NOTES OF THE WEEK.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Wednesday, Jan. 31.

NEWBY V. VON OPPEN AND OTHERS. Service of writ-Foreign corporation Double domicile-Common Law Procedure Act 1852, ss. 16 & 17.

THIS was an appeal from a master's order at
chambers, which had been referred to the court
by a judge. Von Oppen and Colt's Fire Arms
Manufactory Company were joint defendants in
this action upon a contract made in London, the
said company being an American corporation not
incorporated in this country, but having a branch
place of business in Pall Mall managed by Von
Oppen, who however was authorised only to sell
the goods consigned to him, and not to enter into
executory contracts except upon approval of his
principals. Two copies of the writ had been
served at the branch office, one directed to Von
Oppen and the other to the company. Upon ap;
plication by the company the master had ordered
their name to be struck out of the writ and sub-
sequent proceedings, on the ground that the ser-
vice of the writ upon them was invalid.
Manisty, Q. C. and Philbrick showed cause
against a rule to rescind this order.
E. Clarke supported the rule.

Cur. adv. vult.

The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, Mellor, and Quain, JJ.) considered that the company had a domicile in this country as well as in America, and following the law laid down by Lord St. Leonards in The Carron Iron Company Proprietors v. Maclaren (5 H. of L. Cas. 416) refused to stop the proceedings against them at this stage.

Rule absolute.
Attorneys for plaintiff, Harper, Broad, and
Battcock.
Attorney for defendants, G. E. Thomas.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Tuesday, Jan. 23.

SIDEBOTHAM v. KNOTT.
Detinue for deeds-Titie to-Voluntary settlement
-What passes by-Trust estate-Beneficial inte-
rest-Legal estate-Construction-Intention.
THIS was an action of detinue for deeds retained
by the defendant, relating to property near Ashton-
under-Lyne. One Robert Knott, by his will, in
1836, devised all his freehold and leasehold pro-
perty to his three sons, John, James, and Robert
Knott, upon trusts for the benefit of his widow
and children, and which trusts are still subsist-
ing, and he died in 1842. The son John, who sur-
vived his two brothers and co-trustees, died in-
testate in 1868, leaving his only son, Joseph Knott,
his heir-at-law, and having, a few days only before
his death, viz., on 13th Jan. 1868, executed a volun-
tary settlement of his property, whereby he con-
veyed "all his real and personal estate whatsoever
and wheresoever then vested in him," unto and to
the use of his son, the said Joseph Knott and
his son-in-law, William Sidebotham (the plain-
tiff), their heirs, executors, administrators, and
assigns, upon certain trusts therein mentioned.
Joseph Knott made his will, dated 5th May 1870,
and thereby gave, devised, and bequeathed all his
real and personal estate whatsoever and whereso-
ever unto and to the use of his wife, Elizabeth
Knott (the defendant), her heirs, executors, and ad-
ministrators absolutely, and appointed her sole
executrix of his will, and died on the 13th Nov.
1870. The defendant duly proved the said will as
sole executrix in July 1871. Up to the death
of the said Joseph Knott as last mentioned,
the plaintiff Sidebotham recognised the said
Joseph Knott as the trustee, and acted as his
agent in collecting the rents of the property, a
part of which he himself occupied as yearly
tenant, and he regularly paid over the rents of the
property quarterly to Joseph Knott, who divided
them every year amongst the parties entitled
under the will of the above-mentioned Robert
Knott. After Joseph Knott's death the plain-
tiff continued to pay over the said rents to
the defendant, the widow and residuary de-
visee of Joseph Knott, up to about the end
of May 1871, when he refused to account or
to pay over to her any further moneys, alleg-
ing himself to be the legal representative of
the said testator Robert Knott, and the trustee
of his property, and demanded from her the deeds,
wills, and papers relating to the title, and on her
refusing to give them up, the present action was
brought to recover them. The trial took place at
the Liverpool Summer Assizes 1871, before Kelly,
C.B. The question at issue being whether the
legal estate in the property devised by the original
testator Robert Knott to his three sons in
trust as aforesaid, passed to and is now vested in
the defendant as devisee under the will of her
husband, Joseph Knott, the heir at law of John
Knott the surviving trustee of Robert Knott's
will; or whether it passed to the plaintiff under

the settlement executed by John Knott, and is
now vested in the plaintiff as the surviving
trustee of that settlement. A verdict pro forma
was entered for the plaintiff, for 40s.; and a rule
was afterwards obtained to set that verdict aside
and enter it for the defendant, on the ground that
the legal estate in the property devised by the
will of Robert Knott is not in the plaintiff. And

now

Ambrose and R. H. Collins, for the plaintiff, showed cause, and

Holker, Q.C., and J. Edwards, for the defendants
in support were stopped.

The COURT (Kelly, C. B., and Cleasby, B.) were
of opinion that the legal estate in the property in
question did not pass to the plaintiff under the
settlement, for though the words of it were large
enough to pass it, yet, on looking at the whole
instrument and the surrounding circumstances,
and the intention of the parties as gathered there-
from, it was clear that the deed was not intended
to apply to trust estates, or to any property but
that in which the settlor John Knott, was benefi.
cially interested.
H. of L. 2 Dow. & Cl. 232) is identically in point,
Fausset v. Carpenter (in the
and the present case cannot be distinguished from

it.

Rule absolute to enter a verdict for the
defendant.
Attorneys for the plaintiff, Bower and Cotton,
46, Chancery-lane, W.C., agents for Gardner and
Horner, Manchester.

Attorneys for the defendant, Woodcock and
Ryland, 14, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C.; agents for
Clayton, Ashton-under-Lyne.

SECOND DIVISION OF THE COURT.
Jan. 23 and 25.

