LONDON, MARCH 20, 1852. KIE mode of ascertaining the rateable value of a portion of railway in any given parish has long been, and, notwithstanding the recent judgment in the case of Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company, (16 Jur., part 1, p. 217), still continues to be, vexata quæstio. The truth, perhaps, is, that the matters in dispute are not properly questions of law, but involve the consideration of the principle on which that portion of the profit which is the subject-matter of rate is to be calculated, so as to confine it to the local earnings. The law on the subject is exceedingly well digested, and stated with great perspicuity, in Mr. Hodgson's Treatise on Railway Rating. The first cases in which the subject engaged the attention of the Court (Reg. v. The London and Southwestern Railway Company, 1 Q. B. 558; 2 G. & D. 53; 6 Jur., part 1, p. 686; and Reg. v. The Grand Junction Railway Company, 4 Q. B. 18; Dav. & M. 237; 8 Jur., part 1, p. 508) were for the most part confined to a consideration of whether the rateable valne should be calculated on the tolls authorised to be taken under the Railway Acts, or on the value of the land occupied for the purposes of a railway. It is, perhaps, to be regretted that the Court felt themselves compelled to adopt the latter alternative, as the former presented a ready and substantially a just mode of rating, without involving the necessity of dissecting the accounts of railway companies in order to ascertain the profit of trade, the deduction of which from the local earnings is in practice the great embarrassment in arriving at the rateable value of any given portion of a line of railway. The next case, Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Beer v. Beer.-(Action of Account-Lease by Tenants in common-Apportionment). Brenchley v. Lynn.-(A Codicil revoking all Testamentary Instruments is entitled to Probate-Evidence of Execution).... 222 223 226 Company, (the first Tilehurst case), (6 Q. B. 179, 203; 10 Jur., part 1, pp. 134, 138), involved the allowance of certain deductions only. It was there assumed that the annual parochial earnings, minus the annual expenses and trade profit, calculated at an uniform rate per mile over the whole railway, constituted the rateable value of the portion in the particular parish. The parochial earnings are always ascertainable, the charge for carriage of passengers and parcels being a mileage charge; they therefore depend on the traffic, which is always at one uniform amount per mile between station and station; although, as the traffic between some stations is greater than that between others, they are not at one uniform rate per mile throughout the railway, but vary with the traffic. The amount, however, with which they are to be debited, in respect of the annual expenditure and the profit of trade, is a matter, perhaps, incapable of being ascertained with perfect accuracy, and an approximation to it only can be arrived at by calculation. To deduct from the earnings of every mile of railway the same amount as representing the annual expenditure and the profit of trade on such earnings, is manifestly unjust; because it assumes, not only that the expenditure is the same, but that the profit is as great where the traffic is least as where it is greatest, whereas many items of expenditure depend upon the traffic; and it is clear that the profit of trade must have an immediate relation to the traffic receipts. A mileage division, therefore, of the expenditure and trade profits, can never be just except where the traffic is equal over the whole line, or a mileage division of the receipts is admitted by consent of the parties. In the subsequent case of Reg. v. The London, Brighton, and South-coast Railway Company (15 Q. B. 313; 15 Jur., part 1, p. 372) the question was directly raised, whether the rate should be based on the actual parochial earnings or on a mileage division of the whole receipts; and the Court decided that the rate must be made on the gross profits earned by so much of the railway as lies within the parish, deducting therefrom the expense incurred in respect of that portion of the railway. On the first view the principle here laid down appears as easy of application as it is clearly defined. The local earnings, minus the local expenses, give the local net profits; and such profits, minus the tenant's profits including the profit on trade, give the rateable value. The Court, however, did not intimate any opinion how such expenses are to be ascertained, nor did those cases raise any such question. But it is clear that there is this preliminary inquiry-are all expenses local? If not, with what proportion of such expenses as are not local is the local traffic to be debited? Now, the expenses to which a railway is subject are ordinarily comprised under the following heads:-1. Manage ment. 2. Maintenance of way. 3. Locomotive power. 4. Carriages. 5. Repairs and other expenses of stations and buildings. 