proved to have been brought under the actual notice of the person contracting with the company, and that the mere fact of conditions of this nature being endorsed on a ticket, or a document of such a nature, will not be sufficient as proof of such notice being brought home to him. Such seems in substance to be the effect of Henderson v. Stevenson, and certainly, had it then been reported, it would seem to have applied to the previous action of Burke v. The Midland Great Western Railway Company, assuming as we do that the condition there (as such conditions of that company usually are) was printed in type so microscopic as to be almost undecipherable, although, perhaps, a distinction might be taken on the ground that the conditions so endorsed are expressly referred to on the face of the delivery note. However that may be, we have no hesitation in fully approving of the decision of Mr. Justice Barry, that the defendants were rendered liable by the contract made for them by the Midland Great Western Railway Company as their agents.-Irish Law Times.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

COURT OF CHANCERY. Thursday, July 29. (Before the LORDS JUSTICES OF APPEAL.) Ex parte COKER; re BLAKE. Bankruptcy-Injunction-Bankruptcy a bar to THIS was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Registrar Roche, acting as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy.

the action.

In Oct. 1871, Mr. E. H. W. Swete, a medical practitioner at Leamington, entered into an agreement with Mr. R. H. Blake, who had been for some years practising at Leamington as a physician and surgeon, to purchase a share of his business and to carry it on in partnership with him. Swete paid a premium of £1500 for a half share of the business. Differences afterwards arose between the parties, and in Aug. 1873, Mr. Swete filed a bill in Chancery, by which he alleged that he had been induced to enter into the partnership agreement by the fraudulent misrepresentations of Mr. Blake, and praying that the agreement might be cancelled; that the defendant might be ordered to repay the £1500 with interest; and that an account might be taken of all moneys received and paid by the plaintiff under the agreement; and that the defendant might be ordered to make good to the plaintiff what should appear to be due to him. The defendant put in an answer denying the truth of the charges made against him. Before the suit came to a hearing the defendant filed a liquidation petition, under which Mr. Frederick Coker was appointed trustee of his property. In January lasan order was made to revive the suit against him. On the 15th June the trustee applied to the Court of Bankruptcy for an order to restrain the plaint tiff from taking any further proceedings in the suit. The Registrar refused the application, and the trustee appealed. By his notice of appeal he only asked that the proceedings in the suit might be restrained as against him.

Romer, for the appellant, argued that the debtor's interest was now entirely vested in the trustee, and that the suit was, in truth, merely a money demand, which could be more properly dealt with in the Court of Bankruptcy.

Clarke, for the plaintiff in the suit, urged that, as the claim made by the suit was in respect of a debt contracted by fraud, the proceedings in the liquidation would not discharge the debtor from it. The plaintiff was, therefore, still entitled to enforce his right against the debtor personally, and the suit ought to go on for that purpose. The trustee would be a mere formal, but still a necessary party.

Romer replied.

Lord Justice JAMES said that, having regard to the nature of the suit, in which, if the plaintiff succeeded, he would be entitled to a personal remedy against the debtor, the Registrar's order was right. The trustee need not defend the suit. He need do nothing at all, but leave it to the debtor to fight it. Whatever amount might be found to be due to the plaintiff, of course he would be entitled to prove for it in the liquidation, and the debtor would also remain personally liable for it. The appeal must be dismissed, with costs. Lord Justice MELLISH was of the same opinion. He thought that the Court of Bankruptcy ought not to restrain the proceedings in any suit or action against a bankrupt or liquidating debtor in any case where the bankruptcy or liquidation would not be a bar to the claim made in the suit or action. If, as was the case here, the bankrupt or debtor would remain personally liable, notwith. standing his discharge in the bankruptcy or liquidation, then the proceedings ought not to be restrained.

Monday, Aug. 2.

(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)
COBHAM v. DALTON.

