Lester v. Foxcroft-Part performance of a parol contract respecting land. Mackreth v. Symmons-Vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-money. Marsh v. Lee-Tacking incumbrances. "It is observed, by Lord Talbot, in Lord Glenorchy 'v. Bosville, that the rule is not generally true, that in 'articles and executory trusts (meaning executory trusts in wills) different constructions are to be ad'mitted. This is correct with the qualification or dis Murray v. Lord Elibank-Wife's equity to a settle-tinction, that, in executory trusts under marriage arti ment. Noys v. Mordaunt-Election. Pusey v. Pusey-Specific delivery up of chattels. Somerset (Duke of) v. Cookson-Specific delivery up of Strathmore (Countess of) v. Bowes-Fraud on marital rights. Streatfield v. Streatfield-Election. Tollet v. Tollet-Defective execution of a power aided. 'cles, the intention of the parties may fairly be presumed It will be seen that this list embraces a large and most important range of subjects. The notes subjoined to each of the cases, which are intended to exhibit the present state of the law on each subject treated in the principal case, display much learning and ability, and bear evidence of being the result of a careful and conscientious examination of all the cases on the subjects discussed. They are, in general, written very much in the style in which such notes should be written; that is, in a style combining the greatest degree of bre-rects a limitation for life, with remainder to the heirs vity that is compatible with clearness. As a specimen of the style we extract a portion of the valuable note on Executed and Executory Trusts :— "It is proposed in this note to consider the distinction between trusts executed and crecutory, and the consequences which result from it with reference to 'the limitation of estates. of the body, the Court has no such ground for decreeing a strict settlement. A testator gives arbitrarily 'what estate he thinks fit; there is no presumption that he means one quantity of interest rather than another-an estate for life rather than in tail or in fee. The subject being mere bounty, the intended ex'tent of that bounty can be known only from the words "A trust is said to be executed when no act is neces-in which it is given; but if it is clearly to be ascer'sary to be done to give effect to it, the limitation being 'tained, from anything in the will, that the testator 'originally complete; as where an estate is conveyed or 'did not mean to use the expressions which he has em'devised unto and to the use of A. and his heirs, in trustployed, in their strict proper technical sense, the for B. and the heirs of his body. Court, in decreeing such settlement as he has directed, "A trust is said to be executory where some further will depart from his words in order to execute his inact is necessary to be done by the author of the trust, tention. In Lord Deerhurst v. The Duke of St. Alor the trustees, to give effect to it; as in the case of 'ban's, (5 Madd. 260), Sir J. Leach, V. C., observes, as 'marriage articles, and as in the case of a will where to the distinction between marriage articles and a will, 'property is vested in trustees, in trust to settle or con-You are guided to the meaning of articles by the plain vey; in both which cases a further act, viz. a settle- 'object of consideration in them, the issue of the mar'ment or conveyance, is contemplated. riage; but you know nothing of the motive and object of a will but what you collect from the language of it.' (See also Maguire v. Scully, 2 Hog. 113; Stratford v. Powell, 1 Ball & B. 25). "It is now clearly established, as laid down by Lord Talbot in Lord Glenorchy v. Bosville, that a court of 'equity, in cases of executed trusts, will construe the li'mitations in the same manner as similar legal limitations. If, for instance, an estate is vested in trustees and their heirs, in trust for A. for life, without im'peachment of waste, with remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, with remainder in trust 'for the heirs of A.'s body, the trust being an executed trust, A., according to the rule in Shelley's case, which is a rule of law, will be held to take an estate 'tail. (See Wright v. Pearson, 1 Eden, 119; Austen v. Taylor, Id. 361; Jones v. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 206; Jervoise v. The Duke of Northumberland, 1 J. & W. 559, clearly overruling the opinion expressed by Lord Hardwicke in Bagshaw v. Spencer, 2 Atk. 577, when he erroneously reversed the decision of 'Sir Joseph Jekyll, M. R. See also Boswell v. Dillon, ' 1 Dru. 291). . "In cases, however, of executory trusts, where, accord'ing to Lord Talbot's observation in Lord Glenorchy v. Bosville, something is left to be done, viz. the trusts are 'left to be executed in a more careful and more accurate manner, a court of equity is not, as in cases of executed 6 "In consequence of the distinction adverted to, it will be most convenient to consider executory trusts 'under marriage articles and executory trusts under 'wills separately." (Pp. 18, 19). With regard to the question, whether, since the passing of the stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, a limitation to trustees to preserve contingent remainders is necessary, the editors, in their note on the important case of Garth v. Cotton, (a case which is well worth the careful perusal not only of every student of law, but of every man who wishes to see a chain of reasoning that carries the mind along almost with the force of a mathematical demonstration, and that, too, couched in nervous, plain, and idiomatic English), after discussing it, though with somewhat too great brevity, conclude, we think, rightly, that, "where the legal fee is not vested in trustees, a limitation to trustees to support contingent remain'ders is still necessary, when there is only a previous estate for years; and it is conceived, that, even where there is a previous estate of freehold, it may still be useful, as the trustees to support contingent remain trusts, bound to construe technical expressions withders can, by an application for an injunction before the 'legal strictness, but will mould the trusts according to the intent of the creator of the trusts. contingent remainder-man comes into esse, protect his 'estate from waste." (P. 497). We shall make one more extract, which appears to us to be extremely well done. In the note on the case of Fox v. Mackreth-which established the rule, that a purchase by a trustee for sale from his cestui que trust, although he may have given an adequate price, and gained no advantage, shall be set aside at "The costs of the suit, where the sale is set aside, the option of the cestui que trust, unless the con-must be paid by the trustee, (Sanderson v. Walker, nexion between them has been dissolved, and all know-13 Ves. 601; Hall v. Hallet, 1 Cox, 141; Whichcote v. ledge of the value of the property acquired by the trus-Lawrence, 3 Ves. 740; Dunbar v. Tredennick, 2 Ball tee has been communicated to his cestui que trust- '& B. 304; see, however, Baker v. Carter, 1 You. & C. the editors, after giving an enumeration of cases which 'Exch. Cas. 250), unless there has been great delay on come under the prohibitory rule, and also of the cases 'the part of the cestui que trust. (The Attorney-Gewherein a trustee can purchase from a cestui que trust,neral v. Lord Dudley, Coop. 146). And even if the thus proceed:'cestui que trust fails to set aside the sale on account "It remains to consider the nature of the relief a court of his own delay, the Court may refuse the trustee of equity will grant against a trustee or other personhis costs. (Gregory v. Gregory, Coop. 201; Champion 'who has made a purchase which is improper, accord-'v. Rigby, 1 Russ. & My. 539). 'ing to the rules before laid down, and upon what terms 'that relief will be granted. 'tui que trust can, as in the principal case, make him account for what he has received over and above the purchase-money he himself paid, with interest at 4%. per cent. (Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Hall v. Hallet, 1 Cox, 134). 66 Acquiescence for a long time in an improper sale 'will disable a person from coming into a court of equity "The cestui que trust, if he wishes it, can insist upon " to set it aside. (Morse v. Royal, 12 Ves. 355; Price v. 'a re-conveyance of the estate from the trustee who Byrne, cited with approbation by Lord Alvanley in 'purchased, if it remains in his hands unsold; (The Campbell v. Walker, 5 Ves. 681; Champion v. Rigby, "York Buildings Company v. M'Kenzie, 8 Bro. P. C. 42,1 Russ. & My. 539; Roberts v. Tunstall, 4 Hare, Toml. ed.; Lord Hardwicke v. Vernon, 4 Ves. 411;257). But to fix acquiescence upon a party, it should Randall v. Errington, 10 Ves. 423); or from a person unequivocally appear that he knew the fact upon who has purchased from him, with notice. (The At-which the supposed acquiescence is founded, and to torney-General v. Lord Dudley, Coop. 146; Dunbar v. 