the owner may break open a private stable, or enter the grounds of another to retake it, if he has reason to suspect that it is there, but not otherwise: (3 St. C. 245, 8th ed.)

Q. What is meant by the sale of goods in market overt? Supposing such goods to have been stolen from the true owner, will the purchaser under any, and what circumstances, obtain a legal title to the goods?

A.—The general rule is, that a man who has no property in goods cannot by making a sale transfer the property therein to another. There is an exception to this principle where goods are sold in market overt, which is a fair or market held at stated intervals in a particular place by virtue of a charter or prescription. The exception only applies to bona fide sales commenced and perfected in market overt, not to gifts or pawns therein. In the city of London every shop is, on every day except Sunday, market overt for goods usually dealt in there. Such sale, however, does not bind the Crown: (Chit. Cont. 11th edit.) When the owner from whom goods have been stolen has prosecuted the guilty party to conviction, he is entitled to a return of the stolen goods: (see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 100.)

Q. What remedies has the real owner of goods wrongfully sold by an auctioneer to a bona fide purchaser for value ?

A. Unless the auctioneer is the agent of the real owner, the purchaser will have no title whatever against him, unless perhaps in some cases where the goods are sold in market overt. But where the auctioneer has been entrusted with the goods for sale, and has acted contrary to his instructions or his authority has been revoked, the remedy of the real owner will be against the auctioneer only: (Add. Tort, 5th ed. 418; and see Factor's Acts, 6 Geo. 4, c. 94; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, and 40 & 41 Vict. c. 39).

THE SUPREME COURT AND ITS JURISDICTION, &c. Question. What are the divisions of the Supreme Court?

Answer. It is divided into "Her Majesty's High Court of Justice,” which has original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction from inferior courts; and "Her Majesty's Court of Appeal," which has appellate jurisdiction with such original jurisdiction as may be incident to the determination of any appeal: (1873 Act, s. 4.)

Q. Of what is the Court of Appeal composed?

A.-Of four ex officio judges and five ordinary justices of appeal: (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59, s. 15; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, s. 3.) These latter, except Baggallay, L.J., are liable to go circuit, and to be included in commissions of assize.

The ex officio judges are the Lord Chancellor (the President), the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.

The ordinary judges are now styled Lords Justices of Appeal: (40 Vict. c. 9.)

And the Lord Chancellor may request in writing the attendance of an

additional judge from any one or more of the Common Law and Probate Divisions (to be selected by the Division) to attend the sittings of the Court of Appeal: (1875 Act, s. 4).

Q. What jurisdiction vests in the Court of Appeal?

A.—1. All jurisdiction and powers of the Lord Chancellor and of the Court of Appeal in Chancery in the exercise of his and its appellate jurisdiction, and of the same court as a Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy. 2. All jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, of the County Palatine of Lancaster, and all jurisdiction and powers of the Chancellor of the Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster. 3. All jurisdiction and powers of the Court of the Lord Warden of the Stannaries, assisted by his assessors, including all jurisdiction and powers of the said Lord Warden when sitting in his capacity of judge. 4. All jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Exchequer Chamber. (a) 5. All jurisdiction vested in or capable of being exercised by Her Majesty in Council, or the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, upon appeal from any judgment or order of the High Court of Admiralty, or from any order in lunacy made by the Lord Chancellor, or any other person having jurisdiction in lunacy: (1873 Act, s. 18.)

Q.-Into what five Divisions was the High Court of Justice divided? A.-1. The Chancery Division, consisting of the Lord Chancellor (President thereof), the Master of the Rolls, and the three ViceChancellors, and Mr. Justice Fry: (40 Vict. c. 9.)

2. The Queen's Bench Division, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of England (President thereof) and the other judges of the Court of Queen's Bench.

3. The Common Pleas Division, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of that Court (President thereof) and the other judges of that court.

