Insurance:

(i.) C. D.—Accident Policy-Contract for Year.-In an accident policy a new contract arises on the payment of the premium for each year and the amount payable under the policy is not affected by an assignment not extending to after acquired property, made in a previous year.Stokell v. Heywood, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 459.

Lease:

(ii.) C. A.-Covenant not to Assign Without Consent-Breach-Relief under 8. 4 of Conveyancing Act, 1892-Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 14, sub-ss. 2, 6.-Where a lease has been assigned without consent, in breach of covenant, sect. 4 of the Conveyancing Act, 1892, gives jurisdiction to the Court to relieve the underlessee from forfeiture; but such relief should be granted sparingly, and only where he has exercised all reasonable precaution. Wardens of Cholmeley School v. Sewell (71 L.T. 88; 2 Q.B. [1894] 906) considered.—Imray v. Oakshette, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 218; 76 L.T. 632.

Licensing:

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Removal of Off Licences-Licensing Act, 1872 (35 d 36 Vict., c. 94), s. 50.-Sect. 50 of the Licensing Act has reference to off licences as well as to on licenses, and therefore an order for the removal of an off license cannot be made unless notice has been served on the occupier of the premises from which the license is to be detached.Reg. v. Thornton and Others and Laceby; e. p. Lacon & Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 308; 77 L.T. 26.

Local Government:

(iv.) C. D.-Sewering of Private Street-Notice to Frontagers-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 150.-In a street which was not repairable by the inhabitants at large, houses were drained by pipes laid by the owners under advice of the representative of the local authority. The local authority subsequently gave notice under sect. 150 of the Public Health to all the frontagers except one to sewer the street, and in default executed the work themselves and apportioned the cost. In an arbitration thereon a sum was apportioned to two frontagers and an action was brought to enforce payment. Held, that the street had never been sewered by the frontagers" to the satisfaction of " the local authority, and that though notice had not been given as required by sect. 150 to all the frontagers yet the question was closed by the arbitrators' award and therefore the defendants were liable.-The Handsworth District Council v. Derrington, 77 L.T. 73. (v.) C. D. & C. A.-Notice to Frontage Owners-Construction of StatutesPublic Health Act, 1875, s. 150-Private Street Works Act, 1892 (55 and 56 Vict., c. 57), s. 22—-Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 đ 53 Vict., c. 63), s. 38. -The defendant, an owner of frontage on a private street, had failed to comply with a notice to sewer and make up the street served upon him under s. 150 of the Public Health Act by the plaintiffs, the urban authority. Before the plaintiffs were ready to do the work themselves they had adopted the Private Street Works Act, 1892, which provides that "sect. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall not apply to any part of a district in which this Act is in force." Held, that by the terms of the Interpretation Act, 1889, sect. 38, the liability of the defendant was expressly preserved and that the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in doing the work were, with interest and costs, a charge upon the defendant's premises. Decision of Court below affirmed.Heston and Isleworth District Council v. Grout, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 306; 76 L.T. 613.

(i.) C. A.-Water Supply-Local Government Act, 1888, s. 57-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 51, 52.-The extension of existing mains of an urban authority into an area added to the district is a construction of water works within sect. 52 of the Public Health Act, and a water company which already supplied the area was held entitled to an injunction in consequence of the notice required by that section not having been served upon them. Decision of Court below (22, p. 100 (iii.) ) reversed. Cleveland Water Co. v. Redcar Local Board (20, p. 45 (iii.)) distinguished. - Huddersfield Corporation v. Ravensthorpe Urban District Council, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 121; 76 L.T. 817.

(ii.) C. A.-Urban District Council-Drainage-Surface Water-Right to Discharge into Stream-Public Health Act, 1875, 88. 15, 17, 308.-Decision of the Court below (22, p. 106 (i.)) affirmed. Durrant v. The Branksome Urban District Council, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 291; 76 L.T. 739. Mandamus:

(iii.) C. A.-Refusal of Local Authority to approve Plans.-An action will not lie for a mandamus to compel a district council to approve plans of which they have, after consideration, honestly disapproved.-Smith v. The Chorley District Council, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 678; 76 L.T. 637.

