explained. In the Marine Department there is a good account for the year, and we would advise the office to cultivate more strenuously this branch of their business. Its greatest fault is its smallness. On the whole, we consider the undertaking of more than one form of insurance a mistake, and offices which devote themselves exclusively to a particular branch of the business as a rule make greater success than those that scatter their fire in them all.

CAPEL COURT.

Ir is not every outside broker who could submit his books to the keen scrutiny of opposing counsel in open court, with such satisfactory results as the defendant, Mr. Shaw, did on Saturday in the Lord Mayor's Court, in an action, Williams v. Shaw. The plaintiff lost his case, as he deserved to do; that is to say, the jury did not see that he ever had a case. Mr. Williams is a merchant in the City, and no young greenhorn. Mr. Williams, the well-to-do City merchant, is speculative; but, being of a large mind and intent on grand operations, is not satisfied with anything but grand profits. Mr. Williams might have made a very good thing out of his transaction in Mexican Rails when they went up to 51; but Mr. Williams was not content, and determined to hold for even a bigger rise, and he would not sell and realise his handsome profit. Mr. Williams' over-greediness punished itself, for he allowed the stock to remain open until it had a fall; it fell, and fell below the amount of the cover. But Mr. Williams, the merchant, is ingenious; he thought to make his broker pay for his mistake, and so he brought his action, with the result stated. The plaintiff Williams contended that he had given the defendant instructions to sell when the stock was at 514. Mr. Shaw, however, easily disproved this, and, as the Sunday Times puts it, and puts it correctly, after the defendant's books and contract notes were strictly scrutinised, the jury came unanimously to the conclusion that no such order was given, and judgment with costs was given against the erring Williams. We have no wish to trample on the fallen or slay the slain, but we may be allowed to add as a rider to the verdict, "Sarve him right."

A MADRID official journal announces that the issue at par of the new Four per Cent. Non-redeemable Rentes has been made in shares of 100 and 200 pesetas.

THE Common Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main, being. seized with the conversion fever, has decided to reduce its Local Four per Cent. Loan, amounting to £750,000, to a Three and a Half per Cent. security.

WE also learn from the same town that the local directors of the railways have been obliged to diminish the number of their trains from lack of fuel, resulting from the strike amongst the German miners. It is feared that the carriage of merchandise by German railways will suffer a good deal through this state of things, which will apparently get worse before it gets better.

THE negotiations between Baron Hirsch and the Austrian railway companies for the acquisition of the Turkish railways have been definitely abandoned. The German Bank of Berlin has determined to take them over at a cost of £3,400,000.

THE De Beers Mine is fast absorbing all its neighbours. A little while ago it was the Kimberley Central, and now it is the West Griqualand. This has been known for some time by the gentlemen who deal in precious stones near Holborn Viaduct, and they have been quietly picking up the shares. De Beers should still have another rise in them.

THE revival of interest in South African Randt shares is mainly due to the efforts of bears of long standing to get out of trouble before they start on their summer holidays. It is only of an ephemeral character, and not likely to last many days. The whole case in a nutshell is simply this:-A lot of the Hatton Garden men,

who kept dealing in and out in the early part of this year, finally bought when prices were too high, and just before the jobbers inside refused to deal in many securities. Consequently they had to take up their shares and carry them. That was the bull lot. The others, finding the prices largely raised, sold them for a fall. Of course the bulls have got their shares in their boxes, but the bears must buy them back. Jumpers appear to be the most lively of the lot, but it is doubtful whether there will be any real business activity until next September.

THERE appears to be little doubt that Colonel North is quietly getting out of his Nitrates. So far as the holdings in his name are concerned, no great diminution has taken place; but if we are to believe the rumours that are current, it would appear that his nominees have been disposing of their shares at every opportunity. The public may find presently that they have been holding on too long.

THE bulls cannot get Berthas any higher. They try very hard, but as there is no one to come in to their support, they only depend upon themselves, and they have got all they want. The long bears are making a dead set at them, and it is open to doubt whether it will be possible to improve the quotation to any extent. Everything has been discounted, and the Paris traffics will have to be very good indeed to come up to expectations. Home Rails have been rather overdone altogether, and whilst there may still be some chance for the heavies, it appears to us that the Southern stocks are quite played out.

