person. As there are now tw, decisions against the voting power of proxies on a show of hands, chairmen wou'd be well advised not to permit such voting.

THE point decided by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court in Cain v. Moon (74 L. T. Rep. 728; (1896) 2 Q. B. 283), viz., whether in the case of an alleged donatio mortis causâ the delivery of the chattel may precede the gift of it, without being absolutely bare of authority, appears to be somewhat novel. There the deceased (who had previously received a sum of £55 from her husband), not in contemplation of death, delivered a deposit note in respect of it into the custody of her mother, and some time afterwards, in contemplation of death, gave the note absolutely to her mother in case the donor should not recover. In a case from Canada, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it was held that the a terior possession of property is equivalent to delivery at the time of the gift, although the former possession was for another purpose: (Richer v. Voyer, 30 L. T. Rep. 506; L. Rep. 5 P. C. 461). The Court, acting on this decision, accordingly held that the change in the character of the mother's possession constituted sufficient delivery to effectuate the donatio mortis caust of the deposit note.

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

Portraits of all the judges on the Irish Bench appear in the Sketch of the 4th Nov.

The November sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Monday next.

The Edinburgh Review for October contains an exhaustive article on the status of women, having regard to recent legislation.

The Cornhill Magazine for November contains an excellent account of the trial of Madeline Smith in Edinburgh some forty years ago.

Mr. Walter Borthwick Cracknall, barrister-at-law, our legal consul at Zanzibar, is at present at home on sick leave.

The new Coroner's Court for Camberwell and Peckham will shortly be formally opened by Sir George Harris.

Mr. R. B. Haldane, Q.C., M.P., who was a candidate for the LordRectorship of Edinburgh University, was defeated by 219 votes.

The marriage of the eldest daughter of the Hon. Mr. Justice Romer and Mr. Maugham, barrister-at-law, is to take place next month.

Kansas City, Missouri, has just established a Law School with the Hon. Francis M. Black, late Chief Justice of Missouri, at its head.

Affidavits will be taken at the Mansion-house each day between 11 and 1.30, except on Saturdays, when the hours will be 11 and 1 as usual.

Sir Frank Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., will be the principal speaker at the second annual ladies' house dinner at the National Liberal Club, on Wednesday next.

"Lord Russell of Killowen " is the title of the third article of a series on "Our Judges and Famous Lawyers," now appearing in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

Wales had no Sunday drinking of a pronounced character until her Sunday Closing Act was passed, since which convictions for drunkenness have increased nearly 60 per cent. in the Principality.

Lord James, who has been acting as Minister in attendance upon the Queen, at Balmoral, has returned to London. His Lordship's stay at Balmoral was shorter than was expected.

Mr. E. J. Phelps said in a speech which he made in Edinburgh some ten years ago: Law, however fundamental, is but the reflex of public opinion, and in the long run, in a free country, must be maintained by that opinion or must perish."

The condition of the Dean of Llandaff is serious. Jaundice has returned, and Dr. Vaughan is suffering from considerable failure of strength. The deepest anxiety is felt, for it is recognised that the latest bulletin is very unfavourable.

The November Adjourned Quarter Sessions for the trial of cases arising on the South side of the Thames were opened last Wednesday at the Sessions House, Newington, before Mr. M'Connell, chairman; Mr. Loveland Loveland, deputy chairman, and other Justices. The calendar was an unusually short one, there being only twenty-six prisoners for trial.

Coroners' salaries are revised every five years, and calculated at the rate of 30s. per inquest on the average number of inquests held in the five years immediately preceding. Dr. Danford Thomas, the coroner for the central district of London, has just had his salary raised to £2377 48., an increase of £133 4s. upon what he previously received.

The Prisons' Service Review is the title of a new monthly journal to be issued next month, it is intended as a medium of inter-communication for gaol officials of every rank and grade, as well as for that daily increasing section of the general public which interests itself in our penal system, and in the group of social problems which are more or less directly connected therewith.

Tuesday next will be the "call night" of Michaelmas Term at the four Inns of Court, when sixty-four law students will become barristers. Of the number twenty-eight are entered at the Inner Temple, thirteen at the Middle Temple, thirteen at Lincoln's-inn, and ten at Gray's-inn. The number for the corresponding term last year was sixty, the Inner Temple contributing twenty-nine, the Middle Temple seventeen, Lincoln's-inn pine, and Gray's-inn five,

Mr. Arthur Young, a son of Lord Young, one of the Court of Session Judges, has just received an appointment as associate in the Court of Queen's Bench Division, to which he will be attached as clerk of Court under Mr. Justice Cave. Mr. Young was called to the bar in 1888. Lord Young is one of the oldest Benchers of the Middle Temple.

The Hon. H. Cuffe, of the Treasury, has been commanded by Lord Salisbury to take measures to prepare a case with full documentary and other evidence in the case of Sun yat Sen. The Foreign Office is to be prepared for any future action that it may be thought necessary to take against the Chinese Government.

In the November Strand Magazine there are some more stories told concerning "Leaders of the Bar." Portraits will also be found of Mr. H. H. Asquith, Q.C., Mr. A. R. Jelf, Q.C., Mr. F. O. Crump, Q.C., Mr. F. A. Inderwick, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Bigham, Q.C., his Honour Judge Bompas, Q.C., Mr. T. T. Bucknill, Q.C., Mr. G. Candy, Q.C., and Messrs. C. F. Gill and Horace Avory.

Sir F. Pollock says, in a note to Professor Clark's paper on Legal Education and the Universities, in the Law Quarterly: "I have never met with any practical lawyer who believed that the existing system of prizes and studentships in the Inns of Court has had any beneficial effect whatever on the general standard of competence among candidates for the Bar.

There will shortly be an election by the Council of Legal Education of an assistant reader in Roman law and jurisprudence and international law, and also of a member of the General Board of Examiners. The council will be glad to receive, on or before Saturday, the 21st Nov., at the office of the council, Lincoln's-inn Hall, the names of any gentlemen who are desirous of being appointed, together with any testimonials they may wish to submit to the council.

Some three years or so ago there was a Law Students' Debating Society in Cardiff, and now an offer is being made to resuscitate it. A notice has been sent out to the solicitors and articled clerks of the town calling a meeting for 7.30 on Tuesday evening at the Town Hall, Cardiff. This notice, which makes comment on the want of such a society felt by solicitors and others in the town, is signed by Mr. George David (Messrs. David and Evans), Mr. Lewis Morgan, Mr. W. J. Board (deputy town clerk), and Mr. R. A. Wheatley.

