Q. B.] Ex parte CRAWSHAY. pended, and notice of such suspension sent to the overseers of Collumpton. Thirdly, that the moneys expended more than six years before the said information was laid were irrecoverable by reason of the Statute of Limitations. We decided against the defendant, and made an order for the payment of the 10. 12s. 3d. and the costs incurred before us; and the grounds of our decision were that we considered this proceeding was by the 35th section of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, excepted from the operation of that statute; that the said Elizabeth Hill was not, at the time of making the said order, unable to travel from any cause other than her pregnancy, which did not afford legal grounds for the suspension of the said order; and that the Statute of Limitations was no bar to the recovery of the money expended more than six years previously to the said information being laid as directed by the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 84. By the 35 Geo. 3, c. 101, s. 2, it is enacted, "That in case any poor person shall from henceforth be brought before any justice or justices of the peace for the purpose of being removed from the place where he or she is inhabiting or sojourning by virtue of any order of removal, and it shall appear to the said justice or justices that such poor person is unable to travel by reason of sickness or other infirmity, or that it would be dangerous for him or her so to do, the justice or justices making such order of removal are hereby required and authorised to suspend the execution of the same until they are satisfied that it may safely be executed without danger to any person who is the subject thereof, which suspension shall be indorsed on the said order of removal and signed by such justice or justices." By sect. 84 of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, it is enacted, "That the parish to which any poor person whose settlement shall be in question at the time of granting relief, shall be admitted or finally adjudged to belong, shall be chargeable with and liable to pay the cost and expense of the relief and maintenance of such poor person, and such cost and expense may be recovered against such parish in the like manner as any penalties or forfeitures are by this Act recoverable. Provided always, that no charges or expenses of relief or maintenance shall be recoverable under a suspended order of removal, unless notice of such order of removal, with a copy of the same, and of the examination on which such order was made, shall have been given within ten days of such order being made to the overseers of the poor of the parish to whom such order is directed." By the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 11, it is enacted, "That in all cases where no time is already or shall hereafter be specially limited for making any such complaint or laying any such information in the Act or Acts of Parliament relating to each particular case, such complaint shall be made and such information shall be laid within six calendar months from the time when the matter of such complaint or information respectively arose." By sect. 35 of the same Act it is enacted, "That nothing in this Act shall extend or be construed to extend to any warrant or order for the removal of any poor person who is or shall become chargeable to any parish, township, or place," &c. Tomlinson, for the appellants, contended that the order was bad: first, because there was no suspension of the order of removal under the 35 Geo. 3, c. 101, s. 2, as there should have been to have rendered the appellants liable to the cost of maintenance; secondly, that the respondents were out of time in applying to justices for the order for payment, more than six years having elapsed since the demand of payment by them of the appellants. [Q. B. HILL and BLACKBURN, JJ. concurred. volunteer. This court refused to grant a criminal information, et the instance of a private individual, against the proprietor of a newspaper for inserting articles in his paper tending to incite and encourage persons to volunteer to serve in Garibaldi's army. Bovill, Q.C. (Couch with him), on behalf of George Crawshag, moved for a rule, calling on John Baxter G. Denman, for the respondents, argued first, that|Langley, the propricter and publisher of the Daily Q. B.] REG. . THE INHABITANTS OF ELSWICK. Chronicle and Newcastle Advertiser, and also of a weekly paper published in the same place, to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against him. It appeared that Mr. Crawshay had formerly been mayor of Gateshead, and the pres nt application was made in consequence of certain articles which had appeared in Mr. Langley's newspapers, as it was now alleged, inciting and encouraging persons in England to enlist in the army of General Garibaldi, and the publication of which articles it was now contended amounted to a misdemeanor. [COCKBURN, C.J.-Is this a case in which it is competent for a private person to come forward and ask for the interposition of the court? Have you any precedent, Mr. Bovill, for such an application? If this is an offence, it is an offence against the State, and it is for the AttorneyGeneral to interfere; but I never heard of a private person making such an application. BLACKBURN, J. -I certainly never heard of a private individual applying thus in a matter in which he had no private and personal interest. HILL, J.