WHITEHEAD, ARTHUR, Hulme Manchester, Dyer Salford Amended notice substituted for that published in the NYE, THOMAS JOSEPH, New Brompton, Kent, Builder FIRST MEETINGS. BARKER, THOMAS HAROLD, Leeds, Tailor March 23 at 12 BARLOW, JOHN, jun, Elton, Bury, Grocer March 24 at 11 BENNS BROS. & Co., St Benet pl, Gracechurch st, Whole- BELL, JOHN JAMES, Birmingham, Pork Butcher Birming- CORONEO, CHRISTOPHER, Walton, Liverpool, Cargo Super- DAVIS, GEORGE, Southsea, General Dealer Newpo.t Pet Du MONT, JEROME ESPRIT BERNARD, Throgmorton av, BROWN, EMILY SOPHIA, Mayfield, Sussex March 21 at 11.30 Wool Merchants March 25 at 12 Off Rec, 31, Manor CURRY, SIMPSON, & CURRY, Brockley, Kent, Builders March FEELY, BRIDGET, Birmingham, Provision Merchant March GIBB, WILLIAM COWNIE, Wimbledon, Decorator March 23 Go' DHAND, FREDERICK, Louth, Lincs, Draper March 22 JOHNS, SYDNEY EUSTACE, Caroline st, Eaton ter March 23 KING, JOSEPH, Leeds, Traveller March 21 at 11 Off Rec, LAWRENCE, THOMAS, Swansea, Hatter March 22 at 2.15 MCCALLUM, DUNCAN, Watling st, Manufacturer's Agent MORTIMER, WILLIAM HENRY, Weston super Mare, Leather NOTON, JOHN, Pontefract, York, Blacksmith March 22 at NYE, THOMAS JOSEPH, New Brompton, Kent, Builder OLD, JOHN ARTHUR, Cheltenham, Licensed Victualler Off Rec, 13, Bedford crcs, Exeter SALA, BESSIE, Queen Anne's mansions March 24 at 12 SIMMONS, JAMES, Loughborough, Fish Dealer March 22 at SKINNER, JOHN RICHARD, Stockton on Tees, Boilerman SMITHIES, VALENTINE, Thornton, nr Bradford, Farmer STORELL, THOMAS, Stockton on Tees March 30 at 3 Off TAYLOR. RICHARD, West Bromwich April 6 at 2 County WALLACE, THOMAS, Copthall bldgs, Merchant March 23 WAREHAM, CHARLES HENRY, Cowes, I of W, Coal Merchant March 22 at 11.30 Off Rec, Newport, I of W 1 Bir- mingham Pet March 4 Ord March 12 GOLDRING, SAMUEL OSCAR, Leadenhall st, High Court HILL, JANE, West Hartlepool Sunderland Pet March 9 HITCHING, DANIEL, Parkstone, Dorset, Builder Poole HUGHES, MARK, Blackwood, Mon, Builder Tredegar Pet HUNTON, NEWORK, Rotherham, York, Saddler Sheffield SIMMONS, JAMES, Loughborough, Fish Dealer Leicester Gt SPENSLEY, ROBERT, Gt Grimsby, Wholesale Fruiterer WAITE, GEORGE HENRY, Bury St Edmunds, Metal Worker Pet March 11 Ord March 11 Amen led notice substituted for that published in the NYE, THOMAS JOSEPH, New Brompton, Kent, Builder All letters intended for publication in the Where difficulty is experienced in procuring the Journal with regularity, it is requested that application be made direct to the Publisher. LINDE, WILLIAM, Bournemouth, Musical Instrument BRAND Seller Poole Pet March 10 Ord March 10 High Court Pet Feb 15 Ord March 12 MENSFORTH, EDWARD, Bradford, Commission Agent MITCHELL, JOHN EDWARD, Tenterdea, Kent, Butcher BRAND & CO.'S FOR INVALIDS. MORGAN, EDWARD, Charlton Kings, ar Cheltenhum, Inn- ESSENCE OF BEEF, keeper Cheltenham Pet March 10 Ord March 10 NORTON, WILLIAM HENRY, and FRANK POTTS, Freemantle, PIKE, LOUIS, Hennock, Devon, Miller Exeter Pet March REEVES, THOMAS SADLER, Chatham, Perambulator Manu- Pet SANDERSON, JOHN WILLIAM, Milnsbridge, nr Huddersfield, BEEF TEA, MEAT JUICE, &c., Prepared from finest ENGLISH MEATS EDE AND SON, ROBE BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT. YROUND-RENT, with valuable Reversion IN THE PRESS. Του READY SHORTLY. Price 58. Cash with order, 4s.; postage 3d. THE Wanted to Rent or Purchase first-class Large LAND TRANSFER ACTS, 1875 & 1897 To Her Majesty, the Lord Chancellor, the Whole of the Premises, well adapted for factory purposes Building may 94, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. EPPS'S COCOA EXTRACT FROM A LECTURE ON "FOODS AND THEIR VALUES," BY DR. ANDREW WILSON, F.R S. E., &c.