tisfactory as it is natural; and would proceed to suggest, that, at a later period, and when the rule of tracing to the donee was already established as the true interpretation of the statute, we may suppose the question as to possessio fratris in estates tail to have arisen, and a decision to have been come to consistent with the newly admitted principle of devolution on the heir of the original donee. The subject everentered his mind, which was wholly occupied in considering a different point." J. W.'s authority from the Year Books is of little more weight. question there was not, any more than in Littleton, what share such issue would take in the lands entailed; and Lord Coke writes of this passage in the Year Books, "There is but the opinion of Newton obiter, by the way,' and repeats that it is contrary to law. We argue that an obiter dictum, containing an error on a point to which Newton's attention was directly called by Yelverton's argument, can scarcely be relied on as an authority for a second point, to which there is no such reason to suppose his attention was directed. (Year Book, 20 Hen. 6. 14 a). J. W. tells us that the Tenures of Littleton, as explained by Lord Coke's Commentary, supply us with an authoritative solution of our question as to estates tail. Littleton says, "Also, if lands or tenements be given to a man in tail, who hath as much land in fee simple, and hath issue two daughters and die, and his two daughters make partition between them, so as the J. W. next quotes Littleton, sect. 255. The subject land in fee simple is allotted to the younger daughter, considered in this section is, how far an unequal partiin allowance for the lands and tenements in tail allotted tion, made by parceners of fee-simple lands, concludes to the elder daughter, or, if, after such partition made, themselves and their issue. The words "may occupy the younger daughter alieneth her land in fee simple to in common &c., as if no partition had been made" are another in fee, and hath issue a son or daughter and dies, perfectly general, and would be equally correct, whatthe issue may enter into the lands in tail, and hold and ever shares might be taken in the lands so occupied in Occupy them in purparty with the aunt." (Litt., s. common. We cannot see how this section "tends 260). Lord Coke's commentary is as follows: "Yet strongly in (what J. W. terms) the same direction," or this partition, by matter subsequent, may become void-even how it tends more in one direction than the other; able," (as Littleton here puts the case); "the eldest co- and we think that he must have been much at a loss for parcener hath, by the partition and the matter subse-authorities, before he would have resorted to so imaginquent, barred herself of her right in the fee-simple ary a one as this. lands, insomuch as when the younger sister alieneth the fee-simple lands and dieth, and her issue entereth into half the lands entailed, yet shall not the eldest sister enter into half the lands in fee simple upon the alienee." (Co. Litt. 172. b.) First, then, as to Littleton's authority. The question propounded by Littleton is merely, whether such partition allotting the land in tail to one coparcener and the land in fee to the other, who afterwards aliens the fee-simple land, would or would not be binding on the issue of the latter. He decides that such partition would not be binding, but that the issue might enter into the lands in tail, and hold them in purparty with the aunt. It is to be remarked, that the words "hold them in purparty" would be equally correct, whether the issue inherited one quarter or one-half of such lands. Littleton's attention, however, seems to have been entirely directed to the question, whether or no such partition J. W. proceeds to inquire into the course of descent would be binding on the issue; and the secondary ques- of an estate in fee simple according to the old law, in the tion, "What share such issue would inherit," does not case of F., a purchaser, having died leaving two daughseem to have occurred to him. Littleton, then, is found ters D 1. and D 2., and D 1. dying before seisin leavto be no authority for J. W.'s interpretation. It is true ing issue, as we suppose neither daughter to have obthat Lord Coke, in his Commentary, writes, "Insomuch tained actual seisin, such issue must claim as heir to F. as when the youngest sister alieneth the fee-simple J. W. admits this, but argues, as he does in the case of lands and dieth, and her issue entereth into half the a descent tail, that the issue would inherit D 2.'s entire lands entailed;" but we must observe, that he, too, is moiety, not one-half of that moiety. He premises, looking entirely to the same question, viz. whether or that, if the heir of a person has been discovered for the no the partition is voidable by the issue; and we sub-purpose of a descent tail, it is obvious that the same mit that he used the expression "half" without consi-individual would also be heir of the same person for the dering whether, under the rule that the descent must purpose of the