Bankruptcy-Liability of bankrupt to arrest for
debt.
THIS appeal from an order made by the Master of
the Rolls on Saturday raised a question of con-
siderable importance with regard to the power of
arrest for debt under the Debtors' Act 1869. On
5th June an order was made upon the defendant
to this suit for payment of a sum of £94 14s.,
trust money received by him and not accounted
for. The order directed that he should make the
payment by the 30th June. He failed to do so,
and on the 15th July he was adjudicated a bank-
rupt. On the 16th July an attachment was issued
against him by the Court of Chancery for con- |
tempt in disobeying the order. On the 30th July
he was at the Court of Bankruptcy, in Portugal.
street, to attend his public examination, and
after he left the court he went into a public-
house in Chancery-lane to obtain some refresh-
ment before returning to his home, and while
there he was arrested under the attachment.
He applied to the Master of the Rolls for his
release, which his Honour declined to order, being
of opinion that the bankruptcy proceedings did not
protect him from arrest. The defendant appealed.
Sect. 4 of the Debtor's Act 1869 abolishes im-
prisonment for debt, with certain exceptions, one
of which is "default by a trustee or person acting
in a fiduciary capacity, and ordered to pay by a
court of equity any sum in his possession or
under his control." Sect. 12 of the Bankruptcy
Act 1869 provides. "Where a debtor shall be adju-
dicated a bankrupt, no creditor to whom the bank-
rupt is indebted in respect of any debt provable
in the bankruptcy shall have any remedy against
the property or person of the bankrupt in respect
of such debt, except in manner directed by this
Act." And by sect. 49 an order of discharge is
not to release the bankrupt from any debt in-
curred by breach of trust.

E. C. Willis, for the appellant, contended that sect. 12 gave the bankrupt freedom from arrest, at least until he had obtained his order of discharge in the bankruptcy, or the bankruptcy had been closed. At any rate, the appellant had been improperly arrested when he was on his way home from the Bankruptcy Court.

Dune, for the plaintiff in the suit, argued that the Bankruptoy Act and the Debtor's Act ought to be read together, and that the Legislature had thus in effect directed that for a debt of this kind the bankrupt should be liable to arrest, notwithstanding the bankruptcy proceedings.

Lord Justice JAMES thought the appellant was entitled to be discharged from custody. The words of the Bankruptcy Act did not give the power to arrest him. The Act said that after the adjudication no creditor for any debt provable in the bankruptcy should have any remedy against the person of the bankrupt except in manner directed by the Act. The Act contained no direction on this point. This section appeared to have been intended as a substitute for the protection order which was given under the former Acts. When the bankrupt had obtained his order of discharge, or the bankruptcy was closed, the special right of this particular creditor against any further assets which the bankrupt might acquire would accrue, while the other creditors would have lost all remedy against the bankrupt's estate, and this creditor, in order to enforce his right, would then be able to proceed with his attachment. This might, perhaps, be the reason for the provisions of the Act; but whether that were so or not, his Lordship could not find that the Act had directed any manner in which process against the person of the bankrupt could be enforced. His Lordship also thought the appellant was entitled to his release on the other ground raised. The attachment must, therefore, be discharged.

Lord Justice Mellish was of the same opinion. Section 12 was expressed in very plain terms. It was quite clear that this debt was one provable in the bankruptcy, though it was one from which the order of discharge would not release the bankrupt. It would require very strong reasons to induce the Court to depart from the plain words of the section. But his Lordship was not at all certain that this was not the intention of the Legislature. The bankrupt's property was to be divided equally among his creditors, and this particular creditor was not to have any preference until after the order of discharge. Arrest for debt under the Debtors' Act, as, indeed, before that Act, was not by way of punishment, but as a means of compelling payment of the debt. If the man paid the debt when he was in prison, he would be entitled to his release. Therefore it seemed to his Lordship that there was nothing unreasonable in saying that, so long as the debtor's property remained equally liable to all his creditors, this particular creditor was not to use his own special remedy. But as soon as the order of discharge had been obtained, the creditor might enforce his remedy against the after acquired property or again e person of

A POINT of some nicety and importance arose in this case. The bankrupt formerly carried on busi. ness as a goldsmith at 12, Charles-street, Middlesex Hospital, and on the 4th May, W. A. Bendelow, a creditor, recovered judgment against him for £30 158. 3d., and £4 costs. On the 4th June, the bankrupt committed an act of bank. ruptcy by failing to comply with the terms of a debtor's summons issued under sect. 7 of the Act, at the suit of other creditors. Before any petition was presented, and without any notice of an act of bankruptcy, Mr. Bendelow levied an execution upon the goods of the bank. rupt for £20 3s. 3d., being the amount due to him upon the judgment, after deducting a payment made on account. On the 15th June a petition for adjudication was filed against the bankrupt, and on the 23rd an interim injunction was granted, and afterwards continued, restraining a sale. On the 3rd July, the court adjudicated upon the peti tion, and on the 20th a trustee was appointed under the bankruptcy.

