Page images

No. 906—Vol. XVIII.

MAY 20, 1854.



COURT OF Queen's Bench-( Continued).
Es parte Russell, in re Minnitt. — (Bankrupt-law Reg. v. The Justices of Worcestershire.-(Highway,
Consolidation Act, 1849— Construction of 1601h

diverting or stopping up— Certificate of JusticesSection- Official Assignee not to be remunerated

Appeal- Jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions—5 $ 6 for preparing Balance-sheet and Accounts)...... 411 Will. 4, c. 50, 88. 84, 85, 89, 91)..

424 M'Cormick o. Garnett.-(Wife's Equity to Settlement -Domicile)..



Mitchell v. Hender.-(County Court, Concurrent Ju-
Lake 0. Brutton.—(Mortgage-Untrue RecitalEs.

risdiction-Place of carrying on Business) . ... 430 toppel-Surety-Moral Liability)


Warbutton v. Warbutton. — (Provision by Will -

Borrodaile v. Nelson. - (Practice - London County
Dower-Election-Power of leasing and managing

Court Act-Suggestion- Costs-Attorney's Pri. -Intention by Implication)


vilege 10 sue in Actions above 201.-Rescinding VICE-CHANCELLOR Wood's Court.

Judge's Order).....

431 Paynter o. Carew.-(Mortgagor and Mortgagee-Dis.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. missal of Bill— Receiver)


Watts o. Rees.-(Personal Representative-Set-of).. 433
COURT OF Queen's Bench.
Doe d. Lees o. Ford.—(Marriage SettlementLimi.

tations after a contingent particular Limitation- Reg. o. Whiteman.—(Maliciously cutting Trees-Con-
" In Default of all such Issue"')....
420 sequential Injury)


LONDON, MAY 20, 1854.

devise shall be delivered to the Charity Commissioners.”

(Sect. 3). An important bill now before Parliament, prepared By the 5th section, where the quantity given for a and brought in by Mr. Headlam and Mr. Hutt, to site, under the 3rd section,“ shall be greater than in the " consolidate and amend the laws of mortmain, and the opinion of the Court of Chancery is requisite, or shall laws regulating gifts to charitable or religious pur- be greater than is actually used for the purpose," power poses,” by which it is proposed to repeal the 9 Geo. 2, is given to recover in the Court of Chancery such por6. 36, (commonly known as the Mortmain Act), de- tion of the land as is not so used, or is not so deemed mands at the present moment attentive consideration. requisite. It proposes to repeal the Mortmain Act, except as to The power to give sites for the purposes mentioned instruments executed on or before the 1st November, in the 3rd section seems to us in every way unobjec1854, (sect. 1), and to enact that the exemptions from tionable, inasmuch as no partiality is shewn to any sect. that act are not to be applicable to the present bill, or community. The mode, however, of testing whether (sect. 17), but that the facilities given by the Sites of the quantity of land given for a site is excessive, viz. Schools Acts are to be continued, (sect. 4).

leaving it to be determined by the arbitrary judgment By the 3rd section land may be conveyed, assigned, de- of the Court of Chancery, without any rule either with vised, or bequeathed to be used exclusively as a site for any reference to the actual quantity of land, or the proporchurch, chapel, churchyard, or parsonage-house belong- tion it bears either to the value or quantity of the donor's ing to the Established Church, or to be used exclusively other property, is liable to great objection, as having a as a site for any building to be devoted to purposes of tendency to lead to continued litigation, embarrassing religious worship, or for a burial-ground, or for a mi- to the judges and unsatisfactory to the public. nister's house, by any sect or community, or as a school Power is then given to sell lands to trustees for or college connected with any religious community, or charities, a copy of the conveyance one month after as a site for any library, museum, or other building execution to be delivered to the Charity Commis- to be applied for the benefit of the public in the pro- sioners. (Sect. 6). The alteration of the law proposed motion of literature, science, or the fine arts, subject by this section seems to proceed upon the principle only to the following conditions, viz.

that the restrictions necessary in cases of voluntary That a copy of the conveyance, within one month after gifts of land are not in general applicable where money its execution, be delivered to the Charity Commis- already devoted to charity is laid out in land*. sioners; or in case “ the same has been left by will, then It seems, however, to be objectionable on this ground that within three months after the death of the testator, —that in process of time it either will pat, ot have a and a notice of the devise has come to any of the persons


* See Report of the Select Committee on the Law of Mortto whom the same has been devised, a copy of the I main, 1852. Vol. XVIII.


