of the property of such
petitioner (except as herein otherwise directed), and
also to compel the attendance of and to examine
such petitioner and his wife and every person known
or suspected to have any of the property of such
petitioner in his possession, or who is supposed to be
indebted to such petitioner, and every person whom
the commissioner believes capable of giving any in-
formation concerning the person, trade, business, or
calling, dealings, or property of such petitioner, or any
information material to the full disclosure of the
dealings of such petitioner, and to enforce both obe-
dience to such examination, and the production of
books, deeds, papers, writings and other documents,
as by any law now in force relating to bankrupts are
possessed by the several courts authorised to act in
the prosecution of fiats in bankruptcy touching the
seizure of property, and the examination of any
bankrupt or other person under a fiat in bankruptcy."
Under that section he contended that any information
likely to lead to a fuller disclosure of a petitioner's
property was receivable in evidence, and the affidavits

Affidavits rejected-Opposition disallowed.

Monday, Aug. 27.

(Before the Chief Commissioner Law.)

Re WILLIAM WRIGHT.

Future-acquired property-Order to hold and retain,
-1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 89-Heading of affilavits-

Validity of affidavits sworn on a Sunday, 29 Car.

2, c. 7, s. 1.

Roscoe, whereby it appears to the court, that since
the said insolvent debtor became entitled to the bene-
fit of the said Act by adjudication male in the above
matter, he has become entitled to the sum of 2087,
recovered in an action brought by the said insolvent
debtor against Charles Morrey; it is ordered, upon
the application of the said creditors of the said insol-
vent debtor, that the said Charles Morrey, upon notice
of this rule to be given to him, shall hold and retain
the sum of 1007, part of the said sum of 2087, till
this court shall make further order concerning the
same, and that the said insolvent debtor and the said
Charles Morrey shall severally on the 27th Aug.
instant, peremptorily show cause to the court why
the said sum
of 1007. should not be paid over to the
provisional assignee of the estate and effects of the
said insolvent debtor for the general benefit
of the creditors of the said insolvent debtor
entitled to claim under the judgment entered
up by order of the court, in pursuance of the
provisions of the said Act.” The circumstances
under which the application was made were these:-
In the year 1845 the insolvent was discharged under
the Act. The creditor Mr. Morrey was inserted in
the list of creditors in the schedule for the balance of
an account due to him at the time. Some time after
the discharge Mr. Morrey's wife died suddenly, after
which, much to the surprise of Mr. Morrey, the insol-
vent claimed a sum of 2001, which he alleged he
had lent to Mrs. Morrey, and he brought an action for
the amount, which was tried at Chester, and upon the
evidence of a witness, who swore that Mrs. Morrey
had paid 87. interest upon the 2001. in her husband's
presence, the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for
the 2087. and costs. Upon these facts the above rule
was obtained upon himself ordering him to hold and

retain the 100%. He then paid the sheriff the sum of

1937. 68. 6d., the balance of the sum recovered by the insolvent, and upon an indemnity given by the de

fendant in the action, the sheriff withdrew.

Nichols showed cause on the part of the insolvent. He thought the rule ought to be discharged on the ground of certain irregularities; but if these points should be overruled, he asked only to reduce the sum ordered to be paid into court upon the ground that in The first the aggregate his debts were only 841. legal irregularity was to Mr. Roscoe's affidavit-first, that it was improperly entitled, namely, that it was entitled in the Insolvent Court, there being no such court, the style of the court being the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors; and the second was, that it was sworn on a Sunday. In reference to the first objection, he apprehended that every affidavit must be properly entitled as of the court in which it was used and sworn; otherwise,

perjury could not be assigned upon it, and that The court, upon the application of an assignee or creditor, security which was necessary for the truth and validity of legal proceedings would not be attained. will grant an order to hold and retain upon any perAs to the second objection, it was founded upon the son who may have in his possession any property be29 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 1, being an Act for the better longing to an insolvent which he may have acquired observance of the Lord's Day: (Evans's Collecafter his dis harge; until the court shall make further tion of Statutes.) The Act prohibited all worldly order concerning the same, and if the court shall so business on a Sunday. The learned counsel referred order, it shall be lawful for such person to pay over to sect. 6, prohibiting process on a Sunday as to the provisional assignee such property for the gene-effectually as the first section prohibited men from ral benefit of the creditors:

Semble, that it is unlawful for tradesmen, &c., to pursue
their ordinary occupations on a Sunday, unless there
be a necessity for so doing.
Quære, are affidavits sworn on a Sunday receivable in

court?