Bagley, for Mr. Bendelow, the creditor, now appeared in support of an application to dissolve the injunction. He contended that a creditor for a sum under £50, having levied upon the goods of his debtor without notice of any act of bank. ruptcy, was entitled to the benefit of his execu tion, notwithstanding the fact that bankruptcy had ensued before a sale could be effected.

Sydney, for the trustee, urged, on the ether hand, that the adjudication, when made, had relation back to the date of the act of bankruptcy, and that the execution in this case having been levied subsequently, the title of the trustee must prevail, although the creditor had not any notice of the act of bankruptcy.

His HONOUR held that the creditor having levied an execution for a sum under £50, without notice of any prior act of bankruptcy, became a secured creditor under sect. 12 of the Act, and was entitled to realise his security. The act of bankruptcy committed in this case was a secret act, and available to those creditors only who sued out the debtor's summons. The execution creditor being, therefore, entitled to the goods, the injunction would be dissolved, with costs.

COUNTY COURTS.

BRISTOL COUNTY COURT.
July 20 and 21.
(Before R. A. FISHER, Esq., Judge.)

SHERBORNE v. SHERBOrne. Jurisdiction-Breach of covenants in a farming lease-Land situate and parties resident in a foreign_district-Execution of lease within dis trict-Trover and conversion of trees excepted by lease-Waiver of jurisdiction by defendant's demand of jury subsequently to his having filed answers to plaintiff's interrogatories "On ex ception to the jurisdiction." THIS was an action for damages by the plaintiff (the lessor) for breaches of covenants in a farm ing lease to repair and to cut hedges, and cleanse ditches, and general breach of covenant. Plaintiff also claimed damages for the wrongful conversion of timber reserved to him by the lease, and for the refusal of the defendant to hang certain gates according to verbal arrangement made upon the locus in quo.

Norris (instructed by Benson and Thomas) for plaintiff.

Poole (instructed by Perham) for defendant. It was proved that the plaintiff and defendant resided together upon the locus in quo at Nempnett, in the county of Somerset, and that they there arranged the terms of the lease, and went to the nearest solicitor, who resided at Wrington, and gave him instructions to prepare the lease, subsequently signing the deed at the solicitors. It was admitted that Nempnett, where the lands were situate, and the alleged breaches occurred and the tort was committed, and subsequent agreement made, was within the jurisdiction of Temple Cloud and Wrington, in that of Bristol.

Poole contended that the cause of action arose

Plaintiff deposed to the mare being quiet, accustomed to work about railways, and to the noise of trains.

Two witnesses spoke as to the dangerous character of the embankment. Saul, for the defence, said that there was sufficient room on the embankment, supposing the mare was quiet; and contended that the mare swerved, being frightened by a passing train.

His HONOUR pointed out that not only was there no protection at this place, but something very dangerous (referring to the telegraph poles) was placed there. Railway companies were not liable for horses being frightened, but they were bound to afford to the public proper protection. Presuming they had had a wall or fence, and the mare had broken that down, the company would not have been liable. The probability was that the mare did, to some extent shy, but the company actually put a lot of poles there on which the mare set her foot and frightened her still more.

Saul.-Do you find that the mare shied? His HONOUR.-There is no direct evidence to rely upon for that, but she must have moved her foot to the poles. I cannot say she shied, but she

moved from some cause or other.

Verdict for the plaintiff for £50, with costs. Saul gave notice of appeal.

COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION. LAST week the County Courts Bill was read a third time in the Commons and passed. As the measure originated in the Lords, the Commons' amendments will have to be considered in the Upper House; but this will be a brief work, and we may expect to see the Bill take its place amongst the next batch of measures which receives the Royal assent. We have called attention to this Bill, and particularly to the amendments proposed by Mr. Russell Gurney relative to appeals from the Admiralty side of County Courts, and to that proposed by Mr. Whitwell for giving a jurisdiction in other matters concurrent with the High Court of Justice as constituted under the Judicature Act. The latter proposal has not obtained the assent of the Government, and Mr. Whitwell's amendment was withdrawn; but Mr. Gurney's amendments have been adopted in their entirety, and now stand part of the Bill, and we may be quite certain that they will be accepted by the Lords. It will be remembered that Mr. Gurney's proposals, now embodied in this Bill, were threefold. By the first it was asked that where decrees or orders from the admiralty side of County Courts are affirmed by the High Court on appeal, there shall be no appeal from such decision of the High Court, unless by express permission of the learned judge; next, that where the decision of the court below is reversed or varied on appeal, no leave to appeal to Her Majesty in council shall be necessary-in other words, that an appeal to the Judicial Committee shall lie as of right; lastly that where an admiralty cause has been heard in the County Court with the assistance of nautical assessors, and that cause is appealed, Trinity masters shall be summoned at the instance of either party if the judge shall be of opinion that their assistance is desirable. We have already expressed our views upon the importance of these amendments. Suitors, henceforth, in admiralty causes tried in the County Courts will know that, if there is an appeal to the Court of Admiralty, and the decision of the court below is not affirmed, they will not require the consent of the judge of the High Court to carry the case further; and that, so far as the advantage of technical assistance is concerned, the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal will be placed on an equal footing. We believe we are correct in stating that Mr. Russell Gurney's amendments were at once adopted by the Government. The Bill containing these amendments was committed pro forma, and, as a matter of course, the amendments will be supported in the Lords. It not too much to say that this salutary and necessary change in the law has resulted directly from the case of the Galathea, and to the comments thereon which we felt it our duty to make. The result is one on which we venture to congratulate our readers. We have been friendly from the first to the exercise of an Admiralty Juris diction by the County Courts, and the anticipations which we formed of the utility of the Act of 1868 have been fully justified. A large number of maritime cases are annually disposed of in County Courts, as may be seen by a parliamentary return recently issued; and these cases are disposed of promptly, and at a comparatively trifling cost. Even in the exercise of the power of arrest and detention of shipping property-which, when the Act of 1868 was before Parliament, was regarded with apprehension-there has been little to complain of, and the proposal in the Merchant Shipping Bill to authorise the Board of Trade to send inquiries into wrecks and casualties, and into the conduct of masters, mates, and engineers, to the local Courts of Admiralty, is a further proof of the growing estimation in which the conduct of

Admiralty business by the County Courts is held. It is, therefore, of great consequence that the decisions in Admiralty of these Courts should, when they become the subject of appeal, be properly reviewed and tested, and that when the High Court is at issue with a Local Court, an authority superior to both, and whose decision is final, should decide between them. This right is now happily reserved to suitors by the Bill before Parliament. It is proper, and even necessary, that this should be so, and we are not likely to regret the share we have had in bringing about this very important amendment in the law.-Shipping and Mercantile Gazette.

LEGAL NEWS.

The

"plea of insanity" to be made available for defence in so many cases of persons charged with capital crimes does, I feel thoroughly convinced, act upon the minds of persons of both sound and unsound mind, not as a preventive or deterrent to the commission of murder and other offences, but in many cases as an incentive to them to yield to their unholy passions and impulses. Death is richly merited in all those cases where there is a deliberate exaction of human life as a penalty for small offences where the offender is a responsible agent; and in my opinion George Blampied and many others have escaped the extreme penalty of the law by the childish straining of a maxim good if properly applied, but, like all good things, subject to abuse.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. P. KIRKMAN, M.D. Kent County Asylum, Barming-heath.

A VERY NEW CLAUSE. The following has been addressed to the editor of the Times :-"Sir,-Being unable to be in my place in Parliament when the report on the Agri. cultural Holdings Bill is considered by the House, I shall not have an opportunity of bringing for. ward the clause which I now enclose. I leave those who favour this kind of legislation to determine whether this clause is intended as a satire on or as a natural corollary to the Bill. But, inasmuch as some of those to whom I have shown it have taken it as seriously meant, it is evident that some provision of the kind is required when, under a highly artificial and scientific system of agriculture such as prevails in this country, the State thus attempts to do for full-grown men what they can best do for themselves.-I remain your obedient servant,

ELCHO.

