GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, Dec. 26. BANKRUPTS. GEORGE WILLIAM JONES, Oxford-street, milliner, Jan. 6 and Feb. 5 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sois. Parker & Lee, St. Paul's-churchyard.-Pet. f. Dec. 17. THOMAS WELLS, Dorset-place, Clapham-road, grocer, Jan. 7 and Feb. 10 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Graham; Sols. Richardson & Sadler, 14, Old Jewry-chambers, City.-Pet. f. Dec. 19. FRANCIS BOYD, Tynemouth, Northumberland, grocer, Jan. 9 and Feb. 13 at half-past 12. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Off. Ass. Baker; Sol. Watson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Pet. f. Dec. 15. FREDERICK READ DAVIES, Plymouth, Devonshire, auctioneer, Jan. 12 at 11, St. George's Hall, East Stonehouse, and Feb. 2 at 1, Plymouth: Off. Ass. Hirtzel; Sol. Elworthy, Plymouth.-Pet. f. Dec. 22. GEORGE GWILLIAM, Liverpool, wheelwright, Jan. 7 and Feb. 2 at 11, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Morgan; Sol. Pemberton, Liverpool.-Pet. f. Dec. 19. JOHN M'MILLAN, Liverpool, shipowner, Jan. 7 and dale, Lancashire, cotton spinner, (trading jointly with Richard Ashworth, of the same place), Jan. 9 and Feb. 6 at 12, Manchester: Off. Ass. Hernaman; Sols. Sale & Co., Manchester. Pet. f. Dec. 20. JAMES WOOD, Manchester, cheese factor, Jan. 7 and 27 at 12, Manchester: Off. Ass. Fraser; Sol. Heald, Man chester.-Pet. f. Dec. 17. MEETINGS. Edmund Webb, Portswood, Southampton, timber dealer, Jan. 14 at 2, London, last ex.-Emery Walker, Blomfieldstreet, Harrow-road, and Charles-mews, Charles-street, Westbourne-terrace, Middlesex, coach builder, Jan. 16 at 12, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Nash, Leather-lane, and Kirby-street, Hatton-garden, carpenter, Jan. 17 at 12, London, and. ac.— Robt. Feast, Finsbury-pavement and Little Moorfields, oil and Italian warehouseman, Jan. 8 at 11, London, aud. ac.-James Hawkins, Woolwich, corn dealer, Jan. 8 at half-past 11, London, aud. ac.-Benj. Brett, St. George's-street, Ratcliff-highway, and High-street, Poplar, shoe manufacturer, Jan. 8 at 11, London, aud. ac.-Henry W. Richardson, Banstead, near Epsom, Surrey, licensed victualler, Jan. 8 at 11, London, aud. ac.-George Henton, Charles-street, Grosvenor-square, licensed victualler, Jan. 8 at half-past 12, London, aud, ac.— W. Puddicombe, Bridge-street, Southwark, ironmonger, Jan. 8 at half-past 11, London, aud. ac.; Jan. 16 at 1, div.-Thos. Pyrke, Grays, Essex, linendraper, Jan. 9 at 11, London, aud. ac.; Jan. 17 at 12, div.-L. Hart, Howford-buildings, Fenchurch-street, dealer in foreign fancy goods, Jan. 8 at half-past 11, London, aud. ac.-E. J. Davies, High-street, Poplar, draper, Jan. 8 at 12, London, aud. ac.; Jan. 16 at 12, div.— David Lansley, Bath, publican, Jan. 22 at 11, Bristol, aud. ac.-John Carter Lucas and Thos. Lucas, Aldersgate-street, wholesale druggists, Jan. 21 at 12, London, div. joint est. and sep. est. of John Carter Lucas.-Henry Keyte, Church-court, Old Jewry, silk manufacturer, Jan. 21 at 11, London, div.A. Hurst, Newman's-court, Cornhill, manure manufacturer, Jan. 21 at half-past 11, London, div.-Joseph Willson, Highstreet, Kingsland, painter, Jan. 17 at half-past 11, London, div.-H. J. Smith and B. Crane, Great St. Helens, dealers and chapmen, Jan. 17 at 11, London, div.-William Field, Princes-street, Story's-gate, Westminster, printer, Jan. 16 at half-past 11, London, div.-M. H. Meyer, Magdalen-row, Great Prescott-street, Goodman's-fields, wine merchant, Jan. 16 at 11, London, div.-- Wm. Semmons, Redruth, Cornwall, draper, Jan. 16 at 11, London, div.-I'm. Jones and C. J. Jones, High-street, Islington, plumbers, Jan. 16 at 11, London, fin. div. sep. est. of Wm. Jones. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting. Wm. Hinman, Lamb's Conduit-street, Theobald's-road, licensed victualler, Jan. 21 at 11, London.-Wm. Semmons, ! 1857. Redruth, Cornwall, draper, Jan. 16 at 11, London.-Thomas Dorrington, Durham-place, Grange-road, Dalston, commission agent, Jan. 16 at 12, London.-Emery Walker, Blom. field-street, Harrow-road, and Charles-mews, Charles-street, Westbourne-terrace, coachbuilder, Jan. 16 at 12, London. John Tanner, Chippenham, Wiltshire, and Bath, Somersetshire, common carrier, Jan. 27 at 11, Bristol.- Charles Jones, Gloucester, sailmaker, Feb. 23 at 11, Bristol-John Lowe, Manchester, merchant, Jan. 19 at 12, Manchester. - William Dixon and George Middleton, Morley, Yorkshire, dyers, Jan. 20 at 12, Leeds. To be granted, unless an appeal be duly entered. John S. Muir, Aberdeen-villa, Aberdeen-place. Maida-hill, schoolmaster.-Randal Woollatt, Crown-court, Philpot-lane, tea dealer. John Peto and John Bryan. Dacre-street, Westminster, Middlesex; Liverpool; and Willow-walk, Bermondsey, Surrey, army contractors.