A gratuitous lender of an article is not liable for injury resulting to the borrower or his servant while using it, from its defective state, if the lender was not aware of it. The defendant, a builder, had purchased a house which he pulled down with the exception of a party wall. For his own use he erected a scaffold. P. asked him for the job in pulling down the party wall, and a written agreement was entered into by which P. agreed to do it for 177. No mention was made in the agreement or otherwise of the use of the scaffold, but the plaintiff was aware that it was afterwards used by P. P. employed the plaintiff to pull down the party wall, and whilst doing so one of the putlogs, which was rotten, broke, and the plaintiff was thrown to the ground and seriously injured. The defendant was not aware of the defect in the putlog. -Held, that the defendant was not liable. MacCarthy v. Young, See CONTRACTOR. 329 CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL. MASTER AND SERVANT. AGENT. Liability of, on Contract. D., the defendant, entered into the following contract with R., the plaintiffs:" 22nd March, 1860. From J. D., Corn Broker, to Messrs. R. Liverpool. Dear Sirs,-I have this day sold to you two cargoes of French maize, to consist of 800 to 1000 quarters, shipment all April, from the port of Bordeaux, at 33s./3d. per 480 lbs. cost and freight, payment in London, less 60 days' interest and 10 brokerage. Mr. J. Walker, London, will send contracts." On the following day Walker forwarded contracts for the two cargoes on behalf of T. of Bordeaux, the owner of the maize, but omitting the stipulation as to the brokerage. The plaintiff's remonstrated, and the defendant said he would write to Walker, but the plaintiffs, in order to obtain the cargoes, were subsequently compelled to pay the 338. 3d. without any deduction for brokerage. -Held, that the defendant was responsible for the failure of Walker to send the contract stipulated for.— And semble, per Martin, B., and Bramwell, B., that the defendant's liability was not affected by the fact that the plaintiffs, instead of returning the contracts sent by Walker, accepted the maize under them. Reid v. Dreaper, ALEHOUSE. See BEER. APPEAL. 813 (1). Common Law Procedure Act, 1854. The Court of Exchequer having granted a rule nisi, to enter a verdict for the defendant on a point reserved at the trial, or for a new trial on the ground of misdirection and that the verdict was against evidence, afterwards made the rule absolute to the extent of granting a new trial. No leave to appeal was given.-Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that no appeal lay. Williams, J., dissentiente. Abbott v. Feary, 113 (2). From County Court-Costs. Where, on an appeal from a County Court, a new trial is ordered on the ground of misdirection, the Court will not give costs to the appellant. Gee and Others, App., The Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail- | Susannah T. In stating the case way Company, Resp., (3). Practice-Right to Begin. 211 before two justices sitting in petty sessions, the prosecutrix's attorney detailed facts, shewing a violation or attempted violation of the prosecutrix's person against her will. The prisoner's advocate objected to his giving evidence of anything but a common assault, but, after some argument between the advocates and the justices, it was agreed that the case should be taken under the Aggravated Assaults Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30. The prosecutrix stated that the prisoner began to "rawl” her for about a quarter of an hour; that she rawled till she could not rawl any longer with him, when he put her against a gate and had connexion with her against her will. She was cross-examined as to whether she had not consented to what took place. The justices convicted the prisoner, and in the commitment stated that they found the assault to be proved, and to be of such an aggravated nature that it could not, in the opinion of the justices, be sufficiently punished under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31; and the justices therefore, in pursuance of the 16 & 17 to be imprisoned &c. for six months. Vict. c. 30, adjudged the said W. T. -Held, that the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, s. 1, applies only to common assaults, and not to an assault accompanied by any circumstances which make it a distinct offence recognised by the law as something more than a mere assault such as an assault with intent to commit a rape. Per totam Curiam. Per Pollock, C. B., and Wilde, B., that inasmuch as the charge was not of a common assault, and the evidence did not point to a common assault, but to a rape or an attempt to commit a rape, the justices had no jurisdiction. Per Bramwell, B., and Channell, B., EXCH. that the information charged an assault, and that as it was possible that the justices might have disbelieved the charge of rape or attempt to commit a rape, and found that nothing more took place except an assault of an aggravated character, the rule ought not to be made absolute. In re Thompson, 193 ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT. Evidence of. ATTORNEY. BANKER. Money paid by London Banker for The defendant, a merchant at Hull, kept an account with the Hull bank, upon the terms that they should procure P. and Co., their London agent, to accept on their credit bills drawn by the foreign correspondents of the defendant against their consignments to him, and of which P. and Co. were advised by the Hull bank. The defendant paid the Hull bank a quarter per cent. on the amount of the acceptances, and they paid P. and Co. a fixed annual sum The defendant, the surveyor of for transacting their London busihighways of the parish of L., retained ness. When a bill was accepted by the plaintiff to defend an indictment P. and Co., the Hull bank debited against the parish for the non-repair the defendant with the amount, and of a highway. Pending the proceed- they charged him interest from the ings the defendant ceased to be sur-time the bill was due. The Hull veyor, and a new surveyor was ap- bank became bankrupt, and P. and pointed. In a correspondence Co. paid all bills accepted by them between the defendant and plaintiff which were due after the bankruptcy. as to the costs of the indictment, the Held, in the Exchequer Chamber defendant requested the plaintiff to (reversing the decision of the Court send his bill of costs to the new sur- of Exchequer), that the assignees veyor. The plaintiff sent by post of the Hull bank, and not P. and his bill of costs to the defendant in Co., were entitled to recover from the following letter:-" Herewith the defendant the amount of such you have bill of costs in the L. bills. Barkworth and Others, Assigmy matter. I have sent a copy to the nees v. Ellerman, 605 surveyor of the parish of L." The bill was headed "The surveyor of the highways of the township of L., and the inhabitants of the said parish, debtors to C." (the plaintiff.)