(iii.) C.. P. Div.-Municipal Election.-Notice of the day on which nomination papers are to be delivered, must be given seven clear days previously, exclusive of nomination day, day of election, and Sundays.-Howes v. Turner, 45 L.J. C.P. 550; 35 L.T. 58.

(iv.) C. C. R.-Municipal Election-Voting Papers.-At a Municipal Election the County Court has power to order production of the counted and rejected voting papers and marked counterfoils, as evidence of an offence against the Ballot Act.-Regina v. Beardsall, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 452; 34 L.T. 660.

(v.) C. P. Div.--Parliamentary Election.—The Court will not allow the amendment of a petition by an unsuccessful candidate by striking out the claim for the Seat.-Aldridge v. Hurst. L.R. 1, C.P.D. 410; 45 L.J. 431; 35 L T. 156; 24 W.R. 708.

(vi.) App. Div. Ct.-Parliamentary Election-Revising Barrister.-A revising barrister ordered removal of plaintiff from Court, on the ground that in the previous year he had wrongfully withheld certain documents: to County Court action for wrongful expulsion, the barrister relied as special defence on provisions of 28 Vic. s. 16, and plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that the decision of the barrister on the question of " interruption" could not be reviewed by another Court: Held that the non-suit was wrong.-Willis v. Machlachlan, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 376; 45 L.J. C.P 689; 35 L.T. 218.

Enclosure Act:

(i.) C. A.—Gravel pit-Lateral extension.-Held, on the construction of an Inclosure Act passed in 1764, wherein it was enacted that the surveyors of the parish of B. might cut and dig gravel from existing pits for repair of highways, that the surveyors were entitled to extend the pits laterally though the surface was thereby destroyed.-Ellis v. Local Board of Bromley, 33 L.T, 182; 24 W.R. 716.

Endowed School:

(i.) P. C.—The mastership of Alleyn's College, Dulwich, being an office created and defined by 20 and 21 Vic., c. 84, gives the holder a vested interest in the office and emoluments thereof, within Endowed Schools Act, 1869, s. 13.-Re Alleyn's College at Dulwich, L.R. 1 App. 69; 45 L.J. P.C. 28.

Evidence :

(i.) Ex. Div.-Descent.-Where death of a person is of very remote date, if it is shown that no trace of his descendants can be found, it will be persumed that he died without issue.-Greaves v. Greenwood, 35 L.T. 65; 24 W.R. 926.

(ii.) C. A.— Publication.—The publication of depositions taken in a suit to perpetuate testimony was opposed on the ground that the suit was collusive, and that the plaintiff in the present suit was not a party thereto: Held that the evidence must be published, and that time for taking evidence in the cause must be extended to enable either party to produce fresh evidence after having seen the depositions.-Vane v. Vane, 45 L.J.Ch. 589; 24 W.R. 565.

Fishing:

(i.) C. P. Div.-A custom for the dwellers of a manor and parish to have common of fishery over the lord's waters, and to take away fish as profit à prendre is unreasonable and bad. Allgood v. Gibson, 34 L.T, 883. Foreign Loan:

(i.) H. L.-Scrip.-Berip issued by a Foreign Government through agents in England, entitling the bearer to a bond on payment of all instalments, is a negotiable instrument.-Goodwin v. Robarts, 45 L.J. Ex. 748; 85 L.T. 179; 24 W.R. 987.

Forest of Dean :

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Grant of Gale.-In 1844 A., a free-miner, applied for grant of a vacant gale; in 1846 B. & C. applied for the same gale: in 1856 the gale was granted to A: in 1868, the gale being vacant, D. applied for it, but died before his grant, having devised his gale to X. and Y., not free-miners: Held that D.'s application gave him an equitable and transmissible right to the gale, and that X. & Y. were entitled to a grant. thereof.-Davis v. Adams, 24 W.R. 944.

(ii.) Statutory Duty-1 & 2 Vic. c. 43, s. 29.—This Act, and the Rules under it regulate mines in the Forest of Dean: s. 29 provides that the statutory, duties may be enforced by injunction: Held that an action was, nevertheless, maintainable for injury sustained by breach of the rules.-Ross v. Rugge Price, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 269; 34 L.T. 535; 24 W.R. 786.

