REG. v. Fox. Ex. CH.] re-entry? The notice to pay to the tenants would only be valid on the supposition that the defendants had done something to entitle them to receive the rents.] There was no contract between the parties; it was merely saying, "Pay us instead of Merton," and that was done to avoid the necessity of distraining; and for doing this it is sought to put a construction on the acts of the defendants, that they amount to a re-entry. [COCKBURN, C.J.-This would be a fit case for arrangement.] (The case stood over accordingly till November.) Nov. 30.-WILLIAMS, J.-In the case of Bishopy. The Trustees of the Bedford Charity, I will deliver the judgment of the court. At the close of the argument in this case, it was suggested that there was good reason to hope that it might be settled amicably, and for that reason the court abstained from giving judgment. We have been informed, however, that that hope is without any foundation, and we therefore now express the decision to which we had come. For the reasons given in the judgment of my brothers Wightman and Erle, we agree in thinking, looking at the facts of the case, that there is no evidence to show that the defendants, in law or in fact, had before or at the time of the accident in question avoided the lease, or entered on the possession or occupation of the premises; and, further, it does not appear that they have done anything to estop them from denying that they had. We are, therefore, of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and consequently the judgment must be affirmed. With reference to the inferences that are to be drawn, it may be observed on the true construction of the present Insolvent Act, the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, that a lease made to a person who afterwards seeks the benefit of the Insolvent Act remains vested in him until it is taken by the assignees or given up to the landlord. The opinion formerly entertained to the contrary, as in Doe v. Andrews, was founded on the fact of the assignment being by the deed of the insolvent himself; and can have no longer any application since the vesting order has been made the act of the court. In this respect there is not, now, any essential difference between the case of a bankrupt and that of an insolvent. [Ex. CH. councillor, or clerk of the peace of any borough, who shall act as clerk to such justices, or shall otherwise offend in the premises, shall forfeit 100l.: Held (affirming Coe v. Lawrence, 1 E. & B. 531), that the penalty of 1001. did not attach to a clerk to the borough justices (not being an alderman, councillor, or clerk of the peace of the borough) who acted in the prosecution of the offenders committed for trial by the borough justices : Held, nevertheless, that he was subject to an indictment for so acting contrary to the first proviso of the section. Error upon the judgment of the Court of Q.B. affirming a conviction upon the following indict ment: Monmouthshire, to wit.-The jurors for our lady the Queen upon their oath present, that the borough of Newport, in the county of Monmouth, is one of the boroughs named in the schedule (A) to the Act passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled "An Act to provide for the regulation of municipal corporations in England and Wales." And that heretofore, to wit, on the 17th day of Feb. in the year of our Lord 1836, a separate commission of the peace was granted to the said borough by his said late Majesty King William the Fourth pursuant to the said Act, and that no separate court of quarter sessions has at any time been granted to the said borough pursuant to the said Act. And the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that heretofore, to wit, on the 30th day of June 1845, and thenceforth continually until the time of exhibiting this bill of indictment, Charles Burton Fox was, and still is, the clerk to the justices of the said borough of Newport (he the said Charles B. Fox having been theretofore appointed such clerk by the justices of the said borough for the time being pursuant to the said Act). And the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that during all the time aforesaid the said Charles B. Fox was, and still is, an attorney-atlaw and a solicitor, and during all the time aforesaid was, and still is, the partner of one Charles Prothero in the business and profession of attorneys and solicitors, and that during all the time aforesaid, he the said Charles Prothero was, and still is, the clerk of the peace of the county of Monmouth, and by reason thereof during all the time aforesaid was, and still is, interested and employed in the prosecution of divers offenders, who during the time aforesaid were committed by the Indictment-Clerk to borough justices-Partner with justices of the said borough of Newport for trial at the clerk of the peace of the county-Interest in prose-court of general quarter sessions of the peace for cutions-56 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 102. Saturday, Nov. 26. REG. v. FOX. the said county of Monmouth, and who during the time A. and B. were in