6. Parochial and public taxes. Without stopping to attempt a division of the local from the general expenses, it is clear that some of them are not local charges. The next case which came before the Court, Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company, (the second Tilehurst case), (16 Jur., part 1, p. 217), involved a consideration of this question. The parish there commenced their calculation by ascertaining what would be the rateable value of the whole railway if it were wholly situate in one and the same parish. The half-yearly accounts of receipts and expenditure furnished by the company to their proprietors render the provisions of the Parochial Assessment Act easily applicable to such a consideration, there being, as it appears to us, no more practical difficulty in ascertaining from those data what a tenant would give to rent a railway than what he would give to rent a farm. It becomes, however, necessary to deduct therefrom the rateable value of the stations, because, in practice, they are rated separately from the line, and their annual value, instead of being a source of profit, in sense of receipt, is a charge upon the traffic. This deduction being made, the rateable value of the line of road was ascertained. The returns of the company furnished two other data, namely, the actual annual receipts from the local traffic in the parish, and the actual annual receipts from the traffic of the whole line. Taking these data, the parish concluded that the rateable value of the portion of the line in the parish bore the same proportion to the rateable value of the whole line that the local receipts bore to the whole receipts. This was, in effect, to say that none of the expenses are, properly speaking, local, but that the general expenditure is a charge on the local traffic, and that it is to be apportioned in the ratio which the local bears to the general traffic. The case came before the Court in the shape of an award, the question between the company and the parish having been referred to their respective counsel to state the facts on which the Court might determine the rateable value. It was argued in Trinity Term of last year, and the Court appear to have felt the difficulty of distinguishing between local and general expenses. (See Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company, 15 Q. B. 386, note (a)). They did not, however, give any judgment in the first instance, but confined themselves to a general statement of the difficulties involved in the case, expressing a hope that before the next term Parliament might interfere to relieve them from the difficult position in which they were placed when called upon to administer the existing law with respect to the rating of railways. (See 16 Jur., part 1, p. 219, note). In the following vacation the very able pamphlet of Mr. Smirke was published, in which the difficulties which beset the subject are stated with great fairness. We shall avail ourselves largely of his views, because his great experience gives the weight of authority to whatever he advances. His opinions with regard to local expenses so coincide with our own, that we shall state them in his own words. "The division of fares or freight by a mileage in each parish, or intermediate fraction of the permanent way, however convenient, is purely conventional; and as to the expenses, at least four-fifths of the current sources of expense have no attribute of locality at all, and cannot be referred to any particular part of the railway." (Vide p. 14 and the note, which further limits the local expenses). We also agree with him that the publication of their accounts exposes the property of railway companies to a higher rate of assessment than that which affects other descriptions of property in the parish. His proposition, by way of remedy for the existing uncertainty and inequality of the assessment, is, that the net annual value of the entire railway should be divided in the ratio of the traffic between station and station throughout the line, and that the resulting sums should be subdivided in the ratio of the area occupied by the company in each parish between station and station. He also proposes that one-third of the net receipts of the railway should be considered to be the rateable value of the entire railway, to be appor tioned in the same manner between the inter-stational divisions of the railway, and then subdivided in the ratio of the area occupied by the company in each parish. Thus the rateable value of the entire railway would be to the rateable value of the inter-stational portion as the traffic of the whole railway to the traffic between such two stations; and the rateable value of the portion of the railway in any parish between such stations would be to the rateable value of the interstational portion as the area in that parish is to the whole inter-stational area. In this mode it becomes unnecessary to separate the rateable value of the stations from that of the line of railway. Whether this is altogether just will be afterwards considered; but, with this exception, the mode proposed by Mr. Smirke does not essentially differ from that adopted by the respondents in the second Tilehurst But this is the very principle contended for by the parish in the Tilehurst case; and we believe, with Mr. Smirke, that it is "an assumption to a great extent well founded in fact," that it affords the