1858. WHITEHEAD v. PARKS. being or hereafter to be found in or upon the premises demised," with "power to divert or alter the course of any river, brook, spring, or water." Spring water is, I believe, essential for bleach-works. It is not material to inquire whether Lord Derby and his lessees may or may not be able to get the coal under the land. However that may be, he cannot derogate from his own grant to enable him to do so. CHANNELL, B.-The whole question turns upon the lease of 1827. The defendant has no greater rights than Lord Derby had. I think that the plaintiff has acquired a right to all the water in the four several closes. The Earl of Derby granted, &c. (His Lordship then read the grant and the reservation). He did not intend with respect to the other closes to except the surface water only, but also all springs other than those before granted. The grant of the water in the four closes is not confined to the surface streams. My brother Martin has pointed out that the word "streams" is in the plural, while at the time of the grant there was but one stream in the ordinary meaning of the word in these closes; therefore effect cannot be given to the language without construing it as referring to something different from surface streams. That being so, neither Lord Derby nor his assigns can derogate from his grant. Judgment for the plaintiff. 1858. REGULA GENERALIS. HILARY TERM, 1858. Whereas by the Rule of Michaelmas Term, 1855, with respect to indorsements on writs issued under "The Bills of Exchange Act, 1855," it was, amongst other things, ordered that no other claim than a claim on a Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note should be included in writs under the "6 Summary Procedure on Bills of Exchange Act, 1855." And whereas it is expedient that the said Rule should be explained and amended. It is hereby ordered, that where a defendant obtains leave to appear according to the said Act, and enters an appearance to any such writ according to the said Rule of Michaelmas Term, 1855, the plaintiff may include in his declaration, together with a count on the Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note (as the case may be), a count upon the consideration, if any, between the plaintiff and defendant, for the Bill of Exchange or Promissory Note, and deliver a particular of demand accordingly. (Signed) CAMPBELL. A. E. COCKBURN. E. V. WILLIAMS. Read in Court Jan. 30, 1858. M M M 2 SAMUEL MARTIN. 1858. MEMORANDUM. In the preceding Vacation the following gentlemen were appointed Her Majesty's Counsel:- Evelyn Bazalgette, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; John Shapter, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Samuel Bush Toller, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Thomas Webb Greene, Esq., of the Middle Temple; Francis Henry Goldsmid, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Richard Paul Amphlett, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; and James Fleming, Esq., of the Middle Temple. INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. ACTION. ARBITRATION. Against Justice of the Peace for (1). Agreement of Reference-Re- Malicious Conviction. See JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. AFFIDAVITS. AGENT. AGREEMENT. Stamp on. See REVENUE, (1). AMENDMENT. (1). Of Particulars after Compulsory See ARBITRATION, (3). ferring back Award after death By an order of reference an action 158 eleven and a fresh arbitrator to be | of by the arbitrator. Smalley v. The appointed in pursuance of the power Blackburn Railway Company, in the submission. Lord v. Hawkins, 55 (2). Matters in Difference-Mesne Profits-Where Action of Ejectment and all Matters in Difference referred. (3). Compulsory reference-Power of Court to amend Particulars after. After a cause has been referred to arbitration by a Judge, under the 3rd section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, the Court has power to amend the particulars of demand. Gibbs v. Knightly, 34 (4). Extortion by Arbitrator-Action to recover back excessive Charge for Award. Where a party to an arbitration is compelled to pay to a lay arbitrator an exorbitant sum in order to take up the award, he may maintain an action for money had and received to recover the excess beyond what is a proper remuneration for the arbitrator's services. Barnes v. Braith Of ASSIGNMENT. Lands were taken by the defendants, a Railway Company, for the purposes of their railway. On the 27th of June, 1854, the owner of the lands brought ejectment to recover possession. On the 3rd of August the defendants executed a deed poll, under the 77th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, for the purpose of vesting the lands in themselves. At the trial, on the 8th of August, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference of the action and all matters in difference between the parties to an arbitrator, who was to ascer-waite and Nixon, tain what sum should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff as the price of, or compensation for the land of the plaintiff, the plaintiff thereby consenting to make and execute a conveyance, &c. The arbitrator made his award and directed that a verdict for the plaintiff should stand, and that a sum of money should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff as the price of and compensation for the land of the plaintiffs, which the Company, at the time of the making of the order of refer- (2). ence, had taken for the purposes of the railway. The plaintiff having signed judgment, sued out a writ of possession, under which he took possession of the land, and afterwards brought an action for mesne profits. Held, that the question of mesne profits was a matter in difference between the parties which appeared by the award to have been disposed 569 Debt by Trader after Execution of Deed of Arrangement. See BANKRUPTCY, (3). ATTORNEY. (1). Authority of. See EXECUTION. Liability of Attorney for Er pences of Witness. A survey and valuation of the parish of E. had been made for the purpose of a poor rate: against which certain inhabitants appealed. The defendant who was an attorney and clerk to the parish officers, thinking it advisable that the valuation should be supported by the evidence of |