GROWING CROPS. between two horses driven in barnen By deed of conveyance of all and in sleighs on the ice is a legal bare singular that certain parcel of land, race within the statutes 13 GeL &c., together with the houses and ch. 19 and 18 Geo. II. ch. easements, profits, privileges, heredi- Fulton v. James, 182. taments, &c., to said parcel of land belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the rents, issues and profits thereof, &c., growing crops in the ground at the time of the execution of the deed will pass to the grantee. Wood v. Lang, 204. GUARANTEE. HUSBAND AND WIFE. By patent of 22nd of May, 177 lot No. 36 in the 6th concessim Charlottenburg was granted unto the widow of Allan McDonell and her heirs, &c., 238 acres specially described. By will of 11th of Decem. ber, 1802, Eleanor McDonell of Marysburgh devised to her brother in law, Archibald McDonell, one lot of land in Charlottenburg, 238 acres. It appeared in evidence that Kennedy was married to Helen, one of the daughters of Colonel and Eleanor McDonell and a niece of Archibald McDonell, and that Kennedy's wife survived him: that a conveyance was drawn from Archibald McDonell to Kennedy for half-seemingly the west half-of the lot: that by inderture of mortgage, dated 31st of Octo ber, 1835, Kennedy and Helen his his heirs, &c., the west half of lot No. wife conveyed to Angus McDonell, 36 in the 6th concession Charlotten. burg, 100 acres in fee, to be void on payment of £150 in two payments on the 1st of October 1836 and 1837, In consequence of arrangements for uniting the Grand Trunk Telegraph Company with the British North American Association, the superintendent of the former company, on the 19th of December, 1854, wrote to its president and directors, expressing his readiness (in order not to embarrass the company in its operations) to cease his connection with it on the 31st of December, 1854, on the company's guaranteeing to him the continuance of his salary at its present rate for six months from and after the 1st of January, 1855." On the same day the president wrote the following reply: "We are in receipt of your favor of this date upon the subject of your retiring from the office you now hold under us: we will be happy to meet you in the way set forth; and we hereby pledge ourselves to carry out the provisions mentioned by the feme covert as required by the statute 1 Wm. IV. ch. 2. Held, that in your behalf: signed, G. H. Cheney, the mortgage by Kennedy and wife to president, on behalf of myself and the Angus McDonell was inoperative as directors of the G. T. T. Company." to Kennedy's wife's share of the lot, Held, that the undertaking in the pre-not having been acknowledged by her sident's reply amounted to a personal as required by the statute 1 Wm. IV. which mortgage was not acknowledged guarantee: Richards, J., dissentiente. ch. 2. McGill v. Frazer, 404. Boyd v. Cheney, 494. HORSE RACE. A trotting match for fifty pounds IMPROVEMENTS. See PAROL EVIDENCE, 1. INSURABLE INTEREST. See FREIGHT, 1. LANDLORD AND TENANT. In an action for distraining goods when no rent was due, and the case was left to the jury as an ordinary case, without being expressly left to them to find double damages, and without their being apprised of the provisions of the statute, the court refused to increase a verdict to double the value of the goods distrained. Shipman v. Graydon, 465. LEASEHOLD LANDS. Sale of.]-In debt on a lease it was proved that the plaintiff held under the last of several assignments of a yearly lease from the principal officers of Her Majesty's Ordnance. A judgment was obtained against the plaintiff, and his interest in the lot sold under a Fi. Fa. against goods and chattels. Plaintiff afterwards demised the said lot to defendant; and, on non-payment of rent, brought his action on the lease. Held, that the interest of plaintiff was a chattel interest, and might be sold under a Fi. Fa. against goods and chattels (see 7 Vic. ch. 11, sec. 7); and that the lease to defendant being made after such seizure and sale, plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Sparrow v. Champagne, 394. LEASE. Verbal assent to sub-let.]-In an action of ejectment for breach of covenant not to assign without license against the assignee of the lessee, the plaintiff's verbal assent to the assignment before defendant enters into possession is no defence to the action. Carter v. Hibblethwaite, 475. LIBEL. See NEW TRIAL, 5. MANDAMUS. See SCHOOL TRUSTEES. MUNICIPALITY. See BY-LAW.