THE general activity of Americans is apparently due to the fact that Wall Street has discovered that if it wants to put prices better it will have to do so itself. That London will give no active assistance is quite evident, but New Yorkers can count upon everything being done to sustain markets if they are only called up from their side.

THE option dealers were busy last Saturday inducing speculators to give for the "put" of Unions for the end of the account. Unions have had one or two rather unlucky days, and were therefore depressed in appearance. The wise men bought them, and, as events proved, did right. On Monday, Unions looked like going much better, and the whisper was revived that a six-dollar rise was the next move in them.

THE White Lead Company is said to have been subscribed for seven times over, but as the premium has been anywhere between and per cent., it hardly looks as if this were likely. The statement circulated on Monday evening, that the company had sold its foreign patents for sufficient to cover the whole of its capital, was bound to have a good effect on the price.

Ir is undoubtedly a cute move on the part of the British Water-Gas Syndicate, in the face of present events, to refrain from calling up the remaining £2 on the shares, which they could now do according to the terms originally in the prospectus.

THE prospectus of the Aboukir Bay Treasure Recovery Company reads like a romance. That treasure-laden ship

should have remained at the bottom of the sea since the beginning of the century without anybody having the pluck or determination to relieve them of their cargoes sounds more like Robert Louis Stevenson than a plain matter-of-fact occurrence. There are many difficulties in the way of a successful result. The promoters must have been reading Gaboriau's novels, in which so many undertakings, exactly like the Aboukir scheme, proved successful. It is not always safe, however, to build hopes on a novelist's invention.

HERE is something worth noting about the British Water-Gas Company and its offsprings, the North British, the Nottingham, and the Yorkshire. The parent company is at a premium (although, by the way, it has fallen about ten points to 113-123 premium), while the other companies are at a discount of 21, 13. The parent company lives on the payment it receives from its offshoots for giving them license to use its patents. But if the offshoots are in a poor state, not only will their support some day vanish, but the vivid expectations that similar com panies would be formed all over the kingdom to purchase the local concessions and license to use the patents will also vanish into thin air. Then the parent company will go the way of the offshoots. But why do these companies not pay? Is it, or is it not, true that a saving of £10,000 per annum is effected by using water-gas in one firm alone, as stated in the prospectus? If it be true, it is impossible to account for the depreciation of the shares; but if it be untrue in fact or in substance, it is easily accounted for. And if it be untrue, the shareholders would be entitled to have their money back. Nothing can be clearer than this, and we would like to know whether the statement in the prospectus has ever been verified, and by whom? Why does not some enterprising shareholder in the Nottingham Water-Gas Company, for instance, exert himself to get a meeting together for this purpose?

The Preference Securities Trust is one of those sound undertakings which recommend themselves to the intelligence of the prudent investor, and there is additional

COLONIAL

reason for a feeling of security in the knowledge of the persons who are concerned in the formation of the company. There is every reason to anticipate that the shares will steadily rise to a premium. PUMP COURT is very chary about giving its advice to would-be investors in respect of new companies, but this is one that we can speak in the highest terms of, and we have no hesitation in doing so.

Strawson's, Limited.-This company is formed for the purpose of acquiring and working the invention of Mr. C. F. Strawson, for Pneumatic Distributing Machines. The machines are to be employed for distributing manures, or, to adopt the fashionable phrase, fertilisers, over the surfaces of fields, and it is claimed that the evenness of distribution is such as has never been secured before. They are also adapted for sowing broadcast all kinds of seed and corn. The cash asked for is small, and ought to

give a fair return.

Ronacher, Limited, is an attempt to get from the British public what this Vienna Beer-garden cannot get in Vienna. £140,000 is to be the share capital of the Company, when they get it, for this Café Concert, which, in the inflated language of the prospectus, is described as the "valuable property in Vienna, known as the Etablissement Ronacher." Any flat that chooses to put his good English money in this Austrian-French affair is welcome to do so, but he must not ask any sympathy from us if he is unfortunate.

the

Swiss Milk Powder Company, Limited.-Another foreigner, which is formed among other things to take over secret process of the Swiss Milk Company of Gossau." If the Swiss Milk Company of Gossau found its secret so valuable, why does it not keep its secret? The secret was sold to the Swiss Milk Company, and now they seek to sell it again. We apprehend it could not remain much of a secret now if it had ever been worth while disclosing. No! both Swiss secrets and Austrian-French dancing had better look for their capital at home.

