the heir of the body of the purchaser, as to her share, was her son, John Whichelo the defendant; that, on the decease of Anne, the heir of the body of the purchaser, as to her share, was James Gregory, her grandson; and that, on the decease of Grace, the heir of the body of the purchaser, as to her share, was her son, Diones Geere. On no other supposition can the judgment be accounted for, which awarded one-third of the whole to the defendant John Whichelo, one other third to James Gregory, and the remaining third to Diones Geere. For, let us suppose, that, on the decease of each coparcener, her one-third was divided equally amongst the then existing heirs of the body of the purchaser; and the result will be, that the parties, instead of each being entitled to one-third, would have been entitled in fractional shares of a most complicated kind; unless we presume, which is next to impossible, that all the three daughters died at one and the same moment. It is not stated, in the report of the case, in what order the decease of the daughters took place; but, according to the principle suggested, it will appear, on working out the fractions, that the heir of the one who died first would have been entitled to the largest share, and the heir of the one who died last would have been entitled to the smallest. Thus, let us suppose that Martha died first, then Anne, and then Grace. On the decease of Martha, according to the principle suggested, her son, John Whichelo, would have taken only one-third of her share, or one-ninth of the whole, and Anne and Grace, the surviving sisters, would each also have taken one-third of the share of Martha, in addition to their own one-third of the whole. The shares would then have stood thus: John Whichelo, Anne+, Grace +. Anne now dies. Her share, according to the same principle, would be equally divisible amongst her own issue, James Gregory, and the other heirs of the body of the purchaser, namely, John Whichelo and Grace. The shares would then stand thus: John Whichelo, +(+); namely, his own share and one-third of Anne's share, 7. James Gregory, ( )=; Grace,++ (+); namely, her own share and one-third of Anne's share, Lastly, Grace dies, and her share, according to the same principle, would be equally divisible between her own issue Diones Geere and John Whichelo and James Gregory, the other co-heirs of the body of the purchaser. The shares would then have stood thus: John Whichelo; namely, his own share and of Grace's share, of the entirety of the land. James Gregory++; namely, his own share and one-third of Grace's share,=. Diones Geere, On the principle, therefore, of the descent of the share of each coparcener amongst the co-heirs of the body of the purchaser for the time being, the heir of the body of the one who died first would have been entitled to thirty-seven eighty-first parts of the whole premises; the heir of the body of the one who died next would have been entitled to twenty-eight eighty-first parts; and the heir of the body of the one who died last would have been entitled only to sixteen eighty-first parts. By the judgment of the court, however, the lessors of the plaintiff were entitled each to one equal third part; thus shewing, that, although the descent of an estate tail under the old law was always traced from the purchaser, (otherwise John Whichelo would have been entitled to the whole), yet this rule was qualified by another rule of equal force, namely, that all the lineal descendants of any person deceased should represent their ancestor, that is, should stand in the same place, and take the same share, as the ancestor would have done if living. 2. Let us now inquire into the course of descent of an estate in fee simple, according to the old law, in case the purchaser should have died, leaving two daughters, Susanna and Catherine, neither of whom should have obtained any actual seisin of the lands; and that one of them (say Catherine) should afterwards have died, leaving issue one son. In this case, it is admitted on all sides, that the share of Catherine would have descended to the heir of the purchaser, and not to her own heir, in the character of heir to her; for the maxim was seisina facit stipitem. Had either of the daughters obtained actual seisin, her seisin would have been in law the actual seisin of her sister also; and, on the decease of either of them, her share would have descended not to the heir of her father, but to her own heir, the seisin acquired having made her the stock of descent. In such a case, therefore, the title of the son of Catherine to the whole of his mother's moiety would have been indisputable; for, while he was living, no one else could possibly have been her heir. The supposition, however, on which we are now to proceed is, that neither of the daughters ever obtained any actual seisin; and the question to be solved