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

tendency to put, a large extent of land in mortmain, which any property is devoted should not be kept and so take it out of circulation, the evils of which secret, trustees are rendered personally liable for the were, in our own country before the Reformation, and rents and profits, if they should wilfully omit to are in other countries at the present day, matters of give the notices to the Charity Commissioners required notoriety.

by the act, by a suit at the instance of those who would The mode in which it is proposed that land should be entitled in the absence of the trusts; or in the event be conveyed to charitable purposes is similar to that of their neglect for five years, by a suit at the instance in sect. 1 of stat. 9 Geo. 2, c. 36, except that instead of the Attorney-General. (Sect. 18). of inrolling the deed in Chancery “a copy of it is The provisions in the 18th and some of the pre. to be delivered to the Charity Commissioners within ceding sections will go far to prevent the occurrence of six calendar months next after execution thereof;" such cases as that of Metairie v. Wiseman. They will and although the deed is to contain no reservation for prevent many a gift, extorted from persons under the the life of the grantor, it omits what is contained in the influence of superstitious fears, or the weakness occa. statute of Geo. 2, or of any person or persons claim- sioned by approaching death, and will enable relatives ing under him.” (Sect. 7).

of the donor either to contest a gift which they believe It will be observed, that one important principle to have been improperly obtained, or to see that it is running all through the bill is, that the greatest pub, applied to the purposes for which it was destined. licity should be given to all trusts for charities; it Provisions are then made for curing the defects in therefore substitutes for inrolment in Chancery a very the title to land heretofore bona fide sold, (sect. 19), or defective means of insuring publicity-the transmission given (sects. 20, 21) for charita purposes. of a copy of the inrolment to the Charity Commis- It then repeals the act for chantries collegiate. sioners.

(Sect. 22). Another innovation is, that land held by way of The next section enables corporations to advance mortgage may be given to the person to whom the money on the security of real estate, (sect. 23), and to mortgage money is given. , (Sect. 8*). Except in the avail themselves of these securities by foreclosure or above-mentioned cases, no land, or any interest therein, otherwise; but they will incur a forfeiture of the land is to be given on charitable trusts. (Sect. 9).

unless they sell it within five years. (Sect. 24). Stock, money due upon mortgage, and all forms of The Charity Commissioners must acknowledge the personal estate connected with or savouring of realty, receipt of all documents forwarded to them under the (except leasehold estates and chattel interests in land), above provision, and their receipt is to be evidence of may be given by any person during his lifetime to any delivery, (sect. 25); and they must also register the charitable purpose, on the following conditions: notices given to them under the act; but notices of

The transfer, or other legal solemnity, must be com- gifts by will to charitable purposes are not to be accesplete three calendar months before the death of the sible to the public during the life of the testator, por donor, and notice of the amount transferred, and the are the same to be made accessible after his death if he purposes to which it is to be applied, must be given to shall have revoked such charitable gifts. (Sect. 26). the Charity Commissioners within one month after the With reference to this section we must observe, that transfer. (Sect. 10).

although the bill carefully provides for the public not All forms of personal property, except the particular having access to the register of charitable gifts in some descriptions mentioned in the 10th section, may be cases, it does not, except inferentially, provide for their given to any charitable purpose by any person during access in cases in which it appears to be the object of his life, subject only to the following condition, viz.— the act that there should be the greatest publicity.

That whensoever any gift is made for the purpose of Lastly, the bill is not to apply to Scotland or Irefounding any new charitable institution, the trusts land. (Sect. 27). Upon what principle is the bill whereof are declared by any deed, instrument, or confined to England ? " Why should Scotland and Irewriting, such deed, instrument, or writing is to be land be exempted from its operation?. It is true, that deemed void from the death of the donor, and the pro- the act of Geo. 2 was not extended to Scotland or perty so given is to be held at his death to be part of Ireland; but if the present is a good measure, the his estate, unless a copy of such deed, instrument, or fact of there not having formerly existed one of a writing has, during his life, been deposited with the somewhat similar character in those countries seems Charity Commissioners. (Sect. 11).

to be no reason why they should be deprived of Specific legacies for the promotion of art may be its benefit now. If it be bad, why should England given without restraint. (Sect. 12).

