really possesses are general damages and may be recovered under the general head damage though not specifically alleged.` Per Higin botham, C.J.-When the objections to a judgment cannot be sustained on legal grounds the Full Court has no power to mitigate the effect of what they may consider a hard judg ment. Per Williams J.-The fact that a case is shaped as to damages in such a way that it may mislead the defendant and prevent him acknowledging some liability may be a ground for refusing costs to the plaintiff. Archard e. Ellerkor 196. Certiorari-See Licensing Act 1885. Reg. v. Paterson; Exparte Woofe. 155. In re Maude 15.

Charging Order-See Judicature Act 1883. Hyman r. Smith. 254. Citation Substituted service of citation-Form of order. Bechtold . Bechtold 109.

Civil Service Act-(No. 160) sec 42 See Education Act No. 447 Sec. 22. Mills r. Regina 148. Club-See Licensing Act 1885. O'Connor v. Price 151. Coffee palaces-Coffee palaces are common inns, and their proprietors are innkeepers within the Carriers and Innkeepers Statute (No. 78). Millar v. Federal Coffer Palace 235.

Commission-See Sale of Land. Bannister v. Henderson 203. Companies Trading Statute 1864-(No. 190) sec. 16-Insolvency Statute No. 379 sec. 138 subsec. XI; sec. 146; rule 103; Estoppel. On a compulsory application for a certificate under sec. 146 of the Act No. 379 the notice of objections required by Rule 103 of the Insolvency Rules of April 1871 may be in any form which gives to the insolvent substantial clear and distinct notice of the objection taken against him and may be signed by the Solicitor for the opposing creditor. Semble

that such notice may be verbal. Objections to the validity of such notice should be raised at the time the notice is given. When the Memorandum and Articles of Association of a Company are proved to have been registered the Court will assume till the contrary is proved that notice of the incorporation of the Company has been published by the Registrar General in the Government Gazette as required by Act No. 190 sec. 16. Quaere whether such publication is absolutely necessary to prove incorporation. When an insolvent has purported to assign his goods to a Company he is stopped from denying its existence. In re Hall, 30

-Sec. 64. Table A., Art 35, 52. De facto directors. Validity of Acts. Determination of Names. Estoppel. The Act of de facto directors in allotting shares is valid under Sec. 64 of

the Companies Act 1864, No. 190, although those directors were ap pointed at a meeting, which was not duly convened owing to the absence of the 7 days' notice required by Article 35 of Table A. Buzolich Paint Co.. v. Cornwell, 11 V.L.R, 371, approved of and explained. Per Higinbotham, C.J., and Williams J. The names and number of Directors of a company are sufficiently determined under Article 52 of Table

154 of the same statute is merely affirmatory and does not abrogate any right previously or otherwise given. Held, that the powers given by the power of attorney, of which extracts are stated above, were sufficiently large to enable the donee of the power to take the present proceedings. In the matt r of the Companies Statute 1864 and in the maiter of the Federal Land Company of Victoria, Limited. 221.

Jury. Where there is an ambiguity in a contract it should be submitted to the Jury to determine on the surrounding circumstances, what was the intention of the parties. McNeil r. Sutherland 15.

A. by their being unanimously Contract-Ambiguity--Question for elected by 5 out of 9 subscribers to the Memorandum of Association, to whose action the 4 absent subscribers never expressed any dissent even though the meeting was not duly convened owing to the absence of sufficient notice. SEMBLE-Where defendant is a subscriber of the Memorandum of Association, attends meetings, is appointed director, and in that character concurs in allotting himself shares, he is estopped from denying the validity of the allotment. The Federal Mutual Live Stock Association Limited v, Donaghy, 126.

s.s. 75, 154-Petition-Signature -Company Power of Attorney. A petition was presented by the London Chartered Bank of Australia to have the Federal Land Company wound up under the provisions of the "Companies Statute 1864." The petition was signed "The London Chartered Bank of Australia. By its attorney," "Charles Guthrie." By the power of attorney Guthrie was authorised "in the name of "and on behalf of the bank to commence institute prosecute and

66

carry on one or more action or "actions suit or suits at law or in

that the estate of any insolvent person indebted to the bank may "be placed under sequestration,

"etc He was also authorised for "and in the name of the bank to "take and use all such other ways "and means for the conduct etc., of "the bank as shall seem meet." Then followed other powers of an equally general character. Held, that no objection could be taken to the signature of the petition, inasmuch as a petition can legally be a petition even though not signed at all. Held, that there is no such limitation to the meaning of the word" creditor" in section 75 of the Companies Statute 1864 as would exclude "a company" from being "a creditor." Held, that section

Contract, form of-Sale of land -Specific performance. Pudney v. Strong 109.