is, to whom, on the death of Catherine, did her share descend; whether equally between her sister and her son, as being together heir to the purchaser; or whether solely to the son, as being heir to the purchaser quoad his mother's share. In Mr. Sweet's valuable edition of Messrs. Jarman and Bythewood's Conveyancing, (vol. 1, p. 139), it is stated to be "apprehended that the share of the deceased sister would have descended in the same manner as by the recent statute it will now descend in every instance," which manner of descent is explained to be, one-half of the share, or a quarter of the whole only, to the son, and the remaining half of the share to the surviving sister, thus giving her threequarters of the whole. This doctrine, however, the writer submits, is erroneous; and, in proof of such error, it might be sufficient, simply, to call to mind the fact, that the law of England had but one rule for the discovery of the heir. The heirs of a purchaser were, first, the heirs of his body, and then his collateral heirs; and an estate tail was merely an estate restricted in its descent to lineal heirs. If, therefore, the heir of a person had been discovered for the purpose of the descent of an estate tail, it is obvious that the same individual would also be heir of the same person for the purpose of the descent of an estate in fee simple. No distinction between the two is ever mentioned by Lord Coke or any of the old authorities. Now, we have seen that the heir of the purchaser, under the circumstances above mentioned, for the purpose of inheriting an estate tail, was the son of the deceased daughter solely, quoad the share which such daughter had held; and it would accordingly appear that the heir of the purchaser, to inherit an estate in fee simple, was also the son of the deceased daughter quoad her share. That this was, in fact, the case, appears incidentally from a passage in the Year Books, (35 Hen. 6. 23), where it is stated, that, "If there be two coparceners of a reversion, and their tenant for term of life commits waste, and then one of the parceners has issue and dies, and the tenant for term of life commits another waste, and the aunt and the niece bring a writ of waste jointly, for they cannot sever, and the writ of waste is general, still their recovery shall be special; for the aunt shall recover treble damages for the waste done, as well in the life of her parcener as afterwards, and the niece shall only recover damages for the waste done after the death of her mother, and the place wasted they shall recover jointly. And the same law is, if a man has issue two daughters, and dies seised of certain land, and a stranger abates, and afterwards one of the daughters has issue two daughters and dies, and the aunt and the two daughters bring assize of mort d' ancestor; here, if the aunt recover the moiety of the land and damages from the death of the ancestor, and the nieces recover each one of them the moiety of the moiety of the land, and damages from the death of their mother, still the writ is general." Here we have all the circumstances required; the father dies seised, leaving two daughters, neither of whom obtains any actual seisin of the land; for a stranger abates, that is, gets possession before them. One of the daughters then dies, without ever having had possession, and her share devolves entirely on her issue, not as heirs to her, for she never was seised, but as heirs to her father quoad her share. The surviving sister is entitled only to her original moiety, and the two daughters of her deceased sister take the mother's moiety equally between them. the alteration which this act was intended to effect? Was it intended to introduce a course of descent amongst coparceners, hitherto unknown to the law, and tending to the most intricate and absurd subdivision of their shares? or did the act intend merely to say that descent from the purchaser, which had hitherto occurred only in the case of an estate tail, and in the case where the heir to a fee simple died without obtaining actual seisin, should now apply to every case? In other words, has the act abolished the rule, that, in tracing the descent from the purchaser, the issue of deceased heirs shall stand, quoad their entire shares, in the place of their parents? We have seen, that, previously to the act, the rule that descent should be traced from the purchaser, whenever it applied, was guided and governed by another rule, that the issue of every deceased person should, quoad the entire share of such person, stand in his or her place. Why, then, should not the same rule of representation govern descent, now that the rule tracing descent from the purchaser has become applicable to every case? Had any modification been intended to be made of so important a rule for tracing descent from a purchaser, as the rule that the issue, and