'which it refers.' (Per Sir William Grant, M. R., in 'Tredennick, 2 Ball & B. 304). But the re-conveyance 'Randall v. Errington, 10 Ves. 428). (See also Chal'will only be decreed upon the terms of his repaying mer v. Bradley, 1 J. & W. 51; Trevelyan v. Charter, the purchase-money, with interest at 41. per cent., 4 Law Journ., Chanc., 209; S. C., 11 Cl. & Fin. 714). and all sums which may have been expended in re- 'And the distress of the cestui que trust may be an ex'pairs and improvements of a permanent and lasting cuse for acquiescence. (Gregory v. Gregory, Coop. 201; 'nature, and also such as have a tendency to bring the Roche v. O'Brien, 1 Ball & B. 342). But it has been 'estate to a better sale. On the other hand, there' held that laches do not apply to a body of creditors, 'must be an allowance for acts that deteriorate the value to whom relief will be granted, when it would be re'of the estate, and the trustee must account for all rents 'fused to an individual. (See case in the Exchequer, received by him, and for all profits, such as money 'cited 6 Ves. 632; Whichcote v. Lawrence, 3 Ves. 740; arising from the sale of timber; and he must also pay 'The York Buildings Company v. M'Kenzie, 8 Bro. 'an occupation rent for such part of the estate as may P. C. 42, Toml. ed.) have been in his actual possession. (Hall v. Hallet, "A cestui que trust may confirm an invalid sale, so 1 Cox, 134; Ex parte Hughes, 6 Ves. 624, 625; Camp-that he cannot afterwards set it aside. (Morse v. Royal, bell v. Walker, 5 Ves. 682; Ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves. $400, 401; Robinson v. Ridley, 6 Madd. 2; Ex parte James, 8 Ves. 351; Ex parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 630; Watson v. Toone, 6 Madd. 153; The York Buildings Com*pany v. M'Kenzie, 8 Bro. P. C. 42, Toml. ed.) 12 Ves. 355; Roche v. O'Brien, 1 Ball & B. 353). But, in order to constitute a valid confirmation, a person must be aware that the act he is doing will have the effect of confirming an impeachable transac'tion. (Murray v. Palmer, 2 S. & L. 486; Dunbar v. "If the cestui que trust does not wish for a re-con- 'Tredennick, 2 Ball & B. 317; Malony v. L'Estrange, veyance of the estate, an order will be made, that the1 Beat. 413; Adams v. Clifton, 1 Russ. 297; Cockeexpense of repairs and improvements, not only sub- rell v. Cholmeley, 1 Russ. & My. 425; Chalmer v. stantial and lasting, but such as have a tendency to 'Bradley, 1 J. & W. 51). Nor will the act of conbring the estate to a better sale, after making an al-firmation be valid, if it be done in distress and diffilowance for acts that deteriorate the value of the estate, 'culties, under the force, pressure, and influence of the shall be added to the purchase-money, and that the 'former transaction. (Crowe v. Ballard, 3 Bro. C. C. estate shall be put at the accumulated sum: if any one '120; Wood v. Downes, 18 Ves. 128; Roche v. 'makes an advance upon that sum, the trustee shall not O'Brien, 1 Ball & B. 330). And it must be an act have the estate; if no one does, he will be held to his separate and distinct from the impeachable transacpurchase. (Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Ex parte tion, and not, as in the principal case, a conveyance Hughes, 6 Ves. 617; Ex parte Lacey, Id. 625; Lister executed in consequence of a former contract or covev. Lister, Id. 631; Ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves. 381; Exnant. (Morse v. Royal, 12 Ves. 373; Wood v. Downes, parte Hewitt, 2 M. & A. 477). But where the trustee 18 Ves. 124, 128; Roche v. O'Brien, 1 Ball & B. has bought the estate in one lot, and the cestuis que 338). A confirmation of an invalid sale, by the matrust are desirous of having it sold in several lots, the jority of the creditors of a bankrupt, will not be bindcestuis que trust must first repay him all the moneying upon the minority. (See Ex parte Lacey, 6 Ves. he has advanced, with interest, he accounting for the rents received by him, or paying an occupation rent, if he actually occupied the estate. (Ex parte James, 8 Ves. 351). "Although the purchaser has paid the purchasemoney into court, and it has been invested in the funds, he will not be entitled to any benefit from any advance in the funds, but to his purchase-money and interest only; for, if the stock had fallen, instead of advancing, he could not have been compelled to take it. (Ex parte James, 8 Ves. 351). "Where the trustee has re-sold the estate, the ces 628; Sir G. Colebrooke's case, cited in Ex parte Hughes, 6 Ves. 622, overruling Whelpdale v. Cookson, cited in Campbell v. Walker, 5 Ves. 682; S. C., 1 Ves. 9; Ex parte Thwaites, 1 M. & A. 323)." (Pp. 