descent of an estate in fee simple. He be retraced from the ancestor, the aunt would or would then assumes that he has established his view of the denot become entitled to three-fourths of the entailed | volution of an estate in tail, and treats the devolution lands. In fact, that, accurate writer as he is, he used of an estate in fee simple as by consequence estabthe expression loosely; and, as others of our greatest lished also. authorities have at times done, while deciding one point in a case, did not perceive another which might also have been raised. At all events, it is, we maintain, false to every principle of true criticism, to wrest words so used by Lord Coke into a direct authority on this question. We next come to the case of Doe d. Gregory and Geere v. Whichelo, (8 T. R. 211). J. W. considers this a clear authority on the point under discussion. We submit, that it is no such thing. For the case itself, which is lengthy, we must refer to the reports, and will only here remark, that J. W. takes no notice whatsoever of the points really raised. The effect of a fine not confirmed till after the death of the releasee was considered, and also the effect of possessio fratris under the circumstances of the case; but it seems never to have occurred to Holroyd, the counsel for the defendant, that the inheritance might have been repeatedly subdivided by various descents, and that his client might, in conse-. quence, have been entitled to more than the one-third, to which the plaintiff's lessors did not deny his title. The point under our discussion was not raised in this case, and cannot, therefore, be considered settled thereby. "Yet," says J. W., "this incidental allusion of Lord Coke is as strong, if not stronger than a direct assertion by him of the doctrine; for it seems to shew that a doubt on the subject never entered into his mind." We, too, believe that no doubt on the subject ever entered his mind; but, instead of agreeing to J. W.'s inference therefrom, we reply, "Nay, rather it seems to shew, as the whole of the context does, that no thought on the We deny that he has proved his position as to the course of a descent tail, and, therefore, need not say more as to his inferences therefrom. We must not, however, pass over in silence the passage which he has extracted from the Year Books (35 Hen. 6. 23) on this subject. In our opinion, it is by far the strongest point of his whole case; but we cannot allow that it is sufficient authority to trust to, when we find that the passage occurs in the course of a general argument as to joint actions, &c., and that the whole force of the illustration is derived from the parties to a joint action being entitled, nevertheless, to a special recovery according to their respective interests, and is quite independent of the particular fractional relations be guided by a different jus representationis to that which would prevail as to an estate, which might, by any other circumstances, be cast upon, and traced from such root. which those interests happen to bear to one another. Nor, in a critical point of view, will the words bear W.'s interpretation. In order to do so, they should have been "had he never died," or "had he continued to live." "In what case," proceeds J. W., “would the deceased daughter have stood had she been living? Would she have been heir to one-fourth only, or would she not rather have been heir to the entire one-half? Clearly to the entire one-half, for, had she been living, no descent of her moiety would have taken place," and we add, no tenancy by the curtesy either. In fact, the rule would have virtually amounted to this: that, if F. died leaving heritable issue, the immediate descent of F.'s estate should be exempted from the general rules of descent, and regarded as a survivorship in such issue. We would propose the following case for J. W.'s consideration. Let us suppose F., tenant of an estate in gavelkind, to have two sons, S 1. and S 2.; and let us suppose S 1. to become civilly dead by profession, leaving issue; let us now suppose F. to die, it is clear that the estate devolves in equal moieties to S 2. and the issue of S 1.; let us next suppose S 1., by the occurrence of the Reformation, or in any other way, to become civilly resuscitated; and, lastly, let us suppose the issue of S 1. to become extinct, under these circumstances, one moiety of F.'s estate must be retraced from him as the root of descent. Will J. W. argue that such moiety will be cast entire, jure representationis, on S 1., to the exclusion of S 2. From his remarks at the top of p. 75, J. W. does not seem to have perceived that the difficulty under discussion might readily have occurred without either sale of a reversion or attornment, for instance, by F. devising to X. for life, and then dying leaving daughters, one or more of whom might die during the life tenancy severally leaving issue. J. W.'s next argument is founded on another passage in Lord Coke's Commentary, (Co. Litt. 164. a.), which is, in reality, perfectly foreign to the question under discussion. The words are, "If