Crown commands his services, we cannot clearly see how he can evade the claim, unless he resigns the office which he holds under the Crown. But the question is, whether, even at this sacrifice, it be not his duty to adhere to his first client. It is plain that if he had not the plea of a compulsion, he dare not, either as a lawyer or a gentleman, quit the client who had confided in him, to carry his knowledge of the case to the other party. For doing something not quite so bad as this, a Barrister was not long since disbarred, and an Attorney would certainly be struck off the Rolls. Sir F. KELLY'S excuse for an act which otherwise would exclude him for ever from the Bar he adorns, and from the society of gentlemen anywhere, is that he is under compulsion of his office. But the serious question that occurs to us is, whether that is such a compulsion as to override all rules of moral and professional conduct. Now, holding as we do, that nothing will justify an act in itself immoral, we are forced to the conclusion that the excuse of Sir F. KELLY is insufficient; that his first duty is to do what is in itself right, come what come may; that the Crown cannot command him to do a wrong; that he is bound, as a man and an Advocate, to protest against it, and if still the Crown persist, at all sacrifices to resign the office which he cannot keep without personal dishonour. This appears to us the plain, though the painful, duty of Sir F. KELLY in the case under consideration, and so palpable is the wrong which he is commanded to commit, that we cannot but believe that, if he take the lofty tone becoming his Profession, and throw his silk gown at the feet of any person who dare ask him to use it as a cover for an act in itself manifestly unprofessional and unjust, he would be permitted-nay, entreated-to preserve at once his honour and his office. At all events, he would command the respect of his Profession and the approval of his own conscience, by preferring the former to the latter. THE LAW LIST. A QUESTION of considerable interest is, we hear, about to be raised, and which involves the copyright of Government officers in documents to which they have special access. SHAM LAWYERS. reprint of every case? Many of the cases in the FROM the heap before us, we take three more early Reports relate to law now entirely obsolete, and to which reference can never be required. We specimens of this hydra race :propose, instead of reprinting these in full, to give merely their titles and the marginal note, or a very brief statement of the point decided. December 2, 1847. 72, Devonshire-street, Chorlton-on-Medlock. MADAM,-Mr. Matthew Gribben has instructed me to apply for amount of account, 17. owing him by you, and unless the same be paid into my hands on or before Saturday next, the fourth day of Dec. inst. I shall issue process to enforce payment, without further notice. Yours, &c. Miss GEORGE M'ALLESTER. 9, Chester-terrace, Borough-road, Southwark, 184 SIR,-Allow me to inform you an Office is opened under regulations of the New Small Debts Act, now in operation. Should you feel disposed to employ any person to collect your outstanding debts, permit me to offer my services. As under the new Act, which came into operation on the 15th March last, great advantages are offered to creditors to recover their claims, amounting to almost a certainty, and that without being too harsh to his debtor, or running to too great an expense, a feature long desired by the commercial Tradesman. Mr. Matthews with confidence can give references of the first respectability. ther the amount be paid to him, into court, or to the Mr. Matthews wishes it clearly understood, wheplaintiff, the commission to be due, and allowed to be first deducted, which will be strictly adhered to according to the above scale. Small Debts. By this arrangement, and printing it in a clear and neat type, in double columns, a complete and uniform series of the Reports, in the order of their dates, will be brought within the attainment of every member of the Profession, and the two works will supply a desideratum. Their publication in this form will necessarily be a work of considerable time, but then every volume, whether of Statutes or Reports, will be complete in itself, and well worth its cost. As they cannot be commenced until the requisite number of subscribers be assured, those who purpose to take them, or either of them, should forward their names immediately. Of course, they may be had by any person, whether a member of the Society or not; only, that members will be entitled to them, as to the other works of the Society, at the deduction made to members. Part IX. of Cox's Criminal Law Cases is now ready, and Part X. is in the press. NOTICES OF NEW LAW BOOKS. The Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke; with Selections from his Correspondence, Diaries, Speeches, and Judgments. By GEORGE HARRIS, Esq. of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. THE legal and historical interest of this work is In 3 vols. London, 1848. Moxon. Please to call between nine and twelve o'clock. Office only. scarcely greater than its attractions for the general The following device has been adopted at Stam-reader. The treasures of the family chests at Wimford, and the circular is sold by a printer there for a pole were opened to the biographer, and he availed penny :District Court for the Recovery of himself of the opportunity to glean plentifully from the abundant correspondence there preserved, and Whereas a District Court under an Act, enti- introduce the hitherto unpublished letters of almost tled An Act for the more easy Recovery of Small every personage of note who was the contempo. Debts and Demands in England,' is now ap-rary of the Chancellor. It is seldom that such of her Majesty in Privy Council, I hereby give you biographer, and it is fortunate that a gentleman of pointed to be held in with the sanction rich materials are placed at the disposal of a amount of your bill, be paid to me, on or before Mr. HARRIS's sound judgment and unwearied inI shall avail myself of the powers and dustry should have been the first to explore the provisions of that Court, for the recovery of the same huge chests where these documents were found, stored away with the neatness and precision of merwithout further notice. I am yours, obediently." cantile accounts, every letter folded and indorsed, shewing, in a striking manner, the love of order and the methodical habits that distinguished Lord HARDWICKE. notice, that unless the sum of £ VERULAM SOCIETY. defray the cost. the The suggestions for the publication, in weekly numbers and monthly parts, of the Reports and Statutes, with Notes, &c. has been received with so much approval, that an endeavour shall be made to carry out the design, by obtaining the number A bookseller has published a List of the of subscribers needful to justify the enterprise, Attorneys, &c. and which is, in fact, with a namely, 450, which will suffice to permit of a befew alterations, a copy of the Law List. Aginning, although a sale of 600 will be required to pretence was made of framing an original work by the transmission of circulars requesting a return of the names, &c. of the parties addressed. Many were no doubt obtained from this source, but