Thursday...Jan. 14 Motions and general paper ......... 16 Petitious, short causes, adjourned summonses, and general paper 18 General paper 19 Ditto Monday.. Tuesday Wednesday 20 Ditto Thursday 21 Friday 22 Saturday 23 Motions and general paper 25 General paper 26 Ditto Wednesday 27 Ditto Saturday 28 Motions and general paper 29 General paper summonses, and general paper Monday . Feb. 1 General paper At the Rolls unopposed petitions must be presented, and copies left with the secretary on or before the Thursday preceding the Saturday on which it is intended they should be heard, and any causes intended to be heard as short causes must be so marked at least one clear day before the same can be put in the paper to be so heard. at Trinity College, Dublin, and afterwards at at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1817, and proceeded M.A. in 1821; he was called to the Bar at Lincoln'sinn in 1822, and at one time went the Northern Circuit. In 1829, he was nominated by Str Robert Peel, then Home Secretary, one of the two Commissioners of Metropolitan Police, on the establishment of that force, and in that capacity he has served the public for nearly forty years with singular assiduity and devotion. Prior to the year 1829 the custody of the London streets had been entrusted to the antiquated and 30 Petitions, short causes, adjourned inefficient parish constables; there was no gas, no proper regulation of the thoroughfares, and the law and its officers were scarcely heard beyond the precincts of their courts; but on the introduction of a more efficient police in the above year, Mr. Mayne, together with his colleague, Col. Rowan (afterwards Sir Chas. Rowan), had to raise, to organise, and to train a small army; to instruct them in duties hitherto unknown in England, and to teach them to discharge their office with the utmost patience and consideration." On the death of Sir C.Rowan, Sir Richard became Chief Commissioner, and in consideration of the efficient manner in which he discharged these duties, he was nominated a Companion of the Bath in 1847, and was advanced to the dignity of a K.C.B. (civil division) at the time of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Sir Richard married, in 1831, Georgina, eldest daughter of Thomas Carvick, Esq., of Wyke, Yorkshire, and of Moat Mount, Highwood, Middlesex, by whom he has left issue four sons and two daughters. His eldest son, Richard Charles, who was born in 1835, is a captain in the Royal Navy, and a Companion of SIR. R. MAYNE. The late Sir Richard Mayne, K.C.B., Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who died at his residence in Chester-square, on Saturday last, after a very short illness, was the fourth son of the late Hon. Edward Mayne, formerly a judge in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, and who is said to be a member of an old Kentish family which migrated into Ireland in the reign of Elizabeth, and established itself in the counties of Fermanagh and Monaghan. He was born in Dublin in 1796, and was educated Bill with success during the next session, having regard to the expense of the recent Abyssinian war, and the various financial statements made from time to time of the expenditure of the country, yet they would not for a moment have it supposed that they despair of ultimate success; and they wish to impress upon their successors in office that they should be anxiously on the watch for a favourable opportunity for re-introducing the Bill, and that the exertions which were so near being crowned with success should, at a future time, be again renewed, if possible, with greater vigour than before. Your council, considering the occasion of the recent elections a fitting opportunity for endeavouring to secure the co-operation of all candidates for Parliamentary honours, in such measures as might hereafter be adopted to attain the object in view, addressed a circular letter, annexing copy of a resolution upon the subject, to the secretaries of all the Irish provincial law societies, the sessional Crown solicitors, and conducting agents of candidates, and urged upon them the necessity of using their best endeavours in the matter in their various localities. They also communicated with the London Law Society, and requested them to adopt similar measures there. Chancery schedule of fees. On the 3rd April last your council received copies of draft proposed schedule, and having devoted much time and attention to the consideration of this very important subject, considered it their duty to request that the reduction of profes sional remuneration in Ireland to a lower scale than that allowed in England, as proposed by the draft schedule, should be reconsidered by the Lord Chancellor and Judges, and also to state that in their opinion the scale of charges should be the same in both countries. With this view they addressed letters to their Lordships accompanied by observations and suggestions which occurred to them to make upon various items in draft schedule, and they subsequently received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's secretary saying that the schedule had been finally settled; but upon its publication it appeared that although their suggestions had been adopted to a great extent, yet the that payable to English solicitors, for which your table of fees had been reduced considerably below counsel see no sufficient reason. THE late Thomas Stratton, Esq., barrister-atlaw, of Lincoln's-inn, who died at Leamington; on the 25th Nov., in the sixty-fourth year of his age, was the third son of the late John Stratton, Esq., of Little Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, by Charlotte, daughter of John Daniel Lucadou, Esq., and was born at Hammersmith, in 1804. He was educated at a private school kept by the Rev. E. Cogan, at Higham-hill, Walthamstow, and subsequently at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1862, and Fee for inspecting documents in Chancery in suits proceeded M.A. in 1829, having taken very high honours, being first on the classical tripos, senior medallist and eighth wrangler, and at the close of his brilliant college career he was elected one of the fellows of his college. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln's-inn, in Michaelmas Term 1830, and since that time has practised largely as an equity draftsman and conveyancer. The deceased gentleman, who lived and died unmarried, was burried at Highgate Cemetery. LAW SOCIETIES. THE SOCIETY OF THE ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS OF IRELAND. The half-yearly meeting, after Michaelmas Term, of the members of this society was held on Thursday, Nov. 26, in the Solicitors' Hall, Four Courts. Shortly after two o'clock the chair was taken by Sir R. J. T. Orpen, president of the society. Mr. John H. Goddard, secretary, read the advertisement convening the meeting, and then proceeded to read the annual report, from which we extract the following: The council, in submitting to the society a statement of the various matters which have occupied their attention during the past year, think it advisable to continue the plan adopted by their predecessors, when preparing the report for 1867, viz., to refer primarily to subjects previously unconcluded, and report their progress or conclusion; and, secondly, to treat of such new matters as may have subsequently arisen, and state how they have been dealt with. Certificate duty. With respect to the proposed Bill for the reduction of this annual duty, your council, in Nov. 1867, communicated with the London Incorporated Law Society, suggesting the propriety of getting the Hon. Mr. Denman, M.P., again to introduce that Bill into Parliament, at as early a period as possible before the (then) approaching recess, so as to obtain for it a first reading. Your council, however, received a letter, in answer, from the secretary of that society, stating that in consequence of the several circumstances attending the introduction and discussion of the Bill on the same subject, during the previous session of Parliament, and the (then) financial condition of the country, the council of the English Law Society did not consider it would be expedient to renew the agitation for the reduction of the duty at that time; the matter, therefore, dropped, and although your council regret to say that in their opinion it would be hopeless to think of prosecuting this pending before 1st Nov. 1867. Your council having been informed that the Clerk of Records and Writs considered himself warranted in refusing to solicitors inspection of a document in" pending suits," which had been transferred to him by the 6th section of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 129, except on payment of a fee of 5s., brought the matter before the Master of the Rolls for his adjudication, who decided the proper fee to be 4d., and not 5s., in a "pending suit," within the meaning of the General Order as the court fees made 1st Nov. 1867. Disallowance to solicitors on copies of documents brought in to be attested. The Clerk of Records and Writs having refused to allow the sum of 14d. per folio on attested copies of documents prepared by solicitors, although such allowance was prescribed by the Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 61, aggrieved and injured by such refusal so long as your council considered that the Profession was the provisions of the said statute remained in force. They therefore sent in a memorial to the Master of the Rolls embodying their views, and requesting, if necessary, to be heard by counsel on the matter, and on the 18th July last received an answer stating that, in suits pending before Michaelmas Term 1867, the allowance of 14d. for every office sheet directed by the 15th section of the Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 61, should still be made, this stamp to be affixed to be of the amount ascertained deduction to be calculated as formerly, and the after allowing it. Court of Chancery office hours. The Clerk of Records and Writs having written to your council respecting proposed change in hour of opening the Chancery offices during vacation from eleven to twelve o'clock, and requesting to have their opinion on this subject, they carefully considered the matter, and passed the following resolution, viz. :-"That it is the unanimous opinion and desire of this council that the hours most convenient to the public and to our Profession for the different offices of the Chancery and law courts would be from eleven till one during the vacation, if the rule be rigidly observed in the respective offices, which has not hitherto been, at least as regards the hour of opening." A copy of which resolution was subsequently forwarded to the Clerk of Records and Writs. Your council, feeling the great inconvenience arising in consequence of the early hour at which the notice office is closed, recommend to their successors to urge that it should remain open until two o'clock, and that the mode of transmitting notices through the General Post Office, which has worked so satis factorily in the Landed Estates Court for many years, should be adopted. Knighting the president of the society. Your council have to mention, which they do with unfeigned pleasure, that on the 17th Jan. last a most gratifying tribute of respect was paid to this Profession by his Excellency the Lord Lientenant, who upon that day was pleased to confer the honour of knighthood upon the worthy president of this society, now Sir R. J. T. Orpen, which honour will, no doubt, be peculiarly appreciated by the members of this society, when the consider how their respected President has for so many years past given his most careful personal attention to every matter calculated to raise the social position of the Profession and to advance its best interests, whilst it is well known that from the numerous weekly and special meetings of the council and of the several sub-committees, as well as the stated meetings of this society, he is rarely absent, and ever ready to devote his valuable time and professional talents unsparingly to the service of his brethren. Legal appointments-Office of Crown and Treasury The office of Crown and Treasury Solicitor for Ireland having become vacant in the month of September last by the lamented death of Thomas Mostyn, Esq., a member of this Profession, and your council having heard that a barrister was about to be appointed thereto, they immediately forwarded a memorial to his Grace the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, setting forth the injustice of such appointments, and urging strongly the claims of this Profession to the exclusive enjoyment of such posts; they also wrote to Colonel Taylor, M.P., forwarding a copy of the memorial, and requesting him to use his influence in the matter. From him they received a most courteous answer, inclosing the correspondence which he had with the officials at Dublin Castle on the point, showing that he had done all that lay in his power, but your council regret to say that the only answer they received to their memorial was the usual stereotyped acknowledgment of its receipt, which was subsequently followed by an announcement in the newspapers of the appointment of the barrister in question to the vacant office. Representation of the People (Ireland) Act (31 & 32| Vict. c. 49) 1868. In pursuance of a requisition, signed by a number of solicitors, requesting your council to call a general meeting of the Profession to consider the proposed disfranchisement of agents, &c., at future elections under the terms of the 8th section of the Representation of the People in Ireland Bill, a meeting was held on the 7th April last, which was numerously attended, when the section