(i.) C. A.--Lunatic Resident out of Jurisdiction-Curator-Transfer of Stock -Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 Vict., c, 5), s. 134.-A curator appointed according to the laws of a place out of the jurisdiction, where a lunatic is resident is not of right entitled to have stock in this country transferred into his name out of the lunatic's. The Court will in its discretion decide whether such an order should be made.-In re A. M. Knight, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 257; 77 L.T. 773.

Mandamus:

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Refusal of Access to Minutes of Burial Board-Burial Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict., c. 85), ss. 16, 17.-A ratepayer made application under sect. 16 for his solicitor to inspect and copy minutes of a burial board. The board refused on the ground that only the ratepayer personally was entitled, and that the solicitor was acting for a company, to whom in another matter it was an object to obtain inspection of the minutes. The Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus, as the application was not in a legal sense bonâ fide.—Reg. v. Wimbledon Urban District Council; e. p. Hatton, 77 L.T. 599.

Married Woman:

(iii.) C. A.- Restraint on Anticipation.-A married woman cannot by any device deprive herself of the protection of a restraint on anticipation. The restraint can only be got rid of under sect. 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881. Decision of Court below (23, p. 10, iv.) affirmed.— Bateman v. Faber, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 144; 77 L.T. 576.

(iv.) C. D.-Protection Order-Contract Entered into Prior to Married Woman's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 75)-Rights of Creditor— Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict., c. 85), ss. 21, 26.-A married woman who had obtained a protection order under sect. 21 of the Act of 1857 covenanted by deed in 1880 to pay money. In 1894 she acquired and exercised testamentary powers of appointment over funds. On her death it was held that she was entitled under sects. 21 and 26 of the Act of 1857 to enter into contracts; that having exercised a general power of appointment she had made the fund liable for the debts, and that the covenanter could prove as a creditor.-In re Hughes; Brandon v. Hughes, 77 L.T. 564.

(v.) C. D.-Payment of Husband's Debts out of Separate Estate Restraint on Anticipation-Indemnity Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict., c. 41), s. 39.-A wife who has contributed out of her separate estate towards payment of her husband's debts has an equitable right of indemnity against him during his life and against his estate after his death. But where the contribution has been made by order of the Court under sect. 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, by relief of restraint on anticipation, the husband is not liable.-Paget v. Paget, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 47.

Master and Servant:

(vi.) H. L.—In Lawful Act Motive Immaterial-Procuring Discharge or Preventing Employment of Servant.-The motive with which an act not illegal in itself is done is immaterial. To induce, even maliciously, an employer to dismiss a servant, or not to engage a particular person, gives no right of action, in the absence of breach of contract, to the person injured. (The Lord Chancellor and Lords Ashbourne and Morris dissenting). See 20, p. 111, vii. Keeble v. Hickeringill (11 East 574 n.), and Lumley v. Gye (2 E. & B. 216), discussed. Temperton v. Russell (69 L.T. Rep. 74; L.R. 1 Q.B. 715), disapproved. -Allen v. Flood, L.R. [1898] A.C. 1; 77 L.T. 717.

(vii.) Q. B. D.--Domestic Servant-Fortnight's Notice to Leave at End of First Month. --A custom by which a master or a domestic servant can give to the other a fortnight's notice of the intention to terminate a

contract of service at the end of the first month is not one judicially noticed, and must be proved. It being thus a question of fact there is no appeal from a decision upon it in a county court.-Moult v. Halliday, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 125; 77 L.T. 794.

Metropolis :

(i.) H. L.-Sewer-Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict., c. 120), 88. 68, 69, 74, 250; and 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 102), s. 47. The owner of a row of houses drained them after the passing of the Metropolis Management Acts by a pipe running into the vestry's sewer. Held (affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal), that the pipe was a "sewer" within the meaning of sect. 250 of the Act of 1855.-Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green v. London School Board, L.R. [1898] A.C. 190; 77 L.T. 635.