At the sale by auction of the Law Library of the late Mr. William McLaughlin, Q.C., a leader on the Irish North-west Circuit, which took place in Dublin on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday last, a new departure being made by the putting up for disposal by the hammer of a brief as a legal and literary curiosity. The "lot" was thus described in the catalogue; "The brief held by the late W. McLaughlin, Q.C., on behalf of the traversers, in the case of The Queen v. Parnell and others, with his MS notes, a printed report of the twenty days trial (wanting the twelfth and fourteenth days), Land League membership cards, list of branches, rules, addresses, &c., an interesting collection, in a portfolio. Dublin, 1880."

In the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was on circuit, Mr. Justice Hawkins sat in the Lord Chief Justice's Court last Monday for the purpose of receiving the new Lord Mayor, who was introduced according to custom to Her Majesty's judges. Sir Henry Hawkins presided as senior judge, and the other judges present were Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Cave. Their Lordships took their seats at twenty minutes to two. The Lord Mayor arrived at the Law Courts a few minutes later, being attended by the ex-Lord Mayor, the Recorder of the City of London, the Sheriffs of London, and the other civic dignitaries. The spacious court was crowded by a fashionable gathering of spectators.

66

'Plaintiff, for putting in a long replication, fined £10 and imprisoned, and a hole to be made through the replication, and to go from bar to bar with it hung round his neck": (Milward v. Welden, Toth. 101). Such is the statement of an old case in the 4th edition of Chitty's Equity Index published so recently as 1887, the cause itself being dated so far back as 1562. Lord Keeper Sir Nicholas Bacon having made the order, and the reporter being designated on the title page of a second edition printed in 1649 as "that famous lawyer, William Tothill, Esq., one of the Six Clerks." We hope that the editor of any future edition of the Index may see his way to omit cases of this amusing kind from a collection of practice cases which occupies a whole volume of more than 1000 pages.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) presided over a meeting of the Rule Committee of the Judges, held, on the 5th inst., in his Lordship's private room at the Law Courts, for the purpose of considering the draft scheme of the revised and consolidated rules of the Supreme Court, prepared by the sub-committee of the Rule Committee shortly before the Long Vacation. Among those present at the meeting, in addition to the Lord Chancellor, were the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Russell of Killowen), the Master of the Rolls (Lord Esher), Sir Francis Jeune, Lord Justice Smith, Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice Charles, the SolicitorGeneral (Sir Robert Finlay, Q.C., M.P.), Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., M.P.), and Mr. J. Addison (president of the Incorporated Law Society).

Mr. T. H. Stephens, Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, and one of the oldest and most respected solicitors in Cardiff, whose professional life extends over a period exceeding forty years, has just intimated by circular his resignation of the most active duties of his profession as solicitor. Mr. Stephens has two offices, one at Cardiff Docks, which is the headquarters of his general practice; and the other in Queen-street, which is his office as official receiver. Mr. Stephens, in making the new arrangement, has been influenced by his desire for additional time to devote to his duties as official receiver. Thus, the Queen-street office will be conducted as usual, while the Docks office will be carried on by Mr. Stephens' late professional assistant, Mr. J. T. David, who succeeds to the practice, and Mr. C. C.

Perkins, who has been confidential clerk in the same employ for thirty-two years. The firm will in future be known as Stephens and David.

The Treasurer of Lincoln's-inn, Mr. Pember, Q.C., and the Benchers entertained at dinner last Tuesday, the Grand Day in Michaelmas Term, the following guests:-Lord Stalbridge, Sir Robert H. Meade, Mr. Goschen, M.P., Mr. W. L. Jackson, M.P., Lord Justice A. L. Smith, Sir Comer Petheram, Sir Robert Ball, Sir W. H. Flower, and Mr. G. E. Buckle. The Benchers present on the occasion were Sir G. Osborne Morgan, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Napier Higgins, Q.C., Sir Alexander Edward Miller, Q.C., Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Hemming, Q.C., Lord Davey, Mr. Justice Lawrance, Sir W. T. Marriott, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Horton Smith, Q.C., Mr. Gibbs, Q.C., C.B., Lord Macnaghten, Sir W. W. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Stephens, Q.C., Mr. Elton, Q.C., Mr. Simpson, Mr. Walker, Q.C., Mr. Courtney, M.P., Lord Morris, Sir Augustus Stephenson, Q.C., Mr. Witt, Q.C., Mr. Alexander, Q.C., Mr. Hopkinson, Q.C., M.P., and the Rev. Dr. Wace, preacher.

His Honour Judge Waddy, Q.C., the Treasurer of the Inner Temple, and the Masters of the Bench entertained at dinner last Wednesday, the Grand Day of Michaelmas Term: Lord Shand, Sir Richard Couch, Mr. Justice Chitty, Sir Benjamin Baker, Sir William Windeyer, Sir Arthur Arnold, Sir Henry Irving, the President of the Royal College of Physicians (Dr. Wilks), the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford (the Rev. J. R. Magrath, D.D.), the Master of the Merchant Taylors' Company (Major-General E. C. Sim, R.E.), the Prime Warden of the Fishmongers' Company (Mr. William Graham), Mr. W. B. Richmond, R.A., Dr. Ferrier, the Reader (Rev. S. A. Alexander), and the Sub-Treasurer (Mr. H. W. Lawrence). The Benchers present were Master Bulwer, Q.C., Master Staveley Hill, Q.C., M.P., Master Lord Justice Lopes, Master Sir A. G. Marten, Q.C., Master Viscount Cross, Master Gates, Q.C., Master Inderwick, Q.C., Master Baylis, Q.C., Master Holl, Q.C., Master Meadows White, Q.C., Master Sir Harry Poland, Q.C., Master Sir William Grantham Master Viscount Knutsford, Master Millar, Q.C., Master Jelf, Q.C., Master Graham, Master Colt, Master Sir Francis Jeune, Master Underdown, Q.C., Master Wheeler, Q.C., Master Bargrave Deane, Master Sir John Gorell Barnes, and Master Cyril Dodd, Q.C.