submit to it? Judges have occasionally said, in reAny description of personal estate may be bequeathed marking upon the Mortmain Act, that its policy was to any charitable purpose, subject to the following con- not applicable to our colonies, or to Scotland and Iredition :

land." That, however, seems to be an assumption far That the will should be duly executed and attested from correct; but, like many others proceeding from three months before the death of the testator, and that, the Bench, because it becomes law it is yielded to, within one month after the death, or the execution without doubt, as an authority. Why, however, the thereof, a notice, signed by the testator, of the amount Mortmain Act, and, above all, the bill we have before so given, and the nature of the trust to which it is been examining, should not be considered applicable, given, is to be delivered to the Charity Commissioners. at any rate, to Ireland, where the same laws prevail, (Sect. 12).

and where there are at least as many evils to be Trustees of charities must sell within a reasonable guarded against, seems difficult to say, time mortgaged land to which they become absolutely The principle of the bill is to prevent gifts to charientitled. (Sect. 14).

table or religious purposes being made by persons in Defective execution of powers by will in favour of extremis, or without due consideration; to give publicharities are to be no longer aided in equity. (Sect. 15). city to these gifts; and to see that by no secret or eva. Except in the cases before provided for, no personal sive administration by trustees they should be applied estate is to be given or bequeathed to a charity. in a manner not contemplated by the donor. It is (Sect. 16).

true, that in Scotland there is a wholesome restriction In order that the charitable or religious purposes to upon dispositions made to the prejudice of the heir by

a person on his deathbed. That, however, is not the * It will be seen in a subsequent section that such land must case in Ireland. It may, however, be said that one be aliened within a certain number of years.

Christian community in Ireland is not endowed, and


that every facility should be given to its priesthood to an injunction to restrain the setting up of the legal obtain endowments for their religious and charitable estate. The case is different where the deed is declared institutions. The same reasoning would, however, ap- void on such grounds of fraud as would invalidate ply to the cases of various communities of Dissenters it at law, and the Court is merely exercising that in England. The bill, however, does not seek to pre- jurisdiction which it has concurrently with Courts of vent gifts to charitable or religious purposes; it seeks law. Here the conveyance was declared void in equity only to prevent the exercise of undue influence in ob- as being a breach of trust. If the conveyance had been taining them; and there seems to be no reason why in void at law, the question as to improvements could not Ireland opportunities should be afforded to any reli- have arisen. But granting that the decree could defeat gious sect to obtain from the dying penitent gifts which the legal operation of the deed by relation, that, under might be represented as covering a multitude of sins; the circumstances, would not have afforded the desired or why conventual communities should be tempted to relief to the charity, for the defendants had a clear and withdraw themselves from the contemplation of celes-, admitted legal title by adverse possession, independently tial things by exertions to draw or retain within their of any conveyance; and the information sought relief precincts the wealthy widow or the youthful heiress, against that title, on the ground of the charitable trust. carefully trained and cautiously led into the regions of That relief, beyond the account of the rents and profits, religious romance.

seems to have been denied them.

The most interesting question in the case was, howTHE BAR OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS BY THE ever, that which arose on the plea of the Statute of STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Limitations. It was admitted that at law the defendants had a good title, either under the conveyance and