-"I any motives-first, of due regard for health, and second, of getting full food-value for money expended-can be said to weigh with us in choosing our foods, then I say that Cocoa (Epps's being the most nutritious) should be made to replace tea and coffee without hesitation. Cocoa is a food; tea and coffee are not foods. This is the whole science of the matter in a nutshell, and he who runs may read the obvious moral of the story." THEATRES. ADELPHI. A. and 8. Gatti, Sole Proprietors and Managers. THIS EVENING, at 8.30, THE LADY OF LYONS: Mrs. Brown Potter and Mr. Kyrle Bellew: Messrs. L. Lablache, H. A. Saintsbury, Arthur Lewis, A. E. Drinkwater, W. St. John, &c. Preceded, at 8.0, by a Favourite Farce. COMEDY. THIS EVENING, at 8.15, THE SEA FLOWER: Messrs. John Beauchamp, Arthur Playfair, Cosmo Stuart, W. T. Lovell, Wilfred Draycott, A. E. Matthews, Frederick Volpe, Henry Ford, and Charles Groves; Miss Lena Ashwell, Miss Gladys Homfrey, and Miss Eva Moore. Proprietor and Manager, Mr. Herbert Beerbohm Tree. THIS EVENING, at 8.0, JULIUS CAESAR: Messrs. Tree, Lewis Waller, Franklin McLeay, Charles Fulton, Charles G. Allan, Alexander Calvert, S A. Cookson, Gayer be three floors, but must occupy total space from 10,000 square yards to 15,000 square yards in all; must be close to London, with railway sidings to main line and canal if possible; abundant supply of good fresh water indispensable.-Address B., care of J. W. Vickers, 5, Nicholaslane, E.C. INVE NVESTMENT in real property, paying 5 per cent.-For Sale, Freehold, a stone-built Warehouse, Store, Offices, and Dwelling-house in a British colony; let on repairing lease to a firm of London merchants at a clear annual rental paying the above interest on the purchase-money required.-Address OWNER, care of Messrs. Foster, Spicer, & Foster, 7, Queen-street-place, Cannon-street, E.C. PROPERTY WANTED. – M. DAVIS, 40, Ladbroke-grove, W., is open to Buy Properties in London Suburbs or 30 miles round London at best market prices; no objection to old, dilapidated, or troublesome properties; money ready (introductory fees paid if required). W. LEE NASH, Of H.M. Office of Woods and Forests. London: WATERLOW BROS. & LAYTON, Limited, 24 and 25. Birchin-lane, E.C. REEVES & TURNER, LAW BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS. Libraries Valued or Purchased. A Large Stock of Second-hand Reports and Text-books always on Sale. 100, CHANCERY LANE & CAREY STREET. EFFINGHAM WILSON, 11, ROYAL EXCHANGE, LONDON, E.C. JONES' BOOK OF PRACTICAL FORMS FOR USE IN SOLICITORS' OFFICES. Price 5s. net, CATALOGUES GRATIS AND POST-FREE. ANTED, a Partnership for a young THE COMPANIES ACTS, 1862 TO 1890. WA Solicitor; capital if required.-Apply, WRAGGE, HOLLIDAY, GODLEE, BARROW, & HORTON, Solicitors, Birmingham. MANAGING CLERKSHIP Wanted by young Admitted Solicitor with Practising Certificate; has had good all-round experience, and would undertake Advocacy; references; moderate salary.-Apply LEX, "Solicitors' Journal" Office, 27, Chancery-lane, W.C. Mackay; Mrs. Tree, Miss Lily Hanbury, Miss Evelyn ASPATRIA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE Millard. ROYALTY. THIS EVENING, at 9.0, OH! SUSANNAH: Messrs. Charles Glenney, A. Maltby, G. Waller, H. Farmer; Mesdames Clara Jecks, A. Mansfield, M. Bishop, M. Clayton, G. Vicat, K. Osborne, and Louie Freear. Preceded, at 8.0, by THE CAT AND THE CHERUB: Messrs. Blinn, Lugg and Julian Cross, &c. DRURY LANE THEATRE ROYAL. Managing Director, Arthur Collins. THIS EVENING, at 8.0, THE BABES IN THE WOOD : Messrs. Dan Leno, John A. Warden, Griffin and Dubois, C. Angelo, Whimsical Walker, and Herbert Campbell: Mesdames Ada Blanche, Violet Robinson Alice Barnett, Kate Graves, and The Grigolatis. Stationers, Printers, Engravers, Registration Agents, 49, FLEET-STREET, LONDON, E.C. (corner of Serjeants'-inn). Annual and other Returns Stamped and Filed. CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY.-Shep herd's Bush, Notting-hill, West Kensington Park, and District.-Owners wishing to Sell or Let Property in these districts should send to C. RAWLEY CROSS & Co., who ave more applications than they can suit; particulars inserted in their Western Suburbs Register free. Rent collec HOME, tions undertaken (large or small), and Property of all kinds RICKMANSWORTH, HERTS. For Gentlemen, under the Act and privately. For Terms, &c., apply to R. WELSH BRANTHWAITE, Medical Superintendent. TREATMENT of INEBRIETY and ABUSE of DRUGS. Ewart, H. Vyvyan, C. Walker. E. W. Coleman, E. Walford, HIGH SHOT HOUSE, MESSRS. H. GROGAN & CO., 101, Park A. Phillips, Jones, W. G. Carey, H. Barford, E. Warden; Misses Geraldine Oliffe, M. Duggan, B. Stanley, M. Barr, and Miss Kate Tyndall. ST. MARGARET'S, TWICKENHAM, For Gentlemen under the Acts and