A correspondent writes: "We think that many members of the Profession must be unaware that the Somerset House authorities claim payment of legacy duty upon sums charged for professional services made by an executor or trustee under a will by virtue of a professional charges clause. The authority upon which they base their claim is Re Thorley; Thorley v. Massam (L. Rep. (1891) 2 Ch. 613), and we have been advised by counsel that, though the actual facts under that case were not exactly the same as charges under a professional charges clause, yet that the case referred to does support the contention of Somerset House. We cannot help thinking that this is not generally known, and we beg therefore to draw the attention of members of the Profession to this very far-reaching claim of the revenue authorities involving as it must do in nearly every case a 10 per cent. duty, and affecting the interest of many members of the Profession. Consequently the words 'free of legacy duty' should be inserted in the precedents for a professional charges clause."

Lord Esher, M.R., in his speech at the Guildhall last Monday, in responding to the health of the judges, said: "There was always one thing which brought Her Majesty's judges to that hall, and that was to show their respect and admiration for the Lord Mayor and for the great Corporation of which he was the head. He believed they all had that feeling to which he must have testified many times. He had attended this banquet, he thought, for twenty-four years, and he was there that night for the last time. He desired to express his most earnest hope and wish that the office of Lord Mayor of the City of London might last as long as the British Empire existed." Lord Esher was born on the 13th Aug. 1815, and has been a judge since 1868, and Master of the Rolls since 1883. Of late his health has not been very good. The above observation is thought to indicate the early retirement of his Lordship, and in that case it is understood that Sir Richard Webster, Q.C., the Attorney-General will succeed him.

At Taunton Assizes on Tuesday, the grand jury, on being discharged, made a presentment to Mr. Justice Wills, stating that in view of the numerous charges of criminal assault on female children in the present calendar they considered that the addition of whipping with the cat to the existing punishments, which had such a salutary effect in checking garotting, would probably tend to the diminution of such disgraceful crimes. His Lordship promised that the presentment should be forwarded to the Home Secretary, though he could not honestly say that he should indorse it. From his experience of trying these cases the difficulty in arriving at the truth was so great, and the possibility of error so serious, that he thought a punishment so irrevocable as flogging should not be added to the existing punishment. If a wrong conviction were to take place, and the prisoner were flogged, such a tempest of indignation would arise, that it might possibly sweep away the law at present in force, and would tend to increase the difficulty of obtaining convictions in such

cases.

At the Mansion-house, on Tuesday, the Lord Mayor (Mr. Alderman Faudel-Phillips) took his seat on the bench for the first time as chief magistrate of the City, and, in accordance with the usual custom, he made a short address prior to the commencement of the ordinary business of the court. Addressing Mr. Douglas, the chief clerk, and Mr. Trotter, the assistant clerk, the Lord Mayor said: "I can hardly say that I come here as a stranger. Nevertheless I come here as a stranger in the particular situation to which I have been called, and I take this opportunity of say. ing that I feel the responsibilities of the office very much, and I feel that they have been greatly enhanced by the observations which fell from the Lord Chancellor and Sir Henry Hawkins, who sat for the Lord Chief Justice. Both those very eminent gentlemen were good enough to say

and that in a very marked manner--that they knew of no tribunals where justice was so admirably dispensed as in the courts of the City. I take this as a very high compliment, and I hope-and it is a hope about which I have no doubt whatever-that we shall sustain our very high reputation. I hope also that we shall continue to receive from time to time such wellmerited meed of praise from such high quarters. It is my intention to sit every morning in this court at eleven o'clock."

His Honour Judge Bompas, Q.C., the newly-appointed judge of the Bradford County Court circuit, entered upon his duties on the 5th inst., sitting at the Otley Court. Mr. Edgar Newstead, as the senior solicitor practising at Otley, extended a cordial welcome to his Honour, and hoped that his connection with the circuit, and with Otley in particular, would be full of pleasure and satisfaction. If, in the discharge of their duties as advocates, they could render any assistance to his Honour such assistance would be gladly and readily given. -Mr. Percy Middleton (barrister) also said a few words expressing confidence that under his Honour's jurisdiction the pleasant relationship between the Bench and Bar, which was always a happy feature in Yorkshire, would continue to exist.-His Honour said that he was greatly obliged for what had been said. He was new to the district, and he should, therefore, thankfully receive any assistance which those more experienced than himself were kind enough to offer. He promised them he should do his best to make their relationships pleasant and to do everything he could for both the Bar and the solicitors who appeared before him. With their aid he felt that he should be able to perform his duties, which they all recognised were important.

NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS NOT YET REPORTED.

BY OUR REPORTERS IN THE SEVERAL COURT

COURT OF APPEAL.

Company-General Meeting of Members-Special Resolution-VotingShow of Hands-Proxies-Mode of counting Votes-Companies Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, c. 89), 8. 51.-By the articles of association of a company it was provided that every motion made and submitted at a general meeting should be decided in the first instance by a majority in number of the members to be ascertained by a show of bands; and that, unless a poll was demanded by at least three members holding at least one-tenth of the shares of the company, a declaration by the chairman that a resolution had been carried, and an entry to that effect in the book of proceedings of the company should be sufficient evidence of the fact, without any proof of the number or proportion of the votes recorded in favour of or against such resolution; that every member should have one vote for every share which he should hold in the company; and that votes might be given either personally or by proxy. A resolution was put at an extraordinary general meeting, and, upon a show of hands being taken, twelve shareholders voted for it and the plaintiff and one other shareholder against it. The plaintiff claimed at the meeting to vote on behalf of himself and certain proxies which he held, and that, in ascertaining the number of votes given, the chairman should count one vote for each person who had appointed him his proxy, in accordance with the decision of Williams, J. in Re Bidwell Brothers Limited (68 L. T. Rep. 342; (1893) 1 Ch. 603)-that where articles allowed voting by proxy votes of members present by proxy ought to be counted on a show of hands-but the chairman ruled against his claim, and declared the resolution carried. The plaintiff also demanded a poll, which was refused on the ground that it was not supported by a sufficient number of shareholders, the chairman again deciding against his claim to vote on behalf of proxies. The plaintiff then moved to restrain the company from acting on the resolution. It was decided by Chitty, J. (75 L. T. Rep. 221) following Re The Caloric Engine and Siren Fog Signals Company Limited (52 L. T. Rep. 846), and differing from Williams, J. in Re Bidwell Brothers Limited (ubi sup.), that the conduct of the chairman was right, and that, if proxies were to be counted on a show of hands, it would lead to great inconvenience, and in many cases would be impracticable. The plaintiff appealed. Held, that absent members who voted by one and the same proxy when no poll was demanded voted not separately as if they were individually present, but as an aggregate, their proxy, if a member, holding his hand up and so giving one vote for himself and them; that absentees, if they were to be regarded as present by proxy before a poll was demanded, voted in this way and no other; that the above mode of voting and no other was that which was contemplated by the Legislature when no poll was demanded, as was shown by Table A., and this mode and no other was consistent with the articles of this company; and that to say that on a show of hands a proxy had more than one vote was to introduce a mode of voting never heard of in practice, and not required by sect. 51 of the Companies Act 1862. Held, therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. Re The Caloric Engine, &c., Company Limited (ubi sup.) approved and followed. Re Bidwell Brothers Limited (ubi sup.) overruled. Re The Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron, and Waggon Company Limited (40 L. T. Rep. 353; 11 Ch. Div. 109) discussed. Decision of Chitty, J. affirmed.

