assigns; and she executes a bond during the coverture, and survives her husband; it will not bind her property. Lee v. Muggeridge, 1 Ves. & B. 118. 9. Where stock is limited by will in trust for a person for life, with remainder to a married woman; and she and her husband join in assigning parts of the stock to different purchasers for valuable consideration, and then the husband dies in the lifetime of the tenant for life, leaving his wife surviving, who makes an assignment of another portion of the stock to one of the former purchasers, by a deed indorsed on the former assignment to him, and reciting that he was entitled to a certain portion of the stock under the within-written indenture, and referring to the other assignments, and purporting to transfer the property subject to those assignments; such deed does not operate as a confirmation of the prior assignments. Honner v. Morton, 3 Russ. 65. IV. Where a married woman has a reversionary interest in personalty vested in trustees, and not bequeathed or settled to her separate use, a court of equity will not order it to be paid over to any other person, even on the application of the wife, unless, perhaps, under very special circumstances, where it appears to be greatly for the benefit of the family in general, and where the trustees fully concur in the application. Hence, 1. Where personalty is settled on the husband for life; and, if he survives his wife, it is to go to him absolutely; but, if she survives, to her absolutely; and they file a bill, praying that the whole may be paid to the husband; the bill will be dismissed. (Seaman v. Duill, 10 Ves. 580). For, as the wife could not have assigned her interest to her husband, so neither will a court of equity order the money to be paid to him, and thereby defeat the objects of a settlement by stripping the wife of the provision made for her by the settle ment. 2. And where a married woman has a reversionary interest in stock in court under a settlement, subject to a life interest of another person, and not settled to her separate use, the court will not order such stock to be transferred to the tenant for life, on the application of the husband and wife. Box v. Box, 2 Con. & L. 605. 3. But where personalty is limited by a marriage settlement in trust for the husband for life, with remainder in trust for the wife for life, with remainder in trust for such persons as the survivor shall appoint, and the husband and wife appoint the property to the husband; and, on a bill being filed against the trustees to carry this appointment into execution, and to have the settlement cancelled, they state in their answer that they are desirous that the prayer of the bill should be complied with, as being for the benefit of the family, and the wife consents in court; the court will, under very special circumstances, make the decree accordingly. (Macarmic v. Buller, 1 Cox, 357). In this case, the husband had been appointed governor of Cape Breton; and, in Sperling v. Rochfort, (8 Ves. 174), Lord Eldon, C., said he was counsel in the case of Macarmic v. Buller, and that the husband could not have taken the appointment without the use of the money. There is also a case of Butler v. Duncomb, (2 Vern. 762), in which a married woman was entitled to a portion raisable by means of a term out of real estate, after the death of the tenant for life, and no interest was payable for it in the meantime; and the court, with the consent of the wife, decreed that the husband (who was a considerable tradesman) might dispose of a moiety of the portion. But this case must be regarded as overruled. V. A court of equity will not establish a contract for the sale of the reversionary interest of a married woman in personalty, not bequeathed or settled for her separate use, except subject and without prejudice to her right to avoid such contract in case her husband dies before her without having reduced the fund into possession. Hence, 1. Where stock is bequeathed in trust for a person for life, with remainder to a woman, who afterwards marries, and a suit is instituted, the court will not take her consent to a transfer to a purchaser from her hus band and herself. Wade v. Saunders, 1 T. & R. 306. 2. But where personalty is bequeathed to a person for life, with remainder to a feme for life, who afterwards marries, and, with her husband, contracts to sell her reversionary interest, and a bill is filed by them for a specific performance, at the desire of the purchaser, in order that the consent of the wife may be taken by the court, the court will take her consent de bene esse, and decree a specific performance. (Hewitt v. Croucher, before Lord Alvanley, and Woollands v. Crowcher, before Sir W. Grant, 12 Ves. 174). In Box v. Box, (2 Con. & L. 609), Sir E. Sugden, C., said, "I do not quite understand the meaning of taking her consent de bene esse, unless you treat it as a contingent interest, and say that the consent was to operate if the fund ever fell into possession ;" i. e. if