a man hath issue two daughters and is disseised, and the daughters have issue and die, the issue shall join in a præcipe, because one We have, we allow, been unable to bring cases exright descends from the ancestor, and it maketh no actly in point, or decisive authorities, for our view of difference whether the common ancestor, being out of the ancient law of descent. We think, however, that possession, died before the daughters or after, for that we have shewn that J. W. has been unable to bring in both cases they must make themselves heirs to the forward a single decision in his favour; that the cases grandfather, which was last seised." And the clear and he refers to contain little more than mere obiter dicta obvious meaning of the passage is simply that it makes on the subject; that the authorities he quotes do not no difference as to the form of action,-not that it makes bear him out in his views; that his arguments fail in no difference as to the interests of the daughters.-whe-establishing his position; that his view is not within ther the common ancestor, being out of possession, died before the daughters or after. We cannot but think this argument of J. W. is forced,-we might add, forceless. "It should be remembered," writes J. W., "that the rule of representation for which we are contending is the rule suggested by natural justice," &c. In this and the following remarks, it seems to us that the writer entirely misapprehends the true force and scope of the jus representationis. The rule, no doubt, is, "that the lineal descendants in infinitum of any person deceased shall represent their ancestor, that is, shall stand in the same place as the person himself would have done had he been living." The words have no such qualifications as quoad his entire share," which J. W. elsewhere introduces; and the rule has nothing to do with any special question like the present, but is of general application, and must, in all cases where land devolves, guide us in distributing the inheritance among the representatives of the root of descent. It teaches us, in fact, that such an inheritance, in cases where it is partible, must devolve from some root per stirpes, and not per capita. There is nothing in the terms in which the rule is expressed to say that an estate, the descent of which from the root is broken by the death of the lineal descendant, and which must, therefore, confessedly, be retraced from such root, shall the terms in which the rule as to the descent of a reversion is uniformly laid down, namely, that the descent is to the heir of the person last seised; and that he is, accordingly, driven to qualify these terms by the addition of such expressions as "quoad &c." Even had we allowed that he was correct as to the course of descent under the old law, such an admission (putting the new statute out of the question) would only amount to this: that the rule, as generally stated, being contrary to the cases and authorities, could not be considered law; but, in order to make it law, would require some such modification as the "quoad &c.," suggested by him. The statute, however, entirely changes the effect of such an admission; for it contains no quoad &c.," is express in its enactments, and, therefore, seems to us decisive on the question under discussion. It seems to us, however, that this 2nd section may, by making purchase instead of seisin necessary to constitute a root of descent," work a mischief more general and important than the one we have been discussing, although, to the best of our knowledge, it has never before been noticed as one of the possible results of the new law of descent. What, we ask, under the new law, are the requisites necessary to make a tenancy by the curtesy? Hitherto the requisites have always been held to be four: mar riage, actual seisin of the wife, issue, and death of the themselves affected with a commendable craving for wife. And herein it is to be remarked, that seisin was equitable control: "Ipse etenim leges cupiunt ut jure a requisite, because it was by virtue thereof that the regantur." (Co. Litt., passim). But such measures rewife became a root of descent; without it, therefore, quire to be scanned with critical and jealous care, and her issue could never inherit her estate as her heir, but rhythm and reason alike warn us that the word "rewas forced to try back, and make himself heir to the presentationis" can find no place therein. person last seised. Preston (Estate, 513) writes, "It is It does not help us that the framers of the statute to the estate of the wife, and not to the land of which probably never contemplated the present question, or she is seised, that the issue must be inheritable." And the effect of illegitimacy, (see Sugd. V. and P. 231, 10th again, (515), "And the title of the issue must be as ed.), under the regulations they were enacting. The heir of the wife; for, if they are entitled by purchase, mischief has arisen, and the law has taken its course as the first son of the husband or of the wife, or as heir in the one case, (Doe d. Blackburn v. Blackburn, 