pointed a judge of any county court under the act, shall practice as an attorney, or be, either by himself or his partner, directly or indirectly concerned as attorney or agent for any party in any proceeding in any court regulated by the act, or in any other court of law or equity. There is a provision that the judge of a county court whose name shall be inserted in any commission of the peace for the county, riding, or division for which he is appointed judge may act as justice of the peace for such county, riding, or division, although not qualified by estate. We hope this clause will be acted upon, and that we shall have on each of the benches of the different courts of quarter sessions, one person at least who is qualified by habits and education to judge of the matters that come before those tribunals. We wish the act had gone farther, and had contained some provisions for reforming those courts; but at present we must be content to look upon this as a step in the right direction, and to hope ere long to find the government making some further progress. The greater portion of the bill consists of clauses of a merely technical character, and for which we must refer the reader to it as printed at length. Some there are, however, which we have marked on perusal, as deserving a more distinctive notice. The 60th clause introduces a different rule from what is now the law; for, as to demands recoverable under the act, it takes away pleas in abatement, and provides, that, where any plaintiff shall have any such demand against two or more persons jointly answerable, it shall be sufficient if any of such persons be served with process; and judgment may be obtained and execution issued against the person or persons served, notwithstanding that others jointly liable may not have been served or sued, or may not be within the jurisdiction of the court. The provisions as to juries are the same as have been inserted in most of the local courts bills of late years: they are to consist of five persons, who are to be sworn to give their verdicts in the causes which shall be brought before them, and need not be re-sworn on each trial,—a provision by which some little time may, perhaps, be saved, but of which the necessity is not very evident. In actions where the amount claimed exceeds 57., either party may require a jury; and where it does not exceed that sum, the judge may, in his discretion, on the application of either party, order a jury. The 69th clause gives a very proper power to the judge, with the consent of both parties, to order the suit and all other matters in dispute between the parties to be referred to arbitration. And the 75th clause contains the novel, but, we think, considering the cases to which the act applies, necessary and proper enactment, that, on the hearing or trial of any action, or on any other proceeding under the act, the parties thereto and their wives may be examined on oath. The next clause we have marked for notice relates to the employment of advocates, and deserves the praise of being of a much more sensible and practical character than those which have hitherto been in vogue. It is rather clumsily framed, and, in fact, embraces three distinct provisions. The first and last parts taken together provide, that no barrister, attorney, or other person, except by leave of the judge, shall be entitled to be heard to argue any question as counsel; and the expense of employing a barrister or attorney, either by plaintiff or defendant, shall not be allowed on taxation of costs in the case of (by which we presume is meant against) a plaintiff where less than 57. is claimed; or, in the case of (against) a defendant where less than 5%. is recovered, or in any case, unless the judge shall otherwise order. Another part provides, that none but attornies of one of the superior courts of record shall be entitled to have or recover any sum of money for appearing or acting in the courts. And, by the remaining portion, it is provided, that the attorney shall not be entitled to any fee unless the debt or damage claimed exceeds 40s., nor more than 10s. unless it exceeds 57., nor more than 158. in any case; and in no case shall any fee exceeding 11. 3s. 6d. be allowed for employing a barrister. By this last appears to be meant allowed on taxation; but, with respect to the attornies' fees, the terms of the clause would seem to preclude them from recovering from their clients in any case more than the sums named. Other clauses give to the judges of these county courts similar powers of examining debtors on oath touching their estate and effects, and the manner of contracting their debts and liabilities, and their means of payment, and of committing them to prison for fraudulent or improper conduct, as were conferred by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 127. All actions of replevin in cases of distress for rent, arrear, or damage faisant within the jurisdiction of the county court, are to be brought without writ in the court held under the act for the district wherein the distress was taken, and to be removable, in case either party shall declare to the court that the title to any corporeal or incorporeal hereditament, or to any