closest approximation to the absolute net profit of any given portion of a railway; that it is "a natural and rational, though arbitrary method of surmounting an admitted difficulty;" and that it is "unjust to no party." taken in the ratio of the gross receipts, which vary between station and station, and are equal only in those parishes which lie between the same inter-stational spaces. It is the more remarkable that the Court should have come to this conclusion, as they subsequently notice the statement that the gross receipts are not at one uniform rate per mile throughout the entire railway. But if they are not, then the effect of the proportion stated by the Court will be, not to strike off off from the gross receipts of the whole, but a part from them an aliquot part of the sum which is struck The amount to be deducted in respect of tenant's profits, including the profit of trade, is a question of fact to be determined upon the evidence of those expe-proportionate to the traffic. rienced in such valuations. Whether Mr. Smirke has allowed too much or too little under this head we do not undertake to determine; but we agree with him that such profit must be calculated upon the entire railway. The annual value of the stations is a charge upon all traffic proceeding from or arriving at such stations; it is an expense necessary to earn such traffic. To debit, therefore, the traffic between station and station with the expense of the stations lying within the area occupied by that portion of the railway would be manifestly unjust, because a portion of the traffic proceeding from such stations passes beyond such inter-stational space. For instance, the expense of the whole goods and passenger stations at Paddington would be a charge upon the fares earned between Paddington and the first station out of London, although the major portion of the traffic emanating from that station would pass far beyond. It appears to us, therefore, that it is nearer the truth, though not absolutely accurate, to consider the expense of stations a general charge on the whole traffic, and an item of deduction from the general receipts. This also is in accordance with the judgment of the Court in the case of Reg. v. The Hammersmith Bridge Company, (15 Q. B. 369; 13 Jur., part 1, p. 190*). We have thought a statement of the previous decisions, and the suggestions of Mr. Smirke, necessary to an examination of the judgment which the Court finally gave in the second Tilehurst case; because we can only understand it on the supposition, that the counsel for the respondents did not succeed in making the Court fully comprehend the statement of their case. The Court say, (16 Jur., part 1, p. 222), "The respondents have taken the deductions at the same rate for every mile of the railway; for they say, 'as the gross receipts of one mile to the gross receipts of the whole, so the rateable value of one mile to the rateable value of the whole.' This is, in effect, to strike off from the gross receipts of a mile an aliquot part of the sum which is struck off from the gross receipts of the whole, and assumes, at least, that the expenses are at one uniform rate throughout the whole line." This is evidently not the case; the deductions are "If the entirety of the works can be divided into two parts, the first directly producing the value, and the second indirectly conducing to such production, such division should be made. Then all the expenses incidental to the second part, including the rates to which it may be liable, being deducted from the gross proceeds, and the net rateable value being ascertained, such value is to be apportioned among the districts in which the first part, viz. the part directly producing the value, is situate, in the ratio of the proportion of that value produced in each district." (15 Q. B. 377; 13 Jur., part 1, p. 192). por This, for the reasons so well stated by Mr. Smirke, we are disposed to think is the true deduction to be made. In truth, the calculation of the profit of trade compels this mode of apportionment. This, as it appears to us, must be ascertained by a consideration of the result of the whole concern-the total expenditure must be deducted from the total receipts. Each tion of the line is essential to earn, not only the fares paid for passing over that portion alone, but also the fares received from traffic traversing that portion in that the trade profit must be deducted from the whole the course of a longer journey. It follows, therefore, gross receipts, and the local gross receipts are therefore diminished by such deduction in the proportion they bear to the whole receipts. But, if so, the general expenses must also be apportioned in the same ratio. of the company are not in the proportion of the actual The statement in the case," that the actual expenses gross receipts," appears to militate against this apportionment. This is undoubtedly the case. It is well observed by Mr. Smirke, that "receipts are the result of traffic; but the expenses of running a train and repairing the way are the same, or nearly so, whether the carriages be empty or full.” (P. 14). In practice, the expenditure must always be sufficient to support the