in question and the objections thereto were fully discussed, and as much dissatisfaction was expressed with this section of the Bill, which appeared to be considered as an infringement of the rights of the Profession, it was resolved that a petition should be presented to the House of Commons, through the city members, praying for the modification or alteration of the section in question. A petition was accordingly sent over and duly presented to the House by Mr. Jonathan Pim, M.P. The Act has been since passed, but the 8th section has not been altered. It is right, however, to mention that a similar section exists in the English Reform Act. Act for Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections (31 & 32 Vict. c. 125) 1868. By the 25th section of this Act the judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of election petitions in Ireland are empowered respectively from time to time to make, revoke, and alter general rules and orders for the effectual execution of the Act, and the regulation of the practice, procedure, and costs of election petitions and the trial thereof. The 41st section empowers the judges to order the payment of the costs of such petitions in such manner and in such proportions as they may determine, and the 42nd section provides that the costs are to be taxed according to the same principles as costs between attorney and client as therein mentioned; and may be recovered in the same manner as the costs of an action at law, or in such other manner as may be prescribed. Your council, therefore, considering that the adoption of a proper and liberal scale of costs applicable to such proceedings was a matter of serious moment to their Profession, have been engaged in settling the draft of such a schedule of fees and costs as they think should be adopted in such matters, and have furnished a copy thereof to the proper officer for approval of the judges. HULL LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. Jan. 5.-Examination: "Guarantees and Indemnities," continued. Moot point.-" Does the common law right of an apprentice to avoid his indentures on attaining his majority exist since the 1ew Masters and Servants Act (30 & 31 Vict. c. 141)." In the affirmative, Mr. Cook; in the negative, Mr. Spink. LEGAL NEWS. MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. -A petition in favour of Legislative action on this question in England, is being circulated among the members of the Local House of Assembly here. The petition is sent out by the Secretary of an Association formed in England to assist in annulling the enactments that make it illegal there. The petition yesterday had the signatures of 50 out of the 70 members of the Legislature, whose approval had up to that time been asked for, and of nearly all the members of the City Council. This shows the very marked progress which this question has made within the last few years. Public opinion is undoubtedly tending in the direction of relaxing the law forbidding the marriage referred to.Toronto Globe. MR. FRANK IVES SCUDAMORE.-It is currently reported that this able and distinguished public servant will shortly be removed from his present position, that of Second Assistant Secretary to the Post Office, to the Treasury; where his great administrative talent and extraordinary powers of organisation will have a more ample field for their exercise, in the preparation of a great scheme which the Premier, aided by Messrs. Childers and Stansfeld, is said to have in contemplation for the reform and reorganisation of the whole civil service. Mr. Scudamore is at present engaged in conjunction with Mr. Forster, by commission from the Treasury, in revising several of the offices of account at the Custom House. It is confidently anticipated, by a simplification of the cumbrous machinery now in use, and a redistribution of the duties of several of these departments, that an increased efficiency, together with a greater economy in their administration, will be brought about by the inquiry now pending. Examiner. THE TRADES UNION COMMMISSION.-During the present month the Trades Union Commissioners have held several sittings for the purpose of agreeing upon their report, which it is understood is now completed, and will be laid before Parliament early in the session. It is stated that the report will be one of the majority only, and that amongst its leading recommendations. will be found that trade unions, under certain limits, should be recognised by law, and their funds placed under its protection; that the rules of these unions should be binding only on their members, and that any attempt to enforce them upon unwilling workmen should be punishable by law; that the utmost freedom of labour should exist in all trades; that the benevolent and trade funds should be kept entirely distinct, and that no moneys subscribed for benevolent purposes should under any circumstances be applied to trade or other extraneous objects. It is this last recommendation that will meet with the strongest opposition from the large and more influential trade societies such as the engineers, masons, joiners, bricklayers, plasterers, boiler makers, &c., on the ground that having subscribed the money themselves they have a right to dispose of it in any way they think proper. Already, in anticipation of the report of the commissioners, the trades and trades councils throughout the country are forming committees to protect the interests of the unions by a united action and opposition to the clauses of any Bill that may be laid before Parliament, founded on the report of the commission, that may interfere with their fundamental princi ples and the right to amalgamate their funds if they think proper so to do. who should live to take a vested interest in his said property, the testator leaves all his pure personalty to be equally divided between the Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East, the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews, and the Society for the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge on the Continent. MUNIFICENT BEQUESTS.