In this previously-heard case, a summons to settle claim of Robert Xoftus Stanford, His Honor now gave judgmentas follows.:—

By the 190 th section of "The* Companies Act 1882" the voluntary winding up of a company is deemed to commence at the time of the passing of the resolution authorising the winding up, whereas in the present case there was a pre liminary, followed by a confirmatory»esolution. 'Ihe comoianqement of the winding up dates from the passing cf th,e confirmatory resolution (Dawes case L.K., 6 Bq., 232.) Here fche confirmatory resolution was passed on the 4jSh of October, and no doubt the passing of such a resolution like a winding up order is in some cases equivalent te 'the dismissal of an em ploye of the company (Shireffs case Jj.E., 14' Eg., 417, Chapman's case L.H., 1 Hq., 346). Where, how ever, the liquidator continues to carry on the busi ness in order to beneficially wind it up, as he is justified in doing under section 191, aod a person ,W.he js under a contract of service with the company continues .under the liquidator in the same position as he served before the winding up resolution, such service goes on under the old contract (Buckley on Joint Stock; Companies ,?rd Eg., p. 282 re English Joint Stock Bank ex parte Harding L.S., 3 Eg., 341, Yelland's case 1.E., 4 Eg., 350.) Now in the pre^ .sent case the passing of the liquidation resolution on .the 4th October did not stop the busiuess of the company nor the employment *of Mr Stan ford as editor. An offer was made on the sth of QctoUer by a Mr Cuttle 'for the property afld assets to the liquidators as they stood on the lßt of October. Mr O&.fcle did not in that offer disclose the names of those fbr whom he was actfng. Some days after fche offer was accepted, and'on the llth of Ootober he gave to the liquidators the names of Messrs Brown aud Stanford as the persons to whom the assignment was'to be made. On, or shortly after thafc date, an assignment was accordingly exe cuted by the liquidators to them. 