Stimson, Old Kent-road, Surrey, shoemaker, July 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Eden Clark and Henry Bleackley, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Lancashire, ironmongers, July 6 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; July 14 at 12, div.-Charles Lucas, Richard Wilkinson, and Edward Bond, Manchester, and Hayfield, Derbyshire, calico printers, July 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac. sep. est. of Charles Lucas and Richard Wilkinson.-John Nicholson, Sheffield, Yorkshire, surgeon, July 3 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, aud. ac.-Henry D. Wilkinson, Sheffield, Yorkshire, silver plater, July 3 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, aud. ac.-George W. Hinchliffe, Sheffield, Yorkshire, manufacturer, July 3 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, aud. ac.-Wm. Tennant, Chertsey, Surrey, draper, July 13 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.Wm. M. Hill, Charlton-place, Islington, Middlesex, builder, July 13, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Wm. Francis Harris, Friday-street, Cheapside, London, Manchester warehouseman, July 13 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, fin. div.-Charles Boldero, Edward G. Boldero, Sir Henry Lushington, Bart., and Henry Boldero, Cornhill, London, bankers, July 13 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. joint est., and fin. div. sep. est. of Sir H. Lushington.-P. Summers, Tabernacle-walk, Finsbury, Middlesex, fancy printer, July 15 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-George Pryde, David Jones, and John Gibb, Liverpool, sail makers, July 13 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div. sep. est. of D. Jones.

CERTIFICATES.

To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting.

John Warren, Old Brentford, Middlesex, manufacturer of brass, July 15 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Roberts, Minories, London, grocer, July 13 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. T. Gibson, High-st., Islington, Middlesex, baker, July 13 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. Loder, Wokingham, Berkshire, innkeeper, July 13 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Stafford, West Smithfield, London, tailor, July 13 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Alexander M'Kerrow, Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire, draper, July 28 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull.

ham, Gloucestershire, chemist, Aug. 24 at 10, County Court
of Gloucestershire, at Cheltenham.-Peter Harvey, Barras
ford, near Hexham, Northumberland, shoemaker, July 19 at
half-past 11, County Court of Northumberland, at Hexham.
Charles Henry Reading, Alvechurch, Worcestershire,
butcher, July 17 at 10, County Court of Worcestershire, at
Redditch.-George Groutage, Birmingham, shovel maker,
June 26 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Bir
mingham.
The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed
in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection
from Process, are required to appear in Court as herein.
after mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street,
Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with
according to the Statute:-

July 7 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. George Blakley, Keppel-mews North, Russell-square, Middlesex, cab proprietor.

July 7 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. Wm. Smith, Wood-street, Cheapside, London, fishing rod manufacturer.

Saturday, June 19.

Assignees have been appointed in the following Cases. Further particulars may be learned at the Office, in Portugalstreet, Lincoln's-inn-fields, on giving the Number of the Case.

Lewis Jones, Festiniog, Merionethshire, quarryman, No. 61,447 C.; Evan Griffith, assignee.-Joseph Ramsden, Lepton, near Huddersfield, Yorkshire, woollen spinner, No. 75,027 C.; John Sykes and Henry Broughton Dyson, assignees.— Arthur North, Shelf, near Halifax, Yorkshire, farmer, No. 75,135 C.; Wm. Watson Greenwood, assignee.-James Howarth, Huntley Brook, near Bury, Lancashire, druggist, No. 72,856 C.; James Howorth, assignee. -James Hirst Hepworth, Alverthorpe, Yorkshire, commercial traveller, No. 74,854 C.; Launcelot Cuthbert, assignee.-John Priestley, Ovenden, near Halifax, Yorkshire, farmer, No. 75,114 C.; Jonas Holgate, assignee.-Thomas Cowgill, Bradford, York. shire, grocer, No. 74,997 C.; George Northwood, assignee.Josiah Helliwell, Mirfield, near Dewsbury, Yorkshire, brewer, No. 75,112 C.; John Kilner, assignee.-Edmund Shepherd, Rochdale, Lancashire, cotton spinner, No. 70,416 C.; Luke Smith, assignee.-Joseph Lord, Hulme, Manchester, machine maker, No. 75,133 C.; Thomas Price, assignee.-Jas. PriestOvenden, near Halifax, Yorkshire, farmer, No. 75,113 C.; Jonas Holgate, assignee.

