thence to the London branch. On advice from the London office that the cheque was right, and that the sum for which it was drawn had been credited to the Paris office, that amount was paid in Paris to the person who presented the cheque. He was not a customer of the Bank, and it turned out that he was not the rightful owner of the cheque, and that the endorsement on the cheque was a forgery. Held, that the Bank was liable for the value of the cheque to the true owner.-Lacave & Co. v. The Crédit Lyonnais, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 148; 75 L.T. 514.

Bill of Sale:

(i.) C. A.-Consideration under £30, and not " truly set forth "Bills of Sale Act, 1878-Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 43), ss. 8 & 12.—A promissory note for £14 3s. 4d., repayable by instalments of 11s. 4d. weekly, was given in consideration of a sum of £10. After one instalment had been paid, and before the second was due, the maker of the note gave the payee a bill of sale in consideration of £13 12s. "now owing," and of £16 8s. in cash. Held, that the bill was void, as the consideration was not truly set forth, and was under £30.-Darlow v. Bland and Others, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 125; 75 L.T. 537. (ii.) Q. B. D.-" Plant" " brought upon a Place"-Bill of Sale Act, 1878, s. 5 -Amendment Act, 1882, ss. 4, 6, sub-s. 2.-Two horses included in a bill of sale, and specifically described, were parted with by the grantor, who substituted for them two other horses, and these he subsequently sold to a purchaser who had no knowledge of the bill of sale. In an interpleader action it was held, that the new horses were not "plant," nor were they brought upon a place in substitution for any of the like plant specifically described within the meaning of sect. 6 of the Act, and that the bill of sale was void as to the two horses, under sect. 4.-London and Eastern Counties Loan and Discount Co., Limited v. Crease, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 442; 76 L.T. 87.

Brawling :

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Liability of Clergyman (23 & 24 Vict., c. 32, s. 2).—The liability of "any person " for riotous behaviour in a church or churchyard, applies to the incumbent of the church as well as to a layman.— Vallancey v. Fletcher, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 265; 76 L.T. 201.

Civil Servant:

(iv.) C. A.-Appointment" during pleasure"-Reduction in Rank-No Cause of Action-Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, s. 4, sub-s. 3.—Where a supervisor of Inland Revenue, who had been appointed "during the pleasure of the Commissioners," was under sect. 4, sub-sect. 3, of the above Act reduced in rank for a refusal to comply with an order which he considered was not within his duties, it was held that he had no cause of action, and an order of a Judge in Chambers to stay an action commenced was upheld.-Worthington v. Robinson, and Others, 75 L.T. 446.

Colonial Law:

(v.) P. C.-Canada-British North America Act, 1867 (30 Vict., c. 3), s. 92, sub-ss. 2 and 9-Direct Taxation-Brewers and Distillers Licences.-A uniform fee required by the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario from all brewers and distillers in the Province is "direct taxation " within sect. 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. Bank of Toronto v. Lambe (L.R. 12 App. Cases 575; 57 L.T. 377) followed.-The Brewers and Malsters Association of Ontario v. Attorney-General for Ontario, 76 L.T. 61.

(i.) P. C.-Canada-Dominion Act, 1867-Annuity to Indian TribesLiability of Province.-A treaty of 1850 provided for the payment, by the old Dominion of Canada to certain Indian tribes in consideration for lands, of an annuity which, in events which happened, was to be increased. The Dominion Act of 1876 divided the province of Canada into the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The lands, the subject of the treaty, were in the latter province, but by the terms of the Act the Dominion of Canada was to be liable for the original annuity. Held, that the Dominion, and not the province of Ontario, was liable for the additional annuity.—Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorney-General of Ontario; Attorney-General of Quebec v. Attorney-General of Ontario, 75 L.T. 522.

