to be considered as a domestic servant, though the master did not sleep in the rooms. INSPECTOR OF GORBALS v. INSPECTOR OF GOVAN AND INSPECTOR OF BONHILL.-Nov. 13. Poor-Settlement. In this case the Court held, that where James M'Gill, a colourman, had lived and worked in the parish of Govan for five years with the exception of five or six weeks in the middle of that period, during which he went from place to place looking for employment, his absence for these weeks did not interrupt his individual residence in Govan. Their Lordships, therefore, affirming the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, held the parish of Govan liable for the pauper's support in a question with Bonhill, his birth parish, and Gorbals, the parish in which he first applied for relief. Adv., BUIE v. STIVEN (INSPECTOR OF POOR OF THE PARISH OF ELGIN). On the 8th October 1860, Stiven (the respondent) raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Elgin against George Buie, innkeeper and plumber there, for payment of L.6, 9s. 6d., being the amount of advances made by the Parochial Board for the support of his grandmother, Widow Catherine Millar, and for relief of her future aliment. The record having been closed on the summons, and a minute of defence, the Sheriff-substitute (Cameron) on 10th November 1860 assoilzied the defender. On appeal the Sheriff Principal (Bell) on 15th April 1861 recalled this interlocutor, and appointed a condescendence and defences to be lodged. Whilst the record was being made up, the defender began to aliment his grandmother, and the pursuer stated in his revised condescendence that he had no claim on the defender, except for the period prior to the date when he was relieved of the pauper's maintenance. The sum to which the claim was thus limited amounted to less than L.13. The Sheriffsubstitute having heard parties on the closed record, again, on 29th November 1861, assoilzied the defender. On appeal, the Sheriff, on 28th May 1862, recalled this interlocutor and allowed parties a proof. Pending this appeal the pauper died, in the end of 1861. A proof having been led, the Sheriff-substitute assoilzied the defender; but, on appeal, the Sheriff recalled this interlocutor, and appointed the pursuer to lodge a minute restricting the conclusions of the action, in terms of his condescendence. This having been done, the Sheriff then decerned against the defender, in terms of the conclusions as restricted, the amount so decerned for being under L.13. The defender having advocated, the pursuer objected to the competency of the advocation in respect of the provisions of the statute 16 & 17 Vict., c. 80, s. 22, by which review is excluded in any cause not exceeding the value of L.25,' the value of the cause being, he contended (as fixed by the majority of the whole Court in Mitchell v. Murray in 1855), to be estimated as at the date of the decree in the inferior Court, and not as at the institution of the action. The Court by a majority sustained the competency of the advocation. English Cases. BANKER.-In 1847, the customer of a bank gave a mortgage to the bankers to secure, with interest at L.5 per cent., money due and to become due to them upon a running account, on which it had been usual to make annual rests, and charge compound interest on the balances. In 1855, the customer assigned his property to trustees for benefit of creditors. It was held, the bankers had no right to make rests after the relation of banker and customer had ceased, and that the mortgage was a security only for the balance due at the date of the assignment, with simple interest from that time at L.5 per cent. per annum. By an assignment for benefit of creditors, full powers of borrowing money at interest from bankers and others were conferred upon the trustees of the deed. Two of the trustees carried on business as bankers, in partnership with other persons, and the third was a clerk in the bank. An account was opened by the trustees with the bank, and advances were made upon this account, in respect of which the banking firm claimed to make annual rests, and to charge interest on the balances, according to their usual practice as bankers; but it was held that, having regard to the fiduciary position of the trustee partners, only simple interest could be allowed (The M. R.).