-Held, that as the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 36, does not require any heading to an attorney's bill, the requisites of that statute were complied with, since the bill and the letter sufficiently notified to the defendant that he was the party to be charged. Champ v. Stokes, 683 BANKRUPTCY. (1). Act of-Fraudulent Sale. If a trader raises money by selling his goods at an under value (not for the purpose of carrying on his business, but in contemplation of stopping payment, and for the purpose of cheating his creditors), to one who has notice either by express informa tion, or from the nature of the transaction that he is selling his goods not in order to carry on his business but with a fraudulent intention, the sale is an act of bankruptcy and void, and the assignees may recover the goods from the purchaser. Fraser and Others, Assignees, v. Levy, 16 section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, is notice of an act of bankruptcy within the meaning of the 133rd section, provided an adjudication of bankruptcy is filed within two months after the petition for arrangement is dismissed. Edwards and Another, Assignees, v. Gabriel, 701 (2). 12 & 13 Vict. c. 109, s. 280.- (4). Privilege from Arrest-12 & Composition, Payment of. 13 Vict. c. 109, s. 257. To an action of debt the defendant pleaded, that after the accruing of the debt he became bankrupt, and that, after the bankruptcy, he and P. R., in pursuance of the 230th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, made an offer of composition, which was accepted by nine-tenths in number and value of the creditors, the offer being to pay 4s. in the pound, in full satisfaction of his debts, such composition to be paid to all the creditors in cash within fourteen days after the second sitting to be appointed under the 280th section: that the Court ordered the adjudication to be annulled: that P. R. joined in making the offer of composition, in consideration of all the effects of the defendant being assigned to him by the defendant: that the defendant and P. R. paid the composition to the other creditors, and that the defendant had always been ready and willing to pay, and brought into Court the amount of the composition on the plaintiff's debt ready to be paid to him.- Held, that the plea was bad for not shewing a payment or tender within the fourteen days. Hazard v. Mare, 434 (3). Notice of Act of Bankruptcy. Notice to an execution creditor that his debtor has filed a petition for arrrangement under the 76th ૨ ૨ ૨ 2 F. having been adjudicated bankrupt, and having surrendered, the 6th of November was appointed for his last examination. At this meeting his examination was proceeded with, and the meeting was adjourned to the 3rd of December. The bankrupt was not imprisoned or in custody at the date of the adjudication. On the 1st of December he was arrested under a writ of ca. sa. issued out of this Court, founded upon a certificate granted by a Commissioner, under the 257th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849.-Held, that he was protected from arrest by the 112th section of that Act, and the Court therefore discharged him. A bankrupt arrested under a writ of ca. sa., when privileged from arrest under the 112th section, is entitled to be discharged from custody, and cannot be detained under a writ of ca. sa. lodged with the sheriff after the period of protection has expired. Dubitante Martin, B. Ockford v. Freston.-Chapman v. Freston, 466 See COSTS (3). BASTARD. See CONVEYANCE, FRAUDULENT. BEER. The 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61, s. 13, which Notice of Dishonour-Effect of Admission-Liability in Absence of. If a party who has not had due notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange thinks fit to acknowledge his liability, though he does so to a party other than the person who afterwards sues upon the bill, that acknowledgment is sufficient to enable the latter to maintain an action on the bill. A. indorsed a bill to B., who indorsed the same to C. A. had no notice of dishonour. C. brought an action on the bill against both A. and B., who allowed judgment to go by default. B. paid the bill and sued A.-Held, that A., having acknowledged his liability on the bill by suffering judgment by default in an action by C., could not set up the want of a notice of dishonour as an answer to an action by B. Rabey v. Gilbert, 536 BILL OF LADING. See SHIPPING (2.) BILL OF SALE. A bill of sale by way of mortgage of personal chattels, if executed as a security for money actually lent, is not fraudulent and void within the 13 Eliz. c. 5, though its object is to defeat the expected execution of a judgment creditor. BUILDING SOCIETY. The registration, under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, of a bill of sale as of the day of its execution, is not invalidated by reason of the consideration money not having been paid, nor the deed attested, until two days after the execution. Darvill v. Terry, 807 BROKER. See AGENT. BUILDING SOCIETY. Action by Surveyor against Directors--Contract for Payment “out of the Funds of the Society." The plaintiff was surveyor to a Benefit Building Society, of which the defendant was one of the managing directors. By a Rule of the Society, it was declared that its object was to advance money to its members to enable them to buy or build houses. By another Rule, the surveyor shall examine and report upon houses and other property "previous to money being advanced thereon by the Society, and shall transact all other business of the Society, &c., for which he shall receive out of the funds thereof a fair and reasonable remuneration." The directors took on lease a piece of land on which they covenanted to build six houses. At a meeting of the directors, at which the defendant was present, it was resolved that the plaintiff be instructed to prepare plans and specifications for the houses. At another meeting it was resolved that the plaintiff be paid a commission of 3 per cent. on the outlay. The plaintiff prepared the plans and specifications and superintended the building, but before it |