No. 81, NEW SERIES.-Vol. II. No. 1020, OLD SERIES.-Vol. XX. JULY 26, 1856. PRICE 18. Just published, in 1 vol. post 8vo., price 15s. cloth, LAW PARTNERSHIPS confidentially negotiated in all parts of England, by Mr. L. LAIDMAN, Law Agent, No. 100, DAX'S COSTS: a Book of Costs in the Courts of Queen's Chancery-lane, London. No commission charged unless a partnership effected. No entrance fee. Managing Clerks, suitable for every department, can be had upon application. Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, the Crown and Queen's Remembrancer's Offices, in Bankruptcy, and the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors, Conveyancing and Miscellaneous Matters, in conformity with the General Scale of Charges allowed on Taxation, and with the Act, 1855. By RICHARD G. DAX, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. LAW.-A Solicitor of assured standing and experience, and Common-law Procedure Acts, 1852 and 1854, and Bills of Exchange who can give most satisfactory references, is willing (with a view to increase his connexion) to undertake AGENCY BUSINESS on terms unusually advantageous to his employers. Address, Lex, Jurist Office. THE GENERAL REVERSIONARY and INVEST MENT COMPANY, 5, Whitehall, London. Capital, 500,000%. Reversions, absolute or contingent, purchased. Loans granted thereon. Immediate Annuities granted in consideration of reversionary charges. Persons entitled to Deferred Interests may thus secure an income until their property falls into possession, without being called upon for any payment until that event. WM. BARWICK HODGE, Actuary and Secretary. SMITH'S LEADING CASES. Fourth Edition. Just published, in 2 vols. royal 8vo., price 21. 188., By JAMES SHAW WILLES, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law, now one of the Judges of her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, and HENRY SINGER KEATING, Esq., of the Inner Temple, one of her Majesty's Counsel. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. This day is published, in 8vo., pp. 1142, price 11. 11s. 6d. in cloth, WILLIAMS'S (F. S.) PRACTICE in CHANCERY, BROOM'S COMMENTARIES.-COMMENTARIES on and the PROCEEDINGS in the JUDGES' CHAMBERS. With Forms, &c. 8vo., 25s. cloth boards. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane, Fleet-street. COOKE ON INCLOSURES.-THIRD EDITION. This day is published, in 12mo., price 158. boards, the COMMON LAW, designed as Introductory to its Study. By HERBERT BROOM, M. A., Barrister at Law, Reader in Common Law to the Inns of Court, Author of "A Selection of Legal Maxims," &c. Wm. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, London; J. H. Parker & Son, Oxford; and Deighton, Bell, & Co., Cambridge. Just published, in 2 vols. royal Svo., price 27. 16s. cloth, THE ACTS for FACILITATING the INCLOSURE of TAYLOR'S (JOHN PITT) LAW OF EVIDENCE. COMMONS in ENGLAND and WALES. With a Treatise on the Law of Rights of Common in reference to these Acts, and on the Jurisdiction of the Inclosure Commissioners in Exchanges and Partition under the Private Monies Drainage Acts, and under the Companies Acts relating thereto; with Forms as settled by the Commissioners. By G. W. COOKE, Esq., Barrister at Law. London: Stevens & Norton, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. Just published, in 1 thick vol. 12mo., price 17. 108., Second Edition. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. DAVIDSON'S PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANCING. Just published, Second Edition, Vol. 1, royal 8vo., price 11. 88., (to be completed in 4 vols.), PRECEDENTS and FORMS in CONVEYANCING. With an Introduction and Practical Notes. By CHARLES DA ARCHBOLD'S BANKRUPT LAW, by FLATHER. VIDSON and THOMAS COOKE WRIGHT, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. The LAW and PRACTICE in BANKRUPTCY, as founded on the recent Statutes. By JOHN F. ARCHBOLD, Esq. The Eleventh Edition. Including the Statutes and Cases to the 18 & 19 Vict., the General Orders of the Court, New Firm,, arrister at of Costs. By JOHN FLATHER, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. H. Sweet, 3, Chancery-lane; and V. & R. Stevens & G. S. Norton, Bell-yard, Temple-bar. FOURTH EDITION OF PALEY ON SUMMARY CONVICTIONS. This day is published, in 1 vol. 8vo., price 21s. cloth boards, PALEY on the LAW and PRACTICE of SUMMARY CONVICTIONS by JUSTICES of the PEACE. Including Proceedings preliminary and subsequent to Convictions, and under the 18 & 19 Viet. c. 126, relating to Larceny, &c. With Practical Forms and Precedents of Convictions. The Fourth Edition. By H. T. J. MACNAMARA, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. SMITH'S (JOHN WM.) LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT.. Just published, in 8vo., price 148. cloth, THE LAW of LANDLORD and TENANT being a SMITH, Esq., Author of "A Selection of Leading Cases," &c. With Course of Lectures delivered by the late JOHN WILLIAM Notes and Additions, by FREDERIC PHILIP MAUDE, Esq., Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. The New Edition of BLACKSTONE, by Mr. WARREN, M. P. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, systematically H. Sweet, 3 Chancery-lane; V. & R. Stevens & G. S. Norton, 26, Bell- and No. 48 of "The Law Review," price 5s., will be published on THURSDAY NEXT. CONTENTS:-1. Lord Cockburn's Memorials.2. Probate of Wills.-3. Mayne on the Measure of Damages.-4. Faction in America: Mob Interference with Justice.-5. Life Peerages.6. Remarks on a recent Decision of the Queen's Bench in Ireland.7. Minister of Publie Justice: his Functions and Duties.-8. The Evidence in Palmer's Case.-9. The Dyce Sombre Case.-10. Appellate Jurisdiction.-11. Dunn's Case.-12. County Court Legislation.-13. Pa pers of the Law Amendment Society, &c.-Notes of Leading Cases,Short Notes of New Law Books.-Events of the Quarter.-List of New Publications, &c. A London: Published by Messrs. Butterworth, 7, Fleet-street, her Ma. jesty's Law Publishers. Just published, Just published, in 1 vol. 12mo., price 4s. 6d., Power and Duties of Parish Vestries in Ecclesiastical Matters; being a Vestryman's Guide. By ALFRED WILLS, Esq., Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. BAKER'S LAWS RELATING TO BURIALS. Just published, in 1 vol. 12mo., price 5s. cloth, THE LAWS relating to BURIALS in ENGLAND and WALES. With Forms and Practical Instructions. By T. BAKER, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law, of the Burial Acts Office. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn.. SHELFORD'S INSOLVENT LAW. Just published, in 1 vol. 12mo., price 12s. cloth, THE NEW JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES and ASSO. THE STATUTES for the RELIEF of INSOLVENT CIATIONS ACT, with and without Limited Liability. With Introduction, Notes, and a very copious Index. By EDWARD W. COX, Esq., Barrister at Law, Author of "The Law and Practice of Limited Liability." Price 4s. sewn; 5s. cloth. Now ready, The SECOND EDITION of COX'S NEW LAW and PRACTICE of LIMITED LIABILITY. With full Instructions for DEBTORS; with Notes of the Decisions thereon, and the Orders and Forms of the Insolvent Court for obtaining the Discharge of Insolvent Debtors from Prison, or their Protection from Process. By LEONARD SHELFORD, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. Just published, in 1 vol. 12mo., price 17. 18. cloth, Third Edition, By W. N. WELSBY, Esq., Barrister at Law, and Recorder of Forming and Conducting Companies and Associations under the New RAWLINSON'S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS. Law; the New Statutes, Notes, and Forms. By EDWARD W. COX, Esq., Barrister at Law. Price 8s. 6d. cloth; 10s. half-calf. Chester. · Law Times Office, 29, Essex-street, Strand. No. 81, VOL. II., NEW SERIES. W. Maxwell, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. CC GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, July 18. BANKRUPTS. HENRY GRANT, Southampton, licensed victualler, July 31 at 11, and Aug. 29 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Lomer, Southampton; West, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house.-Pet. f. July 15. WILLIAM WOOD, Aldersgate-street, commission agent, July 31 at 2, and Aug. 29 at 11, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. Hancock & Sharp, 20, Tokenhouse-yard.-Pet. f. July 15. WILLIAM GASKIN, Croydon, builder, July 29 at half-past 1, and Aug. 27 at half-past 11, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sol. Peddell, 142, Cheapside.-Pet. f. July 15. GEORGE AUGUSTUS HAMILTON CHICHESTER, York-buildings, Adelphi, commission agent, July 29 at half-past 1, and Aug. 27 at half-past 11, London: Off. Ass. Stansfeld; Sol. Chidley, Gresham-street, City.-Pet. f. July 17. SIMEON PARTRIDGE, Darlaston, Staffordshire, latch manufacturer, July 31 at 10, and Aug. 21 at half-past 11, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Christie; Sols. Motteram & Knight, Birmingham.-Pet. d. July 15. WILLIAM WHEELER, Broadway, near Evesham, Worcestershire, corn dealer, Aug. 1 and 22 at half-past 11, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Bittleston; Sols. E. & H. Wright, Birmingham.