partnership as attorneys. A. was aforesaid, were tried at the said court, that is to say, clerk to the borough magistrates of N., and B. was by receiving as such clerk of the peace divers fees on clerk of the peace for the county of M., to the the arraignment and trial of the said offenders at the quarter sessions of which the borough justices of N. said court. And the jurors aforesaid upon their oath committed their prisoners for trial. A. and B. aforesaid, do further present, that during the time shared as partners the fees and emoluments of their aforesaid, to wit, on the 1st day of July 1856, and on respective offices; B., as clerk of the peace, was divers other days and times between that day and the entitled to certain fees upon the arraignment and time of exhibiting this bill of indictment, certain trial of prisoners. Certain persons were com-offenders were committed by the said justices of the mitted by the borough justices of N. to the quarter said borough for trial at the said court of quarter sessions sessions of M.; and on their arraignment and trial of the peace, and were tried at the said court, to wit, one B. received the said fees, in which A. participated as Thomas Hunter, &c., &c. (naming them). And the his partner. Upon an indictment against A. for anjurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further offence under sect. 102 of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, present, that the said Charles Prothero, as such clerk in being interested in the prosecution of offenders of the peace as aforesaid, did receive and take certain committed for trial by the justices for whom he was fees on the arraignment and trial of the said several clerk: last-mentioned offenders respectively; and the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid further present, that the said Charles B. Fox, as such partner of the said Charles Prothero as aforesaid, unlawfully was, while he was such clerk of the said justices as aforesaid, interested by his said partner the said Charles Prothero in the prosecution of the said several last-mentioned offenders, that is to say, by then being, as such partner of the Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Q.B.), that A. had committed an offence within the section. The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 102, provides that it shall not be lawful for the clerk to the justices of a borough to act in the prosecution of any offender committed for trial by the justices to whom he is clerk; and any person being an alderman, or Ex. CH.] REG. v. Fox. said Charles Prothero, entitled to share and sharing in the said fees so received and taken by him the said Charles Prothero as aforesaid, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, &c.. Upon the trial of the indictment, a verdict was taken by consent for the Crown, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case : The borough of Newport, in the county of Monmouth, is a corporate borough, having a separate commission of the peace, granted to it under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, but having no grant of a separate quarter sessions. Parties charged with offences before the borough justices are committed for trial at the assizes held at Monmouth, or at the general quarter sessions held in and for the said county at Usk. The defendant Mr. Fox is an attorney and solicitor, and has since the year 1845 carried on that profession at Newport in partnership with Mr. Charles Prothero. In June 1845 Mr. Fox was appointed clerk to the justices of the said borough of Newport, and has held and performed the duties of that office from that time to the present. In March 1848 Mr. Prothero was appointed clerk of the peace for the county of Monmouth, and he has held and performed the duties of that office from that time to the present. From the year 1851 Messrs. Prothero and Fox have shared between them the profits of the partnership business and the emoluments of the offices of clerk of the peace for the county of Monmouth, and clerk to the justices of the borough of Newport. Mr. Prothero, in the first instance, receiving the fees incident to the former, and Mr. Fox, in the first instance, receiving the fees incident to the latter office The fees payable to Mr. Prothero as clerk of the peace for the county are fixed by the justices under the provisions of the 57 Geo. 3, c. 91, and include, amongst others, a fee upon the arraignment and another fee upon the trial of each prisoner tried at the quarter sessions of the peace for the said county. On the 14th Aug. 1855 the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126, passed, and is intituled, "An Act for diminishing expense and delay in the administration of criminal justice." The 1st section of this Act empowers justices at petty sessions to punish summarily persons charged with certain offences, and the 3rd section authorises such justices to sentence forthwith persons charged at such petty sessions with certain offences, and pleading guilty to such charge. The fees and emoluments of the said C. Prothero, as clerk of the peace for the said county