115117). There are leading and misleading cases, and it seems to fall strictly within the province of an editor of cases belonging to the former class to warn his readers against such of the latter kind as, not having been overruled, may fall in his way. This part of their duty the learned editors have not, in our opinion, sufficiently discharged. They have used research and judgment in we CAP. V. CAP. VI. [9th March, 1849.] An Act to repeal an Act of the Twenty-first Year of George II, CAP. VII. An Act to authorise the Inclosure of certain Lands in pursu- the selection and application of their illustrations, but they have seldom undertaken the responsibility of dis- An Act to authorise an Advance of Money for the Relief of cussing doubtful or erroneous decisions. Possibly they certain distressed Poor-law Unions in Ireland. adopt an opinion which is not uncommon, that should avoid throwing doubts on decisions; for it is better that the law should be settled imperfectly, than that it should be ever unsettled and in the course of improvement." But it is a fallacy to call the upholding of anomalous decisions a settlement of the law. Judges follow precedents, but, as no two cases agree in the concrete, they necessarily follow precedents as principles; and when they follow an anomalous precedent, though they may settle the law for a small nucleus of cases in which the erroneous precedent must either be followed or be flatly overruled, they unsettle it for a much larger number of cases lying round about, in which the almost endless distinctions, qualifications, and exceptions must be debated and established, that at length constitute rather a nebulous margin between truth and error, than a limit to either. An erroneous decision is like a bad act of Parliament-it may be overruled or repealed with, at most, a trifling temporary inconvenience; if it remains law, it is the parent of endless litigation. We have only space shortly to refer to a single example of the defect we complain of. In the note to Elliot v. Merryman the learned editors state Lord Lyndhurst's decision in Forbes v. Peacock, (1 Ph. 717), that executors having authority to sell real estate for the payment of debts, and also for other purposes, can, by force of the charge of debts, give a good discharge for the purchase-money, although they so behave as to give to the purchaser notice (and notice from themselves, which is the important An Act for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the better point) that they know of no unpaid debts, and are not selling for the payment of debts. Messrs. White and Tudor cite this judgment without comment, and without referring to the construction put upon it in a note by the reporter, apparently sanctioned by Lord Lyndhurst-a construction strikingly at variance with the terms of the decision. That the judgment, both according to its literal purport, and according to Mr. Phillips's explanation of it, is unsound, and has unsettled a doctrine which previously was well defined and well established, a contributor has endeavoured to shew at large elsewhere, (11 Jur., part 2, pp. 110, 124), and we shall content ourselves with referring to his argument. with. Sect. 1. Inclosures mentioned in schedule may be proceeded 2. Short title. CAP. VIII. An Act to remove Doubts as to the Appointment of Overseers in Cities and Boroughs. [22nd March, 1849.] CAP. IX. An Act to indemnify such Persons in the United Kingdom as CAP. X. Payment of the Army and their Quarters. CAP. XI. [3rd April, 1849.] An Act to amend the Laws in England and Ireland relative to Sect. 1. Punishment of transportation taken away in the case of simple larceny. 2. Tenants and lodgers stealing from houses or apartments let to them, if the value exceed 57., punishable as before the passing of this act. 3. Larceny, &c., after two previous summary convictions, punishable as before the passing of this act. 4. In indictments against persons twice convicted it shall be sufficient to state the fact, and certified copies of convic tions to be evidence. CAP. XII. An Act for the Regulation of her Majesty's Royal Marine CAP. XIII. An Act to provide a more effectual Regulation and Control over the Maintenance of poor Persons in Houses not being the Workhouses of any Union or Parish. CAP. XIV. [11th May, 1849.] An Act to enable Overseers of the Poor and Surveyors of the CAP. XV. An Act to amend an Act of the Fifty-fourth Year of King CAP. XVI. An Act to protect Justices of the Peace in Ireland from vexa- CAP. XVIII. An Act for the holding of Petty Sessions of the Peace in Boroughs, and for providing Places for the holding of such Petty Sessions in Counties and Boroughs. [11th May, 1849.] Sect. 1. Petty Sessions of the Peace in Boroughs. 