the married woman, who had only a life interest, survived the prior taker. But Mr. Roper, in his work on Husband and Wife, (2nd ed., p. 248), and Mr. Daniell, in his Treatise on Chancery Practice, (Vol. 1, ed. 1, p. 165), and Sir T. Plumer, V. C., in Hornsby v. Lee, (2 Mad. 20), understand it to mean a consent taken so as not to preclude the question as to her title by survivorship, in the event of the wife being the survivor. And this view would seem most to accord with the general tenor of the judgment. And, where money was limited by a marriage settlement upon trust for the husband and wife successively for life, with remainder to their children as they or the survivor should appoint, and, for want of appointment, among the children equally; and, in case that both the husband and wife should die without children, or that the children should die under twenty-one, then in trust for the wife, her executors, administrators, or assigns; and, if she should die without issue, then, as to part, in trust for such person as she should appoint; and, as to another part, to the husband; and as to the rest, in trust for the husband for life, and then in trust for such persons as she should appoint; and, her husband being in distress, she made an assignment and appointment; and a bill was filed to have her consent taken, and to establish the assignment and appointment, subject to the claims of the husband and wife for life, and the right of the children; the money was ordered to be paid into court for the contingent trusts of the settlement, and the conveyance, with the wife's consent, was established. Guise v. Small, 1 Anst. 277. There is, indeed, a decision in Howard v. Damiani, (2 Jac. & Walk. 458, n.), that, where a fund vested in trustees is given to a woman who afterwards marries, to be paid to her after the death of another person who has a life interest in the fund, and such tenant for life purchases the married woman's reversionary interest from her husband, the court, on the consent of the wife, will order the trustees to pay over the fund to the tenant for life. But this decision must be regarded as overruled by many of the cases previously noticed. VI. Where a married woman is entitled to a reversionary interest in a fund in court, subject to a life interest in another person, who is not her husband, and such person surrenders his life interest to the married woman, the court will take the consent of the married woman to a payment of the fund to her husband, and order payment to him accordingly; because the interest of the married woman has ceased to be reversionary. Lachton v. Adams, 5 Law Journ., N. S., C., 382. In this case the Vice-Chancellor made the order on an ex parte application. Mr. G. Richards, after the rising of the Vice-Chancellor, applied to the Lord Chan cellor to take the consent of the married woman for the payment. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottenham) said, the life estate had merged, and the interest of the married woman was no longer reversionary. He therefore took her consent, and made the order. Ib. VII. Where a sum is limited by will in trust for a married woman, by way of remainder after a life interest in another person who is not her husband, without being limited for her separate use, and the money is paid by the trustee to the husband, with his wife's consent, on his undertaking to pay the interest to the tenant for life; in such case, if the wife files a bill for the sum so paid over, it will be dismissed, because, by means of the payment of the fund itself to the husband, it becomes completely reduced into possession by him. Doswell v. Earle, 12 Ves. 473. In this case, it was argued for the executors of the trustee and executrix, who paid over the money, and for the executors of the husband, that the wife consented to the payment at the time, and acquiesced in it for nine years after her husband's death. But the decision, for which no grounds are stated in the judgment, could not have been justly founded on these circumstances. The mere consent of the wife during coverture was a nullity; and, as to her subsequent acquiescence, she merely postponed proceeding until the death of the tenant for life, until her own right of possession accrued; and it would not seem reasonable that she should have been under the necessity of involving herself in a Chancery suit respecting the money while her interest in it was yet future in point of enjoyment, and when she might die before any present right of immediate enjoyment accrued. (See Honnor v. Morton, 3 Russ. 65). VIII. Where stock is limited by way of remainder for a woman who afterwards marries, and the tenant for life, who is not her husband, agrees to surrender the life interest in such manner as that the same may be merged and extinguished, so as to reduce the interest of the married woman into possession, so that the stock may be transferred to the husband, but the trustees refuse to join in the arrangement except under the indemity