of the property should derive any benefit at the expense of others. The decision in Buckley v. Howell, in fact, discovered a legal pitfall into which many trustees, acting under the advice of the most prudent practitioners, had fallen. It was, therefore, a very fair subject for ex post facto legislation, in order that transactions which had taken place in ignorance of the law as there laid down might be confirmed. Accordingly the 25 & 26 Vic. c. 108, was passed, by which it is enacted, "that no sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement, at any time heretofore, of land by any trustee or other person, expressed or intended to be made in exercise of any trust or power authorising the sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement of land, and not forbidding the reservation of minerals, and which sale, exchange, or partition should have been made with an exception or reservation of minerals and with or without rights or powers for or incidental to the working, getting, and carrying away of such minerals, or otherwise relating thereto, should be invalid on the ground only that the trust or power did not expressly authorise such exception or reservation, but such sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement should be deemed to have taken effect in the same manner as if the exception or reservation had been authorised by the trust or power; and no sale, exchange, or partition theretofore made of any minerals separately from the residue of the land, subject to the trust or power intended to have been exercised, and either with or without such rights or powers as aforesaid, should be invalid on the ground only that the trust or power did not expressly authorise such sale, exchange, or partition, but the same should be deemed to have taken effect in the same manner as if such minerals, rights, and powers (if any) had been expressly authorised to be so dealt with separately from the residue of such land." (Sec. 1.)

Those transactions only, concerning which there had been no litigation before the passing of this Act, are rendered valid, for the same section contains the following exception :-"This enactment shall not be deemed to confirm any sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement already declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, nor to confirm or affect any sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement as to the validity of which any suit or other proceeding is now pending." (Ib.)

With regard to the future the Legislature has deemed it expedient that trusts and powers to dispose of land by way of sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement should be extended, and it has accordingly been enacted that every trustee and other person now or hereafter to become authorised to dispose of land by way of sale, exchange, partition, or enfranchisement, may, unless forbidden by the instrument creating the trust or power, so dispose of such land, with an exception or reservation of any minerals, and with or without rights and powers

of or incidental to the working, getting, or carrying away of such minerals, or may (unless forbidden as aforesaid) dispose of, by way of sale, exchange, or partition, the minerals, with or without such rights or powers, separately from the residue of the land, and in either case without prejudice to any future exercise of the authority with respect to the excepted minerals or (as the case may be) the undisposed-of land; but this enactment is not to enable any such disposition as aforesaid without the previous sanction of the Court of Chancery, to be obtained on petition, in a summary way, of the trustee or other person authorised as aforesaid, which sanction, once obtained, is to extend to the enabling from time to time of any disposition within this enactment of any part or parts of the land comprised in the order to be made on such petition, without the necessity of any further or other application to the Court. (Sec. 2.) The Act does not extend to Scotland or Ireland. (Sec. 3.)

Under the Settled Estates Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 120) a sale of the mines, apart from the surface, may be authorised by the Court (Sect. 11; and see re Mallin, 9 Week. Rep. 588; 7 Jur., N. S., 511.) And on the sale of any land under the Act, "any earth, coal, stone, or mineral may be excepted." (Sec. 13).

We have before said that the case of Buckley v. Howell was decided upon analogy to similar cases, where land was sold, under a power of sale, separately from the timber. Thus it has been held, that where trustees, under a common power of sale and exchange, sold an estate without the timber, the tenant for life could not claim the money for which the timber was sold (Doran v. Wiltshire, 3 Swanst. 699; Wolf v. Hill, 2 Swanst. 149, note). And, moreover, such an exercise of the power has been decided to be bad at law; nor has the subsequent investment of the price of the timber by the tenant for life in the names of the trustees been deemed sufficient to give validity to the transaction, and a bill in equity to make good the sale has been dismissed (Cockerell v. Cholmeley, 3 Russ. 565; 1 Russ. and M. 418, 424; 6 Bligh, N. S., 120; 1 Cl. and Fin. 60; and see Sugd. Real Prop. 491). As in the case of minerals, the Legislature has interposed to render valid sales of land where the tenant for life has received the purchase money for the timber; for it has been enacted, that where, under à power of sale, a bond fide sale shall have been made of an estate with the timber thereon or any other articles attached thereto, and the tenant for life, or any other party to the transaction, shall, by mistake, be allowed to receive for his own benefit a portion of the purchase money, as the value of the timber or other articles, the Court of Chancery, upon payment of the full value of the timber or articles at the time of the sale, with interest, and the settlement thereof, may declare the sale valid, and thereupon the legal estate is to vest as if the power had been duly executed (22 & 23 Vic.

c. 35, s. 13). On the whole, these enactments, although not very clearly drawn, will prevent some hardship arising from mistakes by no means unlikely to occur in the exercise of powers affecting timbered and mineral estates.

EXAMINATION EXPERIENCES.