Affidavits not properly entitled, will not be received by
the officer of the court. In this case an affidavit was
headed "In the Insolvent Court," instead of "In the
Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors," and it had
been inadvertently received:

Held, that, as all the facts necessary to the application
were known to the court by other means and admitted
by the parties, the court would pass unnoticed this affi-
davit and proceed with the case.

Dowse moved to make absolute a rule obtained on

the 13th August last to this effect: Upon the ap-
plication of Hannah Aspinall (executrix of William
Aspinall, deceased) and others the creditors of the
said insolvent debtor, and upon reading the memo-
randum signed by them, and the affidavit of Thomas

swearing of an affidavit was not process, and, therefollowing their worldly callings on a Sunday. The fore, he submitted that this point was clearly included in the first section. An attorney acting for his client,

and swearing an affidavit for him, was pursuing his worldly calling.

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER.-If this is so, he is liable to a fine of five shillings.

Nichols.-The only exception is cases of necessity. The CHIEF COMMISSIONER.-If he forgets to swear the affidavit on a Saturday, and he has to come here on the Monday, there must be a degree of necessity. After some further argument,

Dowse replied.

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER intimated that he was not disposed to give weight to the second objection..

Dowse.-Then, as to the first objection, it was the common and popular form of speaking of the court. The identity was sufficient, and no person could be deceived.

The Chief Commissioner Law said:-The only offence for a clerk in the office to allow any other difficulty was the entitling of the affidavit. This affi-person to do his duty without an order to that effect. davit ought to have been rejected, but that not having been done, all that was necessary was to know the facts upon which the motion was founded, and these facts being clear to the court without this affidavit, it was necessary to give any force to the objection, He should therefore make the rule absolute. babul Objections overruled Rule absolute · done reserved.

Held, that where there is an inaccuracy in an insolvent's
Description Opposition-Adjourned hearing.
description which renders an adjournment necessary
to amend and re-advertise, that upon such adjournment
the case is still open for opposition.

This insolvent came up for his hearing. There was
no opposition, but upon the insolvent's examination
by the court, it appeared that there was an inaccuracy
in the description which rendered an amendment
necessary. The case was therefore adjourned to amend
the description and to re-advertise, and

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER observed, that of course upon that occasion any of the creditors might op

This was the day appointed by the court to hear payment, and these goods were furnished to the work- brought the case to that court, and he cited various

Mr. Abraham said this was the first time he had heard of this. He had no means of disproving it, but he solemnly denied it.

༈ ༈་།།!

His HONOUR reserved his judgment until the 13th of November.

INTELLIGENCE.

of the court, an action was brought by a Mr. Potts to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, which was to the following effect:-The plaintiff Mr. George Potts, shoemaker, had a bill due in London on the 5th Aug. last, but as that day fell on the Sunday, the bill was to retire on Saturday. Mr. Potts had overlooked this, and when he went to the bank to advise its payment, he found he was too late. He went immediately to the Electric Telegraph Company's office, and asked if they could get the bill returned; they replied in the affirmative. Mr. Potts then paid Ar the recent Michaelmas Sessions the justices of the down the amount of the bill, 214. 6s., and 7s. for mescounty of Wilts settled the following scale of fees to sage and communication. He signed the contract, and be taken by the clerk of the peace, and clerks to jus-on leaving the office he was assured it would be all tices under the Criminal Justice Act 18 & 19 Vict. right, and he would get the bill on Monday. He At the same time notice was given that at called on Tuesday, and the clerk was out; a day or c. 126. the next Hilary Sessions a committee would be moved two after he called again, without success. At his for to consolidate and revise the whole of the fees next call he found the managing clerk there, and discovered the bill had been dishonoured, noted and

FEES OF CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND
JUSTICES' CLERKS.

payable to the clerk of the peace, to clerks to justices, protested, and there was 10s. expenses upon it. This
and also the constabulary charges :-
:-

For every Information

8. d.

