(cxxix.) C. A.-Special Case-Trial of Question at Law-Order 34, r. 2.— Decision of Q. B. Div., see Practice (lxv.) affirmed.—Metropolitan Board of Works v. New River Co., 25 W.R. 175.

(cxxx.) C. A.-Stay of Proceedings-Costs.-Plaintiff, whose furniture had been seized for non-payment of costs, applied for stay of proceedings pending appeal to House of Lords, and that sheriff might be ordered to withdraw on payment of costs into Court: Held that plaintiff must pay whole costs to defendant's solicitor, on his undertaking to refund if appeal should succeed, and also costs of sheriff and of this application.—Morgan v. Elford. 25 W.R. 136.

(cxxxi.) Ex. Div.-Transfer.-An action for breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation with regard thereto, was brought in Ex. Div.; and a cross action for specific performance of the same contract was brought in Ch. Div.; the Court ordered the first action to be transferred to Ch. Div -Holmes v. Hervey, 35 L.T. 600; 25 W.R. 80.

(cxxxii) P. D. & A. Div.-Trial-Ord. 36, r. 1.-The Court will generally adhere strictly to the rule that causes shall be tried in Middlesex, unless another county is named in the statement of claim.-Rage v. Ridge, 35 L.T. 428.

(cxxxiii.) C. A.-Trial by Jury-Chancery Action.-The trial by jury of an action in Ch. Div. must be at the sittings in London or Middlesex before a judge of a Common Law Div., or at assizes.-Warner v. Murdock, 35 L.T. 748; 25 W.R. 207.

(cxxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Trial-Jury.—The judge has absolute discretion, under Ord. 36, r. 26, to order a Chancery action to be tried by himself without a jury: where the case rests on voluminous documentary evidence the case ought not to be tried by a jury.-Garling v. Royds, 25 W.R. 123.

(cxxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Writ-Amendment.-With the sanction of A. G. an action may by amendment of writ and statement of claim be turned into an information and action, without prejudice to a pending motion in the action.-Caldwell v. Pagham Harbour Reclamation Co., L.R. 2, Ch.D. 221; L.J. 45, Ch. 796; 24 W.R. 690.

(cxxxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Writ-Indorsement.-Executor advertised part of testator's property for sale; A. being interested beneficially, brought action for administration only: Held, on ex parte application, that A. might amend indorsement of writ by asking for receiver and injunction to restrain sale.-Colebourne v. Colebourne, L.J. 45, Ch. 749; 24 W.R. 235 Principal and Agent:

(vii.) C. A.--Commission.-S. employed B. & Co. to effect insurances on his ships in their accounts they charged full premiums, but retained for themselves 5 per cent. as brokerage, and a further 10 per cent. discount for ready money: Held that the allowances were usual, and that S., not having inquired into the terms on which S. & Co. effected the insurances, could raise no objection.-Baring v. Stanton, L.R. 3, Ch.D. 502.

(viii.) C. A.-Factor-Set-off.-Where an agent is intrusted with goods for sale, and no limitation of his authority is disclosed to buyer, a debt due from agent to buyer may be set-off against principal's claim notwithstanding agreement of agent with principal not to sell in his own name.-In re Henley, Ex parte Dixon, 35 L.T. 641; 25 W.R. 105.

Principal and Surety:

(iii) C. A.-Discharge.-A surety is discharged by creditor releasing a partial security for principal's debt.-Polak v. Everett, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 669; 35 L.T. 350; 21 W.R. 689.

(iv.) C. A.-Discharge.-Held, reversing decision of C. P. Div., that where there is one entire contract for performance by principal of several acts at distinct times, time given to principal with regard to any one of such acts

does not discharge surety from all liability; the obligation cannot be renewed by any subsequent act to which he is not a party.-Croydon Commercial Gas Co. v. Dickinson, 25 W.R. 157.

(v.) C. A.-Liability-Bankruptcy of principal-Surety guaranteed payment of £7000, with proviso limiting liability to £1300; debtor paid off £1000 and then filed petition for liquidation, in which obligee proved and received a dividend on £6000; more than £13,000 still remained unpaid: Held that surety was not entitled to deduct a rateable proportion of dividend, was liable for whole £1,300.—Ellis v. Emmanuel, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 157; L.J. 46, C.P. 25; 34 L.T. 553; 24 W.R. 832.

