disability, by reason of such person, or some one or more of such persons, being imprisoned at the time of such cause of action or suit accrued." (s. 10.)

Period of limitation to run as to joint debtors in the kingdom.]— "Where such cause of action or suit, with respect to which the period of limitation is fixed by the enactments aforesaid, or any of them, lies against two or more joint debtors, the person or persons who shall be entitled to the same shall not be entitled to any time within which to commence and sue any such action or suit against any one or more of such joint debtors who shall not be beyond the seas at the time such cause of action or suit accrued, by reason only that some other one or more of such joint debtors was or were, at the time such cause of action accrued, beyond the seas, and such person or persons so entitled as aforesaid shall not be barred from commencing and suing any action or suit against the joint debtor, or joint debtors, who was or were beyond seas at the time the cause of action or suit accrued after his or their return from beyond seas, by reason only that judgment was already recovered against any one or more of such joint debtors who was not or were not beyond seas at the time aforesaid." (s. 11.)

Definition of “beyond seas," within 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, and this act.] "No part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, nor the Islands of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, nor any islands adjacent to any of them, being part of the dominions of Her Majesty, shall be deemed to be beyond seas within the meaning of the act 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, or of this act." (s. 12.)

Provisions of Lord Tenterden's Act extended to acknowledgments by agents." In reference to the provisions of the acts 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, ss. 1, 8, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 113, ss. 24, 27, an acknowledgment or promise made or contained by or in a writing, signed by an agent of the party chargeable, thereby duly authorized to make such acknowledgment or promise, shall have the same effect as if such writing had been signed by such party himself." (s. 13.)

Part payment by one contractor, &c., not to prevent bar by certain Statutes of Limitations in favour of another contractor, fc.]—“In reference to the provisions of 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, s. 3, and of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 3, and of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 113, s. 20, when there shall be two or more co-contractors or co-debtors, whether bound or liable jointly only or jointly and severally, or executors or administrators of any contractor, no such co-contractor or co-debtor, executor or administrator, shall lose the benefit of the said enactments, or any of them, so as to be chargeable in respect or by reason only of payment of any principal, interest, or other money by any other or others of such co-contractors or co-debtors, executors or administrators. (s. 14.)

Page 87-Indorsement on the summons of plaintiff's place of business, where he is an attorney suing in person, is sufficient, though he does not sleep at such place : (Ablett v. Basham, 5 E. & B. 1019.) Page 101, n. (3), add-Cole v. Sherrard, 11 Exch. 482.

Page 103, to n. (4), add-Where a writ was issued for service within the jurisdiction, and an order had been obtained for liberty to proceed, the defendant, on an affidavit that he was residing abroad, was held right in applying to set aside the order and not the writ itself: (Hesketh v. Fleming, 24 L. J. 255, Q. B.)

Page 103, n. (4), add-Thus, where a writ, framed for a British subject residing out of the jurisdiction, was issued and renewed from time to time, and at length served on the defendant in this country, the plaintiff not knowing that the defendant's attorney had previously entered an appearance, the court refused to set the proceeding aside : (Green v. Braddyll, 1 H. & N. 69.)

Page 107, after Form of Affidavit, add-Where the defendant was duly served, and did not appear, the judge has made an order to this effect: That the plaintiff should be at liberty to proceed in the action by filing a declaration against the defendant, requiring him to plead thereto in eight days, and by sticking up a notice of such declaration in the Master's office; and that, in default of the defendant pleading within the said eight days, it be referred to one of the Masters to examine into and see that the plaintiff's case is proved, by affidavit or otherwise, as the Master shall think fit, and that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to sign final judgment for the amount found due by the Master (Firmin v. Perry, 27 L. T. 72, Q.B.)

The application by the defendant to set aside the proceedings, on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction, must be made within a reasonable time: (Hutton v. Whitehouse, 1 H. & N. 32.)

Page 116, to first paragraph, add - The affidavit used may be merely the ordinary affidavit of merits, without stating the defence in detail; but it seems doubtful, whether an affidavit in answer to such affidavit ought to be allowed: (Warrington v. Leake, 11 Exch. 304.)

Page 123, n. (3), add-Yet, if the plaintiff is stayed merely by an order to find security for costs, the period does not count; but if security is found within the year, then the plaintiff must declare also within the year: (Ross v. Green, 10 Exch. 891.)