(ii.) Q. B. D.-" Dwelling-house"-"To be Inhabited"-" Adapted to be Inhabited by Persons of the Working Class "-London Building Act, 1894 (57 d 58 Vict., c. 213), ss. 5 (25), (26), (27) and 13 (5).--By sect. 13 of the Building Act, "no dwelling-house to be inhabited or adapted to be inhabited by persons of the working class is to exceed a certain height. Held, that though a public building within sect. 5 (27) may be a "dwelling-house" within sect. 13 (5), a public building to be used as an hotel for poor men is not; that "to be inhabited" means intended when built to be inhabited; that "adapted to be inhabited means structurally adapted; and that " working class" means a class amongst whom over-crowding is likely to take place.-London County Council v. Davis; London County Council v. Rowton House Co., 77 L.T. 693.

Mortgage :

(iii.) C. D.- Contributory Mortgages by Trustee and Solicitor-Breach of Trust-Priorities.-Prance and W. took a transfer, stated to be on joint account and interest, of a mortgage for £6,000 at 41 per cent. on a property which was an inadequate security. By a memorandum, they admitted that the consideration money was not their own, but was made up of £3,000 belonging to a firm of solicitors of which Prance was a member, and £3,000 belonging to the A. trustees for whom his firm acted, and that they were trustees for this latter sum at 4 per cent. A day or two afterwards, the firm of solicitors transferred their £3,000 to bear interest at 4 per cent. to the B. trustees for whom they acted also; and to both sets of trustees they guaranteed the payment of interest and the repayment of principal in consideration of receiving the difference between the 4 and the 4 per cent. Some years later, they paid off a part of the sum due to the B. trustee, and a deed, executed at the same time between themselves, Prance and W., and the B. trustees, declared that Prance and W. stood seised of the property as to the two sums of £3,000 for the parties interested pari passu. The firm of solicitors became bankrupt, and the A. trustees claimed priority over the B. trustees and over the trustee in bankruptcy. Held, that there had been a breach of trust in advancing the money in excess of the ratio allowed by law, and in not taking the security in the names of trustees; that the solicitors had been guilty of a breach of duty in not so advising their clients, for which they were answerable in the bankruptcy; that they were not precluded from taking the benefit of the difference of interest to the disadvantage of the A. trustees; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to priority. -Stokes v. Prance, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 212; 77 L.T. 595.

(iv.) C. A.-Meaning of "Punctually."-A mortgage deed contained the proviso that the principal should not be required until the expiration of three years "if in the meantime every half-yearly payment of interest shall be punctually paid." Payment not having been made at the close of a half-year, the mortgagees, four days afterwards, gave

notice requiring payment of principal. Held, that "punctually means on the day named, and that the mortgagees were within their right in demanding payment. Decision of Court below reversed.The Leeds and Hanley Theatre of Varieties, Limited, v. Broadbent, 77 L.T. 665.

(i.) C. A.—-Claim of Mortgagee to Fund on giving Receipt-Right to Pay into Court-Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict., c. 41), s. 22, sub-s. 1.Trustees of a fund in mortgage on which they have reason to expect that adverse claims will be made are not bound to hand over the fund in exchange for the receipt of the mortgagee under sect. 22 (1) of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, but may protect themselves by paying the money into Court. In re Bell; Jeffery v. Sayles (21, p. 42, iv.) applied. Hockey v. Western, 78 L.T. 1.

Parliament:

(ii.) Q. B. D.- Election Expenses-Return-Action for Penalties-Corrupt and illegal Practices Prevention Act. 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51), s. 33. — A candidate for a seat in Parliament had, under sect. 24, sub-sect. 2, of the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, named himself as his own election agent. As such he posted on the 35th day the returns, but imperfect in some particulars required by sect. 33. These in course of post would not be due to reach their destination till the 37th day after his election, and before that day he voted in the House of Commons. Held, that an erroneous return is not a "failure to transmit," but that the transmission required by sub-sect. 5 is completed transmission, and that therefore the defendant was liable for voting before the delivery of the returns to the fine of £100 named in the sub-section.Mackinnon v. Clark, 77 L.T. 657.

