interrogatories struck out merely because delivered by plaintiff with the statement of claim, but only if plaintiff on being called upon fails to shew that the matter inquired after is material at that stage of the action. Mercier v. Cotton, L.R. 1 Q∙B.D. 412; 35 L.T. 79; 24 W.R. 566. (xxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Discovery-Interrogatories.-Leave will not generally be given to defendant to serve interrogatories before delivery of defence. Disney v. Longbourne, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 704: 45 L.J.Ch. 532; 35 L.T. 301; 24 W.R. 663. (xxix.) C. P. Div.-Discovery-Privilege.-Documents written "in confidence," by third parties in answer to inquiries by solicitor of party to a suit with a view to, and in contemplation of, anticipated litigation, are privileged.-M'Corquodale v. Bell, L.R. 1, C.P.D 471; 35 L.T. 261; 24 W.R. 399. (xxx.) C. A.-Discovery-Privilege.-A letter of unprofessional agent to his principal is not privileged from discovery, though written after commencement of litigation with regard to matter subject of the suit, on which principal requested information.-Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 644; 45 L.J.Ch. 449; 35 L.T. 76; 24 W.R 624. (xxxi.) C. A.-Discovery-Privilege.--Held that, under Order 31 r. 11, a judge has no discretion to refuse production of documents, except on ground of privilege; also that confidential letter of non-legal agent, containing mere matter of opinion, was not protected from discovery on ground of privilege. - Bustros v. White, L.R. 1 Q.B.D.423; 45 L.J. 642; 34 L.T. 835; 24 W.R. 721. (xxxii.) Ch. Div. V.C.H.-Discovery-Production.-Order 31 r. 20 does not make it imperative on the Court to dismiss an action where plaintiff has failed to comply with order for production of documents.-Hartley v. Owen, 34 L.T. 752. (xxxiii.) C. A.—Evidence-Affidavit.-Held that affidavits were properly sworn before a juge de paix and other officials in Belgium, having limited Jurisdiction and power to administer oaths in the district.-Kevan v. Crawford, 45 L.J. Ch. 658. (xxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Injunction-Winding-up Petition.-Where a company is in liquidation an injunction in restraint of pending actions may be granted by the Court in which the winding-up petition is presented.-Re City of London Supply Association & Clerks Club, 34 L.T. 846. (XXXV.) C.A.-Interlocutory Order-Receiver.-Ord. 52, r. 4.—Interim receiver appointed by Court of goods comprised in an agreement to execute a bill of sale where mortgagor's bankruptcy was imminent.-Taylor v. Eckersley, 45 L.J.Ch. 527; 24 W.R. 450. (xxxvi.) C. A-Interlocutory order-Receiver.-Iu action for specific performance in which judgment had been given for defendant, the plaintiff having appealed, the Court of Appeal appointed plaintiff receiver and manager of the property in question without security, on his undertaking to abide by order of the Court.-Hyde v. Warren, L.R. 1 Ex.D. 309. (xxxvii.) Ex. Div.-Leave to defend writ specially indorsed.-Ord. 14, r. 1.— Held that a surety whose principal does not admit the debt, and who has received no particulars of demand, will have leave to defend writ specially endorsed without payment into Court or giving seeurity; also that Ord. 14, rr. 1, 3, 6 apply only to cases which are on defendant's admission really undefended.-Lloyds Banking Co. v. Ogle, L.R. 1 Ex.D. 262; 45 L.J.Ex. 606; 34 L.T. 584; 21 W.R. 678. (xxxvii.) Ch. Div V.C.H.-Motion for judgment-Dismissal,—A party claiming dismissal of action for want of prosecution is not a party claiming relief within Order 40 r. 11.-Litton v. Litton, 24 W.R. 962. (xxxix.) C. A.-Motion for judgment-Partition.-Where in partition action plaintiff's title was admitted on the pleadings, enquiry as to persons interested in the property was ordered on motion for judgment under Order 40 r. 11.-Gilbert v. Smith, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 686; 45 L.J.Ch. 514; 35 L.T. 43; 24 W.R. 568. (xl.) C. A.-Motion for new trial.-Order 39 r. 1. In computing the time within which application must be made for new trial, days on which the Divisional Court is not sitting are not to be reckoned.-Hallums v. Hills, 24 W.R. 956. (xli.) C. P. Div.—Judgment—Removal.