district council in putting into proper order a highway repairable ratione tenure is the occupier.-Cuckfield Rural District Council v. Goring, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 865; 78 L.T. 530.

(i.) C. A.-Retrospective Rate-Delay-Mandamus-Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), ss. 210, 229, 230.-An urban district council recovered in May, 1897, a claim against a rural district council for water supplied in 1895 to a contributory place, and the rural council applied for a mandamus to the urban council to issue a precept to the contributory place. Held, that the delay being shewn to be excusable the mandamus should issue and the rate would not be illegal, though retrospective. Waddington v. County of London Union (E. B. & E. 370), and Worthington v. Hulton ([1865] 1 Q.B. 63) discussed.—Reg. v. Leigh Rural District Council, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 836; 78 L.T. 604. (ii.) Q. B. D.-Transfer of Areas-Adjustment-Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict., c. 73), s. 68.-Where a county council ordered a township to be detached from one union and added to another, it was held on a consequent adjustment under sect. 68 of the Act of 1894, that the amount of a loan outstanding, the suitability of existing workhouse accommodation, and the effect of the withdrawal from a district with a large pauper population, of the contribution of a wealthier district should be taken into consideration. In re An Arbitration between the Rochdale Union and the Haslingden Union, 78 L.T. 563.

Lunacy :

(iii.) C. A.-Creditor-Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 5), ss. 116, 117, 120. Property of a lunatic in the custody of the Court will not be available for creditors till the wants of the lunatic are provided for. But against property not actually in the custody under an order, the creditor can pursue his ordinary remedies. In re Clarke, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 336; 78 L.T. 275.

Malicious Damage:

(iv.) C. C. R.-Asserting Public Right-Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 đ 25 Vict., c. 97), s. 51.-Defendants who, in the belief that they were maintaining public rights, had destroyed an erection upon land over which such rights were claimed, were held to have been properly convicted under the Act after the jury had answered in the affirmative the questions whether the defendants went upon the land in the assertion of a right, and whether they did more damage than was necessary to vindicate the right.—Reg. v. Clemens, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B.556; 78 L.T. 204.

Married Woman: (v.) C. D.-Conveyance without concurrence of Husband-Married Women's Property Act (45 & 46 Vict., c. 75), s. 1 (i.)-Trustees Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict., c. 53), s. 16.-Where a married woman had, in 1895, lent her own money on a freehold mortgage, it was held that on a sale by a mortgagor she could convey to the purchaser without the concurrence of her husband, and by deed unacknowledged. In re Harkness and Allsopp's Contract (22, 34, ii.) distinguished.-In re Brooke and Framlin's Contract, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 647; 78 L.T. 416. (vi.) C. A.-Restraint on Anticipation—Husband's Debts-Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict., c. 41), s. 39-Married Women's Property Act, 1893, s. 2. -The application of the equitable doctrine that a husband stands as debtor to his wife who has paid debts of his by charging her property must be based upon the circumstances of the case, and this applies to orders under sect. 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881. Decision of Court below (23, 74, v.) affirmed, but on different grounds. The Court can order under sect. 2 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1893, to be paid, out of property subject to a restraint on anticipation,

costs of an appeal by a married woman against an order dismissing an action brought by her.-Paget v. Paget, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 470 78 L.T. 306.

(i.) C. A.- Protection Order· - Contract entered into prior to Married Women's Property Act, 1882-Matrimonial Clauses Act, 1857.--Decision of Court below (23, 74, iv.) affirmed. In re Roper; Roper v. Ducaster (39 C.D. 382; 59 L.T. 203) distinguished.-In re Hughes; Brandon v. Hughes, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 529; 78 L.T. 432.

(ii.) P. D.-Will of Married Woman-Letters of Administration

Limited Grant to Husband-Probate Rules 15 and 18 of March, 1887.-The Court, notwithstanding that a married woman domiciled in New Zealand and who died there in 1875, had left a will purporting to dispose of all her property, granted to her husband letters of administration to property, not limited to her separate use, and never reduced into possession, to which she was entitled at the time of her marriage under English settlements.-In the goods of Eliza B. Donovan, 78 L.T. 567.