of the court; in such case, on a bill being filed for the purpose, the court will order such arrangement to be carried into effect. This was done by the Vice-Chancellor of England in Creed v. Perry, (2 Eq. Rep. 42). And an arrangement of the same kind was established by the same learned judge in the case of Wilson v. Oldham, March 5, 1841, cited by Mr. Lewin in his work on Trusts, (2nd ed., 296), which was a case of an amicable suit, instituted by the advice of the late Mr. Jacob; who, as Mr. Lewin states, wrote an opinion, that, if the tenant for life, who was not the husband of the feme, assigned his interest to her, the effect would be to convert her interest into an immediate right to the fund in possession. Sir Thomas Plumer observes in the passage already quoted) the husband "has only the right to reduce it into possession, if it be in a state capable of being so reduced." Admitting, then, this case to have been rightly decided, as, for the foregoing reasons, the writer conceives it was, it does not clash with the decisions previously noticed. But, according to the case of Ellis v. Atkinson, (3 Bro. C. C. 563), where personal property is limited by a settlement in trust for the separate use of the wife during the joint lives of herself and her husband; with remainder, in case she shall survive him, in trust for herself, her executors or administrators; but, in case she shall die in his lifetime, upon such trusts as she shall by deed or will appoint; and, in default of appointment, in trust for her executors or administrators; and she appoints that her husband shall receive the interest during their joint lives, and that, in case she shall die in his lifetime, the property shall, after her decease, be in trust for him, his executors, administrators, and assigns; and she ("so far as she is in law or equity capable of so doing") assigns the same to her husband, his executors, administrators, and assigns; in such case, on a bill filed for the purpose, the court will direct the trustees to assign the property to the husband. Now, if this case was rightly decided, it serves to support the decisions in Lachton v. Adams and Creed v. Perry. The writer conceives, however, that it was wrongly decided; and he thinks so, for the same reasons for which he believes that the conflicting case of Richards v. Chambers was rightly decided, and be cause the assignment made by the wife, which is the only thing that distinguishes this case from Richardsv. Chambers in point of circumstances, was a mere nullity, and therefore does not constitute any material distinc tion between this case and Richards v. Chambers. He may add, however, that, as this case of Ellis v. Atkinson is so clearly distinguishable from Lachton v. Adams, Creed v. Perry, Wilson v. Oldham, and Doswell v. Earle, the opinion he entertains that it was wrongly decided, and that there were no grounds for directing the trus tees to assign the property to the husband, does not in the slightest degree militate against his opinion of the soundness of the decisions in those other cases. He believes that Ellis v. Atkinson is to be classed with Atkins v. Dawbury, Butler v. Duncomb, and Howard v. Dumiani, which would seem to favour the notion, that the reversionary interest of a married woman in personal property can be in all respects effectually disposed of, without any preliminary steps to accelerate it, especially if the wife consents in court,-a notion which we have seen is now completely exploded. X. Where personalty is limited by will in trust for a person for life, with remainder in trust for a daughter, who marries, and the tenant for life makes a gift of the life interest to the daughter's husband, the court will not transfer the property in court to the husband, even with the wife's consent. Pickard v. Roberts, 3 Mad. 384. IX. But where personal property is limited by marriage settlement in trust for the sole and separate use of the wife for life; and, if she survives her husband, it is to be absolutely hers; and, if she dies in his lifetime, it is to go to such persons as she shall appoint; and, in In this case, also, there is no change of the reverdefault of appointment, to her executors and admini-sionary interest into an interest in possession; for, as strators; and she executes an appointment in his favour, the husband has no interest analogous to an estate in and then she and her husband apply to the Court of remainder in such property, but only the right to reChancery for a transfer of the property in court to duce the reversionary interest into possession when in them, such an application will not be granted. (Richards a state capable of being so reduced, he has nothing in v. Chambers, 10 Ves. 580). For in this case there is which the life interest could merge. And hence this no conversion of the reversionary interest into an in- decision does not conflict with the cases of Doswell v. terest in possession by merger of the prior life interest. Earle, Lachton v. Adams, Creed v. Perry, and