privately. Terms, 23 to 4 Guineas. Apply to Medical Superintendent, F. BROMHEAD, B.A., M.B. (Camb.), M.R.C.S. (Eng.) INEBRIETY. MELBOURNE HOUSE, LEICESTER. street, Grosvenor-square, beg to call the attention of intending Purchasers to the many attractive West-End Houses which they have for Sale. Particulars on application. Surveys and Valuations attended to. MORTGAGES ON MANSIONS AND FLAT Large Sums awaiting Investment, also on Freehold and Leasehold Properties, Large Estates or Farms. Good Freehold Ground-rents Wanted. Principals placed in direct communication with clients. GIBSON'S AUCTION AND ESTATE OFFICE, 22, KING-STREET, ST. JAMES', LONDON, S.W. (Telephone 5527 Gerrard); HERTFORDSHIRE OFFICES, ST. ALBANS (Telephone No. 4); and Harpenden. THE OLDEST & WEALTHIEST EXISTING MORTGAGE INSURANCE OFFICE. THE LAW GUARANTEE AND TRUST SOCIETY, THE LIABILITY OF THE TENANT FOR To see that the Insurance Covenants include a policy covering the risk of LOSS OR FORFEITURE OF THE LICENSE. LIFE OF LEASEHOLD PROPERTY ...... 360 REVIEWS 361 LAW SOCIETIES.... ............................................................ 366 LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.. Cases Reported this Week. In the Weekly Reporter. 367 368 368 369 369 In the Solicitors' Journal. Attorney-General v. Mayor, &c., of Tynemouth 363 Buckwell v. Norman 366 X Harrop v. Ossett (Mayor and Corporation of) 365 Hemming and Others v. Davies 326 331 Kent Coalfields Syndicate (Lim) (In Liquidation), Re 363 London County Council v. The London Hydraulic Power Co. 362 364 Sumpter v. Hedges 362 Thomas v. Roberts; Smith (Claimant) 365 363 361 Suitable clauses, settled by Counsel, can be obtained on application to GUARANTEE FUND, LIMITED, 24, MOORGATE STREET, LONDON, E.C. Mortgages Guaranteed on Licensed Properties promptly, special valuation and at low rates. ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY. Established 1824. Capital, £5,000,000 Sterling. LONDON BRANCHES: 1, ST. JAMES'S ST., S.W.; 63, CHANCERY LANE, W.C.; Life Policies free from Restrictions, with Perfect Security and Liberal Bonuses. CURRENT TOPICS. WHATEVER may be the result of the labours of the Committee for framing rules under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, no one can complain of want of the most careful and anxious consideration on their part. Their sittings have been extremely numerous LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE and prolonged, and we believe are still continued daily. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in his address to the Birmingham Law Students' Society, which we report elsewhere, renewed his plea for a better system of legal education, and took occasion to refer, with some reprobation, to the recent change in the arrangements made by the Incorporated Law Society for the education of articled clerks. We think that he can hardly have been fully informed as to the reasons which led to the change. The Council of the society were not only willing, but anxious, to continue the lectures and classes; but they had no means of enforcing attendance at them, and the articled clerks refused to take advantage of the means of education offered. The substitute provided is merely temporary, the Council being among the warmest supporters of an efficient law faculty in the Teaching University of London, and if the benchers of the Inns of Court were equally hearty in availing themselves of the opportunity, there would probably be little difficulty in setting on foot a school of law which would carry out Lord RUSSELL'S wishes. THE LATTER PART of the Lord Chief Justice's address, which is devoted to a consideration of the qualifications for successful advocacy, though perhaps not very novel, is likely to be of value to law students and practitioners. The recipe for this, as for cookery, is first of all to catch your hare-that is, in the present case, to ascertain with precision the facts which are to be dealt with. We remember to have heard that an eminent criminal law advocate was in the habit of making a sort of time-table with regard to each of his cases; arranging all the facts in exact chronological order, with date and time in the margin; and in all legal matters a