-Pet. d. July 14. JOHN CROTCH, late of Okehampton, Devonshire, innkeeper, and now of Hughslade, Okehampton, farmer, July 31 and Aug. 20 at 1, Exeter: Off. Ass. Hirtzel; Sols. Burd, Okehampton; Terrell, Exeter.-Pet. f. July 17. MEETINGS. John Dickinson the younger, Westgate, Northumberland, dealer and chapman, July 28 at 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, ch. ass.-James Fisher, York-road, Lambeth, and Cornwall-road, carpenter, July 30 at 12, London, last ex.-John B. Walke, Newton Abbott, Devonshire, draper, July 29 at 12, London, last ex.-C. Long, King-street, Portman-square, house decorator, July 28 at half-past 12, London, last ex.-S. Wooldridge, Winchester, butcher, July 30 at 12, London, aud. ac.— George Robinson, Wellington-terrace, Clapham-rise, Surrey, bookseller, July 30 at 12, London, aud. ac.-Louis Birnstingl, Broad-street-buildings, merchant, July 30 at 1, London, aud. ac.-Edward Hobbs, Brighton, ironmonger, July 30 at 12, London, aud. ac.-John Thomas Metcalfe and George Metcalfe, Bow-lane, London, and Farnham, Surrey, canvas merchants, July 30 at 12, London, aud. ac.-Henry Collins, Ashford, Kent, carpenter, July 31 at half-past 1, London, aud. ac.-Henry Charles Broers, East India-chambers, Leadenhall-street, general merchant, July 31 at 12, London, aud. ac.; Aug. 8 at 12, div.-Wm. Owen Tucker, Threadneedlestreet, sharebroker, July 31 at 11, London, aud. ac.—Edw. Firmin Ellis, Hendon, Middlesex, and Royal Exchange buildings, London, stockbroker, July 31 at 12, London, aud. ac.; Aug. 8 at 12, div.-Daniel Cutter and Thomas James Hunter, Regent-street, tailors, July 31 at 12, London, aud. ac.; Aug. 8 at 12, div.-David John Vaughan, Fishguard, Pembrokeshire, maltster, July 31 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.— Albert Printer, Weston-super-Mare, Somersetshire, common brewer, Aug. 14 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.-James Wright, Bristol, cheese factor, Aug. 21 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.-John Lamb, Liverpool, drysalter, Aug. 4 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac. John Rose, St. Helens, Lancashire, miller, Aug. 4 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-Joseph Dixon Sewell and Thos. Pattin son, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, chemists, Aug. 1 at 12, Newcastleupon-Tyne, aud. ac.-Henry Coxon, South Shields, Durham, bookseller, Aug. 4 at 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac. John Marland the younger, Todmorden, Lancashire, roller maker, July 30 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.-J. Coulthurst Gaskell and Thos. Garstang, Blackburn, Lancashire, machine makers, July 30 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac.-Wm. Randall, Manchester, calico printer, Aug. 14 at 12, Manchester, div. -John Robinson, Hexham, Northumberland, currier, Aug. 8 at half-past 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, fin. div.-John Walker and W. Walker, Birkenhead, Cheshire, joiners, Aug. 8 at 11, Liverpool, div.-Henry Meredith Jones, Liverpool, merchant, Aug. 8 at 11, Liverpool, div.-Robert Milner, Doncaster, Yorkshire, hatter, Aug. 9 at 10, Sheffield, div.-Chas. Lum 26 ley, Knaresborough, Yorkshire, gardener, Aug. 8 at 11, Leeds, div. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. James Wright, Bristol, cheese factor, Aug. 25 at 11, Bristol. -Johnson Thompson, Bishopwearmouth, Durham, joiner, Aug. 15 at half-past 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.-R. Fisher, Exeter, builder, Aug. 20 at 1, Exeter.-Augustus Buchanan, Plymouth, baker, Aug. 11 at 1, East Stonehouse.-James Davenport, Macclesfield, watchmaker, Aug. 8 at 12, Manchester.-Henry Sykes, Sheffield, anvil manufacturer, Aug. 9 at 10, Sheffield.-Thomas Fearnehough, Dore, Derbyshire, scythe manufacturer, Aug. 9 at 10, Sheffield.-Henry Liversidge, Eckington, Derbyshire, surgeon, Aug. 9 at 10, Shef field. To be granted, unless an appeal be duly entered, George Bumpstead, Great Yarmouth, grocer.-A. Printer, M Kinnell, Liverpool, and Huyton Quarry, Lancashire, maWeston-super-Mare, Somersetshire, common brewer. — F. nufacturer of waterproor fabrics. PETITION ANNULLED. Thomas Small Pack, Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire, grocer. PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED. John Cutts the younger and Henry Druce, South-square, Gray's-inn, attornies, solicitors, and conveyancers. TUESDAY, July 22. BANKRUPTS. ARTHUR ALLEN the younger, 24, Wharf, Harrow-road, Paddington, dealer in drain pipes, Aug. 1 and 29 at halfpast 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Paterson, 7, Bouverie-street, Fleet-street.