[Ernest v. The Loma Gold Mines Limited, No. 2. Ct. of App. No. 2: Lindley and Smith, L.JJ. Nov. 4 and 9.-Counsel: for the appellant, Ashton Cross; for the respondent, Byrne, Q.C. and E. W. Stock. Solicitors for the appellant, W. T. Hart; for the respondent, Powell and Burt.]

:

Copyholds-Heriot--Heriot Custom-Right to Heriot off the Manor.This was an action by the lord of the manor of Mundon Hall against the executors of G. Christy, a copyholder of the manor, for damages for having sold the best beast of G. Christy, and having thereby prevented the lord of the manor from exercising his right to seize it for a heriot. It was proved at the trial that a heriot of the best beast had always been rendered in respect of the copyhold tenement in question. It appeared that heriots had not been rendered in respect of all the copyholds of the manor; but it also appeared that heriots had been compounded for in respect of some copyholds of the manor. At the time of his death, G. Christy was not possessed of any beasts which were then, or ever had been, within the manor. He was, however, possessed of beasts outside the manor, which the defendants, as his executors, sold, so that the lord of the manor was unable to seize the best beast for a heriot. The action was tried by Wills, J., without a jury, and the learned judge held that the evidence that a heriot had always been rendered proved a right to a heriot by heriot service, but not by heriot custom; that a right to a heriot by heriot service may exist in the case of copyholds of a manor; and that the lord of the manor was entitled to a heriot by heriot service whether the beast was within or without the manor. The learned judge gave judgment for the plaintiff for £63: (75 L. T. Rep. 210; (1896) 2 Q. B. 234). The defendants appealed. Held (dismissing the appeal), that the lord of the manor was entitled to a heriot by heriot custom, and that, in the absence of evidence to limit the custom, he was entitled to a heriot of the best beast whether it was possessed by the copyholder within the manor or without the manor.

[Western v. Bailey and another Ct. of App.: Lord Esher, M.R., Lopes and Rigby, L.JJ. Nov. 2 and 3.-Counsel: for the appellants, Elton, Q.C. and J. C. Earle; for the respondent, Bosanquet, Q.C. and A. Lyttelton. Solicitors: for the appellants, Baileys, Shaw, and Gillett; for the respondent, Western and Sons.]

Copyright" Book "-Musical Composition first printed and published in a foreign Country—Importation of Copies into the British Dominions -Copyright Act 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), ss. 2, 11, 13, 15, and 17International Copyright Act 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 12), 88. 2, 3, and 10Exceptions.-The plaintiff was the assignee of the English copyright in a German piece of music, which was first printed and published at Leipzig on the 17th Nov. 1870. In Oct. 1895 the defendant had (inadvertently as he alleged) purchased in Brussels fourteen copies of this piece of music, which had been printed in Leipzig by the publishers and representatives of the original proprietor, and published so far as appeared either at Brussels or Paris, and had imported them into this country for sale here. The plaintiff thereupon commenced an action against the defendant, and moved for an injunction to restrain him from selling any copies of the piece of music or dealing with them so as to infringe his copyright therein. The question turned upon the construction of sects. 2, 11, 13, 15, and 17 of the Copyright Act of 1842, and of sects. 2, 3, and 10 of the International Copyright Act of 1844, and not on the statutes relating to the performance of musical compositions or dramatic pieces. The motion came on to be heard before Kekewich, J., who held that, inasmuch as the imported copies had been printed in the country where the piece of music was first published, the case did not fall within the prohibitive part of sect. 10 of the International Copyright Act 1844, which prohibits the importation of all copies of books wherein there shall be any subsisting copyright printed or reprinted in ny foreign country except that in which such books were first published; and his Lordship also held that the Copyright Act of 1842 had no application. He, therefore, refused the motion. The plaintiff appealed. Sect. 15 of the Copyright Act 1842 gives a remedy by action on the case for: (1) Printing in any part of the British dominions for sale or exportation any book in which there is copyright, without the consent in writing of the proprietor of the copyright. (2) Importing for sale or hire any such book so unlawfully printed. (3) Selling, pub. lishing, or exposing for sale or hire any such book known to have been so unlawfully printed or imported. (4) Possessing for sale or hire any such book known to have been so unlawfully printed or imported. The section is so worded as apparently not to hit the importation of copies printed in foreign countries. Sect. 17 of the same Act, however, goes further as regards the importation of printed books first composed, or written, or printed and published in the United Kingdom. If there is copyright in such books, the importation of copies into any part of the British dominions for sale or hire, except by the proprietor of the copyright, or by someone authorised by him, is absolutely prohibited whenever such copies may be printed, and all such copies may be seized and destroyed by the officers of Customs or Excise. Sect. 3 of the International Copyright Act 1844 enacts that persons on whom the privilege of copyright in books first published in foreign countries is conferred shall be entitled to the benefit of the Act of 1842 in the same manner as if such books had been first published in the United Kingdom. Held (dissentiente Lopes, L.J.), that, even if sect. 15 could rot be held to apply owing to its language being restricted to printing in the British dominions, sect. 17 could, its scope being wider; and that to hold that neither section applied was to hold that sect. 3 of the Act of 1844 was absolutely nugatory. Held also, that the true inference to be drawn from the express exception in sect. 10 of the Act of 1844 was that, as regarded books printed in a foreign country, a foreigner entitled to copyright in this country was not liable to have that copyright infringed, but was entitled to the same protection as a British author would have under the Act of 1842. Held, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction claimed by him. Decision of Kekewich, J. reversed.