Friendly Society :

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Action against Secretary.-An action against a Friendly Society was compromised, the Society undertaking to pay to plaintiff certain costs and charges, which, not being paid, plaintiff sued the Secretary: Held that this was a proceeding touching the right of the Society under 18 & 19 Vic. c. 63, s. 19, and was properly brought against the Secretary under 21 & 22 Vic. c. 101, s. 7.-Roberts v. Page, L.R. 1, Q.B D. 476; 45 L.J. Q.B. 601.

Highway :

(i.) App. Div. Ct.-Construction of Statute.-Although the word "rider" is not mentioned in tht penal clause of the Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Wm. iv. c. 50,) s. 78, the justices have jurisdiction to convict thereunder for furiously riding on horseback.-Williams v. Evans, L.R, 1, Ex. D. 277. (ii.) Q. B. Div —Repair—Landslip.—A portion of a road was carried away by a landslip: Held, upon the facts, and the surveyor's report, that there was no such destruction as to free the parish from liability to repair.-Regina v. Greenhow, Inhabitants of, 45 L.J. M.C. 141.

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Sale of parish land-preemption.-On sale under 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 50, s. 48, of land allotted to the parish for repair of highways, the price is to be fixed with regard to the interests of the adjoining landowner in whom the right of pre-emption lies-Regina v. Drayton Highway Board (Mainwaring and others), L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 608; 45 L.J. M.C. 126; 35 L.T. 251; 24 W.R. 756.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.--Sale of Toll-house-Discretion.-A wide discretion must be allowed to turnpike trustees in deciding whether the site of a disused toll. house shall be sold, or added to the road.-Regina v. Fox, 35 L T. 249.

Husband and Wife :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Acknowledgments.-Commissioners for taking acknowledgments of married women under Fines and Recoveries Act s. 81, may act for any county.-Blackmur v. Blackmur, 45 L.J. Ch. 710; 24 W.R. 900.

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Acknowledgments.-When order under 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 74, s. 91, has been obtained, a deed disposing of the property therein referred to does not require acknowledgment.-Goodchild v. Dougal, 24 W.R. 960.

(iii.) P. D. & A, Div.-Divorce-Jurisdiction.-Persons, both being domiciled in Jersey, were there married; the husband having there committed adultery and deserted his wife, she came to and lived in England.-Held that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant divorce.-Le Sueur v. Le Sueur, L.R. 1, P.D. 139; 45 L.J. P.D. A. 73; 34 L.T. 511; 24 W.R. 616. (iv.) Ch. Diy. V. C. B.-Necessaries.- Where a husband turned his wife adrift without means, she must be presumed to have authority to pledge

her husband's credit for necessaries, including medical attendance.Foristall v. Lawson, 34 L.T. 903.

(v.) P. D. & A. Div.-Restitution of conjugal rights.-Neither mere impropriety of conduct nor previous refusal to permit conjugal intercourse are grounds for refusing to a wife a decree for restitution of conjugal rights,-Rippingall v. Rippingall and Delacour, 24 W.R. 967.

Indian Appeals :-
:-

(i.) P. C.-Cession of British Territory.-The transfer of British Territory from ordinary British jurisdiction to the supervision of a political agency requires a Legislative Act. Such transfer would not amount to a cession

of territory to a foreign State, nor deprive the crown or British subjects of their respective rights in the territory transferred. Quare whether concurrence of the Imperial Parliament is necessary to a transfer.Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji, L.R. 1 App. 332.

Inn of Court:-
:-

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Jurisdiction.-The Inns of Court are voluntary Societies, and the decisions of the benchers as to disbenching or disbarring members are final, subject to appeal to the Lord Chancellor and Judges as visitors.—Manisty v. Kenealy, 24 W.R, 918.

Insurance:

(i.) C.A.-Amalgamation.-In pursuance of provisions of deeds of settlement the I. Insurance Company was dissolved, and its funds transferred to the E. Company, which covenanted to satisfy liabilities of I. Company. C. held policy in I. Company subject to conditions of deed of settlement; he had notice of intended amalgamation, but not of completion thereof, nor was his policy endorsed by E. Company; he paid premiums and took receipts in the name of E. Company. Held that the amalgamation was binding on policy holders, and that C. was bound by his conduct and had accepted the E. Company. Hart's Case (L.R. 1 Ch.D. 307; 45 L.J.Ch. 321; 33 L.T. 766) followed.-Re European Assurance Society Arbitration Acts, Cucker's Case, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 1; 35 L.T. 290.