-Pet. f. July 18. EDWIN KAY, Duke-street, Manchester-square, Middlesex, and Rushey-green, Lewisham, Kent, (now a prisoner in Maidstone Gaol), licensed victualler, Aug. 1 at 12, and Sept. 5 at half-past 11, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sols. Symes & Co., 33, Fenchurch-street.-Pet. f. July 9. FREDERICK WILLIAM WEBSTER, Snow-hill, tavern keeper, Aug. 1 at 12, and Aug. 29 at half-past 11, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sol. Wyatt, 4, Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn.-Pet. f. July 21. EDWARD IND THURGOOD, Orchard-street, Kentishstreet, builder, July 30 at half-past 1, and Aug. 27 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Stansfeld; Sol. Chidley, Gresham-street, City.-Pet. f. July 21. HYLTON CARR, North Hylton, Durham, shipbuilder, Aug. 4 and 28 at 12, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Off. Ass. Baker; Sol. Burn, jun., Sunderland.-Pet. f. July 16. MEETINGS. John Cranbrook Gregory, Bristol, dealer in porter, Aug. 28 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.-John Walker and William Walker, Birkenhead and Stourton, Cheshire, builders and quarrymen, Aug. 7 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.— -Henry Meredith Jones, Liverpool, merchant, Aug. 7 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.—Thos. riers, Aug. 6 at 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, aud. ac. joint est., Adamson and Henry Hunter Bell, Sunderland, Durham, curand aud. ac. sep. est. of T. Adamson.-S. Greenwood, Bishopwearmouth, Durham, engine builder, Aug. 4 at 11, Newcastleupon-Tyne, aud. ac.-Nicholas Andrews and Thos. Andrews, Gateshead, Durham, ironmongers, Aug. 7 at 11, Newcastleupon-Tyne, aud. ac. sep. est. of Thomas Andrews; Aug. 11 at 11, aud. ac. sep. est. of Nicholas Andrews.-Richard Westhead, Waterloo, Crosby, Lancashire, victualler, Aug. 11 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.; Aug. 12 at 11, div.—Wm. Lloyd, Madeley and Wryne-hill, Staffordshire, linendraper, Aug. 14 at 10, Birmingham, aud. ac.-Alexander Anderson, Stourbridge, Staffordshire, innkeeper, Aug. 15 at half-past 11, Birmingham, aud. ac.-James Howarth, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, linendraper, Aug. 8 at 12, Manchester, aud. ac. Charles Lumley, Knaresborough, Yorkshire, gardener, Aug.7 at 11, Leeds, aud. ac.-James Bentall, Great Bentley, Essex, grocer, Aug. 12 at half-past 11, London, div.-Thos. Wilkey, Prospect-place, Walworth-road, glass-paper manufacturer, Aug. 6 at 2, London, div.-John Gower, Lawrence-lane, warehouseman, Aug. 14 at half-past 12, London, div. [For continuation of Gazette, see p. 337]. Marvin v. Wallace.-(Sale of horse-Acceptance and receipt by buyer-Continuing possession by vendor -29 Car. 2, c. 4, s. 17).... 689 Manby v. Bewicke.-(15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 40Cross-examination of party who has made an affidavit). ROLLS COUrt. By C. W. CROUCH, Barrister at Law. Wedderburn v. Wedderburn.-(Partnership-Executors and co-partners of deceased partner employing his share of capital in trade-Profits-Goodwill). 674 VICE-CHANCELLOR KINDERSLEY'S COURT. By C. MARETT, Barrister at Law. Wilks v. Groom.-(Trustee-Banker-Deposit-Loss) 681 VICE-CHANCELLOR STUART'S COURT. By T. F. MORSE, Barrister at Law. In re The Joint-stock Companies Winding-up Acts, and In re The Dover, Hastings, and Brighton Junction Railway Company-Ex parte A'Beckett and Sympson, and Prance.-(Bill of costs-Call— Stale demand-Assets-Costs) THE JURIST. LONDON, JULY 26, 1856. 684 The maxim, "Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare,' has been generally acted upon in this country since the abolition of torture for the purpose of obtaining confessions of guilt. Occasional exceptions have been introduced by the Legislature upon the ground of public policy, but in such cases the witnesses have been protected by express enactment from the consequences of the evidence thus extorted from them*. One of these exceptions, however, without an express proviso of indemnity, occurs under the bankrupt laws, the bankrupt being bound to answer certain questions which may have a self-criminating tendency, and there being no enactment to the effect that his answers shall not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings. Thus, by sect. 117 of stat. 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, it is enacted, that the bankrupt may be examined (after he has made and signed the declaration, which is equivalent to an oath) touching all matters relating to his trade dealings or estate, or which may tend to disclose any secret grant, conveyance, or concealment of his lands, goods, &c.; and then, by sects. 