- Cannot you indict? | COCKBURN, C.J.-You ask us to sanction a private individual taking up a public question which the Attorney-General has not thought right to interfere in.] This charge was brought before the justices at Newcastle, and they decided not to entertain it, but said the prosecutor had his remedy in the Q. B. I now apply to this court as the highest court of criminal jurisdiction. [BLACKBURN, J.-Assuming Mr. Langley had been guilty of a misdemeanor, and assuming that the justices did wrong in refusing to interfere, is that any reason why we should do so? So far as my memory goes, nothing has ever been done approaching to such a step.] As this is a matter relating to the public, all persons are more or less interested in it. [COCKBURN, C.J.-If anything, it is an offence against the State, and the proper officer to prosecute is the Attorney-General, and if he does not do so it is not for a private individual to come forward.] I may then assume that, even if I were to succeed in making out a case, the court would decline to interfere. [COCKBURN, C.J.-It is such a case, I think, as a private person should not interfere in, and by so doing supersede the authority of the Attorney-General. We must leave you to the ordinary remedy which the law gives you. Mr. Crawshay may, if he please, bring the matter under the notice of her Majesty's law officers, who will decide whether they think it necessary to interfere; all we say is, that we do not grant a criminal information at the instance of a private individual, but he must be left to prefer his bill of indictment, or to such other proceedings as he may be advised. HILL and BLACKBURN, JJ. concurred. Wednesday, Nov. 21. Rule refused. REG. v. THE INHABITANTS OF ELSWICK. Poor-Settlement-Apprenticeship-Renting a tene ment. An apprentice used to work and sleep at B. during the week, returning on Saturdays to his father's at G., and sleeping there on the Saturdays and Sundrys. On the last day of service, a Wednesday, he left off work at four p.m., at B., and went to see his mistress at N., and then proceeded to G. and slept there that night: Held. that G. was his place of settlement under the apprenticeship. A pauper rented a shop and two rooms on the ground floor. They opened into a passage, at the end of which was a front entrance into the street, and a back entrance into the yard. The upper part of the house was occupied by another tenant, who had a right to use the passage and dors, and had a key thereof, and who cleaned a portion of the passage: Held, that the pauper did not gain a settlement by renting a tenement within the 6 Geo. 4, c. 57. [Q. B. Case stated for the opinion of this court at the Midsummer sessions, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on appeal against an order of removal of a pauper and his wife from the parish of Elswick to the parish of Gateshead. The facts necessary to elucidate the points decided are as follow:- The pauper was bound apprentice by indenture to Mrs. Richardson, a plumber and glazier in extensive business in Northumberland, from March 29, 1803, for seven years, and in the course of his employment he used to go to Bedlington on the Monday, remain there during the week at work, sleeping at a place provided by his mistress, and return to his father's at Gateshead on the Saturday, and sleep there on Saturdays and Sundays. At the close of his apprenticeship he was working at Bedlington, and on the last day (a Wednesday) of it he worked there until four o'clock, and then set off to Newcastle, where he saw his mistress, and then went to Gateshead and slept at his father's house that night. The appellants contended, upon these facts, that the pauper's settlement by apprenticeship was in Bedlington parish. They further contended that a settlement was gained in Westgate township, under the following circumstances:- The plaintiff took a shop and two rooms in Blenheim-street, in the township of Westgate, for one year, at the rent of 127., and occupied it from Aug. 1851 to Aug. 1852, paying the usual taxes. The house consisted of two stories and a basement. The basement is approached by steps down the area, and has no connection with the shop and rooms on the ground floor, occupied by the pauper. The shop door and the door of the room behind open into a passage running from back to front of the house, at each end of which is a door. The upper floor was let to a tenant who had a right of way along the passage, through the doors, front and back. Each had a key of the outer door, and cleaned a portion of the passage. It was contended that this was a separate and distinct tenement within the meaning of 6 Geo. 4, c. 57. The sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this court. Davison in support of the order of sessions.-First, the pauper having resided both in Bedlington and Gateshead, for forty days in each place, acquired his settlement in the place where he slept the last night during the apprenticeship, and that was in Bedlington. For the purpose of the apprenticeship, the sleeping on the Tuesday night was the last night. The apprenticeship was put an end to before the Wednesday night. [COCKBURN, C. J.-Did he not continue an apprentice until the following day? Could you have doubted this, if he had continued to work until the usual hour of leaving off on the last day, and then left to sleep at Gateshead?] The mistress having sent him to work at Bedlington, he would have been bound to sleep there during the apprenticeship: (R. v. St. Mary, Canterbury, 2 B. & Ald. 382; R. v. Barnesley, 7 East, 381.) [CoCKBURN, C.J.