the greater portion are copied from the Law List, as is proved by the errors in the latter being copied into its imitator, and by the appearance in the new list of the dead and removed who are found in the old one. As it will be a serious invasion of the property of the proprietor of the Law List, of course an Injunction will be at once applied for, and then the important question will be fairly tried, whether there can be a copyright in a book prepared from official documents, which are public property, and to which the proprietor has access only in his official capacity. There can be no doubt that it is competent to any person to frame a similar list from original sources; but the question here will be, if there be a right to copy a list already framed by another. The whole subject of the propriety, as well as the right, of Government officials to use their peculiar opportunites for the production of works by means of materials virtually prohibited to the public, will doubtless be raised. Should the assailants of the Law List succeed in their bold attempt, they will, in fact, throw it open to be reprinted in a variety of cheap forms by any person, and the old Law List will cease to be a profitable property. subscribers, we should like to have the opinion of But before a systematic effort is made to obtain those who purpose to avail themselves of the proposition, as to the propriety of certain arrangements. The plan of the edition of the Statutes is to go backwards, omitting all the statutes, and parts of statutes, repealed, and to subjoin, in notes, all the decisions upon the construction of those still in force, with a copious index to each volume. The question on which we are desirous to have the opinion of our readers is, whether it would not be desirable to omit also all the statutes exclusively that may be termed merely formal statutes, which relating to Scotland and Ireland, and also all those never concern the law or its administration, as those for the application of revenue and such like, which would materially swell the bulk and cost, without being of the slightest possible utility to any member of the Profession. Of course all expired Acts will be omitted. But the title of every statute of each session will be given in its proper place. By this arrangement the whole statute law, as at present existing, will be obtained in a convenient form, with most valuable illustrative notes, at a comparatively trifling cost, which, thus gradually By beginning with last session, and going backwards, subscribed, will be within the easy compass of all. we is put in possession earliest of those which he is secure a twofold advantage. The subscriber most likely to require; and as each Session is completed, the Acts which it has repealed will be expunged from its predecessors. So with the Reports. Do the members desire a Hence the three bulky volumes before us, whose interest is far larger than usually appertains to biography. Here are the materials for a complete history of the times in which the subject of the memoir flourished. Almost every page introduces to the reader the letter of some distinguished person, whose confidential communications suggest a thousand curiosity with which we peruse the least words of topics for reflection, and will be read with the eager greatness that has passed away. Lord HARDWICKE has been rightly esteemed by the Profession as a model Judge. He was, indeed, in all respects a good and a great man. He rose by merit alone, and not, like so many other Chancellors, by political time-serving or clever ratting. He had few connections, no money. He went to the Bar without so much as the usual patronage of family and friends. Yet was his rise rapid beyond precedent. He was called at the age of twenty-six; in two years he was in large by the opposing political parties as a man to be practice, and so promising that he was sought after coveted. In three years from his call he was in Parliament; in another year he was appointed Solicitor-General; four years after that he was Attorney-General; nine years after he was promoted to be Lord Chief Justice, with a peerage; and before he was forty-seven he was Lord High Chancellor of England. And this man was the son of a poor attorney at Dover. He was articled to an attorney in London, Mr. SALKELD, of Brook-street, Holborn. So much did he please his master, that by his advice student of the Middle Temple in 1708. Of his he quitted the desk to go to the Bar, and became a He was a methodical, but not a laborious reader; legal education very little has been ascertained. and he mingled the studies of science, literature and society with that of law. All that is preserved of his student days is contained in the following passage : Some information as to the mode in which Yorke pursued his early professional studies may be gleaned from the papers and manuscripts which belonged to him at this period, and which are still in the Hardwicke collection. A great many cases and opinions were at this time copied by him, as also several judgments of the different Courts on important points. He also appears to have been very fond of collecting old law works in manuscript, as several of these are among his law papers, and which, from the date written under his name, must have been obtained during the period of his studentship. There is an ancient treatise on the Court of Chancery, by Sir R. Cotton, in manuscript, with the name "W. Salkeld" written in the title- page. I also find a printed copy of Coke's Abridgment, in Norman French, the date of which is 1640. It is in size a small octavo; and the leaves of it have been cut out and pasted in a large quarto blank volume, so as to afford room for notes and comments; which have been very amply supplied, both in French and English, and which contain references to various decisions and authorities bearing upon the different points in the text. The manuscript thus added is very similar to, if not really in the handwriting of Yorke, as evinced in the letters already quoted and his early style in general, though the words are somewhat rounder, as would probably be the case in a juvenile hand. Some of the letters, indeed, in the peculiarity of their formation and turns, appear precisely to correspond with those in his epistles. There is no doubt of the book having belonged to Yorke while he was a student; and every circumstance seems to favour the supposition that the annotations in question formed a portion of his labours at this period, and probably largely contributed to store his mind with that knowledge of the older writers and authorities, and that acute perception of the first principles of the science, for the possession of which throughout his career he was so pre-eminently distinguished. There are also several note-books and treatises on different branches of professional knowledge and practice, some of which are evidently in Yorke's own handwriting. Among these, is one entitled "Rules of Practice of the Court of King's Bench," which, with a copious index, is entirely in his hand. There are a good many volumes of manuscript reports of cases, some of which are denominated Cases ex relatione Amicorum." These, it may be supposed, he was permitted to have copied from his friends' reports of them; and on the fly-leaf of one of these volumes is written, "Paid for writing to fo. 145 inclusive, 17. 