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Parliamentary Franchise-Representation of the People Acts, 1832 (2 & 3 Wm. IV., c. 45), ss. 27 & 29; 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), 88. 3, 6, 27; 1884 (48 49 Vict., c. 3), ss. 2, 5.-A claim to the Parliamentary franchise for a "dwelling house joint" is bad (sect. 3 of Act of 1867) as a household qualification, but will enable the claimant to shew that he is entitled to the £10 occupation franchise.-Bagley v. Butcher and Another, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 67; 77 L.T. 525. Fartition :

---

(iv.) C. A.-Partition Action-Tenant of Undivided Moiety Sole DefendantSale-Partition Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict., c. 40), ss. 4 and 9.-Sale may be ordered in lieu of partition where the plaintiff has an undivided moiety of the property and the defendant holds a lease granted by the owner of the other moiety, who has declared that he has "no interest in the hereditaments mentioned in the statement of claim."-Mason v. Keays, 78 L.T. 33.

Partnership :

66

(v.) C. D.-Dissolution-Purchase by Partner who retained Assets". Vendor canvassing Old Customers-Injunction. In compromise of an action for dissolution of partnership the assets were retained by one of two partners in consideration of a payment by the other. Held, under Trego v. Hunt, that where goodwill was assigned between parties in the relationship of vendor and purchaser the vendor could be restrained from canvassing old customers, and must observe the general obligations of a vendor. Gray v. Smith (61 L.T. Rep. 481), and Pearson v. Pearson (51 L.T. Rep. 311) considered.-Jennings v. Jennings, 77 L.T. 786.

Patent:

(vi.) H. L.—Infringement Foreign Manufacturer-Patented Article Purchased Abroad and sent by Post to England.-A foreign manufacturer sent through a foreign post office to a firm in England by their

request goods made abroad under a patent protected in England. Held, that the contract was completed by delivery abroad; that the post office was the agent of the buyer, and that there was no right of action in the patentee against the vendor for infringement. Judgment of Court of Appeal (23, 11, iv.) affirmed.-The Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. The Basle Chemical Works Bindschedler, L.R. [1898] A.C. 200; 77 L.T. 573.

(i.) C. A.- Design · Pattern" - Originality - Patents, &c., Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 57), ss. 47, 51, 60—Design Rules, 1890, r. 9.-Application was made to have a design removed from the register on the ground that it was not new or original; that the drawing annexed to the certificate of registration was insufficient; and that sect. 51 of the Act was not complied with. On the facts it was held that treating the word "pattern" as including shape, ornamentation, and outline according to Le May v. Welch (51 L.T. Rep. 867; L.R. 28 Ch. Div. 24), and In re Clarke's Design (22, 10, viii.) there was enough originality to entitle the design to be kept on the register, and that a slight mistake in the drawing having been rectified as soon as it was discovered was within the saving clause of sect. 51.-In re Rollason's Registered Design, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 237; 77 L.T. 605.

Poor Law:

(ii.) C. A.-Settlement-Order of Removal--Sub-division of Parish under Local Government Act, 1894 (56 d 57 Vict., c. 73), s. 1, sub-s. 3.— A birth settlement in a parish is lost if the parish is divided under sect. 1 of the Local Government Act, 1894. Decision of Divisional Court (23, 46, v.) affirmed.—Guardians of the Poor of St. Saviour's v. Dorking Union, 78 L.T. 29.

Powers:

(iii.) C. A.-Power of Appointment by Deed or Will-Double Portion.Decision of the Chancery Division (23, p. 15, i.) reversed, the Court of Appeal being of opinion on the facts (without expressing any view on the question of double portions) that the case was analogous to that of a testator giving in his lifetime to a legatee under his will the amount of his legacy.-In re Ashton; Ingram v. Papillon, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 142; 77 L.T. 582.

Practice :

(iv.) C. D.-Lancaster Palatine Court-Service of Order out of Jurisdiction— Court of Chancery of Lancaster Acts, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict., c. 43), s. 15; 1854 (17 & 18 Vict., c. 82), s. 7.-Where an order of the Palatine Court cannot be enforced against a person because of his residence out of the jurisdiction, application should be made to the Chancery Division to have the order made an order of the High Court under sect. 15 of the Act of 1850, notwithstanding sect. 7 of the Act of 1854.-In re Dunmore v. Warham, 78 L.T. 38.