Contract-Restraint of tradeLimit of space-- Unreasonableness--A covenant by the defendant "not to tender against or run in opposition to or in any way either directly or indirectly interfere with the plaintiff in respect of any conor tender for contract for

tract

conveyance of mails or in any coach or other business for the conveyance or carriage of persons, parcels &c. tendered for or entered into by the said plaintiff in the colony of Victoria within a period of 5 years from the date hereof " is limited both in respect of time and place and is not void as being in restraint of trade or unreasonable. Grace v. Carrick 144.

-Contractor;

Completion of Contract; Premature Action; Loss of Profits; Remoteness of Damage. An action to recover from a contract for money due on the completion of his contract is premature when brought before the final payment to the contractor. Where a contractor who would have been the lowest and probably the successful tenderer for a railway contract was prevented from tendering by the wrongful withdrawal of a guarantee for him to the bank the damage arising from the loss of an ticipated profits on such contract is too remote-Woolcott v. Mitchell and Watson 187.

Constitution Act 1852-15 Vict. (No. 10) sec. 34-Enlargement of time-Leave to appeal to Privy Council. Where by any Statute or Rule the time for doing any particu lar act is fixed and power is given to the Court or a judge to enlarge that time, there is no jurisdiction in the absence of a special provision to that effect, to make an order enlarging the time after the period fixed has expired-The more fact that notice of intention to ask for enlargement was given before the time had expired is not sufficient to give jurisdiction. Fearson v. Russell 272.

Costs--Appeal to Privy Council on the question of costs. Wolfer. Lang 117.

Costs-DE DIE IN DIEM-See Hus band and wife. County Court Statute 1869

(No. 345), sec. 42 A defendant cannot apply to have the action remitted to the County Court under sec. 42 after he has entered an ap pearance. Davison r. Orr 3.

(No. 345), sec. 42 Such actions only as might have been commenced in the County Court can be remitted to that court under sec. 42. Waterhouse r. Hanstow 4.

--(No. 345.) sec. 43--Applications under sec. 43 of Act No. 345 should be made as soon as practicable after the writ has been served and before delivery of the Statement of claim. If the application is not made before the delivery of the statement of claim the reason for delay should be explained. O'Neill President &c. of the Shire of Mansfield 14.

Sec. 43 of

-(No. 345) sec. 43. Act No. 345 does not apply to a case where it is shown that the plaintiff had means of paying the defendant's costs although such means are not within the jurisdiction of the Court. Pilley . Pilley 239.

---(No. 345), sec. 76- Juries' (Amendment) Act (No. 621) sec. 5Jury of six-Verdict of Majority. In an action in the County Court, tried before a jury of six, the verdict of a majority of that jury must be taken. Reg. 7'. Quinlan, Exp. Nantes 203. Criminal Law and Practice, Statute, 1864(No.233)—sec. 390. Trial in Open Court. Private communications by Judge to Jury-Practice. In a criminal trial after the Jury had retired the Judge in the absence of prisoner and his Counsel and without their having had an opportunity to be present received a question from the Jury and sent an answer thereto in writing in which he repeated only what he had already told the jury in his charge and the prisoner was convicted. Held: (Higinbotham. C.J., dissentiente)That the answer being material to the issues joined between the Crown and the prisoner it was part of the trial and should be answered in open Court that the prisoner was not properly convicted and that a new trial should be ordered under Section 390 of the Criminal Law and Practice Statute 1864. Per Williams, J.