the issue alone, represent their ancestor, surely the act would not have been silent on the subject. A rule of law clearly continues in force until it be repealed. No repeal has taken place of the rule, that, in tracing descent from a purchaser, the issue shall always stand in the place of their ancestor. It is submitted, therefore, that this rule is now in full operation; and that, although in every case descent is now traced from the purchaser, yet the tracing of such descent is still governed by the rules to which the tracing of descent from purchasers was in former times invariably subject. If this be so, it is clear, then, that, under the circumstances stated at the commencement of this paper, the share of Catherine will descend entirely to her own issue, as heir to the purchaser quoad her share, and will not be divided between such issue and the surviving sister. There is another incidental reference to the same subject in Lord Coke's Commentary upon Littleton, (Co. Litt. 164. a.): "If a man hath issue two daughters, and is disseised, and the daughters have issue and die, the issues shall join in a præcipe, because one right descends from the ancestor, and it maketh no difference whether the common ancestor, being out of possession, died before the daughters or after, for that, in both cases, they must make themselves heirs to the grandfather which was last seised, and, when the issues have recovered, they are coparceners, and one præcipe shall lie against them." "It maketh no difference," says Lord Coke, "whether the common ancestor, being out of possession, died before the daughters or after." Lord Coke is certainly not here speaking of the shares which the issue would take; but, had any difference in the quantity of their shares been made by the circumstance of the daughters surviving their father, it seems strange that so accurate a writer as Lord Coke should not "herein" have "noted a diversity." The descent is traced to the issue of the daughters not from the daughters, but from their father, the common grandfather of the issue. On the decease of one daughter, therefore, on the theory against which we are contending, the right to her share should have devolved, one-half on her own issue and the other half on her surviving sister; and, on the decease of such surviving sister, her three-quarters should, by the same rule, have been divided, one-half to her own issue and the other half to the issue of her deceased It is said, indeed, that, by giving to the issue onesister; whereas it is admitted, that, had the daughters half of the share which belonged to their mother, the both died in their father's lifetime, their issue would rule is satisfied, which requires that the issue of a perhave inherited in equal shares. Lord Coke, however, son deceased shall, in all cases, represent their ancestor; remarks no difference whether the father died before or for it is argued that the issue still take one-fourth by after his daughters. Surely, then, he never could have representation, notwithstanding that the other fourth imagined that so great an inequality in the shares could goes to the surviving sister, who constitutes, together have been produced by so mere an accident. It should with such issue, one heir to their common ancestor. be remembered that the rule of representation for which This, however, is a fallacy; the rule is, "that the we are contending is the rule suggested by natural jus- lineal descendants in infinitum of any person deceased tice, and might well have been passed over without ex- shall represent their ancestor, that is, shall stand in the press notice; but, had the opposite rule prevailed, the same place as the person himself would have done had inequality and injustice of its operation could scarcely he been living." (2 Black. Com. 216). Now, in what have failed to elicit some remark. This circumstance place would the deceased daughter have stood had she may, perhaps, tend to explain the fact that the writer been living? Would she have been heir to one-fourth has been unable, after a lengthened search, to find any only, or would she not rather have been heir to the enauthority expressly directed to the point; and yet, tire moiety? Clearly to the entire moiety; for, had she when we consider that in ancient times the title by been living, no descent of her moiety would have taken descent was the most usual one, (testamentary aliena-place: if, then, her issue are to stand in the place which tion not having been permitted), we cannot doubt but that the point in question must very frequently have occurred. In what manner, then, can we account for the silence of our ancient writers on this subject, but on the supposition, which is confirmed by every incidental notice, that, in tracing descent from a purchaser, the issue of a deceased daughter took the entire share of their parent, whether