London Standard Newspaper Archives

London Standard (Newspaper) - July 25, 1911, London, Middlesex mm. 10THE STANDARD, TUESDAY, JULY 25, Wll, LAW Cüüin'&-JüLY 24. ti Court ot Appeal, MR BOTTOAfLEY, M.P. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE £50.000 Vi:ilDlCT. Mr. Horatio Bott-oraloy, M.P., appealed, before lK>rds Justice* Vaughan WiUiame, Flctchfr Moulton, and Buclcley, from a verdict of £50,000 damages awarded against bim in an action brousri't by Eleanor Frances C’artis, wifo of a barrister; r«sidin{f at Norfolk-crosocnt,' Iljdo Park. Tli« casa was lieard last month bcioro tho Lord Cluef JustKJo and • gpocial jury. The action waa brought by Mrs. Curtia as executrix of tha Tnll of her fathw, the lat* Mr. Roben lîdvvard Master a rotirod Madrae Civil servant, who died in No.•ember at the apo of 84. She alleged that Mr. Bottomley obtained the sum of £57,S55 frona her father by inducing him to purchase worth-les-s ahares in v&rious companies by.fitlse and fraudulent ropresontations. By his defence Mr. Bottom-ley denied making tho representations alleged, and said that if they were made they were not false to lii& kaoirledg:«. He further said that Mr, Master ■was not inducod to make the purchaac* by the «He^âd representations, and that the shares in question word not and had not always been worthiess. ÎChe jury fouDd in favour of Mrs. Curtis, and awarded her £50,000 damages. Judgment was entered, with costs. ilr. Bottomley, who appeared in persoa, now appealed from this dccisioa. Mrs. Curtia w^as repre^ «ented by Mr. Goro-Browoe, K.C,, Mr. Ritter., and Mr. Cliftoo Roberts (in*truct&d by Messrs. H. Dado and Co.). Mr. Bottomley said that he appealed on th® following grounds:—First of all, he mibmitted that the leariMd judge who tried tho cxsc was wrong in leavinc' the case to tho jury; t-econdly, that there Was very serious mistlirecMon by the learacd judge; thirdly, that tho verdict was perverse; aad lastly, that th« verdict was larigely induced and influenced by what he was compelled to call the improper conduct of the case by the plaintiff’s then counsel (Mr. Bitter), whom he waa bound to mention by name for purposes of convenience aa to what he should have to eay later. Mr. Bottomley then explained th« nature of the action, aad how tho jury found a verdict for £50,000 tn favour of the plaintiff, on the ground that certain •hares had been sold to Mr. Master, whose exocutors the plaintiffs were, by him (Mr. Bottomley), by meana of false and fraudulent representations. He then atated to thé court what had taken place at the trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s case he had Tenturcd to oaibmit to the learned judge that thero was no evidence to go to the jury. The terma of that submission he did not propose to trouble the eourt with at present, becauE-e it would at this part if his addrcfes be jnoonreaient to do so. Contintiing lie said thiit he had made his submission to the learned judge, who listened to him with the very fTcatest patience. The judge, addressing Mr. Riiter, aaid that he would not trouble him to reply on the submission, because he was clearly of opinion that on. some parts of the casa it was evident that there was «ridenc*e fit for the jury to consider. The Lord Chief Justice also said that, aa there were Bo-oie parts of tho esse in re.spect of his arjuments ivUich would have to be considered, it was better that he shouJd not expresa any final opinion aa to the czact parts which vrcre to go to the jury until he had heard the whole of the evidence. Tho Lord Chief Justice added: “ All I can lay is that oo soma parts of the case it is impossible for me to stop the case.” That comment by tho Loud Oiief Justice naturally led the assumption that in some parts of the cato there was eridenoe, but that in the others there was romo distinction which had to be drawn, and that in due course those parts would bo submitted to the jury. He (Mr. Bottomley) intimated that he should eSer ao evidence of any kind, aa he was satisfied aa to the itrengtè of his case, and woald leave the learned counsel to close. ICr. Bitter, continued Mr. Bottomley, then pro-«eeded to addresa the jury, and it was in connection irith that speech, coupled with observations which he bad made in his opening address, that he had cow to aak their londshipe—and in doing so )i« desired .to speak with reatraiat and decorum in the matter —to say that the iatermption which the learned ooiuocl gave to the rights and privileges and duties of hiâ jKxátion ai advocate broTighi this case clearly the pnthorities under which the court could aet acid* verdicts in oonseqncnoe of being unduly tnflneneed by the improper language of counsel. He aaked the court to say that the verdict ought not to be allowed to stand on that aspect of tha case, quite apart from other considerations^ The atmosphere creatcd by tha misstatements of counsel permeated the whole of the proceedings, and the misdirection of which he (Mr. Bottomley) complained, tha- wrongful admission of evidence and the leaving •f the casa to tha jury, were due more to the almost neceaaary «onfusion ia the mind of the tribvinal and the ohwuring of the issues brought about by iiier peeniiar methods of «oxmsel than to any other - causa. He had gone through the shorthand notes of both speeches, and ha had made a synopsis of the points of complaint. Ho foun4 there were 27 distinct 'instance«, any one of which, he ventured with respect to submit, would be sufficient to justify ihe letting aside of the verdict. A glance at tha statement of claim would show that he was the sole defendant, and that from beginning to end there ttaa no suggestion in the document that any one else in the world was concerned in the making of the false and fraudulent rcprcaentations alleged therein. There was no charge of conspiracy with anybody, but there was a distinct allegation in each and every case that he, and be alone, made the representations. It was also clear from the statement of claim that damages alleged to have been stiffered were £57,000 odd. ’ But Mr. Bitter had scaroely opened hia lips in putting the case before the jury when he said thero was “ another purchase of aharet that I am not going into." Mr. Gore-Broime, interposing, said that those words did not appear in hia transcript, Mr. Bottomley said that he would waive the point, at all «vent» for tha moment. Continuing, Mr. Bottomley said that Mr. Ritter made a ve^ eára-. ordinary and terious statement. Ho said that Mr. Master never quite recovered from hû accident in 1904, but it aftencards appeared that Mr. Master never met with an aoddant of any kind, but had merely suffered from an illne«. Mr. Rittor also told the jury that " Mr. Master lost another £40,000 l^tween October and Christmas, 1909, but tho matter was clearly in regard to Mr. Hooley.” The learned counsel had no right to tell the jury anything about any loa« suffered by Mr. Master unless there was an allegation that he (Mr. Bottomley) was concerned or involved in that loss. The introduction of Mr. Hooley’s name into the case at that stage when ha was no party to the action, if not intended, was certainly calculated to prejudice the mind of the jury. Mr. Bottomley, proceeÜing, said that his next ooint was a very grave ona. Counsel told the jury that after tho writ was issued there were negotiations which resulted in Mr. Hooley paying down a considerable sum and agreeing to pay a very much larger sum. It wa.s never suggested from btgir-ning to end that those negotiations had any rtfer-enco to any of the transactions in the action, .aid the reiteration of tho name of Mr. Hooley with the srtátement as to compromise could have no o Ver effect on the jury than to suggest that in »ome «vay •r other Mr. Hooley had been ooncera->d with , Bottomley; that he had agreed to ccmpromise the «laim, and that the jury were left to deal with Mr. Bottomley in regard to the matter. Mr, Ritter t ad then gone on to say: “The writs were issued, oi. • against Mr. Bottomley, one against Mr. Hooley and • Mr. Bottomley for conspiracy together, so you can sea, if wa were going to settle with Mr. Hooley, we must wait before going on." 