Probate:

(ix.)-P. D. A. Div. - Attestation ---Where will had no attestation clause but at foot thereof were the words "signed in the presence of" before the names of the witnesses, the testator's name being written below: Held that the will might be admitted to probate.-In the goods of Jones, 25 W.R. 215.

(x.)-P. D. & A. Div.-Copy will.-The copy of a will may, with the consent of parties interested in intestacy be admitted to probate.-In the goods of Entichnap.-35 L.T. 427.

(xi.)-P. D. & A. Div.-Informal documents.--Where four testamentary documents were found after death. some of which were informal and imperfectly attested but not inconsistent with each other: Held that they might all be admitted to probate as one will.-In the goods of Rotton, 35 L.T. 518.

Public Health :

(i.)-Ex. Div.-Action for penalty-38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. An action for penalties, under Public Health Act, 1875. Schedule 11, 5, 70, requires consent of A. G.-Smith v. Fieldhouse, 35 L.T. 602.

(ii.) Ex. Div.-Local Board-Chairman-Acting after Disqualification.Defendant, acting as chairman of local board after disqualification, made complaint against plaintiff, the clerk of the board, who resigned, and sued for £50 penalty under Public Health Act, 1875 (38 and 39 Vict., c 55) B. 253: Held that plaintiff was not a "party aggrieved," and could not sue without consent of Attorney-General.-Rochfort v. Atherley, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 511.

(iii.) C. A.-Local Board-County Court Action-Time.-Held upon the construction of Public Health Act, 1848, ss. 69 129, Administration of Justice No. 2 Act, 1848, s. 11, and Local Government Act, 1858, Amendment Act, 1858, s. 24, that a County Court action by a Local Board for expenses of paving, etc., having been commenced more than six months after cause of complaint arose, could not be maintained.Tottenham Local Board v. Rowell, L.R. 1, Ex. Div. 514; 25 W.R. 135. (iv.) Q. B. Div.-Local Board-Rate-Public Health Act, 1875.-A local board gave notice of an intended rate under Public Health Act, 1848; before the expiration of the notice that Act was repealed by Public Health Act, 1875, which contained a saving clause as to things "duly done," and gave similar powers. Held that the rate levied in ignorance of the repeal of the Act was valid.-Regina v, JJ. of West Yorks, L.R. 1, Q.B,D. 220; L.J. 45, M.C. 97; 35 L.T. 359.

Public Works Loan :

(i.) H. L.-Rate-Mandamus.-The churchwardens and overseers of W. under 5 Geo. IV., c. 36, borrowed money from the Public Loan Commissioners for the repair of the church: Held that a peremptory maudamus com manding a rate to be made for repayment of the money was a decision upon a right, and subject to review, and that inasmuch as more than 20 years had expired since the advance, such rate could not be made.— Regina v. Churchwardens of All Saints, Wigan, L.R. 1 App. 611; 35 L.T. 281; 25 W.R. 128.

Queensland, Law of:

(i.) P. C.-Gold Fields Act, 20 Vict. c. 29. An ordinary quartz 1eef claim is confined to the particular reef to which the claim refers, and the holder is not entitled to take from any other reef within limits of the claim; discoverers of gold in a new locality within two miles from any known working reef, are entitled to reward claim of 120 ft. in length, and, also, if already holders of miner's rights, to an ordinary quartz claim; claims and interests created before rules of 1868, must be determined by rules of 1866.-Hollyman v. Noonan, L.R. 1, App. 595; L.J. 45, P.C. 62.

Railway :

(xiii.) Ex. Div.-Carrier.-An action against a carrier for neglect in delivery of goods after notice of stoppage in transitu is founded on tort.-Pontifex v. Midlan t Rail. Co., 35 L.T. 706; 25 W.R. 215.

(xiv.) App. Div. Ct.-Carriers-Special Contr ct.-Where a railway company entered into special contract to carry cattle at a low rate, on condition of being liable for negligence only: Held that the condition was not unreasonable, and that onus of proof of negligence was on plaintiff— Harris v. Midland Rail. Co., 25 W.R. 63.

(xv.) Railway Commissioners-Carriers-Undue Preference-Parcels.-A railway company had two scales of charges for parcels, one according to weight and distance, and a lower rate according to distance only, but subject to prepayment by stamp and other restrictions: At Dublin the company by agreement with W. paid for carriage to or from the terminus 1d. for each unstamped parcel, and nothing for stamped parcels: in other towns 2d. extra charge was made for collection or delivery of stamped parcels: Held on the facts, that the company was not guilty of undue preference.Robertson v. Midland G. W. Rail. Co. of Ireland, 35 L.T. 636.