"St. James's-place, July 30." "Clause 49.-Where a valuer, referee, umpire, or County Court Judge under this Act shall not have reagriculture, and shall not be in possession of a certif ceived a proper education and training in scientific cate of competency from one of the agricultural colleges or public bodies mentioned in the schedule of this Act, and whenever the decision of such valuer, referee, um. pire, or County Court Judge, as to the proper outlay on the improvements specified in clause 5 is not in accordance with the latest discoveries in chemistry as properly applied to the cultivation of the soil, and as suited to the various soils, subsoils, climates, seasons, and crops in England and Wales, it shall be competent for the landlord or tenant who may think himself aggrieved

such decision to appeal to the High Court of Justice, and such appeal shall be decided upon the sole evidence Agricultural Society." of the chief chymist for the time being of the Royal

AN application is to be made for a new trial of the Beecher-Tilton case.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD has given the three vacant revising barristerships on the Midland Circuit to Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Soden. THE House of Lords Committee for Privileges has decided that Mr. James Hamilton, of Leith, has established his claim to the Belhaven and Stanton peerage.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSANE. THE following observation appears in one of the daily papers:-" Blampied, it is now obvious, ought never to have been discharged from the asylum in which he was detained so long." With reference to such an assertion, I may mention that when released he was of sound mind in the opinion of myself and my two professional colleagues, all of us having had him under our special and daily observation for a period of just four years. His fitness for release had also been proved to the satisfaction of two magistrates, who authorised his removal, and confirmed sub. sequently by Mr. Buchanan's certificate, and by two visits which the man paid afterwards to the patients and attendants in the asylum, on one of which occasions he joined cheerfully in a game of cricket with his late chums. His last visit was on Jan. 31 of this year, and on neither occasion was there any reason to suppose but that he was in good mental and bodily health. For about two years and a half, moreover, before his discharge he was employed daily in the carpenter's shop, having free access to, and being in constant use of, all the dangerous instruments (including an adze) common to the trade, and on no occasion for that period did he offer violence to anyone. As regards the criminal responsibility of the insane and the "uncontrollable impulses" to which they are subject, there is no doubt that there is much danger of alarming consequences resulting from the forcing of theories in place and out of place. Many lunatics are capable of appre-by ciating right from wrong, have a thorough and sound knowledge of the quality of sinful acts, and are morally and physically able to resist their impulses to commit them. I could produce hundreds of instances to support my statement. doctrine of "uncontrollable impulses" has been ridden so hard that the public will soon begin to think that all the "mad doctors" are "hoist with their own petard," and that not one can give evidence in a case of criminal magnitude without betraying his delusion. Upon one occasion, when reproving Blampied for having assaulted a harmless fellow-patient for some trifling offence, he told me that he would strike him, and that if I attempted to prevent him he would murder me. I pointed out to him that the punishment for murder was death according to the English law, when he replied with much prompitude, "Oh! no, not for me, as I am a lunatic, I am not responsible for my actions, and if I do commit murder you cannot punish me for it, because it is contrary to the law to punish an insane man.' I told him that if he could argue in that manner, whether sane or insane, he was morally responsible to the Almighty for his actions, and that if he committed an offence of the kind he ought to be punished. His reply was, "Yes, I know that; but you cannot punish me, whatever I do." Threats of this nature he was constantly holding out to attendants, patients, and others; and this kind of threat is common among the insane. After such a conversation as this, few would (unless their minds were perverted by the " trollable impulse" mania) question the propriety of Blampied's being held responsible for his actions. On another occasion, when remonstrating with him for a series of assaults upon harmless patients-for he never used to attack any patient who he knew could return the blow with interest-his behaviour was most threatening to myself and every one around. I then told him that, knowing better, I should hold him responsible for his future behaviour as regards personal assaults, and that for every blow he must forfeit a week's allowance of tobacco. What was the result? How many weeks' allowance of tobacco did he forfeit ? One only. At the close of the week (Friday being the day for issuing the tobacco) he placed in my hand a well-indited penitent letter, promising, amend ment, and giving me his "word and honour" that he would not strike again. I took his word, removed him to a quieter ward, restored his tobacco the following week, and had no occasion again to withdraw it.

uncon

Now, Sir, cases I say of this kind are of frequent occurrence among the insane, and for the

THE death is announced of Mr. Henry Duncan Robinson, the learned Registrar of the Settle County Court (circuit No. 3), which office is a cordingly vacant.