such daughter should have died in the lifetime of the purchaser or after his decease? Having now ascertained the course of descent among coparceners under the old law, whenever descent was traced from a purchaser, we are in a better situation to place a construction on that clause of the act to amend the law of inheritance, which enacts, "that in every case descent shall be traced from the purchaser." (Stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, s. 2). What was the nature of she would have occupied if living, they cannot so represent her unless they take the whole of her share. of But it is said, again, that the surviving daughter may have aliened her share; and how can the descent of her deceased sister's share be said to be traced from the purchaser, if the survivor, who constitutes a part the purchaser's heir, is to take nothing? The descent of the whole, it is argued, cannot be considered as traced over again on the decease of any daughter, because the other daughter's moiety may, by that time, have got into the hands of a perfect stranger. The proper reply to this objection seems to be, that the laws of descent were prior in date to the liberty of alienation. In ancient times, when the rules of descent were settled, the objection could scarcely have occurred. Estates tail were kept from alienation by virtue of the Statute De Donis, for about 200 years subsequent to its passing. Rights of entry and action were also inalienable for a very much longer period. Reversions expectant on estates of freehold, in the descent of which the same rule of tracing from the purchaser occurred, could alone have afforded an instance of alienation by the heir; and the sale of reversions appears to have been by no means frequent in early times. In addition to other reasons, the attornment then required from the particular tenant on every alienation of a reversion, operated as a check on such transactions. It may, therefore, be safely asserted as a general proposition, that, on the decease of any coparcener, the descent of whose share was to be traced from the purchaser, the shares of the other coparceners had not been aliened; and to have given them any part of their deceased sister's share, to the prejudice of her own issue, would have been obviously unfair, and contrary to the natural meaning of the rule, that "every daughter hath a several stock or root." (Co. Litt. 164. b.) If, as we have seen, the rule remained the same with regard to estates tail, notwithstanding the introduction of the right of alienation, (Doe v. Whichelo, ante), surely it ought still to continue unimpaired, now that it has become applicable to estates in fee, which enjoy a still more perfect liberty. Rules of law, which have their foundation in natural justice, should ever be upheld, notwithstanding they may have become applicable to cases not specifically contemplated at the time of their creation. The writer is one, who, until he had occasion to search narrowly into the authorities, held the opinion he now opposes. He has, therefore, no right to dogmatise; but, if the authorities and reasoning above detailed should have produced the same effect on the mind of the reader, as they have on that of the writer, they will have created a clear conviction, that, with respect to the point above discussed, the mischief and inconvenience which have been attributed to the act, have, in reality, no existence. J. W. London Gazettes. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24. BANKRUPTS. HENRY JOHN TODD and EDWARD TODD, Bow Church-yard, London, and Liverpool, warehousemen, drapers, agents, and co-partners, dealers and chapmen, (trading under the firm of Todd & Co.), March 6 and April 6 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Soles & Turner, Aldermanbury.-Fiat dated Feb. 18. ABRAHAM FREBOUT the younger, Steward-street, Spitalfields, Middlesex, silk manufacturer, dealer and chapman, Feb. 27 at 11, and April 3 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Sith & Taylor, Basinghall-street.-Fiat dated Feb. 11. GEORGE MOIR, John's-row, St. Luke's, Middlesex, boot and shoe maker, March 7 at 11, and April 6 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Alsager; Sols. Hughes & Turner, 30, Charles-street, City-road. - Fiat dated Feb. 21. CHARLES SELF, Sun-street, Bishopsgate Without, London, plumber, painter, and glazier, dealer and chapman, March 10 at 12, and April 6 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Wright, Cook's-court, Lincoln's-inn.-Fiat dated Feb. 20. ROBERT GARLAND, Walham-green, Middlesex, corn chandler, dealer and chapman, March 3 at half-past 11, and April 7 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sol. Donne, 28, New Broad-street, City.-Fiat dated Feb. 23. JONATHAN KNIGHTS, Great Melton, and Thurgarton, Norfolk, cattle dealer and salesman, March 3 at half-past 1, and April 7 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Jay & Pilgrim, Norwich.