(xvi.) C. A.-Negligence.-Held, on the facts, that defendants were not guilty of negligence in having omitted to examine minutely a truck belonging to another company, the breaking down of which on defendant's line caused a collision.-Richardson v. Great Eastern Rail. Co., 35 L.T. 351; 24 W.R. 342.

(xvii.) H. L.-Negligence,-If defendants could have prevented accident by reasonable care and diligence, they are not excused from liability by plaintiffs' contributory ne ligence.—Radley v. London and N. W. Railway Co., 35 L.T. 637; 25 W.R. 147.

(xviii.) C. A.-Negligence-Insufficient platform.-Plaintiff, endeavouring to alight from a carriage which had been stopped beyond the station-platform, fell and was injured: Held that there was evidence of negligence for a jury. Robson v. N. E. Rail, Co., L.J. 46, Q.B. 50; 35 L.T. 535. (xix.) C. A.—Negligence-Train overshooting platform.-Decision of Ex. Div., see Railway Company (viii.), reversed.-Rose v North Eastern Rail, Co., 35 L.T. 693; 25 W.R. 205.

(xx.) C. A.-Parliamentary Deposit.-Held that the costs of the solicitor of a railway company incurred subsequently to incorporation, constituted a "debt incurred on account of the promotion of the company," within Abandonment of Railways Act, 1869, s. 5.-Re Barry Rail. Co., 25 W.R. 201.

(xxi.)-Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parliamentary Deposit.—The Court has power to order investment in East India 14 per cent. stock of a parliamentary deposit paid into the bank, under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 20. Re Southwold Railway Bill, L.R. 1 Ch. D. 667; LJ. 45 Ch. 800; 34 LT. 56; 24

W.R. 293.

Revenue: :(v.)-C. A.-Succession Duty.-A bona fide sale of a reversionary interest does not create a succession within 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51-Fryer v. Morland, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 675; L.J. 45 Ch. 817; 35 L.T., 458; 25 W.R. 21.

School Board:

(i.)-App. Div. Ct.-Bye laws.-A child employed in a workshop at B. attended school 10 hours in the week, as required by the Workshop Regulation Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 146) s. 14. but did not attend during the whole time required by the bye laws of the School Board: Held that the bye laws were not contrary to the Act and that there had been a breach of them.-Bury v. Cherryholm, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 457; 35

L.T. 403.

Scotland, Law of.(ii.)-H. L.-Marriage-Habit and repute.-Parties ignorant of an obstacle, afterwards removed, went through a matrimonial ceremony at Glasgow, and believed by themselves and by others to be validly married, lived continuously as husband and wife for years: Held that the marriage had been established by habit and repute, without proof of mutual consent by verbal declaration.-De Thoren v. The Attorney-General, L.R. 1 App. 866.

(iv.) H. L.-Reservation of Minerals.-Grants of land, on the construction of the reservation of minerals clause in each case, held respectively to have, and not to have, secured the right to carry outside minerals under and through the land granted.-Ramsay v. Blair, L.R. 1 App. 701. Settlement:

(xvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Consideration--27 Eliz. c. 4.-Testator devised real estate to daughter in fee and declared his wish that on marriage she should settle it on herself for life to her separate use with remainder as she should appoint by will; after her marriage, the property was settled on the wife for life to separate use and without power of anticipation, remainder to husband for life, remainder for children, &c. The husband and wife having mortgaged the property in fee suppressing the settlement, Held that the settlement was for valuable consideration and could not be set aside.-Teesdale v. Braithwaite. L.R. 4 Ch. D. 85; 35 L.T. 590; 25 W.R. 222.

(xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Equity to Settlement.--The equity to a settlement of a married woman extends to her children of a former marriage whether or not they are otherwise provided for.-Conington v. Gilliat, L.J. 46 Ch. 61; 35 L.T. 736; 25 W.R. 69.

(xix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Marriage Articles-Specific Performance.-By marriage articles wife's parents agreed to appoint to her certain real estate, and the husband, with wife's consent, covenanted to settle the same upon certain trusts: Held that the heir of the wife was bound by husband's covenant.-Lee v. Lee, 25 W.R. 225.