MUTUAL

March 31st, 1875 1880 1885

1886

£471,353 £566,074

LIMITED.

DIRECTORS.

*JACOB WILSON, Esq., Chillingham Barns, Belford, Northumberland (Chairman).

*G. Mander Allender, Esq., Stammerham, Horsham, Sussex.

*Alfred Ashworth, Esq., Tabley Grange, Knutsford,

Cheshire.

W. Stewart Forster, Esq., Gore Court, Maidstone, Kent. *S. Porter Foster, Esq., Killhow, Carlisle, Cumberland. G. F. Strawson, Esq., The Cedars, Newbury, Berks (will join the Board after allotment).

*Members of Council of the Royal Agricultural Society of England.

BANKERS.

Lloyds Bank, Limited, 72, Lombard-street, and all Branches.

SOLICITOR.

Ernest Salaman, Esq., 65 and 66, Chancery-lane, W.C.

ABRIDGED

THIS Company is formed for the purpose of acquiring and working the very valuable invention of Mr. G. F. Strawson for Pneumatic Distributing Machines, and all the patents and patent rights of Mr. Strawson, already or hereafter to be obtained in respect of such invention, whether British, Colonial, or Foreign (except for the United States of America).

Letters Patent of the principal invention for the United Kingdom have been obtained, and three provisional specifications have been filed and accepted in respect of auxiliary inventions in relation thereto.

A French "Brevet d'Invention" has been granted for the principal invention, and applications are being made. in several foreign countries for patents.

The Special applications of the Machine are briefly summarised as follows::

1. To distribute Liquid Insectifuges in very small quantities in the form of a spray, or Powdered Insectifuges in the finest state of sub-division.

2. To distribute Nitrate of Soda, Lime, Soot, Phosphates, and like substances, with rapidity, uniformity, and

economy.

3. To sow broadcast all kinds of Corn and Seeds. 4. For the use of Local Sanitary Authorities.

Many orders and inquiries for the machine have already been received in this country and from abroad. From the general interest it has already attracted, and bearing in mind the very large demand for labour-saving machinery, and also the fact that this machine has already been favourably reported upon by many well-known authorities upon agriculture as supplying a widespread and long-felt want, it is confidently expected that its sale in its various forms will be very large and the profit proportionate there

AUDITORS.

Messrs. J. and F. Ford and Rhodes, 23, College-hill, Cannon-street, E.C.

BROKERS.

Messrs. John Gibbs, Son and Lane, 31, Threadneedlestreet, and Stock Exchange, London, E.C.

SECRETARY (pro tem.)

John E. Evans-Jackson, Esq.

TEMPORARY OFFICES.

23, College-hill, Cannon-street, E.C.

to, so that a satisfactory return on the capital may be confidently anticipated.

The Vendor has fixed the price to be paid for the above at £25,000 (as to £12,500 in cash, and £12,500 in fullypaid Shares), in addition to a small Royalty of 2 per cent. upon the list price of the machines.

The following contracts have been entered into :-(1) Agreement under seal dated the 2nd day of April, 1889, between the Vendor of the one part, and Edmund Johnson of the other part. (2) Agreement under seal dated the 16th day of April, 1889, and made between the Vendor of the one part, and the said Edmund Johnson of the other part. (3) Agreement under seal dated the 9th day of May. 1889, between the Vendor of the one part, and the said Edmund Johnson of the other part, and endorsed upon the said Agreement of the 16th day of April, 1889. (4) Agreement dated the 9th day of May, 1889, and made between the Vendor of the one part, and Frank Dever Summers, as Trustee on behalf of the Company, of the other part.

Copies of the foregoing Contracts and of the Memorandum and Articles of Association may be seen at the offices of the Solicitor of the Company.

Application must be made upon the form accompanying the complete prospectus, and lodged with the Bankers of the Company, accompanied by a deposit of 5s. per share applied for. If no allotment is made, the deposit will be returned in full. Should a less number of shares be allotted than is applied for, the surplus paid on application will be applied towards the amount due on allotment.

It is proposed in due course to apply to the Stock Exchange for a settlement.

Complete Prospectuses and Forms of Application can be obtained from the Bankers, Brokers, and at the Temporary Offices of the Company.

18th May, 1889.

VOL. VIII.

PUMP COURT.

The Temple Newspaper and Review.