-Mr. John Bairstow, of Preston, has just died at the age of ninety years, and has exhibited at his death the same characteristics of wise beneficence which marked the whole of his long life. Mr. Bairstow was never married, and always lived without making any show of the vast wealth which became his. He was a member of a well-known cotton manufacturing firm. Among his numerous bequests are the following:-Preston and County of Lancaster Royal Infirmary, 20,000l.; Church Missionary Society, 3000!.; Bible Society, 3000/.; Moravian Missions, 20001.; Religious Tract Society, 1000l.; Pastoral Aid Society, 80001.; Curates' Aid Society 20001.; Irish Church Mission Society, 5001.; Christian Knowledge Society, 30001.; National Sooiety for Promoting Religion among the Populations, 20001.; Deaf and Dumb Institution, Manchester, 5001.; Naval and Military Bible Society, 5001.; Manchester Diocesan Church Building Society, 8000l.; Chester and Manchester Diocesan Board of Education, 1000l.; Casterton Schools, for the Education of the Daughters of the Clergy, 1000l.; Medical and Benevolent College, London, 2001.; Kendal Clerical Charity, 2001. To the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, to be applied to the endowment of the after mentioned churches in Preston, he bequeathed the following sums :-All Saints', 20001.; Christ Church, 10007.; St. Luke's, 60001.; St. Mark's (for the completion of the tower), 1000l.; St. Saviour's, 1000. To the Northern Counties Asylum for Idiots, at Lancaster, he leaves 50007. Besides personal bequests, he has not forgotten the Preston Mechanics' Institution, the Preston Temperance Society, Preston Orphan School, Preston Institute for the Blind, Bible Women's Mission, Samaritan Society, the Associated Institution (London) for making grants to provide houses and board for people reduced in circumstances, Society for the Conversion of the Jews, Army Scripture Readers' Society, National Society for the Propagation of Christian Principles, Priests' Protection Society, Colonial and Continental Church Building Society, Missions to Seamen, &c. THE GAZETTES. Gazette, Dec. 18. neys and solicitors, Staple-inn. Nov. 14 Bankrupts. Gazette, Dec. 25. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. ARMSTRONG, FREDERICK, clerk in Chatham-dockyard, Rochester. Holloway. Pet. Dec 22. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graha.n. Sol. BUCK, THOMAS, wine merchant, Carlton-rd, and Clifton-cresct, Jan. 13 BYRD, ANTHONY, assistant to a cheesemonger, Whittington-ter, CADE, EDWARD, carpenter, Mount-gdns, Westin nst r-bridge: 1. CHAMBERS, FREDERICK, merchant, Upper Kenn'n ton-pl, Ken- WILLS AND BEQUESTS.-The will of Richard Sommers Gard, of Rougemont, Exeter, Esq., deceased, who died on the 16th Dec. last, at Court Hall, Monkton, Devon, has just been proved BRAGG, ROBERT, dealer in building material, St. James's-rd, by Edward Gard, the brother of the deceased, and Leslie Alexander, Outhwaite and Thomas Snow, the executors. The personal property is sworn under 99,000. The widow of the testator has a large provision made for her, and liberal legacies are given to many of the deceased's relatives and servants. The executors are directed to pay to the trustees of each of the four following charities at Exeter 500!.: viz., the Deaf and Dumb Institution, the Blind Institution, the Ragged School, and the Eye Infirmary. The testator was formerly for many years M.P. for Exeter.--The Dublin probate of the will of the Rev. Sir Nicholas Chinnery, late of Flintfield, in the county of Cork, and of No. 18, Hyde-parksquare, clerk, baronet, deceased, who was one of the sufferers by the Abergele disaster, was resealed at the London Registry, on the 7th inst. The Irish probate is dated 22nd Oct. last, and it is granted to deceased's daughter, Anna Elizabeth Frances Margaretta Haldane Chinnery (the wife of the Rev. J. R. A. Haldane Chinnery). The personal property in Engand and Ireland-but nearly the whole is in England-is sworn under 120,000l. All the testator's real and personal property is left to his said daughter for life, with a power of appointment among her children. If his daughter should not leave any child DUDLEY, GEORGE, cheesemonger, King's-cross-rd, and Great ESTCOURT, SAMUEL; BRUNELL, HENRY; and Cox, JOSEPH, FARIL, JAMES, licensed for sale of 'Extincteur portable fire FLAXMAN, JOHN, cabinet maker, Barnet-st, Hackney-rd. Pet. GABRIELLI, GUISEPPE, portrait painter, Cleveland-ter gdns, GOOH, SIMON ROBERT (known as Robert Frederick Gooch), GRIFFIN, WILLIAM, farmer, Chalk-farm, and Farnborough. Pet. JAUMENNE, EMIL, cigar merchant, Princes-st, Leicester-sq. Pet. JONES, CATHERINE, widow, Collins-st, Blackheath Pet. Dec. 21. O. A. Edwards. Sur. Jan. 25 LARDNER, WILLIAM, out of business, Oxford-mkt. Pet. Den. 23. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sol. Hunter and Co., Lincoln'sinn. Sur. Jan. 14 LEALE, ANDREW STEPHEN, out of business, Clarissa vil, New Barnet. Pet. Dec. 22. Rez. Murray. 0. A. Parkyns. Sol. Beard, Basinghall-st. Sur. Jan. 11 LINGARD, GEORGE, buyer and seller of shares, Sherborne-st, Blandford-sq. Pet. Dec. 17. 0. A. Edwards. Sur. Jan. 25 MARENDAZ, GEORGE DAVID, dealer in Russia mats, Hadley-st, Kentish-town. Pet. Dec. 21. Reg. Pepys. 0. A. Graham. Sol. Godfrey, Hatton-gdn. Sur. Jan. 7 NAPPER, THOMAS, surgeon, Littlehampton. Pet. Dec. 19. 0. A. Edwards. Sur. Jun. 20 NORRIS, THOMAS, victualler, Metropolitan Cattle-mkt, Islington. Pet. Dec. 21. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Hammond, Furnival's-inn, Holborn. Sur. Jan. 6 NORTH, JOHN CHARLES, builder, Thurlow-villas, West Dulwich. NOYCE, GEORGE, cheesemonger, Essex-st, Islington. Pet. Dec. 18. Jan. 18 RAINHOLT, AUST, wholesale milliner, Lloyd-sq, Clerkenwell. Pet. Dec. 15. O. A. Edwards. Sols. Ashurst and Co., Old Jewry. Sur. Jan. 23 REYNOLDS, WILLIAM, part proprietor in the Wheal Virgin Tin RICE, HENRY, schoolmaster, Brighton. Pet. Dec. 21. Reg. SMITHER, WILLIAM, Caterham. Pet. Dec. 22. O. A. Edwards. TURNBULL, WILLIAM, surgeon, Hampstead-rd. Pet. Dec. 18 WING, WILLIAM WISKING, carpenter, Glyndon-st, Plumstead. To surrender in the co intry. ADAMSON, GEORGE, brickmaker, Dartmouth. Pet. Dec. 15. Reg. BAKER, WILLIAM, plumber, Burnham. Pet. Dec. 16. Reg. & O. A. BARKER, JOSEPH,late cab proprietor, Leeds. Pet. Dec. 22. Rez. CROMPTON, JAMES, provision dealer. Tyldesley, near Manchester. DAVIS, SAMUEL, baker, Kislingbury. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. & O. A. Jan. 8 HUMPHRIES, THOMAS, painter, Northfield. Pet. Dec. 11. Reg. & JAMES, JOSEPH, beerhouse keeper, Shenstone, JOHNSON, ROBERT, out of business, Goole. Pet. Dec. 22. Reg. & 0. A. Porter. Sol. Rhodes, Bradford. Sur. Jan. 7 1 KAY, EMANUEL, draper, Bolton. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. & O. A. Holden. Sols. Richardson, Brandwood, and Dowling, Bolton. Sur. Jan. 20 LAWTON, GEORGE, bookkeeper, Elland-cum-Greetland. Pet. Jan. 22. O, A. Young. Sols. Cronhelm, Halifax; and Bond and Barwick, Leeds. Sur. Jan. 4 LEE, HENRY, shipowner, Grimsby. Pet. Dec. 15. 0. A. Young. LIGGETT, CHARLES, boot manufacturer. Nottingham. Pet. Dec. 22. PRICE, MARY, clothier, Bromsgrove. Pet. Dec. 21. Reg. Hill. RHODES, STEPHEN, joiner, Little Rolton. Pet. Dec. 21. Reg. & O. A. Holden. Sols. Hall and Butter, Bolton. Sur, Jan. 6 SARVANT, LEVI, shoemaker, Halifax. Pet. Dec. 15. Reg. & O. A. Rankin. Sur, Jan, 15 SAUNDREY, RICHARD, grocer, St. Ives. Pet. Dec. 17. Reg. & O. A. Borlase. Sol. Hickens, St. Ives. Sur. Dec. 31 SCAIFE, WILLIAM SACKER, commission agent. Higher Tranmere and Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 21. Reg. & O. A. Wason. Sol. Ander. son, Birkenhead. Sur. Jan. 8 SHELDRICK, SAMUEL, baker, Colchester. Pet. Nov. 19. Reg. & O. A. Barnes. Sol. Jones, Colchester. Sur. Jan. 16 SHERMAN, WILLIAM, Commercial traveller, Manchester, Pet. Dec. 23. 