greatest amount of traffic; but the traffic varies from day to day, and seldom reaches its highest point. But it appears to us that this is consistent with the proposition, that the expenditure with which the earnings of a portion of the line are to be charged bears receipts bear to the whole receipts. the same proportion to the whole expenditure as those THE COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL. Amendment Bill which was brought in by the late The preamble recites the International Copyright Act, (7 & 8 Vict. c. 12), and the late convention between the Crown and the French government. c. 12, which excluded translations of books protected Sect. 1 repeals the 18th section of the 7 & 8 Vict. by that act from its provisions. Sect. 2. Her Majesty may, by order in council, direct that the authors of books to be (after a future time to be mentioned in such order) published in foreign countries may, for a limited time, (not to exceed five years), prevent unauthorised translations. Sect. 3. Thereupon the law of copyright shall extend to prevent such translations. that the authors of dramatic works represented in Sect. 4. Her Majesty may, by order in council, direct foreign countries may, for a limited time, (not to exceed five years), prevent unauthorised translations. Sect. 5. Thereupon the law for protecting the representation of such pieces shall extend to prevent unauthorised translations. Sect. 6. Fair imitations or adaptations of dramatic pieces not to be prevented. Sect. 7. All articles in newspapers and periodicals relating to politics may be republished or translated; also all similar articles on any subject, unless the author has, on the face of the publication, notified his intention to reserve the right. [This clause seems to require the addition, at the end, of the words "published in the same foreign country."] Sect. 8. Conditions to be performed in order to obtain protection for translations: 1. Original to be registered and copy deposited, according to provisions of International Copyright Act, within three months of first publication. 2. Notice of intention to reserve right of translation to be placed on title-page. 3. Authorised translation to be published either in country where original is published or in this country, within a limited time, (to be commenced within one year, and completed within three years, of such registration). 4. Authorised translation to be registered within a time to be limited in order. 5. As to books published in parts, each part to be registered and deposited within three months. 6. As to dramatic pieces, authorised translation to be published within three months of registration of original. 7. Articles in newspapers to be included in the above regulations only if afterwards published in a separate form. [What does this mean?] Sect. 9. Pirated copies not to be imported, and may be seized and destroyed. Sect. 10. Foregoing provisions and International Copyright Act to be read as one act. Sect. 11. French translations to be protected as hereinbefore mentioned, without further order in council. Sect. 12. Rates of duty on French books and engravings (under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 58) not to be raised during treaty with France. If further reduction is made for other countries, it may be extended to France. Sect. 13. Provision for determining to what duty certain works, partly of French and partly of British origin, are subject. Sect. 14. The provisions of 8 Geo. 2, c. 13; 7 Geo. 3, c. 38; 17 Geo. 3, c. 57; and 7 Will. 4, c. 59, are to include lithographs and prints of every kind. [Will this extend to prints of ordinary patterns on calico?] London Gazettes. FRIDAY, MARCH 12. BANKRUPTS. DANIEL KEITH and THOMAS SHOOBRIDGE, Wood. WILLIAM FROST, Macclesfield, Cheshire, silk throwster, JOHN STARK, West Rainton, Durham, grocer, draper, JOHN RYMER, Gateshead, Durham, paper manufacturer, Wm. Knock, Eton, Buckinghamshire, nurseryman, April? at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Wm. Hart. half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Richard ridge, Milton next Sittingbourne, Kent, draper, March 30 at Billing the elder and Richard Billing the younger, Reading, Berkshire, brickmakers, March 26 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex. of R. Billing the elder.-George Cheetham and George William Gill, Strood and Frinsbury, Kent, shipwrights, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac. As the bill is not limited to its principal object, but takes so wide a range as to include the amendment of Isaac Abrahams, Liverpool, tailor, March 25 at 12, District the law relating to engravings, there seems to be no Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-Samuel Glenny, reason why it should not include a general amendment Liverpool, commission merchant, March 25 at 11, District of the law of copyright. Perhaps there is scarcely time Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-J. Roberts, Rhyl, for the preparation of an act in lieu of the very ill- Flintshire, innkeeper, March 25 at 11, District Court of Bankdrawn act of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, incorporating the