also that the witness, John Milligan, calenderer, has deponed that he was with the defender for six years before June, 1859 -that "his daughter, Mary, carried on business as a shawl fringer in premises above the defender's calender-that she was there for three years before Milligan left-that the defender's wife was also there assisting her daughter-that he has been sent messages, and to lift accounts for Miss Wilson and that he has been so sent by Mrs Wilson to do these things in name of Miss Wilson:" Finds that, in these circumstances, the pursuers case fails in two respects-first, in its not being sufficiently proved that the defender's wife was actually carrying on business on her own account as a shawl fringer when the goods were ordered and furnished; and, second, in there being no sufficient evidence that the defender knew of, or authorised such business, so as to become tacitly bound for his wife's contract: Therefore sustains the defences and assoilzies the defender, but, in the whole circumstances, finds no expenses due, and decerns. This Interlocutor was appealed, and parties having been again heard, Sir Archibald Alison pronounced the following judgment: Having heard parties' procurators under their mutual appeals upon the Interlocutor appealed against, and made avizandum, and considered the proof adduced, and whole process, and having adverted particularly to the facts established in evidence, that the pursuers furnished the goods libelled on to the defender's wife in the business carried on by her as a shawl fringer-that the defender's wife engaged in the shawl fringing trade for which the goods sued for were furnished with his knowledge-that the place of business of the defender's wife was in the same tenement, and two stairs above the defender's own place of business as a calenderer-that the shawls, for which his wife made fringes, immediately after passed through the defender's hands as a calenderer-that the defender was frequently in his wife's place of business, and knew that she contracted accounts with the pursuers, and made no objections thereto-that he took no steps to certiorate the public, and did not intimate to the pursuers that he would not be responsible for the debts contracted by his wife --that he and his wife lived together from the end of the year 1858 till the beginning of 1860, during which time the goods libelled on were furnished-that the defender was lucratus by them, as during the time he lived with his wife he gave her no money to pay the house expenses, which she had to pay for out of the profits of her own business: Finds that the defender is responsible for the debt libelled on, which was contracted in the business carried on by her with his knowledge, and by which he has been lacratus: Therefore alters the Interlocutor complained of, decerns against the defender in terms of the libel: Finds the pursuers entitled to expenses, of which appoints an account to be given in, and remits the same to the auditor to tax, and report and decerns. Act. JAMES LOCKHART. 15TH MAY, 1802. All. JAMES INGLIS. SHERIFF COURT, GLASGOW. R. Y. CRAIG, and JAMES CRAIG, his Administrator in Trust-Legacy-Interest-2d and 3d Vict., cap. 37, sec. 2.—A legacy was left to a minor, payable on his attaining majority, interest to be payable until that crent arrived. The funds were meantime directed to be invested in heritable security, and this was partially done; but as 44 per cent. interest was the highest obtained, the trustees, under the Deed of Settlement, offered that rate of interest to the legatee, who refused, he maintain- | ing that in the absence of any direction, legal interest was what was due, and that legal interest meant 5 per cent. per annum. In an action for payment of the interest, at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum at the legatee's instance, against the trustees and residuary bencficiaries, decree given in terms of the conclusions of the summons, with expenses. TIE pursuer sued the defenders, the trustees of the late Mr William Young of Auldhousefield, for the sum of £23 68 Sd, the interest due, after deduction of incometax, to the pursuer, at the term of Martinmas, 1861, at the rate of five per cent. per annum on the balance of a legacy of £1000, after deducting legacy duty, directed to be paid by Mr Young to the pursuer, by his trust disposition and deed of settlement, dated 29th November, 1845, and codicil thereto, dated Sth March, 1851. The trustees being in different counties, it was agreed, by minute, to prorogate the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire. Appearance was entered for the trustees. The defence was that by the testator's deed of settlement and codicil, the pursuer, R. Y. Craig, was entitled to a legacy of £1000 sterling when he arrived at majority, until which time he was entitled to the interest on said sum: That the trustees were directed, by said settlement, to invest the estates in heritable security, out of which said legacy and interest were to be paid, which they had done: That the sums so invested yield in part 4 per cent. per annum, and in part 43 per cent.: That no higher rates of interest could be obtained, and the defenders had offered to pay to the pursuer interest at the rate of 43 per cent. on the said legacy for the half-year ending Martinmas last, being the highest rate of interest