fine, or under the Statute of Limitations. As to the In the case of The Attorney-General v. Magdalen bar of the remedy under the trust, the enactments in College, Oxford, (18 Jur., part 1, p. 363), the Master point are the 24th and 25th sections of stat. 3 & 4 Will. of the Rolls lately decided that the Statute of Limita- 4, c. 27. Sect. 24 enacts generally, that “no person tions, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, is incapable of operation in claiming any land or rent in equity shall bring any favour of a title by possession adverse to a charitable suit to recover the same, but within the period during trust, when the trust is of such a nature that it can which” he might have recovered at law, if his title had only be enforced by information. The principle of the been legal; but by sect. 25, “when any land or rent decision seems to go further, and to involve the propo- shall be vested in a trustee upon any express trust, the sition once asserted by Lord St. Leonards, ( The Incor- right of the cestui que trust or any person claiming porated Society v. Richards, 1 Dru. & W. 258), but through him, to bring a suit against the trustee or any afterwards retracted, (The Commissioners of Charitable person claiming through him, to recover such land or Dmations v. Wybrants, 2 Jo. & Lat. 196), that trusts rent, shall be deemed to have first accrued, according to for public charities are not within the statute. The the meaning of this act, at and not before the time at decision was made in an information on the relation of which such land or rent shall have been conveyed to a certain inhabitants respectively of the parishes of St. purchaser for a valuable consideration, and shall then Olave and St. John, Horselydown, (formed out of the be deemed to have accrued only as against such purancient parish of St. Olave), seeking to set aside a deed chaser and any person claiming through him.” The of conveyance of the 3rd March, 1790, whereby certain operation of this provision seems perfectly clear. It charity land was absolutely conveyed to the Master prevents time from operating as a bar to equitable and Fellows of Magdalen College. It appeared that claims under an express trust against the trustee, or for upwards of a century before the conveyance the those deriving title from him other than purchasers for rents of the land had been applied for the benefit of the value-i. e. purchasers for value with notice; for the poor of the parish; but the origin of the trust and the want of notice would be a defence independently of the title to the legal estate were not shewn. The convey- 1 statute. “ Any person claiming under the trustee” ance in question was a feoffment in fee in consideration must mean, in all cases where the defendant relies on of a perpetual annuity of 15l. The purchasers entered the legal estate, a person deriving the legal estate from into possession and levied a fine, and had continued the trustee. But if the defendant has been let into in possession up to the time of the information. The possession by the trustee without a valid conveyance, defendants relied on the sufficiency of the considera- so that the trustee can at any moment eject him, then, tion, the fine, and their title by possession under the as both his legal and (by the hypothesis) his equitable Statute of Limitations. The decree declared the con- titles are invalid, he cannot, either while his possession veyance void, directed it to be delivered up to be can- is ripening into a legal title under the statute, or aftercelled, an account of the rents and profits since the wards, be said to claim under the trustee; and the filing of the information, and the land (which was 25th section is not applicable in letter or in spirit, and covered by buildings extending to other land) to be possession adverse to the cestui que trust may be relied marked out by metes and bounds. The question as on. (See The Attorney-General v. Flint, 4 Hare, 149, to the defendants' right to an inquiry as to improve- where the true grounds of the decision are not perhaps ments was left open. The information asked for a re- very clearly expressed). In a suit against the trustee and conveyance; but the Master of the Rolls said, “ As a third person who alleges a title through the trustee, respects the reconveyance of the property, I expressed lapse of time is no defence under the statute to the my opinion at the hearing, that the declaration of the trustee, and no defence to his co-defendant, unless he Court, declaring the deed to be void, and delivering it makes out his title as purchaser for value at the comup to be cancelled, would revest the estate. I expressed mencement of the enjoyment on which he relies. But my opinion to that effect in the case of Hoghton v. if he makes out a title, not through the trustee, but Hoghton, (17 Jur., part 1, p. 99; 15 Beav. 321), that adverse to him as well as to the cestui que trust, as where a deed was marked cancelled by the Court, by adverse possession during twenty years, and also the parties were put in exactly the same position as if shews possession adverse to the cestui que trust, then he such deed had never been executed.” In this respect does not come within the terms of the 25th section, for the decree seems to have been erroneous. A decree, his defence is that of a legal title, which was never declaring a conveyance of the legal estate to he void on bound by the trust. This, if we may venture to differ equitable grounds, and the subsequent cancellation of from the very able and learned judge who decided the the deed, cannot revest the legal estate, though it may case, appears to have been the position of the defendentitle any party claiming the benefit of the decree to ants in The Attorney-General v. Magdalen College, on

[ocr errors]

the assumption (which seems to us the proper one) his Honor said, “For the defendants it was urged that the conveyance of 1790 was inoperative at law. that the following persons were in existence from the They had a legal title by adverse possession, which was date of the conveyance until the filing of the informanot bound by the trust. If, on the other hand, the tion, any one of whom was entitled to claim, and might conveyance was operative at law, the remedy of the have instituted a suit for the recovery of this land, cestui que trust was barred, because the college, being namely, the Attorney-General, the churchwardens and purchasers for value, were entitled, under the 25th sec- overseers of those parishes, and the inhabitants of both tion, to the benefit of the statute, assuming that it was parishes, or any one of them. With respect to the Atcapable of operating against such cestui que trust. torney-General, he does not appear to me to be such a