(ii.) C. A.-Amalgamation.-Deed of settlement of A. Insurance Company provided for making new laws and regulations, and by such new laws power was given to directors for amalgamation with any other Company; by a private Act of Parliament it was provided until enrolments in Chancery of transfers of shares, the transferors should continue liable, but should be re-imbursed for any loss out of the funds of the Company; with a view to amalgamation with B. Company, C. transferred shares to a trustee for B. Company, but the transfer was not enrolled. Held that C. was not liable as a contributory, and also that holders of policies granted before the new laws were, nevertheless, bound thereby. Re European Assurance Society Arbitration Acts. Doman's Case. L.R. 3 Ch.D. 21; 34 L.T. 929.

(iii.) C. A.-Amalgamation.—A similar transfer of shares by D. was not enrolled till four years after transfer: Held that the subsequent tranfer was sufficient, and that D. was not liable as a contributory. Re European Assurance Society Arbritration Acts. Rivington's Case, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 10; 34 L.T. 926.

(iv.) Ch. Div.-Fire Insurance-Wharfinger's Liability.-B. & Co. effected with Plaintiff's Co. and Defendant's Co., respectively, insurances on all grain in their custody as wharfingers: R. & Co., merchants, deposited grain with B. & Co., and insured same with Plaintiff Co.; both policies were subject to conditions of average, and provided that in case of other subsisting policies the grantors should not be liable to pay more than the rateable proportion: Held that the grantors of the merchant's policies were not liable to contribute, the separate insurances being made on separate interests.-North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. v. London, Liverpool, and Globe Insurance Co., 45 L.J. Ch. 548; 35 L.T. 231.

(v.) Q. B. D.—Marine Insurance.-A ship after arrival at M. lost an anchor on the 31st December, 1873: next day the captain protested the loss before a notary, but, on the 9th January, 1874, he wrote without mentioning loss to the owner, who, on 11th February, 1874, effected a policy on the ship and freight "at and from M. to a port in U. K.:" Held, that the policy was not avoided by non-communication of the loss.-Stribley v. Imperial Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 507; 45 L.J. Q.B. 396; 24 W.R. 701.

(vi.) C. P. D.—Marine Insurance.-The judgment of a Foreign Tribunal is generally (but not if admittedly erroneous) binding on an English Court: only expenses necessary to avert total loss can be recovered under the sueing and labouring clause of a policy, free from particular average: the sale of goods assured, by order of a Foreign Tribunal, does not amount to constructive total loss, where such sale is made merely to repay advances incurred through captain's default in not trans-shipping the goods:Meyer v. Ralli, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 358; 45 L.J. C.P. 741; 24 W.R. 963. (vii.) Ch. Div. M. R. - Marine Insurance.-Members of an unregistered Mutual Insurance Association might effect "special rate policies:" applicants, who were not members, took out a special rate policy signed by procuration by the managers who gave and accepted a bill of exchange for the amount assured: the managers failed, and their acceptances were dishonoured: Held that applicants were not entitled to repayment by the Association of the amount of the premiums.-Re Arthur Average As80ciation. De Winton & Co.'s Case, 34 L.T. 942.

(viii.) H. L.-Marine Insurance.-A steamship lying in the V. docks was insured against fire for 3 months, with liberty of removal to a dry dock; after repairs in the dry dock, while moored in the Thames for the purpose of replacing her paddle wheels, which had been as is usual removed on going into the dry dock, she was consumed by fire. Held that the insurers were not liable.-Pearson v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 24 W.R. 951. (ix.) Ex. Div.—— Marine Insurance.-Plaintiff, a shipowner, employed brokers to effect insurances, who employed defendant, also a broker, as sub-agent without notice to plaintiff. The shipowner had monthly accounts with his brokers, which he duly settled, but they did not repay the defendant the amount paid by him for premiums. The policies remained in custody of defendant who knew that his employers were acting on behalf of plaintiff. Held that defendant had no lien on the policies.-Fisher v. Smith, 34 L.T. 912.

(x). Ex. Ch.—Mutual Insurance Society.-Held upon the construction of rules of the society providing for submission of disputes and avoidance of litigation, and having regard to the form of the policy under which the plaintiff claimed and to the facts of the case, that the society were stopped from disputing the plaintiff's interest in the policy and his right as a member to claim under it.-Edwards v. Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance Society, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 563; 34 L.T. 467.