CROUCH v. TREGONNING.
Landlord and tenant-Lessor and lessee-Equi-
table assignment by lessee-Payment of rent to
landlord by lessor-Implied indemnity by lessee
-Tenancy-Use and occupation.
THIS was an action to recover on an alleged
promise of indemnity, tried at Bristol at the last
summer assizes, before Willes, J. By the first
count of the declaration it was charged that
the plaintiff was tenant to one Lanyon of
certain premises, for the residue of a term of
fourteen years therein from Dec. 1858, and that
the defendant in consideration of the plaintiffs
giving up to him the possession of the residue of
the said term, promised the plaintiff to indemnify
him against the rent of the premises, and assign
ing for breach that the defendant did not in-
demnify the plaintiff. By the second count the
plaintiff charged that the defendant was tenant
to the plaintiff of certain premises at a rent of
£80 per annum, payable on the usual quarter days,
from 10th March 1869, and that two years' rent was
due and unpaid. And the third count was for use
and occupation, and for money paid, &c. The
defendant pleaded first to the first count, denying
the promise to indemnify; secondly to the second
count, a denial of the tenancy as alleged; and
thirdly to the residue of the declaration, never
indebted; and on these pleas issue was joined. It
was proved at the trial that the plaintiff was
tenant to Lanyon of a certain farm, from Dec.
1868, for a term of seven, fourteen, or twenty-one
years, at £80 a year rent, and that he occupied
the premises up to and until March 1869, when he
assigned, or professed to assign, the remainder of
his estate and interest in the premises to the de-
fendant, by an agreement in writing, but not
under seal, under which agreement the defendant
entered into the occupation of the premises.
The landlord declined to give his licence
to the assignment, such licence being requisite
under the terms of the plaintiff's lease, and
consequently no legal assignment was ever exe-
cuted between the parties. The defendant,
although he might have remained on in the occu-
pation of the premises, quitted the farm at
Michaelmas 1870, in conformity with a notice
which he had given to Lanyon of his intention so
to do, and the farm was unoccupied after that
date. In the succeeding March (1871) the plain-
tiff paid to Lanyon £40 for the six months rent of
the farm and premises from Michaelmas 1870.
The defendant, whom Lanyon never accepted as
his tenant, paid rent to Lanyon during the time
he was in occupation as for the plaintiff, and the
latter now sought to recover from the defendant
the £40 so paid by him to Lanyon as above-men-
tioned for the six months from Michaelmas 1870
to Lady-day 1871. A verdict was entered for the
plaintiff for £40, and leave was reserved to the de-
fendant to move to enter a verdict for him; and a
rule having been accordingly obtained in Michael.
mas term last to that effect.

Jan. 23.-A. Charles (with him was H. T. Cole,
Q.C.) for the plaintiff, showed cause against, and
Lopes, Q.C. for the defendant, supported it.

Cur. adv. vult.

Jan. 25-The COURT (Bramwell, Martin, and
Pigott, BB.) now gave judgment, making the de-

fendant's rule absolute, being of opinion that there was no implied promise to indemnify the plaintiff arising from the relation between the parties, and certainly not after the time when the defendant ceased to occupy; and further there was clearly no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, and no tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant. The case failed both on the question of indemnity and on the question of tenancy. Rule absolute to enter the verdict for the defendant.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Gregory. Rowcliffe, Rowcliffe, and Rawle, 1, Bedford-row, W.C., Attorney for the defendant, Bolton.

Master and servant-Machinery in motion.
Dangerous employment-Duty to fence-Factory
Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 15), sect. 21-Contributory
negligence.

THIS was an action by the plaintiff, the widow and
administratrix of one Samuel Britton, and was
brought by her, under Lord Campbell's Act, to
recover pecuniary compensation for the loss
inflicted on her and her child by the death of her
husband through an accident occurring to him
whilst employed at the defendants' factory, by
reason of the defendants neglecting to fence certain
machinery close to which the deceased was at
work, by reason whereof he became entangled in
the said machinery and was killed. The declara-
tion contained two counts, which charged, in
substance, that the defendants, being occupiers of
a cotton factory, and the owners of certain
machinery therein, did not safely and securely
fence the said machinery, in compliance with
the provisions of the Factory Acts of 1844
and 1856 in the declaration mentioned, and
that there was in particular a steam engine,
the flywheel and spurwheel of which were not
sufficiently guarded and fenced, and also a wheel
race not otherwise secured and not fenced close
to its edge, within the meaning of the said
statutes; that the said Samuel Britton was em-
ployed by the defendants to place himself close to
the edge of the said wheelrace in order to lubri-
cate the bearings of the said fly and spurwheels
of the engine, the defendants knowing and the
said S. Britton being ignorant of, the unsafe and
insufficiently fenced condition of the same ma-
chinery; and by reason of the defendant's negli-
gence as aforesaid the said Samuel Britton was
caught up and whirled about by certain parts of
the said steam engine and greatly injured, and
afterwards died of his said injuries; whereby, &c.,
the defendants pleaded first Not Guilty, and, in
addition, several other pleas to the following
effect: Denying the deceased's ignorance and the
defendants' knowledge of the things alleged in
the said count; that he, being of sound mind and
above twenty-one years of age, voluntarily un-
dertook the employment with knowledge of the
danger in consideration of an increased rate
of wages; that the parts of the machinery and
engine alleged not to be securely fenced, were
not such as the Factory Acts required to be so
fenced, or near to which young children, young
persons, or women were liable to pass, &c.; and
that the said S. Britton knew the said steam
engine and machinery were not securely fenced,
and by his own negligence caused himself to be
caught up, &c. Issue was joined on all the pleas.
It was proved at the trial before Brett, J. and a
special jury at the last summer assizes at Bristol,
that the deceased was employed to grease the
bearings between the flywheel and the spur or cog-
wheel of the steam engine in the defendants' engine
house. The bearing on which the shaft revolves is
fixed on a plate in the division wall, and there was
an opening in the wall (called the "wall box")
for the purpose of holding it. The thickness of
the wall is 2ft. 3in., and the wall box, on which the
deceased had to sit in order to grease the bearings,
was 5ft. long by 4ft. high, and the access to it was
by creeping between the spokes of the flywheel
when the engine was at rest. The flywheel (15ft.
in diameter) was on his left hand, revolving in the
wheelrace in the engine house, at fifty-seven
revolutions per minute, ordinarily, and the spur or
cogwheel on his right hand revolving in another
room of the factory, the space between the two
wheels being 2ft. 10 in. Although the wheelrace
was fenced on its outer side it was not fenced
along the inner edge, by which the deceased sat
to do his work. He had been five days only in the
defendant's service at the time of the accident.
The jury found no contributory negligence in the
defendant's undertaking the work, or in his
manner of doing it, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiff for £200. By the 21st section of the
7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, it is enacted that
every
wheelrace not otherwise secured shall be fenced
close to the edge of the wheelrace, and the said
protection to each part shall not be removed

66

while the parts required to be fenced are in motion." A rule having been obtained pursuant to leave to enter the verdict for the defendants, on the grounds (amongst others) that the inside edge of the wheelrace did not require to be fenced under the Factory Acts, and that the deceased voluntarily undertook the employment with knowledge

of the attendant risk.