of Monmouth, were seriously diminished by the operation and effect of the last-mentioned Act, immediately after the passing thereof, and have not since that time amounted during any year to the annual amount thereof computed upon an average of five years immediately preceding the passing of that Act. In May 1857 Mr. Prothero, as clerk of the peace for the county of Monmouth, made under the provisions of the said Act, and upon the requisition of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, a return to the said commissioners (verified on oath) of the fees and emoluments in criminal prosecutions received by him as such clerk of the peace for each of the five years immediately preceding the said 14th Aug. 1855, the day of the passing of the said last-mentioned Act, and the annual amount of such fees, computed upon an average of the said five years, was 5401. 1s. 11d. At the same time Mr. Prothero, under the provisions of the said Act, and at the requisition of the said Lords Commissioners, made a return (similarly verified) of the fees and emoluments in criminal prosecutions received by him as such clerk of the peace as aforesaid during the year ending the 14th Aug. 1856, and these amounted to 3571. 15s. 2d. | [Ex. C. ence between the 3577. 158. 2d. and the said annual average amount received by him during the five years next before the passing of the said last-mentioned Act.. In Nov. 1857 Mr. Prothero made a return in the same manner of the fees and emoluments in criminal prosecutions received by him as such clerk of the peace as aforesaid for the year ending the 14th Aug. 1857, which amounted to 4467. 15s. 2d.; and in Jan. 1858 the Commissioners of the Treasury paid to Mr.Prothero 931. 6s. 9d., the difference between 446l. 158. 2d. and the said annual average amount received by him during the five years next before the passing of the said Act of Parliament. At the trial of the above indictment it was proved that between Michaelmas 1856 and the Epiphany sessions held at Usk, in the county of Monmouth, in Jan. 1857, persons, five in number, respectively charged with larceny, were committed by the borough justices of Newport for trial at the last-mentioned sessions upon four separate and distinct charges, and that upon the arraignment and trial of each of those persons at the said sessions certain fees were payable and were paid to the said C. Prothero as clerk of the peace of the county of Monmouth. The fees were the ordinary fees payable to the clerk of the peace according to the table of fees fixed by the justices as thereinbefore mentioned, and amounted in all the cases to the sum of 77. 1s. 8d. It was further proved that between January and March 1857 a certain other person, charged with larceny, was committed by the borough justices of Newport for trial at the Easter sessions of the peace, held at Usk aforesaid, in 1857; and that on the arraignment and trial of such last-mentioned person at those sessions, similar fees were payable and paid to the said C. Prothero, as clerk of the peace for the said county, amounting to the sum of 17. 10s. 8d. The whole of the above fees were included in the return made by the said C. Prothero to the Commissioners of the Treasury in Nov. 1857, as above mentioned. It did not appear that the said Charles Prothero, or the said defendant Charles Burton Fox, was ever concerned or employed, directly or indirectly, as an attorney in conducting any prosecution at any quarter sessions held for the county of Monmouth. The question for the opinion of the court was, whether in substance the facts above stated showed any offence under the 102nd section of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76. If the court should be of opinion that they did not show such an offence, the verdict already entered was te stand. If the court should be of a contrary opinion, a verdict of not guilty was to be entered. The Court of Queen's Bench held (Crompton, J. dissentiente), that the facts did show such an offence, and directed the verdict to stand, and inflicted a fine of 1s. upon Mr. Fox. (See the report, 33 L. T. 90 ; 28 L. J. 157, M.C.) Upon this judgment the defendant brought a writ of error. Pigott, Serjt. (Sir Thomas Phillips with him) in support of the writ of error.-This is an indictment against Mr. Fox, for an offence against the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 102. The 102nd section empowers the justices of a borough having a separate commission of the peace to appoint a clerk; and then it contains two provisoes as to the persons who shall not be appointed such clerks: "And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the justices of every borough to which a separate commission of the peace shall be granted as aforesaid, at their first or any other meeting, and they are hereby respectively required to appoint a fit person to be the clerk of the justices of such borough, to be removeable at their pleasure, and so often as there In June 1857 the Commissioners of the Treasury paid shall be a vacancy in the said office of clerk to the to Mr. Prothero the sum of 1821. 68. 