5s. 9d." Certain of these manuscript reports are in several different handwritings, though every here and there we find some of Yorke's, in the correction of a passage, or supplying the title to a case, or an explanatory note, which shews the care and attention that he bestowed on them. A manuscript treatise, contained in a thin quarto volume, bound in parchment, is headed in Yorke's handwriting, "Of Pardons in Cases of Impeachments, written in ye year 1717," which was after his call to the Bar. It is a point of considerable interest whether Yorke ever studied the Civil Law with any one, with the principles of which he appears to have become very early familiar, and to which he constantly referred, both in his arguments while at the Bar and in his decisions as a judge, and which he also strongly recommended to the study of others. His principal instructors here, however, were probably the different treatises of the leading authorities on the subject, with whose profound and masterly productions his mind was fully imbued. He married a rich widow, who brought him youth, beauty, and connections, as well as fortune. She was a niece of Lord SOMERS, and no doubt the efforts of her family contributed not a little to his rapid elevation. It is not so recorded, but it is probable, that in his old master, Mr. SALKELD, the young PHILIP YORKE found a steady patron, and that from the moment of his call he was supplied with briefs. But no amount of patronage can push a man at the Bar, if he be incompetent to the post; and it was because YORKE proved himself apt as an advocate, that his friends were enabled to continue to him their briefs, and strangers were tempted to come to him. His His successive promotions were fairly won. first appointment as Solicitor-General was made at a time when his standing, according to the custom of the Profession, did not entitle him to it, and he was placed over the heads of many seniors, who were thought to have a better claim. But although this favouritism of the Chancellor caused a great deal of discontent and indignation, the object of it was never accused of having obtained his honours by any unworthy efforts on his own part. They were fairly thrust upon him. After this first step, his progress was in the due course of things, remarkable only for the uninterrupted stream of his good fortune. He was prosperous and happy in everything. His public life was almost without a vexation; his professional career was a succession of triumphs; in his domestic circle he was blest as man could be. The rich widow proved an excellent wife. He had a numerous family, every one of whom lived and thrived. His health was uninterrupted; his intellect unimpaired to the last. He held the seals twenty years, respected by king and people. He quitted office at his own request, retiring into private life before he was too old to enjoy its calm and quiet. The evening of his days was spent in the bosom of his family. Of no distemper, of no blast he died, But fell, like autumn leaves, tho' cherished long, As his life had been without a care, so was his death without a pang. He slept in the Lord. Such is a brief outline of the career of this for tunate lawyer,-fortunate, because such a combination of favourable chances is of rare occurrence, and more rarely still do they find a man prepared to take advantage of them. Our limits preclude us from entering upon the more minute details of his professional career, or citing the numerous valuable judgments and remarkable cases preserved by Mr. HARRIS. The columns of a legal journal are at this season so crowded by other matters of urgent moment, that but small space can be found or made for the literature of law. We must close the work here, heartily recommending it to the attentive perusal of every member of the Profession, merely stating that, if an opportunity should offer, we will gather from these rich and abundant pages a few of the most likely to interest and instruct our readers, if it be only to tempt them thereby to place upon their shelves, or order in their book-clubs, the work itself. passages Mr. HARRIS's legal acumen, industry, and ability in the compilation and composition of this valuable contribution to legal biography cannot be too highly commended. JOURNAL OF PROPERTY. DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND. Ball, Arnold, and Co. Paternoster-row, City, booksellers, third div. of 10d. any Wednesday, at Graham's, Colemanst. DIVIDENDS. LINCOLNSHIRE.-VALUE OF LAND.-The entire village of Thornton, consisting of 2,500 acres of well cultivated land, with the farm and cottage buildings, was recently offered for sale by Alderman Farebrother, in eight lots, at the George Inn, Barton. Five Jan. 28, G. Baker, Ludgate-hill, City, grocer.-Feb. 1, J. V. Barber, Walsall, Staffordshire, banker.-Jan. 28, T. of the lots found purchasers in gentlemen resident in the neighbourhood, at prices varying from 451. to 651. chant.-Jan. 31, J. Cann, Woolwich, bricklayer.-Jan. 28, Bennett, New City-chambers, Bishopsgate, timber merper acre, including the buildings. The remaining lots, W. Chappelow, jun. Jermyn-st. St. James's, wholesale sad although bought in, were not likely to remain unsold. dler.-Jan. 28, H. Drysdale, Lamb's Conduit-st. auctioneer. The Louth Marsh Chapel estate was also recently-Jan. 28, J. Goulty. Stangate, Lambeth, mast and oar offered for sale, in thirty-four lots, at Louth. After maker.-Jan. 31, W. Hirst, Leeds, merchant.-Jan. 31, G. the conditions of the sale had been read by Mr. Fresh-H. Lupton, Leeds, flax spinner.-Feb. 3, G. Morton, Leeds, paper stainer.-Jan. 28, G. Pile and W. J. B. Staunton, field, the London solicitor, the auction commenced in Salvador House, Bishopsgate-st. Without, wine merchants, a spirited manner, and Mr. Hollis, the auctioneer, -Feb. 4, W. Reynolds and J. T. Fairbank, Sheffield, succeeded in knocking down the first twenty lots in builders.-Jan. 28, I. Robinson, Kendal, Westmoreland, the shortest space of time perhaps ever known. Se- grocer.-Jan. 31, T. Robinson, Birkby, Huddersfield, woolveral other lots were diposed of by the hammer, and stapler.-Jan. 31, W. Thompson, Rawdon, Yorkshire, mer the remainder were, immediately after the sale, sold draper. - Jan. 28, R. Wills, Tottenham-court New-rd. chant-Jan. 29, J. Wainwright, Digbeth, Birmingham, by Mr. Vessey, by private contract, realising in the statuary.-Jan. 28, J. White, East Cowes, Isle of Wight, whole upwards of thirty-five years' purchase on the ship builder. present rental. SALE OF MARSH LAND.