Married Woman:

(iv.) C. D.-Restraint on Anticipation—Admission Defeating Life Estate.-A married woman was entitled to income for life for her separate use without power of anticipation, subject to cesser if she succeeded to another interest of a certain value. Under an erroneous impression she executed a deed pole admitting that her interest had determined, and on the faith of this deed one of her husband's creditors altered his position. Held, that as she had no power of her own will, for value or not, to bring about a cesser which had not occurred, the admission on the deed was not binding, and that she was not estopped from shewing the real facts.-Bateman v. Faber, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 223 ; 77 L.T. 71.

(v.) C. D.-Policy of Insurance effected in 1874-Trust for Wife and Children-Married Women's Property Act, 1870, s. 10 Applies-Married Women's Property Act, 1882, ss. 11 & 22.-A husband insured his life in 1874 for the benefit of his wife and children, under sect. 10 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870. This Act was repealed by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, but the repeal was not, by sect. 22, to affect any act done or right acquired while the former Act was in force. He died in 1897. Held (following in re Adams's Policy Trusts, 23 Ch. Div. 525; 48 L.T. 727) that the Act of 1870 applied and that a trustee must be appointed under sect. 10 of that Act. In re Soutar's Policy Trust, 26 Ch. Div. 236; 50 L.T. 262, discussed.-In re Turnbull; Turnbull v. Turnbull, 77 L.T. 47.

Metropolis:

(vi.) Q. B. D.-Damage to Street Lamp-Liability-Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, s. 207.-Notwithstanding that a street lamp projects slightly over the roadway, a driver who without negligence breaks it is liable for the damage under sect. 207 of the Act.-Burgess v. Morris, 77 L.T. 97.

(vii.) Q. B. D.-Public Sewer-Nuisance-Remedy-Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 76), s. 2 (1b).—A sewer, part of the main drainage of London, does not fall within sect. 2 of the Public Health Act, 1891, and therefore a nuisance arising from a surface ventilator of such a sewer cannot be dealt with summarily under the Act.-The Vestry of Fulham v. The London County Council, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 76; 76 L.T. 691.

Mines:

(i.) Q. B.-Right to Support.-Where a grant of minerals gives also a right to do things which would, apart from subsidence, damage the surface and provides that reasonable compensation shall be made for all damage caused by the exercise of any of the powers of the grant, this does not imply a right to let down the surface on paying compensation. But the owner of minerals is not liable for subsidence caused by the act of his predecessor in not leaving or providing support.-Greenwell and Others v. The Low Beechburn Coal Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 165; 76 L.T. 759.

Mortgage :

(ii.) C. A.-Foreclosure Decree-Certificate-Interest-Payment Before Date Named. In an action by a mortgagee to enforce his security, the terms of the master's certificate certifying the amount due including, according to custom, six months' interest, will not be carried on a motion of the mortgagor to make payment at a date earlier than that named in the certificate and to have a corresponding reduction of interest.-Hill v. Rowlands, 77 L.T. 34.

Partnership:

(iii.) C. D.-Principal and Agent-Liability of Deceased Partner—Appropriation of Payments by Creditor-Partnership Act, 1890, s. 9-Statute of Limitations, 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, s. 3—Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, 8. 9. The private estate of a late partner in a firm of agents is not liable for a debt to the principal incurred by the firm after the partner's decease (the doctrine laid down in Devaynes v. Noble, Houlton's case, 1 Mer. 16, applied to sect. 9 of the Partnership Act). The fiduciary position of an agent does not prevent his setting up the defence of the Statute of Limitations (Kemp v. Gye, L.R. 5 H.L. 656, applied); nor does the appropriation by the principal to a statute barred debt of a payment made by the agent. But where a principal has made an appropriation to an item which is disallowed, he is not at liberty to make a fresh appropriation.—In re Friend; Friend v. Young, 77 L.T. 50.

