father's tenancy by the curtesy. Re Letchford L.R. 2 Ch.D. 719; 45L.J.Ch 530.

-

(viii.) C. P. Div.-Lease-Discrepancy. - Where there is a discrepancy between lease and counterpart the lease must prevail; where the statement as to duration of term in habendum differs from that in reddendum, the habendum must prevail.-Burchell v. Clark, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 602; 45 L.J.C.P. 671.

Lands Clauses Act:

(i.) C. P. Div.-Compensation--Arbitration.-A municipal corporation empowered by Local Act to supply water, gave notice to plaintiff to divert the whole of his mill stream; an agreement was entered into to submit the compensation for such diversion to arbitration; the corporation never required to divert more than part of the stream: Held that this was an Arbitration under s. 9 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1854, and that the agreement was valid and binding.-tone ▼ Mayor etc., of Yeovil, 45 L.J.C.P 657; 34 L.T. 874; 24 W.R. 1073.

(ii.) C. A.-Compensation-Arbitration - An umpire in an arbitration under the Lands' Clauses Act has no power to make his award in the form of a special case.-Rhodes v. Airedale Drainage Commrs., L.R. 1 C.P.D. 403; 35 L.T. 46; 24 W.R. 1053.

(iii.) Ex. Div.-Compensation-Land injuriously affected-Public Works.Held that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for injury to his property, by certain public works carried out by defendants, acting under the St Marylebone Acts of Geo. III., and under the Metropolis Local Management Act, which incorporated the Lands Clauses Act, exclusive of ss. 16-68.-Baker v. Vestry of St. Marylebone 35 L.T. 129, 24 W.R. 848. (iv.) C. A.-Compensation-Mortgagee-Goodwill.-P. mortgaged business premises with plant; a railway Co. gave notice to take part of the premises, but, before the price was fixed, the mortgagor died: mortgagees entered into possession, and the price was fixed by arbitration: Held that the mortgagees were entitled to the sum awarded in respect of goodwill and compensation for loss of profits.-Pile v. Pile. Ex parte Lambton, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 36; 35 L.T. 18; 24 W.R. 1003,

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Costs.-Where purchase-money of settled lands taken by a Local Board had been paid into Court and invested, and an order had been made for payment of the dividends to the trustees, or one of them; the Court refused after the death of each trustee to order the Local Board to pay the costs of an application by the new trustees of the settlement for payment to them of the dividends.---Re Pryor's Settlement Trusts, 35, L.T. 202.

(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Investment.-Where an extraordinary investment of funds in Court is asked for by tenant for life and refused, the costs of serving a trustee or remainder man with petition, will not be thrown on the Company.-Re Dowling's Trusts, 45 L.J. Ch. 568; 24 W.R. 729. Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Acts:

Ch. Div. M. R.-Consent.-The Amendment Act, 1874, s. 3, does not enable the Court to dispense with consent to an application under the principal Act without notice to persons whose consent is required thereby.-Re Rylar, 24 W.R. 949.

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Consent.-Where an estate was subject to a life interest limited upon trust to sell and divide the proceeds, Held that the consent of the persons beneficially entitled thereto was necessary for an application for sale.-Bailey v. Holmes, 24 W.R. 1068.

Licensed House :

(i.) C. A.-Held that a room open to the street, without seats, where persons could obtain ginger beer and lemonade, was a place of public “resort, re

freshment, and establishment," within 23 Vict., o. 27, s. 6, and that the keeper of such place was rightly convicted of keeping an unlicensed refreshment house. -Howes v. Board of Inland Revenue, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 385; 24 W.R. 897.

Lord Mayor's Court:

(i.) C. A.-Prohibition.-The Mayor's Court has, under the Mayor's Court Procedure Act, 1857, absolute jurisdiction over cases within s. 12 thereof,

and the superior courts cannot issue prohibition.-Hawes v. Pavely, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 418; 34 L.T. 836; 24 W.R. 895.

(ii.) C. A.--Prohibition.-Similar decision.-Hawkins v. Jeffreys, 34 L.T. 837. (iii.) C P. Div.-Removal of Judgment.-Where a judgment is removed to a Superior Court for execution and it appears that the Mayor's Court had no jurisdiction, the Superior Court will set aside the judgment and issue prohibition.-Bridge v. Branch, 34 L.T. 905.