To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered.
Wm. Abram Cogar, Newgate-st., London, and Quadrant,
Regent-st., Middlesex, boot dealer.-Chas. Moody, Goswell-ley,
road, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, pork butcher.-Richd. Howton
Cuming, Lamb's Conduit-street, Middlesex, bookseller.
Henry Norman Barnes, Margaretting, Essex, milkman.
Peter Wootton the elder and Peter Wootton the younger,
Margate, Kent, grocers.-Edward Pownall, Ipswich, Suffolk,
and Harwich, Essex, ship owner.-Henry Hayman, Ottery
St. Mary, Devonshire, apothecary.-Christopher Steadman
and Chas. Siddall Bakewell, Manchester, joiners.-William
Thompson Adcock, Manchester, hotel keeper.

FIAT ANNUlled.

Thomas Wenman, Birmingham, merchant.

PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.

Duncan Black, deceased, Glasgow, spirit dealer.-George Proudfoot and Wm. Crowl, Inverness, builders.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS

Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from

Saturday, June 19.

Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee
the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:—
(On their own Petitions).

Samuel Yates, Woolwich, Kent, grocer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-James Chapman, Leadenhall-street, London, licensed victualler: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Nicholas Devereux, Beresfordstreet, Walworth, Surrey, clerk in the Fire Insurance Dutyoffice of the Inland Revenue: in the Debtors Prison for London Edward Bloxsome the younger and Thos. Atkins, Dursley, Chelsea, Middlesex, grocer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William Pollard, Glebe-place, King's-road, Gloucestershire, attornies and solicitors. and Middlesex. - Theodore Guérin, Wardour-street, Soho, Wanstead, Essex, farmer: in the Queen's Prison.-Charles Middlesex, artist: in the Queen's Prison.-Thomas Smith, Lovis Kelly, Woolwich, Kent, grocer in the Queen's Prison. -Richard Watkins the younger, Clapham-road, St. Paul'sterrace, Lower-road, Islington, Middlesex, tailor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William Udell, Skinner-street, Bishopsgate-street, London, cabinet maker: Jos. Drake Hawkes, Holt, Norfolk, land surveyor, July 6 in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Thomas at 10, County Court of Norfolk, at Holt.-Thomas Williams, Hitchcock Harwood, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, grocer: in the Kidderminster, Worcestershire, out of business, July 21 at 10, Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John Goodwin, County Court of Worcestershire, at Kidderminster.-Philip Godstone, Surrey, grocer in the Gaol of Surrey.-William Williams, Newtown, near Cardiff, Glamorganshire, blacksmith, Taverner Palmer, Compton-mews, Canonbury, Islington, July 12 at 10, County Court of Glamorganshire, at Cardiff.— Middlesex, commission agent in the Debtors Prison for LonThomas Andrews, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, dealer in don and Middlesex.-Chas. Cooper, Swan-lane, Rotherhithe, shoes, June 26 at 12, County Court of Staffordshire, at Wol- Surrey, cheesemonger: in the Debtors Prison for London and verhampton.-Enoch Evans, Bilston, Staffordshire, out of Middlesex.-John Morgan, City-road, Middlesex, hotel keeper: business, June 26 at 12, County Court of Staffordshire, at in the Queen's Prison.-Francis David Lewis, Regent-street, Wolverhampton.-John Chapman, Loughborough, Leicester- Bow-road, Mile-end, Middlesex, printer: in the Debtors shire, officer of excise, July 5 at 10, County Court of Leices- Prison for London and Middlesex.—John Belsham, Edgewaretershire, at Loughborough.-Emma Kitsell, widow, Chelten-road, Middlesex, shoemaker: in the Debtors Prison for London

Process.

July 6 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Edward Fenemore, High-street, Egham, Surrey, tailor.— M. G. Duke, Cannon-row, Westminster, Middlesex, law sta- WESTERN LIFE ASSURANCE and ANNUITY SO

NEW LAW OF WILLS.-Messrs. Wildy & Sons beg to announce 49 now ready, price 6d., the WILLS ACT AMEND CLERICAL, MEDICAL, and GENERAL LIFE AS

LONDON, JULY 3, 1852.

562
564

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

PRICE 18.

Great Northern Railway Company v. Harrison and
Others. (Implied Covenant-Construction-Con-
dition precedent-Readiness and Willingness).... 565
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Schreger v. Carden.-(Trespass-Payment into Court
-Admission by)

.....

REGISTRATION APPEAL CASES.