Patent:

(iv.) C. A.--Posting abroad Article infringing English Patent.-A person who posts abroad to a trader in England in execution of an order from him a parcel, the carriage and delivery of which would be an infringement of an English patent by the trader, is not liable himself for the infringement. Decision of Court below reversed. See 22, p. 71 (iii.).— Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Johnson & Co. and Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 322.

Practice :

(v.) C. A.-Non-payment of Costs-Acting Vexatiously-Stay of Proceedings. -Where a plaintiff has acted vexatiously in a litigation, the Court will order a stay of proceedings in his action until he has made payment of costs which he has been ordered to pay, though it would not do so solely on the ground of his inability to pay. In re Wickham; Marony v. Taylor, 35 Ch. Div. 272; 57 L.T. 468, considered and applied. See also 22, p. 105 (iii.).—Graham v. Sutton, Carden & Co., 77 L.T. 35. (vi.) C. D.-Costs of Interlocutory Proceedings-0. xxviii., r. 11.-Where interlocutory applications have been ordered to stand to the trial, the costs are to be treated as costs in the action and need not be mentioned in the judgment. Where such applications have been disposed of but costs reserved, such costs are not to be mentioned in the judgment or

order or allowed on taxation without the special direction of the judge. -British Natural Premium Provident Association, Limited v. Bywater, 77 L.T. 22.

(i.) C. A.-Costs-Taxation-Re-taxation-Orders xxxv., r. 4, and lxv., r. 27 (41).-Under the above orders the Court, or a judge, can direct a bill of costs which has been carried in for taxation at a district registry to be re-taxed elsewhere.-Stevens v. Griffin, 76 L.T. 803.

(ii.) C. D.-Contempt - Attachment—O. lii., r. 4.-Where a notice of motion is given for committal, or for leave to issue a writ of attachment for disobeying an order of Court, a copy of the affidavit of service of order must be served on the defendant contemporaneously with the notice of motion, unless he was in Court when the order was made.Hall & Co. v. Trigg, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 219; 76 L.T, 807.

(iii.) C. A.-Pleading Particulars.-In an action to restrain defendants from selling as the best goods which the plaintiffs manufactured, goods which they produced as a second quality only, and from falsely and fraudulently representing that the plaintiffs' goods were inferior to those made by the defendants, it was held, that particulars of times and places of alleged sales were all the information that the defendants could require to enable them to meet the case made by the plaintiffs.— Duke & Sons v. Wisden & Co., 77 L.T. 67.

(iv.) C. A.—Pleading.—Where an act would be a tort if committed in this country, a plea that it was committed abroad is bad as a defence to an action here in respect of it, unless the act would be an innocent one by the law of the country where it was committed.-Machado v. Fontes, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 231; 76 L.T. 588.

(v.) C. A.-Defence Struck Out as an Abuse of Process of Court.-Where a statement of defence is shown by facts not in dispute to be a sham defence, the Court has jurisdiction to strike it out to prevent an abuse of legal machinery.-Remmington v. Scoles, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 1; 76 L.T. 667.

(vi.) C. A.-Special Indorsement-Recovery of Land and Mesne ProfitsO. iii., r. 6-0. xiv., r. 1—Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, s. 214.—A plaintiff specially endorsed a writ for possession of land and mesne profits. In an affidavit in support of a summons for leave to enter final judgment, it appeared that the mesne profits were really for double rent for holding over. The Judge made an order for possession and mesne profits up to date of plaintiff obtaining possession. Held, that the affidavit did not invalidate the writ, and that the order was within the terms of the writ.-Southport Tramways Co. v. Gandy, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 66; 76 L.T. 815.

(vii.) C. A.-Affidavit of Documents-Discovery tending to Criminate-Time to take Objection.-An order for discovery of documents may be made, notwithstanding the objection of the person to whom it is issued that discovery would tend to criminate him. The proper way and time to raise the objection is in his affidavit in answer.-Spokes v. Grosvenor Hotel Co. and Others (No. 1), L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 124; 76 L.T. 677. (viii.) C. A.-Discovery from Defendant against whom no Relief is Sought--O. xxxi., r. 12.-Where, in a shareholders' action against directors and others for conspiring to defraud a company, the company is joined as a defendant, an order for discovery may be made against the company though no claim is made against it in the action.- Spokes v. Grosvenor Hotel Co. and Others (No. 2), 76 L.T. 679.