H. T. Cole, Q.C. (with him A. Charles) for the plaintiff shewed cause

Kingdon, Q.C. and Pinder for the defendants, contra.

The COURT (Bramwell, Channell and Pigott, BB.) gave judgment discharging the rule, and were of opinion, first, that there was a clear breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants in not fencing the edge of the wheel race where the deceased was placed to work; secondly, the danger was not so obvious as that the deceased must necessarily have known, and voluntarily encountered it; but, if it were so, that alone would not enable the court to say there was no evidence for the jury, who found there was no contributory negligence in the deceased, a verdict which concluded the case on that point, and with which the court saw no ground for disagreeing.

Rule discharged.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Gregory, Rowcliffe, Bowcliffe, and Rawle, Bedford-row, W.C., agents for Benson and Elletson, Bristol.

Attorneys for the defendants, Merediths, Roberts and Mills, 8, New-square, Lincoln's-inn. W.C., agents for Ward, Vassall, Parr and Osborne, Bristol.

SECOND DIVISION OF THE COURT.
Friday, Feb. 2.

ARROWSMITH 2. CHANDler.
Action against British subject out of jurisdiction
-"Cause of action" in England-Application
to set writ aside-C. L. P. Act 1852, s. 18-
Undertaking to confine proof to cause of action
in England.

meant the whole cause of action. Authorities were
divided, and the court had to say which was right.
Inconveniences might be adduced either way, but
this was a French contract, and better understood
there than here.

The COURT (Martin, Bramwell, and Cleasby,
BB.), were of opinion that the rule should be dis-
charged, but that the plaintiff should, as in
Diamond v. Sutton (9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 800; L.
Rep. 1 Ex. 430) undertake to confine himself
strictly to the cause of action arising within the
jurisdiction-namely, the non-payment of the
monthly salary during the service in London.

Rule discharged, the plaintiff undertaking
accordingly.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, Denton, Hall, and
Barker, 15, Gray's-inn-square, W.C.
Attorneys for the defendant, Reed, Phelps, and
Sidgwick, 3, Gresham-street, E.C.

LEGISLATION AND JURIS

PRUDENCE,

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, Feb. 6.

THE APPOINTMENT OF SIR R. P. COLLIER.

Earl STANHOPE.-I beg to give notice that on Thursday next I shall move for certain papers relating to the appointment of Sir R. P. Collier, and solution: "That the House has seen with regret that on Thursday following I shall submit this rethe course taken by Her Majesty's Government in carrying out the provisions of the Act of last session relative to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is of opinion that the elevation of Sir Robert Collier to the bench of the Court of Common Pleas for the purpose of giving only a colourable qualification to be a paid member of the Judicial Committee, and his immediate transfer to the Judicial Committee accordingly, were acts at variance with the spirit and intention of the

judicial patronage" (hear, hear).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, Feb. 6.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL took the oaths and

his seat on his re-election for the borough of
Dover.

THE BALLOT BILL.

Mr. FORSTER gave notice that on Thursday next he should bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedure at municipal and parliamentary elections (cheers). He also gave notice, in the absence of his hon. and learned friend, that the Attorney-General would on Thursday bring in a Bill to amend the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868.

SCOTCH LEGISLATION.

THE ALBERT AND EUROPEAN ASSURANCE COM-
PANIES.

Mr. S. CAVE gave notice that to-morrow he should bring in a Bill to authorise the appointment of commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the causes of the failure of the Albert and European Life Assurance Companies, and of the companies which have been merged in such companies, with power to examine directors, officers, whether permanent or occa sional, and all persons acting, whether as agents or otherwise, in negotiations for the amalgamation or transfer of other companies with or to the Albert or European Assurance Companies.

THE GAME LAWS.

Mr. WHITE gave notice for Mr. P. A. Taylor, who was absent, that that hon. gentleman would bring in a Bill for the abolition of the game laws.

THE APPOINTMENT OF SIR R. COLLIER.

the 16th inst. I shall call the attention of the Mr. R. A. CROSS.-I beg to give notice that on House to the recent appointment of Sir Robert Collier, and shall move a resolution thereupon. (Opposition cheers.)

PRIVATE BILLS FOR IRELAND.

Mr. PIM gave notice, for Mr. Heron, that the the expense and delay in obtaining local and personal Acts relating to Ireland.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Sir G. JENKINSON gave notice that he should move, as an amendment to the motion of which

Mr. Gilpin had given notice, for a select committee to consider the report of the Royal comtained a recommendation that the present law of mission of 1866 on capital punishment, which conmurder should be altered.

THE MIDDLESEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. G. GREGORY gave notice that on the 16th he should bring in a Bill to discontinue the Middlesex registry of deeds and other matters affecting the settlement of land in Middlesex.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS.

Mr. SAMUELSON gave notice of his intention to move the reappointment of the select committee o. last session on patents for inventions.

Herschell, for the defendant, had obtained a rule statute, and of evil example in the exercise of hon. gentleman would bring in a Bill to diminish calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the writ of summons in this case, and all subsequent proecedings thereon, should not be set aside, on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction. Both parties were British subjects. The defendant carried on business both in France and England. In France, at Paris, and three other large towns, and in England, in London. The contract dated 28th Dec. 1866, was written in French, and made in Frauce. By it the plaintiff was to be employed as manager of the defendant's business (employé interessé was the French term) at a salary of 9000 francs a year, payable monthly, and a commission of 10 per cent. on the balance of the profits to be taken at the end of each year. In Oct. 1870, owing to the exigencies of the war in France, the defendant came to London; and the plaintiff came with him, and from Oct. 1870 to June 1871, was occupied in London in the defendant's service, when they both returned to France, the plaintiff continuing on there in the service till November last, when he was dismissed. He now commenced this action against the defendant for breach of contract in non-payment of wages, and for wrongful dismissal, and by his affidavits used at chambers, when the matter came before Hannen, J., it was sworn that a cause of action arose in London consisting of salary due to the defendant in relation to his services rendered in London and still remaining unpaid. Hannen, J. had, after taking time to consider, declined to make an order, setting aside an order of the master giving leave to proceed, being of opinion that a cause of action arose within the jurisdiction. Sect. 18 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 enacts that it shall be lawful for the court or judge upon being satisfied by affidavit that there is a cause of action, which arose within the jurisdiction, or in

day three weeks he should call the attention of
Sir D. WEDDERBURN gave notice that on that
the house to the difficulties which existed under
the present system of obtaining opportunities for
the discussion in this house of the special affairs
of Scotland, and that he would move for a select
committee to consider the subject.

