Thames Conservancy Act, 1857: Held (affirming decision of C. A., see Poor Law (v.), p. 65) that, having regard to the nature of the arrange. ment and of the construction of the moorings, C. was liable to be rated in respect of them.-Cory v. Bristow, 25 W.R. 383.

(xii.) C. P. Div.-Rateability-Pier.-A portion of a flying pier below lowwater mark is wholly beyond the jurisdiction, and not rateable.-Black. pool Pier Co. v. Fylde Union, 36 L.T., 251.

(xiii.) Q. B. Div.-Rateability-Woods.-Under the Rating Act, 37 & 38 Vict., c. 54, s. 4, woodlands are rateable according to their value in their natural unimproved state.-Earl of Westmoreland v. Southwick, 36 L.T. 109.

Practice:

(cxxxvii.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs.-Where a respondent who had not been allowed costs in the Court below did not give notice of his intention to raise the question on the appeal under Ord. 58, r. 6: Held that he could not on the appeal ask for his costs.--Harris v. Aaron, 36 L.T. 43; 25 W.R. 353.

(cxxxviii.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs.-Where notice of motion of appeal has been given, but proper steps under Ord. 58, r. 8 have not been taken, so that the case is not in the paper for the day, the other party, without appearing must make a substantive application for costs of motion.Webb v. Mansel, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 117; 25 W.R. 389.

(cxxxix.) C. A.—Appeal—Costs-Admiralty Action.-Where Court of Appeal varied a decision of the Adm. Div. by finding that not one vessel, but both were to blame for a collision, both parties were ordered to pay their own costs in the Court below and in the Appeal Court.-The Corinna, 35 L. T. 781.

(cxl.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs-Admiralty Action.-Where the Court of Appeal varied decision of Adm. Div. by holding that a collision was not owing to one of the parties, but to inevitable accident, both parties were ordered to pay their own costs.-The City of Cambridge, 35 L.T. 781. (cxli.) C. A.-Appeal-Direction to Jury.-On appealing against a judge's direction to a jury, the proper mode of proceeding is to give ordinary notice of appeal.—Cheese v. Lovejoy, 25 W.R. 453.

(cxlii.) C. A.-Appeal—Dissolution Suit-Custody of Children.—An appeal from an order as to the custody of children, made after final decree for dissolution of marriage, lies to the Full Court of the Divorce Division, whose decision is final.-Gladstone v. Gladstone, 25 W.R. 387.

(cxliii.) C. A.-Appeal-Dissolution Suit-Order refusing New Trial.-An appeal from an order made in a suit for dissolution of marriage, refusing an application for a new trial, lies to the Full Court of the Divorce Division, whose decision is final.-Robinson v. Robinson, 36 L.T. 122; 25 W.R. 388.

(cxliv.) C. A.-Appeal-Security for Costs.-Order nisi of Divisional Court of Appeal requiring a County Court Judge to show cause why he should not sign case for appeal from his decision, was discharged after cause shown, and defendants again appealed: on proof that taxed costs already occasioned had not been paid, the Court ordered the appeal to be stayed till payment of a deposit into Court as security for the costs.-Clarke v. Roche, 36 L.T. 78; 25 W.R. 369.

(cxlv.) C. A.—Appeal-Security for Costs-Delay.-Where appellant delayed for nine months to comply with order to give security for costs, the appeal was dismissed on respondent's application for want of prosecution. -Judd v. Green, 35 L.T. 873; 25 W.R. 293.

(cxlvi.) C. A.-Appeal-Separation Suit-Interlocutory Order.-An appeal

from an interlocutory order made in Chambers in a suit for judicial separation, lies to the Full Court of the Divorce Division, whose decision is final.-Wallis v. Wallis, 36 L.T. 161; 25 W.R. 387.

(cxlvii.) C. A.-Appeal-Time.-Notice of appeal from order made under Trustee Relief Act must, under Ord. 58, rr. 9, 15, be given within twenty-one days of the perfecting of the order or of refusal of the application. Re Baillie's Trusts, 35 L.T. 917; 25 W.R. 310.

(cxlviii.) C. A.-Appeal-Time.-Time for appeal begins to run from refusal of an interlocutory application, though such refusal and an order on further consideration are embodied in one order.-Cummins v. Heron, 36 L.T. 41; 25 W.R. 325.

(cxlix.) C. A.-Appeal-Time.—Similar decision.-White v. Witt, 36 L.T. 123; 25 W.R. 435.