251 and 252, if he does not discover his property, he is guilty of felony; and if he mutilate or falsify his books, he is guilty of a misdemeanour. It has been held, under statutes in bankruptcy containing similar words to those above cited from the 117th section, that a bankrupt may refuse to answer questions which do See stats. 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, s. 6; 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 52; 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, ss. 8-10; and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38, ss. 5, 6; c. 102, s. 35. not touch his trade dealings or estate, or the direct object of which is to shew that he has committed a criminal act; but that he cannot (under pain of committal) refuse to answer questions which do touch his trade dealings or estate, although the answer may tend to shew that he has concealed his effects, or been guilty of any other offence; and this, even although an indictment may be pending against him at the very time for such offence*. The maxim, then, that no man is bound to accuse himself, said by Lord Eldon to be one of the most sacred principles in the law of this country, is virtually contravened in this instance; but is the spirit of it to be further impaired by allowing answers thus obtained to be given in evidence against the bankrupt upon the criminal charge? Although there is no express, is there not an implied proviso of indemnity against the consequences of such answers, except as may affect the question of the bankrupt's certificate? This question was discussed, and indeed decided, by the Court of Appeal for Crown Cases, but not without the dissent of Coleridge, J., in the recent case of Reg. v. Scott, (July 2, 1856). The defendant, a bankrupt, was indicted for mutilating his trade books, and the evidence against him consisted principally of his own examination in the Court of Bankruptcy. In the course of that examination he had been pressed with many questions as to the tearing out of certain leaves, and he was threatened with committal to prison if he did not answer satisfactorily. The majority of the Court (Lord Campbell, C. J., Alderson, B., Willes, J., and Bramwell, B.) were in * See Ex parte Cossens, (Buck. 531); In re Smith, (2 Deac. & C. 230); In re Heath, (Id. 214); and Ex parte Meymott, (1 Atk. 200). favour of its admissibility, upon the grounds that the purchaser, to be the agent of all the parties to the examination being lawful, it was lawful in all its con- suit. (Dalby v. Pullen, 1 Russ. & M. 296). Ordisequences, and that what is stated by a person on a law-narily speaking, the sale is by auction, though it ful examination may be received in evidence against is not necessarily so; (1st Order of the 16th July, him. The case of Reg. v. Garbett (2 Car. & K. 474; 1851; 12th Order of the 16th October, 1852); inS. C., 1 Den. C. C. 236) was distinguished on the deed, it has been decided, that upon a sufficient affiground, that there the prisoner had been improperly davit of the value of an estate sold by private concompelled to answer questions tending to criminate tract as corresponding with the price offered by the him, and therefore the answers were not evidence upon proposed purchaser, the Court will approve of the conthe criminal charge. The fact of the examination tract, and adjourn the petition for the usual inquiries having been upon a declaration tantamount to an oath as to the title, that the conveyance may be settled was held not to render it inadmissible, because if the and the application disposed of by one order. (Pimm examination is on oath, administered by proper autho- v. Insall, 10 Hare, App., lxxiv). And a sale under rity, there is no reason for saying it is less likely to be an order of the Court has been recently made by sealed true than if it is without an oath or similar solemnity. tenders addressed to the judge's chief clerk. (Osborne So, the threat of and liability to committal were con- v. Foreman, 25 L. J., Ch., 340; 2 Jur., N. S., part 1, sidered not to affect the question, for the statement in p. 361). The sale, it may be further added, may take our books, that a confession of a crime must be volun- place either in London or in the country. (1st Order tary, merely means that it shall not be induced by of the 16th July, 1851). It is, however, essential that improper threats and promises, as under such circum- the terms of the order directing the