Burton, App., Brooks, Resp.-Burton, App., Cove, Resp.-(Parliament-Signing Case-6 Vict. c. 18, 8. 42-Dissenting Minister-County Vote-Evidence)

....

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

568

569

Dwyer v. Collins.-(Privileged Communication-At-
torney and Client-Notice to produce Documents) 569
COURT OF ADMIRALTY.

The Florence.-(Ship abandoned at Sea-Salvage by
Part of her Crew)

.....

572

although it was not expressly alleged that the action was one over which the county court had cognisance, THE principal cases which have recently occupied the yet that the jurisdiction of the court sufficiently apattention of the Court of Criminal Appeal have been peared from the allegation that the action was pending cases of perjury, and the tendency of the decisions with in the court and came on to be tried, and that the judge regard to this most dangerous of all offences has been had sufficient and competent authority to administer to uphold convictions upon substantial grounds, and the oath. A remarkable case upon this branch of the not to permit them to be reversed upon formal and law is the case of Reg. v. Phillpotts, (16 Jur., part 1, technical objections*. The indictment for perjury has p. 67; 21 L. J., M. C., 18). There, in an action of ejectbeen simplified by one of Lord Campbell's Acts, (14 & ment, it became material to shew that J. died before 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 20), whereby it is rendered sufficient a particular person; and with a view to prove the proto set forth the substance of the offence charged upon bate of J.'s will, P. falsely swore that he had exathe defendant, and by what Court or before whom the mined an entry on the copy of the will, which he oath was taken, without setting forth any part of any produced, with the entry of the act book of the Eccleproceeding either in law or in equity, and without siastical Court of L. The document was not legally setting forth the commission or authority of the Court admissible as evidence of the probate, and was ultior person before whom the offence was committed. mately withdrawn; but the Court held, upon an inShortly before the passing of this act the form of an dictment against P. for the perjury, that as the probate indictment for the offence in question was considered would have been evidence material to the issue, and the in Lavey v. Reg. (21 L. J., M. C., 10). The indict- document was offered as proof of the probate, and ment, in substance, stated that in the Whitechapel P.'s statements were made with a view to procure County Court, holden at &c., before Manning, Serjt., the admission of the document in evidence, his testhen and there being the judge of the said court, an timony was sufficiently material to support a convicaction on contract, then pending between &c., came on tion for perjury. Lord Campbell, C. J., in delivering to be, and was in due form of law tried, by and before the judgment of the Court, said, "The question of perthe said judge, upon which trial the perjury was com-jury or no perjury cannot be made to depend upon the mitted. It was held that it sufficiently appeared that the court was one established under the County Court Act, as it was called a county court; and it appeared that the trial took place before one judge, and that

decision of a superior Court on a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the judge. We are of opinion, that as the evidence was given in a judicial proceeding, with a view to let in the document, and that document being material, and that evidence being false, all the ingredients are present necessary to constitute the crime of perjury."

In Reg. v. Newman (16 Jur., part 1, p. 111 21 L. J., M. C., 75) the perjury had been committed in a trial

for a misdemeanour at the Central Criminal Court, and the defendant was indicted there for the offence. To prove the fact of the former trial, the officer of the court produced the indictment, with the indorsement thereon of the prisoner's plea, the verdict, and the sentence, together with minutes of the trial made by the officer of the court. This was held sufficient, without producing a record or certificate of the trial under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 13, and the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 22. The Court said that the simple fact of trial was alleged, and that there was not any allegation of matter of record, and that all the minutes from which the certificate would have been made up were produced by the officer who would have had to make it up.

The question how far the evidence of one witness must be corroborated by another upon a trial for perjury, so as to satisfy the rule requiring two witnesses, was discussed in Reg. v. Boulter, (16 Jur., part 1, p. 135; 21 L. J., M. C., 57).

that the false swearing was perjury. (And see Reg. v.
Brisby, 1 Den. C. C. 416; 13 Jur., part 1, p. 520).
We shall continue this review of criminal cases in
our next number.

CONSTRUCTIVE REVOCATION OF DEVISE
OF AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION BY
TAKING A RECONVEYANCE TO USES TO
BAR DOWER.

(Continued from p. 199).