(cl.) C. A.-Appeal in Bankruptcy-Time.-In bankruptcy appeals, notice of motion for appeal must be given within twenty-one days of signature or refusal of order, inclusive of Sundays.-Re Gilbert, Ex parte Viney, 36 L.T. 43; 25 W.R. 364.

(cli.) C. A.-Appeal from Chambers-Time.-Held that notice of appeal from Chambers for a day when the Court did not sit, and more than eight days after the decision appealed against, was bad, although the Vacation commenced within the eight days.-Deykin v. Coleman, 36 L.T. 195; 24 W.R. 294.

(clii.) C. A.--Appeal to House of Lords-Leave.-The Court will not give leave to appeal to the House of Lords unless of opinion that there is a question of law of sufficient importance to justify such appeal.--In re Turner, Ex parte Attwater, 35 L.T. 917; 25 W.R. 328.

(cliii.) P. C.-Appeal to Privy Council-Costs.-An appeal to her Majesty in Council cannot be brought on a mere question of costs.- Credit Foncier of Mauritius v. Patureau, 35 L.T. 869.

(cliv.) C. A.-Appearance-Admiralty Action.-Held that the old practice of the High Court of Admiralty as to appearances under protest is still in force in Admiralty actions.-The Vivar, L.R. 2 P.D. 29; 35 L.T. 782; 25 W.R. 453.

(clv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Attachment-Contempt.-Held that the circulation by plaintiff among defendant's business correspondents of a statement of claim, charging defendant with unfair and over-reaching conduct, amounted to contempt of Court, and that plaintiff must pay cost of motion to commit; and injunction granted.-Bowden v. Russell, 36 L.T. 177.

(clvi.) C. P. Div.-Costs.-Costs under Ord. 55 follow the event in all jury cases irrespective of amount recovered, except only cases within the provisions of County Courts Act, 1867, expressly preserved by Judicature Act, 1873, s. 67.—Parsons v. Tinling, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 119; 46 L.J. C.P. 239; 35 L.T. 851; 25 W.R. 255.

(clvii.) Ch. Div.-Costs-Abandoned Motion.-On ex parte application made at the close of the seal the Court allowed costs of abandoned motion.Yetts v. Biles, 25 W.R. 452.

(clviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Costs-Abandoned Motion.-The Court refused costs of an abandoned motion, where counsel instructed to ask for them had omitted to give notice to the other side.-Aitken v. Dunbar, 25 W.R. 366.

(clix.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Counter-claim.-A plaintiff whose claim is reduced by proof of a counter-claim recovers judgment only for the balance, and the question of costs is decided according to such balance, under County Court Act, 1875, s. 5.-Staples v. Young, 25 W.R. 304.

(clx.) P. D. A. Div.—Costs—Discontinuance.-Where plaintiff after succeeding in an interlocutory application, the costs of which are made costs in the cause, gives notice of discontinuance, defendant is under rules of Supreme Court, Ord. 23, entitled to costs including costs of the interlocutory application.—The St. Olaf, 36 L.T. 30.

(clxi.) C. P. Div.-Costs-Interest.-Interest on costs runs from date of taxing master's certificate.-Schroder v. Clough, 35 L.T. 850.

(clxii.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Payment into Court.-Where defendant pays money into Court, plaintiff is entitled to his costs up to that time provided he takes the money out under Ord. 30 in satisfaction of his claim.-Lang. ridge v. Campbell, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 281; 36 L.T. 64; 25 W.R. 351.

(clxiii,) Q. B. Div.-Costs-Reference.-Where a cause is referred to master, under Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 3, with powers of certifying of a judge at Nisi Prius, he cannot certify for costs after award has been taken up, unless the case is remitted to him by the Court.Bedwell v. Wood, 36 L.T., 213.

(clxiv.) P. D. A. Div.-Costs-Security.-Where plaintiff has assigned all his property for benefit of his creditors, he will generally be required to give security for costs.-The Lake Megantic, 36 L.T. 183.

(clxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Disclaimer-Costs.-By order of pension, leave was given for assignment of chambers in Gray's Inn to A. in trust for B., who mortgaged his interest to C., with notice to A. of such mortgage: A.'s name was never substituted for that of assignor in the books of the society, and by an order of pension in 1873 the previous order was rescinded: A. gave no notice to C. of such last-mentioned order: C. brought foreclosure suit, to which A. put in answer disclaiming all interest: Held that the bill must be dismissed as against A. without costs.-Slipper v. Gough, 36 L.T. 92.

(clxvi.) C. P. Div.-Discovery-Interrogatories-Ord. 31, rr. 4, 5.—A railway company were ordered to give discovery as to entries in their books for several years past as to delivery of goods to them for carriage.— Hall v. London & N. W. Rail. Co., 35 L.T. 848.

(clxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-District Registry – Chancery Actions-Powers of Registrars.-Chancery actions, notwithstanding Ord. 35, r. la, must be set down for trial in London: district registrars have no power to appoint receivers or open banking accounts, or, except by special direc tion of judge, to take accounts in administrative action.-Re Smith. Hutchinson v. Wood, 36 L.T. 178; 25 W.R. 452.

(clxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Evidence-Affidavit.-A schedule forming part of an affidavit cannot, except by order of the Court, be filed by the record and writ clerks unless it is printed under Ord. 31, r. 7, but the schedule may be made an exhibit, and the affidavit need then alone be printed.-Webb v. Bomford, 25 W.R. 251.

(clxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Interlocutory Order.-Order granted ex parte for entry to inspect and take samples under Ord. 52, r. 3.—Hennessey & Co. v. Rohmann, Osborne & Co., 36 L.T. 51.

(clxx.) C. A.-Leave to Sign Judgment.-An application under Ord. 14, r. 1, that defendant be called on to show cause why final judgment should not be entered against him, must be supported by affidavit of plaintiff of his belief that there is no defence.- Frederici v. Vanderzee, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 70; 46 L.J. C.P. 194; 35 L.T. 889; 25 W.K. 389.

(clxxi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Motion for Judgment—Dismissal.—Notice of motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, where plaintiff has become bankrupt, must be served on his trustees.-Wright v. Swindon, Marlborough, & Andover Rail. Co., L.R. 4 Ch. D. 164; 46 L.J. Ch. 199.

(clxxii.) C. A.-Motion for Judgment-Discretion of Judge.-It is within dis

cretion of the Court to grant or refuse relief claimed on motion for judgment upon the admissions in pleadings under Ord. 40, r. 11.—Mellor v. Sidebottom, 25 W.R. 401.

(clxxiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties-Joinder.-Ord. 16, r. 3, does not permit a person to be joined as defendant to a counter-claim against whom relief is claimed in one of two inconsistent alternatives.-Evans v. Buck, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 434; 46 L.J. Ch. 157; 25 W.R. 392.

(clxxiv.) Ex. Div.-Parties-Joinder.-A third person brought in as a party to an action, under Ord. 16, rr. 17, 18, is entitled, under Judicature Act 1873, s. 24, sub-sec. 3, to serve notice and bring in a fourth party claiming against him.-Fowler v. Knoop, 36 L.T. 219.

(clxxv.) C. A.-Parties-Joinder-Alternative Relief. In action against L. for non-performance of contract made by T. in name of L., when L. denied having given authority to contract as alleged by statement of claim: Held that plaintiff was entitled to join T. as defendant, and to claim alternative relief against him or L.-Honduras Oceanic Rail. Co. v. Le Fevre & Tucker, 36 L.T. 46; 25 W.R. 310.

(clxxvi.) Ch. Div. M.

con

R.-Parties—Joinder-Consolidation.—After solidation of two actions a new defendant was, under Ord. 16, rr. 14, 15, ordered to be added without service of any writ, and a present defendant to be made a party in a representative character without further indorsement of any writ, unless cause to the contrary should be shown within eight days.-Re Wortley, L.R. 4 Ch. 180; 46 L.J. Ch. 182; 25 W.R. 295. (clxxvii.) C. P. Div.-Parties—Joinder-Ord. 16, r. 13.—A plaintiff is not at liberty, on grounds of his own convenience, to add as defendants persons against whom he does not intend to set up any claim.-Norris v. Beazley, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 80; 46 L.J.C.P. 169; 35 L.T. 845; 25 W.R. 320.

(clxxviii.) C. A.-Parties-Third Party Notice.- Held, reversing decision of Q. B. Div., that third party notice, under Ord. 16, r. 18, may be given wherever there is prima facie a material question which is common as between plaintiff and defendant, and as between defendant and the third party, and which may be advantageously decided in the action, without prejudice or delay to plaintiff.-Swansea Shipping Co. v. Dun. can, Fox, & Co., 35 L.T. 879; 25 W.R. 233.

(clxxix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties-Wrong Plaintiff-Mistake in LawOrd. 16, r. 2.-Where demurrer on ground that the wrong person was plaintiff was allowed, leave to amend was given: fraud being charged, the question of costs was reserved till the hearing.-Duckett v. Gover, 25 W.R. 455.