THE MANAGEMENT OF DOCKYARDS.

Mr. GOURLEY gave notice that on the 19th March he should move for a select committee to inquire into the existing management of dockyards, survey of ships, &c.

THE DUNGANNON BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.

Lord C. HAMILTON gave notice that, on the 13th inst., he should call the attention of the house to the treatment of the Dungannon bench of magis. trates by the Irish government, and move for copies of correspondence with reference to the charges against them.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.

ARBITRATION FOR TRADES' UNIONS. THE following is a copy of a Bill drawn up by Mr. Rupert Kettle:

A Bill to extend the application of the Act to consolidate and amend the laws relative to the arbitration of disputes between masters and workmen.

"Whereas it is desirable to extend the provisions of an Act passed in the reign of His Majesty King George IV., intituled An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relative to the Arbitration of Disputes between Masters and Workmen,' so as to make the same applicable to modern modes of settling such disputes by boards of arbitration: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and

respect of the breach of a contract made within bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parlia

the jurisdiction," &c., to empower the plaintiff to proceed in the action as therein mentioned.

Mr. WALPOLE gave notice of his intention to public prosecutors.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. GILPIN gave notice that on Friday next he should bring in a Bill for the abolition of the punishment of death.

LOCAL TAXATION.

ment assembled, and by authority of the same, as follows:

"1. Interpretation.-(a) In this Act the words 'the Act,' shall mean the statute of 5 Geo. 4, cap. 96. (b) The word board,' shall mean any board of arbitration described in the next following sec tion, which shall have under its rules power to determine any dispate of which it may have cor nizance. (c) The word decision,' shall mean any final decision, in writing, of any dispute in manner prescribed by the rules of the board, whether the same be by recording a vote of the board on a

Day, for the plaintiff, showed cause.-Though anade abroad, one breach of the contract was the non-payment of the monthly salary in London. The Court of Queen's Bench in Allhusen v. Mal garejo (18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 323; L: Rep. 3 Q. B. 342 37 L. J. 169, Q. B.), following Sichel v. Borch in this court (9 L. T. Rep. N. S. 637; 2 H. & C. 954; 33 L. J. 179, Ex.), held that "cause of -action" meant the whole cause of action. But in Jackson v. Spittal (22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 755) ; L. Rep. 5 C. P. 542; 39 L. J. 321. C. P.) the Court he should bring in a Bill to facilitate the proof of resolution of a meeting, or by the written judg

of Common Pleas declined to follow those cases. Lastly, this court in Durham v. Spence (23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 500; L. Rep. 6 Ex. 46; 40 L. J. 3, Ex.) were divided, Martin and Pigott, BB., following Jackson v. Spittal in the Common Pleas, and Kelly, C.B., agreeing with the other cases. It is sub mitted that Jackson v. Spittal was right, and that there was a cause of action within the jurisdiction here.

Herschell, for the defendant, contra.-On a true construction of the statute, cause of action"

agreement shall, for the purposes of this Act, be annual rental of £103 4s. 8d., and each of the deemed proceedings for conciliation.

interfere with a return being made to the share holders. The date when the liquidation will be completed cannot yet be given.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES. Home and Colonial Marine Insurance.-Dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. The General Mortgage and Securities Insurance Company (Limited) is announced. Capital £25,0000, in 50,000 shares of £5 each. This company is established for insuring to mortgagees, and other owners of moneys, stocks, or funds, charged by way of mortgage, or otherwise, upon real or personal property, life interests, reversions, or other partial interests therein, the due payment of their principal or interest, or both, notwithstanding the insufficiency of their securities, as to value or otherwise, as the case may be; thereby giving, in consideration of a moderate annual or other premium, a perfect security against any loss in the event of the mortgaged property not realising upon sale, by reason of the risk insured against, the amounts so charged thereon. The prospectus says: "Solicitors, trustees, guardians, and executors, will feel relieved from the responsibility attached to the investment of funds entrusted to their care, when they can have the guarantee of this company in addition to the security immediately offered, and consequently will resort to it." MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. Australian Agricultural. - Interim dividend, 12s. 6d. per share.

Hooper's Telegraph Works.-Dividend of 78. per share, or at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. Phospho-Guano.-Dividend declared on the A capital for the half-year at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, and a dividend on the B capital at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum.

South Cleveland Ironworks (Limited).-Capital £200,000, in £20 shares. Owing to the death of Mr. William Watkin, the late proprietor, the buildings and property of the Esk Valley Iron Works, at Grosmont, near Whitby, will be acquired. The lease of the 400 acres, upon which there are stated to be not less than 10,000,000 tons of ironstone, has fifty-one years to run, and the vendors transfer the whole, and agree to erect two large blast furnaces, with all modern appliances, and to pay 8 per cent. interest during their construction, for the sum of £160,000. It is calculated that then the production will be 40,000 tons of pig per annum at a profit of £54,500. Westminster Palace Hotel.-Dividend at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum declared.

MINING COMPANY.

of a supplemental bill, bringing the facts stated in
the new bill directly in issue against the new
parties (Hildzard v. Field, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S.
784. V.C. W.)

RATIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT-DELIBERATE
ACT OF SETTLOR-UNDUE INFLUENCE-PROFES-
SIONAL ADVICE-DELAY IN SEEKING RELIEF.-
A son, when at the age of twenty-one, and while
residing with his father, made a settlement in
favour of his father, who was at the time in receipt
of a comparatively small income, whereas the son
was in affluent circumstances. Fourteen years
afterwards the son filed a bill to set aside the
settlement on the ground of his youth, inexpe-
rience in business, want of proper advice, and
undue influence on the part of his father at the
time of its execution: Held, that the settlement
might have been set aside on the ground that the
son had not had adequate protection, but for sub-
sequent delay in filing the bill. The delay how
ever did not affect the power in the settlement
given to the father to revoke the trusts of a part
of the property and to deal with it as he pleased.
That was an unreasonable power, and must be
struck out. The principles upon which the court
interferes to set aside family arrangements
stated: (Turner v. Collins, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 779.
Chan.)
SLANDER OF WIFE CHASTITY SPECIAL
DAMAGE. Declaration alleged that defendant had
spoken of the female plaintiff that she had connec-
she was injured in her character and reputation,
tion with a certain man two years ago; whereby
became alienated from and deprived of the cohabi-
tation of her husband, lost and was deprived of the
companionship, and ceased to receive the hospi-
tality of divers friends, of whom her husband and
three other persons were named: Held, upon de-
murrer, that the declaration was good, the special
damage being sufficient to sustain the action:
(Davies and Wife v. Solomon, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S.
799. Q. B.)

PAPER NOT PLAINLY TESTAMENTARY-BEQUEST IN PAST TENSE.-A testator commenced his will thus: "I have given all that I have to B. C. and her two sons (minors), &c., and after bequeathing certain annuities appointed them his residuary legatees. Under the signatures of himself and the attesting witnesses were the names of two persons nominated trustees; Held, that the paper was testamentary, but that the appointment of trustees did not come within the terms of Lord St. Leonards' Act, and that they were not therefore executors according to the tenor: (In the Goods of W. Coles, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 852.

Emma. The third monthly interim dividend, at Prob.) the rate of 18 per cent. per annum.

SOLICITORS' JOURNAL,

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

Debtor and CredITOR-PROMISSORY NOTE

INDORSEMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT-LORD TEN-
TERDEN'S ACT (9 GEO. 4, c. 14)-STATUTE OF
LIMITATION.-In 1846 B. advanced to L. 500l., on

the security of a promissory note, payable to him-
self or his wife. B. died in 1863 without having
required payment of the note, and no steps were
taken in reference to it until 1866, when, on the
application of B.'s widow, L. altered the date on
the note from 1846 to 1866, and indorsed his name
on the back. B.'s widow died in 1868, and L.
in 1869. On a suit by the executor of B.'s widow
and the derivative executor of B., against the
executor of L. to enforce payment of the note.
Held, that there had been a sufficient acknow-
ledgment within Lord Tenterden's Act, and that
the note was not barred by the Statute of Limi-
tation: (Bourdine v. Greenwood, 25 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 782. V.C. W.)

MORTGAGE PRIORITY-NOTICE.-A. and B., respectively the first and second mortgagees in fee of an estate, were induced through the fraud and misrepresentation of W., who acted as solicitor for them both, to execute to him a conveyance of the estate free from both the mortgage debts. The deed of conveyance was indorsed with receipts in the ordinary form for the mortgage moneys, signed by A. and B. respectively, though in reality no money was paid to A. or to B. W. then entered into possession of the estate, and acted as the owner, which he was reputed to be. Subsequently he executed an equitable mortgage of the estate, by covenant and deposit of the title deeds, to C., who had no notice that the prior mortgages to A. and B. had not been in fact paid off. W. continued to pay interest on the mortgage debts due to A. and B. until his death, when the fraud was discovered: Held (affirming the decision of Malins, V.C.) that C. was entitled to priority over A. and B.: (Hunter v. Walters; Darnell v. Hunter; Curling v. Walters, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 765. Chan.) PRACTICE-REVIVOR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL -ORIGINAL BILL OF REVIVOR-A bill to revive a guit which has become abated and defective by the marriage of one of the parties and the birth of children should be an original bill, in the nature

petition except under very special circumstances: Austin v. Austin, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 856. Div.) TRADE MARK SPURIOUS IMITATION CARRIER INJUNCTION-FRAUD.-Certain goods bearing a spurious imitation of the plaintiff's trade mark were shipped by foreign merchants to the London Docks, to the order of a London firm who were not dealers in the goods in question, but merely acted as forwarding agents. On a bill by the plaintiff to restrain the removal of the goods from the dock with the spurious brand on them: Held (affirming the decree of the Master of the Rolls), that in such a case it was no defence to say that the defendants were merely carriers or consignees, but that, as it was proved they were not guilty of participation in the fraud of the foreign merchants, as they had given the plaintiffs all information in their power, and had offered to erase the forged trade marks, the plaintiffs could have thus obtained all they were entitled to. Appeal dismissed with costs:(Upmann v. Elkan, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 813. Chan.)

WILL NOT FORTHCOMING-PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION - DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION.-A testator executed his will at his solicitor's office, and took it away with him. It was never seen afterwards, and could not be found after his death in his repositories. He had made declarations inconsistent with his testamentary depositions shortly before his death, but the court held that he, being the last custodian of the will, revocation arose and was not rebutted. The court and it not being forthcoming, the presumption of will not apply the principle of dependent relative revocation except there is proof of the actual destruction of the instrument: (Homerton and another v. Hewett, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 854. Prob.)

JUDICIAL SEPARATION-PERMANENT ALIMONY

INCREASE OF HUSBAND'S FACULTIES.—A wife, who had obtained an order for permanent alimony on a decree of judicial separation being pronounced, applied for an increase, on the ground that the husband's faculties had increased. The husband being absent in India, notice of motion was served on the solicitor who had acted for him in the suit. The court held this notice to be insufficient, and declined to make the order. Appli cation was also made for an order on the husband to pay up the arrears of alimony, and, on the representation that the India Office would enforce it in some way on the husband, who was an officer in the Indian army, the court made the order as prayed: (Louis v. Louis, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 856. Div. Ct.)