-That the communication was illegal but even if irregular only since injustice may have been caused by it a new trial should be ordered. Per Holroyd, J.-Where practice is regu

lated by the Statute or Common Law it is illegal to depart from it. Per Hodges, J.-That it is a matter of indifference whether the question is one of practice or of substantive law and practice since questions of practice in this and many other cases are questions of law and therefore the communication was illegal, and subject to appeal. Per Higinbotham, C.J.-That in this case the Judge had in the exercise of a judicial discretion allowed to him by law and the practice of the Court to determine as a mixed question of law and practice whether the question put to him by the Jury had such an intimate and material connection with the issues as to render it right that the prisoner should hear it in open Court and that the exercise of that discretion would not be interfered with on a case reserved. A prisoner has a right to be present during the argument of a case reserved. Cases in which the Judge is allowed to communicate with the Jury in the absence of the prisoner discussed. Reg v. Fitzgerald 241. Damages --Damages for negligence in survey by omission of some of the figured dimensions through which the plaintiff is left with an apparent · title to less than he really possesses are general damages and may be recovered under the general head of damage though not specifically alleged. Archard v. Ellerker 195. Damage, Remoteness ofSee Contract. Woolcott v. Mitchell 187.

Debt, rejecting proof of-See Insolvency Statute 1871. Re Blight

248.

Dishonor, notice of-See Promissory note. Greig and Murray, Limited r. Taylor 265. Divorce-See Husband and Wife. Education Act (No. 447,) sec. 22; Civil Service Act No. 160, sec. 42; Public Service Act 773, sec. 70. An officer employed in the Education Department on the 1st May 1873 within the meaning of section 22 of Act No. 447 retired after 15 years' service from his position without having brought himself under any of the provisions of section 42 of Act No. 160 and claimed to be entitled to a retiring allowance under the 22nd section of the Act No. 447 and the 70th section of Act No. 773, computed upon the amount provided by the Act No. 160 for a superannuated officer. Held-He was not entitled

to

a retiring allowance. Mills r. Regina 148.

Ejectment Licensee--Disputing title-Plaintiff being in possession of certain allotments of land let the defendant into possession thereof for the purpose of building houses thereon according to contract, the contract being com

pleted, and disputes having arisen' the plaintiff brought an action of ejectment against the defendants, who sought to impeach the plaintiff's title. Held, following Doe dem Johnson v. Baytup 3 Ad. and Ell 188, that the defendants were cstopped from disputing the plaintiff's title, and that the position of a licensee was in this respect on the same footing as that of a tenant. Dudley v. Brown and Another 172. 13

Eliz.: C.5-See Insolvency Statute 1871. Re Ward, 103. Evidence (Bye-laws) Statute 1876-Act No. 521, ss. 2, 8; The operation of sec. 2 is confined to the method of proving bye laws; sec. 8 provides a means of testing their legality, which may be utilised by any member of the public. In the Matter of the Victorian Trotting Club Ld. (Ex Parte Henry Coleman)

104.

-(No. 521) sec. 8--Exhibition Act No. 619 section 4 subsec. 2Validity of bye-laws-Delegation of authority. By subsec. 2 of section 4 of Act No. 619 power is given to the Commissioners for any Exhibition to make regulations for the due management of the affairs of the Exhibition in its several departments. The Commissioners of the Melbourne Centennial International Exhibition made thereunder regulations prohibiting, without the special authority of the Executive Commissioners, the sale or delivery in or removal of goods from the Exhibition, and providing for breach thereof a penalty of £10, the summary expulsion of the exhibitor and of his goods. Held such regulations were valid. Green r. The Commissioners of the Melbourne Centennial International Exhibition 170. Evidence--Impugning veracity of witness-Knowledge of general conduct or reputation-The question "From your knowledge of this witness' conduct would you believe him on his oath will be disallowed unless a foundation for it be first laid by introductory questions, shewing that the impugning witness had the means of knowing the general conduct or reputation of the witness whose credit is impugned. Reg. v. Moloney 185.

-Sale of land Commission -Admission by not answering letter---Evidence fit to be submitted to a jury is evidence from which a jury of reasonable men might find a verdict. The question, how far not answering a letter is an admission discussed. Newcomen v. O'Grady, 2 A. J. R. 123. commented McEwan r. Poole, 202. Execution. -staying of—Execution on a final judgment will not be stayed pending a petition to the Privy Council for leave to appeal. Tyv. Regina,

170.

on.

Forfeiture SEE LICENSING ACT 1885. Elise. Bourke, 258. Fraudulent Preference --See Insolvency Statute, 1871. Re Ward

103. Game (Amendment 1873)

Act No. 464 Sec. 5-Land Act (1869) No. 360, Sec. 49. Land held under a Goldfield's Residence and

Cultivation License under sec. 49 of Act No. 360 is not Crown Lands within the meaning of sec. 5 of Act No. 464. Reg. v. Dickenson Ex parte Franklin 114.