9d., the differ- | justices, by death, resignation, removal, or otherwise.” Ex. CH.] REG. v. Fox. Now come the provisoes: "Provided it shall not be lawful for the said justices to appoint or continue as such clerk to the justices any alderman or councillor of such borough, or clerk of the peace of such borough, or the partner of such clerk of the peace, or any person or clerk in the employ of such clerk of the peace." Then comes another proviso: Provided | also, that it shall not be lawful for the said clerk to the justices, by himself or his partner, to be directly or indirectly interested or employed in the prosecution of any offenders committed for trial by the justices of whom he shall be such clerk as aforesaid, or any of them, at any court of gaol delivery, or general or quarter sessions." Those are the provisoes; and then it goes on to affix the penalty in these terms: "That any person being an alderman, or councillor, or clerk of the peace of any borough, or the partner or clerk, or in the employ of such clerk of the peace, who shall act as clerk to the justices of such borough, or shall otherwise offend in the premises, shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of 100., one moiety thereof to the treasurer of such borough, to be paid over to the credit and account of the borough fund," &c. This indictment is framed upon that section against Mr. Fox, and charges that he is the partner of Mr. Prothero, and that Prothero is the clerk of the peace for the county in which the borough of Newport is situate, and that Prothero is in fact interested in prosecutions coming from that borough, because he is entitled to a fee upon the arraignment of prisoners committed for trial for that borough; and that Mr. Fox being the partner of Prothero shared in such fees. The question is, whether this indictment is maintainable or not? In the Court of Q. B. the judges differed in opinion, Lord Campbell, C.J. and Erle, J. holding that it was maintainable, and Crompton, J. dissenting from that opinion. It is now submitted that Mr. Fox has committed no offence whatever against the Act of Parliament, and that he is not a person interested in the prosecutions within its meaning, merely because he happens to be the partner of Mr. Prothero, who is the clerk of the peace for the county, for there may be a state of things in which no fee is payable to the clerk of the peace, because he does not get a fee unless the prisoner is arraigned. Looking carefully at the language of the section, the justices are first empowered to appoint any fit person as their clerk; then the first proviso is, that they shall not appoint any alderman or councillor of the borough, nor the clerk of the peace of the borough, or the partner of such clerk of the peace. As far as that proviso is concerned, Mr. Fox is eligible to be clerk to the justices. The Legislature must have had in view the fact that, where there is no separate quarter sessions in a borough, prisoners committed from the borough are tried at the county quarter sessions; and therefore, if it had been intended to exclude the partner of the clerk of the peace for the county, the section would have named the clerk of the peace for the county, just as it names the clerk of the peace for the borough, and the partner and clerk of that clerk. The maxim, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, applies therefore. [CROWDER, J.-You have to put a construction upon the word "interested." The other side say that the words "interested and employed" do not mean the same thing.] It is submitted that they are connected, and the substance of the offence is, interested in some way in carrying on the prosecution. There is no doubt as to what the statute was directed when it passed-viz. to prevent persons holding two offices in the borough, the duties of which might conflict; but it does not mention any officers of the county as being ineligible. When the Act passed it was the custom of the clerk of the peace for the county to take part in the prosecution of offenders committed by their justices--such clerks, in fact, advising the justices as [Ex. CH. to the committals; and the object of the Act was to prevent the clerks from carrying on the prosecutions in such cases. The second proviso is that under which it is said that this case comes; the proviso is a penal one, and should be construed with precision, and not be extended beyond its strict meaning. The words "interested or employed" must be construed together and according to the rule noscitur a sociis; and the words "in the prosecution of any offender," mean "shall not have to do with the prosecution of any offender." [POLLOCK, C.B.-Was the partner, Mr. Prothero, interested in the prosecution of offenders?] It is contended that he was not. [POLLOCK, C.B.