--

NO WILL FORTHCOMING- ADMINISTRATION WILL EXECUTED UNDER POWER OF APPOINTNEEDED TO PRESERVE THE ESTATE-NEXT OF MENT SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE-REVOCATION- KIN ABROAD.-A deceased was supposed to have 1 VICT. c. 26, s. 18.-By a deed of settlement exe- made a will, appointing his cousin his executor, cuted between the deceased and her intended but at his death it could not be found. His husband, certain property was conveyed to trus- brother, the sole next of kin, had been absent in tees to pay the income to the deceased herself Australia for forty years, and a representative was band, then to him for life, if she should so appoint the debts, and to represent the deceased in a during her life, and if she pre-deceased her hus-urgently needed to carry on the business, to collect appoint, then it was to go to the issue of the colligenda to the deceased's cousin for the use and by will, but not otherwise, and if she did not so Chancery suit. The court made a grant ad ing her power of appointment in favour of her in- to make certain payments: (In the Goods of marriage. The same day she made a will exercis- benefit of the next of kin, with special directions tended husband: Held that the will came within Tepper, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853. Prob. Ct.) voked by the subsequent marriage: (In the Goods the exception of the Wills Act, and was not re- WILL-LEGACY-FAILURE OF OBJECT OF GIFT of Worthington, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 853. Prob.) -ABSOLUTE GIFT SPECIAL CASE-NEWLYBORN INFANTS.-A testator, by his will, directed APPEAL-SECURITY FOR COSTS OF.-In a suit request in writing, and after her death at their MATRIMONIAL SUIT-WIFE'S COSTS REFUSED his trustees during the life of E. P., upon her for judicial separation, the wife failed to establish own discretion, to expend any sums of money out brought against her husband, and the court re-purchase of any commissions for, or in obtaining a charge of incestuous adultery which she had of his residuary estate not exceeding 65001., in the fused to allow her the costs of the hearing, the promotion of, W. P. in the army. E. P. made although security for them had been given in the a request in writing to the trustees to pay the registry. Subsequently, in chambers, an applica- whole sum of £6500 to W. P. The object of the tion was refused to cancel the bond given for gift had failed, in consequence of the abolition of rity for further costs to enable the wife to pro- entitled absolutely to the whole fund. The court costs, and the husband was ordered to find secu- purchase in the army. Held, that W. P. was secute her appeal against the dismissal of her will dispense with the presence of infants who petition: (Jones v. Jones, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 856. have come into existence since a special case has Div.) been set down, where there are other persons in Flower, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 816. V.C. B.) the same interest who are represented: (Palmer v.

TRUST-FAILURES OF FIRST TRUST WHEN ASCER-
WILL-RESIDUary Bequest-SUBSTITUTED
TAINED.-A testator left his residue in trust to
his two brothers for the benefit of any children
living at the time of his death, or born within due
time after, with a gift over to two brothers on the
failure of such trust being ascertained. There
death, and it turned out that the widow was not
was no child living at the time of the testator's
enceinte. One of the brothers died a fortnight
after the testator. The court held that the failure
of the first trust was ascertained at the death of
the testator, and granted administration of his
estate with the will annexed to the executors of
the deceased trustee, the survivor having re-
nounced: (In the Goods of Sidebottom, 25 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 855. Prob.)

MATRIMONIAL SUIT- WIFE'S PETITIONCRUELTY-APPLICATION TO ADD NEW CHARGES REFUSED.-Cruelty is a matrimonial offence which must essentially be within the wife's knowledge when she files her petition, and the court, therefore, will not allow her to add new charges to her

COVENANT NOT TO SET UP A TRADE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE-MODE OF ADMEASUREMENT do an act within a certain distance of a given OF SUCH DISTANCE.-If a party covenants not to place, the proper mode of admeasurement is to such distance; or, in other words, to measure the draw a circle round such place of the radius of distance by a straight line upon a horizontal plane, with the plaintiff, to whom he had sold a publicor as the crow flies. The defendant covenanted house, that he would not engage in the business of the keeper of a public-house" within the distance of one half of a mile of the said premises" Held (per Martin and Channell, B.B.), that the distance should be measured upon the that the subject-matter of the covenant should be principle above stated. Held (per Cleasby, B.), considered, and that in this case the distance should be measured as a travelled distance from the one house to the other: (Moulet v. Cole, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 839. Ex.)

UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE MILLS (John) Langham, Godstone, Surrey, yeoman. March

BANK OF ENGLAND.

[Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear:]

ALSTON (Edward), Esq., Fellow of St. John's College,
Oxford, 3517. 16. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant,

Samuel Alston.

LAMOND (Wm. Okey, Stock Exchange, E.C., gentleman. 877. 28, 5d. New Three per Cent., and 747. 15s. 11d. Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Cordelia Lamond, widow, administratrix of William O. Lamond, deceased,

WILLIAMS (Joshua), Esq., Lincoln's-inn. and WILLIAMS (Joshua Strange), Esq., of the same place. One dividend in the sum of 49817, 68. 5d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, said Joshua Williams.

WILLIAMS (Wm. Owen), Cochrane-terrace, St. John's-wood, N.W., gentleman, DAVIES (Fanny), West-place, John'srow, St. Luke's, widow, and DAVIES (Thos. Wm.), a minor. £51 58. 2d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, the said Fanny Davies, widow, the survivor.

APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK
WINDING-UP ACTS.

MILLWALL IRON WORKS, SHIPBUILDING, AND GRAVING-
DOCKS COMPANY (LIMITED).- Creditors to send in by
Feb. 11, their names and addresses, and the particulars of
their claims, and the names and addresses of their soli-
citors, if any, to J. Glegg, 3, Moorgate-street, E.C., the
liquidator of the said company. Feb. 16, at twelve o'clock,
at the chambers of V.C. M., is the time appointed for
hearing and adjudicating upon such claims.

CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
LAST DAY OF PROOF.

BORTEFEUR (Alexander), Esq., 45, Moscow-road, Bayswater,
Middlesex. March 1; C. Few, solicitor, 2, Henrietta-
street, Covent-garden, W.C. March 13; V.C. B., at twelve
o'clock.

COCHRANE (Wm. M.), Nottingham. March 29: Ward and

Co., 1, Gray's-inn-square, Middlesex. April 16; V.C. W., at one o'clock.

COOPER (Robert), 112, Spencer-street, Goswell-road, Middle

sex, cook. Feb, 20; R. B. Johnson, solicitor, 18, Bedfordrow, W.C. Feb. 27; M.R., at eleven o'clock. FETCHER

35, Lincoln's-inn-fields, W.C. o'clock.