-Wm. A. Reeves, Wallingford, Berkshire, baker.-J. Martin, High-street, Borough, licensed victualler.-George N. Dobson, Poole, tailor.-Henry Warne, Mill-street, Hanover-square; New Bond-street; and Maddox-street, carpenter.—William Rose, Sydenham, Kent, ship smith.-W. Wilkinson, Sedbergh, Yorkshire, corn merchant. -J. Darlington, Mexborough, Yorkshire, coal proprietor. PETITION ANNULLED. Tom F. Slater, Bradford, Yorkshire, grocer. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. John Black, Glasgow, painter.-John M'Donald, Greenloaning, Perthshire, innkeeper.-Henry Wise, Broughty Ferry, E. Golston & Co., Glasgow, importers of foreign goods.—J. Forfarshire.-James M Callum, Edinburgh, wine merchant.Stewart, Fort William, Inverness-shire, hotel keeper. TUESDAY, Dec. 30. BANKRUPTS. WILLIAM HARTZ, Mark-lane and Fenchurch-street, merchant, (trading under the style of Hartz & Co., and also trading with Charles Crews, and lately with Henry George Gray, under the firm of Crews & Co.), Jan. 15 at 1, and Feb. 16 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Nicholson; Sols. King & George, 35, King-street, Cheapside.-Pet. f. Nov. 25. PETER EDWIN HENDERSON, Cannon-street, City, civil engineer, Jan. 7 at 2, and Feb. 16 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Ashley & Tee, 7, Old Jewry.-Pet. f. JAMES GLOVER, Thames Ditton, Surrey, late of the Haymarket, Middlesex, dealer in wine, Jan. 7 at 12, and Feb. 10 at half-past 12, London: Off. Ass. Stansfeld; Sols. Harrison & Lewis, 14, New Boswell-court.-Pet. f. Dec. 19. JOHN RENNARD, Little Queen-street, Holborn, ironmonger, Jan. 8 at 2, and Feb. 12 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Johnson; Sols. Moseley & Co., 13, Bedford-street, Corentgarden.-Pet. f. Dec. 19. Dec. 13. WILLIAM FFITCH, Warley-common, Great Warley, Essex, licensed victualler, Jan. 10 at 12, and Feb. 3 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Lee; Sol. Chidley, 10, Basinghall-street.―fet. f. Dec. 20. WILLIAM RING, Paddington-street, St. Marylebone, eat- RICE HARRIS and RICE WILLIAM HARRIS, Birmingham, glass manufacturers, Jan. 16 and Feb. 6 at half-past 11, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. James, Bir mingham.-Pet. d. Dec. 22. WILLIAM SMITH, Halesowen, Worcestershire, builder, Jan. 16 and Feb. 6 at half-past 11, Birmingham: Off. Ass. Christie; Sols. Hodgson & Allen, Birmingham.-Pet. d. Dec. 17. [For continuation of Gazette, see p. 561]. 3 THE JURIST. LONDON, JANUARY 3, 1857. 1223 1225 SOME excitement has been produced among commercial men by a recent decision in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which is said to affect the security of delivery orders in the hands of innocent holders. We allude to the case of Kingsford and Another v. Merry, which arose out of the fraudulent transactions of William Burnett Anderson, subsequently transported for other crimes. The facts were as follows:-The plaintiffs, manufacturing chemists, had sold a quantity of tartaric acid, and had handed delivery orders for it to the vendee. A broker named Leask, by Anderson's orders, bought the tartaric acid from the vendee, and obtained from him the delivery orders upon the plaintiffs. Anderson represented to the broker that he was purchasing for Van Notten & Co., and the broker indorsed and delivered the orders to Anderson for the purpose of inspecting the goods. Anderson sent the orders to the plaintiffs, with whom the acid still remained, and afterwards called upon them himself, and stated, that although the acid had been bought in Van Notten & Co.'s name, he was in reality the purchaser, and requested them to deliver the acid at the Custom-house Quay for him. They accordingly did so, making out a delivery order to him. Anderson went to the Custom-house Quay, and had the casks containing the acid transferred into his own name. On the same day he borrowed 2000l. * Reported, in the court below, (the Exchequer), in 11 Exch. 577. It is not yet reported in the Exchequer Chamber. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. By W. PATERSON and W. MILLS, Barristers at Law. Delaney v. Fox.-(Small Tenements Act, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 74-Form of notice of application to the justices-Action for irregularity in the proceedings under the act-Special damage) ...... COURT OF EXCHEQUER. By W. M. BEST, Barrister at Law. Legge v. Tucker.-(Forms of action-Contract or tort-County court-13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, ss. 11, 12-Costs) ....... CROWN CASES RESERVED. Reg. v. Mainwaring.—(Bigamy—Dissenting chapel- ADMIRALTY PRIZE COURT. By A. WADDILOVE, D. C. L. 1233 1235 1236 The San Spiridione.