Lunacy :

(i.) C. A.-Entail.-A lunatic, aged 82, and without issue, was tenant in tail of an advowson and other property, a lease whereof had been made for 99 years if the lunatic should so long live; administrator of lessee petitioned Court to consent to barring the entail so far as necessary for a sale of the next presentation. Held that the application not being for benefit of lunatic, the Court would not interfere.-Re Thorp, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 59; 35 L.T. 293.

(ii.) C. A.— Payment out of Court-Disentailing Deed. -A fund in Court represented land in settlement; a deceased tenant in tail had created a base fee: Held that the fund could not be paid out to his representative without disentailing deed enlarging base fee.-In Re Reynolds, LR. 3 Ch. D. 61; 35 L.T. 293; 24 W.R. 991.

(iii.) C. A.-Lands Clauses Act-Investment.-Purchase money of lunatics' land, taken by a public body, under the Lands Clauses Act, was, under the circumstances, ordered to be invested in guaranteed railway stock; the name of the public body was omitted from the title of the account.-Re Buckingham, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 690.

(iv.) L. J. J.- Mortgagee-Costs.—A trustee lent money on mortgage and became lunatic; the mortgagor had no notice of the trust: Held, that the Costs of a petition to appoint a person to reconvey must be paid out of the Trust funds.-Re Jones, 45 L.J. Ch. 688.

Master and Servant :

(i.) Ex. Div.-Negligence-Common employment.—▲ gate of defendant's being out of repair and unsafe was kept wedged up and open, but on one occasion the gate being closed and unwedged fell, and injured plaintiff, a servant of defendant's: Held upon the evidence that the accident was attributable to negligence of a fellow servant by improperly moving the gate, or by not replacing it if moved by the wind or otherwise, and that plaintiff could not recover.-Allen v. New Gas Co., L.R. 1, Ex. D. 251; 45 L.J. Ex. 668; 34 L.T. 641.

(ii.) C. A.-Negligence-Common employment.-Plaintiff, assisting in shunting a horse-box, with consent of station-master, was injured by train negligently allowed by company's servants to come out of a siding: Held that plaintiff not being fellow servant or volunteer, Company were liable. Wright v. London and North-Western Rail. Co., L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 252; 45 L.J.Q.B. 570.

(iii.) P. Div.-Negligence-Common employment.-Defendant contracted with W. to sink a shaft, he was to employ and pay workmen, among whom was plaintiff. Steam power was to be provided, and an engineer was to be paid by defendants, but he was to be under W.'s orders. Plaintiff whilst at work was injured by negligence of the engineer: Held that the

plantiff and the engineer were engaged in common employment under orders of W., and that defendants were not liable.-Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., L.R. 1 O.P.D. 556; 35 L.T. 160.

(iv.) C. A.-Sub-Contractor -- Privity of Contract.

By agreement with defendants the S. Club held a cattle show in defendants' hall; the gate keepers were provided by defendants, but were under exclusive control of the Club; by rules of the Club a delivery order was to be given up before removal of the animals; by default of one of the gate keepers those sheep bought by plaintiff were mis-delivered. Held, affirming decision of C. P. Div., that there was not any privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants, and that they were not liable for the acts of the gate-keeper.-Goslin v. Agricultural Hall Co., L.R. 1 C.P.D. 482; 35 L.T.

92.

Mines:

(i.) Ex. Div.-Reservation.-S. the owner in fee of land A and land B, granted land A to plaintiffs with reservation of right of mining on payment of damages for injury to buildings to be erected on the land by plaintiffs; defendants, assignees of S., worked mines under lands A and B: Held that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation in respect of workings under both pieces of land.-Aspden v. Seddon,34 L.T. 906; 24 W.R. 828. Mortgage :