Pitts v. George and Co. Ct. of App. No. 2: Lindley, Lopes, and Rigby, L.JJ. July 25 and Nov. 6,-Counsel: for the appellant,

Cozens-Hardy, Q.C. and Ingpen: for the respondents, Scrutton and J. R. Adkin. Solicitors: for the appellant, W. Muskerry Tilson; for the respondents, Mann and Taylor.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Judicature Act 1875, s. 10; R. S. C., Order LV., r. 63-Insolvent Estate -Interest-Application of Bankruptcy Rules.-H. died in 1882. In 1883 an order for the administration of his estate was made in a creditor's action. The estate was then insolvent, the principal assets consisting of shares, which were then without value. In March 1896 the chief clerk made his certificate, showing debts due to the estate of £12,152. It was then discovered that the shares had become valuable, and that the assets were more than sufficient to pay the certified debts. T., a mortgagee of part of the estate, who had sold his security before judgment, had claimed the balance of his debt. The chief clerk allowed his claim, with interest down to the date of the judgment. T. took out a summons claiming that he and all other creditors whose debts bore interest at law were entitled to be paid interest down to the time of actual payment, at the rates payable under their contracts, in priority to any interest which could be paid to other creditors. The creditors whose debts did not carry interest at law claimed that interest at 4 per cent. should be paid on all debts equally after the date of the judgment. Held, that, assuming sect. 10 of the Judicature Act to apply to the case, it made the rules of bankruptcy apply only to questions between secured and unsecured creditors, as to debts provable and as to valuation of annuities or contingent liabilities; that all questions on these points were settled by the certificate, which had applied the rules of bankruptcy, and that the distribution of any surplus after payment of the certified debts must be governed by Order LV., rr. 62, 63: that, therefore, interest on T.'s debt and the other debts which carried interest at law, must be paid in priority to any interest on the other debts.

[Re Henley; Alcock v. Henley. Ch. Div.: North, J. Nov. 4.Counsel: Swinfen Eady, Q.C. and Terrell; Everitt, Q.C. and Paterson ; Vernon Smith, Q.C. and W. J. Coltman. Solicitors: Andrew, Wood, and Co., agents for Rooker and Bazeley, Bideford; Hays, Schmettau, and Ancrum.]

Mortgage-Redemption--Mortgagee of the Fee, and of the particular Estate-Infant Remainderman Consent of Mortgagee necessary for Redemption.-A testator, who had mortgaged his estate in fee, devised it to his wife during the minority of his two children, and to his wife and children, whichever of them might be living, as tenants in common when the children attained their ages of twenty-one years. The widow mortgaged her interest under the will to the mortgagee from the testator and died. The two children while still infants commenced proceedings for redemption against the mortgagee and the administrator of their mother. Held (following the decision in Barald v. Burrell (Younge, 9), that, as the children were reversioners, and the mortgagee in fee was also mortgagee of the particular estate, they were not, during the existence of the particular estate, entitled to redemption without the mortgagee's consent.

[Prout v. Cock. Ch. Div.: North, J. Nov. 4.-Counsel: L. R. Ryland; Dauney. Solicitors: C. K. Wright; Street, Poynder, and Whatley.]

Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 57,), s. 32. -Threats of Legal Proceedings against Plaintiff in Letter to his Customers-No express Reference to Patent.-The plaintiff had for some time and down to the 31st Dec. 1895, when he resigned, been consulting engineer to the Trinity House. Prior to his resignation, he, at the request of certain harbour authorities, designed for them, quoted a price for, and ultimately sold to them, certain gas buoy lanterns for their harbour. The tender of the defendant company who had previously supplied gas buoy lanterns to the said harbour authorities was not, on this occasion, accepted. The gas buoy lanterns supplied by the plaintiff were constructed partly under an old expired patent belonging to the defendant company. The defendant company by their managing director then wrote to a member of the said harbour authority that they were afraid that this matter would lead to a great deal of difficulty and unpleasantness, "and you must not be surprised if my company applies for an injunction against Mr. Douglass to restrain him from selling his gas buoy lanterns." No reference was made to any patent in the body of the letter, and the word "patent" only appeared in the name of the defendant company at the head of the paper. The defenbants' case was, that they were not by their letter claiming to be patentees, and had not therefore brought themselves within sect. 32, but that they thought they had a remedy against the plaintiff on the hypothesis (which they failed to substantiate) that he had obtained access to their designs by means of his official position at the Trinity House, and had made an unfair use of them. Held, that the letter was written by the defendant company, "claiming to be the patentees of the inveention" within the meaning of sect. 32 of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883, and that the expressions used amounted to threats within that section, and that an injunction must accordingly be granted. Ch. Div.:

[Douglass v. Pintsch's Patent Lighting Company. Romer, J. Oct. 29. Counsel: Moulton, Q.C. and A. J. Walter; Neville, Q.C. and Kirby. Solicitors: Bridger and Son; Blyth, Dutton, and Co.]

Poor Law-Loan to Guardians of the Poor-Mortgage with Proviso that Lenders, if willing to do so, might accept Repayment at any time before Day fixed by Deed-Guardians entitled to redeem without Consent of Lenders-Poor Law Loans Act 1871 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 11), s. 2.—Subse.

quently to the date of the Poor Law Loans Act 1871 the guardians of a poor law union, acting under their statutory powers, borrowed large sums of money from a life assurance society and also from a provident institution, the loans being repayable by annual instalments each of principal and interest combined, exending over periods none of which exceeded thirty years. Each of the instruments executed for the purpose of securing the loans was in the form contained in the Union Loans Act 1869, and contained a proviso at the end thereof, enabling the lenders, "if willing to do so," to accept payment at any time before the day fixed for the payment of the last instalment, and in the recitals thereof reference was made to the Poor Law Amendment Acts 1834 and 1837, and the several Acts incorporated therewith, and also to the Union Loans Act 1869, and to the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act 1882, and all other Acts enabling them in that behalf; but not to the Poor Law Loans Act 1871, which provides by sect. 2 that, if guardians who have borrowed under the Poor Law Acts shall be able to obtain a loan at a lower rate of interest, they may, after obtaining an order of the Local Government Board to that effect, redeem the balance of the loan and borrow as much as necessary for that purpose, provided that, in the event of any loan outstanding at the time of the passing of that Act, no such redemption shall take place without the consent of the lenders. The guardians, acting under this section, obtained the necessary order from the Local Government Board, but the lenders refused to accept the repayment of the loans before the date fixed for such repayment by the instruments securing the same, on the ground that under the terms of their contract with the guardians they were not obliged to do so against their will. Upon a special case stated for the opinion of the court: Held, that the guardians had power to pay off the loans, and redeem without the consent of the lenders.