—(Claim for restitution of ship— Proof of title-Trading with the enemy of a belligerent whilst resident in the country of his ally) 1238 from the defendant, a drug-broker, upon security of this and other tartaric acid. He delivered the warrants to the defendant, who had bonâ fide advanced the money upon the faith of the pledge. It afterwards turned out that Anderson had no authority from Van Notten & Co. to buy the acid, and that his statement to the broker to this effect was false. The plaintiffs then gave the wharfingers notice not to part with the acid, when they learned that the warrants had been transferred to the defendant, and the acid sold by him. An action was thereupon brought to recover its value, upon the ground that Anderson obtained it by false pretences, and could not give a title to the defendant. The Lord Chief Baron, however, before whom the case was tried, directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant; and this ruling was upheld by the Court in Banc, (Pollock, C. B., Alderson and Martin, BB.), who refused even to grant the plaintiffs a rule for the purpose of further discussing the question, saying that the point was too clear to justify them in doing so. The plaintiffs appealed against this ruling, the point having been reserved at the trial; and the Court of Exchequer Chamber have reversed the decision of the Court of Exchequer. The grounds of the decision in the court below, refusing the rule, were thus stated by the Lord Chief Baron in delivering judgment:-"It may be assumed that the false and fraudulent misrepresentation was made by Anderson to the plaintiffs and to Ellis (the first vendee) through Leask, and that they acted upon the false representation, and not merely handed over the delivery orders to Anderson, but did so with the intention and in order to transfer the property in the casks of acid to 1957. rity to receive, but only to inspect, the goods, and that Anderson obtained the transfer to himself by false pretences. That the mere possession, with no further indicia of title than a delivery order, is not sufficient to entitle the bonâ fide pawnee of the person fraudulently obtaining possession from the true owner to resist the claim of the latter in an action of trover. It will be seen, therefore, that the Court of Exchequer Chamber is in conflict with the Court below, not so much on the law of the case, as upon the assumption of fact. The Court of Exchequer assumed on the evidence, that the plaintiffs would have been warranted in treating the transaction between them and Anderson as a contract of sale, which, by reason of the fraud of Anderson, they might disaffirm if they pleased, or that their right to disaffirm was subject to any intermediate title which the bonâ fide vendee or pawnee from Anderson might acquire. Now, the Court of Exchequer Chamber, without disputing the law laid down by the Court of Exchequer, reject this assumption of fact, and treat the case simply as one of the owner of him as vendee; and we apprehend that it is quite clear, that when a vendee obtains possession of a chattel, with the intention by the vendor to transfer both the property and the possession, although the vendee has made a false and fraudulent misrepresentation in order to effect a contract or to obtain the possession, the property vests in the vendee until the vendor has done some act to disaffirm the transaction; and the legal consequence is, that if before the disaffirmance the fraudulent vendee has transferred over the whole or part of the chattel to an innocent transferee, the title of such transferee is good against the vendor. This is exactly the position of the present plaintiffs, and we entertain no doubt that they are not in a condition to maintain an action against the defendant, in which they insist on a right to the possession of the acid until they have paid or tendered to him his demand in respect of the ad-affirm, and proceed as for goods sold and delivered; but vance to Anderson. This is stated to be the law by Parke, B., in Load v. Green, (15 M. & W. 215), which is expressly confirmed and acted upon by the Court of Common Pleas in White v. Garden, (10 C. B. 919). Some old cases are there mentioned, and are also directly in point. Several cases were cited on moving for the rule, but not one of them in any way sup-goods being defrauded of them, without any contract at ported the proposition attempted to be established. In Boyson v. Coles (6 Mau. & S. 14) there was no sale at all; there was no purchaser there entitled-no one in whom the property could vest, either absolutely or defeasibly. In M‘Ewan v. Smith (2 H. L. C. 509) the only matter decided was, that a delivery order not acted upon does not destroy the vendor's lien. In Dyer v. Pearson, (3 B. & Cr. 38), a person with no authority to sell, sold the goods. That was a question of principal and agent. In the present case