-Before the judges were paid by salary, and when fees constituted a part of their emolument, was a judge interested in a cause because he had a fee at certain stages of it?] There is a material difference between a person being interested in a certain stage of the proceedings and his being interested in the prosecution of those proceedings. To test that, when was Mr. Fox's offence against this Act complete? Up to the time of the arraignment of offenders, he clearly is guilty of no violation of the Act of Parliament. The prisoner may never be arraigned, or he may die before the arraignment. Does Mr. Fox then become guilty of an offence because, if the prisoner be arraigned, his partner as clerk of the peace happens to be entitled to a fee on such arraignment? It is very difficult to determine the exact time when Mr. Fox's offence is complete. There is another mode of testing it, and it is this. Supposing that Mr. Prothero had obtained the clerkship of the peace of the county after Mr. Fox's appointment as clerk to the justices of the borough, and after they had entered into partnership, does the obtaining of that appointment by Mr. Prothero make Mr. Fox indictable upon this section as soon as any fee is payable to him upon the arraignment of any prisoner committed by the borough justices? If it does, he is an involuntary culprit, because his partnership may have been for a period of years, and he may have taken his office of clerk to the justices, not anticipating that his partner would ever receive the appointment of clerk of the peace of the county. [CRowDER, J.-There is in law no distinction between Prothero and Fox; they are the same. It is clear that they divide the fees in the ordinary way. It is, therefore, as if Prothero, being clerk of the peace for the county, was clerk to the justices of the borough. Then is he or is he not interested in the prosecutions? In one sense he is interested in all the prosecutions. POLLOCK, C.B.— He is interested in multiplying prosecutions. MARTIN, B.-It was the evil against which the Legislature intended to provide.] Interested, said Mr. Justice Crompton in the court below, is a very large word, but I think it does not bear the meaning which they have put on it." "I think that it was not intended that the word interested' should extend the meaning of the word 'employed,' but that the intention was to prevent the clerk to the justices being employed by himself or other parties in the conduct of prosecutions." If the intention of the Legislature had been to bring the case within the proviso, the language it would have used would have been not "interested or employed in the prosecution," but "interested in any stage of a prosecution, to wit the arraignment," or "employed in a prosecution." Supposed Mr. Fox had been robbed, for instance, of a horse, and the thief brought before the borough justices to whom he was clerk, the conviction of the thief being a stage to entitle him to the return of the horse, could it be said, if he sat and advised the justices in the committal of the prisoner, that he became thereby interested or employed in the prosecution? The section goes on to say afterwards, "at any court of gaol delivery or general or quarter sessions," which looks like taking a part in a prosecution to be carried on in a court of general or quarter sessions. There is a second question in the case, that is, whether, supposing Ex. CH.] Re JOHN GUY. [INSOL. MARTIN, B.-It seems to me that this case comes directly within the words of the Act of Parliament. I cannot conceive how any language could express more clearly than this does what was intended. If I were to speculate on what the Legislature had in view, I should not doubt that this was the very thing they this to be an offence, an indictment is the proper form | taken by the courts. I do not, however, found my of proceeding. [POLLOCK, C.B.-Where an Act of judgment on that view of the matter, but upon thisParliament says that if any person shall do so and so in reality the present defendant is not within the he shall be liable to a penalty, you cannot indict; but clause. For these reasons it appears to me and to if the Act says it shall be unlawful to do so and so, the rest of the court, that the judgment of the Court and if any one does it he shall be liable to punishment, of Q. B. must be affirmed. then he may be indicted. Welsby referred to Coe v. Lawrence, 1 E. & B. 531, where it was held that the penalty of 100%. in sect. 102 did not attach to a clerk to the borough justices acting in the prosecution of offenders committed for trial by the borough justices.] In that case it is submitted that the Court of Q.B. did not sufficiently regard the words or other-intended to prevent. As to the second question, the wise offend in the premises." No one can doubt it was intended to make every one who offended against the section liable to the 100% penalty, and the question is whether, in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature and to give a meaning to the whole enactment, the court will not construe the second proviso as if the officers mentioned in the first proviso were re-words are very large, and I think they are properly peated in the second. Welsby (Scotland with him), contra, was not called upon to argue. POLLOCK, C.B.