2 0

0

2 0
2 6
1 0

Summons

1

Charge in writing and plea of pri

soner

1 0

1 6
2 0

For returning proceedings, conviction and re

cognisance to clerk of the peace, including postage......

1 0

Fee on registering proceedings on minute-book of petty sessions

1 0

Order of restitution and copy.

1 6

Clerk of the peace for filing the depositions and statement of accused in every separate prosecution

2 6
1 6
4 0

Filing and recording the conviction
Ditto duplicate certificate and dismissal

0:

practising solicitors were justices of the peace, clusive of mayors.

0.1damo treab Since the passing of that Act, 47 practising solici tors have been placed in the commission of the peace and during the same period, in many places, including York, Lancaster, Hartlepool, Sudbury, Portsmouth, Congleton, Oswestry, Marlborough, and Bodmin practising solicitors have been recommended by the town councils for the appointment, but have, notwithstanding such recommendation, been excluded by the Lord Chancellor, whilst, in other places, such as Norwich and Lincoln, practising solicitors would have been selected, but the Chancellor's rule to ex clude them was known and acted upon.

The committee have every reason to believe that when the requisite information shall be obtained from the remaining cities and boroughs, it will present a proportionate result.

It cannot fail to be observed that the above facts

The committee are not aware that out of the great number of solicitors who have been placed in the magistracy, any one has been found unfit, either through improper conduct or incapacity, for bria honourable position.

are of a most satisfactory character; they indicate a was the ground of the action. The Telegraphic Com-large amount of respect for, and confidence placed in pany put in the contract which the plaintiff had signed, members of the Profession by their neighbours and fellow-citizens, to an extent by many wholly which proved that they did not hold themselves responsible for the delivery of any unrepeated message. unexpected, and to the entire Profession most or for any uninsured message above the value of 51, flattering. The message in question had neither been repeated nor insured; and the judge ruled that on the contract the defendants were not liable, and instructed the jury to give a verdict for the defendants. The company produced a great number of witnesses to show that the failure in the message was owing to the interruption in the wires, both between York and Newcastle and York and London. They had also offered to refund to the plaintiff the full amount that he had in the transaction. Mr. Blackwell argued that the company had not fulfilled all the contract. If they were not liable on the contract for the message on which 4s. had been charged, they had not fulfilled the contract for which the 3s. commission was paid. The jury appeared to have a conviction in favour of the plaintiff, but gave their verdict as directed by the judge.

PROCEEDINGS OF LAW

SOCIETIES.

YORKSHIRE LAW SOCIETY.
THE Yorkshire Law Society have issued the follow
ing special report of the committee on the exclusion
of solicitors from the magistracy:-

The committee beg to submit, for the consideration
of the members of the society, their report, made in
pursuance of the resolution of the general meeting, held
on the 17th July last, on the subject of the exclusion
by the Lord Chancellor of solicitors from the magis-
tracy in cities and boroughs.

The rule of law with respect to the appointment of solicitors to the magistracy in England and Wales, will be found in the statute 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73. By the 33rd section of this Act it is enacted, that no attorney or solicitor shall be capable to continue or be a justice of the peace for any county within that part of Great Britain called England, or the principality of Wales, during such time as he shall continue in the business of an attorney or solicitor. And by the 34th section, it is provided that the prohibition last thereinbefore contained, shall not extend to any city or town being a county of itself, or to any city or town having justices of the peace within their respective limits aud precincts, by charter, commission or otherwise; but that in every such city or town attorneys or solicitors may be capable of being justices of the peace.