received for any part of the trust funds, and he is not entitled to more, in respect the sum to be paid to him on majority yields no higher rate. This offer was refused. The amount, after deducting income-tax, was £21 13s 10d, which the defenders have offered to pay. The record was then closed. The Sheriff-Substitute thereafter pronounced the following Interlocutor: : Having heard parties' procurators, and reviewed the process, in respect the defenders have offered to pay to the pursuer, R. Y. Craig, interest at the rate of 4 per cent. on the legacy of £1000, referred to in the summons, which interest, after deducting income-tax, amounts to the sum of £21 13s 10d: Finds the pursuers entitled, as craved by them, to an interim decree for said sum, and decerns therefor accordingly, together with the dues of extract, and allows this decree to go out and be extracted as an interim decree; quoad ultra, Finds that it is the residuary beneficiaries under the trust deed and settlement of the deceased William Young who are directly and personally interested in the question whether the defenders are bound to pay five per cent. interest on the said legacy, and, before pronouncing farther, appoints the pursuers to intimate this action to each of said residuary beneficiarics by serving on or transmitting by post to them a copy of the summons and of this deliverance, with certification that if no appearance be made by the said beneficiaries within ten days after such service or intimation, they will be held as confessed as not objecting to the conclusions of said summons-the pursuers having previously lodged, as they are hereby appointed to do, a due execution or certificate of such service or intimation. Appearance was made for the residuary beneficiaries, and they lodged a minute of defence in similar terms to that of the trustees. On this additional minute the record was again closed, and, on a hearing, the SheriffSubstitute pronounced the following Interlocutor:Having heard parties' procurators, and resumed consider tion of the whole process, Finds that by the first codicil annexed to the trust disposition and deed of settlement, No. 7-1, a legacy of £500 is bequeathed to the pursuer, R. Y. Craig, to be paid by the defenders on his attaining the age of twenty-one, but to bear interest from and after the date of the testator's death, which interest is to be payable half-yearly, at the terms of Whitsunday and Martinmas: Finds that, by the second codicil to said deed, the said legacy is increased to £1000, to be payable, "with interest thereon, at the period and terms specified in the first codicil in regard to the said legacy of £500:" Finds that the defenders are authorised, by said deed, to lend the trust funds generally on such herit able security as they may consider proper, and the compearers are constituted residuary beneficiaries the legacies and annuities bequeathed by the testator being payable before any division of residue takes place: Finds it admitted by the defenders and compearers that the funds are sufficient to meet all legacies and preferable claims, but it is stated for them that out of £40,000 of trust funds, there has been invested only £14,000, on £4,000 of which 4 per cent. interest is paid, and on the remaining £10,000, 4: Finds that the question at issue in this action is whether the defenders are bound to pay the said pursuer interest at the rate of 5 per cent. on his said legacy, or whether he is bound to accept of their offer of 44: Finds that the interest appointed to be paid half-yearly on the legacy must be interpreted to mean legal interest, there being no contrary instructions, and in particu lar no instructions to pay only such interest as can be obtained on a specific investment: Finds that legal interest is interest at the rate of 5 per cent., as was expressly enacted by the 2d and 3d Vict., cap. 37, sec. 2, "unless it shall appear to the Court that any different rate of interest was agreed to between the parties," and as was also expressly found in the case Marder or Smith, 15th January, 1857: Therefore repels the defences, and, in addition to the sum of interest found due by interim decree on 28th December last, being interest calculated at 4 per cent., less income-tax, decerns against the defenders for the farther sum of £1 12s 10d, being the difference between that rate of interest and interest at 5 per cent.: Finds the defenders and compearers, who adopted the defences, liable in expenses, allows an account, etc. NOTE. The case of Gordon, 9th February, 1853, referred to by the defenders, in which the Court limited the rate of interest payable by the defender to 4 per cent., was decided entirely on specialties which do not occur in the present case. No doubt the Lord President, in giving judgment, remarked, "I have heard Lord Mackenzie say, with the full approbation of the Court, that legal interest does not necessarily mean the highest rate of legal interest." But this obiter dictum, if sound, must be held to refer either to cases where there was reason to believe that a lower rate of interest was in the contemplation of parties, or where there were specialties which would have made it unjust to exact the highest rate. In the absence of such elements, the more recent case of Marder or Smith, and the still later case of Findlay or Donaldson, 3d March, 