HUMOURS OF THE BENCH.

The sorrows of the suitor, though dignified with a proverbial consecration, are perhaps not always so keen as popular fancy imagines. Auxiety for the issue is dimmed by the excitement of battle, and it is notorious that many people are so happily constituted as to enjoy a lawsuit for its own sake with a zest which a dismissal with costs is quite powerless to chill. But whether the troubles of litigants be beavy or light, they seldom damp the jocularity of the judges, which is fast becoming a distinctive feature of the administration of English justice. Even at the risk of being commonplace, we must take leave to remark that the position of a judge is in some ways unique. The parson approaches him most closely, but the pulpit is not nearly so impressive as the judgment-seat, and it has lost that hold on the secular arm which the Bench retains as a matter of course. The parson, it is true, enjoys a complete immunity from contradiction, but he is equally excluded from the faintest simper of applause. If his congregation be sufficiently fashionable and sufficiently feminine, he can probably evoke a considerable volume of tears; but tears are now so much a matter of practice that they have lost a good deal of their original interest. Again, if we except a handful of clerical mountebanks, the ordinary clergyman feels himself debarred by tradition, and, indeed, by an instinct of reverence, from trotting out humour without a very tight rein. Judges, however, are hampered by no such restrictions. Ou the contrary, a little pleasantry has always been conceded to the judge as a privilege, and nowadays is almost exacted from him as a right. As a consequence of this strange taste on the part of the public, Her Majesty's judges are turning out jokes in such alarming quantities that the pressure is beginning to tell sadly on the quality of the article produced. Legal wit enjoys a very creditable reputation, but it will soon be frittered away if the Pierian fount of judicial jokery continues to be tapped in the present reckless fashion.

It is hard to resist an uncomfortable suspicion that the lawyers of past generations, who built up this reputation for their profession, must have been better men at quip, crank, and oddity thau their successors of to-day. How they came by this superiority is another question, and one which is not particularly easy to answer. They can hardly have enjoyed better opportunities for the display of this talent than modern litigation affords, and they certainly had not the stimulus supplied by modern publicity. Perhaps, after all, they had less business, and consequently more time to elaborate their impromptus. This may be rather a cheap form of comfort, but we may as well cling to it in default of any better. The story told of some old Chief Justice-we forget at the moment which-will serve to point the contrast between the past and the present. In the course of a criminal case which he was trying a man burst iuto court, declaring that he had received a Divine mandate to order the proceedings to be stopped. Upon which the Judge observed, "If the Lord bad sent thee, it would have been to the Attorney-General, for He knoweth that a nolle prosequi belongeth not to the Chief Justice." It would be hopeless, we fear, to look for a rejoinder like this from any living judge. It is more than probable, indeed, that his lordship would have recourse to the vulgar expedient of coercion, and the intrader would simply be removed by the court officials, to the extinction of any humorous possibilities of the situation. Perhaps the nearest approach in modern times to the old sublety of humour is the remark attributed to Lord Justice Bowen, that truth will always leak out, sometimes even into an affidavit. But, as a rule, the modern judge rarely rises above the level of a bad pun, and it is not too often that he scales that dizzy intellectual height. The judicial humour, too, of the present day suffers sadly from want of competition. There doesot appear to be much wholesome rivalry between the members of the Bench in this matter, and Any competition from below is usually resented sternly.

Queen's Counsel may venture at times to trifle playfully with his lordship, but between judges and the junior Bar there is a lamentable lack of give and take in the matter of jokes. This is obviously bad for the judges, and is a little dull for the junior Bar. At the same time it would be a pity to waste much compassion ou the latter, as they are largely responsible for the present degeneration of judicial wit. It must certainly be hard for a judge to maintain any high standard of humour in the presence of the servile appreciation which his mildest jocularity elicits from the court. A judge's joke should be beyond suspicion, but not necessarily beyond any reasonable suspicion that it is a joke at all; aud to greet an utterance of this latter kind with convulsive laughter tends to obscure the just perceptious of the joker, and is morally debasing to his audience.