But it is said that in any of these excepted cases, if the conveyance extends to any purpose, however limited, beyond the purpose allowed by the exception, a revocation is effected. (Harmood v. Oglander, 8 Ves. 106, 128). There is little other authority than Har that doctrine, which is obviously untenable in prinmood v. Oglander and Hodges v. Green (4 Russ. 28) for ciple. A conveyance strictly limited to the particular purpose, (as granting a life estate, a jointure, or a lease), without conveying the fee, would not have revoked the devise; and there is no reason why it should do so when it is effected by the same instrument, the making of a mortgage or partition, or the taking which, for another purpose within the exception, (i. e. home of a legal estate, or the performance of articles, &c.), requires a conveyance in fee. There is no autho rity for such a proposition at law. In Tickner v. Tickextended to the inheritance, and modified the entire for life by separate deeds would not have revoked the estate of the testator; but a mere partition and a lease devise, nor is there the slightest ground for saying that they would do so, merely because they were effected by the same deed.

The perjury assigned was, that the defendant swore that only one quarter's rent was due from him in June, 1851. The prosecutor stated that five quarters were then due. His son stated, that in August, 1850, the defendant told him that three or four quarters' rent was then due. This was held insufficient corroboration, as what the son deposed to was equally con-ner, the only case at law, the power of appointment sistent with the truth of the defendant's, statement as with that of the prosecutor. It is obvious, that between August, 1850, and June, 1851, the defendant might have paid off the arrears, so as to leave only one quarter's rent due on the latter date. The Court, without laying down any general rule, said—" There must be something in the case to make the oath of the prosecutor preferable, upon the whole, to the oath of the prisoner." The rule laid down in the text-books is, that although the evidence of one witness is not sufficient to convict a defendant of perjury, yet it must not be supposed that two witnesses are necessary to disprove the fact sworn to by the defendant; for if any material circumstance be proved by other witnesses, in confirmation of the witness who gives the direct testimony of perjury, it may turn the scale, and warrant a conviction. (2 Russ. Cr., by Greaves, 650).

It was suggested by Coleridge, J., that if a person was indicted for perjury, for swearing that he was not at Plymouth at a particular day, and one witness deposed that he saw him at Plymouth on that day, and another swore that he saw him on the same day in the railway train going to Plymouth, between Plymouth and the station nearest to Plymouth, it would be sufficient.

In Reg. v. Cooke, (16 Jur., part 1, p. 434; 21 L. J., M. C., 136), on the hearing of an application for a bastardy order before justices, a witness gave false evidence material to the inquiry. A similar application against the same party for the same matter had been previously heard, and dismissed on the merits. It was thereupon contended that the magistrates had no jurisdiction to decide upon the second application, and therefore that the false swearing could not amount to perjury; but the Court of Appeal held that, whether the dismissal of the first application was conclusive or not by way of defence, the justices on the second inquiry had jurisdiction to try the case, and therefore

In Hodges v. Green (4 Russ. 28) the testator, after making his will, conveyed the devised estate to trustees, upon trust, by sale or mortgage, to raise money to pay certain debts, and to be possessed of the surplus proceeds of any sale, in trust for himself, his executors and administrators, as personal estate, and to be seised of the unsold hereditaments, in trust for him, his heirs and the produce of the timber in keeping down the and assigns. Until a sale they were to apply the rents interest on a certain mortgage, and in paying an an nuity to his wife for her separate use. This was held to be a revocation, expressly on the ground of the trust for the annuity. This case must stand or fall with Harmood v. Oglander.

after the date of his will, conveyed to trustees, in trust In Nott v. Shirley (2 Ves. jun. 604, note) the testator, during his life, by mortgage or otherwise, to provide for his debts, and apply the rents and profits to certain pur poses, and after his death to convey to such persons as he should by deed or by his last will appoint. The it was decided to be a revocation. This decision cannot counsel for the devisees declined to argue the point, and be treated as an authority of much value, and it is uncertain whether it was founded on the trusts declared of the surplus rents or on the power of appointment. If on the former, it is to be classed with Harmood v. Oglander; if on the latter, it stands alone, and would even beyond the recent decision in Plowden v. Hyde, be the only authority for a proposition which, going has been maintained by some conveyancers, that a mere direction in a mortgage to reconvey to uses to bar dower, is a revocation of a prior devise, notwithstanding that prior to the mortgage the estate stood limited to be taken to have been overruled by Temple v. Chandos the like uses. But so construed, Nott v. Shirley must and Brain v. Brain.

In Temple v. Chandos (3 Ves. 686) the testator, after his will, made a mortgage in fee of his Somersetshire estates, and subsequently conveyed them to trustees,