(clxxx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Petition.-Where four persons were entitled absolutely to property carried to a separate account in one suit, and one of such persons was entitled also to a fund standing to his separate account in another suit, an order was made for payment out of both funds on one petition instituted in both suits.-Greenwood v. Greenwood; Bell v. Kettlewell, 25 W.R. 316.

(clxxxi.) P. D. A. Div.—Pleading—Admiralty Action-Preliminary Acts.— Ord. 19, r. 30, as to delivery of preliminary Acts does not apply to an action brought against a ship carrying cargo, for damage to the cargo by collision with another ship.-The John Boyne, 36 L.T. 29.

(clxxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Pleadings--Amendment—Ord. 27, r. 1.— Court gave leave to amend statement of claim on payment of costs of application, without enquiring as to materiality of proposed amendment.-Chesterfield Co. v. Black, 25 W.R. 409.

(clxxxiii.) Ex. Div.-Pleading-Counter-claim.-Where several plaintiffs put in a joint claim defendant may, under Judicature Act, 1873, s. 24, and under Ord. 16, rr. 1, 3, and Ord. 19, r. 3, set up a separate counter-claim

sounding in damages against each plaintiff.-Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. v. Brooks, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 243; 46 L. J. Ex. 244; 36 L.T. 103; 25 W.R. 413.

(clxxxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Pleading-Counter-claim.-A claim by defendant against co-defendant for indemnity cannot be set up by counter-claim.Furniss v. Booth, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 586; 46 L.J. Ch. 112; 25 W.R. 267. (clxxxv.) P.D. A. Div.-Pleading-Counterclaim-Collision Case.-Defendant in a collision case, resident out of jurisdiction, making a counter-claim for damage to his own ship, must give security for the whole costs of the action, otherwise his counter-claim will be dismissed.-The Julia Fisher, 36 L.T. 257.

(clxxxvi.) C. P. Div.-Pleading

Mistake - Rectification.-Where plead

ings show that a contract was reduced to writing by mutual mistake of parties, the Court will treat the contract as reformed.-Breslauer v. Barwick, 36 L.T. 52; 24 W.R. 901.

(clxxxvii.) C. A.-Pleading Reply. In action for specific performance defendant pleaded breaches of agreement by plaintiff, whereby contract was avoided: Held (reversing decision of V. C. B., see Practice (cxiii.), p. 68) that plaintiff was entitled in his reply to state what facts he pleased, not being scandalous or irrelevant, to meet a defence by confession and avoidance.--Hall v. Eve, 35 L. T. 926.

(clxxxviii.) C. A.-Referee-Question of Fraud.-A case involving questions of fraud and the character and reputation of the parties will not, except by consent, be sent for trial before Official Referee.-Leigh v. Brooks, 25 W.R. 401.

(clxxxix.) App. Div. Ct.-Service out of Jurisdiction-Manager of Firm -Ord. 9, r. 6a.-Service may be effected on the manager of a defendant who is out of the jurisdiction, if such defendant carries on business under the name of a firm having a place of business within the jurisdiction. O'Neil v. Clason, 46 L.J. C.P. 191.

(cxc.) C. A.-Service out of Jurisdiction-Ord. 11, rr. 1, 3.--Affidavit in support of application for order for service out of jurisdiction must show that cause of action arose within the jurisdiction: Order of V. C. M. see Practice (cxxiii.), p. 69, discharged.-Great Australian Gold Mining Co. v. Martin, 35 L.T. 874; 25 W.R. 246.

(cxci.) C. A.-Special Case-Ord. 34, r. 2.—Decision of Q.B. Div. see Practice (lxv.), p. 28, affirmed.-Metropolitan Board of Works v. New River Co., L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 67; 46 L.J. Q.B. 183.

(excii.) App. Div. Ct.-Time-Enlargement-Ord. 57, r. 6.—Where defendant's solicitor, after entering appearance, neglected the action, so that judgment was given against defendant by default, the Court, on the application of defendant, made more than six days after the trial, but within six days of his first hearing thereof, granted enlargement of time to enable defendant to move to set aside the judgment.-Michell v. Wilson, 25 W.R. 380.

(cxciii.) C. A.—Transfer of Action.—An action was commenced in Ex. Div. for remission of contract for sale of land and recovery of deposit: vendor filed counter-claim for specific performance: Held that, on vendor's application, the action must be transferred to Ch. Div.-Holloway v. York, 25 W.R. 403.

-

Default of Appearance. ·

(cxciv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B. — Trial · Where an action being called on for trial, no papers had been delivered and plaintiff did not appear: the Court dismissed the action with costs.- Farrell v. Wale, 36 L.T. 95.

(cxcv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Trial—Jury.—In a suit for remission of con