-After removal of judgment from inferior to superior Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment on the merits, or for irregularity of proceedings.-Williams v. Bolland, L R. 1, C.P.D. 227; 34 L.T, 904; 24 W.R. 644. (xlii.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.-Parties-Joinder.-Ord. 16 r. 13.—A. after agreeing to purchase land received notices of claims from C. D. and E. In action by B. for specific performance, the Court gave leave to A. to serve C. D. and E. with notice of motion to joint them as parties under Order 16, r. 13, but afterwards refused the motion with costs,-Harry v. Davey, L.R. 2 Ch.D., 721; 45 L.J.Ch. 697; 34 L.T. 842; 24 W.R. 515. (xliii.) Q. B. Div.—Parties—Joinder.-Held that Court will not in action brought by one of many joint owners of a ship against the charterers under Ord. 16, r. 9, join parties as plaintiffs merely so as to secure defendant's costs.-De Hart v. Stevenson, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 313; 45 L.J.Ch. 575; 24 W.R. 367, (xliv.) P. D. & A. D.-Parties-Probate action. The practice of citing heirat-law, devisees, &c.. in probate actions, is not altered by Judicature Acts.-Kennaway v. Kennaway, L.R. 1 P.D. 148; 45 L.J.P.D.A. 86; 34 L.T. 854; 24 W.R. 586. (xlv.) C. A.-Parties-Third party order.-Third party notice under Ord. 16, r. 18, may be given, although the whole question between plaintiff, defendant, and the third party may not be identical, provided any material question in the action is also a question between the defendant and the third party.-Swansea Shipping Company v. Duncan, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 644. (xlvi.) C. A.-Parties-Third party order. The Court has power to order notice to be served on a third party, if there is any one question common to all parties, but the exercise of such power is discretionary.-Bower v. Hartley, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 652; 24 W.R. 941. (xlvii.) Q. B. Div.-Parties-Third party order.-Held that under the circumstances a third party brought in as a defendant must confine his defence to one only of the points at issue; the cost of all parties to be settled by the judge after the trial.-Benecke v. Frost, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 419; 45 L.J. Q.B. 693; 34 L.T. 728; 24 W.R 669. (xlviii.) C. P. Div.-Pleading-Admissions-Signing judgment.-Where in action by lessor on covenant to pay rent defendant denied liability as being neither lessee nor assignee of lease, but admitted occupation of premises and payment of rent except for last eighteen months of such occupation: Held that though the form of plaintiff's action and precise legal position of defendant were not determined, yet on the admission of the pleadings as to facts, plaintiff was entitled at once to sign judgment for eighteen months' rent.-Lord Hanmer v. Flight, 35 L.T. 127; 24 W.R. 346. (xlix.) Ch. Diy. V.C.B.-Pleading-Amendment.-Fresh facts should generally be stated, not in reply, but by amendment of statement of claim.Earp v. Henderson, 34 L.T. 844. (1.) C. A.-Pleadings-Amendments.-The Court of Appeal will not generally interfere with the discretion of a judge in striking out a pleading or allowing it to be amended.-Watson v. Rodwell, 35 L.T. 86; 24 W.R. 1009. (li.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.-Pleading-Amondment.-A suit came to issue, before the new practice, to set aside a settlement on the ground of fraud; after the evidence was complete it was discovered that plaintiff had been unable to execute the settlement from mental incapacity: Held that the bill might be amended under Ord. 27 r. 1, and fresh affidavits filed.-Roe v. Davies, L.R. 2 Ch.B. 729; 24 W, 606. (lii) Ch. Diy. V.CH.-Pleading-Counter-claim.-A counter-claim will be excluded from a defence under Ord. 22 r. 9, if it introduces matter better dealt with in a separate action, or likely unduly to prejudice and delay plaintiff.-Padwick v. Scott, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 736; 45 L.J.Ch. 350; 24 W.R. 723. (liii.) Ch Div. M.R.--Pleading-Demurrer.-A statement of claim set out a decree in a former suit declaring that the plaintiffs in that and the present suit had, together with other owners and occupiers of land in Epping Forest, a general right of common, and stated that the defendant occupied certain waste lands and had enclosed the same, thereby interfering with the common right: Held that defendant was bound by the declaration, but might show either a special ground of exemption, or that the decree had been fraudulently obtained. - Commissioners of Sewers v. Gellatly, 24 W.R. 1059. (liv.) C. P Div.