Page images
PDF
EPUB

stronger in the case of the clerk in the store than of the speaker over the telephone. The question as to where is the clerk is absolutely determined; as to where is the speaker over the telephone is only a matter of very great probability.

On the second point, that an identification of the voice of the speaker through the telephone is not necessary to make his declarations admissible, we think the court went to a very great extreme, and we doubt whether this ruling should be followed.

A rather curious case decided some years before the one last cited (Sullivan v. Kuykenhall, 82 Ky. 488; 56 Am. Rep. 901), was that of a conversation which took place, not directly between the parties over the telephone, but through the operator in charge of a public telephone station. It was held by a divided court that the person who received the message from the operator could state what was told him where there was evidence that the other party did in fact use the telephone at that time. It is evident that the operator could not be expected to remember the conversation. It would seem, however, that this case also goes pretty far, and that the statements of the party who alleges that he receives such a message should be strongly corroborated, at least as to the presence of the other party at the other end of the wire at the time testified.

In a recent case, Banning v. Banning (80 Cal. 271; 13 Am. St. Rep. 156), it was held that the fact that a married woman is not personally present before a notary at the time he takes her acknowledgment through a telephone, she being three or four miles from him, will not vitiate such deed, because, in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, the certificate of the notary in due form is conclusive of the material facts therein stated. In this case it was clearly proved that the acknowledgment was made through the telephone.

These appear to be all the decisions so far on the question.-New York Law Journal.

RENUNCIATION OF PROMISSORY NOTES.

A singularly hard case is Re George; Francis v. Bruce, which appears in the current number of our Reports; but it is a hard case that would certainly have made bad law if Mr. Justice Chitty had permitted that circumstance to affect his judgment. From the facts of the case it will be observed that there was a written direction giving a few hours before his death, by the holder of a promissory note payable on demand, that it should be distroyed as soon as found, the note at the time being missing, and therefore not able to be delivered up to the maker. Mr. Justice Chitty decided that, although there was no doubt that the holder of the promissory note intended to discharge it and to forgive the debt, he had not "absolutely and unconditionally renounced his rights," as required by section 62 (1) of the Biils of Exchange Aot, 1882. Such a renuncia. tion has to be in writing, unless the bill or note is delivered up to the acceptor or maker, the Act being made applicable to promissory notes by section 89. There was a clear intention to destroy the note, and the memorandum made at the request of the holder was meant to be evidence of that intention. This, however, Mr. Justice Chitty considered to be insufficient to meet the requirements of section 62. The learned judge did not regard it as essential that the actual words of renunciation should appear in the document of renunciation; but he was of opinion that it must, in effect, be absolute and unconditional; and, further, that the document must not be a mere memorandum or note of the intention, but must be in itself a record of renunciation. In the face of the unequivocal words of the section, it is impossible to see how the point could have been decided differently. Of course, the direction that the note should be destroved when found, if carried out, would have had the effect of the renunciation. But such a direction does not comply with the provisions of the section. There was another point in the case which, however, did not call for decision undre

the circumstances. The section contains no provision as to whether the renunciation must be signed. It merely requires it to be in writing. Mr. Justice Chitty purposely refrained from giving any opinion on this point, although, if it had been necessary to do so, it seems not unlikely that the absence of a signature would of itself have been held to be fatal to the case.Law Journal.

NOTES OF CASES.

CIRCUIT CASES RESERVED. (Before O'BRIEN, C.J., PALLES, C.B., HARRISON, ANDREWS, MURPHY, and GIBSON, JJ.)

In re NOLAN'S PRESENTMENT.

Nov. 29, 1890.-Presentment-Compensation for maiming-Maiming, what constitutes evidence of-Presentment for, when mandatory-Compensation, how to be estimated-6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 116, s. 106.