-5 George II., c. 19 sec 2 and 13 George II., c. 18 sec. 5, requiring six days' notice to justices and the entering into recognisances with sureties before issue of a certiorari are not applicable to persons constituting a Licensing Court under the Licensing Act 1885 No. 857. Quaere: Whether these Acts now apply in view of the recent legislation in Victoria affecting 'justices of the Peace and their general duties. Reg. r. Olir r and Licensing Court of Rochester, Er parte Graham,

Health Amendment Act 1883 (No. 782) Sec. 131-Street formed or set out on private propertyThe words "Street formed or set out out on private property" in sec. 131 of Heath Amendment Act 1883 No. 782 include all public streets which were originally formed or set out on private property and the feesimple of which is still vested in a private person---Local Board of Health at Kew r. Whidycombe, 12 V.L.R. 347 followed. Local Board of Health at Malvern v. Lorimer 246.

(No. 782) ss 131, 145 Personal liability-Incumbrance upon land. See 145 of the Health (Amendment) Act 1883 applies to all cases where expenses have been incurred by the local board in respect of land or premises under the provisions of the Act. The liability, however, created by the operation of the to sections, 131 and 145, is not of such a nature as to constitute a charge or incumbrance affecting title. Abbott c. Bull 188.

-(No. 782) ss. 131, 144, 145 146-Notice requiring owners of property to execute certain worksOwner in default--Work executed by local board -Incumbrance upon land Personal liability. Where works had to be executed by a local board under section 131, owing to

Wife Divorce Rules 1885, r. 10--Substituted service of citation -Form of Order. Bechtold v. Bechtoll 109.

Husband and

-Costs of divorce petition which cannot be brought to a hearing - Dis. missal of suit with costs. Splatt r. Splatt 168.

Judicial Separation- Costs De Die in Diem-Order-Where a petition is accepted and the facts are in dispute a judge has no power to make an order that the costs De Die in Diem when taxed shall be paid into the Prothonotary's office to abide further order. Franklin v. Franklin, 194.

Where points which arise in a Divorce Suit are referred to the Full Court, the order made thereon should be drawn up in the presence of the legal advisers of the parties and not ex parte. Splatt v. Splatt 217. Imprisonment for Debt Act

-No. 284, Sec. 3-Justice of the Peace Act, No. 571, Sec. 4-Justice of the Peace (Imformalities) Act, 1884, No. 810, Sec. 6--Duty of Justices Means and Ability to Pay When Negligence Costs.

а debtor 18 summoned before Justices under the Imprisonment for Debt Act, No. 284, it is the duty of the Justices to satisfy themselves that the debtor has committed an offence under the Act, and to see that the order drawn up embodies that offence, and to refrain from using the Act as a means of enforcing debts. Where an order made by Justices under the Act stated that the debtor had had the means but omitted to state that he had had the ability to pay, and there was an absence of suflicient evidence on the latter point. Held, that the order could not be rectified under the Justices of the Peace Act, No. 810, Section 6, and that it must be quashed. As the mistake was solely due to the negligence of the Justices no costs were given against the creditor, but the Justices (if they had been made parties to the proceedings) might have been ordered to pay the costs. Semble, that the order was also bad for directing that the money should be paid to the complainant instead of to the Clerk of Petty Sessions, as directed by the Act. Reg v. Bond Exp. Henson 107. Infant Plaintiff suing by next friend--Solicitor--Costs Lien on fund -stop-order.

The

right of a Solicitor to a charge for his costs upon the fund recovered

applies to actions instituted on behalf of infants by a next friend; A stop order is not essential to the validity of such a charge. Tyrrell v. Stewart 50.

1871,

Information-See Licensing Act 1885. Ellis v. Bourke 258. Insolvency Statute, (No. 379) ss: 5, 138 (12), 139– Appropriation of property of which the insolvent had the charge or disposition as agent only, and not in any other capacity--Principal and agent--Obtaining of "property" and

as agent only" in section 138 subsection 12-Appeal from refusal of certificate -Imprisonment -Fraud -Suspension of certificate-Order of Court of Insolvency varied. In re W. H. Vagg 176.