[Guardians of West Derby Union v. Metropolitan Life Assarance Society; Guardians of West Derby Union v. Priestman. Ch. Div.: North. J. Nov. 4 and 5.-Counsel: Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., Swinfen Eady, Q.C., R. J. Parker, and Cleaver; Sir R. T. Reid, Q.C., Danckwerts and Crawley. Solicitors: Sharpe, Parker, Pritchards, and Barham, for Cleaver, Holden, and Co, Liverpool; Travers Smith, Braithwaite, and Robinson; Evans, Foster, and Co.]

Receiver-Disputed Title- Ejectment Action - Heir-at-Law in Possession-Jurisdiction-Discretion-Judicature Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25, sub-sect. 8.-This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff that a receiver might be appointed until the trial of the action of the rents and profits of certain properties. By the writ in the action, dated the 3rd Sept. 1896, the plaintiff claimed to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the notice of motion. No judgment had been pronounced, and the defendant was in possession of the property as heir-at-law of the former owner. Held, that since the passing of sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, of the Judicature Act 1873, the court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in the case of a disputed title to real property; and that such an appointment, being in the judicial discretion of the court, will be made in a proper case upon motion made by the plaintiff in an ejectment action.

[Foxwell v. Van Grutten. Ch. Div.: Kekewich, J. Oct. 30.-Counsel: Renshaw, Q.C. and Mark Romer; Warrington, QC. and Boome. Solicitors: Robbins, Billing, and Co., for James Clarke, Preston; Collyer-Bristow, Russell, Hill, and Co.]

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

Company Liquidation

- Proceedings in Foreign Court-Judgment in rem-Companies Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 88. 84, 87, and 163. -A ship, the M. C., the property of the plaintiff company, was taking in cargo at B. By fraud the master was induced to sign certain bills of lading for goods which, as a matter of fact, were never delivered aboard the ship. The ship sailed to Hamburg. Meanwhile the fraudulent bills of lading were indorsed over to the defendants for value without notice of the fraud. The defendants subsequently indorsed them over to their agents B. and G. at Hamburg. When the M. C. reached Hamburg, she was arrested under the process of the local courts at the instance of B. and G. and other holders of fraudulent bills of lading, to whom the master was unable to deliver the goods represented by the bills. By German law holders of bills of lading who do not receive the goods represented in the bill are entitled to seize the ship in satisfaction of their claim which ranks before all other mortgages or liens upon the ship, except charges for wages and necessary expenses incurred during the voyage. The German court having notified all persons interested in the vessel, and, among others, the plaintiff James Laing, who was a mortgagee under a mortgage entered into before the M. C. sailed for B., and who appeared at the proceedings, proceeded to give judgment ordering the M. C. to be sold, and the proceeds divided among the creditors according to a certain order of priority. The defendants received £10,944. Before the M. C. reached Hamburg a petition for winding-up the plaintiff company was presented, and a winding-up order was made upon it on the same day that the ship reached that port. Under sect. 84 of the Companies Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89) a winding-up of a company by the court shall be deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding-up; and by sect. 87, when an order has been made for winding-up a company under this Act, no suit, action, or other Iroceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company, except with the leave of the court, and subject to such terms as the court may impose; and by sect. 163, where any company is being wound-up by the court, or subject to the supervision of the court, any attachment, sequestration, distress, or execution put in force against the estate or effects of the company after the commencement of the winding-up shall be void to all intents. The

plaintiffs (the liquidator of the company and Laing) now contended that, the proceedings in the German court having been commenced after the petition had been presented, the defendants in initiating them had acted contrary to sects. 87 and 163 of the Companies Act, and though the court could not restrain the proceedings in the German court, yet, when the money awarded by the German court was brought within the jurisdiction, the court could and would impress it with a trust in favour of the creditors of the plaintiff company. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the argument for the plaintiffs applied only when the proceedings in the foreign court were personal actions. Here, as was admitted by the plaintiffs on the pleadings, the proceedings in the German court were in rem. They settled finally and as against all the world the rights of the different claimants as far as the ship was concerned; and such being the case the court could not interfere. Held, that the contention of the defendants was right. During the argument the following cases were cited: Castrique v. Imrie (23 L. T. Rep. 48; L. Rep. 4 E. & I. App. 414); The Sarah (37 L. T. Rep. 831); The Heinrich Bjorn (49 L. T. Rep. 405; 10 P. Div. 44); Ballantyne v. MacKinnon (75 L. T. Rep. 95; 1 Com. Cas. 424); Re Oriental Inland Steam Company (31 L. T. Rep. 5; L. Rep. 9 Ch. App. 557.

[The Minna Craig Steamship Company Limited and James Laing v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India. Q. B. Div. Commercial Court: Collins, J. Oct. 29 and Nov. 10.-Counsel: for the plaintiffs, Joseph Walton, Q.C. and Hugh Boyd; for the defendants, Sir R. Reid, Q.C. and English Harrison. Solicitors Botterell and Roche; Clarke, Rawlins, and Co.]

:

Metropolis-New Street-Road with no Houses thereon-Expenses of Paving-Liability of Owners of Land abutting on Road-Metropolis Management Act 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 105; Metropolis Management Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 77, 112.— Case stated by the metropolitan police magistrate sitting at the SouthWestern Police-court. The respondents were summoned in respect of a claim for £105 0s. 6d., being the sum apportioned by the appellants in respect of certain premises of which the respondents were the owners, alleged to be payable in respect of such premises towards the expenses of paving a new street called Ramsden-road. The magistrate dismissed the summons. The facts proved or admitted were these: The road known as Ramsden-road is considerably over half a mile in length, and lies partly within the district of the appellants and partly within the district of the Wandsworth Board of Works. The part now in question is the part within the district of the appellants and is herein called the Battersea portion. The remainder of the road is referred to as the Wandsworth portion. The whole road is a highway, and was formed or laid out as a road or roads in or after the year 1866. The Wandsworth portion has been considerably built upon. The respondents were the owners and occupiers of two plots of land situate in and abutting on the Battersea portion. In Nov. 1894 the appellants deemed it necessary and resolved that so much of Ramsdenroad as was within their district should be paved, and they accordingly paved that part of the road, and apportioned the costs of paving on the owners of houses and land bounding and abutting on the road. The Battersea portion of the road is about 200 yards long; on the west side there is only one building, namely, a house which fronts towards Ramsden-road. On the east side at the southern end there is a house which fronts towards Nightingale-lane, and at the northern end are St. Luke's Church and Hall having one entrance in Ramsden-road. These are the only buildings in the Battersea portion, and no new buildings have been erected in the Battersea portion for the last twenty years. On the part of the appellants it was contended that the Battersea portion of the Ramsden-road was a street within the meaning of sect. 250 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, and that it had been laid out and formed since the passing of the Metropolis Management Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), and was therefore in law a new street within the meaning of sect. 112 of that Act, and that the appellants were therefore entitled to pave it when they deemed it necessary to do so, and to recover the costs from the owners of the houses and land abutting on or bounding on the road. On the part of the respondents it was contended that, before any road became a new street within the meaning of sect. 105 of the Act of 1855 and sect. 77 of the Act of 1862, a substantial part of at any rate one side of the road must be occupied by buildings, and reference was made to the cases of St. George's Local Board v. Ballard (72 L. T. Rep. 345; (1895) 1 Q. B. 702; Gozzett v. Maldon Urban Sanitary Authority (70 L. T. Rep. 414; (1894) 1 Q. B. 327); and Davis v. Greenwich Board of Works (72 L. T. Rep. 674; (1895) 2 Q. B. 219). Sect. 77 of the Act of 1862 provides that, where " any vestry or district board shall under the powers given by sect. 105 of the Act of 1855 have paved any new street the owners of land abutting on such street shall be liable to the expenses, as well as the owners of houses;' and sect. 112 defines a "new street as "a street to be hereafter formed or laid out," &c. Held (affirming the decisiou of the magistrate), that, although sect. 105 of the Act of 1855 was extended by sect. 77 of the Act of 1862, yet sect. 105 of the earlier Act contemplated a street with houses on one side or the other, and it was not extended by sect. 77 so as to include a road with no houses thereon, and that therefore the appellants were not liable. Appeal dismissed.

[Vestry of St. Mary, Battersea, v. Palmer and another. Q. B. Div.: Grantham and Wright, JJ. Nov. 5.-Counsel: Channell, Q.C. and J. C. Earle; Freeman, Q.C. and Daldy. Solicitors: W. W. Young and Son; Simpson, Palmer, and Winder.]

Poor Law-Lighthouse-Dues-Rateability-Structural Value.-Appeal of the respondents in the court below from a decision at quarter sessions. By certain local Acts of Parliament the appellants in the court below

were empowered to construct certain piers and other works at the port of L. and raise money by rates for their maintenance. The navigation of the Bay of L. proving dangerous, by later Acts they were empowered to erect lighthouses in and about the bay, and to levy dues on ships passing up to the ports of L. and B., and all ships navigating the Bay of L.; such dues, however, were to be devoted to the maintenance of the said lighthouses, and no profits were to be made by the appellants from them. By a later Act an agreement between the appellants and the London and North-Western Railway Company was sanctioned, under which the railway company was to construct docks, at G., and to connect the same with their railway; and the appellants received power to raise money for the purposes of this agreement from their dues and rates. A number of lighthouses had been erected and maintained under these Acts. One of them situate on the island of W. was within the parish of the respondents in the court below. In assessing this lighthouse the dues earned by all the lighthouses were taken into consideration, and the gross and rateable value fixed at £2670. The appellants appealed to the quarter sessions. They there contended that the rateable value should be the structural value of the lighthouse, and that the duties paid in respect of lights should not be taken into account. The quarter sessions adopted this view, and reduced the gross value to £74 and the rateable value to £62. The overseers of the parish appealed. It was contended on their behalf that the dues received were paid to the commissioners by reason of their occupation of the lighthouse, and that the proper mode of valuation was by taking the whole due as being appurtenant to the lighthouse and deducting therefrom all necessary expenses. For the commissioners it was contended that the dues were paid not in respect of the lighthouse but of the light which was a tenant's chattel, and were earned not by reason of their occupation of that lighthouse in that particular position, but by virtue of the Act of Parliament entitling them to levy them. The lighthouse might, under the Act, be removed out of the parish of B. altogether, and therefore the only basis on which the lighthouse could be rated was its structural value. Held, that the decision of the quarter sessions was right, and that the structural value of the lighthouse was the proper basis on which to rate it. During the argument the following cases were cited: R. v. Tynemouth, Inhabitants of (12 East, 46); R. v. Coke (5 B. & C. 797); Mersey Dock and Harbour Board v. Overseers of Llanleilan (51 L. T. Rep. 62; 14 Q. B. Div. 770); London County Council v. Erith, Parish of (69 L. T. Rep. 725; (1893) A. C. 562); R. v. Fowke (5 B. & C. 814, n.); Reg. v. North and South Shields Ferry Company (1 E. & B. 140).

[Commissioners and Trustees of Port of Lancaster v. Overseers of the Parish of Barrow-in-Furness. Q. B. Div.: Grantham and Kennedy, JJ. Oct. 28 and Nov. 9.-Counsel: for the appellant, Lawson Walton, Q.C. and F. H. Mellor; for the respondents, Littler, Q.C. and Boyle. Solicitors: Postlethwaite and Kendall, Barrow-in-Furness; Frank Taylor, Barrow-in-Furness.]

PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

PROBATE BUSINESS.

Practice-Suit for Revocation of Probate-Judgment given in Absence of Plaintiff Application to restore-R. S. C., Order XXXVI., r. 33Application granted-Plaintiff to pay Costs as between Solicitor and Client.-The plaintiff claimed revocation of probate of a will upon the ground of forgery (inter alia). The probate had been granted some ten or twelve years before action brought, and the estate had been distributed by the executors thereunder. The plaintiff had changed his solicitors more than once, and, at the date of the actual hearing, he had withdrawn his retainer from a former firm of solicitors, who, however, were at that date still the solicitors on the record, inasmuch as the documents were only handed over to the plaintiff's present solicitors on the very day of the hearing, and after the case had been actually disposed of. The plaintiff, upon personal inquiry in the Principal Probate Registry some time before, had been informed that the list of defended causes before the court itself would be proceeded with on and after the 17th Nov., and, upon that information, he left London, and returned to the Midlands. The case came on for hearing on the 5th Nov., in his absence. Counsel on his behalf now applied to restore the case to the list of causes for hearing, but this was opposed, and, at any rate, it was contended that solicitor and client costs should be paid; and, further, that the plaintiff should give security for the costs of the rehearing. The Court ordered the case to be restored, the costs of the defendants, as between solicitor and client, which had been thrown away, as well as the costs of the application to restore, to be paid by the plaintiff by 1 p.m. on Saturday, the 21st Nov. If not so paid, the judgment to stand. Meanwhile, the probate to be again brought into the registry by the defendants, the executors.