Wilson v. The appointment over the reversionary interest is only Oldham, any more than the case of Richards v. Chamto take effect in an event yet in contingency, and that bers clashes with them. event is the event of his surviving her: so that the reversionary interest could not be said to be vested in the husband by force of the appointment: nor could it be vested in him by force of his marital right; for (as XI. Where personalty is limited by deed in trust for a person for life, with remainder in trust for his wife for life, with remainder to such of her children as she shall appoint, and, in default of appointment, in trust for such children; and she makes an appointment of part to one child, and joins with the husband in assigning their respective life interests to that child; the court will not take her consent, and compel the trustees to pay over the money to such child. Fraser v. Baillie, 1 Bro. C. C. 518. making an effectual disposition of the property even as against herself. Again, the act of the wife in joining in the deed whereby the life interest was surrendered was a mere nullity. And, as to the voluntary assignment by the husband of her reversionary interest, it could not pass that reversionary interest to the trustee In this case, again, there is no change of the rever-in such a way as to lead to the merger of the life insionary interest into an interest in possession; for the terest surrendered to the trustee. We have seen that assignment by the wife is a nullity; and, for the rea- the husband has only the right to reduce the chose in sons given with reference to the above case of Pickard action into possession when in a state capable of being v. Roberts and the case of Bean v. Sykes, (mentioned so reduced; and by a voluntary assignment no more infra), the husband's assignment is incapable of passing would pass to the assignee in any event than the husthe wife's reversionary interest so as to subject it to the band himself possessed at the time of the assignment. operation of merger. And the truth is, that the decree in Bean v. Sykes only amounted to an authority to the original trustee to transfer the fund to the new trustees, and cannot properly be regarded as determining the question as to the general power of making an effectual disposition of the reversionary interest of a married woman. (To be concluded next week with Part II, comprising the general result of the cases, with some reasons in support of the practicability of dealing with reversionary interests of married women by means of acceleration). It was not attempted, indeed, to support the application in this case on the ground of merger. The prayer of the bill was, that the consent of the wife might be taken in the nature of a fine at common law of real property. And Baron Eyre objected, that it did not occur to him that the court had authorised the departure with the property of the wife, by examining her in the nature of a fine at law. And, as to the same point, Sir John Leach, V. C., remarked, in Pickard v. Roberts, "that a wife, by her consent in a court of equity, can only part with that interest which is a creature of a court of equity, the right which she has in a court of equity to claim a provision by way of settlement on herself and children, out of that property which the husband at law would take in possession in her right." And in Richards v. Chambers, Sir W. Grant, M. R., observed, "This case is not like those in which the husband has a right to the trust property of his wife, subject only to an [equitable] obligation to make some provision for her before he reduces it into possession. When the wife, upon examination, consents to relinquish that equity, it is not by virtue of a disposing power in her, or by the intervention of the court, that the property passes to the husband. His marital right is allowed to operate unobstructed by the equity which the wife does not oppose to it. The equity being out of the way, the right stands unqualified, and upon that the court decrees; but here is no pretence of right on the part of the husband." (10 Ves. 587). While we have seen that the case of Fraser v. Baillie does not clash with the cases of Doswell v. Earle, Lachton v. Adams, Creed v. Perry, and Wilson v. Oldham, and while the writer believes there is no case which really does conflict with them, he is not aware that there are any other cases in favour of the doctrine which they support. There is, indeed, another case (Bean v. Sykes) which has been brought forward in support of the doctrine, that the reversionary interests of married women in personal property may be effectually dealt with, but which, the writer submits, is not to be relied on to that extent. According to this case, where personal property is bequeathed upon trust for a person for life, with remainder to a woman who afterwards marries, and her husband assigns her reversionary interest to a trustee, upon certain trusts, and afterwards, by a deed, in which the wife joins, the