-The second sale of building land on the Southampton Marsh took place last week by direction of the committee of the town council, to whom are entrusted the carrying out of the Marsh Improvement Act. The land is let at an annual charge for a term of seventy-five years, at the expiry of which the property built thereon is to be absolutely yielded up to the town council. Upwards of 8001. per annum is already secured, for about sixty lots let, and about 240 lots remain to be submitted at future sales. Previous to the commencement of the sale on Tuesday week the town clerk stated that the railway company had served the committee with notice of their intention to acquire the land set out in their deposited plans under the powers of the Act for which they will apply in the forthcoming session. amount of ground-rents secured at this sale was very nearly 4401. The proceeds of the marsh enclosure will be devoted to the enfranchisement of the common lands, and draining, planting, and rendering them ornamental for purposes of public recreation. The prices obtained at the two sales already held for most of the lots were far beyond that which any other building land in the town or neighbourhood has hitherto realised. Some of the "fancy lots," for which the highest prices were given, brought sums equivalent to the rate of 20,000l. to 30,000l. per acre. VICARAGE OF CAMBERWELL.-The advowson of The Gazette, Jan. 11. DECLARATIONS OF DIVIDEND. F. L. Cole, Fenchurch-st. City, wine merchant, first div. of 3s. 94d. any Wednesday, at Whitmore's, Basinghall-st. -G. Heath and G. Dann, Canterbury, drapers, first div. of 138. 4d. any Saturday, at Green's, Aldermanbury.-J. Humphrey, North Walsham, Norfolk, grocer. div. of 1s. 4d. Jan. 13, and three subsequent Thursdays, at Belcher's, King's arms-yard.-T. Priestley, Bedford, grocer. first div. of 5s. any Wednesday. at Whitmore's, Basinghall-st.-J. T. Sarson, Brunswick-pl. City-rd. vinegar dealer, first div. of Strong, Watling-st. City. cigar manufacturer, first div. of 3s. 6d. any Wednesday, at Whitmore's, Basinghall-st.-S. 2s. any Wednesday, at Whitmore's, Basinghall-st. Sword, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, draper, final div. of 1s. lid. Jan. 15, and any subsequent Saturday, at Wakley's, New castle-upon-Tyne.-I. C. Taylor, Change-alley, Cornhill, tailor, div. of 17s. 6d. Jan. 13, and three subsequent Thurs days, at Belcher's, King's-arms-yd.-W. Temple, Motcombe-st. Belgrave-sq. turner, first div. of 5s. any Wednes. day, at Whitmore's, Basinghall-st.-R. Wade, Cheapside, City. tailor, div. of 1s. 6d. Jan. 13, and three subsequent Thursdays, at Belcher's, King's-arms-yd. DIVIDENDS. R. Feb. 3, G. Baker, Newport, Monmouthshire, grocer.Feb. 4, W. B. Brodie and C. G. Brodie, Salisbury, bankers. -Feb. 2, H. Cleeve, Rettenden, Essex, cowkeeper.-Feb. 10, J. B. Gillett, Eccleshill, Yorkshire, dyer.-Feb. 2, J. Hilton, Crastin, Lancashire, surgeon.-Feb. 2, J. Jones, Birkenhead, Cheshire, chemist. Feb. 3, K. Kettlewell, Leeds, silversmith.-Feb. 11, H. Knapp, Abingdon, Berkthe vicarage of Camberwell, and the right of presen-York, merchants.-Feb. 3, W. Smith, Bramham, Yorkshire, shire, banker.-Feb. 3, R. Lane, Churwell, Yorkshire.-Feb. 4, C. L. Roberts and H. P. Freeman, Manchester and New tation, subject to the life of the present incumbent, brick maker.-Feb. 2, S. R. Toms, Bow-church-yard, City, who is forty-four years of age, were offered for sale commission agent.-Feb. 3, J. Winn, Bramham, Yorkshire, by auction, this week, at Garraway's. The parti-joiner, Bankrupts. CARTER, THOMAS, Leeds, currier, Jan. 18 and Feb. 8, at GRYLLS, JOHN ISAIAH, WILLIAM STUBBS, and RICHARD HAM, MARIA, Wells, Somersetshire, milliner, Jan. 25 and Bristol. coln's-inn-fields, and Hobbs, Wells; off. assig. Hutton, HILL, HENRY, Gray's-inn-lane, brewer, Jan. 19, at 114, and Feb. 19, at 14, at Basinghall-st. Sols. Lawrence and Plews, Old Jewry-chambers; off. assig. Follett, Sambrook-court. LUMLEY, MORRIS, Gibson-square, Islington, commission agent, Jan, 20, at 2, and Feb. 15, at 11, at Basinghall-st. City, so far as regards C. Barrow.-R. Bateson, R. W. Bate KEON, JAMES, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester, cap-C. Barrow, W. Golding, and R. W. Rarrow, Coleman-st. MORGAN, WILLIAM THOMAS, Neath, Glamorganshire, MOTLEY, JOHN ERASTUS, Boston, Lincolnshire, tailor, 24 and Feb. 16, at 11, at Exeter Ct. Sols. Church, Bed- RICKARD, WILLIAM THOMPSON, Regent's-st. Mile-end- Cooke, Manchester, so far as regards R. E. Hyde and J. Hyde.-D. Hobson and C. Hobson, Netherthong, Yorkshire. -P. B. Hodgson and J. Drew, Piccadilly.-W. Isdell and S. Yates, Manchester.-Jno. C. Jack, Jas. Jack, and C. Jack, Arequipa, Peru, so far as regards J. C. Jack--F. Jackson, J. Jackson, jun. and E. Jackson, so far as regards J. Jackson, jan.-J. S. Jackson and J. Singleton, Leeds C. E. Jefferies. S. Tolley, and F. Jefferies, Kidder. minster.-Jno. Kimbell and Jonathan H. Kimbell, Knowle, Warwickshire. H. Lee and J. Lee, Chiswell-st. and Upper Clapton.-J. Liddell and R. Liddell, Kingston-uponHull.-A. Lodder and W. Rigg, Preston.-W. W. Lea, E. L. Gibbs, and T. B. Couchman, Henley-in-Arden, Warwickshire, so far as regards W. W. Lea.-J. Mansfield, J. New. land, H. Newland, and W. B. Newland, Manchester, so far as regards W. B. Newland.-J. S. Mitchell and E. Mitchell, High-st. Shoreditch. T. Minter and H. Minter, Faver. sham, Kent.-M. A. Milsum and J. Coates, York-rd. Lam. Sol. Towsey, Coleman-st. City; off. assig. Edwards, ROBERTSON, JOHN, Grove-place, North Brixton, baker, Jan. Little Dean-st. Westminster. - D. Plumb and R. Rose, Frederick's-place. MATTHEWS, THOMAS, Shrewsbury, millwright, Jan. 18 and MEDWIN, THOMAS CHARLES, Holland-st. Clapham-road, SHIERS, WILLIAM, Manchester, paper hanger, Jan. 17 and SMITH. WILLIAM SHAW, Reading, Berkshire, scrivener, SYNNOT, MARK SEYTON, merchant, Liverpool, Jan. 20, at Gazette, Jan. 11. BLAKE, JOHN DENNER, Honiton, Devonshire, innkeeper, 19, at 14, and Feb. 23, at 11, Basinghall-st. Sol. Kaye, Symond's-inn; off. assig. Johnson, Basinghall-st. SCURFIELD, WILLIAM DIXON, Liverpool, draper, Jan. 26 and Feb. 18, at 11, at Liverpool Ct. Sols. Reed, Langford, and Marsden, London, and Dodge, Liverpool; off. assig. Turner, Liverpool. SHEPPARD, WALTER, Manchester, wine dealer, Jan. 19 and Ensolvents Gazette, Jan. 7. Petitioning the Courts of Bankruptcy. beth.-T. Mellor, J. Mellor, and T. Jepson, Manchester.A. Munro and P. Macnaughton, Greenock.-S. Moore and K. Alexander, Liverpool.-J. J. Nicholls and M. Pellatt, Shades, London-bridge, and King William-street.-C. Nutt and G. Ensor, Margaret-st. Clerkenwell. R. D. Palmer and G. H. Palmer, Chelmsford, Essex.-J. Parry, T. Eram, and C. Evans, Wrexham, Denbighshire.-J. Pollard and J. Grimshaw, White Birk, Lancashire.-J. Pike and H. Pike, Stratford-upon-Avon. R. Popplewell and J. B. Gibson, New Quay, North Shields.-C. Rawson and J. Aizlewood, Rotherham, Yorkshire.-J. Reid and C. B. Horner, Fridayst. City.-1. Riddle and J. Dew, Bristol.-J. Roberts, sea. M. H. Schwabe, A. Gobert, L. Schwabe, and H. L. Schwabe, J. Roberts, jun. and F. W. Roberts,, Linfits, Yorkshire.Glasgow, so far as regards M. H. Schwabe and A. Gobert.M. H. Schwabe, A. Gobert, and H. M. Schwabe, Manches ter.-J. H. Shutt and W. D. Shutt, Limehouse.-B. Squire and N. Clough, Leeds. C. Vincent and J. Soper, Dart mouth, Devonshire.-R. C. Webber and R. Brown, Greenwich.-T. M. Wilkin and W. R. Mingaye, Furnival's-inn, Holhorn.-T. Williams and S. Powell, Liverpool.-G. G. Williams and C. W. Williams, Liverpool.. -R. Woods and J. W. Penrose, Manchester.-T. Wylde and H. Gravatt, Fox and Knot-yard, King-st. Snowhill. Gazette, Jan. 11. WOOLER, JOSEPH, Stockton-on-Tees, Durham, draper, Jan.-W. Beard and J. Martin.-J. Berey, J. Young, and D. T. Canaway, Lewes, Sussex, assistant watch maker.-T. Clark, Bristol, beer retailer.-J. Dunn, jun. Canterbury, leather seller.-W. Ewell, Chislett, Kent, labourer.-G. Fawcet, Kirkheaton, Yorkshire, farmer.