1860, put it beyond doubt that where legal interest is payable, it is interest at 5 per cent., and the presumption in the whole circumstances unquestionably is that the testator intended his nephew should receive interest at that rate as the fruits of the £1000 till the capital sum became payable, notwithstanding that the ultimate residue might be thereby somewhat diminished. This Interlocutor was appealed, and after a hearing Sir Archibald Alison pronounced the following judgment, adhering: the trust funds generally in such heritable security as they may consider proper; but it is immaterial what interest they derive from the trust funds so invested. The point is, what is the pursuer, a special legatee, entitled to under the will, and in that there seems to be no room for doubt, seeing the special legacies and annuities left by the deceased are payable before any division of the residue can take place. Had there been a direction by the testator that the legacy in question was to be invested in a particular way till the same became payable, the interest which could be got in that way could alone be demanded. But as the legacy is left to the pursuer, "with the interest thereon," till the same becomes payable, and the trustees are only authorised to invest the trust funds generally on heritable security, the only meaning which can be attached to the words is legal interest. And there is no hardship or shortcoming here, as the residue, after paying the preferable legacies and annuities, is stated to be above £20,000 sterling. Alt. JOHN STEUART, Act. ROBERT THOMSON. 15TH MAY, 1862. SHERIFF COURT, GLASGOW. (MR SHERIFF BELL.) MRS ANN LOWE or RUDD, wife of REGINALD Rudd, and the said REGINALD RUDD, v. THOMAS MARTIN. and WILLIAM ANNACKER. Damages-Personal Injuries.—A party in a retail shop' making purchases fell through a space in the flooring outside the counter which had been imperfectly secured, and suffered bodily injuries. In an action for repara-' tion brought against both the tenant and the landlord, held that both were liable, and decree given against both, with costs, reserving their actions of relief inter se. THE pursuers sued the defenders for £100 as damages sustained, and to be sustained, in consequence of the female pursuer having, through the gross, wilful, and culpable recklessness, carelessness, negligence, or other culpable misconduct of the defenders, fallen through a part of the flooring of the shop, occupied by the defender, Annacker, and the property of the other defender, Martin, where the female pursuer had been to make some purchases, by or through the insecure or insufficient state of the floor; and the female pursuer having been at the time several months gone with child, the fall or shock which she then received had caused her to abort or miscarry. Annacker's defence was, that he was merely occupant of the shop where the alleged injury took place, and was in no way responsible for any defect of, or insufficiency in, the flooring. Explained that about the date mentioned, a stout female was in the shop purchasing sausages, and, after being served, was in the act of leaving the shop, and some parties coming in at the same time, she stepped back to let them pass, when a small piece of the flooring Having heard parties' procurators under the appeal for the defenders upon the Interlocutor appealed against, and whole-less than a yard in length, and less than four inches in process, adheres to the said Interlocutor for the reasons stated by the Sheriff-Substitute, as also those in the following Note, and dismisses the appeal. NOTE.-By the testator's deed of settlement and codicil, the pursuer, Robert Young Craig, is bequeathed a legacy, increased to £1000, to be paid by the trustees on his attaining twenty-one years of age, but to bear "interest" from and after the testator's death, payable half-yearly. That interest at common law, independent of statue, is, in dubio, legal interest, which is interest at 5 per cent. The trustees are authorised and directed, by the deed of settlement, to invest breadth-gave way below one of her feet. She started back, when the defender caught her in his arms, and seated her in a chair; and, after sitting a minute or two, she got up, saying she had got a start, and walked off. From the smallness of the opening, and she being a stout person, her leg did not, and could not, fall through; and while the defender regrets the occurrence, he denies the pursuer suffered the injuries libelled, and that he is in any way responsible therefor―quoad ultra, denied. Martin's defence was, that he became proprietor of, inter alia, the shop referred to in the month of July last. That the other defender, William Annacker, had been tenant of said shop for five years previous to that time, and is still the tenant thereof.—That the flooring of said shop was of good material and workmanship, and in a good state of repair; and he has always been ready and willing to execute any repairs which might be required, or which the tenant might report to him as being necessary. That there was originally communication between the said shop, and the sunk flat below it, through a hatch or trap-door situated at the back of the shop, at a considerable distance from the entrance to the shop, and out of the reach of the customers going into it.