Finally, it may not be out of place to consider how the interests of the public are affected by this professional drollery. In the higher courts the mischief seldom amounts to anything more serious than a certain loss of time. Some time must be occupied (it might be di-respectful to say wasted) in the preparation and delivery of the judicial joke, while prudence requires that a further period should be allowed for its eluci dation, and perhaps also for the recovery from its effects. But in the lower tribunals this fiue sensibility to the ludicrous shows a dangerous tendency to interfere with justice. It might be supposed, for instance, from some recent cases, that the chief aim of the court was to elicit the comic side of a nuisance or the humorous elements of a tort. Screeching poultry, howling dogs, and a host of other petty annoyances may interfere appreciably with the comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of a densely peopled city; and if it is too much to ask of the presiding wags of the lower courts to treat such cases seriously, it is fair to require, if only for appearance's sake, that they should endeavour to joke over them with rather more difficulty.— World.

SOLICITORS IN COUNTY COURTS.

At the annual meeting of the (London) Incorporated Law Society,

Mr. FORD moved: "That the interests of the public require the repeal of so much of sect. 72 of the County Court Act, 1888, as prohibits the solicitor of a suitor from retaining another solicitor to appear in a County Court as an advocate for the suitor." He said the regulation which prevented the solicitor so instructing another had emanated from barristers for the benefit of the Bar. It was a most unfair thing that a professional man should be required to arrange that some other solicitor in a country town should appear for a solicitor acting for a client, and he (Mr. Ford) had brought the matter forward purely on public grounds. It was a most mysterious thing that a solicitor could not instruct a professional brother to appear in a County Court. The Bar, of course, would be dead against the alteration to a man. Quite recently, in fact, the Bar Committee had got hold of the matter, and had expressed an opinion in their report that it was a most irregular and improper practice. It was for the society to declare that such a state of things should come to an end.

The

Mr. C. T. SAUNDERS (Birmingham), in seconding the motion, observed that the subject had been thoroughly discussed at the meetings of the council, and also by the committee, which had been formed partly of members of the council and partly of members outside the council, appointed some time ago to consider as to the reforms required in County Court procedure. committee had decide in favour of the recommendation, and in favour also of a recommendation to the effect that a solicitor appearing in a County Court case should have the right to follow it into the Court o Appeal. That recommendation had not been adopted by the council, but the recommendation embodied in Mr. Ford's resolution had been adopted by them, and it had been pressed upon the committee before whom the Bill went. The Attorney-General, in the interest of the

80

Bar, had moved its rejection, and it had been rejected, but the subject was one of considerable interest and importance in the country. It was not always that a practitioner felt himself competent to conduct a case. Of course if he had a junior partner who was qualified, no difficulty arose; but that was not always so, and very often there was not a barrister in the locality, and a barrister had to be brought from a considerable distance. Apart from that, the case might be of a very trifling amount, and it might not stand a brief to counsel. The object of the County Courts was to minimise the expense in small transactions to the client, and that made any briefing of a barrister a very serious thing to the client. The County Court judges often went to the extent of preventing the articled clerk of the solicitor from appearing, and there could be no question as a matter of public policy, apart from the interest of country solicitors, that such an alteration as that suggested should be made.

The motion was agreed to, with two votes against it.

GLEANINGS FROM EARLY MASSACHUSETTS LAWS.

To the student of history the statute-book of any particular period furnishes much valuable information as to the general habits and modes of life of a people. The main features of the laws of all Anglo-Saxon communites are substantially the same, varying in details according to the different conditious in which each finds itself. There everywhere exist the same needs of good government, administration of justice, regulation of trade, descent of property, encouragement of morality, and suppression and punishment of evil-doers.

The differences which appear in the statutes depend upon varying social and local conditious, and the more or less severe moral sense of the people. Beyond the laws which are essential and common to all commuuities, it is safe to say that every statute has been enacted to meet some real or supposed local need, and it is from these that the student can glean many curious and significant facts. For example, a statute fixing a bounty for the killing of wolves would hardly be found in any country where the wolf was not a somewhat near neighbour. Laws regulating dealings with Indians, or those relating to the discipline of negro slaves are the natural concomitants of the existence of those people in the community. The punishments enacted for the suppression of crimes and minor offences strongly reflect the existing moral sense at the time.