--(No. 379) ss. 12, 107--Insolvency Rule 56-Expunging proof of debt-Where there is an agreement that a judgment will not be enforced until after a condition which is not fulfilled it cannot be proved as an absolute debt. Semble-That Rule 56 of the Insolvency Rules so far as it limits the time for objecting to proof of debts to 14 days is ultra vires by Sec. 107. Re Merry 125.

-(No 379,) Secs. 17, 37, Sub-sec. 2, 71, Fraudulent Preference; Intent to defeat and delay creditors; 13 Eliza. c. 5; Bona fides. Where a person, wbo was at the time insolvent, sold certain property to his wife with the intention of preferring certain of his creditors and of defeating the claims of others, of which intention his wife was cognisant. Held that the transaction was not void under Sec. 71 of the Insolvency Statute 1871, No. 379, which section relates to a conveyance to a creditor; nor, under Section 37, Sub sec. 2, since such a transaction was not in itself fraudulent; and that the question of bona fides under 13 Eliz., c. 5 was one of fact for the jury. Re Ward 103.

must

-(No. 379) ss. 22, 37, Com pulsory sequestration Petition Costs of Execution Signature by agent Seal of Company There be proof of an agent's authority to sign a petition when be it purports to so signedSealing a petition with the seal of the petitioning company is sufficient sig nature--a judgment debt includes the amount actually recovered together with the taxed costs of the action, but does not include the costs of execution issued on the judgment. In Re Jenkins, 274.

-(No. 379,) ss. 31, 39, 45, 49Order to revive-Objections-Omis sions of statements essential to Jurisdiction. An order to revive a sequestration was obtained under section 49; jurisdiction to make the order did not appear on its face as no debt to the petitioning creditor was shown to have been incurred by the insolvent,

either by a recital of the petition or by any other way. No proof was adduced before the Judge who made the order of the due presentation of the petition. Held that as the objec tions were on the face of the proceedings no notice of objections was necessary under section 45. Held that the order was bad, inasmuch as it did not disclose jurisdiction on its face. Held that the court could not on the authority of section 31, amend the order inasmuch as the omissions which may be supplied under that section were omissions of words accidentally dropped out of a paragraph and not of statements essential to show jurisdiction. Held, that even assuming that section 31, empowered the court to supply such last mentioned statements such a power could not be exercised in the present case inasmuch as there was no proof adduced before the Judge who made the preliminary order that the petition, from which such statements were to be derived, was duly presented. Held that an affidavit to support a petition under section 49 should follow the same rules as an affidavit to support a petition under section 39. Re Penglase,

251.

(No. 379) Sec. 66: Insolvency (Amendment 1871) Statue No. 411 s. 6 Rule 54 Insolvency Rules; Powers of Assignee; Rejecting proof of debt ; Time at which Trustee confirmed. An assignee of an insolvent estate cannot reject proof of debt or exercise any of the other powers given by the Act 379 to the Trustee alone until the contingency, namely, "if no Trustee be confirmed," mentioned in Sec. 66 Act 379 and Sec. 6 of Act 411 has happened, but only those powers which are expressly vested in him by the Act. Semble--The Act does not indicate definitely at what point of time the contingency described by the words "if no trustee be confirm ed" it is to be taken as having hap pened. If Rule 54 Insolvency Rules is meant to give an assignee power to decide on proof of debt before such contingency has happened it is to that extent ultra vires. Re Blight

248.

(No. 379) Sec 138 Sub-sec. XI; Section 146; Rule 103; Companies' Statute No. 190 Sec. 16-Estoppel. On a compulsory application for a certificate under Sec. 146 of the Act No. 379 the notice of objections required by Rule 103 of the Insolvency Rules of April 1871 may be in any form which gives to the insolvent substantial clear and distinct notice of the objection taken against him and may be signed by the Solicitor for the opposing creditor. Semble -that such notice may be bal. Objections to the validity of such notice should be raised at the time the notice is given. When the Memorandum and Articles of Association of a Company are proved to have

ver

-(No. 204) sec. 20-Judgment signed prematurely--Irregularity— Signing judgment prematurely is an irregularity only and not a nullity, and therefore the application to set aside such judgment should be made promptly. Neville v. Handley 43.

-Sec. 107--Contract for the sale of land-Form of ContractSpecific performance. Pudney v. Strong 109.