CURRENTE CALAMO

De Lege; de Omnibus Rebus et Quibusdam Aliis.

SOLICITORS Will, we believe, read with dissatisfaction the decision of the Court of Appeal in re a Solicitor. Shortly, the facts were that the solicitor, while employed as a clerk by a firm of solicitors, had applied various sums of money to his own use. Application was made to a Divisional Court, consisting of Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., and Manisty, J., that he should be struck off the rolls. Meanwhile the solicitor, who had quitted his former situation and obtained another, undertook to set aside a portion of his salary to pay the money back. It was not known to the Court, but the fact was that the solicitor had then been indicted for, and was sometime afterwards convicted of, embezzling the sums of money in question. He had confessed the misappropriation to his former employers, and had a wife and family dependent on him. The Divisional Court sentenced him to be suspended for eighteen months, and they expressed a hope that the matter would not be pressed further by his former employers. He was, however, subsequently convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Incorporated Law Society then applied to a Divisional Court, consisting of Pollock, B., and Manisty, J., who held that the facts on which the application was made, being identical with those disclosed on the previous application, save the circumstance of the conviction, to strike off the rolls would be tantamount to increasing the punishment already awarded, and in effect would review the sentence of suspension, from which there was no appeal. Court of Appeal (Lord Coleridge, L.C.J., Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ.) upheld this decision, though Lord Justice Lindley said that had he been a member of the Divisional Court which passed the sentence of suspension only, he should, on the facts as they then stood, have felt bound to order the solicitor to be struck off the rolls. The main contention urged in the Court of Appeal was that a person who has been convicted of felony cannot remain on the roll, and reliance was placed on In re Brownsell Cowp. Rep. 829. This contention is obviously not wholly tenable, for there are, as the Lord Chief Justice put it, some felonies which a man may commit without anyone thinking the worse of him, and Lord Justice Lopes instanced manslaughter with all possible extenuating circumstances. Here, however, the felony was one affecting the trustworthiness of the soli

The

No. 137.

citor. No doubt the circumstances of each conviction must be considered by the Court, and no doubt logically the decision of the Court of Appeal is perfectly correct. The result, however, is nevertheless most unsatisfactory. Striking off the rolls must not be looked at in the light of a punishment, it is due to the public and to the profession to maintain its honourable character by eliminating such members; nor, with great respect, is it correct, as Lord Coleridge said, that when the solicitor's name was mentioned on his conviction, his position was no worse and the scandal was no greater. To say so leaves out of consideration the social sanction. The public attach much more force to a conviction for embezzlement, followed by a sentence of six months' imprisonment, than they do to a misappropriation, which leads merely to suspension for eighteen months. The stigma is to them greater, and the heinousness of the offence looms proportionately larger in their minds. And it is precisely for this reason, because the public so think, that the scandal of allowing such a man to remain on the rolls is greater.

THE judgment of the Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Esher, M.R., Cotton, Lindley, Bowen, Fry, and Lopes, L.JJ., in the great case of Vagliano Brothers v. Bank of England, has now been given, and though presumably the case will be carried to the House of Lords, even a stage in the proceedings is of no small importance. We dealt with the question at length in our issue of November 14th, 1888 (p. 41), and in view of the lines on which the decision of the Court of Appeal proceeded, shall only reproduce a portion of the facts. At the trial before Charles, J., the points urged were practically two. (1) That the payee named in the bills paid by the Bank was a "fictitious or non-existing" person within the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, section 7, sub-section 3; so that the Bank were entitled to treat the bill as against Vagliano as payable to bearer. (2) That Vaglianos were guilty of negligence, and so liable to repay to the Bank the amounts paid by them on the forged bills. Charles, J., held the payee named in the bills was not " fictitious or non-existing" within the meaning of the Act, and also that even assuming Vagliano had been guilty of negligence, it was not the proximate cause of the loss. In the Court of Appeal all the judges were of opinion that the act of negligence on the plaintiffs' part consisted in not exercising a due supervision over their clerk, and they agreed with Charles, J., that this negligence was not the proximate cause of the loss; in other words, that it was not the natural or probable consequence of the absence of such supervision that the clerk Glyka should commit the forgeries in question.