-Fiat dated Feb. 17. HENRY PEARSON COLES, Wickham-market, Suffolk, WILLIAM LONGBOTTOM and RALPH BENTLEY, STEPHEN VERTUE, Liverpool, merchant, dealer and chapman, March 13 and April 14 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Cazenove; Sols. Harvey & Falcon, Liverpool; Sharpe & Co., Bedford-row, London. Fiat dated Feb. 13. JOSEPH WALTON, Liverpool, coal merchant, dealer and chapman, March 3 and April 14 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Turner; Sols. Vincent & Co., Liverpool; Robinson, Liverpool. - Fiat dated Feb. 18. RICHARD KIRBY FRANKISH, Scarborough, Yorkshire, joiner and builder, and general contractor, dealer and chapman, March 10 and 31 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Kynaston; Sols. Harle, Leeds; Kirk, Symond's-hill, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 16. EDWARD STEANE HARLEY, Birmingham, grocer, dealer and chapman, March 10 and April 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Valpy; Sols. Motteram & Knowles, Birmingham.-Fiat dated Feb. 20. SAMUEL HUTCHINSON, Bradford, Yorkshire, stock and share broker, dealer and chapman, March 9 and April 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Young; Sols. Wood, Bradford; Caris, Leeds; Flower, Bread-st., Cheapside, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 20. MEETINGS. Richard Harvey, Chacewater, Cornwall, grocer, March 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter, ch. ass.-Henry Hall, Smalesmouth, Greystead, Northumberland, cattle dealer, March 6 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastleupon-Tyne, last ex.-G. E. Schultz and H. W. Carr, Liverpool, stock brokers, April 6 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, last ex.-John Leadbeater, Manchester, merchant, March 9 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, last ex.-Wm. Insall, Shipston on Stour, Worcestershire, auctioneer, March 14 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.-Wm. Grosvenor, Shelton, and Hanley, Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, ironfounder, March 30 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex. -Thos. B. Daft, Birmingham, button maker, March 28 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.-John Spong, Ockham, Surrey, coal merchant, March 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.— - Edward Eedle, Chancery-lane, Middlesex, bookseller, March 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Winston, Copthall-buildings, London, merchant, March 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.- Wm. Kearton, Lamb-street, Spital-square, Middlesex, cheesemonger, March 19 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.- -Wm. Gill, Leadenhall-market, London, poulterer, March 17 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-J. S. Williams, Clement'slane, Lombard-street, London, master mariner, March 17 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-R. G. Spedding, Queen-street, Cheapside, and Bush-lane, Cannon-street, London, zinc manufacturer, March 17 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-James Miller, Southampton, cordwainer, March 20 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-John Parr, South-wharf-road, Paddington, Middlesex, coal dealer, March 17 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Henry Le Jeune, St. Alban's, Hertfordshire, maltster, March 18 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-James Cross, Bristol, provision merchant, March 19 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.Wm. Drinkwater, Salford, Lancashire, woollen cord manufacturer, March 26 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; March 27 at 12, fin. div.-Wm. Blinkhorn, Little Bolton, Lancashire, manufacturing chemist, March 17 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, aud. ac.; March 18 at 12, div.-J. Goodchild the elder, J. Jackson, J. Goodchild the younger, J. Jackson, W. Jackson, and T. Jones, Bishopwearmouth, and Dowgate, London, bankers, March 17 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-uponTyne, aud. ac. John Jackson and W. Jackson.-John Binder, Moulton, near Spalding, Lincolnshire, coal merchant, March 27 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac. -John Wright, Birmingham, cabinet maker, March 27 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-John Bennet, Birmingham, corn dealer, March 27 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.— -Wm. Riddle, Stafford, draper, March 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-Sam. Brothers, Newcastleunder-Lyme, Staffordshire, currier, March 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.; March 24 at 11, div.