pro- ruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-John Adams, Halghton, Hanmer, visions of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 65, as to lectures, but Flintshire, cheesefactor, March 23 at 11, District Court of some important amendments might be introduced with- Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-John Cutts, Wolverhamp out much trouble. A crying evil is the want of any Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-A. Davies, ton, Staffordshire, grocer, March 29 at half-past 11, District efficient registry of title to copyrights. As the law Wem, Shropshire, coal merchant, March 23 at half-past 10, now stands, an author may sell or incumber his copy- District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-John right ten times over without it being possible for the Woodhouse, Ripon, draper, March 23 at 11, District Court of parties with whom he treats to discover whether he Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.; April 6 at 11, fin. div.—Robt. has previously dealt with it. A compulsory register Welsh, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, woollen cloth merchant, of title to copyright ought to be established, but the March 25 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac. registry should be under the regulation and responsi-J. F. Gee, Wakefield, Yorkshire, manufacturing chemist, bility of the Government, and not left to the care- March 25 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud.ac.— less superintendence of the Stationers' Company. The James Bell, Leyburn, Yorkshire, draper, March 25 at 11, distinction between engravings and books as to copy-Powell, Kingston, Surrey, draper, April 2 at 11, Court of District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac. Chas. John right, which, as the law stands, is senseless, and raises difficult questions, should be abolished. If a registry next Sandwich, Kent, dealer in hay, April 2 at half-past 11, Bankruptcy, London, div.-William Laslett, Houson, Ash of copyright were established, there could be no objec- Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-James Ingram, Southtion to this. An intelligible enactment should be sub-ampton, seedsman, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, Lonstituted for the 18th section of the existing Copyright Act, which was intended to provide for the title to the different parts of a publication containing contributions by several authors. don, div.-Mary Astle, widow, Joseph Thomas Astle, George bookseller, April 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. -Sir Geo. Duckett, Bart., Sir Francis Bernard Morland, Bart., and Thos. Tyringham Bernard, Pall-mall, Middlesex, bankers, April 5 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-William Willis, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, wool broker, April 8 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-James Mash, Colchester, Essex, draper, April 5 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-William Marsh, Josias Henry Stracey, and Geo. Edw. Graham, Berners-street, Middlesex, bankers, April 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.Wm. Taylor and Jas. Wylde, Wood-st., London, and Lock'sfields, Walworth, Surrey, flock manufacturers, April 3 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Geo. Hopkinson, Liverpool, coach builder, April 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div.-James Brotherston, Liverpool, merchant, April 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy Liverpool, div.-James Dixon, Morley, Batley, Yorkshire, dyer, April 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div.Wm. Cole, Calverley, Yorkshire, consulting engineer, April 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, div.-James Napier the younger, Sheffield, Yorkshire, oil merchant, April 3 at half-past 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield, div. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Philip Phillips, Crowland, Holland, Lincolnshire, common brewer, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Leach and Edward Leach, Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, builders, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Frederick Cole, Toy Hotel, Hampton Court, Middlesex, licensed victualler, April 6 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George Flint, Lombard-street, London, hosier, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. Morley Beart, Upwell, Norfolk, brick maker, April 2 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London. - James Boxall, Brighton, Sussex, coachmaker, April 2 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George Collier, Landport, near Portsea, Southampton, draper, April 3 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Francis Rufford Hewlett, Leyton, Essex, cowkeeper, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.Wm. Edward Johnston, Little Abingdon-st., Westminster, Middlesex, coal merchant, April 2 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Edwin Fowler, Bristol, and Pontypool, Monmouthshire, draper, April 7 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Edward Waring, Liverpool, omnibus proprietor, April 6 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-George Pride, David Jones, and John Gibb, Liverpool, sail makers, April 5 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Charles Bacon, Walton, Somersetshire, tailor, April 14 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Jas. Copland, Barnstaple, tea dealer, April 14 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Thomas Harris, Camborne, Cornwall, grocer, April 15 at 11, District Court of Bank. ruptcy, Exeter.