'The writ, Mr. Bottomley con-* tinucd, was issued against him, end he was ready to meet the case, end some writ issued against Mr. Hooley, of which Mr. Bottomley knew nothing, but was an entirely independent action, ought never to hi'.ve betm mentioned. When the evidence was ■ called, Mr. Bottomley said, he asked the solicitor whether the action against himself and Mr. Hooley , was going on. The solicitor protested that it was . going on, but within two days Mr. Bottomley received notice of tho discontinuance of the action against him. Mr. Bottomley could not say too seriously that to mention these transactions to the iury was most improper, irregular, and wrong. His next complaint was that cartain papers had disappeared from the ofBee of the plaintiff’s solicitor, and wiotigh secondary evidence of the contents of the papers was given without objection •nd copies were usod, counsel said : “ Whoever stole these letters did not réalisa that absolute proof of what they contained waa already in existence." Again and again counsel, with the obvious intention of prejudicing tho minds of the jury, com-inentod on the mysLerious disappearanc« of letters from his own client’s office. 'Ill« solicitor when ddled said most fairly that he made no suggestion ■gainst Mr. Bottomley with regard to the dis-appearanc« of the letters. Mr. Hitter then said with regard to certain bill transactions: “Mr. Bottomley got him (the lata Mr. Master) to back " - liills by soma trick for a large sum of money.” If eooaael had said something that had rcferenas to |1m oass lir. Bottoml«j oould not coinplaio, but from beginning to end no evidence was given that he had induccd Mr. Master by any trick to back bills. The L<jrd Chief Justice, on tho contrary, pointed out that so far as the bills were concerned they were Mr. Master’s own property, and he was freo to do with them as he liked. Mr. Uittor also told tlie jury that Mr. Bottomley had made up his mind to take back certain shares, “because, you sec, it was too near tho winding-up of the company to make it safe.” No evidence was given cf tho winding-up of the company, and when Mr. Bottomley asked counsel bow he proposed to prove it Mr. Ritter told him to miud his own business. Counsel, Mr. Bottomley further complained, always spoke of the defendant« in the plural, and occasionally as t:\o “ pang,” aud that ihree of them were in a criminal conspiracy, and that Mr. Bottomley ought to bo doing ponal serviLude. Counsel also said that it waa the introduction to Mr. Hooley whiph brcivght about the disaster to tJio bte Mr. Master, there b.'ing no allegations whatever that Mr. Hooley had anythin'» to do with the matters on which Mr. Bottomley was charged. Mr. Ritter also said: "I am going to show that most of tiie money paid by Mr. Master went to Charles Jones, a moneylender, and that none of it, or at least a \-ery small sum of it, ever went to tlie shareholders.” No on« was called to say that the money did not go to tha shareholders, nor was Mr. Jones called. Dealing with certain shares, Mr. Ritter said that the letters stated that Mr. Bottomley was willing to take them back, and «xidcd: “ I shall prove that they were never taken back.” Counsel called a solicitor, and Mr. Bottomley asked him whether they were credited to Mr. Master, and the solicitor replied, “I think they were.” Mr. Uitter, in hi* closing address to the jury, reiteraf^xl these points with mor« emphasis, as if they had been proved. H« also said: “ Mr. Bottomley had told the Official Receiver that the John Bull Invoetment Trust never had any assets.” No evidence of that waa called, and nothing w'hatcver was doi:o to justify it. Mr. Ritter also told the jury that the John Bull Trust (which Mr. Bottomley eaid figured largely in tho case) ‘‘ made an allegcil profit of £19,000 up to 190^, and £16,000 alleged profit in the following year.” There wa* no evidence called ;i5 to that, anid counsel relocated that aUitenient in his closing speech. At this stage th-e hearing was adjourned. TUBKS AND LAND TAX. Before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justioe« Farwell and Kennedy judgment was delivered in the case of the Central London Railway Company v. tho Commissioners of Land Tax for the City of London upon the plaintiffs’ appeal from a decision of Mr. Justioo Swinfcn Eady The question mised in the case was th« liability of the company for land tax, first where their line lay under highways and tho tax had boen redeemed on lands «butting upon thoM highways, and second where it lay under any lands th« surface of which had been exonerated from the tax by redemption. The company contended that where tho land tax had been redeemed in respect of lands abutting upon a highway the exoneration extended to tho middla liue of the higuwuy, and that so much of th« railway as wias construct^ below the surface of lands so oxoneratod waa not liable for tax a centra usque ad eoelum, Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady had held that th« company were not liable to pay land tax in respect of so much of the railway and works as was situated under the lands which had been exonerated from the tax before the construction of the railway, but that they wer« liable to pay the tax in respect of so much of the railway, etc., as was situated under any lands not so exonerated, and ^at wher* the tax had been redeemed in respect of lands or houses abutting on th« public street or highway the exoneration did not extend to th« middle line of th« street or highway. His lordship in the circumstances made no ordor as to costs. From this dacisioin th« company now appealed. Their lordships, by a majority of th« osurt (Lord Justic« Farwell dissenting), held that th« learned judge was wrong in holding that where the land tax had been redeemed in respect of lauds or houses. theatrical company known a* the 'ITioopien Syndi- ! of the great German banks,” Carpenter said. “They cat« (Limited), he asked Mr. Clcry for the loan of lend on railways and everything you can think of. £200, Eventually £162 was lent by the plaintiff to , They sbeolutely onoourage «very sort of business. the defendant, aad it was understood that he was to be repaid out of the profits of a circua enterprise in which the syndicst« was int«restod. The enterprise, however, proved a failure, aad the plaintiff did not preés for repaymant until s considerable time afterwards, but the loan was denied by th« defendant. At the time of th« loan the plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt. His lordship.