somewhat similar process is necessary. Then you have to consider the principle of law applicable to the question arising on the facts, and from a consideration of the facts and the law to ascertain what is the main point on which the decision is likely to turn. Next there is to be considered what can be said on the other side, and then the advocate has to convey as clearly as he can to the court the point on which the case turns, and to enforce his view as to the rule of law which is applicable. The Lord Chief Justice seems to suggest that this is the whole art of advocacy; but, with great deference, we venture to think that there comes in here the whole difference between the great and the common-place advocate. The great advocate is the man who, in addition to knowing the strong points of his own and his adversary's cases, knows how to lay the case before the court in such a manner as to render prominent his own points, and, while not ignoring the points of his adversary, to reduce their importance, or, as far as possible, lead the mind of the judge away from them. Anyone who in former days had to consider a complicated and doubtful case and afterwards heard it argued by Sir HORACE DAVEY, will remember the exquisite skill with which he marshalled his arguments, commencing with the least important, whereat the court would sniff; then progressing through a series of more tenable points, gradually bringing the court to think that after all there was a good deal in the matter; and continually fencing with and meeting any suggestions of tho adversary's case, until at the right moment he would bring forward his leading argument, and develop it until he saw that it had taken possession of the mind of the judge, when he would immediately wind up his address. This kind of skill is almost instinctive, but no one can be a great advocate without possessing it. contract specific performance will not be ordered. The remedy for the breach is in damages, and in damages only, and the party complaining of the breach can only recover if he proves damage. "On a contract to make a loan of money," said "CHITTY, J., in Western Wagon Co. v. West (40 W. R. 182; 1892, 1 Ch. 271)," the measure of damages is the loss sustained by the breach, and the damages may be merely nominal. For instance, if A. agrees to lend B. £100 at interest for a week and makes default, and B. within a few minutes after the time at which the money ought to have been lent obtains from his bankers a loan of £100 at the same rate of interest and for the same period of time, the damages would be merely nominal." This is an extreme case, but it illustrates the principle, and it shews the impossibility of allowing the plaintiff in an action for breach of the contract to obtain judgment for the whole sum agreed to be lent. Damages, as the learned judge in the same case went on to say, are not recovered by way of loan. The plaintiff puts them into his pocket and keeps them. But to permit him to obtain in this manner the entire amount of the loan would be to turn the loan into a gift. In South African Territories v. Wallington (see 45 W. R. 467; 1897, 1 Q. B. 692) the defendant had applied for sixteen debentures of the plaintiff company of £50 each. By the terms of the prospectus the £50 was payable as to £5 on application, and the remainder by instalments. The defendant paid £80, but refused to pay the instalments; and when the company brought the action the amount of the instalments due was £520. WRIGHT, J., refused specific performance, but nevertheless-treating the £520 as a debt due-gave judgment for that sum. There is, however, no middle course between ordering specific perform judgment for £520 was not a judgment for damages. It was in effect judgment for specific performance, and it could not stand. The decision of the Court of Appeal reversing WRIGHT, J., was accordingly affirmed by the House of Lords. The plaintiff company missed also the chance of recovering damages properly so called, as they had given no evidence of actual loss. An attempt was made in the House of Lords to get the case sent back for a new trial so that the necessary evidence might be given, but it was held to be too late for the question to be