-Sec. 107-Contract for the sale of land-Specific performanceThe plaintiff claimed specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The contract was as follows:May 14th, 1888. I hereby agree to sell my property to Mr. Corcoran for the sum of four hundred pounds stg. and to allow the sum of ten pounds commission, also to take the sum of three hundred and seventy-five pounds cash, and Mr. Corcoran's bill for the balance, fifteen pounds.

John O'Rourke. Held, that the memorandum did not satisfy the 107th section of the

Instruments &c. Statute, 1864," in two respects; firstly, as the land sold was not sufficiently described ; secondly, as the consideratibn was not sufficiently stated. Corcoran . O'Rourke 139.

-Section 107 -Agreement for the sale of land-Separate documents--Necessary inference-Parol evidence. In order to establish a contract for the sale of land sufficient to satisfy the above statute from separate documents, there must be some reference on the documents themselves from one to the other, leaving nothing to be supplied by parol except the identity of the documents. Nicholls Daris 223.

ין

(Bills of Sale) Statute 1876 (No. 557) ss 15 16.-Where chattels are sold and let under a contract of sale and a contract of letting and hiring, both documents must be signed by the respective partiesMarks r. Penglase 196.

Per Higinbotham C.J., Holroyd J. (Williams J. By sec. 6 of the Interpretation Act, No. 22, the word

person in sec. 69 of the Public Health Amendment Act, 1883, No. 782 includes a corporation, for there is nothing in that section repugnant to or inconsistent with that interpretation. A corporation may be prosecuted and fined under that section for knowingly offering for sale unwholesome food. Knowledge on

the part of servants authorised by the corporation to expose food for sale is the knowledge of the corporation. Reg. c. Panton Exp. Farmers' Produce Company Limited 141. Judgment Hard judgment Mitigation-Costs. Archard Ellerker 196. Judgment signed prematurely-See Instruments and Securities Statute 1864. Noville r. Handley 43.

Judicature Act 1883--(No 761) sec 28-Alteration or variation of order-Sec. 28 of Act No. 761 does not deprive a judge of the power to set aside or carry an order which he was tricked into making, or which was made on a consent fraudulently obtained-Where a defendant did not oppose an application to examine a witness on commission by reason of an untrue statement of the age of the witness in the affidavit filed in support of the applica tion, and it appeared from the evidence given by such witness that the defendant had a right to insist on such evidence being given before the jury if possible, the evidence of such witness was ordered not to be read at the trial of the action unless further order be made giving leave to read it. Tuckett r. Blake 41.

--(No. 761) sec. 41 Rules of Supreme Court 1883 (English) Order XXXVI. r. 12 Motion

to dismiss action for want of prosecution granted on the appli cation of the defendant. Rod gers and Others v. Heymanson 100,

(No 761) sec. 41-Real Property Statute 1864-Special guardian -Application for the appointment of a special guardian heard in Chambers. Osborne r. Osborne 160.

---(No. 761) see. 63-All ath davits, &c., in any case or matter depending in the Court sworn and taken in any foreign part out of

241.

Justices of Peace Statute 1865-(No. 267)-Determinations erroneous in point of law-Question of fact-Jurisdiction of Justices to state case---Duty of Justices to file | affidavits. Per Williams and Holroyd, J.J.-When justices have decided on a question of fact and there was evidence to support that finding they have no jurisdiction to state a case for the opinion of the Court whether their decision is erroneous in point of law, and an application for that purpose is frivolous. Per Holroyd, J.-It is the duty of the justices when on to show cause why they should not state a case to file affidavits showing their reasons for refusing to do so. Per Higin botham, C.J. If a party ceeding before justices reasonabiy though erroneously believes that their decision is erroneous in point of law he is entitled to have a case stated, and is not prevented by an affidavit of Justices filed in answer showing that their determination was really one of fact. Reg. r. Fetherstone Exp Levey 124.

called

pro

Justices of the Peace (Prohibition Act 1877 (No. 571)It lies on the R: spondent, wishing to save costs, to show that an incurable objection was not taken before the Justices. Reg. v. Dickenson, Expte Franklin 114.

(No. 953) s.s. 4,115 (2.) Im

prisonment for debt. A proceeding! taken subsequently to the coming into operation of the Act to enforce ¦

a judgment previously made by justices does not come within the operation of section 4. It is necessary under sub-section 2 of section 115 of Act No. 953 that there should be proof of some act of dishonesty on the part of the defendant before the justices can award impri

sonment.