Without further preface, aud without going back to the earliest days of the Clony, an old folio volume in my library-the "Laws of the Province of Massachusetts Ba," from 1692 (4 William and Mary) to 1766 (6 George III.), edition of 1759, with supplement-coutains some enactments which may well surprise and amuse the descendants of their framers.

In the first place, the laws affecting criminals have none of the sentimental euphemism which characterises some later statutes. A spade is called a spade with unmistakable clearness of diction, and the punishments are prescribed with a vigorous emphasis. The gallows, pillory, stocks, and the lash, branding, cutting off and nailing of ears, are the means by which, in addition to or in lieu of fiues, the blind goddess enforced her decrees. It is true that Section 43 of the "Body of Liberties" prescribes that no man shall be beaten with above forty stripes, nor shall any true gentleman, nor any man equal to a gentleman, be punished with whipping, unless his crime be very shameful and his course of life vicious and profligate. Section 45 of the "Body of Liberties" also provides that no man shall be forced by torture to confess any crime against himself, nor against any other, except in certain cases therein laid down; in which event he may be tortured, "yet not with such tortures as be barbarous and inhumane." Unfortunately, we know that on Sept. 19, 1692, Giles Corey was pressed to death at Salem, for refusing to plead when arraigned for witchcraft. In 1692 the laws against witchcraft were still in force; namely, "If any mau

or woman be a witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death." On Sept. 22, 1692, at Salem, occurred the last execution for this crime in the Province, when several persons were put to death, all protesting their innocence. In January, 1693, the Grand Jury brought bills against some fifty persons for witchcraft; but all were acquitted except three, and these were reprieved. It is thus evident that a reaction in public feeling had set in, aud in 1697 the General Court appointed January 14 as a day of fasting and prayer on account of "the late tragedy raised among us by Satan and his instruments through the awful judgment of God."

Leaving these gloomy reminiscences and coming to lighter matters of the law, we find that profane sweariug was very properly punished by a fine of five shillings, failing to pay which the offender was set in the stocks, not exceeding two hours. If he uttered more than one oath on the same occasion and in hearing of the same persons, his punishment was twelve pence for every oath after the first, and a seat in the stocks for three hours, where he could cool his spleen and reflect on his sins, unless the contributions of addled eggs and other missiles by the youths of the town interrupted his meditations.

A person convicted of drunkenness could take his choice between paying five shilling or the stocks for three hours.

A conviction of theft involved a fine of five pounds or twenty stripes; and if the thief was unable to make restitution or pay threefold damages to the injured party, the latter could dispose of him in service to any of their Majesties' subjects, for such term as should be adjudged by the Court.

This

Burglars and robbers were to be branded on the forehead with the letter B. For a second offence they were to be set upou the gallows for the space of one hour with a rope about their necks, and one end thereof cast over the gallows, and to be severely whipped, not exceeding thirty-nine stripes. For a third conviction, they were to suffer death, as being incorrigible. latter provision is noteworthy, as being in line with our Habitual Criminal Acts, though more Draconiau in its character. For the first and second offences the culprits were to pay treble damages to the injured parties. Indeed, throughout all these criminal statutes, full measure of restitution as well as severe punishments are prescribed.

The severity of the above penalties appears to have beeu insufficient, for Chapter I.. Acts of 1715, after a preamble setting forth that "Whereas, notwithstanding the laws already made for the punishing of criminal offenders, many persons of late have been so hardy as to break open in the night, the dwelling houses of several of his Majesty's good subjects, and have not only stolen their goods, but put them in fear and danger of their lives," enacts the punishment of death for the crime.

And Chapter I., Acts of 1711-"To the intent her Majesty's leige people may be in peace and out of fear of being assulted and robbed by ill-minded, wicked ruffians, as they are travelling the common roads or high-ways," euacts as a penalty for robbery, burning in the forehead or hand, six months' imprisonment, and treble damages to the party robbed; and for a second offence, death. And by Chapter VIII., Acts of 1761, for the first offence, death, "without benefit of clergy."