Justice of the Peace:

(i.) C. A.—Clerk to Borough Justices-Clerk of the Peace-24 & 25 Vict., c. 75, 8. 5.-F., a solicitor, was appointed in 1815 clerk to the justices of a borough in the county of M., and upon the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Act, 1861, he was re-appointed to that office; in 1874 he was appointed clerk of the peace to the said county, the duties of which office he had for many years performed as deputy to his partner; subsequently, in November, 1874, he was re-appointed by defendant and other justices clerk to the justices of the borough. Held in an action to recover a penalty of £100 against defendant under s. 5, that defendant was not liable, as the appointment or re-appointment of F. as justices' clerk in November, 1874, was lawful by reason of his having been justices' clerk previous to 1861.-Brown v. Evans, 33 L.T. 737; 24 W.R. 937.

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Jurisdiction- Evidence.-Appellant was summoned under Metropolitan Police Act (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47) for causing obstruction in a thoroughfare by a moveable show-board in front of his shop: the magistrates refused to hear witnesses to prove that they were not incommoded by the projection. Held that the magistrates had power to reject the evidence as irrelevant: conviction affirmed.-Read v. Perrett, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 349.

Landlord and Tenant:

(i.) C. A.-Covenant-Arbitration.-Tenant covenanted not to keep ground game to the injury of his landlord, and to pay compensation for any such injury, the amount to be referred to arbitration. Held that the covenants were collateral and distinct, and that an action was maintainable, though there had been no arbitration.-Dawson v. Fitzgerald, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 257; 35 L.T. 220; 24 W.R. 824.

(ii.) C. A.-Covenant-Public House.-The lease of a Public House contained a covenant not to do or permit any act that could or might affect, lessen, or make void the license, and also a forfeiture clause; the lessee was convicted of offences against the Licensing Acts, 1873 and 1874, but the justices directed the convictions not to be recorded on the licenses. Held that the licenses were not "affected," and that no breach of covenant took place.-Wooler v. Knott, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 265; 85 L.T. 121; 24 W.R. 1004.

(iii.) C. A.-Covenant-Renewal.-A lease was granted to F. and H. with lessee's covenants (amongst others) not to assign without license, and to keep premises in repair, with proviso for re-entry, on breach, and also with lessor's covenant for renewal on performance of lessee's covenants; H., without license, assigned his interest to F., and afterwards became bankrupt; the lessor accepted rent from F. alone; F., on termination of lease, required renewal to himself alone; at that time £13 at least was required properly to repair the premises. Held that the existing breach of covenant, though not substantial, disentitled F. to claim renewal, that one of the two lessees could not require renewal to himself alone, and that the waiver of right of re-entry did not amount to acknowledgment of right to renewal.-Finch v. Underwood, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 310; 45 L.J. 522; 34 L.T. 779; 24 W.R. 657.

(iv.) C. A.-Covenant-Repair-Forfeiture.-A lease contained covenant to repair on 6 months' notice, with forfeiture clause; on 22nd October, 1874, plaintiff gave lessees, the defendants, notice to repair; defendants proposed purchase by plaintiff of their interest; after negotiations plaintiff, on 31st December, wrote that price demanded was too high and requesting a modification; after further negotiations plaintiff, on the 13th April, 1875, wrote that the notice would expire on the 21st; the repairs were then commenced but not finished till June. Held that plaintiff having misled defendants to believe notice was suspended was not entitled to insist on forfeiture.-Hughes v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., L.R. 1 C. P. D. 120; 45 L.J. C.P. 578; 35 L.T. 87.

(v.) App. Div. Ct.-Covenant-Trade.-It is no breach of covenant not to carry on business of a wholesale or retail confectioner for a grocer to sell sweetmeats.-Lumley v. Metropolitan Rail. Co., 34 L.T. 774.

(vi.) C. P. Div.-Distress-Lease contained covenant by lessee to consume hay, &c., on the premises; landlord distrained and sold the hay, subject to condition that purchaser should not remove it, and thereby did not obtain the best price. Held that condition was illegal. Hawkins v. Walrond, L.R. 1 C.P.D., 280; 35 L.T. 210; 24 W.R. 824.

(vii.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Infant-Building Lease.-The Court has power under 11 Geo. IV., and 1 Wm. IV. c. 65, to sanction building lease of infant's real estate, when he is entitled to reversion in fee after his

B