-CORPORATION. Defendants, a municipal corporation, having passed a resolution to authorise the raising and levelling of a street within their jurisdiction, which was accordingly done, and plaintiff's premises overflowed thereby, the plaintiff having been nonsuited on the ground that the defenddants were authorised by statute to do what they had done, the court set aside the nonsuit, and granted a new trial in order to ascertain whether in fact the work done constituted a repair of the street within the statute, or exceeded such a repair to the injury of the plaintiff's house and land. Croft v. The Town Council of Peterboro', 35. NEGLIGENCE. See RAILWAY. NEW TRIAL. 1. In an action on the case against the occupier of a mill for damage to the plaintiff's close occasioned by back water from defendant's dam, where the defence relied upon was a prescriptive right to back water for twenty years before action, and there being contradictory evidence as to such right, and the case having been tried by a special jury and occupying two days, the court refused to disturb a verdict for the plaintiff, and dis charged defendant's rule. Holme v. Turner, 116. 2. When the merits of a cause have been tried and decided upon by a jury under informal pleadings, and the party is entitled to sustain his verdict on the amendment of such informal pleadings, the court will decline granting a new trial. Deady v. Goodenough, 163. 3. In an action against a sheriff who was indemnified, and who had taken but little trouble with the defence, the court set aside a verdict for the plaintiff for a large amount, on the ground of the discovery of new evidence, the confliction of evidence at the trial, excessive damages, &c., on payment of costs, with leave to plaintiff to amend. Townsend v. Hamilton, 230. NONSUIT. See MUNICIPALITY. NOTARY. Certificate of]-A certified copy of a power of attorney to convey lands from the depository of notarial records in Lower Canada, under the corporate seal of the Board of Notaries of Montreal, Lower Canada, is admis. sible in evidence; it being presumed that such power of attorney, although not in itself an official document, came officially into the hands of the notary among whose records it was found. Gray et al. v. McMillan, 400. NOTICE OF ACTION. 4. That where in an action against Defendants, as a municipal corpoa sheriff who has been indemnified, ration deriving their power under the where there is conflicting evidence as statute 12 Vic. ch. 81, authorised the to the plaintiff's right to recover as to raising and levelling of a street within a part of the goods seized, the court their jurisdiction, which when done will grant a new trial to the plaintiff injuriously affected the plaintiff's proon payment of costs, he restricting perty. Held, that if defendants were himself to such goods alone at a future within the statute 14 & 15 Vic. ch. trial. Townsend v. Hamilton, 230.54 and had pleaded the general issue per statute, they would have been entitled to notice of action. Croft v. The Town Council of Peterboro', 141. 5. In action for libel published in a newspaper against the plaintiff in his professional capacity as town engineer of, &c., where a verdict was rendered 2. That when there is no by-law, for the defendant on evidence prepon- and when the act complained of is derating greatly in plaintiff's favor, done under the statutes 13 & 14 Vic. the court set aside such verdict, and ch. 15, defendants are entitled to granted a new trial, on payment of notice of action, coming as they do costs. Peters v. Wallace, 238. 6. That where there is conflicting evidence as to the rights of both parties, and, in the absence of the bills and papers referred to in evidence, the defendant was entitled to have a verdict for plaintiff set aside., the facts not being fully elicited on the trial. Canniff v. Bogart, 341. fully within the spirit of the protecting statute. Reid v. The Corporation of the City of Hamilton, 269. 3. A municipal council of a township is entitled to one months' notice of action under the statutes 14 & 15 Vic. ch. 54, sec. 2 and 12 Vic. ch. 10, sec. 5. Barclay v. The Municipality of Darlington, 432. NOTICE TO EXAMINE 1. Plaintiff sued on a bond. At the trial of the case the witness to the bond was not forthcoming, but notice to appear had been served on the defendant under the statute 16 Vic. ch. 19 he not appearing, the learned judge who tried the cause declined taking it pro confesso against him. Held, that the whole case might have been taken pro confesso, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff. McWhinney v. McQuaid, 161. 