(ix.) C. A.-Discovery-Affidavit that Documents are Part of Deponents Evidence. Where defendants in an affidavit of documents alleged that certain papers were part of the evidence supporting their case, the

plaintiff was held not to be entitled to inspection.-Frankenstein v. Gavin's House to House Cycle Cleaning and Insurance Co. and Others, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 62; 76 L.T. 747.

(i.) C. A.—Discovery-Interrogatories-Action for Forfeiture of Lease.— In an action for forfeiture of lease for breach of covenant, the Court will not grant to the plaintiff discovery or leave to administer interrogatories. Earl of Mexborough v. The Whitwood Urban District Council, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 111; 76 L.T. 765.

(ii.) C. A.-Libel-Consolidation of Actions-Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 64), s. 5.-Where a person brings actions against two or more defendants on substantially the same libel, a Judge may, before the defences are declared, order the actions to be consolidated under sect. 5 of the Act.-Stone v. The Press Association, Limited, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 159; 77 L.T. 41.

(iii.) C. A.-Mistake-Consent Order Set Aside.-Decision of Court below (22, p. 102 (ii.)) affirmed. Stewart v. Kennedy, 15 App. Cas. 108, applied. Wilding v. Sanderson, 77 L.T. 57.

(iv.) C. A.-Libel on Newspaper--Original MS.-Discovery-O. xxxi., rr. 12 & 18.-In an action for libel in a newspaper, which was admitted by the proprietors, who apologised and paid money into Court, it was held that an order for inspection of the MS. ought not to be made.Hope v. Brash, L.R. [1897] 2 Q.B. 188; 76 L.T. 823.

(v.) C.

A.-Interpleader-Order for Sale-Application of Proceeds— O. lvii., r. 12.-A claim on goods which had been seized by the sheriff was made by the holder of a bill of sale given to secure a loan repayable by 17 monthly instalments at 60 per cent. Held (Rigby, L.J., dissentiente) that the Judge had power under O. lvii., r. 12, to direct the sale of the goods and the discharge of the debt, with interest at the agreed rate up to the date of repayment only, the surplus going to the execution creditor.-Forster v. Clowser; Diprose Claimant, 76 L.T.825. (vi.) C. D.—Prisoner-Witness—Order to Governor of Prison—O. xxxvi., r. 35 -Seton, p. 89.-Where the evidence of a prisoner was required at the hearing of an action, an order to produce him was directed, in an ex parte motion, to be issued, not before the case was in the paper for trial, to the governor of the gaol in the form given in Seton, p. 89.-Jenks v. Ditton, 76 L.T. 591.

(vii.) C. D.-No Counterclaim or Third Party Notice-Trustee Act, 1893, s. 45. -In an action to compel executors of trustees to replace a fund lost through improper investment, it was claimed under sect. 45 of the Act to have the estate of a married woman without power of anticipation impounded. Held that, although the executors had not counterclaimed or given third party notice to the married woman, the Court could dispose of the matter; and leave was given to apply in chambers.In re Holt; in re Rollason; Holt v. Holt, 76 L.T. 776. (viii.) C. D.-Solicitor-Compromise between Parties.- Plaintiff and defendant may compromise an action without the intervention of the solicitors, but if they do so to deprive a solicitor of his lien the compromise will not be allowed. An applicant whose own affidavits do not prove his own case may support his case by reading affidavits which have been filed against him.-In re Margetson and Stanley-Jones, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 314; 76 L.T. 805.

(ix). C. D.-Married Woman-Separate Examination-Settled Estates Act, 1877, s. 50-Married Women's Property Act, 1882, ss. 1, 5.-A woman married before, but acquiring property after the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, need not be separately examined in an application, to which she is a party, under the Settled Estates Act, 1877.-In re Batt's Settled Estates, L.R. [1897] 2 Ch. 65.