insurance law, denotes an ordinary loss, happening by misadventure to ship or cargo, and is borne where it falls; and by gross average, as it is sometimes named, it is distinguished from petty average, the average accustomed inserted in bills of lading, and usually compounded for by a small per centage to the ship owner;" and at p. 454, "average usually named with primage, is scarcely now a reality, but it denotes what has heretofore been an insignificant per centage due from the freighter, on receipt of his goods, and was supposed to cover some trivial expenses of the ship owner, incurred in the navigation." With respect to the other questions in the Common Law division, it may be remarked that no objection can be made to No. I., as every one ought to be acquainted with the fact, that the three superior courts of common law at Westminster, though having in the main concurrent jurisdiction, have each some exclusive matters of jurisdiction, that is (stated shortly), the Q. B., criminal law; the C. P., the abolished real actions (see as to dower and quare impedit, the C. L. P. Act, 1860, ss. 26, et seq., by which writs of summons are substituted for the former writs in those

actions), and the Exchequer, revenue matters. No. II. is a case of practice, and difficult for one not engaged in actual practice. No. III. ought to be known; we have lately heard of a disastrous result arising from ignorance of it by a country practitioner. In No. V. there would appear to be a mistake, which we overlooked, as the note being joint merely (and not joint and several, either in terms or by implication, see Selw. N. P., 407, 411, 11th ed.) judgment could not have been (properly) recovered against A. alone, though judgment might have been recovered against him alone for the trespass. But, then, there being no joint liability, there could have been no pretence for contribution. We presume the examiners meant that the amounts were levied by execution on A. alone, the judgment being against A. B. and C. Of course we are aware that if A alone had been sued on the note, and he had not pleaded the nonjoinder of B. and C., judgment might have been recovered against A. alone; but this is a very unlikely thing. So, if B. and C. were dead, A. alone must have been sued; but the question does not contemplate this. Our readers can exercise their ingenuity in imagining what it was that the examiners had in view, and communicate the result to us. As to No. VII. it may be observed that many persons think it unnecessary to give a notice to admit documents where they are not in the hands of the client, but this is too narrow a construction (Com. L. Pract. 157; Rutter v. Ch., 11 Law Journ., Ex. 178). In answer No. X. there is a clerical error, the word "out" being used for "on;" the answer will then be that a ffa. cannot be put in force after a ca. sa. is executed. The inability to issue a ca. sa. under £20, is confined to actions for the recovery of any debt; however, the word is not applied very strictly,

having been extended to penalties under a statute (see Com. L. Pract. 256; 9 Jar. 657); a defendant does not recover any debt. In No. XIII., instead of "the principal may be at any time sued upon it," read "the principal may at any time sue upon it;" the question referring to an action for the price of the goods.

With respect to the equity questions, the most difficult ones are, No. II. (as to ademption), No. III. (as to mortmain), No. VI. (as to investments), and No. VIII. (as to appeals). Ademption of a legacy is, as explained, Law Dict., p. 10, strictly applicable to the case of a destruction or cesser of existence of the thing given to a legatee, arising from a supposed alteration in the testator's intention. Instances are gifts of money due on bond, or a sum of stock, and afterwards the testator receives the money or sells out the stock (see 5 L. C. 20, 83, 132; Lee v. Lee, 6 Week. Rep. 846). The doctrine stated and instances given ante, p. 26, are applicable to satisfaction, but, as there stated, on the authority of the case cited, the doctrines of satisfaction and ademption rest on the same ground (see, further, Bacon's Abr., Legacies, C.). The validity or invalidity of the gifts by will to charitable uses, as they are called, being gifts to corporations and public institutions, &c., depends upon the gifts savouring or not of the realty, and a considerable knowledge of the course of decisions is requisite, especially as to the shares in the companies, and the arrears of rents, inasmuch as the companies frequently, and in some instances necessarily, hold land, and rent arises from land. Formerly the courts held the shares to savour of the realty, and the gifts therefore to be invalid, but since companies have become so numerous, and investments in shares are so common (the shares, too, being frequently declared by statute to be personal estate), the courts hold the shares to be personalty, and bequests of them, therefore, to charitable uses not open to objection (see 5 L. C. pp. 2–5 ; Linley v. Ta., 7 Week. Rep. 639; 1 L. C. N.S., 274; Edward v. Hall, 1 Jur, N.S., 1189). See, however, as to money secured on tolls payable under a statute, Ion v. As., 8 Week. Rep. 573 ; 2 L. C., N.S., 152.

The question relative to investments (p. 27) is one of much difficulty, especially as the candidates had necessarily no books to consult. The statement that sec. 32 of the 22 & 23 Vic. c. 35, did not apply to the new East India Stock, is a little too broad: more precisely, it should have been that the Court of Chancery would not authorise trustees to make such an investment, leaving them to take the risk upon themselves (see re Trenow, 8 Week. Rep. 272; 2 L. C., N. S., 104). No reference was made, the question not requiring it, to sec. 25 of Lord Cranworth's Act (the 23 & 24 Vic. c. 145), by which trustees having trust moneys in their hands which it is their duty to invest at interest, may invest the same in any parliamentary stocks or public funds, or in government