—When a man is an iuidiachaic«d bankrupt it generally means that h« has pl«nty «Í money (laughter). The plaintiff.—I had pkmty of mon«y. His lordship.—Probably th« only people who bad not any naoney at that time were your ereditors (laughter). The witness, q-aestioned as to has bankruptcy, «aid thflyt at tho time bis liabilities were about £1100 and his assets £15,000. His lordsihip.—Then yoa wera act a bantkxtipt at all. You were getting on to b« a millionaire (laughter). The witness.—So I thought; bnt ü wss not realised. Counsel.—Who estimated your sasets st £15,000?— A very clcver artist. I should think h« must hav« been?—Sorexal artists, including Dudley Hardy, made estimates. What were the a*«rts?—A colloctioo of picture*. I was told the easiest way to force a snJe of th« pictures was to become a bankrupt, but it was not so (laughter). The wiin«ss further stated that the painter of his oollection of pictures was a celebrated artist, who had been commissioned to paint Mr. Gladstone’s portrait for the Reform Club. His lordship.—It docs not matter what paisting« they have in the Reform Club. They have got very many funny things there (laughter). Mr. Crawford, for the diefcndanit, said his case was that his client had from time to time mad« loans of soms of aioney to tho plaintiff, and that the cheque for £162 made out by the plaintiff was not in recpect of a loan to th« defendant, but in payment of c-ums due to Mr. Laurillard. Hia lordship gav« judgment* for the defendaat, with costs. abutting on the public street or highway the exoneration did not extend to the middle line of the street or highway. The appeal was, therefore, allowed, with costs. Mr. Macmorran, E.C., and Mr. Konstam (instructed by Messrs. Ashurst, Morris, Crisp, and Co.) appeared for the appellants; and Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., Mr. Micklem, K.C., and Mr. Bremner (instructed by Messrs. Harratt and Pollock) for the respoad«nta. Divorce Division, A WIFE’S CONFESSION. The President, Sir Samuel Evans, heard tha undefended petition of Mr. James Gilman, engineer and oil refiner, residing at Shepperton, who asked to have his marriage dissolved on the ground of the misconduct of his wife, Maigaret Violet Gilman, with tho co-respondent, Mr. Richard Anstruther. Mr. Le Bas, for the petitioner, said that th« marriage took place at th« Eastboumo R^istry Offic«, another ceremony following lat«r at St. Mary Abbot’s, Kensington. In November, ISIO, thera was a separation. Mrs. Gilman, said cotmsel, had an income of her own of £400 or £500 a year. Ultimately there were attempts by relations at a reconciliation, and it was agread there should be a temporary separation with hopes of a reconciliation. On April 14 last, however, th« petitioner recoivad a lett«r from his wifo saying:— Dear Jim,—I have received your letter, and, , although I am sorry to woimd and hurt yon, I feel I must at one« tell you that I cannot r«tum to you ever. . . . After we separated last Da-combej- 1 met a man (how and under what orajm-stances I do not propose to tell you) who hss been simply everything to ma. We are quite determined to remain together—married if you will divorce me, unmarried if you will not. Evidence was called to prore the misconduct, and a doer«« nisi was granted, with custody «f tha child. CONTEMPl' OF COURT. Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane heard an application for the rekase from prison of Mr. Gordon Tracy Oarkson, who on May 31 was committed for contempt of court after having given an undertaking that he would not molest his wif«, Mre. Muriel Clarkson, who resides at Pembridge-garden«, Bay»-water. ‘ The incident was a sequel. to nullity proceedings, in which Mr. Clarkson was the rBspondent, Mr. Willis, for Mrs. Clarkson, said that at present he h^ nothing to say against tha release of Mr. Clarkson. He had no objection to his beings released on his undertaking not to molest his wife again. His lordship.—^He has learned his lesson, and h« will probobly not annoy his wife again. Let him be t«lea«ed at onoe. He will have to pay tha costs. Forty-four decrees niti wars aad« absolute by the president (Sir S. Evans). Court of Criminal Anryeal, SYME’S appeal dismissed. Judgment was given by th« Lord Chief Justice and Justices Pickford aud Avory in the appeal by ex-Police-inspector John Syme, who at th« Central Criminal Court before Mr. Justice Darling was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for sending to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P., a letter threatening to kill Polioe-inspector Reed. The Lord Chief Justice, giving th« decision of th« court, said the jury did not reply directly to the questions which had been put to them by the learned judge, but found:— We are of opinion that the defendant wrot« the letter of July 13 with the object of pressing Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and his friends to support his claim against the Home Secretary and the police authorities; and we are further of opinion rhat he did not intend to murder Reed, and that the threat was bluff in order to call attention to his grievances. It waa contended on behalf of the appellant th^t this finding did not amount to a verdict of guilty as tho jwy did not find that the letter threatenv.<d to kill Mr. llccd, and that tho finding amounted to a finding that the appellant had not acted nsli-ciously. In the opinion of the court the finding of the jury did not admit of th« ihterpretation put upon it on behalf of the appellant. Aa to the [»oint whether the finding of the jury negatived malice, it amounted to a finding that tho appellant had acted maliciously within the meaning of tho direction given by the judge. The court was, therefore of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and the conviction affirmed. Tho sentence would run from the date cf conviction. fCing*s . Bench Division. FIRE CLAIM RESISTED. The hearing wss resumed befors Mr. Justic« Hamilton and a special jury of th« action brought by Mr. Sala Arbus, a Polish Jew, carrying on business as a photographer, against Mr. C. E. Heath, underwriter at Lloyd’s, to recover his proportion of the sum of £3000, the amount covered by firs iasur-aaca policies effected by the plaintiff on th« stock-in-trade, etc., at his business premise*, Friar-straet, Reading. The plaintiff’s case was thsfc on th* evea-ing of January 10 last a fir« brok« out at his premises, destroying 37,000 odd negatives, two oil paintings—one of a lady and th« othor of a Dr. Holden—and other articles, for which h« was claiming against the defendant and others £3000. Mr. Bailhache, K.C., and Mr. Austin Farleigh (instructed by Messrs. Ralph Raphael and Co.) appeared for the plaintiff; whilo Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. A. H. Chaytor (instructed by Messrs. Coward, Hawksley, and Co.) represented tk« defea-dant. The plaintiff, ia re-examination by Mr. Bailbach«, said that th« telegram containing th« words “ Business well sold,” which he sent to hu brother st Lodz, in Poland, shortly sfter the fire, had referemce to th« sale of a rag business in Poland iu which ho waa jointly interested with his brother. H« thought that th« sum which his brot}ier had secured for the business was a fair one. His brother was not interested in tho business at Reading. A fire had occurred at another brother’s premisos at Richmond, but the witness had ao interest in that business. Th« gross takings of th« Roading business wero about £1000 a year. Mr. Gill, ia opaniag the ease for the defeadant, submitted that the plaintiff was responsible for the fire that occurred on his premises, snd that the claim hs had put forwaird was a fraudulent one. The plaintiff was the last person to leave the promises, and soon after he had gone it was disooverod that th« place was burning like a furnace. Several witnesses were called for the defeaos, sod th« hearing was adjourned. Central Criminal Court. and make huge profits out of it. Who odviccd you to value th^ gold claims at £200,000?—“Mys-lf,” waa the reply. “One claim aJona is worth anything from £10,000 to £50,000 if thcrs is gold on it.” Do you know the trustees hav« abandoned every one of tbom?—I am sorry to say I do. Thi hearing wes adjourned. CHARGE OP MURDER. (Dov«r.—Befors a Bench.) Gaeige William Parker, aged 23, was charged with the wilful murder of Mary Elizabeth Spiller, aged 26, by cutting her throat with a razor. A Mrs. Cripps, who livca in the sama house, said that tha accuscd cams home on Saturday «vening and called the young woman upstairs. Soon after the witness heard a «ms«thing of glass, and when she entered the room in which th« accused was he held up a razor and said: “This is what 1 did it with, and you ought to b« served the same.” At the same moment Spiller, covered with blood and with her throat out, rushed past, saying: “He’s dona it. Look after my children.” The witness followed, and the woman diod ia her arms ia the stre«t. The accused was romandtd for a week. EXIENSIVE FOKGEUY CHARGES. (Before the Common Serjeant.) The trial was continued of Robert Hopwood Pcrcy Hutchinson, 58, no occupation, oa charges of forging a request for the delivery of a cheque-book, forging cheques to the amouat of £^500, and certain letters of advic«. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the chargea, and was defended by Mr. George Elliott, K.C., and Mr. Fulton, while Mr. D. R. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted. The defendant, continuing his evidence, said that, prior to 1908, he received an annuity of £1200 from th« Green Booth Mills in the North of England, but in October of that year his incom« from that source oeased. " Mr, McKenzia ” (a man, now dead, to whom he had entrusted his affairs) becam« acquainted with thia fact and offered to buy tho residue of his interest in the Novelty Car Syndicate for £300. It was not until after he had been arrested on thia charge that h« became acquainted with Mr, McKenzie’s past. In June, 1909, McKenzi« told him he would take ever all th« financial work of the Budget Protest League, aad the witness gave him the letters and cheques ia their original eavelopes as they w«re received. With regard to the charge of forging tho aignaturs of Mr. Guy Paget to a request for a cheque-book on August 6, 1909, the defendant denied that he was at Elastboume on that date. On the eveniag before that the Budget Protest League was inaugurated at a meeting ia his own village of Husbands Bosworth. The Common Serjeaat wanted to knew who oeca» pied the chair at the meeting. The defendant said ha was hazy sn that point, Cross-examined as to McKenzie, he admitted h« could not produce any one who had ever seen th« man, as those who had seen him wer« desd. Tbs hearing waa adjourned. LONG FIRM FRAUD SENTENCES. (Befor« Judg« Bentoul.) Th« trial was concluded of Harry Eton«, 42, traveller, Frederick Brooks, 37, journalist, and Mark Sidney Gage, 37, dealer, on charges of conspiracy together to obtain goods by means of false pretences. Hans Muller, 28, who was chaiged at the police coxirt with th« other three, had absooaded from his bail. Brooks and Ston« were found guilty and Gage not guilty. Gage was discharged; Brooks was sentenced to five years* penal servitud« and Stone to three years’. Brooks’s wif« fainted, and had to be carried out of court. Police Courts, AUTHOR’S ABORT ITE CLAIM. An action brought before Mr. Jtutice Lawrance by Mr. W^illiam Edward Clory, known as an author under the name ol Austin Friars, of Eastboumo-tcrraoe, Hydo Park, was to recover £162 which he sllcged he had lent to the defendant, Mr. £dwaid Laurillard, Hanover-square. The defendant) denied that he had recoivod such a loan from the plaintiff. Mr, Eapadia (instructed by Mr. H, Coulson) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Crawford (instructed by Messrs. J. G. Edwards and Co.) for the defendant. Mr. Kopadia, for the plaint'ff, said that in Angnst, 1907, when the d«foiMiuit vu Um maniger of » SQUABBLE ABOUT AN ELEPHANT. (Lambeth.—Before Mr. Baggallay.) An elephant figured prominently in a case when Frederick Attilla, a trainer, was charged with aasaultr-ing Leo Walker. The prosecutor said that ho was in the service of Mr. Cross as the manager of the Winter Gardens at Southport. On Saturday he came to London with Mr, Rogers, manager to Sir Cross, with authority to demand tho return of an elephant which the defendant's employer was alleged to be detaining. They waited outside a stable until, on Sunday afternoon, the elephant was brought out. Ho then seized the elephant. The defendant thereupon jumped on his back, struggled with him, snd kicked him on the ankle. The magistrate (to the solicitor).—Do yon say it was the duty of the defendant to stand by whila the elephant was taken? Mr. Armstrong.—Well, he had no right to keep the elephant, because, in the first place, the agreo-ment had expired. Now they hav« smuggled th« elephant over to Crouch End. The magistrate.—^How do you smuggle sn elephant? (laughter). What was the elephant doing all the time? Mr. Armstrong.—1 understand the elephant took no part in the struggle, sir (laughter). The magistrate.—If a man goes to seize property from people in the street he must take the consequences. This man (the defendant) is merely acting as the servant of tho man who has got charge of the animal, and is defending it against two persons who try to seize it. The charge is dismissed. CHARING CROSS BANE. (Bow-street.—Before Mr. Curtis Bennett.) The crosD-examination of Alfred William Carpenter, founder and proprietor of the Charing Cross Bank, who is charged with obtaining money and credit by false pretences, was continued. Tha accused was questioned about his gold estates in South Africa, the value of which, it is alleged, he originally placed at £25,000, and eighteen months later estimated at £200,000. fie ssid that in 1908 ha abandoned 400 or 500 out of the 1200 or 1300 claims which ha held, because he wished to devote tho whole of his energy to completing tha Gaspé Bailway. Th« claims cost only th« amount of th« rent—5s. a month cach. Mr. Bodkin,—Can you mention any other form of property whidi is more speculative than a gold mino?