Master and Servant:

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Passenger Wrongly Charged by Tramway Conductor.--A conductor of a tramway, with the approval of one of the company's inspectors, gave a passenger into custody on a charge, which proved to be unfounded, of passing a base coin. Held, in an action for damages for malicious prosecution that there was no evidence to shew that the conductor acted within the scope of his authority, or that the company ratified his proceeding.— Knight v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co., 78 L.T. 227.

Merchandise Marks Act:

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict., c. 28)—Misdescription of Goods Sold-Liability of Principal.-The appellant was convicted by magistrates of having sold by his shopman an American ham as a Scotch ham. Held, that whether he had taken all precautions to prevent misrepresentation by his shopmen was a question of fact for the magistrates, and that unless he had taken all such precautions he was not relieved from criminal liability under the Act for the acts of his servants in the course of their employment.-Coppen v. Moore, 78 L.T. 520.

Metropolis :

(v.) Q. B. D.-London Building Act, 1894 (57 58 Vict., c. 213), 8. 9-New Street" Direct Communication."-By sect. 9 of the London Building Act the county council can refuse to sanction the laying out of a new street which does not form a direct communication between two streets. Whether a proposed new street does or does not comply with this condition is a matter of fact.-Woodham v. London County Council, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 863; 78 L.T. 553.

Mortgage :

(vi.) C. D.-Equitable Interest-Assignment Priority-Notice. As between assignor and assignee an assignment of an equitable interest is perfect without notice to the trustee, but to secure priority of one assignee over another notice is necessary. After notice of a mesne incumbrance a first mortgagee cannot tack further advances, though made in pursuance of a covenant. A trust in a settlement for a mortgagor for life, or until he shall assign or charge the fund, is affected by an assignment prior to the settlement. Hopkinson v. Rolt (5 L.T. 90; L.R. 9 H. of L. 514) not applicable; Manning v. Chambers (1 De G. and Sm. 282); and Seymour v. Lucas (1 Dr. and Sm. 177) followed.— West v. Williams, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch, 488; 78 L.T. 147.

(i.) C. A.-Parliamentary Election Petition Rules, 1868, rr. 6 & 7.—In a claim in a Parliamentary election petition for a scrutiny and recount, the delivery of particulars is governed by Rule 7, and no order can be obtained under Rule 6. Munro v. Balfour (L.R. [1893] 1 Q.B.; 67 L.T. 526) affirmed.-Furness v. Beresford, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 495; 78 L.T. 137.

Partnership:

(ii.) C. D.-Real Estate Charges Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict., c. 113) — Mortgage of Partner to Secure Partnership Debt. Where partnership assets are enough to meet the debts, Locke King's Act, 1854, does not apply to a charge on the separate estate of a partner to secure a debt of the firm. In re Ritson; Ritson v. Ritson, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 667. (iii.) C. D.-Notice to Expel Partner-Motion to Stay-Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 49), s. 4.-On a motion to stay proceedings in an action by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from acting on a notice to terminate a partnership, the Court held that a notice of dissolution sprung upon a partner under a clause in the deed, without previous complaint, was bad; and refused an order on the motion.Barnes v. Youngs, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 414.

Patent:

(iv.) P. C.-Prolongation.-Where a petitioner had incurred loss in introducing a valuable patent, a new patent for ten years was recommended. -In re Currie and Timmis's Patent, L.R. [1898] A.C. 347.

(v.) C. D.- Assignment -Notice-Licence-Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 d 47 Vict., c. 57), 88. 23, 87.-A licence to work a patent taken with express notice that an agreement has been entered into to assign the patent, is taken subject to the agreement, although the licence may be registered earlier than the agreement.-New Ixion Tyre and Cycle Co., Limited v. Spilsbury and Others, 78 L.T. 543.

(vi.) C. D.-Costs-Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict., c. 61), s. 1.—A corporation were held to be entitled to costs as between solicitor and client where an action for an injunction to restrain them from using a building as a small-pox hospital had been dismissed.— Harrop v. Corporation of Ossett, 78 L.T. 387.