Page 125, et seq.-Service of notices, pleadings, &c., on Saturdays.] -"Service of pleadings, notices, summonses, orders, rules, and other proceedings, shall be made before seven o'clock p. m., except on Saturdays, when it shall be made before two o'clock, m. If made after seven o'clock, p. m., on any day except Saturday, the service shall be deemed as made on the following day, and if made after two o'clock p. m., on Saturday, the service shall be deemed as made on the following Monday:" (Rule Pr. E. T. 1856.)

Page 146, to end of second paragraph, add-In actions by patentees defendant is entitled to such particulars as will describe those portions of the machines to which plaintiff contends that his invention has been applied, so as to enable the defendant to understand as far as possible, the nature of the machines as to which he is to be charged.

and it is no answer to the application for such particulars, that defendant's answer to interrogatories is insufficient to enable plaintiff to furnish the particulars, for if those answers were insufficient they should have been objected to. The plaintiff was allowed to inspect the machines on the premises of the defendant, and also to examine him virâ voce: (Jones v. Lea, 25 L. J. 241, Exch.)

Page 151, n. (4)—but see Morgan v. Tarte, 11 Exch. 82, as to a reference before declaration, and no power reserved to the arbitrator to amend.

Page 151, n. (6), add-Also after judgment: (Cannan v. Reynolds, 1 Jur. N. S. 873, Q. B.)

Page 151, n. (7), add--But in ordering better particulars the court will not order to be included, payments made by the defendant: (Fussell v. Gordon, 13 C. B. 847.)

Pages 151, 156, 291, 298—Interrogatories.]—Interrogatories, the answers to which may be reasonably expected to procure a discovery of what will advance the interrogating party's case, are legitimate, and it is not an objection that the answers may be expected at the same time to disclose the interrogated party's case. Aliter, if the answers may reasonably be expected to relate exclusively to the case of the interrogated party: (Whately v, Crowter, 5 E. & B. 709.)

Where the plaintiff, immediately after the defendant appeared, but before declaring, applied for leave to administer interrogatories, it was held that more was necessary to be stated in the affidavit than merely that there was a good cause of action, and the discovery would be material. The nature of the case must be set forth so that the judge might consider of the propriety of the interrogatories: (Croomes v. Morrison, 5 E. & B. 984.)

Where a party refuses to answer interrogatories, a rule for an attachment will not be made absolute without personal service: (Russell v. Dodd, 30th Jan. 1857, B. C.)

Page 157, to fourth line from the bottom, add-After plea, the court will allow the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories without a special affidavit: (James v. Barns, 17 C. B. 596.)

Page 158, after the Form of Answer, add-"The answer must not be general, but should assign reasons for refusing to answer each interrogatory specifically: (Chester v. Wortley, 18 C. B. 239.)

Page 161, n. (1), add—See also Chester v. Wortley, 17 C. B. 410.

Page 163, to end of first paragraph, add-Interrogatories may be administered in ejectment as in other causes: (Chester v. Wortley, 17 C. B. 410; Flitcroft v. Fletcher, 11 Exch. 543;) and the plaintiff may be interrogated as to the character in which he sues and the pedigree on which he relies. (Ibid.)

Page 165, n. (3), add-Since the rule of court, requiring pleadings to be delivered before two o'clock on Saturdays, if the declaration was delivered on the 1st August, and the 9th August was Saturday, a

plea delivered after two o'clock p. m. of that day is a nullity, and judgment may be signed on the Monday: (Sharp v. Fox, 1 H. & N. 496.)

Page 176, n. (2), add-Weld v. Baxter, 11 Exch. 816.

Page 177, to form of plea 12, add (note)—The plaintiff may, under the general form of replication joining issue on this plea, and without replying excess, show, that although he struck the first blow, the defendant was guilty of excess: (Dean v. Taylor, 11 Exch. 68.)

Page 177, to form of plea, add (note)—No plea of judgment is necessary when the contract was for ready money, and the money was paid: (Wood v. Bletcher, 27 L. T. 126, Exch.)

Page 190, n. (2), add-So, in an action of libel, a plea setting out facts to show that the alleged libel was a fair comment, will not be allowed to be pleaded, together with a plea of not guilty: (Earl of Lucan v. Smith, 1 H. & N. 481.)