—Carpenter; No, and 1 know of few things more profitable. “1 WM «onductim sqr bttriaoM oa tlto BOY SHOT IN THE STREET. (Clerkenwell,—Before Mr, D’Eynoonrt.) William Pye, sged 19, labourer, of Rochester-place, Camden Town, was charged with wounding Herbert Butler, aged 13, by shooting him with a pistol at Rochester-place. Tha boy is ia hospital suffering from a wound in the head. Evideace of arrest was given by Detectiv©-sergeant Stewart, who said that the accused appeared to have been with the injured lad and other boys, and suddenly said that he would make them run. He fired the pistol at them. On Thursday last, it was stated, ho shot at a girl, and there was some reason for believing that he had previously fired at a woman in the street. He was of a very sullen disposition, and his mental ooaditioa seemed curiou*. Th« youth was remanded. NOT AMENABLE TO LAW. (Marylebone.—Before Mr. Paul Taylor.) Arrested ou Sunday night at the Marble Arch, Horatio Bernard Flanders, aged 25, described as a labourer, of Fortrea«-road, Kentish Town, appeared oa a charge of unlawfully cbstructiag th* footway by selling psmphlots. Coastable Harris stated thst about 10.20 th« pr«-vioxu laight the accused and another man wer« displaying a largo yellow placard bearing the iascrip-tioa “ Th« Herald of Revolt ” ouuid« th« gates of Hyde Park, aad selling pamphlets. The sccused thrust th« pamphlets into people’s facos, a crowd gathered, and *s h* refused t^ go away he was arrested. The scoused denied that he caused obstrection and said it was customary for every organisation that held meetings in the park to wll literature outside tho gates. Their propaganda was one that depended for it* succes* on the sal« of literacor*, and for the sake of th« csuse which they had at heart they thought they were justified even la going against a law which was claa*-mad.e, la «rd«r to sprted their ideas. 'rhe uaagistraio.—That is vary iat«restiag. Do you mean to teU me you do not think yoursell amemabie to law ?—!No, certainly not. Th« magistrate observed that the dasse* who mad« th« laws nowadays wer« th« working classes. “ Surely,” h« said, “ you hav« the good ssaso to kaow that?” Th« accused.—No; I have ths good sexM to d«ay that. W« are Vh« victims of clasa law aad claas rul«, and W« doa’t fear punishment in_ order to batter some of thia hyprocrisy down. The magistrate said that he regr«tt«d, after what the accused had said, that he could aot gratify him by fimng him, and bound him ov«r to k««p ths peace for six moaths. HOMELESS BUT RICH. (Feltham.—Befor« a Bench.) In tho posscssioa of a homoloss married woman charged with «xpoäiag her childrea in such a maaner as to cause th<jm ttnuecessary suffering, th« police stated that they fouad £il in gold, £1 17a. 6d. ua silver, 4id. ia broaze, and a Post Office Savisgs Bank book showing £17 19s. 5d. to her credit. The woman said that when she wa* turned out of hor house three day* previously she tried to get a.aother place, but failed. The Beach remanded her for a week. CONTRADICTORY EYIDENCE. (Marylebone.—Before Mr. Paul Taylor.) Stewart, Gray, aged 50, described as a poace missionary, and tho president of the World's Peace Mission, of 46, Notting-hill-gate, W., was charged with assaulting Police-constablo Lapworth. llie accused had been a witness ia a case heard earlier in the day, and the iacideat occurred sooa after the case had been dispoeed of. Ho appeared ia court wearing a green blouse, mauve scarf, chain of beads, and a rod cord round his head. Police-constable Lapworth stated that about 12.30 the accused was in the lobby of th« court, with several others, talking loudly, and creating a disturbance. The othors left when ho spoko to them, but the aocusod, who was sitting on a seat, jumped up and struck him a severe blow in tho ohwt, sending him “flying” across tho corridor. He wa* also very violent when arrested. Another polioe-oonstable corroborated. I'hrea witnesses wisre called for the defenc«, who stated that while they were in ths lobby ^ of the oourt the constable told them to “clear out,” saying “ It isn't a lodging house.” Mr. Gray replied that he had a note for his worship, but the ooilstable was “ most insulting,” and hustled him out, and “threw” him down the steps. They deaied that Mr. Gray assaulted the coastabl«, Mr. Grsy also gave evideace ia his own behalf, and described himself s* a writer of tho signet and a peace missioner, of the ** World’s Peace Centre.” He alleged that the eoasUble hustled him out of the court, and said that ho might have pushed up against the constable in going back to get his papers, but he emphatically denied that he assaulted him. Without ia any way impugniag the evidence of the constable, Mr. Paul Taylor decided that the case for the prosecution was not sufficiently strong, and the accused was therefore discharged. Th« magistrate sddod that he had known th« constabl« many years, and considered him an hoaourabi« and naost discreet ofiicer. TODAY’S LAW NOTICES. HOUSE or LOROS. At 3.O.—Committee {or PriTilesos. Coroners* Inquests. EDUCATION IN STREET PERILS. An inquest was held at Southwark Coroaer's Corurt on the body of Horace Lambert, aged 47, a plasterer, of Ti-afalgar-street, Walworth-rood, Southwark. On Wednesday evening he went out to buy a wedding cake for his daughter, who was to have been married ou Sunday. He was knocked down by an omnibus as ho stepp^ off the kerb in Walworth-road. Tha jury retrtimod a verdict of accidental death, due to a little apathy on the part of Lambert himself. The driver wa* exonerated from all blame. Th« jury added that they thought children might be told in the schools the best way to avoid accidents ia the street. “ It would mean more public money, bnt it might save sonoa lives,” said the foreman. DROWNED IN THE SERPENTINE. Mr. J. Troutbeck held an inquest with refereoce to the death of William Stanley Price, of Swansea, a clerk, aged 21, who was drowned whilst boating in the Sexpentine last Friday afternoon. His hat blew off, and in reaching for it he capsized the boat. No similar accident has occurred on the Serpentine for twelve years. A verdirt of accidental death waa returned. FATHER’S LIFE FOR A CHILD. How a father lost his life in trying to save a child from danger was told at a Lambeth inquest on James Whelan, a house decorator, recently livir.g at Boumemouth-road, Peckham. The deceased’s four-year-old little boy, it was stated, had climbed on to a roof and refused to come down, whereupon the father went up to save him from falling. Having climbed on to a fence, Whelan caught hold of some brickwork, which gave way, with the result that he fell and fractured his arm. Lockjaw developed, and he died on Sunday just as an operation was about to be performed. The jury, in returning a verdict of accidental death, expressed sympathy with the widow. _________________ UNDERGROUND DWELLINGS. The illegal oocupation of 471 underground rooms as dwellings is recorded in tha aimual health report of the borough of St. Pancras. Many inspections and re-inspections, after the «ervii^ of closing notice*, had been made, but the register showed thi* aum-ber at the close of the year. Time is allowed to the occupants of then rooms to find rooma elsewhere, ai>d during the time a!low<ed the illegally occupied rooms ar« kept under observation, and the number vacated or otherwise occupied ascertained and reported. The house* in which these dwellings ar« found are added |e th« register of zegictered tea*-BMt houwk JTDK7IAL OOMMITTEE OF TUB PRl^ COUNCIL, Whlt«)iall.