(vii.) H. L.-Decision of House of Lords.-A decision of the House of Lords upon a point of law is conclusive till set aside by an Act of Parliament, and cannot meanwhile be re-argued in another case.-London Tramways Co., Limited v. London County Council, 78 L.T. 361.

(viii.) C. A.--Frivolous and Vexatious Action.-A county court judge, on evidence that a judgment creditor had been induced by misrepresentations to execute a deed releasing the debtor for a payment less than the debt and covenanting not to proceed further, ordered the debt to be paid in full. The High Court stayed, as frivolous and an abuse of process, an action by the debtor for a declaration that he had been released and for an injunction.-Stephenson v. Garnett, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 677; 78 L.T. 371.

(ix.) C. A.-Evidence-Copies of Privileged Documents.- Documents once privileged are, as a general rule, always privileged; but copies, however obtained, may be given as secondary evidence. Lloyd v. Mostyn (10 M. & W. 478); Wheeler v. Le Marchant (17 Ch. D. 675; 44 L.T. 632) distinguished.-Calcraft v. Guest, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 759; 78 L.T. 283.

H

(i.) C. A.-Nonsuit-Discontinuance—O. xxvi., r. 1.—A plaintiff has no right to a nonsuit at the trial; he can then only discontinue by leave of the Judge under O. xxvi., r. 1.-Fox v. The Star Newspaper Company, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 636; 78 L.T. 311.

(ii.) C. A.-Mayor's Court-Costs-Mayor's Court of London Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 157), s. 11-Mayor's Court Rules, 1890 & 1892.-In cases to which the scales of costs do not apply, taxation is unfettered.— Hall v. Launspach, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 513; 78 L.T. 243.

(iii.) P. D.—Divorce.-In an application that substituted service may be allowed, the petitioner should file an affidavit that he is unaware of the addresses of the parties to be served.—Martin v. Martin and Velleman, 78 L.T. 170.

(iv.) C. A.-Costs-O. xiv.-Leave to Defend-Remission to County CourtCosts of Application-County Court Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 43), 88. 65, 116; O. xiv., r. 9 (a).-In an action on contract to recover between £20 and £50 plaintiff applied for judgment under O. xiv. The defendant obtained leave to defend and, according to the terms, made payment into Court. On the application of the plaintiff the case was remitted to the county court, and costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause. Held, that as the case was not within sect. 116 of the County Court Act or within O. xiv., r. 9 (a), there was no jurisdiction to make an order as to the costs.-Dunn v. Appleton, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 564; 78 L.T. 246.

(v.) C. A.-Person Domiciled in Scotland-Agreement for Service on Agent in England-Os. ix. (rr. 1, 2); xi. (r. 1e).—In a contract of sale it was agreed that service of proceedings upon a party residing in Scotland should be by delivery at the office of an association in London. Held, that this agreement was valid and that service of a writ so left would not be set aside. Tharsis Sulphur v. Société Industrielle (60 L.T. 924) approved. British Wagon Co. v. Gray (21, 45, iii.) distinguished.Montgomery, Jones & Co. v. Liebenthal & Co., L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 487; 78 L.T. 211.

(vi.) C. A.--Property in Dispute sent out of Jurisdiction for Inspection.-The Court or a judge has power to order property which is the subject of an action to be sent out of the jurisdiction for inspection by witnesses who are to be examined by a commission.-Chaplin v. Laing, 78 L.T. 410. (vii.) C. A.-Action Tried without a Jury-Appeal on Matter of Fact.-The Court of Appeal may on a matter of fact turning upon the credibility of witnesses whom it has not seen, reverse the decision of a judge sitting without a jury.-Coghlan v. Cumberland, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 704; 78 L.T. 540.

(viii.) H. L.-House of Lords-Set off of Costs-O. lxv., r. 14.-Costs due by an appellant in the House of Lords will not be set off against costs due to the appellant in the Court of Appeal.-Russell v. Russell, L.R. [1898] A.C. 307.