raised. Moreover, the company had received substantial compensation in the right to forfeit the £80 deposited by the defendant. Practically this chance of forfeiture protects companies against the inconvenience which the refusal of the law to compel specific performance might impose on them. course in the application of the above principle a contract to lend money on debentures does not differ from any other contract of loan. Of AN INTERESTING point as to the right of the creditor of a bank-ance of the contract and giving damages for the breach. The rupt to recover a debt incurred after notice of the bankruptcy, but before the date of the receiving order, arose in Buckwell v. Norman before the Court of Appeal (reported elsewhere.) As a rule, all debts and liabilities to which the debtor is subject at the date of the receiving order are debts provable in the bankruptcy, and are consequently released by an order of discharge. But sub-section (3) of section 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, under which debts generally are so provable, is preceded by the enactment that a person having notice of an act of bankruptcy available against the debtor shall not prove for any debt contracted by the debtor subsequently to the date of the notice. As this enactment stands in the section, it is extremely difficult to say whether the effect is simply to debar the creditor from proving for the debt in the bankruptcy, leaving him to his remedy against the debtor after he has got his discharge, or whether, while the creditor is precluded from proving, the debt is still included among debts provable in the bankruptcy, so as to be released by the discharge. In Buckwell v. Norman a debtor who owed his solicitor a sum for costs stated to him that he was unable to pay his debts, and instructed him to file a petition in bankruptcy. Under section 4 (h) such a statement made to a creditor is in itself an act of bankruptcy, and the solicitor, in allowing the debtor to come under a liability to him for the costs of the petition, was allowing him to contract a debt after notice of an act of bankruptcy. The petition was presented, and a receiving order made, and the solicitor received, under the Bankruptcy Rules, his taxed costs out of the estate; but he claimed that the balance of the costs was not a debt provable in the bankruptcy, and that he could sue for it notwithstanding the discharge. Section 37, in saying that for certain debts the creditor shall not prove, and then proceeding to deal with all debts "provable," certainly raises a presumption that debts which thus cannot be proved are not provable. But the Court of Appeal have held that the prohibition upon proving certain debts is a personal disqualification imposed upon creditors who allow the debts to be incurred after notice of an act of bankruptcy, and that the debt, though it is incapable of being proved in the bankruptcy, is still included under provable debts. Hence the balance of costs in the present case was not a debt in respect of which the solicitor could sue. THE DECISION of the House of Lords in South African Territories (Limited) v. Wallington (reported elsewhere) appears to add nothing to the law as to the remedies for a breach of contract to lend money. It is perfectly well gettled that of such a WHEN A HOUSE, hitherto unlicensed, succeeds in the now-adays very difficult task of obtaining a licence to sell intoxicating liquors, the value of that house is usually increased enormously. Many persons consider this fact a public grievance, and strongly object to a present of a large sum of money being made in this way to the newly-licensed person. Some portion, at least, of this increase in the value of the premises, they argue, should go into the coffers of the public. It is quite possible that Parliament may some day take this matter in hand, and, under certain restrictions, allow justices to demand from applicants for licences a sum of money to be used for public purposes. Until Parliament does so, however, it seems obviously objectionable for justices to take this line of their own accord, as was done not long ago by the justices of South Shields. The facts came before a Divisional Court lately in the case