2. Justices at General or Quarter Sessions, or the Council in Boroughs, may provide Places for holding Petty Sessions. The Justices or Council may agree for the Use of the County Court for that Purpose. 3. Justices of the Peace of different Counties may provide Places for holding Petty Sessions at the joint Expense of such Counties. Whereas certain meetings of justices of the peace called petty sessions of the peace are holden in and for certain divisions of the several counties of England and Wales called petty sessional divisions, and important duties have lately been assigned to the justices attending at such petty sessions, and to their clerks, by certain acts of Parliament, and it is desirable to declare and enact that the sittings of justices of the peace, or of a stipendiary magistrate, in and for every city, borough, or town corporate having a separate commission of the peace, or for any part thereof, shall be deemed a petty sessions of the peace within the meaning of such acts, and that buildings or places at which such petty sessions may be holden shall, where necessary, be provided: be it therefore enacted, &c., that every sitting and acting of justices of the peace, or of a stipendiary magistrate, in and for any city, borough, or town corporate having a separate commission of the peace, or any part thereof, within England and Wales, at any police court or other place appointed in that behalf, shall be deemed a petty sessions of the peace, and the district for which the same shall be holden shall be deemed a petty sessional division, within the meaning of any acts of Parliament, already made or hereafter to be made, having relation to such petty sessions, or to any business to be transacted thereat. 2. That in all cases where at present there are not, or where hereafter there shall not be, any fit or proper place for the holding of such petty sessions within any such petty sessional division as aforesaid, in any county, riding, liberty, or division within England and Wales, or within any city, borough, or town corporate within the same, it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace for any such county, riding, liberty, or division, in general or quarter sessions assembled, and for the council or other governing body in any such city, borough, or town corporate having a separate commission of the peace, respectively, if they shall respectively think fit, from time to time to direct that fit and proper places be hired or otherwise provided for the holding of such petty sessions of the peace within any such petty sessional division as aforesaid, and that the expenses thereof and attendant thereon be paid out of the county rate or borough fund respectively, as the case may be : provided always, that no such direction for hiring or otherwise providing any place for the holding of such petty sessions shall be given by the justices for any such county, riding, liberty, or division, so assembled as aforesaid, unless an application in writing for that purpose, signed by the justices of the peace acting in such petty sessional division, or the major part of such justices, shall have been transmitted to the clerk of the peace six weeks at the least before the holding of the general or quarter sessions at which such direction shall be given; and the clerk of the peace shall cause notice of such application to be published in some newspaper circulating in the same county, riding, liberty, or division, and in which the advertisements of county business are usually inserted, fourteen days at the least before the holding of such general or quarter sessions: provided always, that in every such case when it may be so required to provide a fit and proper place for the holding of such petty ses. sions as aforesaid, if it shall appear to the justices so assembled as aforesaid, or to the council of such city, borough, or town corporate, respectively, that the county court for the district is holden in any building or place which would be appropriate for the holding of such petty sessions, it shall be lawful for such justices or council respectively to contract with the treasurer of such county court for the use and occupation thereof or of so much thereof as may be needed for the purposes of such petty sessions, for such time or times, weekly or otherwise, and at such annual rent, and subject to such conditions