Sutton . Sargeant 153.

-(No. 953) Sec. 19-- Local Government Act No. 506 Sec. 273. Bias of justices adjudicating. Section 273 Act No. 506 is not expressly or impliedly repealed by Act No. 953.

The provision in that section that the decision of justices shall be final relates only to matters of fact (more particularly the unfairness or incorrectness of valuation) and not to questions of law. Where two justices, who were also ratepayers, had denounced at а public meeting the increase in valua tions of rateable property made by the Municipal Council, but had not themselves appealed and afterwards sat and adjudicated in appeals by ratepayers under Section 273 Act No. 506.

Held that as the Justices had no specific pecuniary or other interest in the subject matter of the appeal (save as ratepayers, which disability was removed by Sec. 19 Act No. 953) they were not legally disqualified from sitting and adjudicating. Mayor Councillors and Citens of Prahran v. Carter. 270.

-(No. 953) sec. 150-The adjudicating justices ought to be served with the order nisi to review. Reg. e. Archer; Ex Parte Kendall. 26.

-(No. 953) sec. 150 Police Offences Act No. 265 Secs. 15, 65. A constable may prosecute for assault committed within the limits of the shire under sec 15 of the Police Offences Statute although the assault | was not committed in his view and although the penalty by section 65 when the prosecutor is a constable goes to the Police Reward Fund. Reg. r. Shuter: Er. parte O'Hehir |

116.

(No. 953) sec. 150 -Review Objection- Where an objection was taken by the justices and not by the party showing cause, the Court, in making the order to review absolute, did so without costs. Quaere whether a party showing cause against an order NISI to review can uphold the justices decision on other grounds than those mentioned in the order. Rothwell . Murphy, Rothwell r. Parish 257.

Land Act, 1869 No. 360, Sec.

49--Game Act, No. 464, Sec. 5 Justices Act, No. 571-Objection taken below;---Costs- Land held under a Goldfield's Residence and Cultivation License under Sec. 49 of the Land Act, No. 360, is not Crown Lands within the meaning of See. 5 of the Game Act, No. 464. It lies the Respondent wishing to

on

save costs, to show that an incurable objection was not taken before the justices. Reg. r. Dickenson Exp. Franklin, 114.

Landlord and Tenant Statute (No. 190,) Secs. 33, 59Subsisting tenancy--Right to one year's rent. Sec. 33 of the Act No. 190 only applies to a subsisting tenancy, and therefore, when the tenancy has expired the landlord cannot legally demand one year's rent from the execution creditor even though the tenant is still in pos session, and the landlord by sec. 59 has the right to distrain. Mc Donald v. Darcy. Cussen and Co., Claimants, 246.

Letter--Admissions by not answering letter-See Evidence. McEwan r. Poole 202. Libel-Writing letters N.P.F. on promissory note presented for payment at a bank at which the promissory note was not made payable Privilege. Hussy r. Bank of Australasia 210. Licensing Act 1885-(No. 857) --5 Geo. II., c. 19, sec. 2, and 13 Geo. II., c. 18, sec. 5, requiring six days' notice to Justices and the entering into recognisances with sureties before issue of a certiorari are not applicable to persons constituting a Licensing Court under Act No. 857-Quaere, whether these Acts now apply in view of the recent legislation in Victoria affecting

Justices of the Peace and their general duties. Reg. c. Oliver; Ex pte. Graham 158.

-Secs. 4 and 134 "Person Occupying premises bona fide as a club, which the Licensing Court had certified to be a club.' -Agent or servant of a licensed person selling without a license. A club called the Buffalo Club held premises occupied by a body called the Buffalo Lodge, the members of the two bodies not being all the same. The defendant was one of the catering committee of the club, and served drinks to the informant, who was a member of the lodge but not of the club. Held that as such officer he ought to have known whether the informant was or was not a member of the club, and it was prima facie evidence that he violated the law if he served drinks to a stranger who was not a member of the club. It was sufficient evidence to call on him to show that he bona fide served drinks to a person whom he believed to be a member of the club, and that such evidence justified the justices in finding that the defendant did not occupy these premises bona fide as a club when he sold the drinks to informant. Also that the defendant could not justify his act as the act of a servant or agent of a licensed person. O'Connor v. Price 151.