—At lO.iO.^udgment.—Th« City of VMooOfer v The VanwDTer Lumber Co;iip*ay and another. Appeal.—Th« Grand Truhk Pacific Rsilway Companj t The Landowner« Fronting on Emp:re-»Tcnao aoid McKcllar or Haxdisty-*treet, Fort \Viili*m, aod other*. 8UPREMC COURT OP JUDICATURE. Tha Court of Appeal, appeal COÜHT 11.—Before the jiasier of th* Rolls, Lord Jubtico F*rwell, and Lord Justice Kennedy.—At 10.30.— AppeaU.—From the King’s Bench Diriiion.—(Final Liat).— Lccd« Corpor*tion and another » Sngdea (Surveyor of Tazet), part heard (Ü6>—The LaiiAtoa Monotype Oorpofiition (Ltd.) v Acderso; (Hurreyor of I'axfif) (34j—Brown t Burt (Surveyor of ïuxcs) (OJ)    • APPEAL COUUT 1.—Before Lord Jn»tice Vanfhan lUms, Lord Justice . Ictclier Moulton, and Lord Jnstic* Buckley—At lU.jO —Appeiii».—From tho K»us's Beuch OiTi-sin.n. -(Filial aod Mew '1tj»1 List.)—Curtw » liottom.ey, part ¡102). King's Bench Division (Interlocutory Li»t).— VV'alther v the Marlborough Theatre. London (Lid.) (7). HIQM COU’ÏT Of JUSTICE. Chancery Oiviaion LORD CHA-NCjii^LOK’8 COL'ET.—Betors Mr, Jnatlcs Joytj .—At 1U.OÜ.—lor    (wan rtitnec*oä): i>nioa V .-iUiiilisid, part beard (63>—A. M. Peebles aiKl äon, Ltd., v Bowi»uu!>uu :b41. OilAM!KHY COURT I.-B«fope Mr. Justice Swinfan Eady.—At lU.30.—Causes for IVial (with Witnessoi): I'he Tiiuimai Synuicate, Ltd.. t Sihcaware, Ltd., p.^rt beard (20)—Oopc T Uènuett, part heard (•♦■4). At 3.30.—Com-uauies (Vvindin*-Up).—Chamber aummona: E« the'Oryatal Palace Oo. (1-oi v th« Compauy). CHANCt,KY COURT II.—Before Mr. Justice Warrinf-tou.—At 10.30.—Adjourned bummoruic«.—Re W. L. Cooke, dec—ra Sciiied Laud Act (Locin-ood r Lockwood) ipart li. _.vij    .u .il>-    ot Ai.sOi,l-l. oil ,! 11« North Caepiau Syndicate (Limited)—the North Caspian Syn-I' ùcji.vcbei auu otJi-;!'» iOj)—In lue JUa^vex of tha Trusts of tha Wuj of Sir Walter Jscott, dec—Scott r .''cott (t^Oii—He ifoDCTl Parkin, dec. (Hoggartn t Pa:l(in) (52)—Bo Jacob Mchollß, dec. (Nicholls t Beat) (53)—R« Nicholas Kendall, an infant (54)-tne Prudential Assurant» Co (LimiiÆo* V'the Bombay, Uaroda, and Central India Railway Co. (55)—He Adama, dec. iDrawbruige v Scripture Gift Mission) (56). OUANOERy OOUJtT lll.-Before Mr. Jaetice NerUle.— At 10.15.—Companies (Wiudiu* up) and Chancery DiTiaion.— Comp:inies (Wiiumiii up).—Petitiona (unopposed first) : Camden Uiewory Cj Ltd (petition of 'iuruer, tiyme, aud Co) (6)— Same (petition of 8. J. Garrett and Cb) (V).—Mersea and Di»-tiii I uas Co Ltd ipetitioii of J. A. Dradn and others) |9)— Afloctite Ctliuloid r.ynd;cate Ltd (petition of F. E. Macfad-yen) (42)—Palate Ei©ctrio Theatres Ltu li>etition of H. 8. Wliitcher) (45)—New London Ltd (petition of Franco-Britiah Elcr:Uicval Co Ltd) i41>. City ot Moute video Public >VoiK» Coi'i>or*tioD Lid (H, M. Nowell) (63)—Pall Mall Land and Fiiuinte CDrporiition (petition of F. J. Snmmors) (54)—AUjer-non Press Ltd (petition of Waterlow Brothers and Layton Ltdl (5b)—Acoustic I’aleiitJi Ltd (pctiiioa oi siemens Bros and Co Ltd) (56)—Alotiojiohtau Auto-cab Co Ltd (petition of the Com paiiy) (67). Ghancci? Division.-Petitions (to confirm reduction of capital). Silver Sprin* Bicwery Ltd and reduced (5) —F Drake aud Co Ltd and reduced (6)—Austins Ltd and reduced (7)—Copthall Store« Ltd and reduced (8)—Bushey Hydrolherap?utic Co Ltd and reduced (9). Petitions to sanction sciiemo ot arrangement, and confirm reduction of capital) Grimsby Union Sleam Fishin* Co Ltd and rcduced (1)—Diamond Exploration and Finance Syndicate Ltd ami reduced (21. Petition (to sanction Scheme ot Arrangement)—Monitor and Ajax 'Traction. Ltd »pétition of A. G. Sellon and Others) (5).—Petitiou (to sanction Variation of Scheme of Arraiiijcmentl- Lo i ion an'i ,S^rt'i\^e^i Ain. ti.ai. on-gage Ob. LUl (petition of the Company) (1).—Action for Trial — .Short Cause—Jl.d-Oxfordsiiire Ga* Light and Coke Co, Ltd (Burrows and Ot;.>ers r Mid-Oxfordshire Gas Light and Coke Co. Ltd and Another) (motion for judgment) |7).—Companies iWiiiding up)—Motions—Wright Rebuilt Tyjwwnter Co. Jytd (for leave to issue writ of attachment) (3)—Bexley Heath Coal Co, Lt<l (for pigment into Companies Liquidation Account) i4)—Thomas Rees and Co (Cardiff), Ltd (for co.TimitUi. to prison) loi—Couipanle- iwiudini i;pi -Ooui t .■snm-monses—Blrkbeck Permauent Benefit Building Society lOn clasiies of claimants—part heard) (9)—Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Sociut.y Ltd (on claim of Wishart and San-derbon) (10).—At the Rising of the Conrt—In Court (aa Wiambers)—Co.npanioa (Wl.^diDg up)—Chamber Summons— Wolverhampton Empire Palace Co. Ltd (aa to tranai'er) (5). CHANCER Ï COURT IV —Bcforo Mr. Justice Parker.— At 10.30.—Cause for Trial.—With witnesses,—W’cbb t Baldwin and othe:s (part heard) (67), KING S BENCH COURT l.-Before Mr. Jnatice Eve.—At 10.30.—To    be mentioned.—Re Jamca Dilks, deceased (Aina-wortb » Birkett) Short Causes.—Macwrcgor v Rudocck— orbcrt » Hughes. IVtitions (Unopposed first).—Re the Con-■oUdated Mines Selection C.,, Ltd and Rwluced—D'Arcy V Wliittaker—Green » Gitîen—Re Smith (Arthur v Smith)—Ro t.ho Angl(vAmerican Assets Co, Ltd and Reduced. Further consideration.—Smart v Nolson Cause for Trial (by Order). —With Witae.^i«s.—Attorney-ueneral r Bradford Corporation (part heard) Adjourn id Summons.-Re Walton Turner, decea»“J (Brooksbank v Turner) (part heard) (18). Cause for Trial (by Order).—WitJi witnesses.—Becker t Earl*« Court, Ltd-At 4.—Further ooi>side *tion.—Whitated v Whitated (part heard). OFFICIAL REFEREES.—OOURT N«. L—R.C.J.. No. 195 —Before Mr. Ven.y.—.Standajd Steel Co » Robinaan. Will bo first in the Paper for hearin* on Wednetday. ASSIZE COURTS. MANCHESTER.—Befor» Mt. Pollock. —At 10.30.—Parkyn v Oidroyd. COUUT No. III.-R.C.J., No. 305.—Beior* Mr. M«jlr Mackenzie.—At 10.30.—Minier v Waldstein. part heard. KIne’a Bench Oiviaioti. LORD CHIEF JUSTICES <X>URT.-DiTislon*l Conrt.— Before the Lord Chief Jubtica of England, Mr, Juitice Law-ranee, and Mr Justice Dari.ng.—At hj.30.-Ex-parte Motion«. —MoUona: Jamieson v Biichof (extension of time)—The Municipal Elections (Corrupt aud Illegal Practices) Act 188**, in tho matter of the Election of Sheriffs lor the City of London —.