sale should be stances the party may have been influenced to say what strictly followed. (Annesley v. Ashurst, 3 P. Wms. is not true-an objection not applicable to a lawful 282; Ex parte Hughes, 6 Ves. 616). The plaintiff, or examination in the course of a judicial proceeding. the party having the management of the sale, prepares the particulars and conditions of sale, which are settled by the chief clerk, and intituled in the cause. The particulars contain a general description of the nature and description of the property, in whose possession it is or has lately been, and of the manner in which it is proposed to lot the same, and further specify that the estate is to be sold pursuant to a decree of the High Court of Chancery. It is well, in lotting the property, to bear in mind that the more numerous the lots are, the more expensive will be the various proceedings in completing the sales and procuring the payment of the purchase money into court; and that if the lots are numerous, the Court may require to be satisfied, by the affidavit of a competent person, of the propriety and expediency of so lotting the property. (Smith's Ch. Prac. 372, 5th ed.) It should also be remembered that the rule, that there should be perfectly good faith on the part of the vendor in the representations which he makes to the purchaser, applies with equal stringency to the case of sales made by the direction of the Court. Where, therefore, in a sale by the direction of the Court, the particulars of sale stated that lot 12 comprised a house then in the occupation of A. at a rental of 427. per annum, and the purchaser of this lot paid the deposit, and his purchase was confirmed by order absolute, and he then obtained an order for payment of the remainder of the purchase money into court, and the purchaser afterwards discovered that A. was not tenant to the vendor, but to some person who claimed by an adverse title, it was held that the description in the particulars of sale must mean that A. was tenant to the vendor for a limited period at a given rent, and that this was a representation so different from the fact that it amounted to such bad faith on the vendor's part as would induce the Court to discharge the purchaser from his contract. (Lachlan v. Reynolds, Kay, 52). So also a purchaser has been discharged from his purchase on the ground of misrepresentation, when lands set up as held under written agreements for leases appeared, upon inquiry subsequent to the sale, to be mere parol agreements. (Bessonet v. Robins, Sau. & Sc. 142). Mr. Justice Coleridge thought that both the maxim and the statute might be reconciled, and denied the major premiss upon which the judgment of his learned brethren proceeded, namely, that a lawful examination, lawfully conducted, is in all cases admissible in evidence upon a criminal charge. On the contrary, his opinion was, that this examination was lawful for certain purposes only; that it was not authorised or conducted with a view of procuring evidence against the bankrupt upon a criminal charge, but solely for the better discovery of the bankrupt's estate, and bringing it into distribution among his creditors. Then that which cannot be done directly ought not to done indirectly; and as the bankrupt could not have been examined for the purpose of criminating himself, his statements ought not to be allowed to have that effect. The evidence for the prosecution ought not to rest upon the compulsory cross-examination of the prisoner, apart from the judge and jury who are to try him, he very often being wholly unprotected even under the presidency of a commissioner, and in some cases being cross-examined without a commissioner being present. Such is the substance of the judgments upon this question. We do not propose to offer any comment upon the case beyond this, that, considering the importance of the subject and the high authority of the dissentient judge, we regret that it was finally decided without being re-argued before the fifteen judges. SHORT NOTES IN CONVEYANCING.