-Pleadings-Striking out:-Held, in an action to recover money on the ground of fraud, that statements in the pleading, to the effect that defendant had acted, in a similar manner on other occasions, must be struck out as irrelevant.-Blake v. Albion Life Insurance Co., 45 L.J. C.P. 663; 35 L.T. 269; 24 W.R. 677. (lv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Pleadings-Striking out.-The rule as to striking out or amending pleadings, under Ord. 27, r. 1, or Ord. 59, will not be applied to a reply joining issue generally to a counter-claim, because it does not deal specifically with the allegations thereof.-Rolfe v. Maclaren, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 106. 24 W.R. 816. (lvi.) C. P. Div.—Reference.-An order was made for reference of a cause pending 1st November, 1875, with directions to Master to continue proceedings under the new practice: Held that this was a reference under the Common Law Procedure Acts for the final decision of the Master.Cruikshank v. Floating Swimming Baths Co., L.R. 1, C.P.D. 260; 45 L.J.C.P. 684; 34 L.T. 733; 24 W.R. 644. (lvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Revivor.-Where infant interested in a suit is born after decree, an order may be obtained binding him by all proceedings up to his birth, and a summons may be taken out calling on him to show cause why subsequent proceedings should not bind him.—Scruby v. Payne, 34 L.T. 845. (lviii.) Ex. Div.-Service out of jurisdiction.-Whether service out of juris. diction ought to be allowed, under Ord. 11, is a question for decision of a judge in Chambers, subject to appeal, and defendant cannot raise the question by his statement of defence.-Preston v. Lamont, L.R. 1 Ch.D. 361; 24 W.R. 928. (lix.) Q. B. Div.-Service out of jurisdiction.-In an action for breach of a contract made and broken in England: Held that under Ord. 11, r. 1, an order could be made for service of the writ on defendant out of the jurisdiction.-Green v. Browning, 35 L.T. 760. (lx.) P. D. & A. Div.-Service out of jurisdiction-Foreign Company.-Leave refused to issue writ of summons, of which notice should be given, out of jurisdiction, against a foreign company in respect of damages done by a ship belonging to them on the high seas. In Re Smith, L.R. 1 P.D. (Ixi.) Q. B. Div.-Service out of jurisdiction-Foreign Corporation-Service out of the jurisdiction of notice of a writ of summons may be made on a foreign corporation, under Ord. 11, r. 1, and no order to proceed is necessary before signing interlocutory judgment on default of appearance. -Scott v. Royal Wax Candle Co., L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 404; 45 L.J.Q.B. 586; 34 L.T. 683; 24 W.R. 668. (lxii.) C. A.-Service-Substitution.-Where effectual personal service of writ on defendants could not be effected, the court refused to order substituted sevice; service cannot be effected on a colonial government.-Sloman v. Government of New Zealand, L.R. 1 C.P.D 563. (lxiii.) C. A.-Service-Substitution.-Held that endorsement upon the writ of the date of substituted service is not, as in case of ordinary service, under Order 9, r. 13, necessary to enable plaintiff to proceed in default of appearance.—Dymond v. Croft, 45 L.J.Ch. 604; 34 L.T. 786: 24 W.R. 842. (lxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Service-Substitution.-Where defendant had absconded, ordered substituted service of writ by leaving copy at his office, and best known address, and that notice of service be inserted in the "Times."—Cook v. Day, 45 L.J.Ch. 611; 24 W.R. 362. (lxv.) QB. Div.-Special Case.-Ord. 34, r. 2.-Where by indorsement of writ, and by plaintiff's affidavit, it was shown that a question of law ought to be decided before further proceedings: Held that the judge was right in ordering a special case, to be stated before delivery of statement of claim.-Metropolitan Board of Works v. New River Co., 45 L.J.Q.B. 759. (lxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Stay of Proceedings.