1 M. of the husband, their birth will not entitle the hus- & Rob. 547, Parke, B.), and so it must in the other. band." Does it not seem necessarily to follow, if they We think that it would have been better, notwithstandare entitled as heir to the grandfather or any more re-ing the rule of possessio fratris, to enact, as the real promote ancestor, their birth will, for like reasons, fail to perty commissioners proposed, "that estates should entitle the husband? So, too, writes Coke, (p. 296), pass to the heirs of the person who last died entitled, "And, therefore, where Littleton saith, issue by his although he might not have had seisin." But we must wife, male or female, it is to be understood which, by take the law as we find it; and our province is, to conpossibility, may inherit as heir to her mother of such sider what the true meaning of the act is what its very words express. Its framers may not have foreseen possible results, or they may have made use of words which do not express what they intended should be expressed; but we must give them credit nevertheless for a mastery over their instrument-language; and must collect their intentions from their words, not adapt their words to their supposed intentions, as gathered from extraneous sources; we must, in fact, interpret the expressions of the Legislature, and must leave it to the Legislature to amend its own mistakes, if such there be. estate." It is clear, therefore, that, as far as the rationale of this question goes, seisin has become not only unnecessary, but an absolute nullity. It has not, however, been simply annulled as a requisite to constitute a root of descent; for a new requisite, namely, purchase, has been substituted. Would it not, therefore, seem, that, under the new law, purchase must be substituted for seisin, as a fourth requisite to constitute a tenancy by the curtesy? if not, we shall see the anomaly of a widower claiming by the curtesy an estate, to which his deceased wife's issue cannot possibly inherit, as his deceased wife's heir, and with respect to which both the widower and the issue stand in precisely the same position as they would have done under the old law, had the wife neglected to obtain actual seisin. Since writing the above remarks, a second article, by J. W., "On the Curtesy of the Husband of a Coparcener," has appeared in THE JURIST. We do not understand why he should restrict his remarks to the case of the husband of a coparcener; he might have written generally the husband of an heiress. It is most satisfactory to us to find that J. W. so far agrees with us as to allow that "it seems a fair and proper deduction from the authorities, that, whenever a woman has become entitled to lands by descent, her husband cannot claim his curtesy, because the descent of such lands on her decease is not to be traced from her." Such are his own words. 66 We may also imagine the additional anomaly of the widower in this case holding, as tenant by the curtesy during his life, the whole estate of which his wife was seised, and the issue on his death succeeding, as heir to the last purchaser, to an inconsiderable portion of such estate only; but we are not ignorant that this might have happened, as to estates tail, under (what we argue to have been) the old law. Such a mischief we have termed more important than the one, which J. W. contends does not arise under this section of the act; In order to avoid this deduction, J. W. boldly proand we think our position will not be disputed, when poses that the authorities are erroneous.' When we it is remembered that it does not only affect all co-state that Littleton is the person who lays down the rule pareeners, as well by common law as special cus- in the express terms "as heir to the wife*;" that the tom, but also all heiresses on whom land devolves in commentary of Lord Coke is as express, and even less fee; and that it is not a question as to the larger or capable of being explained away; that Blackstone, Harsmaller fraction of the inheritance which shall devolve grave, and Preston follow on the same side; the reader on their issue, but whether the person who, under the will scarcely be surprised when he finds us prepared to old law, was entitled as tenant by the curtesy, is not, indulge a sort of legal prejudice, and take our chance by the new, wholly and absolutely deprived of such with them, rather than with J. W. Paine's case liketenancy. wise seems decisive on this point. (8 Rep. 36, a). We cannot admit that J. W. is successful in explaining away the express words of Littleton. We also submit that it is very unsafe to argue, as he does, from dower to curtesy; for we do not even know that the two tenures originated at the same period, or with the same race, and although it is true there are strong analogies between them, yet there are distinctions quite as strong. We might instance the well-known fact that tenant by the curtesy held immediately of the lord by a sort of continuation of his tenure during his wife's life; whereas a dowager held under the heir, who was liable to the lord