-William Pitt, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, grocer, March 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-Thomas Griffiths, Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, tailor, March 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-John Boulton, Redditch, Tardebigg, Worcestershire, needle maker, March 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-Thomas Wenman, Birmingham, merchant, March 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.; March 24 at 11, div.-Joseph Marriage the younger, Moulsham, Chelmsford, Essex, coal merchant, March 20 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. —Arbuthnot Emerson, Lower Belgrave-st., Belgrave-square, Thos. Tripp, and Jas. Benn, Elizabeth-st., Chester-square, Middlesex, distiller, March 17 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-John Hollingsworth, Paddington street, St. Mary-le-bone, Middlesex, butcher, March 19 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Robert Petit, Exning, Suffolk, livery-stable keeper, March 19 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-John Woollams, Charles-st., Manchester-sq., St. Mary-le-bone, Middlesex, builder, March 19 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, Londón, div.-John Hardy and Geo. Hardy, Wisbech St. Peter, Cambridge, grocers, March 19 at half-past 12. Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.Chris. Blackmore, Cork-st., Middlesex, tailor, March 17 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Jas. Sisley, Margate, Isle of Thanet, Kent, carpenter, March 17 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-George Smith, Manchester, bill broker, March 17 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester, fin. div.-Edw. Heron, Hartlepool, Durham, butcher, March 17 at half-past 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, fin. div.-William B. Briddick, Durham, dealer in iron, March 17 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, fin. div.-Wm. Gibb, Liverpool, soap manufacturer, March 24 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div.-Geo. Carruthers, Coventry, Warwickshire, draper, March 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, div.-Rich. Gough, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, worsted dealer, March 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, div. To be allowed by the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, unless Thomas Wilkie, Edinburgh, grocer. INSOLVENT DEBTORS John Ryan, Dalphney-cottage, Chiswick, Middlesex, che mist, March 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John S. Witherden, Margate, ironmonger, March 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. R. Kettle, Vauxhall, Lambeth, Surrey, clerk to a wholesale stationer, March 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Kettle, Vauxhall-walk, Lam. beth, Surrey, clerk to a wholesale stationer, March 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Evans, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, assistant to a tailor, March 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Roffey, Allfarthing, Love-lane, Garrett-lane, Wandsworth, Surrey, tailor, March 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Stewart, Upper Stamford-street, Blackfriars, Surrey, out of employment, March 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Sam. Canham, Oxford-street, Mile-end Old-town, Middlesex, auctioneer, March 2 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Rob. Bond, Palace-row, New-road, St. Pancras, Middlesex, hosier, March 5 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.--Thos. C. Greatorex, New Kent-road, Newington, Surrey, clerk to a wine merchant, March 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Robert E. Bruster, Southampton, draper, March 10 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. Draper the elder, Chorlbury, Oxfordshire, blacksmith, March 10 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.--Jas. P. Fennings, Park-place, Highburyvale, Islington, Middlesex, clerk in the Coast-guard Office, Custom-house, London, March 10 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Mary Ryley, South Molton-st., Hanoversquare, Middlesex, milliner, March 10 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Th. Wright, Liscard, Wallasey, Cheshire, joiner, March 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Pet. Gorse, Toxteth-park, Lancashire, market constable, March 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liver pool.-John Coopey, Pen-y-ad-vedda, Garway, Herefordshire, out of business, March 2 at half-past 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Geo. Thos. Barker, Port Mahon, Sheffield, Yorkshire, out of business, March 4 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Jas. Wm. Merritt, Warwick, schoolmaster, March 4 at half-past 10, District Court of Bank. ruptcy, Birmingham,-Wm. Bousfield, Barnard-castie, Dur. ham, miller, March 13 at half-past 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.