At the last Kildare Assizes, an application was made on behalf of Patrick Nolan, an acting sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for compensation for injuries sustained by him while he was endeavouring to bring to justice a man named Laurence Doyle. The grand jury refused to present any sum, a majority of them holding that in the discharge of his official duties Nolan was bound to incur certain risks, and that these were covered by his salary. Counsel on behalf of Nolan applied to Palles, C.B., to direct the grand jury that they were bound to make a presentment. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of opposing ratepayers that, in order to warrant the grand jury in giving compensation, the injuries should be of a permanent character. Nolan's injuries included a broken collar-bone and a number of bruises. The Lord Chief Baron asked the grand jury to answer the following questions:-1. What are the injuries sustained by Patrick Nolan, which you are of opinion constitute maiming? 2. Assuming that the said Patrick N lan is entitled to compensation for such maiming, what sam do you consider just and reasonable to be paid to him as such compensation, having regard to his rank, degree, situation, and circumstances? 3. Assuming the said Patrick Nolan not to be absolutely entitled to compensation, what sum do you consider just and reasonable to be paid to him in consequence of such maiming, having regard to his rank, degree, situation, and circumstances? In answer to No. 1 the grand jury answered "A broken collar-bone, sprained wrist, severe bruises." In reply to No. 2 they said £50; and in reply to No. 3 they said £10. Upon those answers the Lord Chief Baron stated a case for the opinion of the Court, with the object of having the following questions answered.-1. Whether the injuries mentioned in the answer by the grand jury to the first question were such as might be found by the grand jury to amount to maiming? 2. If so, whether the grand jury were bound to present some sum in respect of such maiming? 3. If So, whether, having regard to their findings, the sum they were so bound to present was £50 or £10? 4. Whether he (the Lord Chief Baron) should have fiated the presentment?

Carson, Q.C., and Falconer, on behalf of the appli

cant.

Molloy, Q.C., for the grand jury.

Redmond Barry, on behalf of opposing ratepayers.

The COURT held-1. That a broken collar-bone was evidence on which the grand jury might find that a man was maimed. 2. That the grand jury were obliged by the words "shall" and "may" in the section of the Act of Parliament to make a presentment when they found that the applicant was maimed. 3. That the grand jury were not obliged to award fall compensation in the ordinary sense, but only such sum as they thought just and reasonable, having regard to his rank and position, and 4. That the presentment should have been flated.

In re PRESENTMENT FOR MEATH INDUSTRIAL

SCHOOLS.

Nov. 29, 1890.-Presentment-Industrial schools-Loan for building-Grand jury-Security-Publication of notice48 & 49 Vic. c. 19, s. 6.

At Wicklow Summer Assizes, 1889, an application was made by the trustees of the Meath Industrial School for Protestant Girls at Bray, to the grand jury, to give security to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for a loan amounting to £3,500, to enable the trustees to erect new buildings for the school. The sixth section of the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act, 1885, provides that two months' previous notice of any application of this kind should be given by advertisement in one or more newspapers published in the district. Notice of this application had been given by the trustees, who afterwards came before the grand jury for the purpose of obtaining the required security. They were then opposed by counsel, acting on behalf of certain ratepayers, on the ground that the notice required to be published by the 6th section was a notice that should have been published by the grand jury and not by the trustees. The grand jury adjourned the application to the following assizes, and directed their secretary to publish the required notice in the form prescribed by the Act. The application was again opposed when it came before the grand jury, after the publication of this notice, at the spring assizes, 1890. It was granted upon condition that the school trustees and the Earl of Meath, together with two solvent securities to be approved of by the grand jury, should become liable for the repay. ment of the loan. The securities having been approved of, the application came again before the grand jury at last summer assizes, when a presentment was passed providing the security required. The presentment was not, however, fiated, on the ground that no notice had been published of the intention of the grand jury to approve of the securities and pass the presentment at the Summer Assizes. Palles, C.B., reserved two questions for the consideration of this court. 1. Was it necessary under the circumstances of the case to publish notices previous to the Summer Assizes, 1890? 2. No notices having been published, should he (the Lord Chief Bron) have fiated the presentment?

Sergeant Jellett, Q.C., and Matheson, for the trustees of the school.

The majority of the COURT held that the judge had jurisdiction to fiat the presentment. To the first question they answered "No," and to the second "Yes." The presentment was accordingly fiated.

NOTES OF ENGLISH CASES. [From the Law Journal.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS Co. v. SICKNESS AND
ACCIDENT ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION.

Oct. 27, 29.-Insurance · "Accident". Meaning of duration of policy for a year from a certain date.