prior interest is surrendered by the tenant for life to such trustee, for the purpose of merging it, the latter thereby becomes entitled in possession to the property upon the trust of the deed of assignment to him, and a court of equity will direct the trustee under the will to pay it over to him accordingly. (Bean v. Sykes, reported 2 Hayes' Conv., 5th ed., p. 640). In this case the reversionary interest was assigned by the husband to the trustee above mentioned, upon trust, in default of appointment, for the separate use of the wife. But the effect of the transaction could not have depended on the assignment to her separate use; for, if that were the case, it would only be necessary for a husband to assign his wife's reversionary interest to her separate use, in order to give her the power of COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. court in the following cases:- June 9.-Cocker v. Musgrove-Rule absolute for new trial. Brown v. Deakin-Rule refused. Rule nisi for Weiss v. Lumley-Judgment to be set aside on striking out the last plea. Maple v. Green-Rule refused. Reg. v. The Great North of England Railway Company-Verdict for the Crown on the first four counts to remain undisturbed. London Gazettes. TUESDAY, JUNE 9. BANKRUPTS. JOHN WRIGHT, Oxford-street, Middlesex, druggist and June 6. Fiat JESSE SMITH, Wellington-street, Newington-causeway, Durham, wine merchants, June 30 at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.; July 2 at half-past 11, div. sep. est. S. Pilling.-John Bulmer, Hartlepool, Durham, merchant, June 30 at half-past 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac.—John Thompson, Sunderland, Durham, chain manufacturer, June 30 at half-past 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastleupon-Tyne, aud. ac.; July 2 at half-past 12, fin. div.-Chas. Scott, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, currier, July 2 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac. 2 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.and pr. d.-Jos. Ankerett, Walsall, Staffordshire, grocer, July John Rowles, Leicester, worsted manufacturer, June 30 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac. and div. -Wm. W. Sanderson, Great Russell-street, Covent-garden, Middlesex, baker, June 30 at half-past 12, Court of Bank. ruptcy, London, div.-John C. Adams, Basinghall-street, London, woollen warehouseman, June 30 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Jas. Mann, Norwich, woolstapler, June 30 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Thos. Streeter, High-street, Camden-town, Middlesex, draper, June 30 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Hen. Turner, Theobald's-road, Bedford-row, Middlesex, cowkeeper, June 30 at half-past 12, Court of Bank. ruptcy, London, div.-John C. Chambers, Ipsley, Warwickshire, needle manufacturer, July 4 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac. and div. CERTIFICATES. grocer, British wine merchant, dealer and chapman, June 18 at half-past 11, and July 20 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Turquand; Sol. Butler, To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on the Tooley-street.-Fiat dated June 4. | Day of Meeting. John Kirkup, Rotherhithe, Surrey, coal merchant, June 30 FRANCIS FREEMAN PHILLIPS, Bristol, coach maker, JOHN CHILD, Wakefield, Yorkshire, grocer, dealer and FREDERICK SLY, Truro, Cornwall, currier, June 18 at CHARLES GALLIMORE, Birmingham, pearl button and MEETINGS. | | Charles Collins, Kidderminster, and King William-street and Adelaide-place, London, yarn and commission agent, June 19 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.- -Wm. John Haddan, Tottenham, Middlesex, brewer, June 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex. John Walker Ellis, Law. rence-lane, Cheapside, London, cloth merchant, June 26 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex. - Richard Lewis, Wootton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, woollen manufacturer, June 23 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, last ex. -James Wallace, Durham, Sunderland, grocer, June 19 at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-uponTyne, last ex.; June 30 at 12, aud. ac.; July 2 at half-past 10, div.-Wm. Miller, Manchester, manufacturer, June 19 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Jas. Featherstone and Robert Kirkpatrick, Manchester, iron founders, June 20 at half-past 10, District Court of Bank ruptcy, Manchester, last ex. Robert Kirkpatrick.—John Tuddenham, Pickering-place, Bayswater, Middlesex, builder, June 30 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.Thomas Cooper, New Bond-street, Middlesex, umbrella manufacturer, July 3 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. | ac.-John Harford and Wm. W. Davies, Bristol, and Sirhowy, Monmouthshire, iron masters, July 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.; July 9 at 11, div. sep. est. J. Halford.