-T. Flude, Derby, labourer.-R. For, Rockbear. Devonshire, innkeeper.-J. Green, Fonthill Bishop, Wiltshire, labourer.-J. Grigg, Canterbury, carpenter.-C. Heaton, Halifax, Yorkshire, frame-work knitter. A. Huggins, Weston-super-Mare, Somersetshire, baker.-G. Lander, Cheltenham, French corset maker.-O. C. R. Maillard, Cheltenham, register office keeper.-J. C. Mumford, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, surveyor.-J. Ralph, Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, guager on the South Wales Railway.-G. J. Russell, Winchester, journeyman bricklayer.-W. Sanders, Moorfields, Gloucestershire, master tailor --E. Shenton, jun. Derby, slater.W. Stutely, Birmingham, market gardener.-T. Sutton, Canterbury, shoemaker. C. Tayler, Bristol, grocer.-S. Williams, Derby, printer.-H. Wootton, Cheltenham, innTrotman, Mangotsfield, Gloucestershire, grocer.-E. R. keeper. Gazette, Jan. 11. Petitioning in the Courts of Bankruptcy. From the Gazette of Friday, Jan. 14. J. Bower, Kingston-upon-Hull, labourer. - T. Bowen, Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire, upholsterer.-J. Colly, Gloucestershire, cabinet maker.-G. Daniels, Cheltenham, Kingston-upon-Hull, labourer.-T. Cooke, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, innkeeper.-F. Drake, Leeds, tinner.Ct.J. Garrett, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, retailer of beer.J. Hollams, Margate, tailor.-J. Ingram, Cambridge, hairdresser.-W. Keating. Liverpool, dealer in old clothes. Tipper, B. wholesale stationer, Maiden-lane, Queen-street, Lesley, A. and Bardgett, W. merchants, Old Broad-st.Liverpool, teacher of navigation.-J. Maud, Low Wortley, Duncan, A. manufacturer of preserved provisions, WilsonW. Leeman, York, journeyman coach maker.-J. Lumsden, Cheapside. Woore, J. victualler, Staines, Middlesex.Yorkshire, bookseller.-C. Moore, Cambridge, licensed victualler.-W. Norman, Stretham, Cambridgeshire, but-wark.-Peake, F. and Jillings, J. drapers, Honiton, Devonst. Finsbury.-Dunkley, W. undertaker, Tower-st. Southcher.-J. Plumtree, Kingston-upon-Hull, groom. R. Prance, Kingston-upon-Hull, gentleman.-J. B. Robin-bury.-Giblett, W. butcher, New Bond-st.-M Kinnell, J. shire.-King, O. W. licensed victualler, Hart-st. Bloomsson, Newark, Nottinghamshire, house and carriage painter. wine merchant, Billiter-st.-Stapleton, R. and Thorn, W. -T. Sharpe, Farndon, Nottinghamshire.-J. Smith, Cambridge, licensed victualler.-F. Swain, Kimpton, Hertford- Glamorganshire. - Sartain, T. jun. cattle dealer, Holt, scavengers, Whitefriars.-Morgan, T. W. draper, Neath shire, farmer. Wiltshire.-Stacy. G. victualler, Bristol.-Smith, S. grocer, Manchester.-Greenwood, L. and Leach, R. iron founders, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire.-Harkness, W. ship builder, Sunderland. - Gummer, S. H. attorney-at-law, Bridport, Dorsetshire. Orgill, R. wheelwright, Netherseal, near J. Applegarth and T. Richardson, Dartford, Kent.-B. Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire.-Meeks, G. hardwareArmitage, J. Pollitt, and M. Armitage, Dalton, Yorkshire. I man, Birmingham. Partnerships Dissolved. Gazette, Jan. 7. Sham Lawyers.. The Advocate-(Tenth Article) NECROLOGY Earl of Powis Earl of Moray NOTICES OF NEW LAW Books Pearce's History of the Inns of Court GAZETTES .... .... ............ Case of Thomas Drewery, the Innocent Convict PROMOTIONS, APPOINTMENTS, &C.... NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS PROPERTY JOURNAL because there was a covenant with respect to the Page first lot not to build above the height of ten feet, which the owner of the last lot had the right to enforce. The 321 following was the written judgment delivered out by 322 the Vice-Chancellor : 321 329 331 Hertford, Monday, Aug. 30.-My observations 333 333 333 333 334 334 Sugden's Vendors and Purchasers. In this case the purchaser took possession in May 1845 (within a few 335 days after the contract of part only of the pro perty comprised in the contracts.) He did so 337 according to the answer, most wrongfully, and 337 the defendant threatened him with an indictment, 337 and also with an action of trespass. These threats, 337 however, were abandoned; and from May 1845 until 337 339 339 66 Money Market.... CORRESPONDENCE The Lawyer's Companion 67 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS 67 ADVERTISEMENTS. April 1847, when the defendant commenced his ac338 tion of ejectment, the plaintiff has been permitted by 339 the defendant to keep possession of the above part of the property. In the meantime the plaintiff has, with the knowledge of the defendant, dealt with the pro66 perty of which he is in possession as property to 66 which he is entitled by contract, by converting and 66 letting it. The title has been investigated and accepted by the purchaser, and the vendor has throughout treated the two contracts as subsisting and binding contracts; and the only question raised by him has been, as to the legal effect of the second contract upon one of the terms of the first contract. In such circumstances, I cannot think it would be right that the defendant should be allowed to deprive the plaintiff of the possession of the property now in his possession, nor can I order the plaintiff to pay the whole of the purchase-money into court; for he has not the possession of the whole of the property, and the defendant will not give it him; nor have I any means of apportioning the purchase-money: and upon these pleadings I must at present treat the case as one in which, by the admission of the defendant as well as the plaintiff, the contracts are to be completed according to their legal effect. But I think I am bound, as far as possible, to impose upon the plaintiff such terms as will protect the vendor against the possible mis The Lord Chancellor resumed his seat in the Court of Chancery this day, after absence from indisposiThe following notice had been issued by his Lordship's directions during the vacation :"NOTICE.-The Lord Chancellor intends to deli. ver his judgment in all the several matters now wait-chiefs suggested by his counsel. ing his decision at the commencement of next Term; but his Lordship has been pleased to communicate to Mr. Colville the orders he proposes to make in the following cases, which were heard previously to the last vacation : Practice Purchaser in possession of part of the purchased premises-Payment of purchase-moneyCosts. If a purchaser has taken possession of the property contracted to be sold, not being entitled by his contract so to do, the purchase-money is usually ordered to be paid into court; but where the vendor had acquiesced for two years in possession by the purchaser of part only of the property, and had delivered an abstract of title to the whole, the defendant was restrained by injunction from issuing execution on a judgment in an action of ejectment to recover possession, without requiring the purchaser to bring the purchase-money into court, the Court being unable to apportion the purchase-money. The order having omitted to direct the purchaser to pay the deposit into court, to which the above objection did not apply, On an appeal against the whole order, notwithstanding it was varied by inserting a direction to pay the deposit-noney into court, the appellant was ordered to pay costs. This was