of Reg. v. Bowman and Others, which was an application for a certiorari to bring up and quash the grant of a licence, and also for a mandamus to compel the justices of South Shields to rehear the application. These justices at their annual licensing meeting had heard an application for a new licence, and also had heard objections, and had intimated that they would grant the licence, subject, however, to certain conditions, the nature of which would be stated at the adjourned meeting. Some of these conditions were probably quite legitimate, but one was that the applicant should pay the sum of £1,000, to be devoted to some public purpose. Rules nisi for a certiorari and a mandamus were obtained on behalf of one of the objectors to the grant of the licence. The rule for the certiorari was discharged on the authority of the recent case of Reg. v. Sharman (supra, p. 326), The shareholders and to the general public the right to inspect a company's register of members. To members the register is required to be open free of charge. Other persons must pay a shilling or such less sum as the company prescribes. question has arisen in Re Kent Coalfields Syndicate (Limited) whether the section applies after the company has gone into Interest in the register does not cease upon the commencement of a winding up, and in the case of the syndicate which had gone into voluntary liquidation, GRANTHAM, J., assumed that the section continued to apply, and made an order for inspection in favour of an applicant although he was interested in the company neither as shareholder nor as creditor. But apart from the fact that the section occurs in Part II. of the Act, which does not refer to winding up, there is a very significant indication that a restriction must be placed upon it in the fact that a penalty is imposed in the event of inspection being refused. The liability to the penalty attaches both upon the company and also upon every director and manager who authorizes the refusal. These penalties cease, however, to be appropriate as soon as a winding up has commenced and the control of the directors has been replaced by that of the liquidator. It would be an anomaly for a penalty to be imposed on a company in liquidation, and there is no provision for transferring to the liquidator the liability of the directors. The Court of Appeal held accordingly that the right of inspection existed only while the company was a going company, and reversed the order of GRANTHAM, J. THE JURISDICTION of the county courts was recently invoked in the case of London and North-Western Railway Co. v. Donellan, which was an action brought to recover rent due in respect of trucks left standing by the defendant on railway sidings belonging to the plaintiffs, the rent in question being claimed under a circular addressed by the plaintiffs to all their traders, THE ORDINARY provision in articles of association, that the including the defendant, which notified that such rent would be directors may in the case of shares not fully paid up refuse to claimed. The defence raised was that the county court could register a transfer to a person of whom they do not approve, not entertain the action because, under the London and North- does not, it is well settled, throw upon the directors the burden Western Railway (Rates and Charges) Order Confirmation Act, of justifying their refusal. The question was thoroughly dis1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. ccxxi.), jurisdiction to determine the cussed in Ex parte Penney (L. R. 8 Ch. 446), and the position of matters in difference was given to an arbitrator. The enact- directors would have been made very unpleasant had a different ment relied on is contained in section 5 of the schedule of principle been admitted. In exercising such a power the direcmaximum rates and charges appended to the Act. It provides tors are in a fiduciary position to the company and to every that "the company may charge for the services hereunder men-shareholder in it, and the question of the proposed transfer must tioned or any of them" (including detention on the company's be fairly considered by the board. But by considering it the line, for an unreasonable time, of trucks laden with