AFTER having served five years in a country office, I came up to London to read for my examination, and as I knew I had not gained much information, I thought it best to place myself under an advertising "coach," believing that thereby I should be able to make up for my previous negligence. For the benefit of others I beg to state that it is all a delusion and a snare, for nothing is to be learned under a "coach" which cannot as easily and as well be learned by solitary reading. This will be fully understood when I state the course of proceeding adopted by my "coach." He told me to read a few works, such as Stephen's Commentaries, Williams' Real and Personal Property, Broom's Common Law, Spence's Equity, Ayckbourn's Practice, Archbold's Bankruptcy, and Archbold's Crim. Law Pleading and Evidence. In addition, I was to "get up" the Examination Questions, writing down answers, which he undertook to read over with me and correct. This reading and correction occupied about an hour each day, whilst the rest of the day was occupied with the reading of the works above referred to and getting up the answers to the Examination Questions. All this I might have done without such assistance, for a comparison of my answers with those published would have been more useful than the corrections made or suggested by my "coach," which, I found, were not always correct. To be sure, I was not the only person to whom attention was given, for there were three others attending the same course of reading, and who, of course, shared in the instruction afforded by the "coach." After trying this system for nearly six months, I was told that I might safely go up to the Examination, for, it was said, I was at least equal to the average of successful candidates. Being nothing loth I essayed to pass, but found that I was one among the "postponed," though I had worked hard to pass through successfully, having stayed each day up to the last moment, and having answered about fifty five questions, and, as I thought, for the most part correctly; but I suppose I was mistaken in this latter respect. My "coach expressed himself surprised at this unfortunate result, which he attributed to my having been nervous, or to some temporary circumstance, and, in short, to anything but his insufficient instruction. He was, however, kind enough to offer to take me again for five months at one half of the sum previously paid by me, and this though he had originally engaged, in consideration of that payment,

more.

to instruct me until I passed a successful examination. I felt so disgusted that I determined to have nothing further to do with such an "instructor." I did not, however, give up my preparation, but continued my reading of the before-mentioned and other works, carefully examining myself and testing my acquisitions day by day. I even went to the trouble of framing questions on what I read, putting them aside for a week and then endeavouring to answer them. This latter practice, though involving a considerable amount of labour, I found to be extremely useful, and I should recommend other articled clerks to pursue a similar course, as I am sure they would be greatly benefitted thereby. I also continued to read the Examination Questions and to frame answers thereto, and compare the latter with those published, and after about six month's persistence, I felt assured I could get through the examination, and, as I thought, do something I accordingly went up again, and, having been very careful in framing my answers, and, in particular, making them as concise as possible consistently with completeness, I was this time successful. I answered about sixty of the questions, taken indiscriminately from the five divisions. I certainly felt more confidence in myself on this occasion than at the former examination, though from what I had been then told, I had not anticipated rejection, and was not therefore nervous or otherwise unfavourably acted on by dread of failure. It will thus be seen that I had been postponed for full twelve months after the completion of my service; which, indeed, did not prove to be any detriment to me, though circumstances might have arisen which would have made it otherwise, and then I should, no doubt, have regretted my inattention to study and business during the continuance of my articles. There may be some of your readers who are now pursuing the same heedless course, and, if so, I trust these lines may be serviceable to them in pointing out their folly, and also in inducing them to make an immediate change. No doubt the institution of the "Intermediate" Examination will have a beneficial effect in preventing clerks delaying too long their preparation for the Final Examination. I should have been glad if it had been instituted early enough to have applied to me, as I have little doubt I should in that case have attended with much greater diligence to my studies and to the office business, and certainly should have saved the expense of employing a "coach," which though not in my case of great amount, might have been well spared. I hope this short account of my experiences may not be altogether unacceptable to some of the articled clerks who have yet to undergo their Examinations, and remain, &c.

ONE, &c.

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS.

ADMINISTRATION BOND.-Breach of Citation on surety to show cause against bond being assigned-Probate Act, 1857, s. 83.—On a prima facie case of breach of administration bond being established, notice in some form having been given to the sureties, the Court will direct the bond to be assigned; but might refuse to do so if, on cause shown, the proceeding appeared to be wholly frivolous and vexatious (Marshman v. Hughes, 8 Law Tim. Rep., N. S., 89). BANKERS.—Trustees — Mortgage—Accounts-Compound interest. -It is a well-known rule of equity that trustees cannot be allowed to make a profit by the performance of the duties of their office. And so it was held in the following case, that where bankers become also trustees, they are not entitled, in the absence of any contract, either express or implied, to make a profit of their fiduciary duties, by employing themselves as bankers, and by advancing, in that character, to their cestuis que trust, money to be repaid with compound interest. The trustees were held not to be legally entitled to claim more than simple interest, at five per cent. per annum, on sums advanced by them. A mortgage-deed given to bankers as a continuing security for a fluctuating balance, regulated the amount of interest payable when the balance due under the deed was ascertained, viz., at the rate of five per cent. per annum; but the deed contained no directions as to the payment of compound interest, or as to annual rests, and involved no reference to any custom of bankers Held, that no more than five per cent. per annum, simple interest, could be charged under the deed by the bankers on the balance where ascertained (Bower v. Turner, 8 Law Tim. Rep., N. S., 135).

BANKRUPTCY.-24 & 25 Vic. c. 134, s. 192, condition 5, and General Order, May 22, 1862-Absconding debtor-Affidavit, by - whom made. The fifth condition of sect. 192, as to trust deeds, is that, together with the deed, there must be delivered to the chief registrar the certificate by the trustee, or the affidavit there mentioned, and which is to be made by the debtor, or some person able to depose thereto. Where a debtor, after executing a deed under sect. 192 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, absconds without making the affidavit required by 5th condition of that section, and the general order of May 22, 1862, the Court will not permit such affidavit to be made by the parties employed in making out the accounts and preparing the deed (Re Griffiths, 8 Law Tim. Rep., N. S., 60).

24 & 25 Vic. c. 134, s. 98-Petition in forma pauperis — Petitioner released between filing and opening petition.-The 98th section, enabling petitions to be presented in forma pauperis, refers to a debtor, "whether a trader or not, now being, or who shall be,