-Equitable mortgagee commenced action to establish charge and for administration; another creditor subsequently obtained the usual administration decree on summons: ordered stay of proceedings in first action on enquiry as to circumstances, and the mortgagee to have conduct of the proceedings.-Matthews v. Matthews, 45 L.J. Ch. 711; 34 L.T. 718. (lxvii.) Q. B. Div.-Stay of Proceedings.-Where a military officer brought actions for conspiracy against members of a military court of enquiry, the alleged conspiracy being the agreement they came to as to the report on his conduct to be sent in to the Commander-in-Chief, the Court or dered stay of the proceedings as being groundless and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.-Dawkins v. Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 499; 45 L.J. Q.B. 567; 24 W.R. 567. (lxviii.) C. A.-Trial.-Action against A. and B. resulted in a verdict against A. only. A. obtained order for new trial, which was afterwards discharged. Held that Court had jurisdiction to call on B. to show cause why a new trial should not be bad as to him, and on merits of the case made the order for new trial absolute.-Parnell v. Great Western Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 636; 45 L.J. Q.B. 687; 34 L.T. 822; 24 W.R. 720., (lxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Trial.-The Chancery Division has no power to try cases with a jury; where such trial is demanded the case must be sent to Middlesex or some other county to be named by the plaintiff.Clarke v. Cookson, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 746; 34 L.T. 646; 24 W.R. 535. (lxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Trial.-Under Ord. 36, r. 1, the plaintiff in a Chancery action may by statement of claim demand trial by jury and fix the place of trial.-Redmayne v. Vaughan, 24 W.R. 983. (lxxi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Vacation of Registration.-An application to vacate registration of a lis pendens, after determination of suit, need not be by fresh action, but may be made in the matter of the Act and of the suit.Clutton v. Lee, 45 1.J. Ch. 684; 24 W.R. €07. Principal and Agent: (i.) C. P. Div.-Commission.-Defendant employed plaintiff to negotiate a loan of £10,000 from W., and paid to laintiff the stipulated commission thereon; defendant subsequently entered into partnership with W., who (ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Commission.-S. employed B. & Co. as his agents to (iii.) C. A.—Liability-Broker.-Defendant, a broker, sent to plaintiff contract (iv.) C. A.-Liability-Broker.-Fruit brokers at Liverpool sent to plaintiff a (v.) C. A.-Liability—commission.-K. contracted by letter to purchase goods (vi.) H-Liability-Stock-jobber.-M. through broker contracted with jobber for sale of shares: on name day N. passed to M. as purchaser of shares name of person who turned out to be a minor; M. executed transfer and received price. Held that jobber not having passed name of a person competent to contract was bound to indemnify M. from calls in respect of shares.-Nickalls v. Merry, L.R. 7, H.L. (E. & T.) 530; 45 L.J. Ch. 575. Principal and Surety : (i.) H. L.-Agreement between Sureties.-A., B., C. & D. were sureties for various bills of E.; in no instance had they all joined, and the amounts of their liabilities differed; an agreement was drawn up and signed by C., B. and D.that as between themselves the parties would each contribute of the amount required to meet liabilities. Held that upon the construction of the agreement it was the intention that such contribution should only be in the first instance and not to alter the existing rights and liabilities.Arcedeckne v. Howard, 45 L.J. Ch. 622. (ii.) Q. B. Div.-Joint-debtors-Notice.-R. & H. in partnership had bill transactions through plaintiffs whereby if remittances did not enable plaintiffs to meet bills when due defendants were bound to made up deficiency; this was by long practice frequently done by means of fresh bills accepted by plaintiffs, which defendants negotiated and handed proceeds to plaintiffs; on dissolution of partnership, of which plaintiffs had notice, outstanding acceptances were met by fresh drafts of H alone; on sale of goods, there being a deficiency, plaintiffs brought action against R. & H. Held that R. & H. could not as against the plaintiffs be treated |