merchan- directors do all that is required of them. They need not assign dise) "when rendered to a trader at his request or for his con- their reasons, and the court will not interfere unless it is made venience, a reasonable sum by way of addition to the tonnage out that they have been acting from some improper motive rate. Any difference arising under this section shall be determined or arbitrarily and capriciously. It is for the person impugning by an arbitrator, to be appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance their conduct to make out that such has been the case. "I of either party. Provided that where, before any service is cannot," said JAMES, L.J., in the case just cited, "conceive that rendered to a trader, he has given notice in writing to the com- any director would choose to accept office or exercise the power pany that he does not require it, the service shall not be deemed entrusted to him if he were liable to be called upon to say what to have been rendered at the trader's request or for his conveni- the particular reasons were, or the particular motive was, which ence." The county court judge upheld this defence, consider- influenced him in coming to the conclusion that any person was i-hat there was a difference between the parties, within the not eligible as a shareholder." This principle has been acted meaning of the section, fit to be determined by an arbitrator. upon by the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal from the At the same time, he made a special finding to the effect that, decision of STIRLING, J., in Re Hannan's Gold Mining Co. (Limi though the plaintiffs had demanded the siding rent, the defen- ted). Allegations were made that the directors were refusing to dant had always refused to pay it, and alleged that it was register transfers of a certain class of shares for the purpose of exorbitant and unjust. On appeal, however, the Divisional Court (WRIGHT and DARLING, JJ.) reversed this decision, hold-keeping them out of the market, but the allegation was not established. The transferor, therefore, who complained that ing that there was evidence of a contract to pay the siding rent, the transfer tendered by him had been improperly rejected, was and that no case for an arbitration had been made out. That not able to make out his case, and he was not allowed to shift there was a contract binding on the defendant seems clear the onus of justifying the rejection on to the directors. The enough. For, notwithstanding the above findings of the county court, said the Master of the Rolls, ought to presume that the court judge, which negative acquiescence properly co-called (as directors were acting within their powers until the contrary is to which see Mitchell v. London and Yorkshire Railway Co., 23 proved. W. R. 853, L. R. 10 Q. B. 256), the defendant by omitting, in compliance with the above enactment, to give notice in writing to the plaintiffs that he did not require the services charged for to be rendered, precluded himself from denying that they were rendered at his request. The question of jurisdiction, however, presents greater difficulty, as the language of the above enact ment certainly seems to contemplate resort to arbitration, whatever the cause of difference may be, and whether arising out of breach of contract or otherwise. It is, therefore, satisfactory to find that the Divisional Court, in the case under consideration, gave leave to appeal. where) the power of a county court judge to direct security IN THE recent case of Hemming v. Davis (reported elsefor costs to be given in an action remitted to him from the High Court was under review. On the bankruptcy of the original plaintiffs in an action to recover £57 for goods sold and delivered, their trustee in bankruptcy was of R. S. C., ord. 17, r. 4. Afterwards an order was made readded as plaintiff, at his own request, under the provisions mitting the action to the county court, under section 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43). Subsequently, the county court judge, by order, directed the trustee in bank. SECTION 32 of the Companies Act, 1862, secures both to ruptcy to give security for costs under section 94 of the last |