1 Reg. & 0. A. Kay. Sol. Robinson, Manchester. Sur. Jan. 14. SLATER, THOMAS, twine and rope maker, Hull. Pet. Dec. 22. Reg. & O. A. Phillips, Sol. Summers, Hull. Sur. Jan. 6 SMEED, HENRY, french polisher, Northampton. Pet. Dec. 23. Rer, & O. A. Dennis. Sol. White. Northampton. Sur. Jan. 9 STICKLAND, JAMES, boot maker. Wimborne Minster. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. & O. A. Rawlins. Sol. Tanner, Wimborne Minster. Sur. Jan. 8 TALBOR, JOHN, butcher, Stratford-upon-Avon. Pet. Dec. 22. 9. A. Kinnear, Sols. Mers. Hodgson, Birmingham. Sus. Jen. 8 THOMAS, JOHN, joiner, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 21. 0. A. Turner. Sur. Jan. 8 THRIPPLETON, WILLIAM, beerhouse keeper, Bradford Moor, near WALKER, CLEMENT, butcher, Altrincham. Pet. Dec. 22. Reg. & Jan. 6 WHITE, JOSEPH, boot manufacturer, Leicester. Pet. Dec. 1P. Reg. Tudo. Ö. A. Harris. Sols, Reed, Guildhall-chambers" Basinghall-st, and Messrs. Hodgson. Birmingham. Sur. Jan. 12 WHITE, WILLIAM. jun., grocer, Alcester. Pet. Dec. 21. O. A. Kinnear. Sols. Reece, Harris, and Free, Birmingham. Sur. Jan. 4 WHITELEGG, THOMAS, hatter, Manchester, Pet. Dec. 21. Reg Fardell. O. A. McNeill, Sol. Reddish, Manchester. Sur. Jan. 5 YARRINGTON. STEPHEN, horse hair monfacturer, Kidder. minster. Pet. Dec. 92. Reg. & O. A. Talbot. Sol. Corbett, Kidderminster. Sur. Jan. 9 Gazette, Dec. 29. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-street. ALLEN, JOSEPH, licensed victualler, Schoolhouse.la. Stenney. Pet. Dec. 24. O. A. Edwards. Sol. Michael, Gresham-bldgs, Basinghall-st. Sur. Jan. 25 BISCOMBE, WILLIAM, builder, Inte Beaumont-mews, Portland-pl. Marylebone. Pet. Dec. 17. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sur. Jan. 14 COLLINS. JOHN, contractor, Norfolk-st, Blackfriars. Pet. Dec. 19. CORBITT, CHARLES JAMRS, ladies' bag maker, late Old Kent-rd. Pet. Sol. Bartlett, Chandos.st, West Strand. Sur, Jan. 13 GIRBENS, WILLIAM CHARLES, shipowner, Westgate, near Canterbury. Pet. Dec. 16. Reg. Roche. O. A. Parkyns. Sols. Stocken an Jupp, Leadenhall-st. Sur. Jan. 13 HAMMER, WILLIAM HENRY, builder. East Dulwich. Pet. Dec. 23. Reg. Murrav, O. A. Parkyns. Sol. Howard, Poultry. Sur. Jan. 13 HYAMS, BARNET (sued as Barnett Hvams). ragdealer, late London-rd, Southwark. Pet. Dec. 19. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sur. Jan. 14 SOLOMON, BARNETT known as Bernard Solomon Bernard), com- PAGE, WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, commercial traveller, late Rockhall- Reg JONES, BENJAMIN, tailor, Abergavenny. Pet. Dec. 18. Reg. LLEWELLYN, CATHERINE, grocer, Newton Nottage. Pet. Dec. 24. PEAKMAN, JOHN, metal merchant, Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 9. 0. A. Turner. Sols. Messrs. Martin, Liverpool, agents for Pole, Birmingham. Sur. Jan. 12 PLUMPTON, THOMAS, watchmaker, Warrington. Pet. Dec. 24. STILING, THOMAS, innkeeper, Pitminster. Pet. Dec. 28. O. A. TAYLOR, JOSEPH, out of business, Walsall. Pet. Aug. 24. O. A. Kinncar. Sol. Burton, Birmingham. Sur. Jan. 8 THOMAS, GWILYM DAVIES, out of business, Treforest, near WESTCOTT, JAMES, jun., smack owner, Kingston-upon-Hull. Pet. WHITTEM, CHRISTOPHER, watch manufacturer, Coventry. Pet. & O. A. Keary. Sol. Ward, Longton. Sur. Jan. 9 Gazette, Dec. 22. WILKS, JOHN, butcher, Swansea. Jan. 3, 1867 BELL, HENRY, tobacconist, Cumberland-st, Pimlico. Sept. 1, 1908 Dividends. BANKRUPTS' ESTATES. The Official Assignees are given, to whom apply for the Dividends. Berry, S. draper, first, 1s. I. Carrick, Exeter.—Browning, H. H. tailor, first, is. 7. Edwards, London.-Bull, D. G. cheesemonger, first, 1s. 10. Edwards, London.-Cook, A. G. jeweller, first, 28. 24. Harris, Nottingham.-Deere, E. wholesale stationer, first, 34d. Parkyns, London.-Defries, S. merchant, first, . Edwards, London.-Dose, T. ale merchant, first, 1. Turner, Liverpool-Eeklin, C. dealer in wines, first, 20. Edwards, London.-Green, J. carcase butcher, 2. 71. Edwards, London.-Hodges, J. P. travelling draper, first. 5. 117. Carrick, Exeter.-Jones, R. land agent, first, 3s. 44. Turner, Liverpool.-Joseph, A. G. clerk in H.M. service, first, 28. G. Edwards, London-Leri, M. clothier, second, 21. Kinnear, Birmingham. Liversidge, C. K. general broker, first. 8d. Turner, Liverpool.-Mason, S. S. ironmonger, first, 3.2. Kinnear, Birmingham.-Quick, E. miller, first, 8d. Carrick, Exeter.-Pratt, G. grocer, second, 3. 24. Kinnear, Birmingham.-Richards and Pascoe, potato merchants, first, 2x. 54d. Carrick, Exeter.Skafte, R. C. II. sailmaker, first, Is. Turner, Liverpool.--Spratt, F. H. veterinary surgeon, first, 118. 9. Parkyns, London.Traque, E. hotelkeeper. first, Is. 4d. Carrick. Exeter.-Tyson, W. joiner, first, 4. 34. Turner, Liverpool.- Wigzell, M. ventilator manufacturer, further, 11jd. Carrick, Exeter. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. DEATHS. CONDIE. On the 20th ult., at Blackfriars House, Perth, N.B., aged 40, Mr. G. Condie, solicitor. SHANKS. On the 24th ult., at Richmond, Mr. Thomas Shanks, for forty-seven years the faithful and trustworthy clerk of Sir Fitzroy Kelly. THE MANUFACTURE OF WATCHES AND CLOCKS.-A most interesting and instructive little work, describing briefly, but with great clearness, the rise and progress of watch and clock making, has just been published by Mr. J. W. Benson, of 25, Old Bond-street, 99, Westbourne-grove, and the City Steam Factory, 58 and 60, Ludgate-hill. The book, which is profusely illustrated, gives a full description of the various kinds of watches and clocks, with their prices, and no one should make a purchase without visiting the above establishments, or consulting this truly valuable work. By its aid, persons residing in any part of the United Kingdom, India or the Colonies are enabled to select for themselves the watch best adapted to their use and have it sent to them with perfect safety. Mr. Benson, who holds the appointment to the Prince of Wales, sends this pamphlet to any address on receipt of two postage stamps, and we cannot too strongly recommend it to the notice of the intending purchaser.-[ADVT.] Reg. Pepys. 0. A. Graham. Sol. Chalk, Moorgate-st. Sur. PARTRIDGE Jan. 14 To surrender in the country. BIRD, THOMAS JONES, out of business. Liverpool. Pet. Dec. 24. PARTRIDGE AND COOPER (Late PARTRIDGE and COZENS), WHOLESALE & RETAIL STATIONERS, 92, FLEET-STREET, AND 1 & 2, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, E.C. Carriage paid to the Country on Orders exceeding 208. DRAFT PAPER, 48, G., 6., 78., 78, 9d., and 98. per ream BRIEF PAPER, 178. 6d., and 238, 6d, per ream. FOOLSCAP PAPER, 108, Gd., 138. 6., und 188. 6d. per ream. CREAM LAID NOTE, S., 4s., and 5s, per ream. LARGE CREAM LAID NOTE, 4s., G., and 78. per ream. LARGE BLUE NOTE, 3, 4, and 6s, per ream. ENVELOPES, CREAM OR BLUE, 18. 