Special case.

The defendants agreed with the plaintiffs to insure them against certain risks hereafter referred to, and on November 16, 1887, the plaintiffs paid to the defendants £20 on account of premium, and the defendants issued to the plaintiffs a covering note to protect them against liability until the preparation of the policy.

On December 2, 1887, a policy of assurance was issued by which the defendants agreed to pay to the plaintiffs in respect of accidents caused by vehicles or the motive power thereof while attached thereto belonging to the plaintiff, and for which accidents the intiffs shoull be liable, the sum of £250 in respect of one accident. The policy also provided that the

defendants should not be liable to pay to the plaintiffs more than the sum of £1,500 in any oue year. The policy further declared that the assured had paid to the defendants the premium for such indemnity "for twelve calendar months from the 24th day of November, 1887," and was expressed to be renewable, and the premium was expressed to be due on November 24, but it was not renewed. The defendants paid the balance of the premium in December, 1887. On November 24, 1888, in the evening, one of the vehicles referred to in the policy was overturned and caused injuries to forty persons, and the plaintiffs became liable to pay compensation and expenses to the amount of £833.

The questions for the Court were: whether the policy covered November 24, 1888, and whether the injury caused to each of the said persons constituted a separate accident within the meaning of the policy.

"

Moulton, Q.C., and Disturnal for the plaintiffs. R. T. Reid, Q.C., and Hugo Young for the defendants. The COURT (DAY, J., and LAWRANCE, J.) held that the policy covered November 24, 1888, but (per Day, J., LAWRANCE, J., dissentientes) that the word "accident in the policy referred to the misadventure to the vehicle, and not to the injuries of each individual passenger, and, therefore, that the plaintiffs could only recover £250. Lawrance, J., as juuior judge, afterwards withdrew his judgment in so far as it differed from that delivered by Day, J.

Judgment accordingly.

THE MAYOR, Aldermen, and CITIZENS OF MANCHESTER v. WILLIAMS.

Oct. 28-Libel-Corporation-Power to maintain action. Point of law set down to be disposed of before trial. Action by the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of Manchester to recover damages from the defendant for a libel written and cansed by him to be printed in the Manchester Examiner and Times, meaning, as the plaintiffs alleged, that bribery and corruption existed in three departments of the Manchester City Council, and that the plaintiffs were either parties thereto or culpably ignorant thereof, and that the said bribery and corruption prevailed to such extent as to render necessary an inquiry by a parliamentary commission.

The defendant objected that a municipal corporation could not sue in its corporate capacity in respect of the alleged words in the sense complained of.

C. A. Russell, for the defendant, supported the objection.

Blake Odgers for the corporation.

The COURT (DAY, J., and LAWRANCE, J.) held that the action was not maintainable, and gave judgment for the defendant.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

STANLEY ON THE BENCH.

"I was requested," says Mr. Stanley, in his interesting book, "to adjudicate a case relating to marriage custom, between Kavalli on the one hand, owner of a slave girl, and Katonza, a Mhuma Chief. The latter had sought Kavalli's girl in marriage, and had paid two cows for her out of three that had been fixed as the price. Kavalli therefore detained the bride of Katouza, and this detention was the cause of his grievance. The price was not denied, and Katonza offered a plea that he feared the girl might not be surrendered by Kavalli if he paid the third cow. He was requested to put the cow into court, and in this manner the bride was forthcoming.

"Kavalli brought another oase to me for consideration. He was already five times married, and he desired a sixth wife, He had purchased her from the tribe of Bugombi, and her parents, having heard something to his prejudice, wished to compel a double payment, and would not deliver her to him. Whereupon I suggested to Kavalli that by giving another cow and a calf the matter might be arranged.

"The next case that I had to judge was somewhat difficult. Chief Mpigwa having appeared at the Barza (Durbar), a man stepped up to complain of him, because he withheld two cows that belonged to his tribe. Mpigwa explained that a man had married a girl belonging to his tribe and had paid two cows for her, that she had gone to his house, and in course of time had become a mother, and had borne three children to her busband, The man died, whereupou his tribe accused the woman of having contrived his death by witchcraft, and drove her home to her parents. Mpigwa received her into the tribe with her children, and now the object of complaint was the restoration of the two cows to the husband's tribe, 'Was it fair,' asked Mpigwa, 'after a woman had become the mother of three children in the tribe to demand the cattle back again after the bus. band's death, when they had sent the woman and her infants away of their own accord?' The decision upheld Mpigwa in his views, as such conduct was not only heartless and mean, but tended to bring the honoured custom of marriage contracts into contempt."