toll, market, fair, or franchise is in question, or that the rent or damage distrained for is more than 20%., and shall become bound with two sufficient sureties to prosecute the suit with effect and without delay, and prove before the court by which the suit shall be tried that such title was in dispute, or that there was ground for believing that the rent or damage was more than 20%. By the 117th and following clauses, provision is made for the recovery of the possession of small tenements, by plaint in the county court, in a similar manner to that of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 74. Two more important provisions remain: the first, as to the jurisdiction of these courts, which is, that all actions and proceedings, which, before the passing of the act, might have been brought in any of the superior courts, where the plaintiff dwells more than twenty miles from the defendant, or where the cause of action did not arise wholly, or in some material point, within the jurisdiction of the court within which the defendant dwells or carries on his business at the time of action brought, or where any officer of the county court shall be a party, may be brought and determined in any of the superior courts. And, next, as to the consequences of bringing an action in one of the superior courts, where a plaint might have been entered in a court holden under the act, if a verdict shall be found for the plaintiff for a sum less than 207., he shall have judgment to recover such sum only, and no costs; and if a verdict shall not be found for the plaintiff, the defendant shall be entitled to his costs, as between attorney and client, unless, in either case, the judge who shall try the cause shall certify on the back of the record that the action was fit to be brought in the superior court. These are the principal provisions of the new act, which we are not disposed to criticise unnecessarily, appearing, as it does, very well calculated to meet the want, which has long existed, of some efficient mode of recovering small debts. ON THE WRIT OF NE EXEAT REGNO. Some uncertainty of opinion prevails on the question, whether, in order to entitle a plaintiff in a suit in equity to obtain a writ of ne exeat against the defendant, it is necessary that the writ should be prayed by the bill. The authorities, carefully examined, will shew that there is no distinct general rule on the subject, but that it will depend on circumstances whether the court will grant a ne exeat in a bill not praying it. In Collinson (18 Ves. 353), two cases (Loyd v. Cardy Prec. Chanc. 171, and Ex parte Brunker, 3 P. Wms. 312) were cited in support of the proposition that it is not necessary that a bill should pray a ne exeat in order to support a motion for the writ. Both these cases are on a totally different point, viz. whether a ne exeat may be obtained without any bill being filed; and in the first it was held that it may. But this is clearly not law at this day. (Anon., 6 Mad. 276, in which it was laid down-the court being apprised of Loyd v. Cardy—that "the writ of ne exeat is given in aid of an equitable demand; but it must previously appear, by a bill filed, that there is an equitable demand"). And, in the earlier case of Ex parte Brunker, Lord Chancellor Talbot refused to grant a ne exeat when there was no bill filed, saying, In all my experience I never knew this writ of ne exeat granted or taken out without a bill in equity being first filed." Upon these authorities, there seems no reason to doubt that the writ is not grantable except upon a bill filed; but, whether that is so or not, it is quite clear that Loyd v. Cardy and Ex parte Brunker do not determine the question, whether, a bill being filed, but not praying the writ of ne exeat, a motion for a ne exeat on the suit so instituted can be supported upon affidavits. In Collinson v. (18 Ves. 353) there were three objections suggested to the granting of the writ. The first was, that the affidavit of the defendant's intention to leave the kingdom only went to the information and belief of the deponent; the second, that the bill did not pray the writ; the third, that there was no affidavit of the debt, but that it appeared only by the Master's report in the cause absolutely confirmed. As to the objection, that the bill did not pray the writ, Lord Eldon said, "When this prerogative writ came to be applied as a civil process, it would have been an extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction to refuse it, merely as not prayed in a stage of the proceedings, when there was no pretence for praying for it. If, when the bill was filed, the defendant did not intend to leave the kingdom, it would have been highly improper to pray the writ*. A groundless suggestion, that the defendant means to abscond, would press too harshly, and would operate to create the very mischief which the court, permitting the motion without notice, means to prevent. The omission to pray the writ, therefore, forms no objection." davit filed in support of the motion shewed that the plaintiff knew, at the time of filing the bill, that the defendant intended to go abroad, though, at the same time, it stated acts, as evidence of his