as to repairs, alterations, or improvements of such building or place, as may be agreed upon. 3. Provided always, and be it enacted, that where justices of the peace, acting as such for two or more adjoining counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions, hold petty sessions on or near the common boundaries of such counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions, it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace of each of such counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions, upon such application as hereinbefore provided, to agree with the justices of the peace of the other or others of such counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions, that a place for the holding of such petty sessions be hired or otherwise provided within either of such counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions, and that the same be so hired or otherwise provided at the joint expense of such counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions, in such manner and proportions as in the said agreement shall be specified; and all the provisions of an act of the last session, [11 & 12 Vict. c. 101], intituled "An Act to provide for the Expenses of erecting and maintaining Lock-up Houses on the Borders of Counties," concerning the appointment and re-assembling of committees, filling up vacancies in committees, the proceedings of committees, the agreement to be drawn by them (except so far as respects the appointment and salary of a superintendent constable), and the powers of the court of general or quarter sessions and of committees in relation to such agreement, and the executing the same, and doing all necessary acts consequential upon such agreement, shall extend and be applicable to every agreement to be made under this act by and between the justices of two or more such counties, ridings, liberties, or divisions as aforesaid, as if such provisions had been here repeated, and the agreement to be made as aforesaid under this act, and the place to be provided for the holding of such petty sessions as aforesaid, had been substituted in such provisions for such agreement and lock-up house as in the said act mentioned. CAP. XIX. London Gazettes. TUESDAY, September 4. BANKRUPTS. Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull.—Wm. Henry Cooke, Denton, Lancashire, hat manufacturer, Sept. 25 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Filmer Keen, Warwick, innkeeper, Sept. 26 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-William Henry Maybury, Worcester, hosier, Sept. 26 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bir. To be allowed by the Vice-Chancellor of the High Court of Chancery, acting in Bankruptcy, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before Sept. 25. William Wilkinson, Birmingham, grocer.- Wm. Prosser Martin, Bath, wine merchant.-John Rewcastle, Gateshead, Durham, copperas maker.-Stephen Dancey, Brighton, Sussex, builder.-William Pyman, St. Osyth, Essex, corn merchant. FIAT ANNULled. GEORGE BORER, Great Chapel-street, Westminster, Mid-mingham. James Smith, Birkenhead, Cheshire, slate and cement merchant. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. Henry Harpur, Samuel Shaen, and Joseph Humphry Grant, Kennington-cross, Surrey, attornies and solicitors, (under the style or firm of Messrs. Harpur, Shaen, & Grant), and Thomas Hans Edwards, Southampton, attornies at law so far as regards the said Henry Harpur.-Charles Davies and solicitors. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. John Noble, Hammerbrake, Sandy, Orkney, cattle dealer. ROBERT TAYLOR, Little Horton, near Bradford, Yorkshire, dealer in provisions and flour, and general shopkeeper, dealer and chapman, Sept. 20 and Oct. 12 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Young; Sols. Fos-maker.-Richard Shannon Michie, Edinburgh, engraver.ter, Bradford; Harle & Clarke, Leeds; Nethersole, New. inn, Strand, London.-Fiat dated Aug. 23. MEETINGS. John Allan, deceased, Glasgow, writer.-Wm. Ballantyne, deceased, Glasgow, spirit dealer.-David Bruce Langlands, Dundee, machine maker. -James Annand, Keith, merchant. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process. John Jones the younger, and Thomas Oakes, Kingswinford, Staffordshire, ironmasters, Sept. 26 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.—Benjamin Hart Thorold, Harmston, Lincolnshire, and Harlesden-green, Willesden, Middlesex, dealer and chapman, Sept. 26 at half-past 11, Court of Robert Grundy Kay, Bury, Lancashire, hatter, Sept. 26 at Bankruptcy, London, aud.ac.