[Cudworth v. Hayward and another. P. & D. Div.: Barnes, J. Nov. 10.-Counsel: for the plaintiff, Newson; for the defendants, Priestley. Solicitors: Everett and Hodgkinson; Geare, Son, and Co.]

CROWN CASES RESERVED. Criminal Law-Embezzlement-Assistant Overseer Servant of the Inhabitants of Parish-59 Geo. 3, c. 12-24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 68-56 & 57 Vict. c. 73, 88. 5 and 81.-Although by the Local Government Act 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 5, the power of appointment to the office of assistant overseer is vested in the parish council, and by sect. 81 (1) of that statute it is provided that when the powers and duties of any authority are transferred to any parish council, the officers of that authority become the officers of the council, and also by sub-sect. 3 of the same section, that any existing assistant overseeer in a parish for which a parish council is elected shall, unless appointed by a board of guardians, become an officer of the parish council, an assistant over

seer does not cease to be the servant of the inhabitants of the parish, being accountable to them for the rates which he collec's, and is therefore properly described as in the employment as servant of such inhabitants in an indictment for embezzlement under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96 8. 68.

[Reg. v. Smalman. Cr. Cas. Res. Lord Russell, C.J., Pollock, B., Hawkins, Grantham, and Lawrance, JJ. Aug. and Nov. 7.--Counsel: for the Crown, Macmorran, Q.C. and Gwynne James; for the defendant, Cranstoun. Solicitors: Solicitor to the Treasury; for the defendant, M. L. B. Braund, for Hebb, Ross.

Criminal Law-False Pretences-Evidence-Belief of Person defraudedPerson convicted of Larceny on Facts on which already convicted of obtaining Goods by false Pretences. It is proper to ask a witness on the trial of an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences, what opinion he formed as to the meaning and construction of a letter, containing the alleged false pretence, written by the defendant. A person already convicted of obtaining goods by false pretences cannot be indicted for larceny on the same facts.

[Reg. v. John King. Cr. Cas. Res.: Hawkins, Cave, Grantham, Lawrance, and Wright, JJ. Nov. 7. No counsel or solicitors appeared.]

OUR LITERARY COLUMN.

AN IRISH JUDICIAL HUMOURIST.

MR. FRANKFORT MOORE, in his "Journalist's Note-Book (Hutchinson and Co.), relates some anecdotes of the humour of the Irish Bench, which will be keenly appreciated in professional circles. Here are some reminiscences of Mr. Justice Lawson :-A man was indicted before the late Mr. Justice Lawson for stealing a pig. He was found driving it along, and, on being spoken to by the sergeant of constabulary, he stated that he bought the pig in a neighbouring town, and that he had paid a certain specified sum for it. On the same evening, however, a report reached the police barrack that a pig, the description of which corresponded with the recollection which the sergeant retained of the one which he had seen some hours before, had been stolen from its home in the neighbourhood. The owner was brought face to face with the animal that the sergeant had met, and it was identified as the one that had been stolen. The man in whose possession the pig was found was again very frank in stating where he had bought it, but his second account of the transaction was not on all-fours with the first, and the person from whom he said he had purchased it denied all knowledge of the sale; in fact, be was able to show that he was at Waterford at the time he was alleged to be disposing of it.

All these facts were clearly proved, and no attempt was made to controvert them in the defence. The counsel for the prisoner admitted that the police had a good primâ facie case for the arrest of his client, there were undoubtedly good grounds for suspecting that the animal had disappeared from the custody of its owner through the instrumentality of the prisoner, but he felt sure that, when the jury had heard the witnesses for the defence, they would admit that it was utterly impossible to conceive the notion that he had anything to do with the matter.

The parish priest was the first witness called, and he stated that he had known the prisoner for several years, and had always regarded him as a thrifty, sober, hard-working man, adding that he was most regular in his attendance to his religious duties. Then the episcopal clergyman was examined, and stated that the prisoner was an excellent father and capital gardener, he also knew something about the care of poultry. Several of the prisoner's neighbours testified to his respectability and his readiness to oblige them even at considerable personal inconvenience. After the usual speeches the judge summed up as follows: "Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the evidence in the case, and it is not for me to say that any of it is false. The police sergeant met the prisoner driving the stolen pig, and the prisoner gave two different accounts as to how it had come into his possession, but neither of these accounts could be said to have a particle of truth in it. On the other hand, however, you have heard the evidence of the two clergymen to whom the prisoner was well known. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the character they gave him. Then you heard the evidence given by the neighbours of the prisoner, and I'm sure you'll agree with me that nothing could be more gratifying than the way they all spoke of his neighbourly qualities. Now, gentlemen, although no attempt whatever has been made by the defence to meet the evidence given for the prosecution, yet I feel it necessary to say that it is utterly impossible that you could ignore the testimony given as to the character of the prisoner by so many witnesses of unimpeachable integrity. Therefore. gentlemen, I think that the only conclusion you can come to is that the pig was stolen by the prisoner, and that he is the most amiable man in the County Cork."

Mr. Justice Lawson used to boast that he was the only judge on the Bench who had ever arrested a man with his own hand. Mr. Frankfort Moore narrates thus the circumstances of this remarkable incident.

The locale was the court-house of an assize town in the south of Ireland. For several days the Crown had failed to obtain a conviction, although in the majority of the cases the evidence was practically conclusive, and as each prisoner was either sent back or set free, the crowds of sympathisers made an uproar that all the ushers in attendance were powerless to suppress. On the fourth day the judge at the opening of the court, called for the County Inspector of Constabulary, and when the officer was brought from the billiard-room of the club, and bustled in all sabre and salute, the judge in his quiet way remarked to him; "I'm