intention, which had occurred since the filing of the bill. The ViceChancellor said he could not grant the writ, unless it was prayed for by the bill; and that, as the affidavit in support of the motion stated acts done by the defendant since the filing of the bill as evidence of his intention to leave the kingdom, a supplemental bill must be filed for the purpose of stating those facts, and praying for the ne exeat. In the most recent case on this point, (Barned v. Laing, 13 Sim. 255), the circumstances were these:The original bill was filed in August, 1840. At that time it was not pretended that the plaintiff had any ground for alleging that the defendant intended to quit the country. The answer was put in and excepted to, and the defendant submitted to the exceptions. On the 27th January, 1841, the plaintiff obtained information on which he could found a belief, but not such information as would have been sufficient proof of the defendant's intention to go abroad. On the 9th of February the bill was amended, and on the 12th of February, and not before, the plaintiff obtained sufficient evidence for supporting an allegation that the defendant intended to go abroad. On this state of circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor granted a ne exeat, and, on a motion to discharge it, his judgment was as follows:-"If there had been in this case, as there was in Sharp v. Taylor, a series of facts leading to the knowledge of the defendant's intention to go abroad, all of which happened subsequently to the filing of the original bill, and might have been stated by way of supplement, they ought to have been so stated. But, as I found, that, on the 27th January, there had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, not a state of facts by which he could have proved the defendant's intention to go abroad, but merely such information as induced him to believe that the defendant intended to do so, (and which belief, if it had been stated in a supplemental bill, without alleging sufficient grounds for it, would have gone for nothing); and as I found that the plaintiff had no certain knowledge of the defendant's intention to leave the kingdom until the 12th February, which was after the amended bill was filed, it appeared to me that this was not such a case as fell within the set of circumstances alluded to in Sharp v. Taylor; and my opinion is, that, according to the decisions of Lord Eldon and Sir J. Leach, in the cases cited, this writ ought not to be discharged." It is not easy to reconcile these two cases of Sharp v. Taylor and Barned v. Laing. In Sharp v. Taylor, it was stated at the bar that the affidavit shewed the plaintiff's knowledge, at the time of filing the bill, of the defendant's intention to go abroad. In the judgment, no notice is taken of that fact, nor does the judgment seem to proceed upon that, because the court referred particularly to the circumstance of the affidavit stating acts subsequently to the filing of the bill, as evidence of the defendant's intention, and upon that ground it appears to have been put, that a supplemental bill ought to be filed. So, in explaining this case in Barned v. Laing, the court expressly stated, that, in Sharp v. Taylor, all the facts leading to the knowledge The next case in which a motion was made for a of the defendant's intention to go abroad, happened subne exeat, without its being prayed by the bill, was sequently to the filing of the original bill, and might Sharp v. Taylor, (11 Sim. 50). In this case, the affi- have been stated by way of supplement. Now, in Barned v. Laing, the facts leading the plaintiff to cer* It is, however, not thought improper, but, on the contain knowledge of the defendant's intention took place trary, quite reasonable, to suggest, in a bill against an executor also after the bill was filed, and the only difference or a partner for an account, that the defendant intends to commit waste, and to pray for an injunction; one does not clearly between the circumstances of the two cases seems, that, see the reason why it should be proper to anticipate that the de-in Barned v. Laing, the facts on which the plaintiff fendant will commit waste, and improper to anticipate that he could rely as evidence did not occur till after the filing of the amended bill. Whether the court considered the will run away. matter stated by the affidavit, as to what took place on the 12th February, as matter not properly supplemental, because not acts of the defendant; or whether, because of its occurring after the amended bill, the court thought such matter could not be brought forward, or that the plaintiff ought not at least to be compelled to bring it forward by bill, does not appear by the report. It is probable that the former is the true reason of the decision, though it is difficult to see why facts from which the intention of the defendant to leave the country could be taken to be sufficiently proved, should not be considered as facts, whether specifically acts of the defendant or not, capable of being alleged as supplemental Occurrences. Emperial Parliament. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, Aug. 19. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, pursuant to notice, to ask leave to bring in a bill empowering her Majesty to constitute a new railway board. The subject had been pressed on the Government by both Houses of Parliament. The committee on railways, in the other House, came to a resolution that it was necessary that there should be some department of the Government so constituted as to command respect, and which should have the care of all railways and canals. That House came to a similar resolution only yesterday. It was in accordance with those two resolutions that this bill was now proposed, in the hope that, by general assent, it might be carried this session. The bill proposed that there should be a railway board, consisting of not less than five commissioners, one of whom should be president, and should be paid. He should also be a member of one or other House of Parliament, and connected with the Government, although not necessarily a member of it, but removeable at each change of the Government if it should be thought necessary. It was proposed, also, that there should be two permanent paid commissioners, who should not be removeable. In addition to these, it was proposed that there should be two other members of the Government, who should be commissioners, but unpaid. The two paid commissioners would of course not have seats in Parliament, but, it being desirable that there should be in both Houses a member of the board to answer questions and be responsible for the acts of the commission, it was proposed that a member of the Government should be on the board, who would not receive extra pay on account of this duty, but who would sit in that House of which the president for the time being was not a member. It was further proposed that the commissioners, with the sanction of the Treasury, should name the secretary and clerks required; but this would be done by transferring to the new board the clerks and subordinate officers at present employed in the railway department of the Board of Trade. It was further proposed to transfer to this department the whole of the powers now held by the railway department of the Board of Trade, and that the duty should be imposed on them of seeing that the railway companies comply with the acts of Parliament under which they obtain their powers, and that it should be the duty of the board to conduct any inquiry that might be required by either house of Parliament. One thing that would be requisite, in order to render this board more useful, was, that the standing orders should be altered so far as that the notices of bills now required to be given in November should be given in February. This would afford a more full time for investigation into the merits of the different plans. This, however, was a subject for a future occasion, and it formed no part of the present bill. With these observations he would appeal to the judgment of the house, late as it was in the session, to allow this bill to be introduced. Leave was then given to introduce the bill, which was afterwards brought in and read a first time. Thursday, Aug. 20. The Small Debts Bill went into committee, and the clauses up to clause 9 were settled. A material alteration was made in the bill as amended in the Lords, by the rejection of the restriction preventing the judges from practising as barristers. Thursday... Saturday Monday... Tuesday.. 19 Motions and Causes. 23 Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Wednesday 25 Motions. Before VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRAM, at Westminster. Monday.... Nov. 2 Motions and Causes. Wednesday Thursday... Friday Saturday Monday.. 3{" 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 ... 13. ....... Tuesday Wednesday Thursday. 14 16 17 .... ...... { { (Petition-day). - Pleas, Demurrers, JOSEPH CARNE the elder, Truro, Cornwall, provision Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, WILLIAM BALLINGER, Swansea, Glamorganshire, malt- Short Causes, Petitions, (unopposed Pleas, Demurrers, Exceptions, Causes, Motions and Ditto. (Petition-day). Pleas, Demurrers, Directions. Short Causes, Petitions, (unopposed 23 24 London Gazettes. TUESDAY, AUGUST 18. BANKRUPTS. Samuel May, Myddleton-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, watch manufacturer, Sept. 3 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, pr. d.-Robert Moir, West Cowes, Isle of Wight, Southampton, stationer, Sept. 5 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, last ex.-John Russell, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, coal merchant, Sept. 5 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.-John Parsons, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, edge tool manufacturer, Sept. 3 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.-John Lead, Wellington, Shropshire, wine merchant, Sept. 1 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.—John Davis, Broadway, Worcestershire, miller, and Heaton Norris, Lancashire, provision dealer, Aug. 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, last ex.-Thos. Southern, Gloucester, grocer, Sept. 10 at 2, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, last ex.-Ch. Frederick Carne and Maurice Telo, Liverpool, merchants, Aug. 25 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, last ex..