an appeal from a decision pronounced by Vice-Chancellor Wigram in the long vacation, whereby the defendant was restrained from proceeding to execution in an action brought to recover possession of land which the defendant had contracted to sell to the plaintiff, who had been in possession for two years and a half, but without having paid the purchasemoney, or even the deposit of 501. Two lots, adjoining parcels of land, had been agreed to be sold at an entire sum, but the defendant still retained possession of one lot. The last lot had been purchased, VOL. X. No. 251. The appeal was partly heard in Michaelmas Term last. Walker, for the appeal motion by the defendant, stated the correspondence and treaty which led to the contracts, and contended that the alterations of the premises in which the plaintiff alleged that he had laid out 3001. had deteriorated the property. The vendor was entitled to have the purchase-money paid into court, or, at all events, the deposit of 501. The injunction prevented the completion of the judgment and taxation of costs at law, though the intention of the Vice-Chancellor was to stay execution only. Cooper and Steere, for the plaintiff, supported the Vice-Chancellor's order, and said: The order, reciting that the plaintiff, having accepted the title, undertaken to complete the contract, and pay such a sum as the Court should think fit in case the contract should not be completed, granted an injunction. The plaintiff could not be made to pay all the purchasemoney, because he was not in possession of the whole of the property. The Vice-Chancellor's direction was not drawn by the defendant's counsel to the payment of the deposit into Court, or there was no doubt the Vice-Chancellor would have ordered it to have been paid. That, however, does not apply to the deposit of 501.; the vendor is entitled to have that sum brought into court. The only question I have to determine is, whether that deposit should be brought into court. If the defend. ant had required the order to be altered to that extent only, being entirely in accordance with the practice, it probably would not have been resisted. But the defendant comes here asking that the whole of the Vice-Chancellor's order may be discharged. Therefore, notwithstanding I have varied the ViceChancellor's order by directing the deposit to be paid into court, the defendant must pay the costs of the appeal. Deposit to be paid into court in three weeks. ROLLS COURT. Friday, Nov. 19. The assignee of an insolvent who claimed to be entitled Held, therefore, that a bill of revivor of a suit in aid of the action which could not be brought might be demurred to; and a demurrer was accordingly allowed with costs. This was a bill of revivor and supplement filed on the 21st of October, 1844, by Robert Bampton against Thomas Birchall, Richard Woodward, and William Standish Carr, otherwise Standish. The bill recited that on the 14th of May, 1832, William Blackburn, the surviving assignee of Thomas Standish, otherwise Stanley, an insolvent, filed a bill against Frank Hall, otherwise Frank Hall Standish, stating the death of Sir Frank Standish on the 15th of May, 1812, intestate, and without issue, and alleging that the said Thomas Standish was his heir-at-law, and that he became insolvent in 1820; that an assignment of his (the insolvent's) real and personal estate was made to William Blackburne, and W. Johnson, since deceased, who thereupon became entitled to the estates of Sir Frank Standish, at whose death Frank Hall, otherwise Frank Hall Standish, entered into possession without title; that an action of ejectment had been begun, but that there were outstanding terms, &c. and that the bill was therefore filed for a discovery and an injunction; and the bill of revivor further stated that Frank Hall, otherwise Frank Hall Standish, appeared to the bill of 1832, and put in a demurrer which had never been set down for argument; that, in December 1840, Frank Hall Standish died, having by his will given all his real estate to Thomas Birchall and Richard Woodward, on trust to pay debts, and then for his right heirs, and made them his executors, and they duly proved his will; that William Standish Carr, now William Standish Standish, was his heir-at-law at his death; that Blackburne, the surviving assignee, died in March 1841, and on the 5th of April, 1841, Robert Bampton became the assignee of Thomas Standish, the insolvent. And the bill prayed that the suit of 1832 might be revived, and that the plaintiff might set down the demurrer to the original bill to be argued. To this bill of revivor the defendant, William Standish Standish demurred, as did also the trustees, Birchall and Woodward. It appeared that all proceedings in the action of ejectment, in aid of which the original bill of 1832 was filed, had been afterwards stayed at law till the costs of a former action of ejectment were paid, and nothing more was done in it till the death Hall Standish. By their deaths the action was gone, of the plaintiff Blackburne and the defendant Frank and more than twenty years having elapsed since the Frank Standish, if any right be had, it was now extinright accrued to the insolvent on the death of Sir guished. Under these circumstances it was that the bill of revivor was filed to set up the original bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR.-The Vice-Chancellor's attention was plainly not drawn to the deposit. The defendant by his action is seeking possession of the whole. He had parted with possession of some part of the premises, and now seeks to repossess himself of the whole. I cannot consider that there is any The defendant delivered the abstract, and permitted real or substantial question between these parties. the plaintiff to take possession of lot one, which is which the owner of lot two can enforce; but by the subject to a covenant restraining the building a wall, contracts the plaintiff has become both covenantor and covenantee: what possible interest can the vendor have in enforcing that covenant? When the purchaser comes to sell again that may be an objection, in support of the demurrer, observed that the grounds Kindersley and Hall, for W. Standish Standish, and but it is not one the present vendor can take. It is of it were obvious enough. If A. files a bill against an absurd contest on the part of the defendant. What B. and B. demurs, and the suit abates by the death delivered an abstract, and given possession, is now can be urged on the part of the defendant, who having of either or both, the plaintiff has a right to revive, seeking to get back possession. According to the and proceed with his original case; but if, on his ordinary rule of this Court a purchaser cannot have useless, inasmuch as the action in aid of which the own shewing, the bill to be revived is absolutely both possession of the premises and the purchase- bill was filed is entirely gone and no new action can money; but a difficulty arises in this case, that a part now be brought, the Court will say you cannot have only is in the purchaser's possession, and the Court the relief asked, that is, the relief prayed by the oridoes not know how to apportion the purchase-money. ginal bill to prevent the setting up of outstanding 1 terms, &c for the purpose of aiding an