-We need not trouble Mr. Welsby on the other side. I believe we are all of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Q. B. ought to be affirmed. With respect to the object of the Legislature, I own I entertain no doubt that they intended not merely that the clerk to the justices should not be employed in the prosecution, but that he should have no interest in it, and that it should not be an object with him to multiply prosecutions, and to get arraignments, on account of the interest between himself and his partner in a particular fee, or to have any bias to advise the justices to commit a person to take his trial. That being the object of the Legislature, I do not think that we ought to adopt a strained construction of the statute. In reality, in all cases the object of the court should be to learn what is the true construction, and not what is a strict construction on the one hand, or a loose construction on the other; the object should be to get at what is the true construction; and for some time I have discarded any such notion as that there are two constructions of the same words, one to be adopted if it is a remedial statute, and the other if it is a penal one. I think you ought to get the true construction, and apply it to both cases. I think that the judgment of the Court of Q. B. is right. I think that the meaning of the word "interested " cannot be confined in the way in which my brother Pigott invites us to confine it, and therefore that the objection founded on the meaning of the word "interested" cannot be sustained. With respect to the other objection I quite agree with the rest of the court in thinking that the objection (which was not taken in the court below), that this is an indictment, and not a proceeding for the penalty, cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, when you come to look at the section, you find that the present defendant is not within that part of the clause which imposes a penalty of 100%. As to the obiter dictum of my brother Wightman, that the defendant's being interested would not disqualify him, but only subject him to a penalty, what he meant probably was, that it would make him liable to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. turns out that it would not subject him to a penalty, but would make him liable to an indictment. I own I had thought that wherever an act was declared to be in itself unlawful, it was understood that, although the mere creating a penalty which imported that the Legislature did not approve of the act, would not subject a man to a prosecution; yet when the act was declared to be unlawful, and the liability to a penalty was something added to that, the party was liable to an indictment; and I had thought that that was the view It answer is, that the defendant is not liable to the penalty, because he is not one of the persons enumerated, for he is neither an alderman, a councillor, a clerk of the peace of the borough, or the partner, or the clerk in the employment of such clerk of the peace. CROWDER, J.-I am of the same opinion. These large, with a view to bring a case of this sort within INSOLVENCY. Reported by DAVID CATO MACRAE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Monday, Dec. 19. (Before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY.) Hearing in County Court-Remand of insolvent- Where an insolvent shall, upon his adjudication, either Held, that the court in London has jurisdiction to enter- INSOL.] Re CHARLES HOUSE. [INSOL. Mr. Commissioner MURPHY said the offer of 107. for his discharge looked somewhat suspicious. He should require an additional affidavit from the gaoler to the effect that the insolvent had been living since his imprisonment in August last on nothing but the prison diet, or at least that he had been living on nothing else for some considerable time. If that were so he would make the order. This insolvent was described as a grocer and provision | the creditor in reply, not materially controverting the dealer of Stafford, and a working collier. He was facts, but adding that insolvent had another watch, and arrested on the 22nd Aug. last, under the Absconding that both were pledged at pawnbrokers at the date of Debtors Act, for a debt of 42. 1s. 2d., by one J. Iron- the arrest. The affidavit then stated that it was monger, a grocer and provision dealer of Wolverhamp-proved at the hearing that on his arrest insolvent said ton, this creditor alleging that the insolvent had sold to the officer that he had a few West Bromwich notes and converted into money his property, and left his left, meaning notes of the Dudley and West Bromwich place of business with the intention of leaving England. Bank, and that he produced a roll of papers repreOn his commitment, exclusive of the debt of 421. to senting, and believed to be, notes of the bank. The Ironmonger, the insolvent did not owe to his remaining affidavit stated, lastly, that since the remand the insolcreditors more than 14. 17s. The prisoner having | vent had asked him to accept 101. for his discharge. petitioned the court came up for his hearing in the County Court, before the deputy-judge, at Stafford, on the 27th Sept. last. The cause of this insolvency was stated to be ill-health, and consequent inability to to work. The entire property of himself and family (excepting some small debts due to him, amounting to 15. odd,) was valued at 27. 