6d., and 68. 6d. per 1000. THE TEMPLE" ENVELOPE, extra secure, 9s. 6d. per 1000. FOOLSCAP OFFICIAL ENVELOPES, 18. 9d. per 100. NOTICE. 192 192 WITH the new year we have a new publication called "Revue de Droit International et de 192 Legislation Comparée." It is conducted by 193 Mr. WESTLAKE, assisted by a Belgian and a French advocate. It promises to be a most valuable work. 193 194 194 195 195 VENDORS AND PURCHASERS OF SHARES IN A COMPANY IN LIQUI 195 195 DATION. 193 196 196 199 200 196 NOTWITHSTANDING the clear and satisfactory 196 judgments in the cases of Grissell v. Bristowe, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 390, and Coles v. Bristowe, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 403, on which we offered some 196 remarks (ante p. 102), a lingering doubt seems to rest in the minds of some of our readers as to 197 whether there may not be cases in which the 198 registration of the transferee having become impossible in consequence of the company winding-up, the buying jobber may be held responsible to the vendor. In the article referred to we pointed out what appeared to us to be the utmost extent of a jobber's liability, viz., that he might, perhaps, on a rescission of the contract as between transferor and transferee, be compelled, as a seller to refund to the transferee so much of the purchase-money as was not received by the transferor, and as a buyer to refund to the transferor so much money as the transferor may have paid in order to induce the jobber to buy the shares. It is obvious that, except in the instances where the buying jobber has received money for accepting a liability, the transferor The Forty-fifth Volume of the LAW TIMES, now complete, may be uniformly and strongly bound at the LAW TIMES Office for 5s. 6d. The Eighteenth Volume of the LAW TIMES REPORTS is now complete, and may be uniformly and strongly bound at the LAW TIMES Office, price 48. 6d. Subscribers and Advertisers are requested to make their Cheques and Post-office Orders payable to Mr. HORACE Cox, the latter at the Strand Office. The LAW TIMES goes to press on Thursday evening, that it may be received in the remotest parts of the country on Saturday morning. Communications and Advertisements must be transmitted accordingly. None can appear that do not reach the office by Thursday afternoon's post. VOL. XLVI.-No. 1345, could have no claim against him. To charge the jobber with the responsibility of a shareholder or contributory, or of indemnifying a shareholder or contributory, he must be in some default, but he is in no default if, on the "name" day, he furnishes the names of unobjectionable transferees and pays for the shares on the settling day. Even where, as is not uncommon, the buying jobber, under a special contract, guarantees the registration of the transferee, we do not think that in cases where registration becomes impossible without default on the part of the jobber or of the transferee, and in conseqnence, not of any objection to the transferee on the part of the directors (where their consent is requisite), but simply in consequence of a winding-up rendering any alteration of the register impossible or impracticable, that the buying jobber could be considered in equity as the true owner of the shares, and as such held subject to all their attendant liabilities, In Cruse v. Paine, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 127, a case in which the buying jobber guaranteed the registration of the shares, and was held liable to indemnify the vendor, the settling day preing-up of the company, and during the whole of ceded by a very considerable period the windthat period it was presumably possible for the transferee to have obtained registration, and not only was the transferee in default for not obtaining it, but the jobber was also in default by nominating as a transferee a person who did not take the necessary steps to obtain registration. The decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir G. M. Giffard in this case is no authority whatever for casting the burden of shares on a jobber who purchases and guarantees registration, in cases where, without any default on the part of the jobber, the vendor is unable to divest himself of the legal ownership. In regard to the effect of winding-up, on a transferee who, without default on his part, is not permitted to register his transfer, we desire to offer some observations, with particular reference to the cases of Taylor v. Strang, 28 L. J. 279, Q. B.; Stray v. Russell, 1 L. T. Rep. N. S. 443; Chapman v. Shepherd, and Whitehead v. Izod, 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 477; and Biedermann v. Stone, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 415, which in the view both of Vice-Chancellor Sir R. Malins, as expressed in Coles v. Bristowe, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 459, and of Lord Justice Christian, of Ireland, as expressed in Sheppard v. Murphy, 16 W. R. 948, support, or tend to support, the doctrine that a purchaser must be considered bound though he cannot register. As we have previously stated, we think it will be found on an examination, of these cases, that they scarcely support the doctrine in question, and we propose now to look at each decision seriatim. Taylor v. Stray decides that a broker on the London Stock Exchange, purchasing bank shares for his principal, is justified in paying for them on the execution of the transfer and delivery of the certificates by the transferor, although, before the settling day the bank stops payment, and the principal, repudiates the transaction, and that accordingly, after such payment, the broker can recover the amount against his principal. In Stray v. Russell, the purchaser of the bank shares, the subject of dispute in the last mentioned case, having by the decision in that case been compelled to repay his broker the purchase money, sought to recover the same against the vendor. The plaintiff alleged, first, under the common count that the vendor had received the purchase money to his (the plaintiff's) use; and, second, under a special count, that it was agreed that the plaintiff should buy, and that the defendant should sell, and cause to be transferred the bank shares in question, averring that all things had been performed by the plaintiff to entitle him to the performance by the defendant of his contract. The evidence showed that the transfer and certificates had been handed over to the plaintiff, that he did not execute any transfer, although a transfer was tendered, and that the directors of the company (who had power to withhold their consent to the registration of a transfer) refused an application for the preparation of a transfer to the plaintiff. It was the usual though not the universal practice of the office to prepare the requisite