4. The Exchequer Division, consisting of the Lord Chief Baron (President thereof) and the other Barons, but these three Common Law Divisions are now consolidated into the Queen's Bench Division by order of council dated 16th day of December, 1880.

5. The Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, consisting of the Judge of the Court of Probate and of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, and of the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty: (1873 Act, s. 31.)

Q. What jurisdiction vests in the High Court of Justice?

A.-It includes (1) the High Court of Chancery as a Common Law Court as well as a Court of Equity, including the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls as a Judge or Master of the Court of Chancery and any jurisdiction exercised by him in relation to the Court of Chancery as a Common Law Court.

(2) The Court of Queen's Bench.

(3) The Court of Common Pleas at Westminster.

(4) The Court of Exchequer, as a court of revenue as well as a

Common Law Court.

(a) This includes appeals from the Lord Mayor's Court: (Le Blanche v. Reuter's Telegraph Company, Times, 1st May, 1876.)

(5) The High Court of Admiralty.

(6) The Court of Probate.

(7) The Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

(8) The Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster.

(9) The Court of Pleas at Durham.

(10) The Courts created by Commissioners of Assize of Oyer and Terminer, and of Gaol Delivery, or any such commissions.

The jurisdiction of this Act transferred to the High Court of Justice includes (subject to the exceptions hereinafter contained) the jurisdiction which at the commencement of this Act was vested in, or capable of being exercised by, all or any one or more of the judges of the said courts respectively sitting in court or chambers or elsewhere when acting as judges or a judge in pursuance of any statute, law, or custom, and all powers given to any such court, or to any such judges or judge, by any statute, and also all ministerial powers, duties, and authorities, incident to any and every part of the jurisdiction as transferred: (1873 Act, s. 16.)

Q. What were the limits of the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law at Westminster ?

A. Their jurisdiction was limited to England and Wales and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. But it must be remembered that, if the cause of action accrued here, parties might be sued in our courts and served with process abroad. And in transitory actions, if the parties were here, they might be sued here, although the cause of action accrued abroad: (Chit. Arch. 238, 13th edit.) And, further, by the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 54, a register of English judgments is kept at Dublin and Edinburgh, &c.; by means of certificates of judgments there sent, the courts to which the certificates are sent have the same control over the judgments as regards execution as they have over their own judgments. 1873 Act, s. 16, this jurisdiction was transferred to the High Court of Justice.

By the

Q.-Is a right to sue accruing in foreign parts taken away by a residence abroad of him to whom it accrues?

A.-If the cause of action accrues abroad, and the plaintiff is also abroad, yet if the defendant is here, and the cause of action is transitory the defendant may be sued here, if the claim be not statute barred. But if the cause of action accrues abroad, and both plaintiff and defendant are abroad, no action lies here: (Pat. & Mac. Pr. 3, 4; and see Chit. Cont. 91, 9th edit.)

Q.-State what are the usual matters referred by the court to one of the masters. Also state what matters can be disposed of by the Masters at Chambers.

A. They are to examine witnesses before trial when necessary; to ascertain damages on interlocutory judgments when the amount is substantially a matter of calculation; causes which involve matters of account which cannot be tried in the ordinary way; and applications made to the court involving long affidavits. The masters are also empowered to exercise all such authority and jurisdiction as may be exercised by a judge at chambers except in the following:

(a) All matters relating to criminal proceedings or to the liberty of the subject.

(b) Granting leave for service out of the jurisdiction of a writ or notice of a writ of summons.

(c) The removal of actions from one division or judge to another division or judge.

(d) The settlement of issues, except by consent.

(e) Inspection and other orders under Ord. L., rr. 1 to 5.

(ƒ) Appeals from district registrars.

(g) Prohibitions.

(h) Injunctions and other orders under sub-sect. 8 of sect. 25 of the 1873 Act.

(i) Awarding of costs, other than the costs of any proceeding before a master or registrar, except such as he is authorised by the rules or order of court to award.

(k) Reviewing taxation of costs.