act on which 109. Turner and Elmsley for the trustees Birchall and Woodward, and in support of the demurrer. Tinney, for the bill, contended that there were many circumstances which might prevent the bar by time, such as notice, acknowledgment, &c. and all that was wanted was to review the bill and have the matter argued. He cited Deloraine v. Browne, 3 Br. C.C. 633; Gregor v. Molesworth, 2 Ves. sen. Lavin, on the same side, contended that the objection founded on the action being gone at law could not be maintained, because, first, it was only a bill of revivor and supplemcut, which had the effect merely of making the original bill speak again; and all that was required to be shewn was, that the interest of the original plaintiff and defendant has devolved on the present plaintiff and defendants. All that was asked was, to argue the question in that suit; and, besides, the bill for discovery might be turned into a bill for relief, though exposed to the objection of the bar by the statute, which would be matter for after consideration. It is said, however, that the bill was in aid of a particular action of ejectment; but we deny that, forit prays that the defendant may be restrained from setting up any impediment to the trial. Again, you have only to shew in a bill of discovery that you have a right to go to law, and the defendant may or may not plead the statute, and the Court does not presume he will. (Lee v. Lee, 1 Sim. 365.) Besides, though assumed, it is not clear that the action is gene. The insolvent Act, 7 Geo. 4, c. 57, s. 46, puts the new assignee in place of the old one; so that as regards the plaintiff the action at law is not abated, and the question is, is it so as regards the defendant? Now the tenant was made defendant in the action, and the landlord, Frank Hall Standish, caused himself to be made a defendant, and upon his death the action survives to the tenant, and is, therefore, not abated. Two demurrers were unnecessary. Kindersley, in reply, did not deny the right of the heir of A. to bring the action against B.'s heir upon the death of A. and B. themselves, having been plaintiff and defendant; but here not only the action is gone but the right extinguished. VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE'S COURT. Dec. 3 and 8. GOODMAN v. GOODMAN. Teed and Schomberg for the plaintiff. Russell, Wigram, Egan, Pryor, Thorpe, and Waley, for the several defendants. The following cases were cited: Milsom v. Awdry, 5 Ves. 465; Eyre v. Marsden, 4 Myl. & Cr. 231; Leeming v. Sherratt, 2 Hare, 15; Vandergucht v. Blake, 2 Ves. 534; Paine v. Benson, 3 Atk. 78; and Worlidge v. Churchill, 3 Bro. C. C. 465. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that to accede to the executors' argument would create an intestacy or partial intestacy, was not wholly beside the question. It had appeared to him that perhaps the particular language of the clause against alienations might also deserve attention. Upon either or both of those considerations, he was of opinion that after the cases of Milsom v. Awdry, Eyre v. Marsden, and Leeming v. Sherratt, he might venture to put that construction upon those words which he was satisfied the testator himself would put, or would wish to have put upon them, if he could be consulted. Therefore he ventured to apply the clause to the accruing share. Common Law Courts. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Saturday, Dec. 11. BARBER V. LEMON. Bill of exchange-Pleading. To an action of debt on a bill of exchange by drawer against acceptor, with a count on an account stated, the defendant pleaded to the count on the bill that it was indorsed by the plaintiff to third persons, who had become, and thence hitherto remained, the holders thereof; and to the count on the account stated that the bill in the first count was the account stated in the second, and then that the bill was in. dorsed as in the former plea. The plaintiff replied to both pleas that he was the holder at the commencement of the suit absque hoc, that the third persons named from the time of the indorsement hitherto remained the holders thereof: Held, on demurrer, a good replication to both pleas. Debt on a bill of exchange by drawer against acceptor with a count upon an account stated. Plea to the first count, that after the acceptance and before the commencement of the suit, the bil was indorsed by the plaintiff to certain persons named, who then became, and thence hitherto remained, the holders thereof. Application of original trusts to accruing shares. Henry Goodman, by his will, dated the 23rd of January, 1801, after certain devises and bequests gave the residue of his estate and effects of what nature or kind soever, unto trustees upon trust that they or the survivors or survivor of them, or the executors or administrators of such survivor, should lay out and invest the same as therein mentioned, and pay and apply the interest, dividends, and annual proceeds thereof, from time to time as the same should grow due and payable, in manner following (that is to say), oneseventh part thereof to his son Isaac for life, oneseventh part thereof to his son Phillip for life, one other seventh part thereof to his son Leyon for life, one other seventh part thereof to his daughter Elizabeth Van Oven for life, one other seventh part thereof to his daughter Mary for life, one other seventh part thereof to his daughter Harriet for life, and the remaining seventh part thereof to his daughter Rachel for life, and he directed that the shares and interest of his said daughters should be for their sole and separate use respectively, not subject to the debts, control, or engagements of any their present or future husbands with whom any of them might intermarry, and that the receipt and receipts alone of his said daughters respectively should be a good and sufficient discharge and discharges to his said trustees and executors for the said interest, dividends, and annual produce; and from and after the decease of any or either of his said seven children, then upon trust that his said trustees for the time being should stand pos. sessed of so much and such share of the principal or capital of the said residue of his said estate as should constitute the capital or stock from whence such deceased child or children's share or shares of the interest thereof arose and was produced, upon trust to pay the same unto and amongst all and every the respective child or children of him, her, or them so dying, if more than one, in equal shares and proportions, but if but one child, then to such only child, the part, share, or proportion of such of them as should be a son or sons to be paid to him or them on his or their attaining their or his respective age or ages of twenty-one years, and the parts, shares, or proportions of such of them as should be a daughter or daughters to be paid to her or them on her or their attaining their or her respective ages or age of twenty-one years, or day of marriage, which should first happen, and in the meantime to be The MASTER of the ROLLS.