no such question arises, as the plaintiffs were the owners of the goods. In Williams v. Barton (3 Bing. 139) the question was also one of principal and agent, and it has no bearing upon the question. These were the only cases cited by Mr. Bovill when applying for the rule, and not one of them in the smallest degree militates against the principle which, in our judgment, determines the case, and which is to be found in the case of White v. Garden." The grounds of the judgment in the Court of Exchequer Chamber reversing this decision are the following: That the transaction between the plaintiffs and Anderson was not a contract of sale, and that there was no contract between them which the plaintiffs might either affirm or disaffirm. That the plaintiffs, as appeared by the evidence, gave | the delivery orders to Anderson, and dealt with him as the agent of others, not as the purchaser of goods from them, but as having purchased them from Leask, as falsely represented by him. all, and the fraudulent party, himself having no title, attempting to give a third party a title as against such owner. The law, therefore, is left only as it was before, and commercial men need not feel alarmed by reason of the decision in the Exchequer Chamber. COUNTY COURT RULES AND FORMS. In our last number we printed all the New Rules relating to county courts. There are also numerous forms of proceedings in the schedule, but as they occupy no less than 120 pages folio, we cannot publish them in extenso; and it would be useless to attempt to digest them, especially as they are preceded by a full index. We must therefore content ourselves with observing that every form seems to be given that can possibly be required under county court procedure. Review. An Introduction to the Principles and Practice of Plead- THE Common-law Procedure Acts and the New Rules have almost entirely re-organised the system of pleading in our courts of law. Until the appearance of the present work, however, no new treatise upon the subject has been attempted. Mr Williams divides his work into two distinct branches, each said to be com That there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and Anderson, and it was only as represent-plete in itself. The present he offers to the student as ing himself as claiming under Leask that they gave him by the delivery orders the means of possessing the goods. That such a delivery, under the circumstances, would no more pass the property in the goods than a delivery to an agent or servant of Leask would pass the property to such servant. That it also appeared that Anderson had no autho embracing the introductory division of his work, and the second he announces as about to be issued shortly. The author starts with the origin of the superior ancient to modern jurisdiction and procedure. He then courts, and gives an explanation of the progress from furnishes an outline of the procedure by motion and rule of court, and by summons and order at judge's chambers. In the next place, the procedure by action is introduced; an account is given of the classifica 3 not be the case-either the whole statute must be reenacted, embodying the amendments, or it must be partly repealed-the latter alternative adding to the complications and difficulties which so much deform our legal system. To me it seems, that instead of one act, five ought to have been passed, the subjects of which should have been as follows: 1. An act for the incorporation, &c. of joint-stock companies. 2. An act for the management, &c. of joint-stock companies-i. e. to regulate their dealings with the world. 3. An act for the winding up &c. of joint-stock companies. 4. An act for the regulation of the registration office for joint-stock companies. tion of actions, and of their different forms; after which the author gives a very full outline of the proceedings, commencing with the notice of action, and a summary of the Statutes of Limitation. Each proceeding is treated of in the order in which it arises. The nature and object of the pleadings, and 3. It confounds in one statute the permanent and of their relation to and bearing upon the other pro- transitory matter. The evil of this has been pointed ceedings in the action, are fully explained, parti-out by Mr. Coode in his able papers contained in the cularly when the writer treats of the trial, and of Report of the Statute-law Commission, 1853. the rules of evidence affecting the pleadings. The author then adverts to proceedings in error to the Exchequer Chamber and House of Lords. There are also chapters upon execution, arrest on mesne process, bail, and costs. Under the latter head the extent to which the jurisdiction of the superior courts is interfered with by the county courts is given with clearness and brevity. The