-Francis Tandy, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, and Brierley-hill, Staffordshire, ironmonger, April 3 at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham. David Shaw and Joshua Shaw, Meltham, Almondbury, Yorkshire, manufacturers, April 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-John O'Donnell, Sheffield, Yorkshire, grocer, April 3 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Sheffield. To be granted, unless an Appeal be duly entered. Alexander Prince, Lincoln's-inn-fields and Russell-square, Middlesex, lithographer.-Thomas Barnjum, Pall-mall East and Willesden, Middlesex, wine merchant.-Archibald Mouat, Creed-lane, London, wine merchant.-W. Holmes, Crober'scottages, Bedford-st., Poplar, Middlesex, builder.-Thomas A. Young, Woolwich, Kent, licensed victualler.-William M. Whalley, South Mimms, Middlesex, licensed victualler.-A. Dunbar, Halifax, Yorkshire, shoemaker. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process. William G. Trery, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, surveyor, March 24 at 12, County Court of Buckinghamshire, at Aylesbury.-Thomas R. Lucas, Birmingham, saddler, March 20 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.—A. Dean, Birmingham, engineer, March 20 at 10, County Court of Warwickshire, at Birmingham.-Margaret Fisher, widow, King's Lynn, Norfolk, dealer in wines, March 24 at 4, County Court of Norfolk, at King's Lynn.-Samuel Rhodes, King's Lynn, Norfolk, shoemaker, March 24 at 4, County Court of Norfolk, at King's Lynn.-Rev. John Hague Bloom, Castle Acre, Norfolk, clerk, March 24 at 4, County Court of Norfolk, at King's Lynn.-James C. Woods, King's Lynn, Norfolk, watchmaker, March 24 at 4, County Court of Norfolk, at King's Lynn.-James Morton, Hilgay, Norfolk, blacksmith, March 24 at 4, County Court of Norfolk, at King's Lynn.— J. Stevenson, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, tailor, March 18 at 12, County Court of Lancashire, at Ashton-under-Lyne. -Richard Offord, Feltwell, Norfolk, common carrier, March 25 at 11, County Court of Norfolk, at Thetford.-Christopher Porter, Feltwell Fen, Feltwell, Norfolk, farmer, March 25 at 11, County Court of Norfolk, at Thetford.-Joseph Childs, Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk, whitesmith, March 22 at 10, County Court of Suffolk, at Bury St. Edmund's. -James Brundle, Dickleburgh, Norfolk, dealer, March 15 at 1, County Court of Norfolk, at Harleston.-Eliza Lowe, widow, Hampton, Arden, Warwickshire, governess, March 16 at 11, County Court of Warwickshire, at Solihull.-Geo. Marshall, Beaver, Ashford, Kent, grazier, March 22 at 10, County Court of Kent, at Ashford. - Edward Bainbridge, Sowdham, near Southenell, Nottinghamshire, joiner, April 12 at 11, County Court of Nottinghamshire, at Newark.-John Simmons, Car. tergate, Newark-upon-Trent, Nottinghamshire, boot maker, April 12 at 11, County Court of Nottinghamshire, at Newark. 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 hereinafter mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute: March 24 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Arthur Blyth, Hayes, Middlesex, surgeon. March 25 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner Law. William Day the elder, Park-road, Clapham, Surrey, whitesmith.-Samuel Taylor, Mansell-street, Whitechapel, Middlesex, upholsterer. March 26 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. John F. Olander, Jewry-st., Aldgate, London, merchant's clerk.-John H. Grapes, John-st., Middlesex, clerk. March 26 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. Mary Ann Barber, widow, Mount-row, New Kent-road, Surrey, upholsterer. March 27 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. James Pearce Lidgold, Hampton Wick, Middlesex, cattle dealer. Wm. Graham, Abchurch-yard, Abchurch-lane, King William-st., London, upholsterer.-Thomas N. Couves, Great Dover-st., Southwark, Surrey, out of business.-Richard G. Richardson, Bryan's-terrace, Lower Copenhagen-st., Caledonian-road, Islington, Middlesex, grocer. March 29 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner LAW. Thomas Clark, Florence-terrace, New-cross, Deptford, Kent, servant. Thomas Murray, Lichfield-street, Soho, Middlesex, printer.-Ebenezer Tonkin, Terrace, Kennington, Middlesex, painter. March 29 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Peter Brown, Romford, Essex, ironmonger.-William Milward, Arlington-street, New North-road, Islington, Middlesex, wholesale milliner. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute: March 26 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. John Thomas Mattingley, Reading, Berkshire, brewer. |