This conclusion would have been allowed by the person as is contemplated by the statute.” The words Master of the Rolls if the trust had been of a private in the statute mean a person who has some beneficial nature; but the Court held that the trust in question estate, interest, or right in the land. The Attorneydid not come within the statute at all, because the in-General is not the cestui que trust, nor does he claim formation was not a suit by a person claiming the through any cestui que trust; he sues as representing land in equity,” or rather, as the Court put it, because the Sovereign-the parens patriæ. The relators are no “there had not existed any person or class of persons, parties to the cause they are mere sureties for costs. other than the Attorney-General, who, since the date of His Honor then proceeded to shew that a suit by the the conveyance in 1790, could by themselves indivi- church wardens and overseers and the rector, if maindually have instituted any proceedings for the purpose of tainable at all, would not have been a suit within the redressing the wrong which had been inflicted on these meaning of the 24th section; and that there was no parishes by the alienation of the property;” and be authority or principle to shew that a suit could have cause, “where no such person or class of persons existed, been maintained by some of the poor inhabitants on the stat. 3 & 4 Will. c. 27, does not bár a suit by the the part of the parish, suing on behalf of themselves Attorney-General, whether ex officio, or at the rela- and the rest of the inhabitants. “In the case of a tion of others, to redress the injury: The condition breach of trust affecting many persons, but properly in the second proposition implies, that though an in- of a public character, the Attorney-General, I appreformation is not a suit within the statute, the remedy hend, can alone sue with propriety.” We do not proby information would be barred by the effect of the pose to discuss this proposition; but assuming it to be statute in cases of charitable trusts enforceable directly sound, it must be admitted that the decision is not at at the suit of objects of the charity, without the inter- variance with the language of the act. A charity invention of the Attorney-General; and if trusts for public formation is a suit, being a bill of information, just as charities are within the act at all, this appears to be a an ordinary bill is a bill of complaint or petition—it is logical deduction from the 34th section, which bars the a suit to recover the charity property-but it is not a right as well as the remedy; so that an information, suit by any person who literally claims the property, though not (according to the doctrine of the Master of either beneficially or as trustee; or if it is said that the Rolls) a remedy within the scope of the act, must the Crown, though it claims no beneficial interest in fail if it is founded on a right originally enforceable charity property, and no legal estate as trustee, yet by means of a remedy within the act, which right is claims, as parens patriæ, the dominion over it for the extinguished by the bar of that remedy.

purpose of enforcing performance of the trusts, the anIn support of the conclusion that the trust was not swer is, that the Crown is not named in, and therefore within the statute, the Court relied, first, on the rule not bound by, the Statute of Limitations. existing prior to the statute, that time is no bar to a If it is said that this is a narrow construction, and charitable trust; secondly, on the omission of any ex- that the objects of the charity are substantially parties press reference to charitable trusts in the statute; and, to the suit, which is brought for their benefit, and that thirdly, on the inapplicability of the expressions used in other cases the equity of the statute has been applied in the statute to the case of an information. The 24th to cases not within its letter--as where it was held that section limits the time within which any “person the statute was a good defence to a claim by a defendclaiming any land or rent in equity” may bring any ant, although he could not be said to have brought the suit to recover the same. The word “

person” is by suit—the answer is, first, that the case of a defendant the interpretation clause extended to a corporation, and falls within the letter of the 34th section, which extinto a class of persons as well as to an individual. After guishes the right as well as the remedy; and, secondly, referring to the doctrine of Lord St. Leonards in The that the case of a charity is not analogous to any case Attorney-General v. Persse, (2 Dru.&W.67), that time expressly provided for. A charity is, in effect, a legal does not begin to run against a cestuique trust until there perpetuity. Every object of the charity, as he comes is some person in existence who is entitled to claim*, into existence, has an original claim under the trust,

* In The Attorney-General v. Persse, a testator, having not in any way derived through other prior or existing devised the lands of Ballinruane to R. P. for life, remainder tó objects; he has a new right, and there is no bar under B. P. in tail, gave to his executor 501. to build a school on the the statute analogous to the defeating of such a right lands of Merton, in Galway, and charged the devised lands by anticipation. Even in the case of creditors, who are with a yearly rent-charge of 251., to be paid thereout, as a expressly included as a class in the scope of the word salary to a schoolmaster for the said school, which school. person,” the time does not begin to run against an master should be in the nomination of the person for the time individual debt, payable on a contingency or in future, being in possession of the estates in Galway, (apparently dif- until the time for payment has arrived. That the ferent estates from those charged with the rent charge), with a Legislature has omitted to provide a bar in the case of power to the schoolmaster to enter and distrain for arrears. charities may be strange and inconvenient; but the More than twenty years having elapsed, and no school having Court of Chancery is justified by the authorities in not been built or schoolmaster appointed, it was held that the extending the statute by analogy to charitable trusts. statute was no defence to an information seeking, among other And here a consideration occurs adverse to the suggesthings, an account of the rent-charge, because (assuming that tion, that if there had been a direct remedy for a cestui charities were within the statute) the time could not begin to run until there was a person to claim the benefit of the trust. Drew.395) seems to be, that a charge on property in the hands It will be observed that the rent-charge was in terms legal, of the beneficial donee does not constitute an express trust but it was necessarily void at law for want of a defined donee. within the 25th section, but is left to the general operation of It was held good in equity as a trust. If a trust, it was an the 24th section. In that view the decision of The Attorneyexpress trust, and so protected by the 25th section. But the General v. Persse appears to stand on the same ground as that better view (see 2 Jo. & Lat. 191, 197; Petre v. Petre, il in The Attorney-General v. Magdalen College.