—Joseph Rothchild, St. James, Bristol, watchmaker, Sept. 21 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-R. Barnes Preston, Leigh, Gloucestershire, coal dealer, Sept. 22 at 1, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.; Sept. 28 at 1, div.-John Sier, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, baker, Sept. 22 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-Ebenezer H. Durden, Pitchcomb-mill, Standish, Gloucestershire, manufacturing chymist, Oct. 2 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-Mary Hart, Chewton Menof Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.dip, Somersetshire, victualler, Sept. 21 at 12, District Court -W. Guy Taylor and Eliz. Guy, Liverpool, hosiers, Sept. 17 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, aud. ac. sep. est. of W. Guy Taylor; Sept. 18 at 11, div.—Joshua Garsed the elder and J. Garsed THOMAS EVANS JONES, Knightsbridge-terrace, Knightsthe younger, Leeds, Yorkshire, flax manufacturers, Sept. 8 at bridge, Middlesex, linendraper, Aug. 27 at half-past 12, and 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds, aud. ac.; Sept. 11 at 11, div.-Thomas Maguire, Birmingham, draper, Sept. 17 Oct. 2 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Alsager; Sol. Lloyd, Milk-street, Cheapside.- Fiat dated John Marsh, Brewood, Staffordshire, grocer, Sept. 10 at 12, at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.Aug. 15. JOHN TEASEL, Norwich, carpenter and builder, Sept. 2 District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac.; Sept. and 26 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. 12 at 12, div.-Christopher Pope, St. Philip and Jacob, GlouFollett; Sols. Jay & Pilgrim, Norwich; Jay, 27, Bucklers-cestershire, near Bristol, copper wire manufacturer, Sept. 10 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.; Sept. bury.-Fiat dated July 30. WILLIAM NORRIS, Cambridge-villas, Great College-st., 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, aud. ac.-William 11 at 11, div.-Daniel Stanton, Bristol, grocer, Sept. 10 at Camden New-town, Middlesex, builder, Sept. 2 and Oct. 1 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Groom; Sept. 11 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London. div.Bucknell Lemon, North-end, Croydon, Surrey, ironmonger, Sol. Haynes, 41, Arlington-street, Camden-town.-Fiat Joseph Miller, Whittlebury-street, Hampstead-road, Middledated Aug. 14. JOHN HARTLEY BUTTERWORTH, King-st., Cheap-sex, painter, Sept. 11 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div. side, London, hotel keeper, Aug. 27 at 11, and Oct. 1 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sol. Ashley, Shoreditch.-Fiat dated Aug. 8. JOSIAH HARRIS, Mevagissey, Cornwall, grocer, dealer and chapman, Sept. 1 and 29 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter: Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Moore, Exeter; Carlyon, St. Austel; Bell & Co., Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.-Fiat dated Aug. 7. JOHN PATTERSON, Tonbridge, Kent, tea dealer, grocer, dealer and chapman, Aug. 27 at half-past 11, and Oct. 2 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Townshend, 17, Howland-street.-Fiat dated Aug. 15. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on the Benjamin Kent, Rosherville, Kent, out of business, Sept. 10 RUFUS PARKINSON, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, currier and leather cutter, dealer and chapman, Aug. 28 To be allowed by the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before Sept. 8. and Sept. 18 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hobson; Sols. Brooks, Ashton-under- Wm. Bucknell Lemon, North-end, Croydon, Surrey, ironLyne; Clarke & Co., 20, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.~ | monger.—John Smith, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, Fiat dated Aug. 8. grocer. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process. Edm. Gibbs, Brighton, Sussex, builder, Aug. 31 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Henry Bull, Windsor-st., Lowerroad, Islington, Middlesex, milkman, Aug. 31 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jacob Hamis, New-st., Gravel-lane, St. Botolph, Aldgate, London, baker, Aug. 31 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Thompson, Whitcomb-street, Pall-mall East, Middlesex, window-blind maker, Aug. 31 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John H. Kyan, Arlington-st., Camden-town, Middlesex, clerk in the Audit Office, Somerset-house, Aug. 31 at half-past 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. Hen. Balls, Fortis-green, Hornsey, Middlesex, out of business, Aug. 31 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Edw. Hayes, Hayes-place, Euston-square, Middlesex, paviour, Aug. 31 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John Brown, Lombard-street, Southwark, Surrey, licensed victualler, Aug. 31 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Thos. Benton, Ely, Isle of Ely, Cambridge, waterman, Aug. 31 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.Jas. Tennant, Silver-st., Wood-st., Cheapside, London, shawl