(i.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Equitable Mortgage-Arrears of Interest.—Land, subject to an equitable mortgage, was taken by a Corporation and money paid into Court. Held that petition by mortgagee, under the Lands Clauses Act, was a suit within s. 42 of the statute of limitations, and that he was entitled only to principal and six years arrears of interest. In re Stead's Settlement Trusts, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 713; 45 L.J.Ch. 634; 24 W.R. 698.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V.C.H.-Equitable Mortgage-Locke King's Act.-Absence of a memorandum does not take an equitable mortgage by deposit out of Locke King's Act (17 and 18 Vic., c. 113).—Davis v. Davis, 24 W.R. 962. (iii.) H. L.-Forcible entry-Malicious prosecution.-L., a mortgagee, entered into possession of the mortgaged premises, without notice to the mortgagor or T., his tenant, and was expelled therefrom by T.; L. indicted T. for assault, who, being acquitted, brought action against L. for malicious prosecution: Held that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, as the facts showed that L., at the time of his expulsion, was lawfully in possession.-Lows v. Telford, L.R. 1 App. 414; 45 L.J. Ex. 613; 35 L.T. 69.

(iv.) C. A.-Registration-Priority.-Actual notice, or fraud, is necessary to deprive a deed, registered in Middlesex, of priority over a prior unregistered charge.-Lee v. Clutton, 35 L.T. 84; 24 W.R. 942.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Transfer.-A transferee, for value of a mortgage, without notice of equitable grounds entitling mortgagor to set aside the mortgage as against the original mortgagee, is entitled to the full benefit of his security.-Nant-y-gle and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Tamplin, 35 L.T. 125.

Municipal Law:

(i.) C. A.--Public Pleasure Grounds.-Land purchased by a local board, under the Public Health Act, 1848 s. 74, for purpose of public pleasure grounds, allowed to be appropriated to erection of a museum, free library, and conservatory, but not to the erection of a school of art or town buildings. -Atty. Gen. v. Corporation of Sunderland, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 634, 34 L.T. 921; 24 W.R. 991.

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Street.-Respondent's premises were separated from D street by a small stream but connected therewith by two bridges: Held

that the premises "fronted and abutted" on D street, within Public Health Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63) s. 69.-Wakefield Local Board v. Lee, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 336.

Negligence :—

(i.) C. P. Div.-Telegram-Remoteness of damage.-Defendant, a collector of telegrams for profit, neglected to transmit a telegram in cipher entrusted to him, whereby plaintiff lost amount of commission on order, to which the telegram referred. Held that plaintiff could only recover nominal damages. Saunders v. Stuart, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 326; 45 L.J. C.P. 682; 24 W.R. 949.

Nuisance :-

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Artificial Work.-The occupier of premises is liable for continuance thereon of any artificial work causing nuisance though placed on the premises by his predecessors in title.--Broder v. Saillard, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 692; 24 W.R. 1011.

(ii.) C. A.—Injunction-Damages.-Where a nuisance by brick burning was proved, it was held that plaintiff was entitled to damages though her bill only asked for an injunction.-Crawford v. Hornsea Steam Brick and Tile Co., 34 L.T. 923.

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Liability of lessor.-A. let to B. a field to be worked as a lime quarry; the blasting and smoke from the kilns caused nuisance to adjoining occupiers. Held that that the nuisance was consequent on the mode of occupation contemplated by the demise, and that A. was liable.Harris v. James, 45, L.J. Q.B. 545; 35 L.T. 240.

(iv.) App. Div.

Ct.—Prohibition-Abatement.-Appellants, the Urban Sanitary Authority of S., deposited refuse in a field for removal by purchasers thereof the field was not in possession or under control of appellants; the deposit formed a nuisance. Held that an order under Public Health Act, 1875, (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55) for abatement of nuisance and prohibition of recurrence was bad as to the abatement, but good as to the prohibition. -Mayor, etc., of Scarboro' v. Rural Sanitary Authority of Scarboro', L.R. 1 Ex. D. 344; 34 L.T. 768.

Partnership:

(i.) H. L.-Agreement-Construction.-A. borrowed £250 from B., and signed a paper declaring that in consideration of the £250 he undertook to execute a deed of co-partnership to B.; he afterwards wrote a letter to B. treating the matter as a loan, and tendered payment; B. filed bill for specific performance of agreement for partnership, when A. put in answer denying existence of partnership, but submitting in the alternative that it was a partnership at will, and had been determined by the letter. Held that a partnership at will had been constituted, and was determined, not by the letter, but by the answer.-Syers v. Syers, L.R. 1, App. 174; 33 L.T. 101; 24 W.R. 970.