-The bill claims that a vested interest in him, her, or them respectively; the abated suit may be revived, and that the plaintiff and upon further trust in case any of his the said tesmay have the benefit of the former suit and the same tator's said children should die without issue living at relief against the defendants as against Frank Hall their death, or born in due time after them, to pay Standish by the original suit. The defendants have and divide the interest and capital of such child so demurred, and the question is, are the demurrers to dying without issue as aforesaid, unto and equally be allowed. The bill is filed for discovery and relief amongst the survivors or survivor of his the said in aid of an action at law. I think if in such a bill it testator's said children then living, and the children appears that no relief can be had, it is open to de- or issue of such of them as should be then dead, at murrer; and the defendant may say, I am not such times and in manner as was therein before obliged to answer till I see that the relief sought directed concerning the original shares of the said can be obtained. The circumstances here are residue. And the said testator expressly declared peculiar, and if the plaintiff is disappointed by that if any of his said children should endeavour to laches, the interests of justice will not be injured. dispose of his, her, or their interest under his said A general demurrer was filed to the bill of 1832, and will, he thereby utterly revoked and made void all from that time nothing was done until November and every the bequests therein before made unto or in 1840, when Frank Hall Standish died; and in March trust for the benefit of such child or children so en1841, Blackburne, the assignee, died. This bill was deavouring to dispose of the same so far as related to filed in October 1847, and thirty-five years after him, her, or them: and he directed that the share Thomas Standish had acquired the right, and fifteen and interest of such child or children should immeyears after the filing of the original bill, an attempt is diately go over to and become vested in the others or thus made to obtain a revivor thereof, and so to pre- other of his the said testator's said children, to be vent the necessity of making a case by a new original divided between them, if more than one, in equal bill, which would now be too late; and a demurrer shares and proportions; and if but one surviving has been put in to the bill of revivor on that ground. child, then to such only child. And if Rebecca Mor-"thence hitherto." (Basan v. Árnold, 6 M. & W. Now, as to the right of relief, if it happens that par-decai (for whom an annuity of 101. had in a former ties die during the course of litigation, there is no part of the will been provided) should offer or endeadoubt as to the course of proceedings. A simple bill of revivor is not usual, but in general it is also a supplemental bill, giving the title to the party reviving; and so much supplemental matter as does that must be allowed. That, however, is quite different from supplemental matter in aid of the equity made by the bill. It does not appear whether the demurrer to the original bill is sustainable, but this bill sets out circumstances which shew that the plaintiff cannot have relief, for it is admitted that the other action cannot now be brought. It is said, therefore, to be reasonable that the plaintiff should shew why the bill should be revived to bring into life a demurrer to be argued when the object is no longer attainable. On the other hand, it is said there may be a state of things which may turn out favourable to the plaintiff's claims. I own, as the case stands, the demurrers must be allowed, and I give the costs of both demurrers. Replication, that the plaintiff was the holder at the commencement of the suit absque hoc, that the per. sons named in the plea from the time of the indorsement hitherto remained the holders thereof. To the account stated the defendant had pleaded that the account stated in the second count meationed was the bill of exchange in the first count mentioned, and that the bill had been indorsed, &c. as in the plea to the first count. Replication to that plea the same as to the first plea. Demurrer to both replications. Tuesday, Dec. 7.-Fortescue, in support of the demurrer. The replications admit the indorsement over, and therefore the title set up in the declaration is answered, and the privity which enables the drawer to maintain debt against the acceptor is destroyed. (Bartlett v. Benson, 14 M. & W. 733; Schild v. Kilpin, 8 M. & W. 673.) Bare delivery without indorsement does not give to a third party the right to enforce payment of a bill against the acceptor (Cunliffe v. Whitehead, 3 Bing. N. C. 828); and here the replication only traverses that the persons named were the holders. Further, the traverse is too large. It puts in issue the plaintiff's being the holder of the bill, not only at the commencement of the suit, but at the time of plea pleaded, by using the words 559.) Crompton, contrà.-The replications are good. The vour to sell or dispose of her share and interest under plea contains two parts, both of which are material, his will, he thereby also revoked and made void the viz. the indorsement to a third person, and that the bequest to her, and gave the same unto and amongst third person continued to be the holder. The mere his said children, if more than one, share and indorsement would not do; and therefore where the share alike, and if but one, then to such only plaintiff traverses one part of the plea, he is remitted child. The testator appointed his wife Hannah, his to his original right. [WIGHTMAN, J.-You might son Isaac, and his friends Asser Goldsmid and Samuel have traversed specially with a formal inducement of Cohen, executrix and executors of his will. The the circumstances. ERLE, J.-Still the issue must testator died on the 1st of November, 1812, leaving have depended upon the traverse.] The substance of his said widow and seven children him surviving. the plea is, that the third person remained the holder On the 21st of November, 1812, the said will was to the time of action brought; and that is traversed. proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. Admitting therefore an indorsement, the replication Elizabeth Van Oven died in 1817, leaving three chil- shews that the bill had got back into the plaintif's dren. Leyon Goodman died on the 17th of January, hands, and if so, he is remitted to his original right. 1832, leaving the plaintiff, Mary Goodman, his only (Fraser v. Welsh, 8 M. & W. 629.) The word child. Philip Goodman died on the 19th of Septem- "hitherto" in the replication does not make it bad; ber, 1832, intestate, and without ever having been it is immaterial, and mere surplusage. (Palmer v. married. On the 29th of February, 1844, the testa- Gooden, 8 Mee. & W. 890.) [PATTESON, J.— tor's daughter Mary died, without ever having been" Hitherto" refers to the time of replying; it is married. The question in this suit, which now came therefore not a mere traverse of the plea; and I eaton for further directions, was, whether the shares of not see how you distinguish this case from Basan t. those of the testator's children who died without Arnold.] If not distinguishable, that case is in effett leaving children were subject to the same trusts and overruled by Palmer v. Gooden. The traverse is limitations as the original shares. alleged modo et formá; and that confines it to the |