(ii.) P. C.—British Columbia—Insolvency-Fraudulent Preference— Collusion -Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia, c. 51, s. 1.-By the above statute, a confession of judgment is void if given by an insolvent voluntarily or in collusion with a creditor with intent to create a preference, or to delay or defeat other creditors. Held, that pressure by a creditor might be an answer to a case of fraudulent preference, but not to a case of collusion. Martin v. Macalpine (8 Ontario Appeal Rep. 675) approved.-Edison General Electric Company v. Westminster and Vancouver Tramway Co. and the Bank of British Columbia, 75 L.T. 438.

(iii.) P. C.-Victoria-Administration and Probate Act, 1890-Will-Probate - Face and Market Value of Securities Shares in Bank under Reconstruction.-Where deposit receipts of a bank are at a discount, the market price may be taken as the value for purposes of probate. Sums payable on shares in the reconstruction of a bank are debts of a deceased shareholder under sect. 97 of the Colonial Administration and Probate Act of 1890.-The Master in Equity v. Pearson and Others, 75 L.T. 526.

Commons:

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Gravel from Common for repair of Roads-Jurisdiction of Justices-Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 56), s. 20.—Under sect. 20 of the Commons Act, 1876, justices in petty session have jurisdiction to grant or to refuse an order for taking materials for the repair of parish roads from a common.-The Conservators of Hayes Common v. Bromley Rural District Council, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 321; 76 L.T. 51. Company :

(v.) C. A.-Application for Shares Underwriting Letter Condition Precedent Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 89), s. 35.-By an underwriting letter for shares in a company it was agreed that the underwriter would, whenever called upon, lodge with the promoters an application for shares, and that if he failed to do so, the promoters, notwithstanding his repudiation, should be authorised to apply for, and the directors be authorised to allot to him the agreed shares. Held, affirming decision of Chitty, J., that even assuming that the offer of the underwriter was accepted by the promoters before repudiation, a request to him to apply for shares was a condition precedent to an application by them. Held, by Chitty, J., that the promoters, by retaining the underwriting letter without objection to it, signified acceptance of its terms.-In re The Bulfontein Sun Diamond Mine, Limited; e. p. Cox, Hughes and Norman, 75 L.T. 669. (vi.) C. D.-Winding-up-Private Company-Paid-up Shares-Consideration —Misfeasance-Contributories-Practice-Companies Act, 1867 (30 ₫ 31 Vict., c. 131), s. 25—Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 63), s. 10—Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1890, rr. 83-87.-The

owners of a business turned it into a limited company, in which they became the only shareholders receiving paid-up shares on the conversion. Two of them, on behalf of the vendors, made with the company an agreement, which was filed before the issue of any shares, fixing the sale price of certain items of property transferred to the company at a much higher sum than that at which the same items were entered subsequently in the books of the company. On the winding-up, the Official Receiver claimed from the two signatories on behalf of the vendors the difference between these two valuations as damages for their misfeasance as officers of the company, and alternatively sought to make them liable for the amount as unpaid on their shares. On a preliminary objection, it was held, that though the joinder of the alternative claims might be inconvenient, it was not embarrassing, and that the claim to make the two vendors contributories was not improper; but that as there were no damages proved, the claim for misfeasance failed, and the claim for contribution failed, on the ground that the Official Receiver had not made out a case to induce the Court to go behind the registered contract.—In re E. J. Wragg, Limited, 75 L.T. 652.

(i.) C. D.-Practice-Extending Objects of Company-Order on PetitionAdvertising-Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890-Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., c. 62), s. 1, sub-s. 3.—There is no established practice as to advertising orders under sect. 1, sub-sect. 3 of the Companies (Memorandum of Association) Act, 1890, but the Court can dispense with advertisements of such orders.--In re The Lancaster Banking Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 647.