(Chas. B.), 18. Stratford-place. Camden-town, N.W.. gentleman. Feb. 28; G. J. Robinson, solicitor, March 9; M.K,, at eleven GOORD (Wm.), Fletching, Sussex, yeoman, Feb. 21; A. Hastie, solicitor, East Grinstead. Feb. 25; V.C. W., at GORING (Mary E.), 13. Sussex-square, Hyde park, W. Anglesey. March 10; M.R., at twelve o'clock.

one

March 1; Pritchard and Sons, solicitors, Lwydiarth, Esgol, GRAY (Owen), Fisherton House, near Salisbury. Feb. 20; R. Dawbarn, solicitor, Isle of Ely, Cambridge. March 2; V.C. M., at twelve o clock.

HAMMILL, Lieut. Col. Thomas C.), Castle House, Snares

brook, Essex. March 7; C. J. Dimond, solicitor, 10, Henrietta-street, Cavendish-square, Middlesex. March 11; V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.

HAMILTON (Right Hon. Geo. A.), 65, Warwick-square, Middlesex, and Hampden-hall, Balbriggan, Dublin. Feb. 29: Fetherston and Son, solicitors, 21, Wellington Quay, Dublin. March 21; M. R. at his Chambers at Dublin at eleven o'clock.

o'clock.

HAWKINS (Whitshed K.). Madras, East Indies, a major and
brevet-colonel in H.M.'s Indian Force, Madras Presidency
March 11; Brooks and Co., solicitors, 7, Godliman-street,
Doctors Commons, E.C. March 25; V.C. W., at twelve
LLEWELLIN (David), Holden-terrace, Buckingham Palace.
road, Middlesex, gentleman. March; E. Hilder, solicitor,
35, Jermyn-street, St. James's, Middlesex. March 15;
V.C. B., at twelve o'clock.
MATTHEWS (John), 11, Old Burlington-street, and 32, Savile-
row, Middlesex, and Trinity-road, Upper Tooting, Surrey,
woollen draper. Feb. 27; G. F. Cooke, solicitor, 3, Ser
jeant's-inn, Chancery-lane, E.C. March 11; V.C. M,, at
PENNEY Wm. P.), Esq., Westbourne-villa, Finchley-road,
Middlesex. March 11 Johnson and Masters, solicitors,
19, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, E.C. March
3; V.C. W., at noon.
SPITTLE (John), West Bromwich, Staffs., coal master. Feb.
W. H. Phillips, solicitor, Wolverhampton. March 8;
M. R., at eleven o'clock.
TINKLER Wm.), Esq., Putney, Surrey. March 1; T. M.
Cross, solicitor, 17, Carlisle-street, Soho-square, Middlesex.
WALL Jas.). Esq., Ashford, Kent. March 5: R. Farley

twelve o'clock.

March 6; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

solicitor, Ashford. March 12; V.C. W., at twelve o'clock.

CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35.
Last day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent.
ALLAN (Thos.), Buenos Ayres, South America, engineer.
March 1, Peacock and Co., solicitors, 7, Union-court,
Castle-street, Liverpool.

BAILEY (John H.), White Notley, Essex, clerk. March 9
R. B. Postans, solicitor, Brentwood, Essex.

Maidstone.

man.

25; C. Carter Morrison, solicitor, Reigate.
MOORE (John), 17, Ordnance-road, St. John's-wood. N.W.,
gentleman, March, 1: Pawle and Fearon, solicitors, 11,
New-inn, Strand, W.C.

MORGAN (Edward L.), 1, Westhill, and the Rose and Crown,
High-street. Wandsworth, Surrey, licensed victualler,
March 21; H. M. Phillips, solicitor, 10, Old Jewry Cham-
bers, E.C.

NICHOLL (Iltyd), Esq., The Ham, Glamorgan, March 5;
G. W. Nicholl, The Ham, Glamorgan.
PLUMLEY (Robert), Chillery, Pevensey, Sussex, farmer.
March 20; H. C. Sinnock, solicitor, Hailsham, Sussex.
PORTER (Joseph), sen., Shenfield-hall, Essex, farmer. March
9; R. B. Postans, solicitor, Brentwood.
RENNIE (William), Bristol-road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
gentleman. June1; Arnold and Son, solicitors, Birmingham.

Borough.

Berwick-on-Tweed

Canterbury
Carmarthen
Chichester
Faversham
Leeds
Wigan

RICHARDSON (Henry); Kingston upon Hull, gentleman. March 20; Lee and Thorney, solicitors, 10, Parliamentstreet, Hull.

SIMPSON (Alexander), Brokenrolds, Netherdale-by-Tariff,
Banff, N.B., schoolmaster. March 1; Roberts and Simp-
son, solicitors, 62, Moorgate-street, E.C.

SMITH (Elizabeth), Burn, Brayton, York. April 1; A.
Bantoft, solicitor, Selby."
TAYLOR (Mary Noah-hill, Romford, Essex. March 11;
Hillearys and Tunstall, solicitors, 5, Fenchurch-buildings,
E.C.

WALLIS (Hester, 79, Church-terrace, Camberwell, Surrey.
March 10; Boulton and Sons, solicitors, 21A, Northampton-
square, Clerkenwell.

WILLIAMS (Wm.), 2, Montague-place, Friarstile-road, Richmond, Surrey, baker. Feb. 29; J. Godwin, solicitor, 11, North-buildings, Finsbury, E,C.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. he remained until the 20th Jan. 1869, when he was ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT - UNIVERSITY Ex. again admitted into the respondents' workhouse. HIBITIONS — - CONSTRUCTION. A., by his will, Held, that, independently of the exception by in 1712, after bequeathing a certain portion 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, of time spent in a hospital, of his property to trustees to provide annual the pauper had a constructive residence in reexhibitions for scholars of Jesus College, Ox-spondents' union during his temporary absence, ford, to be selected from the principality although he had no specific lodging or house to of Wales, and to be resident at the college, return to, and therefore his status of irremovleft the residue of his estate for the purchase of ability was not destroyed, and an order for his advowsons to be held by the exhibitioners, and to removal to the place of his last legal settlement which the governing body of the college were to was bad: (Guildford Union v. St. Olave's Union, have the right of presentation. The exhibitions 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 803. Q. B.) were provided for, and the residue of the estate OWNERSHIP. had been applied by the governing body of the college in the purchase of livings which were held by former exhibitioners: Held, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners had, for the purposes of a scheme, power under the Endowed Schools Act 1869, to call upon the college to furnish information as to the endowment: (Re The Meyrut Fund, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 787. V.C. W.)