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF

IRELAND.

The Council of this Society met on the 3rd inst. Mr. W. Burroughs Stanley, and subsequently Mr. Francis R. M. Crozier (in the chair), and twenty-six other members present. The Council proceeded to elect a President of the Society for the year ending 26th November, 1891, when Mr. F. R. M. Crozier was declared duly elected. Some memorials of apprentices were considered and ruled upon. A report from the Costs Committee was read and adopted. Some further business having been transacted, the Council adjourned for one week.

ADMISSION OF SOLICITORS.

The following gentlemen have been admitted Solicitors of the Court of Judicature:

Messrs. James Robinson, B.A., Trinity College, Dublin, of Llanmaur, Shankill, County Dublin, son of the late Archibald Robinson, one of Her Majesty's Taxing Masters; P. M. Hosty, son of M. P. Hosty, Esq., of Tuam, in the County Galway; James S. Gaffney, B. A., R.U.I., son of Alderman Thomas Gaffney, J.P., Limerick; and Charles Reed Tillie, M.A., T.C.D., son of Wm. Tillie, Esq., D.L., Duncraggan, Londonderry.

Holloway's Pills and Ointment. These world-renowned remedies are confidently recommended to miners, navvies, and all who have to work underground, or where noxious atmospheres exist. The minute particles of coal or metal which permeate the air in such places tend to block up the lungs and air-tubes, giving rise to bronchitis, asthma and palpitation of the heart. In Holloway's remedies will be found a safe and easily used medicament, for the penetrating properties of the Ointment relieve the local congestions and the mildly laxative effects of the Pills cause the liver to act freely, and the breath to become unembarrassed. By early resort to these remedies many a serious illness may be averted, and soundness of health maintained.

SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

The usual fortnightly meeting of the directors was held on the 3rd inst. at the Association's Rooms, Four Courts, Dublin-William Findlater, Esq., D.L., in the chair. The following members attended:-Messrs. William Hayes, William Fry, jun.; Henry S. Mecredy, Peter Lambert, John MacSheehy, A. D. Kennedy, W. Grove White, George W. Shannon, John D. Rosenthal, Thomas C. Franks, and F. C. Earle Bland, Secretary. The minutes of the last meeting having been read and confirmed, the Secretary reported having received since last meeting the sum of £2 2s., making the total annual subscriptious received since 1st January last £359 2s. The directors then proceeded to examine the life certificates of the Society's eight annuitants, and draw cheques amounting in all to £60, in payment of the half-year's annuities, and after transacting some routine business the meeting adjourned.

OBITUARY.