-Thos. Williams, Bristol, licensed victualler, July 9 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-Sydney Pilling and Rob. G. Watson, Gateshead, | Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before June 30. Geo. Williams, Bristol, watch maker.-Rich. Goodridge, Exeter, baker.-Jos. Johns, Grosvenor-street West, Pimlico, Middlesex, cook.-Eliz. Rolph and Thos. Rolph, Shepherd'scourt, Upper Brook-st., Grosvenor-sq., Middlesex, builders. James Rob. Ellis, Houndsditch, London, brass founder.Gilbert Brown, Shiffnal, Shropshire, banker. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. Jas. R. Nicoll and Thos. Nicoll, Dundee, iron merchants. -Hugh and Wm. Brown, Glasgow, stock and share brokers. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process. John Reed, Brick-lane, Bethnal-green, Middlesex, corn dealer, June 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Johs Diron, Ponder's-end, Middlesex, out of business, June 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-J. Bugg, Hoxton Oldtown, St. Leonard, Shoreditch, Middlesex, grocer, June 25 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. - Ch. Gardiner, Gibson-street, Waterloo-road, Lambeth, Surrey, tailor, June 25 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. H. Williams, Brighton, Sussex, gentleman, June 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. Brown, Earl-street, Londonroad, Southwark, Surrey, coach smith, June 25 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-W. Wyndham Hughes, Borrowash, Ockbrook, Derbyshire, surveyor, June 25 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Juan Macdonald, Cork-street, Burlington-gardens, Middlesex, gentleman, June 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James Merrifield, Field-cottage, Cornwall-place, Holloway, Middlesex, clerk to the commissioners for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales, June 25 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. - Anne Trott, Sparrows Herne, Bushey, Hertfordshire, grocer, June 25 at 11,. Court of Bankruptcy, London.-T. Brown, Irthlingborough, Northamptonshire, tailor, June 25 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George Bushell, Thornham, Kent, out of business, June 25 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Adams, Little Clacton, Essex, farmer, June 18 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-J. Hardy, Tooley-street, St. John, Horsleydown, Southwark, boot maker, June 18 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Samuel West, Bristol, out of business, June 16 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Wm. Robinson, Hart's-hill, Dudley, Worcestershire, out of business, June 16 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Wm. Woodward the younger, Nottingham, out of business, June 23 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Wm. Rolinson, Hart's-hill, Dudley, Worcestershire, out of business, June 16 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham-John Davies, St. Mary, Haverfordwest, grazier, June 18 at half-past 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol. -Henry Wm. Hayes, Exeter, out of business, June 18 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Rodolph S. Zamoiski, Exeter, inventor and seller of the royal magnetic belt, June 17 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Wm. Kiddle, Charles-street, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, commission agent, June 25 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Thomas, Merthyr Tydfil, Glamorganshire, grocer, June 25 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-J. Hill, Upcott-village, Culmstock, Devonshire, farmer, June 16 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-Joseph Butterworth, Lozells, near Birmingham, out of business, June 17 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.—Wm. Manton, Birmingham, out of business, June 10 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Rich. Jones, Ty Cerrig, Llangwin, Denbighshire, out of business, June 16 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy; Liverpool.-Jos. Ibbs, Liverpool, inspector of the Liverpool dispensaries, June 16 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-George Marsden, Elland, Yorkshire, weaver, June 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Antoine F. Charles Stuhlmann the younger, Leeds, Yorkshire, professor of the German language, June 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.- Benjamin Clarkson, Thornhill, near Dewsbury, Yorkshire, tailor, June 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Edw. Pearce, Scarborough, Yorkshire, hatter, June 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds. Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:— (On their own Petitions). : Wm. Young Torckler, Brook-st., Hanover-square, Middlesex, out of employ in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Jas. Daly, Star-court, Newton-st., High Holborn, Middlesex, out of business in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Francis Wyse, Uxbridge-gardens, Bayswater, Middlesex, clerk in the General Registrar's Office, Somerset-house, Strand: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. - Chas. Haddon, Old-st., St. Luke's, Mid. dlesex, gold beater: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John Wakeham Edwards, Green.st., Stepney, Middlesex, surgeon: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Thos. Aldridge, Deansgate, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire, lieutenant in her Majesty's 8th Regiment of Foot: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-J. Hamer, Lancaster, quarryman: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Jos. Pimbley, Pell Brook, Horwich, near Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire, retail dealer in ale: in the Gaol of Lancaster. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-st., on Tuesday, June 23, at 9. James Turpin, Hindon-st., Pimlico, Middlesex, green grocer.-Geo. Langridge Williams, Hartland-terrace, Kentish-town, Middlesex, brick maker.-W. Whaley the younger, Rahere-st., Goswell-road, St. Luke's, Middlesex, builder.Rob. Ed. Gay, Prospect-place, Maida-hill, Paddington, Middlesex, surgeon. Court-house, DURHAM, (County), June 22, at 10. Ralph Crozier Coates, Old Elvet, near Durham, grocer.Ralph Freeman, Gateshead, miller.-Thos. Wilson, Canside, labourer.-Rich. Jennings, South Shields, sheriff's officer.Henry Edw. G. Teasdale, Seaham-harbour, grocer.-Robert Tindale, Wingate-grange, grocer.-John Hind, Low Morley, near Offerton, grocer. Court-house, CARDIGAN, (County), June 25, at 10. John Maurice Davies, Esq., Aberystwith, Llanbudarn fawr, Cardiganshire, shareholder in certain lead mines called The Bishop's Mines. Court-house, IPSWICH, Suffolk, June 25, at 10. Edmund Miller, Halesforth, Suffolk, out of employ. Court-house, CHELMSFORD, Essex, June 23, at 10. Thos. Warner, Stratford, grocer.-Hereziah Everitt, Bradfield, out of business. Court-house, CARMARTHEN, (County), June 24, at 10. Eliza David, widow, Llanelly, out of business.—James Brabyn, Sea-side, Llanelly, master mariner.-David Pendry, Llaneqwad, farmer. Court-house, Newcastle-upon-TYNE, Northumberland, June 24, at 10. Arthur Shanks, North Shields, innkeeper. Court-house, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, (Town), June 24, at 10. Jas. Harper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tailor.-Felix Trainor, Gateshead, Durham, out of business.-George Robson, NewNewcastle-upon-Tyne, licensed hawker.- Wm. Errington, castle-upon-Tyne, out of business.-Alex. Geekie, North Elswick-mill, Westgate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tea dealer.Christopher Ibberson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, book-keeper. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' DIVIDENDS, John Coppard, New-town, Worthing, labourer: 48. 10d. (making with former dividends ) in the pound.-G. Jasper Wright, Church-st., Hampton, Middlesex, attorney's clerk: 38. 9d. in the pound.-John Dunn, Wigmore-st., Cavendishsquare, Middlesex, dentist: 1s. 6d. in the_pound.-Joseph Edward Bolton, Pleasant-place, Holloway, Middlesex, porkman 18. 1d. in the pound.-Anthony Vachee, Upper Norfolk-st., Cambridge-road, Mile-end, Middlesex, clerk in the Custom-house: 18. 11d. in the pound.-Hen. Croly, Dovor, Kent, captain in her Majesty's army: 1s. 24d. in the pound. -Jos. Parker, Herefordshire, appraiser: 18. 94d. in the pound.-Philip Solomon, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, hardwareman: 1s. 44d. in the pound. Apply at the Provisional Assignee's Office, Portugal-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, between the hours of 10 and 1. FRIDAY, JUNE 12. BANKRUPTS. JOHN COMPTON HILL, Reading, Berkshire, grocer and tea dealer, (trading under the style or firm of Hill & Co.), June 22 and July 27 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Turquand; Sols. Lewis & Lewis, Ely-place, Holborn.-Fiat dated June 10. JOHN WYATT, Ockham, Surrey, common brewer, coal merchant, dealer and chapman, June 23 at 11, and July 21 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sol. Walker, 3, South-square, Gray's Inn.-Fiat dated June 11. CHARLES BENNS, Winchester, Southampton, miller and corn dealer, June 23 at 2, and July 14 at half-past 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sols. Pain, Whitechurch, Hants; Gedge, George-street, Mansionhouse, London.-Fiat dated May 30. WILLIAM HART, Whitechapel High-street, Middlesex, hat manufacturer, June 23 at half-past 2, and July 14 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sol. Rawlings, Romford, Essex, and 5, Crosby-hall-chambers, Bishopsgate-street-within.-Fiat dated June 10. CHARLES FOX, Kingston-upon-Hull, victualler and tavern keeper, dealer and chapman, June 24 and July 15 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Kingston-upon-Hull: Off. Ass. Kynaston; Sols. Wells & Smith, Kingston-uponHull; Tilson & Co., 29, Coleman-st., London.-Fiat dated June 4. |