BY Admission of offence charged - With-
drawal of admission.]-See PUBLIC SERVICE.
Bridges v. The Commonwealth
. 1195

1411

APPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEES-Removal
of trustee-Vesting of property in succeeding
trustee Action of ejectment by trustees
against mortgagor in default - Dispute be-
tween society and members-Jurisdiction of
Supreme Court.]-See TRUSTEE. Heydon v.
Lillis
1223

(Qd.) (51 Vict. No. 7), sec. 179-Local Authori-
ties Act 1902 (Qd.) (2 Edw. VII. No. 19), sec.
182.1-A by-law which is prima facie within
the powers of the authority enacting it is not
rendered invalid by reason of its prohibiting
certain acts simpliciter without reference to
guilty intention, nor by reason of its adding
to the previously existing law governing the
same subject matter. The question whether
a by-law is unreasonable is not to be deter-
mined by reference to its expediency in con-
nection with the particular subject matter or
place to which it is applied. A by-law made
by a local authority purporting to act under
The Divisional Boards Act 1887 (Qd.), pro-
vided that "No person shall in any way
injure or destroy the water-table, gutterway,
or side drain of any road in the Division in
any way whatsoever, either by crossing or
driving along or into the same with any cart,
dray, wagon, or other conveyance, or by cast-
ing or depositing, or causing to be deposited,
therein any material calculated to impede or
obstruct the course of the waterflow." Held,
that the by-law was valid. Decision of Full
Court, Widgee Shire Council v. Bonney, 1907
St. R. Qd., 38, reversed. Widgee Shire
Council v. Bonney

977
CASES-Agar-Ellis, In re; Agar-Ellis v. Las-
celles, 10 Ch. D., 49, considered and applied
1648

1463

-Broome v. Speak, (1903) 1 Ch., 586, con-
sidered and applied
1693
-Chanter v. Blackwood, 1 C.L.R., 39,
affirmed
1481
-Charlesworth v. Watson, (1906) A.C., 14,
distinguished
953

-Cirencester Case, 4 O'M. & H., 194; Day's
Elec. Cas., 155, applied
1463

C.I.F. CONTRACT, CONSTRUCTION OF Sale of
goods to be shipped abroad – Obligations of
vendor as to quality and condition of goods-
Implied warranty.]-See CONTRACT. Bowden
Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Little
1364
COMBINATION, CLAIM FOR-Invention already
in possession of public—Description in speci-
fication of State patent -- Construction of
claim-Opportunity for applicant to amend—
Patents Act 1903 (No. 21 of 1903), secs. 56,
78.]-See PATENT. Moore and Hesketh v.
Phillips
1411

COMMENT UPON ACCUSED PERSON REFRAIN-
ING FROM GIVING EVIDENCE ON OATH-
Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), (No. 40 of 1900), sec.
407, sub-sec. 2.]-See PRACTICE. Bataillard
v. The King-
1282
COMMISSIONERS, LIABILITY OF-Railways-
Fire escaping from engine-Omission to burn
grass within railway fences-Occupation of
railway land by another person-Railways
Act 1890 (Viet.) (No. 1135), sec. 115.]-See
NEGLIGENCE. Victorian Railways Commis-
sioners v. Campbell

1446

-

CONDITION AND QUALITY OF GOODS, OBLIGA-
TIONS OF VENDOR AS TO-Sale of goods to
be shipped abroad - Construction of c.i.f.
contract-Implied warranty.]-See CONTRACT.
Bowden Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Little - 1364
CONDITIONAL PURCHASE, NON-RESIDENTIAL
Price to be paid by applicant - - Crown
Lands Act 1884 (N.S.W.), (48 Viet. No. 18), sec.
47, sub-sec. (iii.).]-See CROWN LANDS. Marsh
v. Williams -
- 1457
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF—Declaratory order—
Validity of Commonwealth Statute-Rules of
High Court 1903, Part I., Order III., r. 1—
Trade Marks Act 1905 (No. 20 of 1905), Part
VII.] See PRACTICE. Bruce v. Commonwealth
Trade Marks Label Association

1569

CONSIDERATION, REASONABLE AND SUFFI-
CIENT, GIVEN AT THE TIME—True statement
of consideration.]-See INSOLVENCY. Bank of
Australasia v. Hall

1514
CONSOLIDATION OF STATUTES-Principles of
construction-Repeal of enactment modifying
common law--Revival of previously existing
law - Intention of legislature.]—See STATUTES,
CONSOLIDATION OF. Marshall v. Smith 1617

CONSTITUTION, POWER TO ALTER-State laws
inconsistent with State Constitution In-
validity.]-See INCOME TAX. Cooper v. Com-
missioner of Income Tax (Queensland) - 1304
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF COMMONWEALTH
AND STATE, QUESTION AS TO LIMITS INTER
SE OF.]-See LEGISLATIVE POWERS. Baxter
v. Commissioners of Taxation (N.S. W.) 1087
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF COMMONWEALTH
AND STATE-Limits inter se-Income Tax-
Appeal to Privy Council-Certificate of High
Court- Special reasons”-The Constitution
(63 & 64 Viet. c. 12), sec. 74.]-See LEGISLA -
TIVE POWERS. Flint v. Webb
- 1178
CONTINGENT AND LIQUIDATED LIABILITIES.]
-See INSOLVENCY. Bank of Australasia v.
Hall
1514