Page 198, to end of paragraph, add-If the rule to strike out an embarrassing plea is made absolute, the party obtaining it gets the costs as costs in the cause, but if the rule is varied, the costs are not given to him unless expressly so directed: (Barnes v. Hayward, 1 H. & N. 242.)

Page 203, n. (1), add—So, a special replication may be allowed, together with a general traverse of the plea, though it does not raise a distinct defence, where the special replication enables the parties to raise by demurrer the substantial question to be decided in the cause: (Williams v. African Steam Navigation Company, 1 H. & N. 19.)

Page 216, n. (3), add-(But see Fenn v. Green, 27 L. T. 170, Q. B.)

Page 237, n. (8), add-See as to mode of rebutting this presump tion, Crowther v. Solomons, 6 C. B. 758.

Page 256, n. (2), add-This rule extends to the costs of a habeas corpus, to bring up a prisoner as a witness to give evidence in two causes: (Griffin v. Hoskyns, 1 H. & N. 95.)

Page 257, to n. (7), add—But if the witness, after receiving his conduct money, and having done nothing in reference to his attendance, et s notice not to attend, he cannot retain the money, but may be sued by the party for the same, as money had and received: (Martin v. Andrews, 22nd Nov. 1856, Q. B.)

Page 259, n. (12), add—Where a deed is executed under a power of attorney the party so executing should be served with a subpona duces tecum, otherwise secondary evidence cannot be given: (Hibberd v. Knight, 1 Exch. 11.)

Page 260, n. (7), add—Netherwood v. Wilkinson, 17 C. B. 226.

Page 262, n. (12).—Nor does the protection extend to the service

of a writ of summons even in the Nisi Prius Court: (Poole v. Gould, 1 H. & N. 99.)

Page 265, after ss. 1 and 2 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 34, add-The rule is absolute in the first instance: (Readman v. Broers, 1 Jur. N. S. 1052; Harris v. Barber, 25 L. J. 98, Q. B.) It seems unnecessary, on the application, to show that the witness to be subpoenaed will be called as a witness, if it is reasonable that he should attend: (Ibid)

Page 272.-Witnesses necessary for the purposes of foreign suits, who reside in this country, may now be compelled to be examined on oath, before a commissioner, and the witness is guilty of perjury if he give false evidence: (see 19 & 20 Vict. c. 113, ss. 1 to 6.).

Page 275, n. (3), add—But the court has discharged that part of the rule staying proceedings on the ground of unreasonable delay: (Butler v. Fox, 9 Č. B. 199.)

Page 278, n. (1), add-Williamson v. Page, 1 C. B. 464.

Page 280, after the form of mandamus to examine, add-Where the mandamus issued to the "chief justice and other justices," who were two, the chief justice and one puisne justice only took the evidence and it was held good: (R. v. Douglas, 13 Q. B. 42.) So, copies certified by the registrars of court who did not state they were copies, were held good: (Ibid.)

Page 283, n. (5), add-But where, in consequence of the plaintiff abandoning that part of his case to which the commission applied, the commission was not read, and the defendant succeeded on that issue, the defendant was held entitled to the costs of the commission: (Jewell v. Parr, 17 C. B. 636.)

Page 288, to second paragraph, add-The affidavit should state positively that the applicant is entitled, or grounds for his being so: (Ex parte Cooke, 5 D. & L. 413.)

Page 288, to end of third paragraph, add-Where the party alleges the document is lost, a judge cannot order that if such party does not produce the document to be stamped a copy duly stamped shall be read at the trial without objection, though the original be tendered: (Rankin v. Hamilton, 15 Q. B. 187.)

Page 291, n. (6), add-Wright v. Morrey, 11 Exch. 209.

Page 292, to end of first paragraph, add-Inspection of documents will be refused in an action not brought bona fide, but merely to obtain inspection with a view to aid another action: (Temperley v. Willett, 25 L. J. 259, Q. B.)

Page 292- Discovery will be refused if the party has already given an extract of the only documents he possesses, and has so informed the party applying: (Bray v. Finch, 1 H. & N. 468.)

Page 293, n. (14), add-See Tetley v. Easton, 18 C. B. 643.