RIGHT OF OWNER OF COMMON LAND DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC-ACCESS TO PROPERTY.The owner of land, who dedicates a portion of it to public use as a highway, parts with no other right than a right of passage to the public over the land so dedicated, and may exercise all other rights of ownership not inconsistent therewith; and the appropriation made to and adopted by the public of a part of the street to one kind of passage, and of another part to another, does not deprive him of any rights, as owner of the land, which are not inconsistent with the right of passage by the public. The provisions of the Highway Act and the Metropolis Local Management Act, so far as they apply to roads or streets, are subordinate to the paramount rights reserved by the owner. Where, on a summons against the respondent under the Highway Act for doing damage to a highway, it appeared that the readjoining a public highway, used the premises for spondent, the owner, and occupier of premises the deposit of heavy machinery, which he conveyed to and from the premises across the flagged pavement or footway in front of them, in trolleys or waggons which injured the pavement, and it was found by the magistrate that the premises in question could not be reasonably enjoyed without access across the footway, and that the rights of Ownership and those of the public might be jointly exercised consistently with the general welfare, it was held that the magistrate was not bound to convict, and was justified in dismissing the summons: (The Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, v. Jacobs, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 800. Q. B.)

BANNERMAN (Henry), Esq. Hunton-court, Hunton, Kent.
Aug. 20: Monckton and Son, solicitors, 72, King-street,
CROSSLEY (John), Laurel-road, Fairfield, near Liverpool,
spice merchant. April1; Keighley and Banning, solicitors,
20, Castle-street, Liverpool.
DESDY (Walter C.), M.R.C.S., 25, Suffolk-street, Pall-Mall,
Midlesex. March 15; McLeod and Watney, solicitors, 16,
London-street, Fenchurch-street, E.C.
DIMMERY (Thos.), Wanswell, Berkeley, Gloucester, labourer.
LARCENY STEALING GOODS OF A PARTNER-
March 21; B. Bonnor, solicitor, Gloucester.
SHIP-INDICTMENT.-An indictment framed upon
FARMER (Thos.), Southgate, Edmonton, Middlesex, gentle- the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116, s. 1, alleged that B. was a
April 2; Miles and Co., solicitors, Bank-street, member of a co-partnership consisting of B. and
Leicester.
GRAHAM (Mary), Erskine-street, Liverpool. April 2; J. L., and that B., then being a member of the same,
IBBOTSON (Frederick), Esq., Colbury Manor, Eling, South-eleven bags of cotton waste, the property of the
ampton. March 2; Stead and Co. solicitors, Romsey, said co-partnership, feloniously did steal, &c., con-
Hants.
trary to the statute: Held that the indictment
JENKINS (Thos.), Ivybush, Prendergast, Pembroke, farmer
and dealer in hay. March 1; J. W. Phillips, solicitor, ously:" (Reg. v. Butterworth, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S.
was not bad for introducing the word
Haverfordwest.
JENKINSON (Rev. John S.), 21, Spencer-road, New Wands-
worth, Surrey. March 1; Nicholl and Co., solicitors, 8,
Howard-street, Strand, W.C.
JOSES (Anthony), Liverpool, wholesale grocer. April 1;
pool.

850. Cr. Cas. Res.

feloni

POOR LAW-REMOVAL-STATUS OF IRREMOV. lived in the respondent's union before the 25th ABILITY-RESIDENCE IN A HOSPITAL.-A pauper March 1867 long enough to obtain a status of irremovability. On that day he was admitted into the respondents' workhouse, and he remained there until the 27th Aug. 1868, when he voluntarily took his discharge, and on the same day became an inmate of a hospital in another union. On the and took a lodging in the respondents' union, where 31st Dec. 1868 he was discharged from the hospital,

Prisoner was charged with stealing a mare, the property of E. The evidence was that prosecutor, in the presence of the prisoner, agreed to buy of W. a mare for £5, and that W. assented to take a cheque for the £5. The prosecutor afterwards sent prisoner to W. with the cheque, and directions to take the mare to Bramshot Farm. On the next day prisoner sold a mare to S., which he said he had bought for £5. Before the magistrate he said he sold the mare to S., with the intention of giving the money to E., but that he got drunk: Held, that that was sufficient evidence on which a jury might find that the mare sold to S. was the property of E.: (Reg. v. King, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 851. Cr. Cas. Res.)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION-CLAIM OF RIGHTEXPRESS PROVISION FOR SETTLEMENT of Disating a bridge company, and enabling them to take PUTES.-A private Act of Parliament, incorporcertain maximum toils, which the company by resolution might diminish and alter, provided for the settlement of disputed tolls by a justice, by way of arbitration. By a subsequent section, if any collector should demand or take a greater or less toll from any person than he should be authorised to do by virtue of the Act or resolu tions under it, or should demand or take a toll from a person exempt from the payment thereof, he was to forfeit a sum less than £5 upon an information before justices. The respondent, a foot passenger, paid the appellant, the collector of tolls, upon demand, a toll the second time the same day, and laid an information before justices against the appellant for demanding it. There was no exemption in the Act upon a passenger's crossing the bridge a second time in the same day; but it was admitted that from the passing of the Act, forty years before, until this demand, no passenger had ever paid under such circumstances. No resolution, however, was in existence. The justices convicted, notwithstanding the appellant's assertion of a bona fide claim of right. Held, upon a case stated by the justices, that as there was a particular provision in the Act for the settlement of such a dispute, the information of forty years' practice, although evidence of exonght to have been dismissed; also that the fact emption, was not conclusive: (Dixon v. Cockett, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 826. Q. B.)

POOR LAW-UNION EXTENDING INTO SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS-COURT OF APPEAL FROM AN Law Amendment Act 1867, "where a union exORDER OF REMOVAL.-By sect. 27 of the Poor tends into several distinct jurisdictions, every matter, act, charge, or complaint by which the have any interest, shall for the purpose of jurisguardians thereof are affected or in which they diction be deemed to arise or exist equally throughout the union:", Held, that the appellate jurisdiction from an order of removal under this section is the same as that under which the order is made; and it does not depend upon the place from which the removal is ordered: (Dudley Union 829. Q. B.) v. Wolverhampton Union, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S.