Liars and libellers might find themselves mulcted to the tune of twenty shillings, or be seated in the stocks, or be publicly whipped, at the discretion of the court.

A forger found scant mercy. He had to make foll restitution to the injured party; also he must be set in the pillory, and then and there have his ears cut off, aud suffer imprisonment for one year. Faucy the duties of the officer deputed to brand B's upon men's foreheads, cut off their ears or Dail them to boards. Que can imagine the awkward attempts to get the iron hot and apply it to the forehead of the struggling culprit, and the unskilful efforts to cut through the tough, gristly substance of the ear, amid the howls and contortions of the victim.

A perjurer or suborner of perjury had the disagreeable

alternative of paying £20, or of being set in the pillory for an hour, and to have both his ears nailed; and to be for ever after infamous, until judgment reversed.

Chapter IV. of the year 1694 re-enacts in substance the earlier law of Plymouth colony, on which Hawthorn's famous story "The Scarlet Letter" is founded. The punishment for adultery, as there laid down, is that both parties "shall be set upon the gallows by the space of an hour, with a rope about their neck, and the other end cast over the gallows, and in the way from thence to the common goal, shall be severely whipped, not exceeding forty stripes each. Also every person and persons so offending shall for ever after wear a capital A of two inches long and proportionate bigness, cut out in cloth of a contrary colour to their cloaths, and sewed upon their upper garments, or on their back in open view." If afterwards found without his or her letter, the culprit was to be publicly whipped not exceeding fifteen stripes.

The House of Correction, fetters or shackles, and moderate whipping not exceeding ten stripes at once, and in case of failure to work, while sojourning at the House of Correction, a judicious reduction of food, were the lot of Rogues, Vagabonds, Beggars, Persons using any Subtle Craft, Juggling, or unlawful Games or Plays; Persons feigning themselves to have Knowledge in Physiognomy and Palmistry; Fortune Tellers, Common Pipers, Fiddlers, and numerous others of the vicious and vagrant classes, and "such as neglect their Callings, spend what they earn, and do not provide for themselves or the Support of their Families."

Indian, Negro, and "Molatto" slaves must not be abroad in the night-time after "nine a Clock," unless upon some errand for their respective masters or owners, under penalty, unless they could give a good account of themselves, of being sent to the House of Correction "to receive the Discipline of the House."

In Chapter I., Acts of 1711, it is provided that composers or publishers of profane songs or mock sermons inay be punished by a fine of twenty pounds, or by standing on the pillory once or oftener, with an inscription of their crime, in capital lottoro, affixed over their heads.

Chapter V., Acts of 1713, after a preamble setting out "Whereas the Limbs and Lives of several Persons, have been greatly endangered in riding over Boston Neck by their Horses throwing of them, being affrighted and starting, at the Firing of Guns by Gunners that frequent there after Game," enacts a penalty of twenty shillings for every such firing on Boston Neck within ten rods of the highway.

more

Serving on juries seems to have been no popular in 1716 than at the present day; for Chapter V. of that year, after a preamble setting forth that the former penalty of forty shillings for default as a juror had not been sufficient to induce many of the most able and best qualified persons to perform their duties, prescribes a fine of not less than four pounds, nor exceeding six pounds, for such neglect.

The killing of wolves was encouraged in 1693 by a reward of twenty shillings for every grown wolf, and five shillings for every wolf's whelp. This was subsequently raised in 1715 to forty shillings for every grown wolf.

In 1693 the militia must have been an awe-inspiring body. Every foot-soldier was to be armed with "a well fix'd Firelock, Musket, of Musket or Bastard Musket bore, the Barrel not less than three Foot and a half long: a Snapsack, a Collar with twelve Bandaliers, or Cartouch-B x; one Pound of good Powder, twenty Bullets fit for his Gun; and twelve Flints; a good Sword or Cutlash; a Worm and Priming Wire, fit for his Gun." By a subsequent Act, Chapter IV., Acts 1711, "a good Goosenecked Bayonet with Socket,' was substituted for the Sword or "cutlash." Commissioned officers were given authority to correct disorders, contempt on watch and some other military offences, by punishments not greater than "laying Neck and Heels, riding the Wooden Horse, or ten Shillings Fiue." Fancy our galant Cadets or the dignified Ancients and Honourables undergoing the above discipline.