THE Exeter magistrates have just made a regulation
with respect to County Court debtors committed to
their prison, which shows, in a striking manner, the
anomaly of the law with respect to large and small
debtors. By the Act of Parliament, County Court
judges commit to prison such debtors as refuse to
comply with the orders of their courts, when, in their
judgment, this refusal is wilful. Thus a man who is
ordered to pay a debt, and does not, is often com-
mitted to prison for contempt of the order of the
court, on the assumption that he could pay the debt
if he would. But, being in prison, he appears to have
a right to claim the prison allowance; and in the
Exeter gaol, the magistrates have resolved to deny to
all debtor prisoners, who claim the gaol allowance,
the right to be visited by their friends oftener than
once a week. As far as we understand the matter,
the magistrates only do this to enforce prison dis-
cipline; they say that these debtors, having the right
of receiving visitors daily, the governor of the prison
found it impossible to prevent the introduction of
ardent spirits, and the regulations of the gaol were
broken in divers ways: hence the alteration. But
there is this anomaly in the case. The debtors are
committed to prison because they are supposed to
have the means of paying a debt; and then they are
allowed the prison fare, because they are presumed to
have no means whatever of buying food. But it may
be said that a man's inability to buy food for himself,
when in gaol, does not prove his inability to pay a
small debt when out of it. An agricultural labourer
may, from obstinacy, refuse to pay a shilling a week
instalment on a debt, and being sent to prison for his
obstinacy, and thereby losing the work by which he
gained his daily bread, he must necessarily be fed at
the public expense, as the law cannot condemn him
to be starved to death. We have quoted an extreme
case, as a justification of the law. But we suspect
the fact to be either that many small debtors get the
prison allowance who are not entitled to it, or that
many are committed to prison for their poverty, their
"contempt" being inability to pay what the court At the time of the passing of the Municipal Corpo-
requires. At any rate, the difference of treatment ration Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, and in the five years
between a great bankrupt and a small, "contemp-immediately preceding, 74 practising solicitors were
tuous" debtor, shows that class legislation has left mayors, or chief officers of cities or boroughs, all of
its mark on the statute book, and that, if indebtedness whom, or very nearly so, were justices of the peace
be criminality, it has proclaimed the fact at the by virtue of their office.
wrong end of the social scale.

The County Court system is a great boon, but it is not without its drawbacks. The fees are generally complained of as excessive, and we do not see why that class of expenses which, in the Superior Courts, is paid by the State, should not be so paid in these inferior, but not less useful courts.-Woolmer's Gazette. LIABILITY OF ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANIES -At the Co. C. of Northumberland, held at Newcastle, a fortnight ago, before James Losh, Esq., judge'

The eligibility, therefore, of attorneys and solicitors to be appointed to the magistracy in cities and towns, is distinctly recognised by the Legislature, whilst they are excluded in the counties; but your committee have been unable to discover any reason why, if they be qualified in the one case, they should not be in the other.

The committee have lately directed circulars to be

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to under stand what just ground there can be for the rule adopted by the Lord Chancellor to exclude the entire Profession from the office of magistrate in cities and boroughs, for which he certainly has not any legis lative sanction.

It may, however, be conceded that an attorney appointed to the office of magistrate, ought not, either directly or indirectly, to practise in any general or petty sessions' business arising within the jurisdiction for which he is appointed, and it is well known that many solicitors of respectability undertake very little, if any, business of that description, and would very readily relinquish it altogether.

in

The committee, therefore, think that the Profession ought to seek for a legislative enactment, rendering the members of it generally eligible for the office of magistrate, not only in cities and boroughs, but also counties-accompanied by an express prohibition against their acting professionally in general or petty sessions' business in the districts for which they act as magistrates. This course would meet with every objection that could be justly made, on public grounds, to the appointment of solicitors, and would make the rule of law, with respect to them, very similar to what is now the case in Scotland.