-Th. Lofthouse, Selby, York. shire, tea dealer, March 4 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Edw. Morgan, New Farm, Lee, Ellesmere, Shrop shire, farmer, March 11 at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Thos. Rees, Bridgend, Glamor ganshire, butcher, March 19 at half-past 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Benjamin Veale, Gloucester, butcher, March 13 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-G. Ellis, Philadelphia-street, Bristol, carpenter, March 13 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-T. Taylor, Tocken ham, near Wootten Bassett, Wiltshire, brewer, March 12 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Geo. Dorrington the younger, Coleford, Newland, Gloucestershire, builder, March 12 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-T. Walters, Upper Maudlin-street, St. James, Bristol, paper hangers, March 10 at half-past 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-J. Anthony Walters, Upper Maudlin-street, James Miller, Southampton, cordwainer, March 20 at 11, St. James, Bristol, paper hanger, March 10 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Parr, South Wharf. District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Frederick Stockman, road, Paddington, Middlesex, coal dealer, March 17 at 11, Bathwick, Bath, Somersetshire, out of business, March 6 at Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Chas. Wadhams, Charlotte- 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Thos. Sellwood street, Portland-place, New-road, Middlesex, carpenter, March the younger, Ford water-farm, Chardstock, Dorsetshire, horse 17 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Newburn, dealer, March 5 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter. Oxton, Woodchurch, Cheshire, joiner, March 17 at 11, Dis--J. Hall, St. Mary's Gate, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, baker, trict Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Hen. John Andrews, Plymouth, Devonshire, apothecary, March 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. March 2 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester. Wm. Wild, Stoney Middleton, Derbyshire, farmer, March 7 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester. Saturday, Feb. 21. Court-house, WARWICK, (County), March 11 at 10. The following Assignees have been appointed. Further Par- Charles Checkley, Napton-on-the-Hill, Warwick, labourer. ticulars may be learned at the Office, in Portugal-st., Lin--Thos. Fullard, Balsall-heath, Worcestershire, near Birmingcolu's-inn-fields, on giving the Number of the Case. ham, labourer. Wm. Mayner, Birmingham, labourer.-Edw. John Eland, Witham, near Hull, Yorkshire, farmer, No. Baxter the elder, Birmingham, timnan. 35,925 C.; Wm. Wilson, assignee, in place of George Eland, Court-house, CHESTER, (County), March 11 at 10. removed. John Milne, White Conduit-grove, Middlesex, out Ellen Gould, Park-green, Macclesfield, widow, out of busiof business, No. 57,806 T.; Samuel Addinsell, assignee.-W. ness.-Edw. Ward, Stockport, Chester, cut of business.-W. Simpson, Hans-place, Pritchard's-row, Hackney-road, Mid-Smith Stredder, Tranmere, Cheshire, builder.-Sarah Plutt, dlesex, bricklayer, No. 57,922 T.; John Showler, assignee.- Kelsall, Cheshire, widow, out of business.-John Berks, NantE. Williams Cobb, Stamford-street, Blackfriars-road, Surrey, wich, Cheshire, out of business. secretary to a railway company, No. 57,941 T.; William Finlason, assignee. Saturday, Feb. 21. Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:(On their own Petitions). Thomas Smith, Southwick-mews, Paddington, Middlesex, livery-stable keeper: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex-Thos. Pursey, Lamel-cottages, Cricklewood, near Kilburn, Middlesex, journeyman coach-smith: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.- Charles Thos. Board, Sparrow-corner, Minories, London, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Thomas Henly, Jamaica-street, Commercial-road, Middlesex, master mariner : in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-T. Davis, North-st., Fitzroy-square, Middlesex, porter: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-J. Halden, Bread-street, Cheapside, London, shawl embroiderer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Alfred Willsher, Princes-road, Lambeth, Surrey, cabriolet proprietor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-J. Scott Pearce, Regent-street, Lambeth, Surrey, out of business: in the Queen's Prison.Sophia Phripp, Suffolk-street, Cambridge-heath, Hackney, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. (On Creditor's Petition). Thomas Priddle, Calthorpe-place, Gray's-inn-road, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. (On their own Petitions). : Timothy Terry, Bath-street, Birmingham, Warwickshire, journeyman upholsterer: in the Gaol of Shrewsbury.