-That the said William Annacker, however, for his own convenience, on his own responsibility, and at his own expense, opened another communication between the shop and sunk flat, by making another hatch or trap-door, opening upwards on hinges, and situated about three or four feet from the entrance to the shop, immediately in front of the counter where the customers stand to be served; That, as at first constructed, this second hatch or trap-door was made to open from the wall to the counter, but the said William Annacker, for his own convenience, on his own responsibility, and at his own expense, subsequently altered it to open from the counter to the wall; and in making said hatch or trap-door, and subsequent alterations thereon, considerable pieces of flooring required to be lifted, and, inter alia, the board which was said to have given way under the female pursuer-which board was immediately contiguous and parallel to said trap-door, so made by the said William Annacker, and extends along the whole length of it; and the said William Annacker has all along undertaken or assumed the duty of repairing and keeping in repair the said hatch or trap-door so made by him, and the woodwork connected therewith, including the said board, and that unknown to this defender; and, in particular, the said William Annacker executed certain repairs upon the said hatch or trap-door so made by him, and the said board which was said to have given way under the female pursuer, about six weeks before the accident referred to occurred, and that unknown to this defender, who never was informed or knew of any defect in the flooring of the said shop, so that any responsibility occasioned by the said hatch or trap-door, or the said board being out of repair, inadequate, or imperfect, must be borne by the said William Annacker alone: That the said Thomas Martin, farther, did not know or admit that the female pursuer had sustained injury in the manner or to the extent alleged, and he denied that any such injury was occasioned by culpable carelessness, negligence, or misconduct on his part, or that of any person for whom he was responsible, or that he was liable to the pursuer in damages to any extent, or upon any ground, whatever, and, quoad ultra, he denied the averments in the sum mons. on the evening of the 16th November last the female pursuer The record was then closed, and a proof allowed and led by both parties; and parties' procurators having been heard, the Sheriff-Substitute pronounced the follow-selves to risk without any warning. As to his liability thereing Interlocutor;- Having heard parties' procurators, and resumed consideration of the proof, productions, and whole process, Finds that for there can be no doubt. The Sheriff-Substitute has had greater difficulty in dealing with the landlord. The general rule unquestionably is, that if a faulty construction or contition of the subject let leads to an accident, the owner of the subject is liable "certainly in relief to the tenant, perhaps directly to the party injured." But here there is no reason to believe that until the support of the floor was removed by the tenant, and an insufficient support substituted, any danger was incurred by persons standing on it. In the case of Weston & Sons, 10th July, 1839, F.C., the Lord Justice-Clerk said: "If the subject is constructed in the ordinary manner, and not so as necessarily or in extreme probability to occasion damage from its ordinary use, there is no further liability on the landlord. But if by neglect, or by what does sometimes occur mischievous practices on the part of the tenant or of his family, damage does occur, it is not the landlord but the tenant who is liable." If Annacker had been able to prove, that he had expressly called Martin's attention to the state of the floor, and to the fact of its supports having been removed, the case would have been different; but in the absence of such proof, the latter, it is thought, is not liable to a third party for the consequences of an accident he had no reason to anticipate, and which would not have occurred if his property had not been interfered with by the tenant at his own hand. Whether Annacker may have a claim of relief against Martin is another question which does not emerge in this process. This Interlocutor was appealed, and after a hearing Sir Archibald Alison pronounced the following judg ment: Having heard parties' procurators under their mutual appeals upon the Interlocutor appealed against, and having made avizandum and considered the proof adduced and whole process, adheres to the Interlocutor appealed against in so far as regards the findings in point of fact; but Finds, upon the facts as proved, that in point of law both defenders are jointly and severally liable in damages for the injuries sustained by the female pursuer, whatever relief the one defender may have against the other; but, in the whole circumstances, restricts the damages concluded for to £25 sterling, for which, with interest as concluded for, decerns in favour of the pursuers against both defenders jointly and severally: Finds said defen ders also liable, jointly and severally, to the pursuers in expenses, reserving all questions of relief between the defenders inter se, and alters the Interlocutor complained of so far accordingly, but, quoad ultra, dismisses both appeals, and decerns. NOTE. The