THE first point, however, on the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, section 7, sub-section 3, produced a difference of opinion, Lord Esher, M.R., dissenting from the judgment of the rest of the Court. It is necessary, therefore, on this point to refer to the facts. Glyka very skilfully forged bills purporting to be drawn by one Vucina, a customer of Vaglianos, on them, payable to C. Petridi and Co., who were old customers of Vaglianos, carrying on business at Constantinople; Vaglianos accepted these. Were C. Petridi and Co. "fictitious or non-existing" persons? Lord Esher, M.R., held that for the purposes of the bills they were "fictitious" persons within the meaning of the enactment, though not "non-existing," and was of opinion that judgment must therefore be for the Bank. The M.R. said that independently of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, section 7, sub-section 3, the Bank would be liable, but that in his judgment that section altered the pre

existing law, that C. Petridi and Co. were "fictitious" persons within that section, for that the antithesis was between a real and a feigned or fictitious payee, and that Glyka had feigned that Petridi and Co. were the payees, intending that they should not be; that if they were real payees they would be entitled to have possession of the bill and entitled to indorse it, but that they were only pretended payees. Previous to the Act, in order that a payee named could be treated as fictitious against the acceptor, the payee must be fictitious to the acceptor's knowledge, but he held that those bonds must be regarded as having been intentionally omitted from the section. The other judges, however, held that the object of subsection 3 was to indicate the manner in which bills or drafts were to be interpreted, and dealt with where the bill or draft was drawn in favour either of a creature of the imagination or a person who "is dead," and also that the words, "The bill may be treated as payable to bearer" in the section must be understood "treated as against those who are to be made liable for the bill as payable to bearer," the word fictitious being read as equivalent to fictitious to the knowledge of the acceptor where the obligations of the acceptor are in question, fictitious to the knowledge of the drawer where his obligations are in question. This view, of course, maintains that the law on the point as existing prior to the passing of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, has not been altered by sec. 7, sub.-sec. 3. The judges, however, did not base their decision solely on this ground, for they laid down broadly that the bills drawn in favour of C. Petridi and Co. were not drawn in favour of "fictitious" payees, for that Petridi and Co. did not cease to be real persons because Glyka meant to suggest falsely that they were to be the payees, and meant to forge their names. It will be remembered that Charles, J., distinguished between the forged signature of a real person and the signature of a fictitious person, and pointed out that in cases before the Act of 1882 the payee held to be fictitious was so in the sense that no indorsement by him was contemplated by the acceptor, and the principle which lies at the root of the rule that bills drawn to the order of a fictitious or non-existing payee may be treated as payable to bearer is, as pointed out by the majority in the Court of Appeal, that a reasonable effect must be given in favour of bona fide holders to the act of the acceptor, who must be taken to have intended that his acceptance should have some commercial validity.

THE 22nd inst. being Grand Day in the Middle Temple, the treasurer (Mr. Pope, Q.C.) and the Benchers of the society entertained a distinguished company at dinner in their hall. The guests included the Marquis of Breadalbane, Justices Mathew, Cave, Chitty, North, A. L. Smith, Stirling, Kekewich and Charles; Sir Andrew Clark, Sir Roper Lethbridge, M.P., Mr. Savory, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Mr. Lake, president of the Incorporated Law Society, the President of the Institute of Surveyors, Professor Herkomer, R.A., Mr. Hawksley, F.R.S., Mr. G. A. Sala, Mr. A. M. Dunlop, Mr. George Findlay, Mr. C. H. Mason, Mr. A. Willett, Mr. Owen Lankester. Rev. Canon Ainger, Mr. J. J. Morgan, and Mr. J. W. Waldron, the under-treasurer. The Benchers present included Sir Montague Smith, Judge Powell, Mr. Johnson, Q.C., Judge Prentice, Lord Justice Lindley, Mr. Cowie, Q.C., Mr. Speed, Q.C., Mr. Bagshawe, Q.C., Mr. Hopwood, Q.C., Mr. Philbrick. Q.C., Mr. Griffits, Q.C., Mr. Macrory, Mr. Locock Webb, Q.C., Sir Richard Couch, Mr. Ambrose, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Graham, Q.C., Mr. Dauney, Mr. Warmington, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Henn Collins, Q.C., Mr. Stallard, Mr. Finlason, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., M.P., Mr. J. Shiress Will, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Digby. There was a large attendance of barristers and students.

