Authorities.-Ferguson v. Malcolm and Others, 14th Feb. 1850, xii. D., p. 732; Ferguson v. M'Ewen and Gillespie, 7th Feb. 1852, xiv. D., p. 456.

HUNTER V. STEWART.-Nov. 19.
Lease-Rent.

An estate was disponed, with entry at the term of Whitsunday 1856, the seller assigning the rents to become due for the possession from and after that term. The entry of the tenants, by their leases, was at the term of Whitsunday as to the houses and grass. The rents were conventionally payable for the first half year as at the term of Martinmas after entry, for the next at Whitsunday following. The seller raised this action for the rents drawn by the purchaser at Martinmas 1856. The parties agreed that their claims should be decided on the assumption that the whole lands were pasture. Held-Affirming the judgment of Lord Handyside-That the rent conventionally payable at Martinimas, though really due at Whitsunday previous, was for the possession subsequent to Whitsunday, and that the purchaser was entitled to them. Authorities.-Hunter's Law of Landlord and Tenant, i., p. 316; Stat. 11 and 12 Vict., c. 48, sec. 3; Campbell v. Kirkland, 18th July 1849, xi. D., p. 1426.

LORIMER AND DOUGLAS v. ANDERSON.-Nov. 21.

Bill of Exchange-Proof.

The

At a roup of farm stocking in September 1855, three purchasers signed a blank one shilling bill stamp. Fisher purchased to the amount of L.110, Lorimer to the amount of L.13, and Douglas L.8. By a mistake, a purchase made by another party was included in the account of the sum due by Douglas, and their united purchases thereby were supposed to amount to L.149. Notice was sent Fisher that the bill stamp he had signed would not carry that sum, and he was requested to sign a two shilling stamp, and forward it to the drawer, who was acting as agent of the party whose effects were rouped, and to whom he had guaranteed payment of the proceeds. The drawer is a bank agent. bank clerk gave notice to the acceptors that their bill for L.149 would fall due on 29th January 1856. Soon after, the sums due by Lorimer and Douglas, as well as the sum charged by mistake against the latter, were paid. Fisher became insolvent. Lorimer and Douglas were charged on a bill for L.100. Each of them brought a suspension of the charge, alleging that each only authorised the bill he signed blank to be filled up with the amount of his own purchases. The Court, considering the circumstances, particularly remarking on the impropriety of giving notice that a bill which was not in existence was about to become due, found the suspenders entitled to a proof pro ut de jure of the averment that they did not authorise the charger to fill up the bill beyond the amount of the purchases of each of them.

MUNRO v. GRAHAM.-Nov. 21.

Poor-rates-Triennial Prescription—Statute 1579, c. 83—Compensation. In a suspension of threatened proceedings to enforce payment of poor-rates, Held (Affirming the judgment of Lord Mackenzie)-That the triennial prescription did not apply to such an assessment; that claims against a Parochial Board, so far as disputed by the Board, could not be set off against poor-rates; and that the existence of such claims were no good ground for suspension of a charge for poor-rates, which, under the statute, are recoverable in the most summary form.

The suspender cited-Blackadder v. Milne and Others, 4th March 1851, xiii. D., p. 820 (Lord Mackenzie's opinion).