—(Crosskill v. Bower, and Bower v. Turner, 32 L. J., Ch. 540.) COPYRIGHT.-Certain novels, the copyright in which belonged to T., were dramatized, and the dramas, containing some of the most important scenes and incidents of the novels, copied verbatim, were printed and published by L. On an application by T. for an injunction to restrain the sale of the dramas, it was held, that printing and selling the dramas was an infringement of T.'s copyright. Wood, V. C.-If a plaintiff shows that his copyright has been infringed, the Court will grant an injunction without proof of actual damage. (Whittingham v. Wooler explained. Tinsley v. Lacy, 32 L. J., Ch. 535.) LEASE.-P. demised a house and shop to the agents of a company; the lease contained a covenant not to use any part of the premises for the purpose of sales by auction. The agents of the company sublet to S., who made no inquiry as to the terms of the original lease. S. being about to hold sales by auction upon the premises, P. filed a bill to restrain him from so doing; and it was held, that S. having neglected to inquire into the provisions of the original lease, he did so at his own risk, and could not be treated as taking without notice. Wood, V. C., said the question before him was, whether a person could take an under-lease of a house, enter into possession, and neglect the covenants in the original lease, because he had asked no questions, and therefore had no notice of them. If that were permitted, the tenant of a house in some fashionable square might under-let, and the under-lessee might open it as a publichouse, or carry on any noxious trade there. On principle, he could not hold that a person was entitled to enter into possession of a house or lands without asking questions. . . If a person took a sub-lease without making any inquiries as to the title of the lessor, he must take the consequences of his carelessness.(Parker v. Whyte, 32 L. J., Ch. 520.) POWER OF APPOINTMENT.-Stock was settled to the separate use of a married woman for life, and after her decease as she should appoint by will, and in default of appointment for her next-of-kin. The married woman died in her husband's lifetime, having exercised her power; and a suit being instituted in chambers to administer her estate, her separate creditors took out a summons, and sought to prove under the decree; and it was held, the married woman did not, by exercising her power of appointment, constitute the property appointed separate estate (Kindersley, V. C.).—(Vaughan v. Vanderstegen adhered to. Blachford v. Woolley, 32 L. J., Ch. 534.) GENERAL INDEX. Austin on Jurisprudence, 514. Biographical Sketches of the Senators of the Case Law of the Current Year, 411. Comparative Criminal Jurisprudence, 571. Court of Session Procedure, 494. Sheriff-substitutes' Memorial, 142. and amend the Laws relating to Pro- Court of Session Bill, The Amended, 429. Court of Teinds and Mr Buchanan's Trea- Cox on the English Government, 507. Defence of Privilege in Actions of Dam- Cox on the Institutions of the English Hendry's Styles of Deeds, 85. Reforms in the Court of Session. By an Robertson's Handbook of Banker's Law, Shaw's Digest of Cases in the Supreme Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of Notes in the Inner House- Yelverton v. Yelverton, 22. Notes on the Legislation of the Year, 485. Oath of Allegiance as viewed by the Re- On Homicides committed during Intoxica- Poaching Prevention Act, The, 232. Railway Trial, The Late, 129. Registration Court of Appeal, The New, 79. Sandyford Case-The Privilege of Crown Scottish Land Registers, Report by the The Month- Law of Libel, 30. Privilege of the Confessional, 28. The Circuits, 555. The