SATURDAY, the 18th inst., being the Grand Day of Easter Term, the treasurer (Mr. W. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., M.P.) and Benchers of this society entertained at dinner the following guests:-Sir George Trevelyan, M.P., Mr. Henry Fowler, M.P., Mr. Justice Mathew, Mr. Justice Day, the Treasurer of the Inner Temple (Judge Lushington), the Solicitor-General, Sir Horace Davey, Q.C., M.P., Sir Owen Roberts, Mr. Francis Williams, Q.C., the Rev. Dr. Tremlett, Mr. John Henderson, and Mr. Lewis. The

Masters of the Bench present, in addition to the treasurer, were Lord Watson, Lord Ashbourne, Mr. Justice Manisty, Mr. Hugh Shield, Q.C., Mr. James Sheil, Mr. Jeremy, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Edwyn Jones, and the preacher, the Rev. Dr. Stokoe.

A LEGAL contemporary refers with surprise to the following advertisement taken from an evening paper of last week:

LAW.-A barrister recently called, with small capital, can be introduced to good practice by a solicitor of many years' standing.

That our correspondent should be indignant would be right enough, but surprise is out of place. This kind of thing has been going on for years, though we won't say the advertiser is often successful. Ten years ago the writer had the curiosity to inquire into a similar matter. The offending advertiser was a barrister about to disbar himself preparatory to admission as a solicitor in order to join his father in his practice. And the two worthies, father and son, had united to try this game on. We hardly think any barrister would be such a flat as to part with his money for such a consideration. Where would his remedy be if the advertiser did not carry out his bargain? But this is not all: not only would he have to be content to lose his money, but he would be fortunate if he were not afterwards blackmailed under the threat of exposure; at least he would lay himself open to this if the other side happened to be unscrupulous.

In a previous issue we referred to the mistake made by a legal contemporary on the subject of the power of a judge to send back a jury to reconsider their verdict. Mr. Poland, Q.C., who is without exception the most eminent and reliable authority on the Criminal Law, writes to correct our contemporary as follows:

Some persons seem to think that the judge is bound to receive the verdict of a jury as they return it, and that he does wrong if he addresses them again, and asks them to reconsider their verdict. There can be no doubt as to the judge's power, and in many cases it is his duty to refuse to receive a verdict as first returned by the jury. In Meany's case (L. & C. C. C. 231; s. c., 32 L. J. 24, M. C.) the marginal note is as follows:

Where a jury return what the judge considers to be an improper verdict, he may direct them to reconsider it, and is not bound to record it unless they insist upon his doing so. Where the jury reconsider their verdict and alter it, the second is the real verdict of the jury.'

The prisoner Meany was indicted for obtaining goods and money by false pretences, with intent to defraud. The following is from the report of the case:

The facts having been left to the jury, after some consideration the foreman said, We find the prisoner guilty of obtaining the property by false representations in the two forged letters, and that the parties would not have parted with it without those letters had been used; but we think that he meant to pay for them. I (the judge) refused to receive this as a verdict, and told the jury that they must find the prisoner guilty or not guilty, and that, if in their opinion he had not a fraudulent intention, they must say it by a verdict of not guilty. I put before them the leading facts of the case, and told them, in addition to the making of the false representations and the obtaining of the goods by means of them, they should consider whether, at the time he so obtained them, he had a fraudulent mind. I then read to them the words of the statute as follows, viz., "On the trial of any such indictment it shall not be necessary to prove an intent to defraud any particular person; but it shall be sufficient to prove that the party accused did the act charged with an intent to defraud." I then specifically left it to them to say whether the prisoner did the acts charged with an intent to defraud. After a short consultation they found a verdict of guilty. Upon this, it was suggested to the prisoner that he should require the Court to enter the first statement of the jury as a verdict of not guilty, instead of the second of guilty. I declined to acce le to this suggestion, and was preparing to pass sentence, when one of the magistrates who sat with me stated, in his opinion, the first finding ought to have been recorded as a verdict of not guilty.

'This case was argued on the 15th November, 1862. before Pollock, C.B., Wightman, J., Williams, J., Channell, B, and

Mellor, J.

'Dickie for the prisoner: The first verdict should have been recorded.

'POLLOCK, C.B: As I understand the case, the jury bring in a verdict. The judge tells them to reconsider it; and thereupon, after deliberating again, they come to a different conclusion. Do you contend that the judge was bound to record the first verdict?