work closes with the Rules of Practice and Pleading. Mr. Williams is a young and unknown author, and has undertaken a work requiring great care in its treatment; but we have no hesitation in saying that he has brought to bear on his task powers of arrangement and clearness of expression of no ordinary character, and has produced a work creditable to himself, and useful to the Profession. For the student especially the book has features of peculiar value; it is at the same time scientific and practical; and throughout the work there is a judicious union of general principles with a practical treatment of the subject, illustrated by forms and examples of the main proceedings. Modern legal writers generally avoid the discussion of undecided points; no one can make that complaint of the writer of the volume before us. Where difficult moot points arise, he certainly does not shrink from them, nor does he content himself with stating the result of the authorities upon the subject, but boldly resolves the question to general principles, and attempts to solve it; we may instance his treatment of some difficult points as to the necessity of a new assignment, at pp. 137-141. Although not always assenting to his positions, we admire the courage and ability with which they are advanced. Correspondence. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE JURIST." SIR,-It appears that the learned framer of the Joint-stock Companies Act, 1856, is of opinion that, the embracing of all the enactments relating to jointstock companies in one statute, and the consequent subdivision of that act into parts, is "one well calculated to facilitate the comprehension of acts of Parliament." It may possibly do so in some cases, but it certainly has the following bad results: 1. It confounds distinct matters up in one act. The evil effects of this have been frequently pointed out in your journal. A striking instance of such evils has been afforded by the recent proceedings in the case of the Royal British Bank. A new winding-up act was wanted. If part 4 of the Joint-stock Companies Act, 1856, had been passed as a distinct act, and been made to apply to all the companies to which the former acts applied, and to all companies to be registered under that act, and not confined and restricted in the operation by forming part of the act which was intended to carry out the principle of limited liability, we should not have witnessed the late contest between the Court of Chancery and the Court of Bankruptcy-a contest, the disgrace of which, however, attaches far more to the Legislature, whose solemn enactments gave rise to it, than to the actual combatants. 2. In the case of any future amendments or modifications of any part of the act being needed-and there does not seem any reason to suppose that such will 5. An act for the repeal of the former statutes, and which should contain all temporary provisions and other transitory matter. Yours &c., Lincoln's-inn, Dec. 23, 1856. EXAMINER. LAW AMENDMENT SOCIETY. THE following letter, written by Lord Brougham to the secretary of the Law Amendment Society, was read at their last meeting: "I trust that the society will not fail to consider, together with the measures relating to mercantile law, (previous to the conference), also those which appear now to press themselves on our attention relating to. the criminal law. The absolute necessity is now admitted on all hands of removing from our law the very discreditable peculiarity which distinguishes it, of treating the most criminal breach of trust as no offence, but only a ground of claim to a creditor against his debtor. After the instances which I have so often given, both in the House of Lords and in the society, of the most scandalous robbery-that never would have been perpetrated had the law given the offence its proper name and condign punishment-and after the proofs which our committee found of the great frequency of such crimes, I can have no doubt that a bill will be framed which shall introduce this important amendment of the law, accompanied, as it should certainly be, by a provision enabling all trustees to receive payment for their trouble, unless when they accept this office upon other terms. There are other subjects connected with our criminal jurisprudence which may fitly and safely be considered at the present time. An improvement was made in the law of libel some years ago, by permitting the truth of the matter to be given in evidence on prosecutions under certain restrictions. The bill which I brought into the House of Commons in 1816 gave this. permission to the defendant in all cases, whether of public libel or of private. It was very carefully prepared as to its details, with the valuable assistance of Mr. Tindal, (afterwards Chief Justice). The