Chapter XVII., Acts 1701, fixes the fee for an attorney at law in the Superior Court of Judicature at twelve shillings; and in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas, ten shillings and no more. Chapter I., Acts 1714, provides that no person shall "entertain" more than two attorneys, "that the adverse Party may have Liberty to retain others of them to assist him, upon his Tender of the established Fee, which they may not refuse." Hard times for attorneys truly!

Chapter IV., Acts of 1700, enacts that all Jesnits and Roman Catholic priests aud missionaries shall depart out of the Province, under penalty of perpetual imprison ment; and if they should escape from such imprisonment, to be punished by death.

By Chapter VI., Acts of 1705, any negro or mulatto presuming to strike any person of the Euglish or other Christian nation, was to be severely whipped in the discretion of the court.

While the Indian inhabitants of the Province were carefully restrained from lawlessness, their rights were vigilantly protected by various wise and just laws. Severe penalties were imposed for selling them liquor, cheating them out of their lands, and otherwise defrauding them. Their lands, too, were not liable to be taken for their debts.

The foregoing gleanings convey a fair idea of the flavor, so to speak, of the then laws.

While we may condemn the more barbarous modes of punishment then in vogue, and the undue severity of some of the penalties, one cannot but feel that in case of some particularly brutal and savage crimes, notably house-breaking, garroting, and wife-beating, we might well return to the severe but salutary discipline of the lash as administered to evil-doers in those days by the good citizens of Massachusetts. -Green Bag.

NOTES OF CASES.

CORRIGENDUM.

In re FOLEY, an Apprentice.

Instead of the headnote affixed to the note of this case, ante, p. 388, read "Admission of solicitor-Affidavit of service as apprentice not made-Death of master-Portion of lectures unattended-Deafness-Liberty to attend Final Examination."

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
CHANCERY DIVISION.
(Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C.)

In re BELAS, one of the solicitors.

July 19. 1890.-Solicitor-Striking off the roll-Nonpayment of client's money.

Shekleton, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. W. G. Wakely, solicito), on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, moved that, pursuant to the order of the Court of 28th Juue, 1890 (ante, p. 360, where the facts are stated), the name of Abraham Belas, solicitor, should be struck forthwith off the roll. Counsel stated that the requirements of the order of 28th June, 1890 (that a copy of that order should be left at Mr. Blas' registered address, and that notice of the order should be published in two London papers, the Dublin Gazette, and three Dublin daily papers), had been complied with by Mr. Wakely, and, further, that no cause, by affidavit or otherwise, as directed by the order, had been shown by Mr. Belas.

LORD ASHBOURNE, C., said that the Incorporated Law Society having brought forward this case, and no cause having been shown, he was bound to pronounce the order sought for. He did so with regret, insomuch as the father of this solicitor bad been an old and respected member of the profession, but no a't rnative was left but to order that the name be struck off the roll.

Order accordingly.

LEGAL VERBOSITY.

Legal documents are sometimes ridiculed by the unlearned for their appareut verbosity, and for the way in which the draftsman rings the changes on past, present, and future tenses, and attempts to provide for all sors of contingencies; but the strict way in which written instruments are construed by the Courts shows that what seems to the unlearned foolishness is often a grave necessity. This is well illustrated by two recent cases of a very dissimilar character, the one relating to the construction of a contract not to carry on a particular business, Stuart v. Diplock, 43 Chy. D. 43, noted ante, p. 232, in which it was held that the contract was not violated by the carrying on of a part of the trade in question. Here the omission of the familiar form of words, or any part thereof," proved fatal to the plaintiff's claim to restrict the defendant from carrying on the business in question altogether as was probably intended. The other case is Re Wormald, Frank v. Muzeen, 43 Chy. D. 633, noted post, p. 328, in which the construction of a forfeiture clause in a will was in question. The will contained a devise and bequest to trustees upon trust for a married woman for her separate use "without power of anticipation," with a gift over her anticipating "the rents and income or any part thereof and it was held that the words "anticipating did not include "attempting to anticipate," and though the married woman had in fact executed a mortgage of her interest, yet this invoked no forfeiture because the mortgage was void and inoperative, and was a mere attempt to anticipate, which was not provided for. There can be little doubt that this was just the kind of act the testator wished to guard against; he did not intend to provide for a contingency which could not possibly happen, but for a contingency which might happen, viz., the attempt of the beneficiary to evade the restriction or enjoyment which he had seen fit to impose, and yet the draftsman of the will probably failed to carry out his client's instructions because he neglected to introduce into the forfeiture clause the words" or attempt to anticipate." As we have said before, these cases illustrate the necessity of that amplitude of expression which, though fatal to elegance of style, is necessary to the legal effect of instruments.Canada Law Journal.