\ppiication of George Briggs for relief Ciowu Paper; StÄuumg Joint Commutea ot Quarter Sessions and the Lon don County Council v London County Council (spe-.ial cane atated under Sec. 29, fjocal Govt. Act 1888 (April 2o) (47)— L» I naia.,ti< ai Commlis.oiicr;, v {'■igo aad otner* .uuarter ßefaion» Compenration Authority) |2)—Tiiomaa Ltd ▼ Uou^rhton (Aiagistraica case conviction under Food and Drills Acts, iodJi (.March 8) (14)—Bolton t Everett (Magistrales case conviction under Bye-Law) (March td) (21)—Tho King V Commissioner of .Metropolitan Police niai for mandamus to grant cab licence (ex paite tioiioway) (by ord.r) (3bj—In liic ilattcr of a Mnsicil Fieci’ entit'ed “ York ■ Bells ■■ and in the Matter of the Copyright Act. 1842 (motion by Eîdvrin Ashdown Ltd to vary entry In register ••■..-»tionors <.'>1    -.•Jiicc.i i-uUfi/ Cun... v l i ei »gistrates cafe, lummon* under Finance Act. 1910. .-lifduls V. Part II.) (Fobruary 16) (13)—The King t Walton Eiij., and others, Jj.. etc., nisi for certiorari for conviction (ox parte S. Uutton—de H. G. Dutton) (15)—The King T Same 'ex parto Same~de C. Dutton) (16)—Stewart aud others v Lidsur (Mag.strates case, information under Groat Western Railway Act, 1880) (March 29) (18). KINGS Bl:;.\Cii CUUi.'.T IV —Beioie Mr. .Justioa Chan-ne’il.—At 11 ü.—Sptcial Paper. The Earl of Carlisle t Northumberland County Council (by order). KING'S BENCH COURT VU.—Sittings in Bankmptcy.-Bcfore Mr. Justice PhiLimor«.—At 10.oO.—Motions: Ro Barnett Kooky, ex parte Harry Wiiaon, TrusU-e, v Morris« Sckalsky (11), part heard—Ro J. Brandstat«r, ex parte F. W. Davis. Trustoo, v Loah Brandstater (12), part heard—Re W. H. Tnompsou, ex parte F. S. Salaman, Trustee, t Emily Marab Tliompson and George Emmerson ii5)-Re H. R. Jones, ex parto W. G. Goatly. Trustee, t Lawrence Robert Dicksoo (16i—R« R. B. Jane (tradin* as.W. Caudery and Co), ex pai'to F. J. Voung, 'rrustee. v W. J. U. James and Blügden, Waugh, »nd Co (17). KING’S DENOn COURT VII.—Before Mr. Juetice PbUli-more.—^Not brfore ' 2.—For Further Kearing.—Armorduct Manufacturing Oo (Ltd) v The GeneraJ Incandescent Co. (Ltd) (285). KLNG S Bir^OH COURT Vlll—Before Mr. Justice Pickford.—At 10.30.—For Further Consideration.—Millar v Roura. KING’S BENCH COURT IX.-Before Mr. Justice HamU-ton At 10 15.—Commercial bummor^oa.—Attended by CVmnsel.—Stabilimenti v Lewia-^-Same v Tuck—Denaby Col-liunes T Lambert—Uall v liayman—Birkmyro t Carr.— Not Attended by Counsel.—Ilatding v Lester.—Not before 10.30.—Commercial    List.—Arbna v U««th (with City of London apecial Jury), part heard (ieo2)—Same v Commercial Union Assurance Co. (ditto) (Itiji)—Same r Diamond (dittol (1854)—Floar r San Life Aasuranoe Co. of Canada and another (ditto) (2031). KING'S BENCH JUDGES CHAMBERS.-Mr. Jnrtio* Avory wiU ait i. Chamber» at 10.30 for the dispoaal of twelve cas«6 attended by coutisei and *t 12 for five caae* not attended by counsel .MAS'l'ERi} SITTING AT THE ROYAL CX)URTS OP JUoTICE.—Masters Wilberforce Archiba.d. Chitty, Day, Bo niicr, Granvil;« Smith, and Lawfoid. MASTERS OF THE CROVTS OFFICE SriTING.—Maiter Mellor and .Master Coiendje. CiLVNCERY REGiSTRARS.—The following Retistrar« will bo in attendance: On Appeal Court U. Mr. Regiatrar Borror. on Mr. Justice Joyce Mr. Registrar Bloxam, on Mr. Justice Swinfen Kad^ Mr Registrar Bea.1, on Mr. Justice Warrington Mr. Ret,’istrar Synge, on Mr. Justice Neville Mr. Registrar Farmer, on Mr. Justice Parker Mr. Registrar Cnuicn, un Mr Justice Eve Mr. itegistrar GiesweU. Probate Oivcrco, and Xdmlralty Olvialon. OOURT J.—Before the Right Hon. Sir Samacl Ev*aa, Preside.-it.-At 10.15.—P. James v James lAttomcy-General cited), for jud«mont. Common Jnries.—HD, Hanson v Han-ton. Mason, inorpe. and Call, part heard—'HU. CHilton v Ciifiou and Prichard. COURT II.—Before Mr. Jntticc Hargrave Deane.—At 10.30. _4<lmiralty (Witn Trinity Masters).—Actions for Trial with Witnesses: Tho Ra^nuild (I'he Great Northern Stoasuhip Ftbhing Co, Ltd, and Others v Owners of steamship Itagnhild and freight)—The Asama and Aviemoor (Owners of steamship Coiiathia v Owners oi aa. Asam* and i*. Aviemoor)— The Aviemoor (Owners of steamahip Ataa* v Owners at steamship Aviemoor). Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Bnildiincs, Carey-street. Lincoln's Inn. COURT U.—Befcro Mr. Registrar Linklator.—At 11.—D'j-charge«: H. S, Westcott—U. Ward—Public examinations: Major A. F. Salmon-W. A. Tinibrcll-F. W. West-J Wad-dington—S. A. Robins—C. EL Venablesr-J. Weinb«’^—R. F. Woiger. At 11.30.—Adjourned exammaiion: J. Smith—Public examlnatiofis: P. Winter—W. R. Shotter. IN CilAMlîiùRS.—Room 36.—Before Mr. Registrar Broog-im-At 11.15.-Aüjjurned application. Rule 192,—T Ofioper. At 11.30.—Adjourned petition—4 petitiona—3 ad- journed petitions—Petii ;oc—Adjourned Bankrup;cy Notice (mot.on)—Application, section 107—Adjourned petition. At 12.—3 t)CTÌi cins—5 atijoarnod petitions. OOMPA.\ It^ (WINUI.SG UP).—Bankmptcy-building«, London, W.C.—iBi-fore Mr. iiogi.>'irar Hood.—In Chambers—Room 48—At 11.—Ex part© Applications. At 11.15.—Victoria Motor Tyro .Manutarturing Uompany (Limited)—Law Guarantee 'I'rust ami Accidcnt Society (Limited) (2). At 11.30.-Agency Land ard Finance Oo. of Australia (Limited)—Yate« Haywood and (3o. v. The Rothcram Foundry Co. (Limited) At 12.—.'same.—Law Car and Genera! Insurance Cor'xvation (Limited) (2)—Keoblc Brothers (Limited). At 2.30.—Reliance Taxi Cab Co. (Ltd.) (examination of witnesses). Rcom 86.— 2.30 to 4.—Law Gnaiaiiteo Trust end Accident Society (Ltd.). Etoom 08.—At 11.45.—Sly Spink and Co. /Limitod) CHANCERY DIVISION.—Bankruptcy Bni.dings London. W.C.—Before Mr. Registiar Hood.—In Chambers.—iloom 48. —At 11.0.—Ex parte Application«. At 11.15.—New Souticrn Rubber Co. Ltd (In.vin v New Southern Rubber Co, Ltd). At 11.30.—McMurray's Royal Paper Mille, Ltd (Arthur » McMnrray’s Royal Paper Mills, L^)—Greenwich Cinema de Luxe, Ltd (Gray t British Cinema'de Luxe, Ltd)—Greenwich Cinema de Luxe, Ltd (Gray v Gteenwich Cinema de Lnxe, Ltd)—British Enterprise Insuranca Society, Ltd (Bcanmcnt v Pure Enamel Bath Co (1909), Ltd). At 12.0.—R. and J Pullman, Ltd—Mid-Oxfords)iire Gao Light and Coke Oo, Ltd (Beirnstein v Mid-Oxfordshire Gas Light and Coke Co, Ltd. and another^—Mca.su-es Bros., Ltd (Gilbert »nd another r Measuris Bros., Ltd).—Room 89.—At 2.30.—Mid-Oxfordshire Gas Light and Coke Co, Ltd (Beirnstein v Mid-Osfordshire Ga* L if’t ind Coke Co, Ltd rvrd another) MEETINGS OF CREDITORS IN BANKRUPTCY.—Befor« the Official Recpivers.-At Bankruptcy Buildings Carcy-»treet.—Room 53.—First Floor.—At 11.0.—New Meeting; G. P. R. Beaman. At 12.0.—Farther Adjourned Pint lil«et> ing: Sir E B. Lscoa. OFFICLAL RECEIVER—COMPANIES (WINDING-DP).— MwJting at 33, Car^-street, W'.C.—At 2.30.—Appointment to Settle the List of Contributories Resident in Europe: Pure Jamaica, Ltd. MAYORS COURT.—At 10.30.—Before the Recorder.-Jaa-hert v Grant and Co. part heard—Frankal r Kennedy— Thompson v The Occident and Orient. Ltd, and Mandelstam —Same v Mandaletam—The Portland and Weymouth Coaliru: Oo, Ltd. T I'he British Motor Boat Co. Before the Assistant Judge.—At 10.30.—Storror v Geo. Bowles, Nichol’s. and Oo, Ltd—The National Freehold Land an<l Building Society t Lovell—Annison v The Highbury Fur-niiiiiivg Co, Ltd—The British and C/o’.onial Manufactnring Co, ’,tvl, V Wineberg and Co—Same v Davidson—Williams t Gold-Itcin. OOMMnTEE ON PRIVATE BTI.LS.-Opposed BiUi.-Group H.