-James Trigg, Mitcheldean, Gloucestershire, carpenter in the Gaol of Gloucester.-T. Lintern, Bilton, Gloucestershire, labourer: in the Gaol of Gloucester.-Ellen Gould, Park-green, Macclesfield, Chester, widow, out of business: in the Gaol of Chester. -Edward Goss, Langton-street, Bristol, out of business: in the Gaol of Bristol.-George Fudge, Baptist Mills, Bristol, mason: in the Gaol of Bristol.-J. Poole, Penzance, Cornwall, cordwainer: in the Gaol of Bodmin.-Henry Henson, Hickling, Nottinghamshire, lace agent: in the Gaol of Nottingham.-Arthur Shanks, King-street, North Shields, Northumberland, innkeeper: in the Gaol of Morpeth. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-st., on Tuesday, March 10, at 9. Wm. Robins, Wellington-place, Holloway, Middlesex, carpenter. James Cobb, Alfred-place, Sidney-street, Mile-endroad, Middlesex, dealer in horses.-Fred. Augt. Macnamara, Cleveland-row, St. James's, Middlesex, out of business.-T. Tyrett, Fryer's-hill, Great Hermitage-street, Wapping, Middlesex, carman.-Wm. Spencer, Compton-street, Brunswicksquare, Middlesex, corn chandler.-Samuel Gay Taylor, St. James's-terrace, Kentish Town-road, Middlesex, auctioneer.T. Alex. Evans, George-street, Bagnigge-wells-road, Middlesex, dealer in oils and colours.-Henry Clark, Woodbine-cottages, Stamford-road, Kingsland, Middlesex, builder.-James R. Shakspere Macnamara, Cleveland-row, St. James's, Middlesex, attorney at law.-T. Vincent, Tyer's-terrace, Vauxhall, Surrey, out of business. Court-house, STAFFORD, (County), March 7 at 10. Edwd. Johnson, Bilston, Staffordshire, miner. Court-house, LEWES, Sussex, March 13 at 10. Francis Chear, Brighton, Sussex, out of business.-Benj. Priddey, Brighton, Sussex, bricklayer.-W. Fitzroy Scudamore, Brighton, Sussex, out of business.-George Barber, Steyning, Sussex, carpenter.-Wm. Brown, King-street, New Town, Deptford, Kent, travelling tea dealer. Court-house, MONMOUTH, (County), March 12 at 10. George Barrett, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, corn factor. tailor.-Wm. Moon, Newport, Monmouthshire, out of busiG. Plummer, Govilon, near Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, ness. David Parry, Blaina Iron-works, Monmouthshire, shoe maker. EDWARD WILLIAMS, Bishopsgate-street, London, linen draper, dealer and chapman, March 10 at 2, and April 21 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Dickson & Overbury, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry. -Fiat dated Feb. 25. LEWIS REIS, JAMES POWER, and GUSTAVUS KOENIG, Fenchurch-street, London, and Wandsworth, Surrey, merchants, soap and candle manufacturers, dealers and chapmen, March 10 at 1, and April 21 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Alsager; Sols. Marten & Co., Mincing-lane, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 25. GEORGE BUTLER EARP, London, ship broker and emigration agent, (in partnership with John Ridgway, Liverpool, ship broker and emigration agent, lately carrying on business in New Zealand with Thomas Ridgway, John Ridgway, Joseph Ridgway, and William Guyton the younger, under the firm of Ridgways, Guyton, & Earp), March 6 at 2, and April 10 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sol. Vardy, Finsbury-place.-Fiat dated Feb. 10. Mid JOHN SANDAVER, Kenton-street, Brunswick-sq., dlesex, cabinet maker, March 7 at 1, and April 4 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sol. Williams, Bedford-square.-Fiat dated Feb. 25. RICHARD CHILDS, Queen Anne-street, Cavendish-sq., Middlesex, tailor, dealer and chapman, March 10 at 11, and April 7 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Belcher; Sols. Edwards & Peake, 11, New Palaceyard, Westminster.-Fiat dated Feb. 26. WILLIAM WHITE, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, tailor and draper, dealer and chapman, March 4 at 2, and April 11 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sols. Tilleard & Co., Old Jewry.-Fiat dated Feb. 24. WILLIAM BULL HARVEY, Herbert-street, New Northroad, Middlesex, draper, dealer and chapman, March 6 at 1, and April 11 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Green; Sol. Cox, Pinners'-hall, Old Broad-street.Fiat dated Jan. 23. ABRAHAM FRANCE and WILLIAM PULLEN LAW. TON, Leeds, Yorkshire, stock and share brokers, dealers and chapmen, March 10 and 31 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Kynaston; Sols. Cariss, Leeds; Williamson & Hill, Gray's Inn, London. -Fiat dated Feb. 25. ABRAHAM FRANCE, Leeds, Yorkshire, share broker, dealer and chapman, March 10 and 31 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Kynaston; Sols. Middleton, Leeds; Sudlow & Co., Chancery-lane, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 19. |