(v.) C. D.-Writ-Service of Notice out of Jurisdiction-Rules of 1883O. xi., r. 1 (e) (g).—A London firm deposited as security life policies with a German bank and afterwards created a second charge on the policies in favour of a person living in Germany. The bank afterwards acquired the equity of redemption and transferred it to trustees for themselves in England, against whom they commenced an action for foreclosure. On motion to discharge an order for notice, in lieu of service, of writ on the person holding the second charge, it was held, that the case did not come under O. xi., r. 1 (e), as it was not founded on breach of contract; that the trustees should have been joined as coplaintiffs, not defendants, as there was no actual relief claimed against them; and that the order must be discharged.-Deutsche National Bank v. Paul, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 283; 78 L.T. 35.

(i.) C. D.-Striking Out Statement of Claim-O. xxv., r. 4.-Form of Tender. -A liquidator wrote to proposing purchasers of a mine "the highest net money tender I receive, other things being equal and satisfactory, I will at once accept." A person made a money tender, accompanied by an offer to indemnify the vendor against all claims under, and to take an assignment of, another property. The plaintiffs tendered offering £200 over the unknown amount of the other tender, coupled with an offer to take the lease of the other property if the rival offer was on that footing. The liquidator refused to recognise the plaintiffs' tender and accepted the other. On a claim for specific performance, the defendant moved to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Held, that the terms of taking over the lease of the second property were so much more favourable to the defendants in the accepted tender than on the plaintiffs' offer that other things were not equal within the terms of the liquidator's letter; that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and the liquidator, and that the statement of claim must be struck out. The South Hetton Coal Co., Limited, v. The Haswell, &c., Coal Co., Limited, 78 L.T. 8. (ii.) C. A.- Joinder of Causes of Action—O. xvi,, rr. 4 & 5; 0. xviii., r. 1.—A plaintiff cannot join in an action against several defendants for joint tort a claim against some of the same defendants for another tort, although both claims may have arisen out of the same occurrence, Sadler v. Great Western Railway (74 L.T. Rep. 561; L.R. [1896] A.C. 450) followed.-Gower v. Couldridge and Others, L.R. [1898] 1 Q.B. 348; 77 L.T. 707.

(iii.) P. D.—Probate-Conduct Money-Court of Probate Act, 1857, s. 26.Semble, that conduct money cannot be claimed in the first instance by a person directed to attend for examination pursuant to sect. 26 of Act. In the goods of Wyatt, L.R. [1898] P. 15; 78 L.T. 80. (iv.) C. D.-Company-Winding-Up-Notice of Filing Affidavits.-Notice of filing supplemental affidavits in support of a winding-up should be given in order to avoid unnecessary adjournments. In re New Weighing Machine Company explained.-In re British Cycle Manufacturing Company, Limited, 77 L.T. 683.

(v.) H. L.-New Trial.--Where a jury have answered reasonably a question of fact left to them their verdict cannot be disturbed, but if their attention has not been directed to the whole facts or if the question to be determined was not so left to them that their verdict was given on the whole facts, the Court may order a new trial. Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed.-Jones v. Spencer, 77 L.T. 536. (vi) C. A.-Tender of Cheque.-Plaintiffs appealed against a decision of the Chancery Division (22, p. 66, vi.). They had obtained an ex parte order to restrain a sale of mortgaged property on condition that they paid a sum of £400 into Court. They failed to fulfil the condition, but on the morning of the sale their solicitor tendered to the defendants' solicitor £400 in cash, and under protest his own cheque for further charges incurred. The tender was refused on the ground that it was under protest. Held, without review of the decision of the point of law (22, p. 66 vi.) that the appeal must be dismissed on the facts of the case.-Blumberg v. The Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation, Limited, L.R. [1898] 1 Ch. 27; 77 L.T. 506. (vii.) C. A.-Security for Costs-Limited Company, Plaintiff-Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 89), s. 69.-By sect. 69 where a limited company with insufficient assets is plaintiff in anv legal proceeding it may be required to give security for costs. The amount of the security is to be measured by the probable costs which the defendant will be put to.-The Dominion Brewery, Limited, v. Foster, 77 L.T. 507.