que trust the statute would have operated. Suppose

MEETINGS. that in The Attorney-General v. Persse a schoolmaster John Harrison, Sunderland, Durham, licensed victualler, had been appointed, and (to avoid the question in May 23 at half-past 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, NewGrant v. Ellis, 9 M. & W. 113) that the trust had castle-upon-Tyne, last ex.-James Sivyer, Stratford, Essex, been of a house of residence instead of an annuity, the grocer, May 24 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. schoolmaster, omitting for twenty years, whether by ac.; June 5 at 1, div.-Walter Fitch Hari, Brighton and collusion or by neglect, to recover possession, would Worthing, Sussex, tailor, May 24 at 12, Court of Bankclearly have been barred for the term of his appoint, Charles Clarke, Norwich, brewer and maltster, May 24 at

ruptcy, London, aud. ac.; June 5 at half-past 12, div.ment; and during that term an information could 11, Court of 'Bankruptcy, London, and. ac. Frederick scarcely have been maintainable, or, if maintainable, Mayston, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, grocer, May 24 at 11, would probably not be instituted. To allow the sta- Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.- Mier Levy, Little tate to operate as a bar in such a case would be objec- Alie.street, Goodman's-fields, Middlesex, tailor, May 24 at tionable; and generally it may be said, that the case 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac. - - Carnaby T. of a charity is much more like that of a benefice than Ansdell, Barnet, Middlesex, coach proprietor, May 26 at that of an ordinary holding, and should be regulated 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.- John Prater, by analogous rules of limitation.

G. S.

Manchester, brewer, May 23 at 12, District Court of Bank

ruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; June 13 at 12, div.-M. Wood London Gazettes.

and J. Wilding, Openshaw, Lancashire, boiler makers, June 1 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac. joint

est. and sep. ests.-N. Crook, Preston, Lancashire, tailor, May FRIDAY, May 12.

25 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac. BANKRUPTS.

- Daniel Coe, Ardwick, Manchester, grocer, May 25 at 12, EDWARD ARTHUR WEEKS and ALFRED WILLIAM District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.-James GEORGE WEEKS, Park-cottage, King's-road, Chelsea, Pollitt the younger, Manchester, maker-up and packer, June Middlesex, horticultural builders and hot-water apparatus 1 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac. manufacturers, May 23 at 1, and June 29 at 12, Court of - Wm. Potter, Birkenhead, Cheshire, and Liverpool, mer. Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Johnson ; Sol. Fesenmeyer, chant, May 23 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liver. 23, Bedford-row.- Petition filed May 9.

pool, aud. ac.John Pointon, Monks Coppenhall, Cheshire, FREDERICK SCOTSON, Aldermanbury, London, and innkeeper, May 22 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liver.

Maiden-lane, Southampton-st., Strand, Middlesex, tavern pool, aud. ac.-Wm. Shuttleworth, Bradford, Yorkshire, and hotel keeper, victualler, dealer and chapman, May 23 stuff manufacturer, June 5 at 12, District Court of Bankat half-past 1, and June 29 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, ruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac. ; June 6 at 11, div.-Daniel Edgar London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sols. Van Sandau & Cum. Monies, Liverpool, broker, May 25 at 11, District Court ming, King-street, Cheapside.- Petition filed April 11. of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-John Andrew Christian JAMES THOMAS SHAYLER, St. John-street-road, St. Reimann and John Gerard Geller, Liverpool, merchants, James, Clerkenwell, furrier, and Little Saffron-hill, St. May 25 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. Andrew, Holborn, Middlesex, skin dyer, May 18 at 11, ac. Thomas Wm. Thame, Greenwich, Kent, ironmonger, and June 24 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. June 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Christian Ass. Nicholson ; Sol. Fesenmeyer, 23, Bedford-row.-Peti- Druke, Garlick-hill, London, drysalter, June 5 at half-past 11, tion dated May 9.

Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. GOWEN CLIFFORD, Strood, Kent, builder, May 18 at

CERTIFICATES. 12, and June 24 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Morgan, Maidstone;

before the Day of Meeting. Nicholls & Doyle, Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn.--Petition Henry Groom, Bray, Berkshire, miller, June 5 at 12, dated May 10.

Court of Bankruptcy, London. - James Rogers, OrchardWILLIAM THOMAS LAMBERT, Jermyn-st., St. James's, street, Harrow-road, Paddington, Middlesex, mason, June 2 Middlesex, patent medicine vendor, dealer and chapman, at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.- Joseph Carter, May 20 at 2, and June 24 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, Gloucester, scrivener, June 6 at 11, District Court of Bank London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Lawrance & Co., 14, ruptcy, Bristol. - Joseph Flint, Sheffield, Yorkshire, shoe Old Jewry-chambers, London.-Petition dated May 9. manufacturer, June 3 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, GEORGE CRICKMER, Lowestoft, Suffolk, saddler and Sheffield.- Edwin Cottrill, Redditch, Worcestershire, dealer barness maker, May 20 at 12, and June 24 at 1, Court of and chapman, June 5 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Nicholson ; Sol. Burkitt, Birmingham.- Thomas G. Crofts, Leicester, draper, June 2 Curriers' Hall, London-wall, London. Petition dated at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Nottingham. April 27.

To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. RICHARD BREVITT, Coventry, ironmonger, May 23 and

Henry Shead, Witham, Essex, miller.-George Winter and June 15 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: James Winter, Hastings, Sussex, builders.-Charles Housley, Off. Ass. Christie; Sols. Dewes, Coventry; Motteram & Broad-street, Golden-square, Middlesex, surgeon. - John Knight, Birmingham.- Petition dated May 2.

Whitmey, Birkenhead, Cheshire, currier.-John Kay, PrestWILLIAM HENRY ELKINGTON, King's Heath, Wor, wich, near Manchester, calicu printer.— Isaac Dewhirst, Hali.

cestershire, brickmaker, dealer and chapman, May 22 and fax, Yorkshire, commission agent. June 19 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham:

Scotch SEQUESTRATION. Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Hodgson, Birmingham.-Petition dated May 4.

John Wm. Deans, Edinburgh, tea dealer. · RICHARD FAIRBOURN, Preston, Lancashire, wholesale

INSOLVENT DEBTORS grocer and provision dealer, dealer and chapman, May 26

Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and Juve 16 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Man

and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from chester : Off, Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Cooper & Sons, Man.

Process. chester; Winstanley & Churnley, Preston.- Petition filed Joseph Wilton, Bristol, general-shop keeper, May 18 at May 5.

half-past 10, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Bristol.-D. JOSIAS STEER, Plymouth, Devonshire, builder, May 22 Keeling, Wilmslow, Cheshire, farmer, June 16 at 11, Cononley,

and June 12 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Plymouth: County Court of Cheshire, at Knutsford. - James Munday, Off

. Ass. Hirtzel; Sols. Edmonds & Sons, Plymouth ; Kildwick, Yorkshire, tea dealer, May 26 at 10, County Court Stogdon, Exeter.- Petition filed May 5.

of Yorkshire, at Skipton.Joseph Borrow, Bishopwearmouth, JOSEPH GREEN and MICHAEL GREEN, Liverpool, Durham, sawyer, May 24 at 10, County Court of Durham, at

boot and shoe manufacturers, dealers and chapmen, (trading Sunderland. - James Roberts, Selattyn, Shropshire, grocer, and carrying on business under the firm of Joseph Green May 27 at 10, County Court of Shropshire, at Oswestry.& Sons), May 25 and June 15 at 11, District Court of Edward Brackenbury, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, school. Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Bird; Sol. Dodge, Liver-master, June 7 at 12, County Court of Lincolnshire, at Horn. pool.- Petition filed May 5.

| castle. William Clarke, Bary St. Edmunds, Suffolk, tailor,

« PreviousContinue »