(ii.) C. D. & C. A.-Winding-up-Mining Lease-Distress-Validity against Debenture Holders-Seizure of Chattels on Neighbouring Land-Bills of Sale Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict., c. 31), ss. 4 & 6—Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict., c. 43), ss. 3 & 8—Companies Act, 1862, ss. 85, 87, 138.— The day before a mining company confirmed a resolution to wind-up voluntarily the landlord distrained for rent and seized under powers of a lease chattels of the company not within the demise. Held, reversing the decision of the Court below, that the power was not a "licence to take possession of personal chattels " within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Bills of Sale Act, and was not invalidated by being unregistered (Pulbrook v. Ashby considered). A distress made before a winding-up and before the appointment of a receiver is valid against debentures with a floating charge on the chattels of the company. Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf (Vol. 22, p. 7, vii.), and in re The Opera, Limited, L.R. [1891] 3 Ch. 260; 65 L.T. 371) applied.—In re the Roundwood Colliery Co., Limited; Lee v. the Roundwood Colliery, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 375; 75 L.T. 508 & 641.

(iii.) H. L.-" One Man" Company-Indemnity Companies Acts.-A boot manufacturer, solvent at the time, converted his business into a limited company, he and six members of his family subscribing the memorandum of association for one £1 share each. The nominal capital of the company was £40,000 in £1 shares, and the purchase money was fixed at £38,782, payable £10,000 in debentures and the remainder in cash. The vendor subscribed for 20,000 shares and the funds which came into the business were paid to him and returned to the company until the 20,000 shares had been by this means fully paid up. The greater part of the rest of the cash portion of the purchase money was applied to the discharge of liabilities incurred before the conversion of the business. No shares beyond the 20,007 were issued. In a few months the company was wound-up, the debentures absorbing all the assets, leaving the trading debts unpaid. Held, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, that as the company was constituted in accordance with the Statute, the motive (în the absence of direct

fraud) of those who took part in its promotion was not a subject for enquiry by the Court; that the company was not the agent or the trustee of the vendor, and therefore that he was not liable to indemnify it against its creditors. Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. distinguished. See also Vol. 21, p. 7 (i.).—Salomon v. Salomon & Co., Limited, and Cross Appeal, L.R. [1897] A.C. 22; 75 L.T. 426.

(i.) C. A.—Winding-up-Opposition of Majority of Creditors-Discretion of Court.-A winding-up order was made on the petition of a debenture holder of a company, notwithstanding that the petition was opposed by the great majority of the debenture holders who were practically the only creditors, and that evidence was given that there were no tangible assets. Held, that as the official receiver was not satisfied that there were no assets to be reached in a winding-up the order ought not to be disturbed.-In re The International Commercial Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 639.

(ii.) C. A. -Winding-up-Transfer of Shares-Change of Status_Companies Act, 1862. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 22, p. 42, i.) reversed.In re The National Bank of Wales, Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 298; 76 L.T. 1.

(iii.) H. L.-Debentures-Floating Security-When Attached. Decision of Court below (see Vol. 21, p. 6, iii.) affirmed.—Government Stock Investment Co. v. The Manila Railway Co., L.R. [1897] A.C. 81; 75 L.T. 553. (iv.) C. D.-Liquidation-Debentures-Claim on Uncalled Capital." The undertaking and all the property whatsoever and wheresoever both present and future" of a company which had power to borrow on any of its property, including uncalled capital, was charged as security for money owing on debentures. On the company going into liquidation it was held that the debentures were not a charge on the capital uncalled at the commencement of the winding-up.-In re Streatham and General Estates Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 15; 75 L.T. 574.

(v.) C. D.—Debenture Holders-Right to Take Copies of Register of Mortgages-Companies Act, 1862, ss. 25 & 43-Companies Clauses Acts, 1845, ss. 9, 10, 36, 45, & 119; and 1863, s. 28.-The right of inspection of the register of mortgages which sect. 43 of the Companies Act, 1862, gives to a creditor or member of a company includes the right to take copies of entries in the register.-Nelson v. Anglo-American Land, Mortgage and Agency Co., Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 130; 75 L.T. 482.

(vi.) C.