pursuer was here standing at the counter of the defender Annacker's shop in the Wellington Arcade, to make some purchases, at the time libelled on, in November last, when the floor below her gave way, and her right leg went through the hole and got wedged in at the knee, and she was with difficulty drawn out. The pursuer, who was two or three months advanced in pregnancy, and was in perfect health before, was seized next day with premature labour, and had a miscarriage, and was for fourteen days confined to the bed or the house, and suffered considerably. Both the defenders, Annacker the tenant of the shop, and Martin the landlord of it, are called as defenders, and sued for reparation for the injuries thus sustained by her. The defender Martin, as the landlord, had been warned in the June preceding that the floor of the shop was in an insecure state; and four weeks before the accident it had been temporarily repaired by the tenant, but in an insufficient way, and the whole wood-work of the shops in the Arcade was more or less affected with dryrot, and extensive alterations and repairs were being made upon the property by the landlord. The defender Annacker, about five weeks before the accident, had called Martin the landlord's attention to the fact that the floor was insufficient, and Martin admitted that it was so, but he objected to doing anything to it at that time, as the shop was to be overhauled thoroughly in a short time afterwards. Nothing was done to mend the floor till Jack's repairs began, which was on the Monday following the accident. The joisting below the floor was a little rotten, but if there had been a prop in the centre of the floor it would not have given way. Annacker had, on the occasion of his warning the landlord of the state of the floor about five weeks before the date of the accident, directed that the floor should be repaired in a temporary way, but nothing was done but to put a fillet under the board put across the floor. This board had been supported by a bridle, but it was taken away and not renewed. Cunningham, who made this temporary repair, told the tenant that it might last few days, but not longer. The old bridle supporting the board had crumbled away, and no new one been inserted, so that the joist supporting the floor was hanging at one end in the air. The tenant Annacker is liable to the pursuer in reparation because he should either have got the shop made secure for his customers himself, or shut it up till it was made secure, to prevent accidents. As in a question with the pursuer, however, the landlord appears to the Sheriff to be directly liable for the consequences of the accident, upon the ground that it is proved that, five weeks before the accident, Annacker, the tenant, had called the attention of the landlord, through Robertson the wright, who had been entrusted with superintending the alterations on the Arcade by him, the landlord, to the defective state of the floor; and he, Robertston, a practical man, told Annacker that it was needless to do anything to the shop in the meantime, as it would be so soon overhauled altogether. Further, the root of the evil was in the rotten state of the joisting supporting the floor, for which the landlord, and not the tenant, is responsible. Jack, who was employed by Robertson, afterwards remedied the defec tive state of the floor, on the very spot where the fall took place, and Jack swears he holds Martin, the landlord, liable for the cost of these repairs. In these circumstances, both the tenant and the landlord seem liable in reparation to the pursuer, jointly and severally, for the injuries sustained by her, as both were accessory to the mischief which followed. It is possible that the one defender, Annacker, may have a good claim for relief against the other, but that cannot be deter mined in this process, and is accordingly reserved. Broomielaw with an income of £130 a year, and it is proved The female pursuer was the wife of a salesman at the that a fee of £5 5s, was paid to the medical gentleman who attended her; and although the injuries and suffering sustained by the pursuer were pretty severe, yet these arose more from the miscarriage which resulted from the accident, and are too consequential to be made the ground for heavy damages, and, upon the whole, £25 seems adequate compensation. SHERIFF COURT, HAMILTON. A. W. WOODSIDE v. WILLIAM WEIR. Bankruptcy-Heritable property-Sale- Interdict Competition. A party conveyed absolutely to one of his creditors an heritable subject in security of a debt, qualified by a back letter, which was recorded. The granter thereafter became bankrupt, and his trustee having taken possession of the heritage, advertised and offered it for sale, but it was not sold. The creditor now advertised a sale of the subjects under his bond. Against this threatened sale the trustee applied for interdict. IIeld, that the trustee was entitled to interdict and to carry out the sale in preference to the heritable creditor, whose rights, under his bond, were preserved. In this action, the pursuer, an accountant in Glasgow, and trustee on the sequestrated estate of James Brownlic, hotel-keeper, Royal Hotel, Wishaw, some time ago advertised a sale of the hotel and other heritable property belonging to the estate, but in consequence of the upset price not having been offered, it