-No. 5. PARTICULARS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE. (Continued from p. 318). UPON a sale by the Court of Chancery, the plaintiff in the suit is not the vendor. It is the Court that takes upon itself to sell; nobody advertises the sale as vendor, but the sale is advertised to be made under the decree of the Court. (Stilwell v. Mellersh, 4 My. & C. 583). The ordinary rule, however, is, that when the plaintiff obtains a decree for sale, he is entitled to the conduct of the sale; (Dale v. Hamilton, 10 Before any estate or interest shall be put up for sale Hare, App., vii); though at the same time the Court under a decree or order of the Court, an abstract of the has a discretion as to whom it will commit the con- title to such estate or interest must, with the approbation duct of the sale, and is in the habit of giving such of the Court, be laid before some conveyancing counsel, conduct to parties other than the plaintiff, when that to be approved by the Court, for the opinion of such coun course is shewn to be beneficial to the parties inte- sel, so that the Court may be enabled to give such direc rested in the property. (Dixon v. Pyner, 7 Hare, tions as may be necessary respecting the conditions of 333). But usually, in a sale under a decree, the solici- sale of such estate or interest. (15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, tor of the plaintiff having the management of the sales. 56). The Court, however, has a discretion to dis is to be considered, as between the vendor and the pense with the rule that the abstract of title shall be 1856. laid before one of the conveyancing counsel appointed | certificate, are to be calculated exclusive of vacations. by the Court. (Gibson v. Woollard, 24 L. J., Ch., 56; (Ware v. Watson, 25 L. J., Ch., 199; Howell v. 3 Eq. Rep. 152). When the Court, or one of the judges Kightly, 25 L. J., Ch., 341; 2 Jur., N. S., part 1, p. 455). at chambers, directs the abstract or any business to be It is further right to mention that the offer of an adreferred to any such conveyancing counsel, a short me-vanced bidding is not sufficient of itself to induce the morandum of such direction is to be prepared and signed Court to open biddings. The rule, too, under which by the registrar if the same shall have been given in the Court permits a stranger to intervene for the purcourt, or by the judge's chief clerk if given in cham-pose of opening biddings on a sale by auction before the bers; and the party prosecuting such direction, or his Master, it should be observed, has no application to a solicitor, is to take such memorandum to the registrar's sale before him by private contract. There are mateclerk, whose duty it is to make such distribution; and rial distinctions between a sale by private contract and the clerk is to add at the foot thereof a note specifying a sale by auction before the Master in the ordinary the name of the conveyancing counsel in rotation to way. Sales by auction before the Master are of a pewhom such business is to be referred, and such memo- culiar character. The person who is the highest bidder randum is to be left by the party prosecuting such knows that he is not the purchaser until the confirmadirection, or his solicitor, with such conveyancing tion of the report, and that until such confirmation counsel, and shall be a sufficient authority for him to any stranger may apply to the Court to open the bidproceed with the business referred. (Order of the 16th dings, and that upon such an application the party December, 1852). The Court will not set up a title making it does not necessarily become himself the knowing it to be bad; if, therefore, the Court is ap- purchaser, but upon his making a sufficient advance prised of a defect of such a nature, that if of any im- by deposit in court the sale is continued, and the proportance it must render the title not merely defective, perty is again put up to auction. When, however, but absolutely bad, though the Court may deem it un- under the former practice, the Master has, in the important, it will not, by a condition of sale, preclude presence of the parties, approved of a sale by private objection to such defect. An unimportant defect needs contract, whether under a special reference or under no condition of sale, nor in such a case will the Court the 4th Order of the 16th July, 1851, no stranger can make one. (Bennett v. Wheeler, 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 18; intervene to prevent the confirmation of the report; Lahey v. Bell, 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 122; Piers v. Piers, nor will the sale be disturbed by the Court on the Sau. & Sc. 414). It may be here remarked, that if it mere ground that a larger price has been offered subsebe thought right, which is seldom the case, to fix an quently, and before such confirmation, unless there amount to be paid as a deposit, the person appointed by be some error or miscarriage in the proceedings, or the the judge at chambers to receive it shall, if required, contract price be grossly inadequate. (Millican v. give security. (3rd Order of the 16th July, 1851; Vanderplank, 11 Hare, 136; 17 Jur., part 1, p. 986). 