(ix.) C. A.-Appeal-Documents for Use of Court-Cost-O. lviii., r. 8.— In an appeal, office copies of affidavits are primâ facie sufficient. If further copies are wanted for the use of the Court, the order for their allowance should be at once obtained from the Court, or the cost of them will be disallowed on taxation.-In re Rollason's Registered Design, No. 2, 78 L.T. 511.

(x.) C. A.-Appeal-Case stated under Quarter Sessions Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict., c. 45), s. 11-Judicature Act, 1873 (36 d 37 Vict., c. 66), s. 19.-The entry of judgment of the Divisional Court on a special case stated under the Quarter Sessions Act does not prevent an appeal against the judgment to the Court of Appeal. Peterborough Corporation v.

Wilsthorpe Overseers ([1883] 12 Q.B.D. 1); and Holborn Guardians v. Chertsey Guardians ([1885] 15 Q.B.D. 76) followed. - Lodge v. Huddersfield Corporation, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 859; 78 L.T. 582.

(i.) C. A.-Counterclaim-Joinder-O. xxi., r. 11.-A defendant in an action in contract joined as co-defendant to his counterclaim a person who, with him, had been joint vendor of the subject-matter of the contract to the plaintiff, but who had no interest in the particular action. Held, that such a joinder was not within O. xxi., r. 11, and that the counterclaim must be struck out.-Pender and Others v. Taddei, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 798; 78 L.T. 581.

(ii.) P. D.-Seven Years' Absence.-Where, for purposes of administration, it is sought to presume the death of a person who has long been missing, the Court does not regard as an inflexible requirement a period of seven years during which no information has been obtained of the person. In the goods of Richard Winstone, L.R. [1898] P. 143; 78 L.T. 535.

:

Public Health:(iii.) C. A.-Railway Co.-Surface Drains-" Sewer "—Railway Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 20), ss. 1, 68-Public Health Act, 1875 (38 d 39 Viet., c. 55), ss. 4, 13, sub-s. 2.—Decision of Court below (23, 50, iii.) affirmed.-London and North-Western Railway Co. v. Runcorn District Council, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 561; 78 L.T. 343.

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Public Health Acts, 1875 and 1890-Joint Private Drain— Joint Notice-Improvements.-When repair is necessary to a private drain connecting with a sewer a row of houses belonging to several owners, the notices may be joint, and the authority need not, in its discretion, unclose the whole of the drain for examination purposes; but on a notice to repair, an owner is not liable for improvements effected by the authority in the course of the work. Lancaster v. Barnes District Council, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 855; 78 L.T. 355. (v.) Q. B. D.-Sewer-Cesspool.-A bye-law forbade anyone to construct a" cesspool so that it shall have by drain or otherwise any outlet into a means of communication with any sewer." A person connected several cesspools by a pipe which carried the overflow into a larger cesspool on his land. Justices held that the pipe and the larger cesspool constituted a sewer, but the Court held that the magistrates were wrong. Button v. Tottenham Urban District Council, 78 L.T. 470. (vi.) Q. B. D.-Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), ss. 4, 11-Sewers-Recovery of Outlay.-The plaintiff complied with an order served upon him by the defendants under sect. 4 of the Act to repair a defective drain. It was found afterwards that the drain was a sewer, for the repair of which the defendants were responsible. Held, that the plaintiff could recover his outlay either under sect. 11 of the Act, or under the common law, as having been legally compelled to do work which the defendants were liable to do.-Andrew v. St. Olaves Board of Works, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 775; 78 L.T. 504.

(vii.) Q. B. D.- Scarlet Fever in Upper Flat of Building-Milk Sold on Ground Floor- Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 d 58 Vict., c. 75).-A case of scarlet fever occurring in the upper story of a house on the ground floor of which milk is sold, brings the purveyor of milk within the county council's regulations 28 and 29, made in pursuance of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.-London County Council v. Edwards, 78 L.T. 558.

Railway :

(viii.) C. D.-Lease-Quiet Enjoyment - Compensation-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 18).-A railway company acquired