-He continued an apprentice until the following morning. It is quite clear that the settlement was gained in Gateshead.] Secondly, the pauper gained a settlement by renting a tenement in Westgate township. It is submitted that the right of way along the passage is not material, and that the pauper occupied a distinct and separate tenement within the 6 Geo. 4, c. 57 : (R. v. Usworth, 5 A. & E. 261; R. v. Henley-on-Thames, 6 A. & E. 294.) [BLACKBURN, J. cited Parke, B., in Monks v. Dykes, 4 M. & W. 569, as to the meaning of term "dwellinghouse."] Liddell, contra, was stopped by the court. COCKBURN, C. J.-We are all agreed that there was no such renting of a tenement as would give a set Q. B.] STEELE v. HAMILTON-REG. v. OverseERS OF HEMSWORTH. tlement under the Act. The authorities establish that | one building may be so divided among different tenants with separate entrances for each tenant, as practically to be separate and distinct houses, if the severance is so complete, and the access to each such that the other tenants have no right or enjoyment thereof. That, however, is not the case where they have a common entrance; there the house is but one dwelling-house, occupied by distinct tenants. The case is not within the principle on which R. v. Usworth was decided. WIGHTMAN, J. concurred. Pat [Q. B. vision that prevents a man from practising as a sur- By the COURT.There is nothing to show that the respondent was not a surgeon. Appeal dismissed. HILL, J.-I am of the same opinion. teson, J., in R. v. Wootton, 1 A. & E. 236, said: "I have always thought that the words a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building in these statutes meant separate and distinct as to any other person; that the tenant should not hold part of a house." Now in this case the holding | REG. on the prosecution of WRIGHTSON v. OVERSEERS was not separate and distinct as to the entrance, but OF HEMSWORTII. the tenants enjoyed the entrance in common. Aud Lit-Poor-rate-Tithe - Composition-Local Inclosure Act tledale, J., in R. v. Usworth, observed: "There were in this house three floors, and the access to each was by separate outer doors. I think, therefore, that each was a distinct tenant, and that Waddell occupied a separate and distinct dwelling-house within the meaning of the statute." Here the tenants had not an entrance by distinct outer doors. STEELE (appellant) . HAMILTON (respondent). Medical Registration Act-Pretending to be a registered surgeon-Evidence. The respondent was summoned upon an information before the stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool, and a complaint laid by the appellant, secretary of the Liverpool Medical Registration Association, which charged the respondent with having, on the 21st Feb. 1860, wilfully and falsely pretended to be a surgeon and general practitioner or apothecary, or using a name, title, addition, or description implying that he was registered by law as a surgeon, contrary to the form of the statute, whereby he had incurred a penalty not exceeding 201., under the New Medical Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90, s. 40. On the hearing it was proved that the respondent had given a certificate in the following terms:"Medical certificate-I hereby certify that I attended Willian Hayes, late of 110, Mill-street, who died 21st February; cause, enteritis; and I have no reason to attribute his death to poison, violence, or criminal neglect. Signed, JOHN HAMILTON, Botanic Surgeon, Boston, U.S, and 94, Mill-street, Feb. 22, 1860." -Award. An Inclosure Act gran'ed an annual rent of 4s. per Held, that such award was bad, not being what the Act This was a case from the West Riding sessions for the opinion of this court, on an appeal by the rector of Hemsworth, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, against a poor-rate. The rector was assessed at 3567., being one-fourteenth part of 4987, the value of the lands within the parish under the following circumstances:— In 1803 a local Act was passed, the 43 Geo. 3, for the inclosure of waste lands in the parish of Hemsworth. There had been a previous Inclosure Act. Sect. 10 requires the commissioner to allot to the rector of the parish a certain portion of the waste lands in lieu of the tithes arising out of the waste lands to be inclosed. Sect. 11 recites that it is expedient that all the tithes upon the other lands in Hemsworth not directed to be inclosed should be extinguished, and in lieu, compen sation awarded to the rector, and then enacts that the annual compensation of 4s, shall be paid to the rector for the time being for ever, subject to the average price of wheat, for every acre of land within the parish. Over the door of the house where the respondent carried on his business was painted, in large legible characters," J. Hamilton, Surgeon," and in very small letters underneath, "Boston, U.S., not registered in England"; and upon a glass panel of the door was painted, "J. Hamilton, anti-registered surgeon." The Sect. 17 enacts that, to prevent the settling of such proword" anti-registered" was written in small letters portions from creating disputes and differences between in scroll-work between the name and the profession, the rector and his parishioners, the rate to be assessed and was illegible except upon close inspection. on the amount of the rents to be given by this Act to The magistrate dismissed the information. the rector in lieu of his tithes for the old inclosure, shall The question for the court was whether, under the for ever hereafter be in such proportion to the rates to circumstances, there was sufficient evidence to warrant be assessed for the whole of the said parish as the a conviction under the 40th section of the Medical Act. commissioner (who is hereby directed to ascertain the L. Temple.