Historical Study of the Law, 587. Cowan on the Land Rights of Scot- Why Jury Trial in Civil Causes has failed, 467. A. v. B., 203. A. B., 464. A. B. v. C. D., 398. Adam v. Sutherland, 596. COURT OF SESSION CASES. Adamson v. The Clyde Navigation Trustees, Addie v. Henderson, and Dimmack and Car- Anderson and Others v. The Incorporation Baildon v. Ferguson and Mustard, 205. Beattie v. Paterson, 96. Beattie v. Leighton and Mitchell, 156. Bloney (Baroness De) and Others, Petr., 464. Breakinridge or Dunlop v. Boyd and Others, 594. Buchanan v. Cullen, 102. Burnet v. Stewart and Others, 204. Campbell v. The Magistrates of Helensburgh Campbell v. M'Laren, 144. Campbell's Trustees v. Campbell and Others, Carmichael v. Adamson, 203. Cheyne v. A. S. Cook and Others, 456. Clark v. Russell, 598. Cooper and Aves v. The Clydesdale Ship- Cooper and Wood v. The North British Cormie v. Cormie and Others, 145. Craig v. Greig and M'Donald, 454. Crichton v. Keir and Crichton, 154. Cullen v. Sir W. Johnston, etc., 33, 99. Davidson v. Lord Fife, 100. Dean and Son and the North of Scotland Dennistoun (Richard), Petr., 398. Duncan (Catharine) for admission to Poors' Dundee, Presbytery of, v. The Magistrates Earl of Eglinton and Winton, Petr., 147. Earl of Wemyss v. Ritchie, 599. Fairrie's Trustees v. M'Intyre, 611. Field v. Watt's Trustees, 608. Forrest v. Cockburn or Forrest and Others, Fraser v. Graham, 35. Galbraith v. Whitehead and Morton, 399. Gibb and Others v. Row, 605. Graham v. Graham's Trustees, 154. Hamilton v. The Monkland Iron and Steel Henderson v. Irvine, 146. Hill and Others v. The Heritors of the Pa- Hunter, etc., v. The North British Railway Hutton v. M'Farlane, 610. Hyslop v. Shaw and Others, 206. Inglis and Wakefield v. Phillips, 452. Johnston v. Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail- Kennedy (John), Petr., 151. Lade's Trustees v. The Largs Banking Lamb v. The Liquidators of the Western Largs Burying - Ground - Willoughby v. Lawson (J. J. Hamilton), Petr., 156. Leith of Freefield and Glenkindie v. Dame M'Cabe or Malcolm v. Linton, 104. M'Culloch of Ardwall v. The Dumfries and M'Farlane v. Haldane and Rae and Others, | Rintoul, Alexander, and Co. v. Ballantyne, M'Gregor v. M'Gregor's Trustees, 147. Mackay (Roger), in his Sequestration, 157. M'Kinney v. G. Van Heck and Co., 454. Macpherson v. Graham, 448. Maitland (Fergusson's Factor), 453. 34. Rob's Trustees v. Hutton, 148. Rutherglen v. Beith, 36, 97. Scott v. M'Iver's Trustee, 38. Maxwell (Sir John) v. Sir John Reid, Bart., Sinclair v. The Lord Advocate, 93. etc., 395. Menzies v. Menzies, 459. Millar v. Dodd, 39. Miller v. Carson, Warren, and Co., 217. Mitchell (Moncrieff), Petr., 462. Morton and Co. v. John Jacobus Harper, 214. Murchie v. Freebairn and Others, 390. Napier and Sons v. Cameron and Waterston, Newlands v. Brock, 610. Pitt v. Pitt, 40. Pollock and Co. v. Murray and Spence, 597. Reddie v. Williamson, 100. Richardson, Loch, and Maclaurin v. James Skeoch v. R. W. Lowe, 397. Stephens v. Duncan and Douglas, 42. Stewart and Sons v. Jamieson, 215. Tennent v. Earl of Glasgow, 34. The Great North of Scotland Railway Co. Waddell and Others v. Waddell, 207. Warden and Smith v. British Linen Co., 149. Watt (James) in Brown's Sequestration, 101. Winchester v. Smith and Others, 219. Yeats v. The Kincardineshire Turnpike HOUSE OF LORDS. Baird and Another v. The Provost, etc. of | M'Intosh of Holme and Drummond r. Fra- Gemmill v. Macalister, 159. ser and Others, 279. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY. Rev. P. M'Laughlin, 105. TEIND COURT. The Minister of Forfar v. the Heritors, 159. REGISTRATION APPEAL COURT. County of Elgin, 107. CLASSIFIED INDEX OF COURT OF SESSION CASES. ACCOUNTING. Graham, 154. AGENT AND CLIENT. Rutherglen, 97; ALIMENT. De Blonay, 464. BANKRUPTCY. Scott, 88; Millar, 39; Bell, ARBITRATION. Earl of Kintore, 221; Dean, BILL OF EXCHANGE. Warden, 149; Skeoch, 894. ARRESTMENT. Rintoul, 34. 397; M Kinney, 454. ASSIGNATION. Galbraith, 399. CAUTIONER. Reddie, 100. |