In Scotland, advocates, writers to the signet, and solicitors in the supreme courts (who do not practice before justices of the peace), may be appointed provosts and magistrates, and are frequently so appointed; and as such are justices of the peace by virtue of their offices, they may also be appointed, individually, justices of the peace, and are so appointed frequently; the only general disqualification is introduced in the Small Debts Act, 6 Geo. 4, c. 48, s. 27, by which it is declared that no solicitor or procurator in any inferior court in Scotland, shall act as justice of the peace in any county in Scotland, during such time as such solicitor or procurator shall practice as such in any inferior court. The disqualification extends, there fore, only to practitioners in the inferior courts.

With respect to Ireland, the committee find that there is no disqualification of solicitors to act as magistrates in counties similar to that contained in the & 7 Vict. c. 73. In several instances they have been appointed mayors or chief officers of cities and boroughs, and in such capacity have acted as magistrates. It has, however, been the practice to exclude them from commissions of the peace, although there is no legislative sanction whatever for such exclusion.

It is well known that in appointing the magistrates addressed to the town-clerks of all the cities and for the cities and boroughs of England and Wales, boroughs in England and Wales, for the purpose of the Lord Chancellor so far pays a deference to public ascertaining the particulars relating to the magistracy opinion, as to call upon the town councils to recomin those places, which they were instructed by the mend the proper parties to be inserted in the comresolution of the general meeting to obtain, and they mission of the peace, yet in the case of solicitors, he have received the desired information from the greater treats such recommendation with disregard; and part of them, which has been furnished with great your committee cannot conclude their report without readiness and courtesy. They regret, however, that expressing the belief that this exclusion arises more from 35 places they have not received replies. from a jealousy, on the part of official persons, of the In the 148 cities and boroughs from which informa-influence of solicitors, than from considerations of the tion has been received, the committee find the follow-public good, and the same feeling has been evinced in the exclusion of their Profession, from bankruptcy, ing result:and lunacy commissionerships, County Court judgeships, &c., which offices many of its members are as competent to fill as the parties who have been ap pointed.

Since the passing of that Act, no less than 277 practising solicitors have filled the office of mayor. and consequently, in pursuance of the 57th section of the Act, have been justices of the peace during the time of their holding such office, and the next succeeding year. Of these gentlemen 43 have held the appointment twice; 13 three times; 5 four times; 2 five times; and 1 six times.

At the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, and in the five years immediately preceding, 48'

THE GAZETTES.
Ensolvents.

Petitions to be heard at the County Courts.
Gazette, Sept. 25.

Barrett, D. wire drawer, Hipperholme, Halifax, Oct. 12, at ten, Halifax.-Cowham, J. jun. shoemaker, Wrangle, Oct. 10, at ten, Boston.-Curry, W. R. butcher, Newcastle, Oct. 11, at ten. Newcastle-Everson, A. railway police officer, Wakefield, Oct. 20, at eleven, Wakefield.-Helliwell, J. farmer and woolcomber, Ovenden, Halifax, Sept. 12, at ten, Halifax.— Regester, S. G. shipowner, master mariner and coal mer

1

Cartledge, W. assistant clerk, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Oct. 23, at ten, Newcastle-under-Lyme.-Craske, C. D. attorney's clerk, Norwich, Oct 23, at ten. Norwich Castle. - Erredge, J. A. schoolmaster, Brighton, Oct. 20, at ten, Brighton.- Lashmar, J. T. tailor and hatter, Brighton, Nov. 3, at ten, Brighton. McGregor, R. auctioneer and appraiser, Birkenhead, Oct. 19, at ten, Birkenhead.-Rodham, A. beer-house keeper, Liverpool, Oct. 22, at eleven, Liverpool.-Saunders, J. plumber, painter, &c. Prighton, Oct. 20, at ten, Brighton-Wells, J. baker, Torquay, Nov. 17, at ten, Newton Anbot.-Wotton, J. cabinet maker, &c. Torquay, Nov. 17, at ten, Newton Abbot.