10s. Besides the debt of the detaining creditor, there were in the schedule seven creditors, whose united demands amounted to 14. odd, balances of small accounts. Consequently the only substantial creditor in the schedule was Ironmonger. His account in the special balance-sheet stood thus:Goods supplied by him to insolvent from January to August, 95l. 1s. 3d. For and on account of goods the insolvent had paid him within the same period, 731. 15s. His debt now stood in the schedule at 42. 1s. 2d., and 10%. costs, and in that document the insolvent swore that the allegation of being about to leave the country was a pretence, and he had no such intention. The insolvent was remanded, under the 77th section of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, for six months, for having, "with intent of diminishing the sum to be divided among his creditors, made away with part of his property." On a former day Sargood moved for a rule calling on Joseph Ironmonger to show cause why he should not pay 4s. a-week towards the support of the insolvent, pursuant to 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 86, and the court took time to consider whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the application. Dec. 4.-To-day Mr. Commissioner MURPHY intimated his impression that the jurisdiction of the County Court did not extend beyond completing the record, and if that were so, the motion for an allowance might be made there. Adjourned for supplemental affidavit. Dec. 19.-Sargood renewed the motion upon ar affidavit of the governor of the gaol as to the great poverty of the prisoner. The learned counsel complained of the unfairness of the creditor's affidavit as to the 107. alleged to have been offered for his release by the insolvent, who had simply sent him a message offering to pay him 107. by ten monthly instalments, if he would release him, having no means to pay but his own labour. Rule absolute. Order made upon the detaining creditor for an allowance to the prisoner of 4s. per week, to begin on Monday, 26th Dec. Tuesday, Dec. 20. PROTECTION CASE. (Before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY.) Parting with property within three months of the peti- Turning property into money and paying it into court: Where the insolvent's attorney deducted his costs of Dowse submitted that the sale of the business was a parting with property, notwithstanding the proceeds were paid into court. Sargood then moved for a rule upon an affidavit showing the nature and value of the property alleged to have been made away with, viz.: his pigs, sold five days before process issued under the Absconding Debtors Act, for 67. 108.-expended in paying rent, in the purchase of food for his family, and in redeeming This insolvent had sold his business for 60% within their clothes which his illness and poverty had compelled three months of his petition. Being unable to arrange him to pledge; his furniture, sold by auction at with his creditors, his attorney had deducted the costs Wolverhampton four days before his arrest for, less of the petitioner's proceedings under these Acts namely, auction expenses, 67. 168.-part expended in provid-247. 28. 10d., and paid the balance into court. ing subsistence for his family, and part in paying his attorney, and a gold watch, sold for 3/. 10s.-of which 2. was paid to Ironmonger and the balance spent in food for his family. Insolvent's affidavit concluded in these words :-" I do not receive any county, parochial or other allowance whatever, save and except the gaol allowance, which is as follows: one pint of oat-coming into court. meal gruel, &c. (usual gaol allowance of food); neither am I able to earn anything towards my support, and I have no means of obtaining any support unless by the allowance, by order of this court, under the 86th section of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. I am in great distress and in want of the necessaries of life, save the gaol allowance as aforesaid, and I have a wife and three children, who are wholly unable to assist me with any of the necessaries of life, or with money or any other means whatever of obtaining the same, and I have not heretofore made any application to this hon. court for any allowance, under the section as aforesaid." Rule nisi. Sargood submitted that it was not such a parting with property as was contemplated by the Act, and the statute entitled the insolvent to pay his attorney before Mr. Commissioner MURPHY referred to Macrae's Protection Insolvency, p. 44, and said, the cases cited show that the costs of an insolvent's attorney might be paid out of funds in court. The costs had been taxed here, and the petition contemplated the appropriation of property to the expense of petitioning. He did not think this a case of making away with property within the Act. Petition sustained. Monday, Dec. 19. (Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.) Dec. 14.-Dowse showed cause upon an affidavit of | Unfair dealing with property-Improvident trading |