was adjourned. In the interim, before the subjects were again exposed, the defender-a partner of the firm of Weir Brothers, wine and spirit merchants, Glasgow-advertised a sale of the same subjects. It appeared that, some time before his bankruptcy, Brownlie, who was owing Weir Brothers a considerable account, had executed an ex facie absolute 19TH MAY, 1862. SHERIFF COURT, GLASGOW. JAMES POLLOCK & Co. v. MURRAY & SPENCE. a debt had been innovated, and the original debtors liberated. assignation of his property in favour of the defender, who had granted a back-letter, stating that, notwithstanding thereof, he should hold the said subjects in security and relief of payment of the sum of "£270, advanced and paid to Brownlie in loan," and also of all goods and advances to be made and furnished to him by the said firm, which back-letter was subsequently recorded. In this Novation--Delegation.—Circumstances in which held that state of matters the pursuer applied for interdict against the sale advertised by Weir, who opposed the action, and pleaded—(1.) That the instance was defective, as the petitioner did not state the capacity in which he sued; (2.) that the dispute relates to heritable rights, and is competent only to the Supreme Court; and (3.) that the action ought to have been brought in Glasgow, where the defender was domiciled. And, on the merits-(1.) That he was heritable proprietor of the subjects in dispute, and not an heritable creditor, holding a security and power of sale within the meaning of the Bankrupt Statute. (2.) That, even although he were such a creditor, the pursuer had not been using sufficient diligence in realising the estate, and was, consequently, not entitled to interfere with his sale. The Sheriff-Substitute granted interim interdict, a record was made up, closed, and parties heard, and the Sheriff-Substitute pronounced the following Interlocutor: The Sheriff-Substitute having heard parties' procurators on the closed record, and made avizandum, Finds, with reference to the reserved preliminary pleas, that the first has no foundation whatever; that the second is not good, in respect there is no heritable rights to be disposed of; and that the third is equally untenable ratione rei site, therefore, repels the said pleas; and on the merits, Finds, that the pursuer, as trustee, is entitled to proceed with the sale when the proper time arrives, according to his judgment, and that the defender has no right to interfere with the same; therefore, declares the interdict perpetual: Finds the defender liable in expenses, of which allows an account to be given in, and remits the same, when lodged, to the Clerk of Court, to tax, and report, and decerns. This Interlocutor was appealed, and after a hearing Sir Archibald Alison pronounced this judgment: Having heard parties' procurators under the defender's appeal, upon the Interlocutor appealed against, made avizandum, and considered the closed record, productions, and whole process, Finds that the second preliminary plea, "That the action being one relating to heritable rights, is privative only to the Supreme Courts," is not now insisted in by the defender; and that the other two preliminary defences have been properly repelled; and, on the merits-in respect although the defender's title is ex facie absolute; yet it is admitted to be in security merely of an advance of money, and for future purchases of goods, by a back-letter, which, it is not denied, is recorded in the public records, qualifying the absolute conveyance in the defender's favour; in respect the Bankrupt Act authorizes the sale of heritable property belonging to the bankrupt, at the instance of the trustee on the estate, reserving entire the rights of all creditors holding heritable securities to be made effectual out of the price; in respect, in these circumstances, the right of the defender is that of an heritable creditor only, and not of an absolute proprietor, as his title, if unqualified, would import: and in respect the pursuer was instructed at a meeting of the creditors to bring the bankrupt's estate to a sale, and the defender had not previously taken any steps to bring the property in question to sale, and in these circumstances the Bankrupt Act declares that the heritable creditor is not entitled to impede or obstruct the sale by the trustee, dismisses the appeal for the defender, and adheres to the interlocutor appealed against, reserving to the defender his whole rights under his title, to full payment of his debt, out of the proceeds of the property when brought to sale by the pursuer as trustee, and decerns. Act. WILLIAM BROWN. All. Douglas H. ROBERTSON, THE pursuers, who are wholesale provision merchants in Parties' procurators having been heard, the Sheriff- Having resumed consideration of this process with the proof and productions, and having heard parties' procurators thereon, in fact, Finds that the defenders do not deny that they purchased from the pursuers the goods specified in the account libelled on, at the prices therein stated: Finds that on 12th January, 1861, the defenders transferred their interest in the business of provision merchants carried on by them to John Fullarton, jun., and intimated the transference to the public by an advertisement in the Glasgow Herald newspaper, in the following terms: "47 Garngad Hill, |