58th Order of the 16th October, 1852). The Court, Where, however, a sale was ordered by the Court, and however, will not select one of its officers to receive the was advertised to be made by sealed tender, and was to deposit, but will permit it to be paid to the solicitor of a be subject to conditions of sale, and also to the contract defendant in the suit, such solicitor undertaking to pay being sanctioned by the judge, and one of the conditions the deposit into court at or before a time appointed by stated that the certificate of sale would in due course the order for that purpose. (Lyon v. Colvill, 6 Jur., be signed and filed, and become binding, without furpart 1, p. 680). It is also, it may be remarked, usual ther notice or expense to the purchaser, Sir J. Stuart, to provide by the conditions of sale, that the purchaser V. C., upon an increased offer, after a purchaser had shall pay his purchase money within a period specified been certified as the highest bidder, opened the sale, in the conditions. (Smith's Ch. Prac. 376, 5th ed.) and declared the new bidder the purchaser. Upon appeal the Lords Justices considered the contract a conditional one, by which the purchaser agreed to purchase subject to the approbation of the Vice-Chancellor, one of the conditions of sale importing the way in which that consent was to be given; they, therefore, dismissed the appeal. (Osborne v. Foreman, 2 Jur., N. S., part 1, p. 361; 25 L. J., Ch., 340). The result of the decisions is, that no purchaser under conditions of sale need peruse the abstract, or commence the investigation of the title, until his purchase be confirmed by the expiration of eight days after the signature to the certificate, until which period, as has been seen, the biddings are liable to be opened. It is not necessary to stipulate by the conditions, as upon ordinary sales, that the highest bidder shall be the purchaser, the Court having a discretion as to selecting the highest bidder. (In re Costello, 2 Jo. & Lat. 244). But it is usual, at a sale by the order of the Court, to allow a reserved bidding to be made one of the conditions, the judge or his chief clerk fixing the amount, and using his discretion in communicating it to the parties or their solicitors. (Jervoise v. Clarke, 1 J. & W. 389; In re Slatter's Executors, 1 De G., Mac., & G. 64; 2nd Order of the 16th July, 1851; 58th Order of the 16th October, 1852). It should be recollected that upon a sale under a decree the signature of the certificate of the purchase by the judge in chambers is equivalent to the order nisi to confirm the Master's report under the former practice, and the certificate is liable to be discharged at any time within eight days after such signature; consequently an application to open the biddings on the usual terms may be made within eight days after the certificate is signed by the judge. Biddings, however, after the expiration of eight days from the filing of the certificate, will not be opened except under very special circumstances; and the eight days within which, under the 51st Order of the 16th October, 1852, made pursuant to the 34th section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, an application must be made to vary the chief clerk's * Bridger v. Penfold, (1 Kay & J. 28). When biddings are opened, the person who opens them pays all the costs of the former purchaser. Biddings, however, will not be opened unless an advance is offered of 401. (Farlow v. Weildon, 4 Mad. 460). When an estate or interest is put up for sale in pursuance of a decree or order of the Court, the conditions of sale should specify a time for the delivery of the abstract of title to the property proposed to be sold to the purchaser or his solicitor. (15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 56). It will be, however, borne in mind, that in equity time is not, as at law, unless it be directly stipulated for, of the essence of the contract. (Roberts v. Berry, 16 Beav. 31; 3. De G., Mac., & G. 284; Parker v. Thorold, 16 Beav. 59; Pegg v. Wisden, Id. 239; Honeyman v. Marryat, 1 Jur., N. S., part 1, p. 857). In truth, when a distinction has not been established, the general rules as to other sales apply equally to sales by the Court. (Sugd. Conc. View, 65). Thus, for instance, when a sale took place under a decree, and the conditions of sale provided that all objections to the title disclosed by the abstract, not taken within a certain time after delivery of the abstract to the purchaser, should be deemed to be waived, it was held that the |