DEBENTURES AND THE BILLS OF SALE ACTS.

on

If the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Reid v. Joannon, which we reported last week (89 L. T. 196), is correct, and if it is upheld when the point comes to the Court of Appeal, an important question has been laid to rest. Hitherto the received opinion has been that the debentures of a company are within the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, but not within the Act of 1882, That is to say, the Act of 1878, which regulates one set of bills, namely, those by way of absolute transfer, applies to debentures; but the Act of 1882, which regulates the other set of bills of sale, namely, those by way of security, does not apply (see as to this, Swift v. Pannell, 48 L. T. Rep. N. S. 351; 34 Ch. Div. 210). The well-known Bect. 17 of the Act of 1882 only says that "this Act," not that "the principal Act," shall not apply to debentures, and there was good reason for excluding debentures from the Act of 1882, since it is impossible to frame them in accordance with the form imposed by that Act. But there is nothing unreasonable, it has been considered, in leaving debentures subject to the Act of 1878, and thus preserving the rights of execution creditors. This has been the accepted view: (see Palmer's Company Precedents, p. 386, edition of 1888). But in Reid v. Joannon, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Wills held that a debenture given by a company called the Automatic Cigarette Supply Company, purporting to charge the undertaking, "and all their real and personal property," was not a bill of sale, and required no registration. The Court went further,

and said that debentures are not, and never were, within the Bills of Sale Acts, so as to require registration like bills of sale. Whether this is right or wrong, it is at any rate clear and definite. If it is upheld, it will take away a load of anxiety from those who are responsible for the issue of debentures, to whom the question of registration is constantly presented. We fear that the Queen's Bench judges have not laid the question finally to rest. If they have done so, they have done a great service to the Profession and to those who are concerned with companies. But the arguments are all in favour of debentures being bills of sole within the purview and the mischief of the Act of 1878.-Law Times.

MISPLACED CONFIDENCE.

Chief Justice Beasley, of New Jersey, who prides himself on the rural character of his dress and appear, ance, while on a recent visit to New York city, was one afternoon standing on the steps of a prominent hotel when he was accosted by a perfect stranger, whom he at once sized up as a confidence operator. "It has been

a long time since we met," said the newcomer in an affable manner. "Yes," said the chief justice, musingly, "quite a long time," "Are you enjoying yourself as usual?" asked the man, evidently feeling for an oppor. tunity to run in his little game. "Yes, as usual," answered the chief justice, with a sunny smile. "Still in the same old business, eh?" "Yes; still in the same old business." "What business is it? It's been so long since I've seen you that I declare I've quite forgotten.' The chief justice's eyes sparkled merrily as he replied with an assumption of innocence which would have done no discredit to a first-class actor: "Sending rogues to jail." The confidence man stared at him, and then suddenly shot off down the street, while the chief justice looked after him with his usual innocence and benevolence.-New Jersey Law Journal.

Holloway's Pills and Ointment.-Travellers to and from distant climes would do well to bear in mind that these changes and the altered diet and surroundings of their lives entail manifold risks to health. Occasions are sure to arise in which they will need a remedy such as these renowned Pills and Ointment, and no traveller by land or sea should ever fail to have a supply at hand. Then he may truly be said to have a physician always at his call for the various emergencies of travel. Chills and fevers should be promptly treated, and the printed directions should be carefully tudied at the commencement of any illness, for Holloway's remedies can be safely used in all climates.