2. A plaintiff or defendant in a suit may be called as a witness by his opponent in the same manner as any other witness. A party called as a witness under the statute 16 Vic. ch. 19 is not entitled to any other notice, or to be subpoenaed differently from any other witness. Nash v. Bush, 300. NOTICE TO PRODUCE. 1. A notice to produce, served on plaintiff's attorney on the day of and within one hour of the trial, is too late to entitle the defendant to give secondary evidence. Nash v. Bush, 300. being no stipulation in the lease as to improvements, and that plaintiff could not qualify or add to the written instrument. Losee v. Kezar, 234. PLEAS AND PLEADING. Argumentative denial.] To a declaration on a promissory note by plaintiff as immediate endorser, defendant pleaded that a son of the payee was indebted to defendant; and that after the note became due the payee endorsed it in blank, and delivered it to his son, in order that he (the son), as the payee's agent, might settle with defendant and endorse thereon the amount due by the son to defendant; yet that the son, in fraud of payee, delivered it to plaintiff so endorsed and overdue. Held, that the plea was bad, as amounting to an argumentative denial of the endorsement alleged. Chamberlain v. Cham. berlain, 340. POWER TO SELL LANDS. Executors.]-In covenant by plaintiff's administrators against defendants, executors, &c., on a deed whereby defendants covenanted with plaintiff's PAROL EVIDENCE. intestate that they at the time of makAdmission of.]-A. by memoran- ing such deed were the true, lawful dum of agreement leased to B. a cer- and rightful owners of the land, &c., tain farm for four years, which B. and then were seised in fee in their agreed to work, &c.; and if said A. own right of a good, sure, perfect, ab. sold the farm he, B., would give up solute and indefeasible estate of inherithe farm in three months after receiv-tance in fee simple in the said lands, ing notice from said A., who, before without anything to alter, change, his death, sold to C., from whom B. charge or encumber the same. It leased, and brought an action against appearing on the trial that the defendthe administratrix of A. for repairs ants claimed under a clause of their done on the farm during A's. life, al- testator's will to dispose of any of the leging that there was a verbal agree- testator's lands in case it should be ment that such improvements should necessary for the purpose of liquidating be paid for by A. Held, that such any debt-Held, after verdict for plainaction was not maintainable, there tiff, that there should be a new trial, on payment of costs, to enable defendants of their account to G. H. & Co., and T. a few days after failed. The bill for Lex loci contractus.]-2. A promissory note, made in Upper Canada, for a sum payable in Glasgow, not adding the words, "and not otherwise or elsewhere," is a note payable generally; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the difference of exchange on such note. Wilson v. Aitkin, 376. RAILWAY. done to plaintiff's steers, defendants 1. In an action on the case for injury pleaded, that just before said time, &c., said steers were unlawfully depasturing in and upon certain lands adjoining the lands of defendants and said railway, which lands were not the lands of plaintiff but of one Richard Roe, who had not given license for the said steers to be there; and that the said steers strayed from the said lands Consideration of.]-1. J.H. & Sons, a firm in Toronto, had been in the habit of drawing on their correspondent in England, and at first of covering such bills by shipments of flour, latterly by money remittances. In the fall of 1854, they had largely over-where they were so unlawfully dedrawn their account, and their corres- pasturing; and being as aforesaid pondent in England had been repeat- upon the defendants' lands adjoining, edly requesting them to desist from and thence at the said time when, &c., drawing. In December, 1854 they on to the said railway, and then being drew several bills, which they sold so upon the said railway were acci. or exchanged for promissory notes, dentally injured, without any design or and amongst others they obtained default of defendants. Held bad, on the note sued upon; this note they demurrer. McDowell v. The Great gave, with several others, in payment| Western Railway, 130. |