THE HON. EDWARD FALCONER LITTON. IT is with the deepest regret that the death of Mr. Justice Litton, on the 27th ult., is to-day recorded. The only son of the late Mr. Daniel Litton, of Waterlooroad, Dublin, wine-merchant, and nephew of the late Edward Litton, Q.C., Master in Chancery, many years M.P. for Coleraine, Edward Falconer Litton was born on the 18th of December, 1828. He was educated in the University of Dublin, where he took the degrees of Bachelor and Master of Arts in 1849 and 1864 respectively. Called to the Bar in Easter Term 1849, he joined the Munster Circuit, and took silk in 1874. At the general election of 1880 he was returned as M.P. for the County of Tyrone, defeating Lord Claud Hamilton, the Couservative candidate, and was the first Liberal who ever represented that constituency in Parliament. In the senate he brought forward many measures of a prac tical and useful character, such as the Petty Sessions Clerks Act, 1881; he introduced a most skilfully-drafted land bill, and as a prominent advocate of tenant-right contributed, perhaps more than any other private member, to the passing of the Land Law Act, 1881. Of the then constituted Land Commission he was appointed a Commissioner. A most sound equity and real property lawyer, and himself a landlord who practically recognised the duties, no less than the rights, attaching to that position, the spirit in which he administered his judicial functions was well expressed in the notable case of Adams v. Dunseath: "It is our duty to recognise the tenant's interest; it is equally our duty to recognise that of the landlord; and we are bound by the highest considerations of duty to administer an Act, which was intended to secure right, in such a manner as that it may not become in our hands the instrument of wrong." On the retirement of the late Mr. Justice O'Hagan in January last, Mr. Litton was appointed Judicial Commissioner and Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and though he held that position for barely eleven months his many recorded judgments bear witness to his painstaking, assiduous, and accurate discharge of its important functions. He disposed of cases with business-like efficiency and despatch, and the loss to the Court of the Land Commission of his clear, well-balanced mind, his patient temperament, polished manners, courteous bearing, and special skill and experience must be grievously lamented. Not quite sixty-three years of age, he passed away at Ardavilling House, Cloyne, the home that, inherited from his uncle, John Litton, upwards of twenty years ago, he had loved so dearly; and in Cloyne, which owes its fiue water-supply to his munificence, his remains were interred in deference to his dying wishes. The deceased, who held the commission of the peace for the counties of Cork, Tyrone, and Wicklow, and acted as ex-officio guardian of Middleton Poor Law Union, had been four times married, and leaves a widow

(Adelaide, daughter of the late Mr. Clifford Trotter, of Charleville, Co. Wicklow), five sons, one of whom is also a member of the Bar, and four daughters surviving. In social and professional circles alike he was regarded with affection and esteem, and in him the Irish Bench has lost a distinguished ornament. But, in the words quoted at the grave of his honoured uncle, Master Litton,

"Leaves have their time to fall,

And flowers to wither at the north-wind's breath;
And stars to set. But all-

Thou hast all seasons for thine own, O Death!'

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

KING'S INNS.

HONOR EXAMINATION, OCTOBER, 1890.

LAW OF REAL PROPERTY.

"THE POWERS AND RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN RESPECTING REAL PROPERTY."

Examiner J. J. TWIGG, Q.C.

1. State how and under what conditions a married woman could dispose at Common Law of her freehold estates held

(a) In fee.

(b) In tail.

and how and under what conditions could she dispose of the same under the Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries?

2. Define the conditions under which her husband is entitled to an estate by the curtesy. Does the right attach on any and which of the following estates?—

(a) Estates limited to the wife and her heirs for lives renewable for ever.

(6) Estates limited to the wife and her heirs for her sole and separate use.

(c) Estates limited to the wife and the heirs male of her body (her only issue being daughters). 3. What alteration in the previous law as to a married woman's real estate was made by the Married Woman's Property Act, 1870 ?

4. On a marriage prior to 1882, estates were settled to the separate use of the wife and her heirs. Define the liability of these estates for her post-nuptial debts or engagements, and state the essential proofs in an action to enforce such liability.

5. State the alterations made by the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, in respect of a married woman's real estate

(a) As regards her own position.

(b) As regards the rights of her post-nuptial credi. tors.

distinguishing the position of a woman married before and a woman married after that Act.

6. A married woman, owner of an estate settled to her separate use, without power of anticipation, executes a mortgage of this estate and of the rents due and to become due thereout. What are the rights and remedies of her mortgagee ?

(a) Assuming her to have married in 1881.
(b) Assuming her to have married in 1883.

7. A woman seised of real estates married in 1883and during coverture made a will which contained a residuary devise of all her real property. She survived her husband, and on her death a question arose whether real estate which she had derived under her husband's will passed under her will. State your opinion on this question and your reasons for it, and any authority you are aware of on the subject.

THE RULES AGAINST PERPETUITY.

1. Define a "perpetuity" as accurately as you can. 2. It has been said that the rules against perpetuity were necessitated by the introduction of executory uses. Explain how this was so, and state three important principles of Common Law in reference to real estate which prevented the evils of perpetuity from arising under Common Law limitations.

3. Real estate was devised to B. (a spinster) for life, remainder to her first son for life, remainder to the children of such first son who should be born in the lifetime of B., and the heirs of their bodies. Is the limitation to the son's children valid or invalid? State the grounds of your opinion, and refer to any authority you are aware of on the question.