transfers, and it did not clearly appear that the refusal of the directors to permit the registration of the transferee's name was final and absolute. Under these circumstances the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, unanimously held, that, having regard to the practice of the Stock Exchange, "there was no understanding on the part of the vendor to make a title to these shares by obtaining the consent of the directors of the bank to their transfer," the court thought" at most he was to obtain it only in the usual way and by the usual means," and that the special count therefore failed, “first, by reason of its not stating the contract accurately, and also by reason of the purchaser not being ready and willing to accept;" and with respect to the common count, the court thought that it also failed because "the vendor was not bound to take the steps necessary to obtain the transfer of the shares." Of these cases it is, perhaps, enough to say, first, that they were cases in which the winding-up of a company was not involved, and therefore apply only by analogy to a transfer in a company winding-up under that Act, and secondly, that the purchaser failed to prove the impossibility of his obtaining registration. It should, however, be admitted that certain dicta of the late Chief Justice Lord Campbell and Chief Baron Pollock in these cases are in favour of the proposition that, even if such impossibility existed the purchaser would not be able to recover. In Chapman v. Shepherd and Whitehead and others v. Izod, the defendants had employed stockbrokers to purchase shares in Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited); after the purchase was made, and before the settling day, a petition was presented to wind-up the company, on which an order was made after the settling day; the defendants having refused to accept the transfer or pay for the shares, the brokers, on receipt of the certificates and duly executed transfers, paid for the shares, and then brought actions against their principals for the amount so paid. It was held that the brokers were entitled to recover. The defendants relied on sect. 153 of the Companies' Act 1862, which enacts that when any company is being wound-up by or subject to the supervision of the court, transfers of shares made between the commencement of the winding-up, i.e., under sect. 84, the time of the presentation of the petition, and the order for winding-up, shall, unless the court otherwise order, be void. But the Court of Common Pleas, considering that the Court of Chancery had a discretion under these sections as to the registration of transfers, and relying on Emmerson's case, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 746, held that the transfers could not be considered absolutely void. In Biederman v. Stone, the plaintiff, a member of the Stock Exchange, had been employed by defendant to sell shares in Overend, Gurney, and Co. The contract was to be completed on a settling day, which occurred after the commencement of a voluntary winding-up, which was afterwards continued under the supervision of the court, and the defendant contended on demurrer that he was not obliged to execute a transfer, because the same, without the sanction of the liquidators, or of the Court of Chancery, under sect. 131 or 153 of the Companies Act 1862, would be wholly nugatory. It was held that the vendor was bound to execute the transfer valeat quantum, and the demurrer was overruled. Mr. Justice Keating remarking, "It is unnecessary to say what will be the position of the plaintiff if he is unable to obtain the assent of the liquidator, but the defendant has contracted to execute a transfer, and he must perform his contract." Thus, on a review of the five cases above mentioned, it is evident that the vendor or purchaser endeavouring to recede from his contract failed to show that at the settling day or other time fixed for the payment of the purchase-money, and the execution of the transfer, there was an absolute impossibility of the transaction being finally completed by the registration of the transfer. Even if it should appear by the uniform course of further decisions that in a winding-up by or under the supervision of the Court of Chancery the court is unable or invariably declines to substitute or sanction the substitution of the name of the transferee for that of the transferor on the register, or as a contributory, it appears to us that the cases of Chapman v. Sheppard, Whitehead v. Izod, and Biederman v. Stone, were rightly decided, because in these cases no winding-up order had been made before the time when it became the duty of the vendor to transfer, and of the purchaser to pay for, the shares and accept a transfer; and it could never be allowed that the mere presentation of a petition for winding-up, which might have been with-istration of assets under it is properly in bankdrawn or dismissed should excuse the purchaser. ruptcy, and that from that administration the If an actual order for winding-up had been jurisdiction of this court is excluded." The made before the time fixed for completion, the learned Vice-Chancellor considered it hardly case might have been different, since it could necessary to add that there are abundant scarcely be held that a purchaser was bound to reasons why it is very expedient, where an pay for shares and go through an idle ceremony administration of trusts and the distribution of of accepting a transfer, if he could show that it property under deeds such as these is in queswas clearly impossible for the vendor to confer tion, that there should be one exclusive and not the legal ownership; we say, advisedly, if he two concurrent jurisdictions. could show, because he would have to make out not only that the view of Lord Justice Lord Cairns, in Ward v. Henry, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 254, viz., that the power of the court of rectifying the register under the 35th section of the Companies Act 1862 is confined to cases in which the register requires rectification through some default on the part of the company, must be considered as law in opposition to the contrary view expressed by the late Lord Justice, Sir George Turner, in the same case, but also that the court had not authority, either inherently or under any other section of the Act, to rectify the register. In point of fact we think the purchaser would succeed in showing that Lord Cairns's view is the correct one (See LAW TIMES, vol. xliii. p. 39), and that the court, apart from the 35th section, had no inherent or other authority to alter the register in order to give effect to transfers which were not sent in for registration before the winding-up order was made. Where, under the combined operation of the 153rd or the 131st and 84th sections, the court in relation to the sanction of the registration of transfers in