—Local OoTemment Provisional Orders (No. 7). Tyocal Legislation Committee—Section A—Manchester Corporation (Lords). Group No. 5—North-E*ste«j Railway Bill (Lond^). Group 3—I,ocal Government Provisional Order« {No. 6). Group 6—Aberdare Urban District Council (Lords). Unoprooaed Bills.—Local Government Provisional Order* (No. 14)—Wcat(buT7 Eatato (Lords}—TTiomey Drain«(o (Lords). Standing Oommittee on Scotch Bills—to consider the Small Holdings (Scotland) Bill-’PB-egraph Consfcrnct^on Bill. Stand-iaS Committee B—to consider the Coal Mines Bill. Standins Oormnittee C—to cflnaider Labonrers (IreJsnd) Bill. Chairmen of Committees Room—Ipswrch Corporstion—Halifax Ccrpor*-tion—Wokins Urban Diatiict Ooancil (Basin«stoks Oual). LEGAL NOTICES. The foHowing legal notice« appear on pM« 1;-Oarl Heinrich Walter Wenge. otherwise Dr. Charlea H. Walter, deceased.—Notice to creditora.—Osborn and Otsbora. 2, Coteman-rtroet. EC.. soUcitors. Charlea Henry Bewan, deceaaed.—Notice to crediton.^ r. W. Morgan, 10. Wellini^n-place, Hastinn, aolicitors. Jane Master«, deceased.—Notice to creditors.-Hiod aad Thatcher. 11, Adam-street. Strand, W.C.. aolimton, Tha Right Hon. Bdric Frederick,,Lord Gifford. V.C—d»-eeaaed.—Notice to creditora.—Coward and Hawksley, Sons, ■od Cbaace, 30. Mincinc-Wne, £.C., aobcitora. Italian imparts during tbe fiirst six moatl» of the pnaeat v«ar amounted to £71,925,144, an inoreaae of £8,156,278 orer t2io«« of ihm coamfoniivg peood r'’"ifiiiwî!:r !î= H.B. Irviíxe “ The ‘ De Reszkc' Cigarettes are delightful to »moke«** Ot/R claim pf the superiority of De Reszke Cigarettes rests not upon our knowledge of their good qualities alone, but upon this knowledge supported by the experience of Actors, Operatic Singers, and others—men who are acknowledged to be connoisseurs—whose opinions collectively form an expression of approval the like of which has never been accorded to any other cigarette. Dc Reszke C IOA.R.ErrXElS I wo «»»"da- In one qualii.y only—the besL Tenor (Turldsh) - - 6/3 p«r 100 : 3/4 per 50; 1/9 per 25. American » • • 5/3 per 100; 2/8 per 50 ; 1/4 per 25. To be obtained wherever ^ood cigarcttes are sold, or post free from J. Millboff & Co., Ltd^ 17, Down Street, Piccadilly, London, W. M I D L A N D. COOK'S BANK HOLIDAY EXCURSIONS FROM ST. PANCRAS. Aui.    S »    ♦ „    4 ..    5 4    A 6 (nights) 5 H 1 n T Every WadMSdsy WEEK-END TICKETS issued Friday and Bsturday svsilsble for returning on following tiundaj, Mondsv, Tuesday, or Wednesday. Belfast anil North of Ireland..... DuMin, South and West of Irefauid . . - • All FarU of Scotland....... The Provlnoec, North of England, ««.••• Leloester, Nottingham. Uuics. and Yorks towns EOiNBURGH and flLASOOW (Daylight Lxcursion (Jorridor Restaurant Car Kxprpss) • Peak of Derbyshire, Isle of Man, Yorkshire Sp^ English Ukes, Blackpool, Uverpeel, Southport, A& •The bookinga to Blsckpool, Lytham, »t. Annea, and Fleetwood will be on Friday, August 4th, for 4, 9, 11, 16, or 18 days. Matloek Bath, Matlock, Resrsley, Bakewell (Resta» rant Car) • (Connecting drive te Hadden Hall and Ghatsworth Birmingham, Kettering, Bedfsrd, Luton, éc. Leicester, Nottingham, SheffloM. Ac. -Derby, Matlock Bath, Matlock, Rewsley (Reetaurant Car) . - • • • • • • ( Sltht-eeelng Tour to Chatsworth Heuee à Hadden Hall PROGRAMMES NOW READY. Apply to the MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, ST. FANCRAfi,orany MIDLAND TICKET OFFICB, or office of THOS, COOK & SON. DmiBT. W. BUY GRANET, General Manager. IS days 7 or 17 days 5, 6, or I days t to S days Serie days 5,S,10,1S,or17dayt i day 1 day, àù. è to S days Half-day SATURDAY to MONDAY TICKETS, sTsilsble to retora following Snndsy (sfter 6.0 a.m.), Mon-dsy, or Tuesdsy. TO UPWARDS OF SOO PLACES. SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA Regina investments offer to the Britisit investor sure and conservative profits. Regina u Growing Rapidly. Regina is the Capital of Saskatcliewan. CtmmunicaU leitit TRACKSELL ANDERSON & CO., REGINA SASKATCHEWAN, Reference: Bank of Ottswa, Regina. Saskatoon Pop, l»0S-e.06f.    Saskatoon Pop.. 1911—1S.0M. SASKATOON INVESTMENTS OFFER SPLENDID PROFITS TO INVESTORS. BRITISH CAPITAL IS INTERESTED LARGELY IN SASKATOON. li you want Revenue-bearing Gty Busine»» Property, Lots, Reaidentúi Lots or Acreage adjoining Saskatoon, write; B^ertuet: Ukioh Bakx, Sasiaiooii.    J, g, MERSMAN, Mr, Mersmw hss been in Saskatoon    Real t State Broker, thoroughly understands    SASKATCHEWAN. CAWASA. EDMONTON, CANADA. Speciai attention to invest-^ ments for Britisit Ciients. DT171?1?Qfm7 ALBERTA'S MOST BEAUTIFUL 1000-ACRE KI w CiiiJWI!|« SJOCK FARM, AN IDEAL HOME FOR AN ENGLISH GENTLEMAN. IVrite for full particulars : McNAMARA LIMITED, EDMONTON, CANADA.    _ VANCOUVER. BRITISH COLUMBIA. 6°/o GUARANTEED MORTGAGES 6 /o Write to oorLondoa Agent» tor fall partkulara Beal Estate tnrwimenta for onr clicnu hare returned opwsrds oi 23X per annum. We «»» 4o tke *anie for yoe.    _._i_ —. m .......tin M/vri* —Mr Wrtoh. 6eosr«I Manager, 1« now In England, and will persuiiuiiy aus-wwr sU enqnlrles or ne yro^eone NOTtr-nr. wsiomwwi»* cUeStg’by appointanent. Address c/o our Agent# as below. All cnquiriea checrfuUy answercsd. North-West Canadt Tnist Co., Ltd., 433«, Home St. Vancouver, B.C_ AgenU tor Great Britain >— DomiiiiMi of Canada Investment Agenti 9, BiSilOPSOATK. LONDOS, E.C. : CANADIAN HOTELS. OTTAWA. THE GRAND UNION SS" Canad.i. Centrally situated cppoi»lie City Hall an l L^lng Theiire. Rate« #2.00, $2.V), and, with baUi, ^3.00; Amerlc»» plan.—JAMES IC. PAISLKY, I'roprtetor. • -- TORONTO. THE QUEEN’S, Toronto. Celebrated ior Its Home ConiXorii', Perfect Quleu Atiendarice, nnd the Peculiar Ej^cellence of Iti Culw THE gUKEN’s Iws been pHlioni*ed by lUu.r nessps Prince Leopold and tha Princess Louise, Lome, Ixii cl und Lady Laii .lowne, Lord and Lady Lord and Lady Aberdeen, Lord and La.ly Min^ and families. 40o room», 12U eii suite with batli, long-w^^ irlenhone In every room ; e)«*ir<»ntlv /urnWied thros»*«-»’ cuL-iine and sen'lce of the higliwc order oi e.xceilec». Pleasantly situated near the Liika and l^uUfu^ 11 Ucool, quiet, and liomelike.—Mc(;A\\ <k WJNNLTT, GLENCOE LODGE, Comer of GEOKUlAand ÖÜRKARD STKJCK^VASW^R, BC Superior New Hoiel,recentlyinucli enlarged, stri^ytlrau cüm in every detail; eleganily rumlibed,and complete wlUi every comforC Aiiemoon teas served dally in the Palm il-'om. orchestra in attendance Rates: $3 to|6 per day.—Lessee, Mlai JiiAS MOLLISOX. of C.PJi^Lake Louise Cliatet, Laggao. WINNIPEG. BANFF (Alta.) THE ALBERTA HOTELn.'ärrfj;» aiiS?, 22^ ts. U. J. ilOXTGOMERY. B- A. MONTOOJrtST Right In the Heart of tite Citf. THE QUEEN’S, UoBt«oisei:y * ilontgomery, Proprietoni. American P»s «2.5«' a dav aud upwanl. tree bun. ___ VANCOiiVER British ColumlH»)» LETHBRIDGE. HOTEL ALEXANDRA. t«r day. AatomoUl« bas laoettaU trains, tflrst-cIsM Cat« Uto»». s. H. aüBBAI. nof. THE WOODS HOTEL. 100 ALL MODEKS ROOM?. . Installsd with the Vacuum .ystenu i^^S^Twiss DOtod. Ths hotel In centre of cit> and busln» ^pipriran pUO, iUlTOpeaU THE CLIFTON HOTEL, NIAGARA FALLS. CANADA The mo«t m««nilleenUy located Rewrt Hotel in the World. Face» both Falls of *1“ and comxDanda the only unobstructed view. Modem and up to date in every respecu AsmIm. n.., «4.00 „t 4*7    ^ ^ MUOVlta.«« ;