CONTRACT INDUCED BY FALSE REPRESEN-
TATION-Fraudulent intention - Misdescrip-
tion of property sold-Inspection by purchaser
—Measure of damages.]—See DECEIT, ACTION
FOR. Holmes v. Jones
1692
CONTRACT-Sale of sheep-Right of purchaser
to refuse to accept sheep “unfit to travel ”—
Refusal to accept others which were fit to
travel-Provisional refusal-Measure of dam-
ages-Repudiation by vendor-Sale of Goods
Act 1896 (Qd.) (60 Vict. No. 6), secs. 14 (2), 39,
52.]-By a contract for the sale of a specific
flock of sheep of a specified number at a
certain price per head of those delivered and
accepted, it was provided that the sheep

CONTRACT-continued.

should be delivered at a place between 200
and 300 miles from where the sheep then
were, and to which the sheep would have to
travel on foot, and that the purchaser should
have the option of rejecting all sheep unfit to
travel. By the law of Queensland travelling
sheep are required to travel at the rate of six
miles per day. The destination of the sheep
was unknown to the vendor, but it was within
the contemplation of the parties that they
would have to travel a considerable distance.
The purchaser paid a deposit of £250. In an
action by the purchaser for return of the
deposit and for damages for non-delivery of
the sheep, it appeared that the vendor refused
to deliver any of the sheep unless the pur-
chaser would agree to accept and pay for
sheep which were in fact unfit to travel more
than one day's stage. Held, that this
amounted to a breach of contract by the
vendor entitling the purchaser to a return of
the deposit. Held, also, that a refusal by the
purchaser to accept some of the sheep which
he should have accepted, which refusal the
jury found the purchaser was willing to
reconsider, did not entitle the vendor to refuse
to deliver the sheep which the purchaser was
willing to accept. Held, also, that, even had
the refusal been absolute and unjustifiable,
provided that it was not of such a number as
to go to the foundation of the contract, the
vendor would not have been entitled to refuse
to deliver those sheep which the purchaser
was willing to accept, his remedy being under
sec. 39 of the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Q.).
The jury having found that there was no
available market for the sheep at the place of
delivery, but that the value of the sheep at
that place was not more than the price agreed
to be paid for them: Held (Griffith C.J.
dissenting), that the purchaser was only
entitled to nominal damages. It appeared
that the defendant had made a large profit by
the re-sale of the sheep: Held by Griffith
C.J., that this latter finding was not conclu-
sive as to the estimated loss directly or
actually resulting in the ordinary course of
events from the sale in breach of contract
(Sale of Goods Act, sec. 52 (2) ), and that the
defendant was entitled to a re-assessment of
damages. Decision of Supreme Court, Francis
v. Lyon, 1906 St. R. Qd., 306, reversed.
Francis v. Lyon
1023

-Vendor and purchaser-Deposit paid to
agent of vendor-Rescission of contract-Re-
covery of deposit from vendor-Stakeholder.]
-By the conditions of a contract in writing
for the sale of land and stock it was provided
that a deposit of £500 should be paid by the
purchasers to A. "as agent for the vendor.'
By another condition it was provided that as
soon as the purchasers had accepted title "the
deposit shall be paid over to the vendor." The

-Vendor and purchaser-Sale of goods
to be shipped abroad-Construction of c.i.f.
contract-Obligations of vendor as to quality
and condition of goods-Implied warranty.]—
A firm of merchants carrying on business in
Japan agreed to sell to a purchaser in Sydney
"450 tons of Japan onions" at certain prices
"c.i.f. Sydney," the goods to be shipped by
the vendors from Japan by certain ships on
approximately specified dates. The vendors
shipped from Kobe, Japan, to Sydney, a
quantity of onions which, so far as condition
and quality were concerned, were merchant-
able at the port of shipment, but on arriving
at the port of destination were found to have
become during the voyage rotten and unfit for
sale. The purchaser rejected the goods and
refused to pay the price. In an action by the
vendors to recover the price, and a cross-action
by the purchaser for damages for non-delivery
of onions in accordance with the contract:
Held, that the obligations of the vendors were
fulfilled when they had put on board the ships,
at the dates specified, onions of the kind and
quality contracted for, and had paid the
freight, insured the goods, and forwarded to
the purchaser the bill of lading, policy of
insurance, and all necessary shipping docu-
ments to entitle the purchaser to obtain de.
livery of the goods, and that thereafter the
risk in the goods was wholly upon the pur-
chaser. Held, also, that it was a question of
fact depending upon all the circumstances
whether, and to what extent, the purchaser
relied upon the skill or judgment of the
vendors to supply goods fit for the purpose of
shipment to Sydney; that it could not be
implied, from the mere fact that the goods
were, to the knowledge of the vendors, bought
to be shipped abroad, that the vendors entered
into any warranty except that the goods were
merchantable; and that the question whether
any and what further warranty should be
implied depended upon the extent to which
the purchaser did in fact rely upon the skill
or judgment of the vendors. Nature and
extent of the various warranties, that might
under similar circumstances be implied, dis-
cussed. Statements by Blackburn J. in Ireland
v. Livingston, L.R. 5 H.L., 395, at p. 406,
and Lord Davey in Ströms Bruks Aktie Bolag
v. Hutchison, (1905) A.C., 515, at p. 528, as
to the incidents of a c.i.f." contract, adopted.