fringe maker, Aug. 31 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London. -Wm. Winepress the younger, Enfield, Middlesex, assistant to a market gardener, Aug. 20 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Geo. Aug. Masters, Deptford, Kent, sexton, Aug. 31 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm. Pike, Platt-terrace, Old St. Pancras-road, Middlesex, bricklayer, Aug. 31 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Cardinall, Halsted, Essex, attorney's clerk, Aug. 31 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Wm, Townsend, Brighton, drilling master, Aug. 31 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Bishop, Nicholas-lane, London, machine ruler, Aug. 31 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jas. Shead, Weathersfield, Essex, blacksmith, Aug. 31 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-John H. Caulfield, Carlisle-st., Soho, Middlesex, comedian, Aug. 31 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London. Matt. Diggle, Heywood, Heap, Bury, cotton spinner, Aug. 25 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Manchester.-Fred. Price, Dudley, Worcestershire, butcher, Sept. 8 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Jas. Watts, Crediton, Devonshire, out of business, Sept. 1 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Exeter.-John Taylor, jun., Golcar, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, clothier, Aug. 28 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Wm. Rooley, West Ardsley, Yorkshire, innkeeper, Aug. 28 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds.-Thomas Archer, Welland, Worcestershire, farming bailiff, Aug. 29 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Jas. Stephenson, Liverpool, sail maker's foreman, Aug. 27 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool. -Jas. Donking, Liverpool, dealer in clocks, Aug. 27 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.-Henry Lewis, Shepton Mallet, Somersetshire, baker, Sept. 14 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Edward Gregory, Swansea, Glamorganshire, licensed dealer in wines, Sept. 8 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-Jas. Benbow, Dudley, Worcestershire, labourer, Sept. 3 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-James Bottom, Derby, hatter, Sept. 1 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.Frederick John Brown, Birmingham, clerk in the Bristol and Birmingham Railway, Aug. 20 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Evan Thomas Edwards, Caerphilly, Glamorganshire, grocer, Sept. 1 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-James Bradford, Liverpool, provision dealer, Aug. 29 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool.James Finch, Liverpool, butcher, Aug. 29 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool. Saturday, Aug. 15. The following Assignees have been appointed. Further Particulars may be learned at the Office, in Portugal-st., Lincoln's-inn-fields, on giving the Number of the Case. Christiana Walters, Minra-street, Pimlico, Middlesex, plumassier, No. 58,203 T.; Samuel Smith, assignee.-Thomas Lindsay, Thibberton-sq., Islington, Middlesex, currier, No. Saturday, Aug. 15. Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee Thomas Holliday, Herbert-street, New North-road, Middlesex, out of business: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-James Priseman, Barne's-terrace, Barnes, Surrey, market gardener: in the Queen's Prison.-William Absolom Darby, Trigon-road, Lambeth, Kennington, Surrey, surveyor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.Wm. Bonser, Ely-place, Hoxton Old-town, Middlesex, toy dealer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.James Edmonds, Bruton-street, Bond-street, Middlesex, boot maker: in the Queen's Prison.-Henry Holloway, Churchstreet, Lambeth, Surrey, out of business: in the Queen's Priin the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William George Miles, Grosvenor-row, Pimlico, egg merchant: Pasfield, Ealing-green, Middlesex, bricklayer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. son. (On Creditor's Petition). Alexander John Wynch, Royal-street, Lambeth, Surrey, in no profession: in the Queen's Prison. (On their own Petitions). Frederick Forman Gibbs, Bidston, near Liverpool, ship broker: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Evans, Deveroux, Herefordshire, out of business: in the Gaol of Hereford.-W. Chamberlain, Marlingford, Norfolk, out of business: in the Gaol of Norwich.-James Jones, Birmingham, inspector of Stamp-office licenses: in the Gaol of Warwick.—Jas. Eastman Laws, Southtown, Suffolk, and Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, ship agent: in the Gaol of Norwich. INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S DIVIDEND. Charles Alavoine, Baldwin-street, City-road, carver, Aug. 22, at Cookworthy's, 24, Castle-street, Falcon-square: 38. 3d. in the pound. FRIDAY, AUG. 21. BANKRUPTS. JESSE CORNELIUS MOORE, Strand, Middlesex, book- GEORGE AUGUSTUS CAVENDISH, Church-end, Finch- 13. JOHN MILLER, Mary-street, Hoxton Old-town, Middle- JOHN TAYLOR, Meltham, Yorkshire, manufacturer, Sept. |