LIEUT.-COLONEL DU CANE, C.B., R.E., Chair. man of Directors of Convict Prisons, has accepted the chairmanship of the Repression of Crime section at the forthcoming Social Science Congress at Brighton.

JUDGE BARRETT, of the New York Supreme Court, has refused to "vacate" the order for the re-arrest of Mr. Tweed at the suit of the State, or to reduce the amount of bail which was fixed at 3,000,000 dols.

THE office of Town Clerk to the borough of Preston is vacant by the resignation of Mr. Robert Ascroft. Candidates must be practising solicitors. The election is appointed to take place forthwith. We understand there were a large number of candidates. The office is worth £850 per annum.

SOME amunement was created at the Ports mouth Court, during an application for the temporary transfer of an ale-house licence, in consequence of a wife, though married twentythree years, declining to swear positively to her husband's signature, he having sent a letter from London authorising the transfer.

THE Railway Commissioners have declined to allow the Central Wales and Carmarthen Junction Railway Company to appeal against the recent decision on their application against the Great Western Railway Company, the matters on which they wished to appeal not being matters of law within the meaning of the Railways Regulation Act.

66

IN an appeal from an order of the Judge of the Stonehouse County Court, the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy on Monday confirmed the decision of the lower court that a firm of corn merchants was entitled to prove for the loss on 'particular averages after accepting a composition on a proof put in for losses through breach of contract by a debtor to whom they had sold a cargo of wheat.

MR. C. COURT, Chief Examiner, General Post Office, has been appointed auditor of the London Guarantee and Accident Company (Limited), in place of the late Solicitor of the Admiralty, Mr. A. R. Bristow, deceased.

MR. HULBERT, solicitor, Clerk of the Peace of Devizes, and the recognised Conservative agent of that borough, died last week. So great a shock was the melancholy event to his brother, Mr. Robert Hulbert, who had been several times Mayor of Basingstoke, that on the following morn. ing he was found in bed unconscious, and soon afterwards he died.

THE Lords Justices have decided that a bankrupt is not liable to arrest under an attachment pending the settlement of his affairs. They ruled, however, that when the bankruptcy proceeedings were closed the creditor might enforce his attachment in order to compel the bankrupt to pay the debt (resulting from a breach of trust) out of his subsequently acquired property.

THE PROPOSED NEW LAW COURTS AT LIVERPOOL.-A communication from the First Commissioner of Works was read before the Liverpool town council, stating that so soon as the estimates for the next financial year were brought forward, the Board of Works would consider the erection of the proposed new law courts at Liverpool. The site chosen is that at present occupied by the Victoria Hall, where the Moody and Sankey services were held.

LECTURERS AND READERS FOR THE YEAR 1875-76.-The following gentlemen have been appointed as Lecturers and Readers for the year 1875-76: Conveyancing-Mr. Richard Marrack, of 9, Old-square. Equity-Mr. Samuel Dickinson, of 6, Store-buildings. The appointment of a Lecturer and Reader in Common Law will be filled up at the next meeting of the council. The announcement in the Times that it is filled by Mr. T. E. Holland is incorrect.

THE question of the claim to the title of "Reverend" has been decided by the Dean of Arches, who, in his judgment, lays down that a churchyard is the freehold of the incumbent, subject to the right of the parishioner or stranger happening to die in the parish to simple interment and no more, the incumbent having a primâ facie right to prohibit altogether the placing of any gravestone, or to permit it upon proper conditions, such as those which relate to the size and character of the stone, the legality or propriety of the inscription upon it, or the payment of a proper fee.

THE death is announced at the age of 79, of Mr. Rigby Wason, who eight years ago presented to the House of Lords a petition charging Lord Chief Baron Kelly (then recently appointed) with having in 1835, while pleading before an election committee, pledged his honour to statements which he knew to be false. A debate took place on the subject, and Mr. Wason afterwards brought an action for libel against the Times for publishing in its Parliamentary report the speeches of several noble lords, who made some severe comments on Mr. Wason's conduct, but the Court of Queen's Bench gave judgment in favour of the defendant.

