9.--Died, the Rev. George Willoughby Barrett, Minor Canon and Precentor
of Norwich Cathedral, aged 45. He was a native of Bristol, where his
father was well known as a musician. At an early age he was a chorister
at Bristol Cathedral, and after completing his school life, entered at
Worcester College, Oxford, where in 1872 he graduated B.A. and in 1877
proceeded M.A. He was ordained deacon in 1873 and appointed to the
curacy of Easton Royal, Wiltshire. On his admission to priest's orders
he was engaged from 1875 to 1887 in ministerial work at Hampton Lucy,
near Stratford-on-Avon. After his appointment as Minor Canon and
Precentor at Norwich Cathedral in the latter year, Mr. Barrett did much
useful work in promoting the interests of the Norfolk and Norwich Church
Choral Association, and in cultivating a taste for the higher class of
Church music. He was for several years in succession nominated by the
Bishop and Dean chaplain of the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
10.--Died in London, Mr. William Waring, formerly a tenant of Taverham
Hall. A partner in the firm of Waring Brothers, contractors for public
works, he had constructed railways in Belgium and India. In association
with the firm of Brassy and Peto, his firm had the contract for the
construction of the greater portion of what is now known as the Inner
Circle of the Underground Railway in London. Mr. Waring was a magistrate
for Norfolk, and a munificent supporter of the Norfolk and Norwich
Hospital and other local charities.
14.--Died, the Rev. John Nassau Simpkinson, rural dean of Burnham and
rector of North Creake, aged 77. He was a son of Sir Francis Simpkinson,
was educated at Rugby under Dr. Arnold, and afterwards won a scholarship
at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took his degree in 1838 with a
first class in the Classical Tripos and a Junior Optime in the
Mathematical Tripos. After some years' service as curate at
Hurstmonceux, he was appointed assistant master at Harrow, under Dr.
Vaughan, his brother-in-law, and there remained from 1845 to 1855. Mr.
Simpkinson was then presented to the rectory of Brington, Northants, and
in 1868 to that of North Creake. He was the author of a "Life of Wagner"
(1858), of "The Washingtons: a Tale of the Seventeenth century" (1860),
and of many articles in the "Edinburgh Review."
30.--In the House of Lords, before Lords Selborne, Watson, McNaughton,
Shand, and Morris, was heard the action, Boswell _v._ Coaks. This was an
appeal from the judgment of the Lords Justices in the matter of the
Harvey life interest. The case for the appellant set forth that this was
an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal, made on November 5th,
1892, in an action in the Chancery Division in which the appellant, on
behalf of himself and of other unsatisfied creditors of the late Sir
Robert Harvey, was plaintiff and the respondent and others defendants.
The order of the Court of Appeal affirmed an order of Mr. Justice North,
dated July 27th, 1892, made upon the several motions of the respondent,
dismissing the action as against all the defendants, except one, on the
ground that it was vexatious and oppressive. The appellant only appealed
against the order of the Court of Appeal so far as it affirmed the
dismissal of the action as against the respondent. The action commenced
on March 11th, 1892, and the object of it was to establish that the
judgment of Mr. Justice Fry in a former action, Boswell _v._ Coaks, 1881,
which judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal, but was subsequently
restored by the House of Lords, was not binding on the appellant or the
other unsatisfied creditors of Sir Robert Harvey, or of the firm of
Harvey's and Hudson's, on the ground that it was obtained by the fraud of
the respondents, and to secure for the appellant and the creditors
certain consequential relief. Mr. Crackanthorpe, Q.C., and Mr. Brabant
were for the appellant; and the Attorney-General (Sir John Rigby, Q.C.),
Mr. H. H. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Lawrence for the respondent.
Lord Selborne delivered judgment, and said it was not necessary to hear
counsel for the respondent. The question was whether anything material
to disturb the judgment of the House had been newly discovered by the
appellant. That involved a double proposition--that something new had
been discovered, and that that something new was material. There was a
total defect both of allegation and of evidence as to that which alone
could make it material. He had no hesitation in saying that in his
opinion it had been dealt with most properly by the Court of Appeal, and
that their lordships ought now to dismiss this action with costs, which
he accordingly now moved. Their lordships concurred, and the appeal was
dismissed with costs. (_See_ November 13th, 1895.)