-No doubt the case of Pedgrift v. Che-value of the estates within the parish) shall fix as the valier, 2 L.T. Rep. N.S. 360, is against the appellant so proportion which, considering the nature of a money far as it applies to this case. Under the 40th section payment, the rector ought to pay. a person may be convicted either for wilfully or falsely pretending to be a surgeon, or for assuming any name or description implying that he is registered under the Act, or that he is recognised by law as a physician, surgeon, &c. [COCKBURN, C.Š.—There is no pro The commissioner in his award directed that the rate to be assessed on the rector, in pursuance of sect. 17, should be one-fourteenth part of the amount of the rate "so made by me as aforesaid." And he found the amount of the rateable value of the lands to be Q. B.] REG. v. SAYERS AND THACKWELL. [Q. B. 4140/. 88., and the fourteenth part (2957.) as the rec- | future rates. However that may be, I agree with the tor's proportion. Recently a fresh valuation of the lands in the parish was made, and it was found that the rateable value had increased to 49871, and the rector's assessment was increased to 356., as being the fourteenth part. The rector appealed to the quarter sessions, but that court confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of this court. fact, is void. rest of the court that the award is invalid pro tanto. HILL, J.-If Mr. Manisty's argument were good, the duty of the commissioners would have been very simple, merely to determine a given sum which the rector was to pay for all time thereafter; but the Act does not impose such a duty on the commissioner. The words "considering the nature of a money payment" are a key to the construction of the whole section. The Campbell Foster in support of the order of sessions. commissioner does not appear to have done the duty -The 16th section of the Act enacts that the allot-imposed on him, and therefore the award, quoad this ments and annual rent granted to the rector by sect. 11 shall at all times be rated proportionably with other lands within the parish. Then sect. 17 enacts, in order to prevent the settling of such proportions from creating disputes between the rector and his parishioners, the rector's rate for ever thereafter should be in such proportion to the rates" to be assessed for the whole parish as the commissioner shall fix as the proportion which the rector ought to pay, considering the nature of a money payment. Then the commissioner having fixed the proportion at a fourteenth, that is the proportion of all future rates which he is to pay. [BLACKBURN, J.-What is the meaning of the words in the award, 66 so made by me as aforessaid ?"] They may be treated as surplusage, or the award may be considered invalid pro tanto. Manisty and West for the appellant.--The sessions have assumed that the rector was to be rated at onefourteenth of the increased value of the lands in the parish. If this construction is correct, it may be ruincus to the rector; e. g., if a railway was to come through the parish, and thereby greatly increase the value of the lands in the parish, and the rector be bound to pay one-fourteenth of that increased value, it might absorb the whole of his income. The COURT intimated that they were prepared to say that the commissioner's award was invalid upon this subject, and that it would necessarily follow that the rate could not then be sustained. The appellant's object being then gained, it would not be necessary to ascertain the correct construction of the statute. Manisty. That will content the appellant. BLACKBURN, J.-I think the Legislature intended, as has since been done in the Health of Towns Act, to rate one description of property higher than another, on the ground that it was not just to rate them all alike, and that, considering a money payment was more advantageous than the usual mode of collecting tithe, the commissioner was to determine the proportion the rector was to pay in all future rates, and not having done that, the award is bad. Rate quashed, Monday, Nov. 26. REG. v. SAYERS AND THACKWELL (Justices of Certiorari-Tithe Commutation Amendment Act-23 ment. The 28th section of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 93, enacts that "whenever any person other than the persons legally entitled to the possession of the same, shall have possession of the sealed copy of any confirmed instrunent of apportionment, it shall be lawful for any two justices of the peace for the county or other jurisdiction within which the lands mentioned in the said apportionment are situate, upon the application of any person interested in the lands or rentcharge, and upon fourteen days' notice in writing of such application to the person or persons in whose custody such copy shall be at the time of such application, to hear and determine such application," &c : Held, that such notice refers to a notice of an application that has already been made; and where a fourteen days' notice had been given of an intention to apply to the justices, and they heard the application ex parte, and made an order under the above section, this court granted a writ of certiorari to quash the same. COCKBURN, C.J.