(xx.) C. A.—Power of Appointment. In a suit to set aside an appointment by a husband under a power in his marriage settlement as being fraudulent in that there was a possibility of benefit to the appointor and to persons not objects of the power, Held on the circumstances of the case that the appointment was valid.-Roach v Trood, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 429; 34 L.T. 105; 24 W.R. 803.

(xxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Rectification-Petition.--By a marriage settlement real estate was conveyed to trustees their executors, administrators, and assigns upon the usual trusts; it being clear that the fee simple was intended to be passed: Held, upon petition under the Trustees Relief Act, that the settlement might be rectified by the insertion of the word "heirs."-Re Bird's Trusts, L R. 3 Ch.D. 214.

(xxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Reduction into possession.-By marriage settlement property was settled both by husband and wife, who afterwards perished without issue in the same ship, and the trusts of the settlement consequently failed: Held that each fund must go to the next-of-kin of the settlor thereof.-Wollaston v. Berkely, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 213; L.J. 45 Ch. 772: 34 L.T. 171; 24 W.R. 360.

(xxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Satisfaction.-A., on marriage of his daughter, covenanted to settle a moiety of his property upon trusts declared in her marriage settlement; by his will he left a moiety upon trusts for the benefit of his daughter and her husband and issue, with variations in the trusts and powers: Held that the gift by will was in satisfaction of the covenant, and that the daughter and other persons interested must elect between provisions of settlement and of will.-Russell v. St. Aubyn, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 398; 35 L.T. 395,

Ships :

(xxvi) C. A.-Charter-party-Construction.—A charter-party stipulated for cesser of charterer's liabibility on completion of landing, and provided that master should have a lien of demurrage; the consignees were, in fact, agents of the charterers: Held on the construction of the charter-party that the ship owners had no right of action save by enforcement of the lien.-Sanguinetti v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co., 35 L.T. 658; 25 W.R,

150.

(xxvii.) C. P. Div.-Charter-party-Construction.-Held, on the construction of a charter-party, that a proviso therein contained for cesser of liability of charterers freed them from all liability for acts and defaults of themselves and agents both before and after loading, whether covered by owners' lien or not.-French v. Gerber, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 737; L.J. 45 C.P. 880; 25 W.R. 113.

(xxviii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Collision-Foreign Judgment-In an action for collision, a foreign judgment, unless obtained prior to the proceedings in this country, cannot be pleaded as an estoppel.-The Delta, L.J. 45 P.D.A. 111; 35 L.T. 376; 25 W.R. 46.

(xxix.) P. D. & A. Div.-Collision-Measure of Damage.-In estimating damage a charter-party entered into contingent on arrival of ship at a given time must be taken into consideration, the measure being the freight under the charter-party, less incident expenses.-The Star of India, L.J. 45 P.D.A. 102; 35 L.T. 407.

(xxx.) P. D. & A. Div.-Collision-Inevitable Accident.-Shipowners are not liable for damage by collision owing entirely to a latent defect in machinery.-The Virgo, 35 L.T. 519.

(xxxi.) P. C.-Collision-Rule of Road-Practice.-Sailing vessel meeting steamer must keep her course unless in imminent peril: in collision cases in ViceAdmiralty Courts the forms of preliminary Acts in use in the High Court must be used, and evidence taken so far as possible viva voce. -The Norma, 35 L.T. 418.

(xxxii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Collision-Sailing Rules-R. 20.-A ship aground ought to exhibit a light on a mast and have a look-out to warn approaching ships.-The Thomas Lea, 35 L.T. 406.

(xxxiii.) C. A.-Collision.-Steering and Sailing Rules. The meaning of the terms "crossing ships," "overtaking ships," "approaching ships," within the Steering and Sailing Rules (Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1862,) Arts. 14, 16, 17, 20, considered and explained: ships in the English Channel are governed strictly by these rules, not by customs of river navigation. The Franconia, 35 L.T. 721; 25 W.R. 197.

(xxxiv.) P. D. A. Div.- Compulsory Pilotage.-Pilotage is compulsory in the Falmouth district.-The Juno, L.R. 1 P.D. 135; L.J. 45, P.D.A. 105; 34 L.T. 741; 24 W.R. 901.

(XXXV.) C. P. Div.-Damage-Limitation of liability.-The limitation of a shipowner's liability for damage under Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, applies to all cases of improper navigation, and relief on this ground should be claimed in statement of defence, under Judicature Act, 1873, s. 21, subs. 2.-Wahlberg v. Young, L.J. 45 C.P. 783; 24 W.R. 847.