for the services to which the land of which she was endowed was subject. Again, actual seisin was re It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the possibility of such doubts as those discussed by J. W., and those suggested by ourselves, makes it most desirable that no one on whom land devolves should delay doing some act of purchase to break the descent. "Rules of law," says J. W., in conclusion, "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." In this remark we entirely concur, but it must be proved that such rules are really applicable. We must be most careful not to apply them wrongly, and must remember that the most time-honoured maxims of the common law must not control, but must ever be controlled by the positive and express enactments of our statute book. Lord Coke, it is true, fondly dwells on the "great equity," as he terms it, "of the common law," till we find the laws starting boldly personified from his pages, and * Although there is a difficulty in the following section, (Litt., sect. 53), from the use of the expression "as heir to the husband," yet nothing is clearer, that, in the case therein put by Littleton, in illustration of his meaning, the husband would be the stock of descent. quired as one of the requisites to constitute a tenant | MARTIN CUBITT, High Holborn, Middlesex, builder, by the curtesy; whereas legal seisin was sufficient for the purpose of dower. And here we would remark, that J. W. lays great stress on the explanation which Lord Coke suggests as to this distinction; and does not hesitate, with no stronger arguments than this, to pronounce the highest legal authorities in error. We must, with all due deference, point out to him that Lord Coke is an authority we are bound to follow when he tells us what the law on any point is; but that when he tells why it is so, or how it became so, he is no longer an authority in the same sense, and we are at liberty to exercise our own discretion how far he is to be relied on. J. W. also deduces in this second article some fur ther arguments from his views as to the "jus repre- London Gazettes. TUESDAY, MARCH 24. BANKRUPTS. JAMES GIRO, Moorgate-street, London, merchant, dealer JOSEPH THOMPSON, Norwich, grocer and tea dealer, March 19. WILLIAM MORPHEW, Sevenoaks, Kent, draper and farmer, dealer and chapman, April 1 at half-past 2, and May 7 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Bell; Sols. Reed & Langford, Friday-street, Cheapside. — Fiat dated March 17. 21. dealer and chapman, April 3 and May 7 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sols. Messrs. Smith, Southampton-bdgs, Chancery-lane. Fiat dated GEORGE PRINCE, Romsey, Hampshire, wine merchant, March 16. dealer and chapman, April 1 at half-past 12, and May 6 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Bell; Sols. Watson & Co., Falcon-square, London.-Fiat dated March WILLIAM BULL, Leeds, Yorkshire, and Addle-street, London, cloth merchant, (trading under the firm of William Bull & Co.), April 4 and 27 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds: Off. Ass. Kynaston; Sols. Lee, Leeds; Sudlow & Co., Chancery-lane, London.-Fiat dated Feb. 23. JAMES RIDING and JAMES FIELDING, Leyland, Lancashire, cotton manufacturers, dealers and chapmen, April 4 at 11, and April 30 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hobson; Sols. Winder & Co., Bolton; Milne & Co., Temple, London.-Fiat dated March 13. JOHN GIBSON, Manchester, veterinary surgeon, farrier, and smith, dealer and chapman, April 6 and May 11 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Pott; Sols. Myers & Birkbeck, Manchester; Williamson & Hill, Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn, London. -Fiat dated March 21. JAMES RIDDALL WOOD, Failsworth, Manchester, varnish maker and manufacturing chemist, April 6 and 29 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Pott; Sols. Slater & Heelis, Manchester; Milne & Co., Temple, London.-Fiat dated March 18. JOHN TAYLOR, Hereford, grocer, tea dealer, and provision merchant, dealer and chapman, April 3 and May 5 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Valpy; Sol. Greatwood, Birmingham.-Fiat dated March 17. MOSES SMITH, Birmingham, iron founder and publican, April 4 and May 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Motteram & Knowles, Birmingham; Smith & Co., Bedford-row, London. -Fiat dated March 20. PHILIP CRISPIN, Bristol, carpenter and builder, April 3 at 1, and May 7 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol; Off. Ass. Miller; Sol. Hinton, Bristol.-Fiat dated March 18. EDWARD WILLIAMS, Northop, Flintshire, draper, dealer and chapman, April 7 and 24 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Bird; Sols. Cross, Liverpool; Vincent & Sherwood, Temple.-Fiat dated March 11. MEETINGS. Hugh Roberts, Hafodlas, Carnarvonshire, dealer and chapman, April 7 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, ch. ass.