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES. To-day the commission will be opened at Liverpool, and the list of prisoners is beyond doubt the blackest on record. There are no fewer than seven cases of murder, all of a very bad class. They include murder by shooting in the street, wife murders (one being kicked to death), a fatal stabbing case, that of a chief mate for throwing overboard a captain in Bonny River, shooting on the high seas, &c. Besides these there are seven cases of manslaughter, five of feloniously wounding, twenty. three robbery with violence, ten of burglary, five of forgery, three of bigamy, and about half-a. dozen for minor offences.

THE STATUTE BOOK.-The Statute Law Revision Bill of this session, "for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary," fills 265 folio pages. It comes down to the year 1868, and repeals the whole or part of above 1400 Acts, all but sixteen of them being statutes of the present reign, but which are already expired or really spent, exhausted, or superseded, though not expressly repealed. It may serve to show how much the Statute Book needs weeding if we give a brief account of one of the Acts in the schedule to this Bill, the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, "An Act to amend the Laws regulating the Qualification and Regis. tration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland, and to alter the Law for Rating immediate Lessors to the Poor-rate." This Act has been amended by six subsequent Acts; parts of it have been repealed (part only temporarily) or virtually repealed by seven other Acts: part is expired, part spent, part applied by a later Act; and now it takes six folio pages to describe the various parts to be formally repealed by Parliament. section after section has to be dealt with in this style: "section thirty-three from on or before

to

the ninth' to 'fifty, and' (where those words next occur), the words after One thousand eight hundred and fifty-one' (wherever they occur), from 'and shall in the year' to such city, town, or borough:', from on before the thirtieth' fifty, or', from 'to the thirty-first' to succeeding year' (where those words next occur), from 'to the ninth' to 'succeeding year', the word 'respective' (where it next occurs), and from 'on or before the twelfth' to 'fifty, and.'' This is not edifying.

At the Lincoln Assizes an action, Lloyd v. Perry, was tried. It was brought by the plaintiff, who the proprietor of the Weekly Bankrupt Gazette, for is a timber merchant at Great Grimsby, against not supplying information in pursuance of his promise contained in a prospectus or advertisement in the Gazette. Plaintiff wrote to defendant for information concerning a firm of timber merchants at Derby, and, on the strength of the information supplied, plaintiff let the firm have £421 worth of timber. Shortly after the affairs of the firm went into liquidation, and one of the alleged partners, named Cotterell, was sentenced to six months im. prisonment as a fraudulent bankrupt. His assets were £300, and his liabilities £2000. There was Cotterell had not been a foreman to a builder as no company nor any partner whatever, and was stated in the information given by defendant, but had been a working sawyer. The judge said it was clear that three guineas were paid by the subscribers not only for the paper called the Gazette, but also for the additional information to be supplied upon inquiry. The question for the jury was whether a contract was made that defendant would furnish to subscribers of three guineas important information, and did the defendant comply with that contract? If he did not, what were the damages? Then, apart from the question of contract, was the defendant guilty of negligence in the execution of the duty he had taken upon himself? The jury found that the contract had been made, that the information supplied was untrue, that there had been negligence, and found as damages £250. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this decision, and solicitors especially will do well to consider it in the interest of their clients.

AVERAGE ADJUSTMMENT.-At the monthly meeting of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, held on Wednesday last week, Mr. P. H. Rathbone reported that he had attended the general meeting of the Association of Average Adjusters in London in the course of last month. when the following rules were adopted: 1. That the direct lia. bility of an underwriter on goods for the value of goods insured by him which have been jettisoned or sacrificed for the common safety, or of an underwriter for ship's materials sacrified for the common safety, be treated as particular average. 2. That claims for Particular average on ships shall not be stated unless the policies, or copies of policies, of insurance, for claiming on which the statement is required, be produced by the adjuster. 3. That such statements shall give the names of the underwriting firms and companies interested, and the amounts payable on the respective policies produced. 4. That goods in a ship which is on fire, or the cargo of which is on fire, affected by water voluntarily used to extinguish such fire, shall not be the sub. ject of general average if the packages so effected be themselves on fire at the time the water was thrown upon them. The first of the foregoing rules was confirmed unanimously. The second rule was also confirmed, with the understanding that all the policies ought to be produced to the adjuster, to enable him to apportion the payments on a proper footing; when the policies are now produced the adjustment to apply only to the policy or policies produced. Upon the third reso. lution an amendment was moved but lost, the votes being eighteen against and two in favour. It was contended, in support of the amendment, that shipowners objected to the rule because it would assist underwriters in banding together to dispute the claims, and that the system of insurance adopted by the assured would be, without their desire, exposed to rivals in trade. The rule, however, was held to be desirable in order to guard against possible fraud. The fourth rule was also, after a short discussion, confirmed nem. con., and Mr. Rathbone, the reporter of the Chamber at the meeting, concluded his report with an expression of opinion that the rules disposed of at the gathering were such as met the exigencies of every-day mercantile transactions, and their tendency would be to prevent unnecessary legislation.