COURT PAPERS.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.

ADJUDICATIONS IN BANKRUPTCY.

[The dates of Adjudications are first given, the Sillings follow in italics.]

DUBLIN.

Valentine

Burke, John H., trading as "O'Connell and Co.," of Cappoquin, in the county of Waterford, general merchant. July 15; Tuesday, July 29, and Friday, August 15. Kilbride, solr. Cumins, Robert Blakeney, of Crosh House, Newtownstewart, county Tyrone, farmer. July 14; Friday, August 1, and Tuesday, August 19. W. J. Glasse ana H. F. Leachman, Devanny, Gardiner, of Ballina, in the county of Mayo, trader, trading as "Gardiner Devanny and Company." July Bennett 7: Tuesday, July 29, and Friday, August 15. Thompson, solr.

solrs.

BELFAST.

Higgins, Henry, of Portglenone, in the county of Antrim, publican and carpenter. July 7; Monday, July 28, and Monday, August 11. A. ORorke & Son, solrs. Patterson, Robert, of Ballykeigle, in the county of Down, cattle dealer and farmer. July 14; Monday, August 4, and Monday, August 18. John M Cormick, solr.

THE Benchers of Gray's-inn (says the World) seem bent on demonstrating to the outside world their want of touch with the age in which they live. Fortunately, Mr. Bowen Rowlands and Mr. Middleton are exceptions to the rule. The students have, it seems, committed a mortal sin by toasting the ladies who occupied the Armada Gallery during the last "grand night" dinner, and the Solons of the Bench have determined to sit in solemn judgment on the offenders at a pension to be held on the 23rd inst. Surely they have forgotten the traditions of "Good Queen Bess," and the spirited manner in which that gallant silk-gownsman, the Prince of Wales, encouraged a similar demonstration when he presided as treasurer over the Jubilee dinner iu Middle Temple Hall,

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES. AND DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

HANRAHAN-July 5, at Enniskillen, the wife of J. W. Hanrahan Clerk of the Crown, of a daughter.

MARRIAGES,

HUBBARD and KNIGHT-July 17, at St. Ann's Church, Dublin, by the Very Rev. the Dean of the Chapel Royal, Collins Baughman, son of Bela Hubbard, of Detroit, Michigan, and Crescent City, Florida, U.S. A., to Anna Georgina (Genie), eldest daughter of George Knight, solicitor, C'ones, Co. Monaghan. THOMPSON and CREAN-July 22, at the Church of Saint Andrew, Westland-row, John Thompson, of Clare Hall, Raheny, Co. Dublin, to Eleanor Mary, third daughter of M. T. Crean, barrister at-law, of Lower Leeson-street, Dublin.

TYNDALL and DEVANE-July 16, at St. Mary's Church, Haddington road, Dublin, by the Rev. Henry J. Lube, C.C., assisted by the Very Rev. Canon Lee, P. P., Joseph P. Tyndall, solicitor, eldest son of William J. Tyndall, J.P., of Mount Tallant House, Harold's Cross, Dublin, to Ellen Frances (Nellie), elder surviving daughter of T. Devane, of Caherbreagh, Tralee, Co. Kerry.

DEATHS.

LYNCH-July 19, at Westport, Co. Mayo, of pneumonia, fortified by the rites of the R. C. Church, Eustace Lynch, Esq., T.C., P.L.G., aged 55 years, eldest son of the late George Lynch, Esq., solicitor O'KEEFFE- July 12. at the Cottage, Garrynesta, Mary Dominica, the dearly-beloved wife of Cornelius O'Keeffe, Land Commission. RAMSAY-July 22, at Oxford-road, Rathmines, Anna Maria, the wife of James W. Ramsay, solicitor.

FUNERAL REQUISITES OF EVERY DESCRIPTION.

WALLER, 49 & 50 DENZILLE-STREET. Telephone No. 131.

[102 Telegraphic Address-"Undertaker, Dublin."