-Wm. Humphryes, Haymarket, Middlesex, hotel keeper, April 9 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex. -Thomas Wilkinson, Quadrant, Regent-street, and Bathurststreet, Sussex-square, Middlesex, ironmonger, April 6 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-Thomas Edwards, Trewyllan-cottage, Llansaintfraid, Montgomeryshire, surgeon, April 3 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, last ex.-John Wright, Brinscall-hall, within Wheelton, Lancashire, calico printer, April 1 at 12, District Court of Bankrupty, Manchester, last ex.-John Clark, Crescent, Minories, London, merchant, April 22 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-David Marks, Houndsditch, London, pen manfacturer, April 8 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, JOHN PERKINS, North-place, Gray's-inn-lane, Middlesex, jeweller, dealer and chapman, March 28 at 2, and May 16 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Follett; Sol. Clark, Finsbury-place.-Fiat dated March 20. THOMAS PEIRSON, Warwick-court, Holborn, Middlesex, and Pickering, Yorkshire, money scrivener, dealer and chapman, April 4 and May 16 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Green; Sols. Bell & Co., Bow Church-yard, Cheapside.-Fiat dated March 18. JOHN BRETT, Luton, Bedfordshire, sheep salesman, dealer and chapman, April 7 at 2, and May 5 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Groom; Sol. Wilkinson, 2, Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street, City.-Fiat dated March 14. RICHARD ELLIS, Richmond-street, Soho, Middlesex, car-aud. ac.-Lawrence Kennedy, Rochester-terrace, Stoke New. penter and undertaker, April 1 and May 5 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sols. Carlon & Haynes, Palace-chambers, St. James's-street.-Fiat dated March 6. ANN ABIGAIL INNELL and ALFRED COOKES, Little Queen-street, Holborn, Middlesex, varnish manufacturers, dealers and chapmen, April 7 at 2, and May 5 at half-past 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Groom; Sol. Stuart, 6, New Inn, Strand.-Fiat dated March 21. JAMES RISHTON, Vale Rock-mill, Hoddlesden, Over Darwen, Lancashire, cotton spinner and manufacturer, dealer and chapman, April 3 and 24 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hobson; Sols. Worthington & Co., Manchester; Fox, Finsbury-circus, London.-Fiat dated March 21. ington, Middlesex, pawnbroker, April 16 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Jos. Henry Nail, John-st., Tottenham-court-road, Middlesex, builder, April 11 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-William Burrows, Grove-street, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, builder, April 23 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Joseph Johns, Grosvenor-street West, Pimlico, Middlesex, cook, April 16 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.—W. Stockbridge, High-street, Wandsworth, Surrey, tobacconist, April 16 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.-Fred. J. Ablett and Wm. H. Ablett, High Holborn, Middlesex, drapers, April 16 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.—D. Wynne, Colwyn, Carnarvonshire, innkeeper, April 17 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac.-Edward Brown, Birmingham, merchant, April 17 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.-George Hartshorne, To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or George Seagrave Neale, Portsea, Hampshire, innkeeper, April 15 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Henry M. Naylor, Birmingham, haberdasher, April 18 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-James Baines, Manchester, grocer, April 16 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester. To be allowed by the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, unless SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. John M'Alaster Houston, Paisley, commission agent. Process. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Hunt, Johnson's-court, Fleet-street, London, licensed retailer of beer, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Wood, Ashton-underLyne, Lancashire, salesman, April 6 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Fred. C. Hindley, Appletongate, Newark-upon-Trent, Nottinghamshire, butcher, April 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Thomas Jones, Newtown, Montgomeryshire, butcher, April 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Slater Dewhurst, Blackburn, Lancashire, journeyman sawyer, April 7 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Isaac Barnes, Manchester, master tailor, April 4 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Henry Duckworth, Durn, near Littleborough, Rochdale, Lancashire, woollen carder, April 2 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Benj. Bensley, Poolholm, near Monmouth, Monmouthshire, in no business, April 16 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Benj. Butterworth, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, assistant to a grocer, March 27 at 11, Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield.-T. Wright, Pea-croft, Sheffield, Yorkshire, table knife manufacturer, widow, Highfield, Sheffield, Yorkshire, no business, March 27 March 27 at 11, Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield.-Mary Ann Green, at 11, Cutlers'-hall, Sheffield. Saturday, March 21. The following Assignees have been appointed. Further Par- Saturday, March 21. Wm. Smith, New Agnes-st., York-road, Lambeth, Surrey, Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, attorney's clerk: in the Debtors Prison for London and Midand have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Lambeth, Surrey, publican: in the Gaol of Surrey.-Solomon dlesex.-Rich. Thos. Morton, Waterman's Arms, Paris-street, Sequerra, Oliver's-terrace East, Bow-road, Middlesex, out of Robert Bullock, Dover, Kent, tailor, March 30 at half-business: in the Queen's Prison.-Ebenezer Stevens, Slaterpast 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Arthur Bridges, street, Brick-lane, Bethnal-green, Middlesex, out of business: Lambeth-walk, Surrey, cheesemonger, March 30 at 12, Court in the Queen's Prison.-John Wolsey, Oxford-st., Middlesex, of Bankruptcy, London.-Squire Day, Hitchin, Hertford- house agent: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middleshire, grocer, March 30 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, sex.-Stephen Charlton, Strood, Kent, assistant to a corn London.-Charles Wm. Dexter, Duke-street, West Smith- dealer: in the Gaol of Maidstone.-Jas. Slack, Hulme, Manfield, London, glove maker, March 30 at 11, Court of Bank-chester, filtering machine maker: in the Gaol of Lancaster.ruptcy, London.-Robert Barker, Clarendon-street, Somers'- Edw. Bluck, Harborne, Staffordshire, attorney at law: in the town, Middlesex, licensed victualler, March 30 at 12, Court Gaol of Warwick.-Austin Laurence, Rempstone, Nottingof Bankruptcy, London. -John Harcus, Chatham, Kent, hamshire, out of employment: in the Gaol of Nottingham. tailor, March 30 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before Hendry, Henry's-place, Hoxton Old-town, Middlesex, back the Court, in Portugal-st., on Tuesday, April 7, at 9. and vat maker, March 30 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George Glover, Hemel Hempstead, Hert- Hen. Bennett, Liquorpond-st., Middlesex, out of business. fordshire, plumber, April 3 at half-past 12, Court of Bank-Wm. Wheatley, Great Portland-st., Oxford-st., Middlesex, ruptcy, London.-James Onion, Ely, Cambridgeshire, gar. boot and shoe maker.-Thos. Smith, Salisbury-street, Berdener, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-George mondsey, Surrey, ship carver.-Samuel Sibery the younger, Edward Sheldon, Cambridge, stationer, April 8 at 11, Court Shaftesbury-terrace, Pimlico, Middlesex, out of business.of Bankruptcy, London.-James Moon, Arundel-st., Strand, Jabez Aston, Bath-row, Great Bath-st., Cold Bath-square, Middlesex, surveyor, April 3 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, out of employ-Chas. Snuggs, GifLondon.-E. Edie, Market-st., Tottenham-court-road, Mid-ford-st., Fleming-st., Kingsland-road, Middlesex, auctioneer. dlesex, widow, April 8 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -Mary Bosley, Park-place West, Camden-town, Middlesex, servant, April 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Gardner, Oxford, farrier, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London-James Rodwell, Watford, Hertfordshire, cabinet maker, April 2 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.— Wm. Donnison, Thornton-st., Bermondsey, Surrey, engraver, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Slater, Aldermanbury, London, warehouseman, April 1 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thomas Francklin, Margate, Kent, baker, April 1 at half-past 10, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -John Parris, Bedford-st., Brandon-st., Walworth, Surrey, general shopkeeper, April 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-James Larke the elder, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, house carpenter, April 1 at half-past 10, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Maria Theresa D'Asmar, spinster, Kingstreet, Portman-square, St. Mary-le-bone, Middlesex, April 1 at half-past 10, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Ch. Clarke, Paradise-street, Lambeth, Surrey, coal dealer, April 1 at 11, Henry Rob. Redwood, Draycott-terrace, Cadogan-terrace, Upper Sloane-street, Chelsea, Middlesex, shopman to a china dealer.-Wm. L. Sluman, Brecknock-place, Camden-town, Middlesex, out of business.—John Adrian Meyer, Park-road, Stockwell, Surrey, commission agent. INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S DIvidend. Gordon Urquhart, Brompton, Middlesex, superintendent of the naval payments in the Office of the Treasurer of the Navy, March 26, Key's, Lower Brook-st., Bond-st.: 58. 14d. in the pound, (in addition to 98. 3d. by former dividends). FRIDAY, MARCH 27. JOHN CHARLES BARRATT, Strand, Middlesex, carver and gilder, and dealer in pictures, April 3 at half-past 12, and May 8 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Öff. Ass. Alsager; Sol. Taylor, Moorgate-street.-Fiat dated March 24. |