-I am of opinion that the award of the commissioner is bad in this respect, and that it does not do that which the Act prescribes. The parties, therefore, must stand on their ordinary legal rights. The Act prescribes that the commissioner shall fix the proportion which the rent giver. by the Milward moved for a rule calling on the Rev. AnAct to the rector is to bear to the general rate of the drew Sayers, clerk, and John Cann Thackwell, Esq., parish. It is very true that the commissioner is directed to two of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the ascertain the value of the real property in the parish, county of Gloucester, to show cause why a writ of cerand the purpose in so doing is to enable him to ascertiorari should not issue to bring up a certain order of tain the proportion of the rector's rate to future rates, the said justices dated the 18th Oct. last, whereby regard being had by him to the nature of a money it was adjudged and ordered that Edmund Edmonds, payment in lieu of tithe, being of a more advantageous nature. The Act does not require him to fix a given sum, but only the proportion which the rector's rate is to bear to the future rates. The commissioner is not to determine a fixed sum for all future rates, but a fixed proportion; and when the commissioner ascertained the precise sum, he did not do that which the Act directed him to do, and therefore the award, quoad the rector's rating, is bad. The rate in question, therefore, cannot be supported, and the parties will stand in the same position as if the Act had not passed. WIGHTMAN, J.-I have had very great doubts whether the argument of the appellant was not well founded, as to the construction to be put upon the Act. I am inclined to think that the words of sect. 17 rather imply that, as the rector stood in a more advantageous position by having a money payment granted to him in lieu of tithe than the rest of the parish, and that all that the commissioner had to do was to ascertain the amount to be paid by the rector to the MAG. CAS.] who did not appear, should forthwith deliver up to the churchwardens of the parish of Newent, in the county of Gloucester, the sealed copy of the confirmed instrument of apportionment of and for the said parish of Newent, and that the same be deposited by them the said churchwardens in the vestry of the parish church of Newent aforesaid; that a fine of 20s. for each day that the said sealed copy of the said confirmed instrument of apportionment should be retained by the said Edmund Edmonds, contrary to the terms of the said order and adjudication, should be paid by the said E. Edmonds, as the person retaining the same; and that the sum of 8s. costs be forthwith paid by the said E. Edmonds to Mr. Hill, and on nonpayment of the same to be recovered by distress. From the affidavits it appeared that Mr. Edmonds was an attorney practising at Newent, and was the duly appointed receiver of the tithe rentcharge for the said parish payable to the vicar; that on the 27th Sept. last he was served with a notice signed by John Hill, one of the churchwardens 2 G of his intention to apply to the justices for the delivery | up of the sealed copy of the confirmed instrument of apportionment, and that on the 13th Oct. he delivered the same into the possession of the Rev. Arthur Andrew Onslow, the vicar of the said parish, and that on delivering the same to the said vicar, the said E. Edmonds requested the said vicar to give notice thereof to the said John Hill. The order in question assumed to have been made by the said justices under the authority of the 28th section of the Tithe Commutation Amendment Act, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 93, which enacts that "Whenever any person other than the persons legally entitled to the possession of the same shall have possession of the sealed copy of any confirmed instrument of apportionment, it shall be lawful for any two justices of the peace for the county or other jurisdiction within which the lands mentioned in the said apportionment are situate, upon the application of any persons interested in the lands or rentcharge, and upon fourteen days' notice in writing of such application to the person or persons in whose custody such copy shall be at the time of such application, to hear and determine such application, and upon hearing such application the said justices may order such copy to be removed from the custody of the person holding the same, and to be deposited in such other custody as the said justices having reference to the security and due preservation of such copy and to the convenience of the parties interested therein may think fit, and may impose a fine not exceeding 20s. for each day that any such copy shall be retained contrary to the terms of such order upon the person so retaining it, and may make such further order concerning the notice to be given of such removal and deposit, and concerning the costs of such application, and the said fine, or of any opposition thereto, as they may think reasonable." No summons had been issued, and the order was made on the ex parte application of Hill, Edmonds not appearing. Macnamara showed cause in the first instance.The notice referred to in the section, which was in this case duly given, is substituted for a summons; the same thing has been enacted in the Recovery of Small Tenements Act, and in other Acts. [COCKBURN, C.J.