Gazette, Oct. 19. Armitage, J. steel melter and carter, Sheffield, Nov. 7, at twelve, Sheffield.-Biles, C. cowkeeper, milkman and huckster, Bristol, Nov. 15, at half-past ten, Bristol.-Bryant, J. beer retailer and shoemaker, Bristol, Nov. 22, at half-past ten, Bristol-Clarke, M. boot and shoe maker and provision dealer, Skewen Cadoxton Juxta, Nov. 10, at ten, Neath.-Hickery, J. journeyman tile miker, Upper Easton, Nov. 8, at half-past ten, Bristol-Hill, B. retailer of beer, Bedminster, Bristol, Nov. 22, at hal'-past ten, Bri-tol.-Jepson, M. grocer and flour dealer, Sheffield, Nov. 7, at twelve, Shefheld.-Maddocks, T. jun. victualler and haulier, Merthyr Tydvil, Nov. 8, at ten, Merthyr Tydvil.-Needham, T. boot and shoe maker, Gainsborough, Nov. 12, at half-past eleven, Gainsborough.-Newton, R. cle and spring maker, Sheffield, Nov. 7. at twelve, Sheffield.-Robinson, H. greengrocer, Worcester, Nov. 14, at ton, Worcester.-Stiles, J. 1od ringhouse keeper, collector of debts, clerk to a timber merchant, and jobbing carpenter, Leckhampton, Nov. 21, at ten, Cheltenham.-Tomlin, C. N. butcher and drover, Charlton, Dover, Oct. 24, at eleven, Dover.-Williams, S. baker, grocer, and general shopkeeper, Bristol, Nov. 8, at half past ten, Bristol.

Anderson, J. R. vocalist and artist, Mitre-street, Aldgate; Debtors' prison.-Barrett, J. butcher and farmer, Cheltenham; Warwick.-Bolton, R. victualler, Sutton, St. Helen's; Lancaster. Briggs, J. out of business, Woolwich; Maidstone.-Broom. J. builder, Bristol; Bristol.-Call, J. out of business, Bowling, Bradford; York. Carter, P. A. horse dealer, Brighton; Lewes.-Chipperfield, R. G. out of business, York; York.Choat, J. tailor and draper, Bishopsgate-street-within, Cambridge.-Curgenven, P. wholesale woollen draper, Buttersland-street, Hoxton; Debtors' prison.- Felton, G. clerk, Bedminster, Bristol; Bristol.-Finchett, W. out of business, Hulue; Lancaster.-Forster, T. publican, Swalwell, Gateshead; Durham.-Fox, B. out of business, Hanging Heaton, Dewsbury; York.-Freeman, G. out of business, Baildon; Shipley; York.-Fricker, W. journeyman plumber, Richmond; Surrey. Haigh, A. woollen yarn splaner, Lockwood, Huddersfield; York. Hall, J. stone mason, Windhill, Bradford; York.-Hartley, J. out of business, Great Horton, Bradford; York. - Hickman, H. salesman, Cambridgeterrace, Kingsland; Debtors' prison. Hird, J. stonemason, Windhill, Bradford; York. Ingham, J. out of business, Shipley, Bradford; York.-Jackson, H. C. out of business, Lancaster; Lancaster. Keeling, H. G. out of busintas, Vickers Croft, Leeds; York.-Kellet, W. out of business, Burton Lonsdale; Lancaster. - Kershaw, I. B. boot and shoe maker, Birkenshaw, Leeds; York.Lawton, W. house agent, Primrose-hotel, Liverpool; Lancaster.-Longbottom, T. draper Leeds; York. McDonnell R. g ass bottle dealer, Liverpool; Liverpo 1. Milner, J. out of business, Pitsmoor, Sheffield; York. Onslow, H. Lancaster. Osborn, H. joiner and builder, Chester; out of business, Wade-street, Poplar; Debtors' prison. Pittman, T. solicitor, Albion-read, Clapham; Surrey, Pratt. T. Secretary and collector to the Mit cham Gas Works, Figgs Marsh, Mitcham; Surrey. Preston, J. watchmaker, Milnthorpe, Westmoreland; Appleby.-Preston, W. salesman, Openshaw, Manchester; Manchester.-Pyrah, J. out of business, Batley Carr, Dewsbury; York.-Richardson, J. publican, Bowness, Westmoreland;