(Orders absolute for charging stocks, funds, annuities, or share of dividends or annual proceeds thereof.

(m) Acknowledgments of married women: (Ord. LIV., r. 12.)

Q.-In what respect does the jurisdiction of a master of this division differ from that of a chief clerk of the Chancery Division on an ordinary summons?

A.—A chief clerk represents the judge as his deputy, and his orders are made in the name of a judge, whereas the jurisdiction of a master is distinct, and his orders are made in his own name, and accordingly appeals from district registrars can be heard before a chief clerk, but not before a master. There is also this difference, that in case of dissatisfaction with the decision of the chief clerk, the case may be referred at the request of either party to the judge without any order made, but a master's order must be the subject of regular appeal.

Interpleader.

Q.-What is the meaning of an interpleader?

A.-It is this: Where two or more persons claim the same thing of a third, wherein he claims no interest, and is ignorant to which of them it belongs, he may apply to the court or judge to compel them to interplead, or litigate the right between themselves, without involving him therein: (see Holth. L. D., 2nd edit.)

Q. When may relief by way of interpleader be granted?

A. (1.) Where the person seeking relief (called the applicant) is under liability for any debt, money, goods, or chattels, for or in respect of which he is, or expects to be, sued by two or more parties making adverse claims thereto.

(2.) Where the applicant is a sheriff or other officer charged with the execution of process by or under the authority of the High Court, and claim is made to any money, goods, or chattels taken, or intended to be taken, in execution under any process, or to proceeds or value of any

such goods or chattels, by any person other than the person against whom the process issued: (Order LVII., r. 1.)(a)

Q. What evidence is necessary in support of such an application, and when should it be made?

A.-The applicant must satisfy the court by affidavit or otherwise:

(a) That the applicant claims no interest in the subject-matter
in dispute, other than for charges or costs.

(b) That he does not collude with any of the claimants; and
(c) That he is willing to pay or transfer the subject-matter into
court, or to dispose of it as the court or judge may
direct. (b)

Where the applicant is a defendant, application for relief may be made at any time after the service of writ of summons: (Ib., rr. 2, 4.)

Q.—What is the course of proceeding on such interpleader?

A.—The applicant having taken out a summons calling on the claimants to appear and state the nature and particulars of their claims, if either neglects to appear, his claim is barred; if both appear the court or judge may order any claimant to be made defendant in any action already commenced with respect to the subject-matter, in lieu of or in addition to the applicant, or order an issue to be tried, directing at the same time which claimant is to be plaintiff and which defendant : (Ib. rr. 5, 7.)

Q-In what cases may the court or judge dispose of the question summarily?

A. (1.) By consent. (2.) On the request of any claimant if, having regard to the value of the subject-matter in dispute, it seems reasonable so to do. (3.) When the question is one of law, and the facts are not in dispute. In this case the opinion of the court may also be ordered to be taken by stating a "special case”: (Ib., rr. 8, 9.)

Q-Is judgment in an interpleader issue, or in a summary manner, conclusive?

A. Yes, both against the claimants and all persons claiming under them, unless special leave to appeal be given: (Ib., r. 11.)

Q. Where goods have been seized by a sheriff, and conflicting claims are made, has the court power to order a sale?

A. Where a claimant alleges he is entitled, under a bill of sale or otherwise, to the goods or chattels by way of security for debt, the court or a judge may order the sale of the whole or a part thereof, and direct the application of the proceeds: (Ib., r. 12.)

Q.-If a mortgagor sues for rent after the mortgagee has given the tenant notice of the mortgage, what course should the tenant take to obtain relief from both claims?

A.—It has been held that interpleader at law would not lie in such a

(a) Formerly it was necessary that the titles of the claimants should have a common origin; but this is not now a condition of relief: (Ib. 2, 3, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 126, s. 12.)

(b) This affidavit is not usually required from a sheriff, though in strictness he seems bound to produce it.