securities, and may call in any other investment and invest the proceeds as aforesaid; such investment or calling in being made with the consent of the tenant for life, &c., being sui juris. Nor, for the same reason, was reference made to the 23 & 24 Vic. c. 38, s. 10 (2 L. C. N. S., 168), enabling the judges in equity to make such general orders as to the investment of cash under the control of the court, either in the £3 per Cent. Consolidated or Reduced, or New Bank Annuities, or in such other stocks, funds, or securities as shall seem fit; and also enabling the Lord Chancellor to make orders for the conversion of any £3 per Cent. Bank Annuities standing in the name of the Accountant-General in trust in any cause or matter into any such other stocks, funds, or securities upon which, by any such general order as aforesaid, cash under the control of the court may be invested; and (sec. 11) enabling, after any such general orders, any trustees, executors, or administrators, having power to invest their trust funds upon government or parliamentary securities or funds, to invest in any of the stocks, funds, or securities, in or upon which by such general orders cash under the control of the court may be invested. In pursuance of this act an order was on February 1, 1861, issued that cash under the control of the Court of Chancery may be invested in Bank Stock, East India Stock, Exchequer Bills, and £2 10s. per Cent. Annuities, and upon mortgage of freehold and copyhold estates respectively in England and Wales, as well as in Consolidated £3 per Cent. Annuities, Reduced £3 per Cent. Annuities, and New £3 per Cent. Annuities. Every petition for conversion of any £3 per Cent. Bank Annuities into any other authorised stocks or securities, is to be served on the trustees and such other persons as the court may direct. We have added this information here as being convenient, and as likely to be useful to future candidates. The question at p. 28, No. VIII., as to appealing after a dismissal of the bill with costs, looks like an exception to the general rule, but we have not been able to find any decision. It is possible that the examiners may have intended to raise the question so often mooted, whether an appeal will lie for costs? if so, they have failed to accomplish the object.

Before finishing with the Equity Division, we may add that it is important that candidates should pay particular attention to this division, as we are informed, on the very best authority, that the Master of the Rolls has communicated to the Examiners his wish that they should be very strict as to the equity answers; and we know that some of the candidates who answered meritoriously in the other divisions were rejected because they had not answered satisfactorily in equity. In other words, the merit of the other answers did not countervail the deficiency of those in equity, which is a circumstance to be borne in mind by future candidates.

GENTLEMEN,-In reply to your inquiries respecting my course of study, &c., for the examination, I beg to say that, as I remember how much I stood in need of the assistance mentioned in your letter, I have no objection to give some information on the subject. I spent four and a half years of my articles in a country office, and during that time my attention was chiefly directed to conveyancing, to which my reading was also much confined. I then went for six months to a London office of good practice, and assisted generally in the business, reading up and mastering any points that arose as they occurred, and at the same time carrying out a prescribed course of study at the library of the Law Society, to which I was a subscriber, and where I generally spent my evenings. The books I read were those generally in use for students, including " Stephen's Commentaries," "Williams on Real and Personal Property," "Smith's Manual of Equity," and "Smith's Mercantile Law." I did not attend any law lectures, thinking them useless, nor did I take advantage of the aid of any gentleman professing to pass candidates. At the examination I answered every question in each division, and as shortly and directly as I fairly could. I have derived great assistance from a regular perusal of the Law Times, and of the Law Journal and Law Times' Reports. - Yours, &c., Y. Z.

THE EXAMINATIONS TOO EASY.

A GENTLEMAN, signing himself "One who took Honours at his Examination," in a communication furnishes some startling instances of success in cases of candidates who have not taken any previous pains to prepare for the ordeal of examination, which it may be useful to notice here, not as an inducement for others to do the like, but rather as a warning. The writer starts with an assertion in reference to the last examination that few will be inclined to back. He says, "I do not imagine that the papers were of a more difficult character than is usual, or that the requirements of the candidates were below the average, but may not the solution be this-that the examiners have on this occasion more faithfully discharged their duties to the diligent and painstaking student than some of their predecessors have done? Far be it from me to cast the slightest imputation upon gentlemen whose motives are, I am sure, beyond question, and who, as a general rule, discharge their duties most satisfactorily; but any impartial and experienced judge will, I am sure, coincide with me when I say, that the last few examinations have not been worthy the name. I write from facts. In each of the four examinations of last year I happen to know men who passed, but who knew no

more of law than many writing clerks of six months' experience, who spent the greater period of their articles in idleness, then a few months in London, in the neighbourhood of the Haymarket, and after having had two or three weeks' "coaching" from some experienced and practical "whip," went in and passed the examination. To particularise: At the Trinity Term examination I was assured by a successful candidate that he only did one week's reading, and all the practice he had seen was some common law in a London office. At the Michaelmas examination I knew another who read for a fortnight, and passed the examination, but with such an extensive knowledge of the law that he has given up all thoughts of its practice, and since turned corndealer. I will not detain you by instances which I could multiply, and doubtless some who read this will need no other proof of its truthfulness than the testimony of their own consciences. Now, I contend that such "easy-going work" as this is not fair to the man who works hard and studies diligently, and shall probably be met by the answer, "For students of the latter class the prizes and certificates of merit are a sufficient reward." This is not so in every case; for, to recur for a moment to the last Trinity examination, I knew a gentleman who had worked hard and read much, who passed a most satisfactory examination, but not being fortunate enough to obtain honours, was classed with the man who was diligent enough to study for a week, and by the verdict of the examiners was not supposed to know more of his profession than he. I trust that in future, in justice to the "working" class, the examiners will follow the example set them by Mr. Pollock and the other members of the late board, so that while justice is administered to the diligent, mercy shall not be measured out to the slothful, and that the examinations may be a reality, not an idea, and become what they profess" a practical test of the candidate's fitness to discharge the duties of an attorney and solicitor."

EXAMINERS' ADDRESS.

HILARY TERM, 1861.

Ar the last examination (Hilary Term) Master Pollock, who presided, delivered the following address to the candidates :

GENTLEMEN,It is customary to address some words of welcome and encouragement to you, from this end of the room, upon the occasion of your presenting yourselves for examination; and although