66

CONTRACT-continued.

Decision of the Supreme Court, Little v.
Bowden Bros., 23 N.S. W. W.N., 131, re-
versed. Bowden Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Little
1364

CONVICTION--Prosecution against firm-Use of
firm name in proceedings.]-See CRIMINAL
CASES. Bishop v. Chung Brothers 1262
COVENANT TO WORK ACCORDING TO BEST
AND MOST APPROVED METHOD-Construc-
tion.]-See MINING LEASE. Merewether v.
Scottish Australian Mining Co. Ltd.

953
CRIMIMAL CASES-Factories and Shops Act
1905 (Viet.) (No. 1975), secs. 42, 162 -Fac-
tories and Shops Act 1905 (No. 2) (Vict.) (No.
2008), sec. 9--Prosecution against firm -Use
of firm name in proceedings-Conviction.]--
A firm, of which A. and B. were the members,
being the occupiers of a factory, were in-
formed against and convicted under the firm
name of the offence under sec. 42 of the
Factories and Shops Act 1905 of permitting a
person to work in their factory after half-past
two on a Saturday afternoon. Held (Higgins
J. dissenting) that, notwithstanding sec. 162
(c) and (d) of that Act, and sec. 9 of the
Factories and Shops Act 1905 (No. 2), the
conviction was wrong, and that it should
have been of the members of the firm in their
own names. An order to review the convic-
tion was made absolute by the Supreme Court.
Held per Griffith C.J., Barton and Isaacs JJ.,
that the case should have been remitted to the
justices to convict the persons proved to be
members of the firm. Judgment of Chomley
J. Bishop v. Chung Brothers, (1907) V.L.R.,
61; 28 A. L.T., 106, reversed. Bishop v. Chung
Brothers
1262

:

CROWN LANDS-continued.

per acre with his application, and, if his appli-
cation is confirmed by the Land Board, must,
at the expiration of three years from its con-
firmation, pay an instalment on the purchase
at the rate of one shilling per acre and "a like
instalment annually during a period and until
the balance of seventeen shillings per acre
together with interest" is paid. Certain
conditions, including that of residence by the
applicant, are attached to conditional pur-
chases in general. Sec. 47 provides that
Crown lands open to conditional purchase
may be applied for and held without con-
ditions of residence, but subject to more
onerous conditions and of a lesser area than
in the case of ordinary conditional purchases;
and by sub-sec. (iii.) "the deposit and all
subsequent instalments shall be double those
respectively prescribed on ordinary conditional
purchases and shall be paid to the like persons
and at the like periods." Held, that, though
regarded by themselves, the words of sub-sec.
(iii.) were capable of meaning that the total
price was to be the same as in the case of ordin-
ary conditional purchases, the deposits and
instalments being merely doubled in amount,
and the period over which the latter extended
thereby shortened, the intention of the legis-
lature, plainly expressed on the face of the
Statute, to discourage rather than to encourage
conditional purchases without residence, justi-
fied the Court in following the decision of the
Supreme Court in Walker v. Walker, (1901) 1
S.R. (N.S.W.), 70, and in construing the sub-
section as imposing an obligation upon appli-
cants for such holdings to pay the same
number of periodical instalments as would be
necessary in the case of conditionally pur-
chased land subject to the condition of resi-
dence, and at corresponding intervals, and,
therefore, in the end, to pay double the price.
Decision of the Supreme Court, 22nd October,
1906, affirmed. Marsh v. Williams - 1457

CROWN LEASEHOLDS.]-See DEED of Gift.
Anning v. Anning

-

⚫ 1049

CUSTOMS DUTIES - Customs Tariff 1902 (No. 14
of 1902), Schedule Division XIII., Items 122 and
123, Exemption (k) — Manufactures of paper
for advertising purposes — “Pictures (not
being advertising).")—By Item 122 of Division
XIII. of the Schedule to the Customs Tarifj
1902, under the heading "Paper and Station-
ery," a customs duty at the rate of 3d. per lb.
is charged on "Paper, viz. :-(A) Manufactures
of, unframed, for advertising purposes includ-
ing price lists, catalogues, and all printed or
lithographed matter for such purposes." By
special exemption (k) to that Division there
are exempted from duty," Pictures (not being
advertising), viz. :-Autotypes, chromographs,
engravings, etchings, oleographs, oil paint-
ings, photographs, photogravures, and water