4. A testator devised real estate to the use of the first child of B. (a spinster) who should attain twentyfive; B. married, and at the time of testator's death had a child five years old. Is this devise valid or invalid? State the reasons for your opinion.

5. How does the rule against perpetuity operate in the case of a limitation to a class of persons, where some of the class can be definitely ascertained within the legal period and some cannot?

6. Testator bequeathed leaseholds for years to his son B. for life; and then to permit the person who, for the time being, would take by descent as heir male of the body of B. to take the rents and profits thereof until some such person should attain twenty-one, and then to convey the leaseholds to such person absolutely. B. survived the testator and died leaving an only son, who, after the death of the testator, but in B.'s lifetime, attained twenty-one. His title to a conveyance of the leaseholds on B.'s death was disputed. Was the objection well founded or not? Give your reasons, and any authority you are aware of on the question.

7. A testator devised real estate to A. for life, remainder to his first and other sons successively in tail, with remainder over. Provided that if A. or the heirs of his body should at any time become seised of certain other estates, the devised estate should go to the person next in remainder, as if the person so becoming seised were then dead. Is this proviso valid or invalid? State your reasons for either conclusion.

8. Real estate is devised to A. for life, with remainder to such of his children as should attain twenty-three, and if no child of A. should attain twenty-three, then to B. for his life. A. and B. both survived the testator, and A. afterwards died unmarried in the lifetime of B. Is the limitation to B. valid or invalid? State your reasons for either conclusion.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

BRADY-November 25, at Newton-road, London, W., Kate Mary, second daughter of the late Sir Francis Brady, Chief Justice of Newfoundland.

CATHREW - December 4, at Waterloo-road, Dublin, Henry Cathrew, aged 61, son of the late James Cathrew, Esq., of Ballyowen, Co. Dublin, formerly Secretary to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. CONMEE-September: 29, Matthew M. Conmee, barrister-at-law, of Lurgan Lodge, Co. Roscommon.

LITTON-November 27, at Ardavilling, Co. Cork, the Hon. Mr. Justice Litton, aged 62.

SHINE November 24, at Greenwich, Susan, relict of the late George Lamb Shine, Bandon, Co. Cork, daughter of the late William Downes Abbott, solicitor, Merrion-square.

FUNERAL REQUISITES OF EVERY DESCRIPTION.

WALLER, 49 & 50 DENZILLE-STREET. 102 Telephone No. 131. Telegraphic Address-"Undertaker, Dublin."

L'pl Un'td Tram & Bus l'td
Railways.

<o Belfast and County Down 100 Gt.Southernand Western too Midland Gt. Western So Waterford and Limerick 100 Waterford & Cont. Ireland Railway Preference. 100 Belfast & Nth'n Cos, 4 pc 100 Gt.South'n & West'n 4 p. too Mid.Great Western, 4 pc Do., 5 p c

100

[ocr errors]

IO Wat. Dun. & Lis. Pref. 5 p c 100 Watfd. & Limerick, 4 p c

100

100

Do.

do. 4 pc, 1873

West Clare, 4 pc

Rys. Guaranteed

[ocr errors]

City of Dublin Jun., 4 p c

| |g

100 Cork, Bandon & 8. C., 4 pc97 Leased at Fixed Rentals Dublin and Kingstown Debenture Stocks. Cork, Bandon, & S. C. 4 p c Gt.South n & West'n, 4 pc Gt.Northern(Ireland) 4 p. Do., pc

Midland Gt. West'n. 4 pc Do.. pc 128 Miscellaneous Debent. Ballast Office Deb., £92 68 2d. 4 pc Dub. Cor. Stock, redeem. 1944 .. Rathm. & Rathgar Tship., 3 p c (1988) Rathm.& Pem.M.Drain.4 p c

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

121

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

1111

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

• Shares not fully paid up are given in Italies. Bank Rate-Of Discount-4 per cent. Of Deposit-1} per cent. Name Days - Dec 11th and 29th. 1890. Account Days- Dec. 12th and 30th, 1890. Business commences at 1 30 p.m

+ On Account. § Exceptional amount at special price.

« PreviousContinue »