-There the party complained against is not subject to fine.] The Highway Act may also be taken as an illustration. [BLACKBURN, J.-Does not it rather point to a notice of the application having been made after it has been made?] It is a condition precedent, and the question is, upon the facts here stated, have the justices acted in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. The certiorari having been taken away, no such writ can issue on the merits. COCKBURN, C.J.-The statute being loose in its expressions, we must pursue the safer course. BLACKBURN, J.-I take it that it clearly lies with you in the present case to show that the Legislature have dispensed with any preliminary step. COCKBURN, C.J.-Where there is a serious doubt whether the section points to an application thereafter to be made, or one that has been made, the safer course is to say that it refers to an application that has been made. HILL and BLACKBURN, JJ. concurred. Rule absolute to quash the order. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Reported by F. BAILEY, and S. M'CULLOCH, Esqrs., Barristers at-Law. [Ex. The Medical Practitioners Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90, s. 40, enacts, that any person who shall wilfully and falsely pretend to be, or take, or use the name or tille of (inter alia), Doctor of Medicine, or any name, title, addition, or description, implying that he is registered under that Act, or that he is recognised by law as a physician, practitioner in medicine, &c., shall upon summary conviction pay a sum not exceeding 201. The respondent had on a brass plate on his gate "Dr. Kelly," called himself and was called Dr. Kelly." He had a diploma of the University of Erlangen, in Bavaria, which authorised him to practise medicine throughout Germany, His name was on the medical register as “Mem, Royal Coll. of Surgeons, England, 1856, Lic. Soc. Apoth. Lon. 1856," but not as Doctor of Medicine. The respondent was summoned before justices for the penalty under the 40th section, for taking and using the name of Doctor, and title of Doctor of Medicine, not being on the Medical Register as such. They dismissed the complaint. On appeal to this court under the Summary Proceedings of Justices Act: Held, that the justices acted quite right. The respondent was not guilty of any offence created by the above enactment; and by Wilde, B., that it was a question of fact for magistrates only to decide, not one of law to be reserved for the opinion of this court, as decided in Ladd r. Gould, 1 L. T. Rep. N.S. 325: Held, also, that on an appeal against the determination of justices under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, the party in support of the information or complaint is entitled to begin the argument. The following case was stated by the magistrates of Middlesex for the opinion of this court. John Ellis informant, Hubert Edmond Charles Kelly defendant:— Middlesex, to wit.-This is an information pre ferred by John Ellis, of Pinner, Middlesex, gentleman, against Hubert E. C. Kelly, of the same place, surgeon, for having on the 2nd Nov. last, at Pianer, in the said county, wilfully and falsely pretended to be, and did take and use the name or title of a doctor of medicine, thereby implying that he is so registered under the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90. The defendant having appeared before us the undersigned upon summons, to answer the said informa tion, it was thereupon proved on the part of the said John Ellis as follows: First, that the said defendant has had for years past and on the day named in the information a brass plate affixed on the outer gate of his residence, on which is "Dr. Kelly." He put in a published copy of the last Medical Register, in which defendant's name appears as follows, "Kelly, Hubert Edmond Charles, Pinner, Middlesex, Mem. Royal Coll. of Surgeons, England, 1856, Lic. Soc. Apoth. Lon. 1856." Has heard him call himself Dr. Kelly; there is no other Dr. Kelly at Pinner but defendant. For defence a document purporting to be a diploms of the University of Erlangen, in Bavaria, was put in, and in support of its genuineness the following witnesses were called: Gustavus Morris Strauss, doctor of philosophy of Berlin, sworn.-That he was acquainted with diplomas of the University of Erlangen. That one of the seals attached to the one produced was that of the Great University, the other the seal of the Medical Faculty. That the diploma permitted the person therein named (H. E. C. Kelly) to practise medicine throughout Germany; believed the signature of one of ELLIS (appellant) v. KELLY (respondent). the professors (Rosshuit) attached to the diploma to Medical Practit oners Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90 be genuine, as he had received a letter from Professor -Doctor of Medicine pretending to be-Matter of Rosshuit, but had never seen him write or sign his fact for justices to determine-Appeal-Summary name. On cross-examination stated he did not know Proceedings (Justices) Act, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. the regulations of that university, but at five other. Wednesday, Nov. 14. |