THE NEW MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.-The Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Sir Charles Adderley is entitled, “A Bill to make provision for giving further powers to the Board of Trade for stopping Unseaworthy Ships," and bears the names of Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Disraeli, and Sir Stafford Northcote. The following is the text of the measure:-Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords

Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-1. The Board of Trade may forth with and from time to time by special order appoint a sufficient number of fit and proper persons, from their own staff or otherwise, to be officers hav ing authority to detain unseaworthy ships and may from time to time revoke any such apappointment. If any officer so appointed bas reason to believe upon inspection or otherwise that any British ship is by reason of the defective condition of her hull, equipments, or machinery, or to proceed to sea without serious danger to human by reason of overloading or improper loading, unfit life, he may order that the ship be detained for the purpose of being surveyed. Any such order shall have the same effect as if it were an order

of the Board of Trade under sect. 12 of the of ascertaining whether a British ship is fit to Merchant Shipping Act 1873. For the purpose proceed to sea, any officer so appointed may go on board the ship and inspect the same, or any part thereof, or any of the machinery, boats, equipments, or other articles on board thereof, not unnecessarily detaining or delaying her from proceeding on her voyage; and any person who wilfully impedes him in the execution of his duty shall be liable to the same penalties, and may be dealt with in the same manner as if the officer were an inspector appointed by the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act 1854. When any officer so appointed orders a ship to be detained, he shall forthwith report his proceedings to the Board of Trade. An officer so appointed shall receive such remuneration for his services under this Act as the Treasury from time to time direct, and such remuneration shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. 2. Whenever a complaint is made to the Board of Trade or to any officer so appointed by one-fourth of the seamen belonging to any British ship, or, if the number of such seamen exceed twenty, by not less than five such seamen, that the ship is by reason of the defective condition of her hull, equipments, or machinery, or by reason of overloading or improper loading, unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life, it shall be the duty of the board or officer, as the case may be, if the complaint is made within time sufficient for that purpose before the sailing of the ship, without requiring any security for the payment of costs and expenses, to take proper steps for ascertaining whether the ship ought to be detained for the purpose of being surveyed under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873. 3 This Act may be cited as the Merchant Shipping Act

1875, and shall be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, and the Acts amending the same, and the said Acts and this Act may be cited collectively as the Merchant Shipping Acts 1854 to 1875. 4. This Act shall continue in force until the 1st Oct. 1876.

83. ARTICLED CLERK.-Would an Articled Clerk prejudice himself by undertaking to give Latin lessons to two or three pupils. There to be only two lessons of an hour's length per week, and all the pupils being present at the same time. Is the consent of his principal sufficient, or would it be necessary to obtain a judge's order, and would there be any difficulty in W. obtaining such order?

order, but if the lessons are given out of office hours, There would be no difficulty in obtaining such an and the Principal consenting, there seems little or no occasion for making the application.-ED. SOLS.' Døpt.]

84. QUESTIONS AT THE INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.— Are the examiners at the Intermediate Examinations bound to confine thefr questions to the matter contained in the books specified by them as being the elementary works selected for that examination, or can they ask questions upon more recent enactments which are not noted in the same elementary works. If the question be considered by you as one upon which I am entitled to an answer, you would greatly oblige by informing upon the same through your paper. M. B.

[The examiners cannot properly, and indeed, would not purposely test the knowledge of students in regard to acts of Parliament at a later date than the works selected by them, and on the contents of which alone