D.-Winding-up-Misfeasance-Auditors-Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, s. 10.-Chartered accountants who have acted as auditors of a company, though not formally appointed as required by the Articles of Association, are properly joined as respondents to a summons for misfeasance under sect. 10 of the Winding-up Act, 1890. Coventry and Dixon's case, 42 L.T. 559; L.R. 14 Ch, Div. 660 applied; in re London and General Bank, Vol. 20, p. 68 (vii.) ; and in re Cotton Mills Co., Vol. 21, p. 57 (iii.), considered.—In re The Western Counties Steam Bakeries and Milling Co., Limited, 75 L.T. 648.

(vii.) C. A. & C. D.-Right of Creditor to Winding-up Order ex debito justitia-Assets insufficient to meet Debentures-Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.-Having regard to the decision in Solomon v. Solomon & Co., Limited (see above) where all the assets of a company would be absorbed by debentures which have been validly issued to the vendor, a winding-up order cannot be obtained by unsecured creditors.-In re The London Health Electrical Institute, Limited, 75 L.T. 658, and 76 L.T. 98.

(i. C. D. & C. A.-Winding-up-Substratum of Business gone-Fraudulent Purpose-Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 89), s. 79, sub-s. 5.—A limited company had been restrained from using the title under which it traded unless it added to it a statement that the company was distinct from an old established firm of the same name. On a petition being presented for winding-up on the ground, inter alia, that it was a bubble company, it was held that a material part of the substratum of the company's business having gone, it was "just and equitable" on a balance of facts shown, that a winding-up order should be made.—In re Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons, Limited, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 45 and 406; 75 L.T. 585, and 76 L.T. 100.

Contract:

(ii.) C. D.—Agreement for Lease—Parol Evidence to Negative Agreement.— A document in the form of an agreement for the lease of a house was signed by the proposing tenant, and subsequently, but without the intention of contracting, by the other party, and deposited by him with his solicitor with instructions to require a further condition. Held, that parol evidence was admissible to shew that there was no agreement.-Pattle v. Hornibrook, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 25; 75 L.T. 475. (iii.) C. D.—Contract founded on Letters-Uncertainty of Date-Specific Performance.—A purchaser wrote that he had “decided to accept" an offer made by letter of a freehold at the sum asked, but that he should like to know from what time the vendor wished the purchase to date. Held, to be a completed contract.-Armstrong v. Hughes, 75 L.T. 487. (iv.) C. A.-Personal Services-Agreement to "act exclusively for" Employer. -An agreement to "act exclusively for" an employer does not, in the absence of a negative covenant, entitle him to an injunction to restrain the servant from entering into the employment of other persons.-The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. The New York Life Insurance Co. and Harvey, 75 L.T. 528.

Copyhold:

(v.) C. A.-Heriots.-A beast never within the manor may be seized for a heriot (see also Vol. 22, p. 8, vi.)—Western v. Bailey, L.R. [1897] 1 Q.B. 86; 75 L.T. 470.

Copyright:

(vi.) C. D.—Registration-Validity-Copyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict., c. 45), s. 13-Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 68), ss. 1, 4.— Drawings for a trade circular which was prepared by the managing director of a limited company, were paid for, and used by the company. He was registered as proprietor of the copyright in the catalogue and in the drawings; but there was no writing vesting the copyright in him. On an action by him and the company as co-plaintiffs to restrain infringement, held that he had acted as agent of the company, and that the registration was bad under both the Copyright Acts; that even if he were entitled to be registered as proprietor of the copyright in the catalogue, this would not protect the drawings; and that the action was not maintainable. London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. Cox, 65 L.T. 60; L.R. [1891] 3 Ch. 291, followed.-Petty v. Taylor, L.R. [1897] 1 Ch. 465; 75 L.T. 545.

(vii.) Q. B. D.--Execution-Claim to Goods-Sale-Title of purchaserCounty Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 43), s. 156.-Where goods which had been seized by a bailiff in execution of a County Court judgment