the interval between the petition and the winding-up order, has an undoubted discretion (see Emmerson's case, ubi sup.) it appears to us that however rare may be the in stances in which the court will think fit to exer cise that discretion, it would still be the duty of the contracting parties to take all necessary steps towards obtaining the sanction of the court; and on this ground as well as on the ground before mentioned, viz., that at the time fixed for the completion of the contract it could not be presumed that the petition would not be withdrawn or dismissed, we think that the vendor cannot claim to be excused from making and the purchaser from accepting a transfer. As we have said before, there appears to be no reason for impugning the five cases before discussed; on the contrary, they seem to us to have been rightly decided; but to support or countenance very little, if at all, the extensive conclusions which Vice-Chancellor Sir R. Mlins, and. Lord Justice Christian, considered might fairly be deduced from them. THE BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY. HAS the Court of Chancery power to deal with a breach of trust by the trustees of a creditors' deed? In June of last year the case of Bell v. Bird, was decided (L. Rep. 6 Eq. 635; 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 901), and that case went to this extent that the administration of the trusts of such a deed, which has been assented to and registered, so as to render it valid and binding under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, s. 192, belongs exclusively to the Court of Bankruptcy. That case, it is to be noticed, was argued on its merits, it being admitted that the questions raised were, whether on the one hand the Court of Chancery has concurrent jurisdiction to administer the trusts of such a deed, as between the creditors, the debtors, and the trustees; or whether, on the other, the administration of those trusts within the limits of the deed does not appertain exclusively to the Court of Bankruptcy. In deciding these questions, Vice-Chancellor Giffard considered what was the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the Bankruptcy Acts. "By the 6th section of the Act of 1849," he said "the Court of Bankruptcy is continued as a court of law and equity." He then reviews sects. 192 to 200 of the Act of 1861. "If," he continued, "there had been a bankruptcy, the property and trusts sought to be administered here, could have been administered exclusively in bankruptcy, and could not have been administered here. The enactment is that the debtor, and creditors and trustees, shall have the benefit of, and be liable to, the provisions of the Act in the same manner as if the debtor had been adjudged bankrupt; and this being so, I am of opinion that the deed is a substitution for bankruptcy, that the admin Judging from this it would appear to have been the Vice-Chancellor's clear opinion that trustees under deeds within the Act of 1861 could not be made amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery for any breach of trust which they might commit. Taking this to be so, the opinion is distinctly at variance with the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, in a case reported by us last week (p. 474). The latter learned Judge attempts to draw a distinction between Martin v. Powning, decided by himself, and Bell v. Bird, but if he were successful in drawing the distinction, he differs from ViceChancellor Giffard as to the expediency of having two concurrent jurisdictions. We will first see if we can follow him in the distinction which he draws. 66 Here," he said, "the trustees have been empowered, among other things, to carry on a business which may involve a question of complicated accounts." With the greatest possible deference, we do not see that the complication or otherwise of accounts should settle a jurisdiction. But even if this were to be allowed, there is no very great distinction to be drawn between Martin v. Powning and Bell v. Bird. In the former the bill was filed against the trustees of the deed accusing them of a breach of trust, and praying that the trusts of the deed might be carried into execution by the court; that accounts might be taken, and that in taking such accounts the trustees might be disallowed certain profits alleged to have been made by them out of the trusts. In Bell v. Bird, the bill prayed that the trusts of the deed might be carried into execution under the decree of the court; for an account of the moneys received under the trusts of the deed by the trustees, and of the application thereof; that the trustees might personally answer the balance appearing due upon such accounts; and for the realisation and application under the direction of the court of of the deed. We must confess that upon the the real and personal estate, subject to the trusts face of the cases there is not much distinction between them; but possibly the learned ViceChancellor may have found in Martin v. Powning some matters of complication which he conceived did not exist in Bell v. Bird. But he based his decision on another ground. He said that in Bell v. Bird there was nothing to show that the Court of Bankruptcy could not do complete justice between the parties. Then his only reason for this statement is that the accounts are complicated. We must say we cannot recognise this as any ground whatever for taking a matter out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy. If the Court of Bankruptcy is to have jurisdiction over all matters relating to deeds under the Act of 1861, it should be allowed to deal with complicated as well as with simple cases. Then we come to the question of the expediency or otherwise of concurrent jurisdictions. Vice-Chancellor Stuart considered, and with evident satisfaction, that the weight of the authorities leans to the existence of such concurrent jurisdiction between the Courts of Chancery and Bankruptcy. But the learned Vice-Chancellor does not go into particulars of the cases. Indeed he says: "No doubt there are cases in which the Lord Chancellor for the time being, sitting, not in equity, but in bankruptcy, has apparently arrived at his decision on principles closely analogous to those of equity. No doubt also, sitting in bankruptcy, he has punished assignees." Had these cases been specifically referred to, we might possibly have found that the weight of authority does not so clearly lean in favour of a concurrent jurisdiction as the Vice-Chancellor assumes. But then he says that there are other cases in which the Lord Chancellor, sitting in bankruptcy, has directed a bill to be filed in the Court of Chancery. We very much doubt the value of these cases for the purposes for which they are mentioned. We will take one mentioned by the Vice-Chancellor, namely, Riches v. Owen, L. Rep. 3 Ch. App. 820. Speaking |