Patent:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Foreign Patent.-English letters patent granted for a foreign invention after a foreign patent has been obtained, are to be taken as granted the day of the date not at the time of sealing.-Holste v. Robinson, 24 W.R. 1064.

(ii.) C. A.-Infringement-Crown Rights.-Held that letters patent granted to plaintiff for manufacture of rifles did not affect right of Crown to use the invention, and that a company which had manufactured patented rifles by order of the Crown was protected against claims for infringement of patent.-Dixon v. London Small Arms Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 384; 35 L.T. 138; 23 W.R. 766.

(iii.) C. A.-Infringement-Disqualification as patentee.-To bill to restrain infringement of patent, defendant pleaded defective specification, want of

novelty, anticipation, prior user of process, and that plaintiff was disqualified from being patentee from having acquired bis knowledge as a gas referee, with statutory powers of inspection. Held that plaintiff's patent was not valid, as he had not discovered any new process but only more efficient method of working a formerly known process: quære whether he could take out a patent for discovery, the result of official investigation.-Paterson v. Gaslight and Coke Co., 35 L.T. 11.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Infringement -- Novelty-Specification.-Plaintiff in 1863 took out an American patent for roller-skates: drawings and letter press relating to the invention were published in America and received in the Patent Office in London before August, 1865, when plaintiff took out an English patent: in a suit to restrain infringement of the patent, defendant set up want of novelty: Held upon the facts that the invention had not become part of stock of public knowledge in England before the taking out of the English patent, and that no ordinary workman could have made the skates from the drawings and letter-press, and that the patent was therefore valid.-Betts v. Nelson, (37 L.J. Ch. 321); dissented from.-Plimpton v. Malcolmson, L.R. 3, Ch. 429; 45 L.J. Ch. 505; 34 L.T.

340.

(v.) C. A.-Licenses - Account.-A licensee having been ordered to account for articles made under his license endeavoured to adduce evidence that plaintiff's patent was bad for want of novelty: Held that the evidence was not admissible.-Trotman v. Wood (16 C. B. N.S. 479) explained. Addie v. Clark, 24 W.R. 1007.

Petition of Right:

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Military Officer-An officer in permanent medical charge of a military prison, holds his appointment, subject to the rules and regulations of the service, and is liable to dismissal or removal at any time at the pleasure of the Crown: no petition of right will lie for alleged wrongful removal.-Re Petition of Right of T. J. Tufnell, 34 L.T. 838; 24 W.R 915.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Sovereign and Subject--Statute of Limitations -The Sovereign is neither agent of, nor trustee for, her subjects: petition of right will not lie to recover a share of compensation money paid by a foreign government: the statute of limitations does not apply to a petition of right.-Rustomjee v. The Queen, L.R. 1 Q. B. D. 487; 45 L.J. Q. B. 249; 34 L.T. 278; 24 W R. 428.

Poor Rate:

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal.-An objection to assessment was made, under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 39 s. 1, to the assessment committee, who deferred their decision till decision of a pending case in a Superior Court with regard to a previous rate: the appellant thereupon appealed to Quarter Sessions: Held that the appellant had not "failed to obtain relief and that the appeal was premature".-Regina v. Bedminster Union, L.R. 1 Q B. D. 503; 45 L.J. M.C. 117; 34 L.T. 795.

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Rateability-Lead Mine. -A Company worked a mine under three leases; by the first a royalty of one-fourteenth of the minerals was reserved to the lessor, or at his option the value in money; by the second and third leases, the reddendum was wholly in money: Held that the Company must be rated in respect of the machinery, and buildings and surface lands, and the lessor of the first lease in respect of the royalty in kind.- Van Mining Co. v. Cverseers of Llandiloes, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 310; 45 L.J. M.C. 138; 34 L.T. 692.

Practice:

(i.) C. A.-Appeal-Affidavits.-Affidavits to be used on appeal should be filed in the Division from which the appeal is made.-Watts v. Watts, 45 L.J.Ch