-Samuel Vines, Crutched Friars, 12, County Court of Lancashire, at Bury.-William HolLondon, corn factor, Sept. 25 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, ness, Herne-bay, Kent, cowkeeper, Sept. 13 at 10, County London, aud. ac.-Wm. Shackel, Canning-place, Old street, Court of Kent, at Canterbury.-David Morgan, Walton-onSt. Luke's, Middlesex, bacon merchant, Sept. 26 at 11, Court the-Hill, near Liverpool, bookkeeper, Sept. 10 at 10, Liverof Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.—Robert Belson, Norwich, pool District County Court, at Liverpool.-Thos. Southern, plumber, Sept. 26 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. Liverpool, licensed victualler, Sept. 10 at 10, Liverpool Disac.- -Wm. Speller, Berkeley-street West, and George Trigg, trict County Court, at Liverpool.-Jesse James Hudson, Inverness-road, Paddington, Middlesex, builders, Sept. 25 at Liverpool, baker, Sept. 10 at 10, Liverpool District County 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.; Sept. 26 at 12, Court, at Liverpool.—William Germain Charles, Liverpool, div.-Benjamin Dickison, Little Tower-street, London, wine general dealer in fancy goods, Sept. 10 at 10, Liverpool Dismerchant, Sept. 25 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon-trict County Court, at Liverpool.—Robert Johnson, Newcasdon, aud. ac.-George Rackham, Southtown, otherwise Little tle-upon-Tyne, mason, Sept. 20 at 10, County Court of Yarmouth, Suffolk, wine merchant, Sept. 25 at half-past 11, Northumberland, at Newcastle.-Robert Dewar, NewcastleCourt of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Henry Lister, Far upon-Tyne, confectioner, Sept. 20 at 10, County Court of Newland, St. Martin, Lincoln, miller, Sept. 26 at half-past 10, Northumberland, at Newcastle.-George Bishop, Lincoln, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull, aud. ac. watch maker, Sept. 17 at 10, County Court of Lincolnshire, -Wm. Wreford, Edwin Cox Nicholls, and Wm. Ellicombe at Lincoln.-Edwin Tagg, Bilston, Staffordshire, butcher, Wreford, Bristol, stock brokers, Sept. 28 at 11, District Court Sept. 28 at 12, County Court of Staffordshire, at Wolver. of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-James William Taylor, hampton.-James Mumby, Newport, Lincolnshire, wheelExchange-buildings, London, merchant, Sept. 25 at 2, Court of wright, Sept. 17 at 10, County Court of Lincolnshire, at Bankruptcy, London, div.-John Henry Skelton, Piccadilly, Lincoln.-William Ashton, Lincoln, bricklayer, Sept. 17 at Manchester warehouseman, Sept. 25 at 12, Court of Bank. 10, County Court of Lincolnshire, at Lincoln. George ruptcy, London, div.-Wm. Bates, Welbeck-street, Cavendish- Matthews, New Town, Cambridge, boot and shoe maker, square, Middlesex, auctioneer, Sept. 25 at 1, Court of Bank- Sept. 22 at 3, County Court of Cambridgeshire, at Cambridge. ruptcy, London, div. -Thomas Frankland, Whitley, Reading, Berkshire, farming bailiff, Sept. 20 at 10, County Court of Berkshire, at Reading. -Chas. G. Gowen, Bath, razor maker, Sept. 8 at 12, County Court of Somersetshire, at Bath.-Thomas Falkous, Heddonon-the-Wall, Northumberland, merchant, Sept. 20 at 10, County Court of Northumberland, at Newcastle.-John C. Dawson, Upton Magna, Shropshire, railway clerk, Sept. 18 at 10, County Court of Shropshire, at Shrewsbury.-T. Milner, Great Grimsby, Lincolnshire, beer-shop keeper, Sept. 25 at 1, County Court of Lincolnshire, at Great Grimsby.-W. Ratcliffe, Liversedge, Birstal, Yorkshire, commercial traveller, Sept. 20 at 10, County Court of Yorkshire, at Dewsbury. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Henry Walker, Coleman-street, London, oilman, Sept. 26 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Joseph Turner, Newmarket, Suffolk, saddler, Sept. 26 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Nokes the elder, Upminster and Stifford, Essex, miller, Sept. 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Barrett, Oxford, timber merchant, Sept. 25 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.John Nichols, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, innkeeper, Sept. 25 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Charles Henry Lambert, Kingston-upon-Hull, druggist, Sept. 26 at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston uponHull.-Abraham Dunn, Hedon in Holderness, East Riding of Yorkshire, attorney at law, Sept. 26 at half-past 10, District Saturday, Sept. 1. The following Assignees have been appointed. Further par |