feeling generally entertained in its favour was strong, and I believe nothing prevented it being carried except the frequency of prosecutions by ex officio information at that time, which the bill would have put down. These formed, on the one side, the great argument in favour of the measure, but this raised equally strong objections on the other; and thus the controversy assumed a party character, and the bill was lost. When in 1830 I again introduced it, state prosecutions for libel had entirely ceased; but being immediately after re moved to the House of Lords, the measures for establishing local courts and for improving the proceedings in bankruptcy superseded all others, and I did not proceed with the libel bill. Lord Campbell, some years after, undertook the consideration of this important subject, and, having referred it to a committee of the Lords, the present act was passed, which unfortunately is confined to the case of private libel. This restriction, I was extremely sorry to find, received the high sanction of Lord Denman's approval. It is one of the very few subjects on which I had the misfortune to differ with him; but certainly the reasons which he gave did not shake my opinion. Indeed, the permission to prove the truth seems more questionable in the case of private than in that of state prosecutions; and I well recollect that in 1816 some, who were the most strongly disposed to give this permission when public libel is prosecuted, had great doubts if it should be extended to the case of private slander. That was not my view, however, and I regarded the partial alteration lately effected as beneficial, and consequently as deserving the support of friends to law amendment, and as likely to end in the more complete improvement of our procedure. "It may be a question whether the time is not come for a measure which shall embrace the whole law of libel, slander, and defamation, for there are several other matters of importance connected with it beside that to which my present remarks have been confined. But in one respect it must be allowed that the times are favourable to a full and unprejudiced consideration of these questions, all state prosecutions having for many years ceased, and no party feelings being at all likely to interfere with the discussion. "Believe me, &c., "H. BROUGHAM." At the same meeting Mr. Frederick Hill read a paper on "The Means of freeing the Country from dangerous Criminals." This paper pointed out that one cause of the preva- | lence of crime was the difficulty in obtaining evidence required by technical law. For this, one remedy would be found in empowering magistrates to cause suspected persons to be brought before them, and to require of them an account of their means of living. Another improvement would be the adoption of a system of long imprisonments; and in cases where reformation was hopeless, of imprisonment for life. As to tickets of leave, it was pointed out that the system could not be said to have either failed or succeeded, as it had never been tried-the essential part of the plan, the withdrawal of tickets from those who misused the privilege, not having been adopted. The paper concluded with the following resolutions: "1. That the existence of the present frequent highway robberies and burglaries, coupled with the fact that the great body of the people of this country are honest and peaceable, argues great imperfections in our criminal law, or in its administration, or in both. "2. That even in cases where there is no moral doubt of a man's guilt, and of his being an habitual criminal, it is now often the case, that for want of the technical evidence required by the law, the culprit remains at large, to the great danger of the lives and property of her Majesty's subjects. "3. That it is highly desirable that every legal obstacle, which, while it is likely to afford a screen for the guilty, is not necessary for the protection of the innocent, should be removed. "4. That it is highly desirable also that every habitual offender, especially when convicted of a serious crime, should be imprisoned for such a period as will, in all likelihood, suffice to effect his complete reformation; and that when there is no reasonable prospect of reformation, he should be confined for life. 3 Mr. Serjeant Gaselec. Mr. Thomas Chambers, M. P. for Hertford. Sir Walter Riddell, Bart., of the Chancery Bar. Mr. Corrie, one of the police magistrates. Mr. Pulling, author of the work on the Laws and Customs of the City of London. The whole number of electors is 232, being the aldermen and common council. The contest is becoming an eager one, and it is impossible at present to say who will be the successful candidate, though a portion of the daily press have attempted to name the winner. |