(Ixi.) Q. B. Div.-Service out of jurisdiction-Foreign Corporation-Service out of the jurisdiction of notice of a writ of summons may be made on a foreign corporation, under Ord. 11, r. 1, and no order to proceed is necessary before signing interlocutory judgment on default of appearance. -Scott v. Royal Wax Candle Co., L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 404; 45 L.J.Q.B. 586; 34 L.T. 683; 24 W.R. 668.

(lxii.) C. A.-Service-Substitution.-Where effectual personal service of writ on defendants could not be effected, the court refused to order substituted sevice; service cannot be effected on a colonial government.-Sloman v. Government of New Zealand, L.R. 1 C.P.D 563.

(lxiii.) C. A.-Service-Substitution.-Held that endorsement upon the writ of the date of substituted service is not, as in case of ordinary service, under Order 9, r. 13, necessary to enable plaintiff to proceed in default of appearance.-Dymond v. Croft, 45 L.J.Ch. 604; 34 L.T. 786: 24 W.R.

842.

(lxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Service-Substitution.-Where defendant had absconded, ordered substituted service of writ by leaving copy at his office, and best known address, and that notice of service be inserted in the "Times."-Cook v. Day, 45 L.J.Ch. 611; 24 W.R. 362. (lxv.) Q. B. Div.-Special Case.-Ord. 34, r. 2.-Where by indorsement of writ, and by plaintiff's affidavit, it was shown that a question of law ought to be decided before further proceedings: Held that the judge was right in ordering a special case, to be stated before delivery of statement of claim.-Metropolitan Board of Works v. New River Co., 45 L.J.Q.B. 759. (lxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Stay of Proceedings.-Equitable mortgagee commenced action to establish charge and for administration; another creditor subsequently obtained the usual administration decree on summons: ordered stay of proceedings in first action on enquiry as to circumstances, and the mortgagee to have conduct of the proceedings.-Matthews v. Matthews, 45 L.J. Ch. 711; 34 L.T. 718.

(lxvii.) Q. B. Div.-Stay of Proceedings.-Where a military officer brought actions for conspiracy against members of a military court of enquiry, the alleged conspiracy being the agreement they came to as to the report on his conduct to be sent in to the Commander-in-Chief, the Court ordered stay of the proceedings as being groundless and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.-Dawkins v. Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 499; 45 L.J. Q.B. 567; 24 W.R. 567.

(lxviii.) C. A.-Trial.-Action against A. and B. resulted in a verdict against A. only. A. obtained order for new trial, which was afterwards discharged. Held that Court had jurisdiction to call on B. to show cause why a new trial should not be bad as to him, and on merits of the case made the order for new trial absolute.-Parnell v. Great Western Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 636; 45 L.J. Q.B. 687; 34 L.T. 822; 24 W.R. 720. (lxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Trial.-The Chancery Division has no power to try cases with a jury; where such trial is demanded the case must be sent to Middlesex or some other county to be named by the plaintiff.Clarke v. Cookson, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 746; 34 L.T. 646; 24 W.R. 535.

(lxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Trial.-Under Ord. 36, r. 1, the plaintiff in a Chancery action may by statement of claim demand trial by jury and fix the place of trial.-Redmayne v. Vaughan, 24 W.R. 983.

(lxxi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Vacation of Registration.-An application to vacate registration of a lis pendens, after determination of suit, need not be by fresh action, but may be made in the matter of the Act and of the suit.Clutton v. Lee, 45 L.J. Ch. 684; 24 W.R. C07.

Principal and Agent:

(i.) C. P. Div.-Commission.-Defendant employed plaintiff to negotiate a loan of £10,000 from W., and paid to laintiff the stipulated commission

thereon; defendant subsequently entered into partnership with W., who advanced a further sum of £4,000 by way of capital: it was admitted by plaintiff that the latter loan was not contemplated on the advance of the former, but that the £4,000 was advanced solely in consequence of the partnership. Held that plaintiff was not entitled to commission on the £4,000.-Tribe v. Taylor, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 505.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Commission.-S. employed B. & Co. as his agents to (inter alia) effect insurances on his ships, and they used to collect the insurance moneys for lost ships for him on commission: on one occasion S. demanded of B. & Co. the policies on a lost ship that he might collect the moneys himself. B & Co. refused to give the policies up and collected the moneys. Held that their authority had been revoked, and that they were not entitled to the usual commission.-Baring v. Stanton, 35 L.T. 123.

(iii.) C. A.—Liability—Broker.-Defendant, a broker, sent to plaintiff contract note as follows:-"I have this day sold by your order and for your account to my principals about 5 tons of anthracene -W. A. Bowditch." Held that defendant was not personally liable for price of goods.-Southwell v. Bowditch, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 374; 45 L.J., C.P. 630; 35 L.T. 196; 24 W.R. 838.

(iv.) C. A.—Liability-Broker.—Fruit brokers at Liverpool sent to plaintiff a sold note, "We have this day sold to you on account of J. M. & Co., Valencia, 2,000 cases of oranges," and signed it without any qualification: in action against the brokers for non-delivery of goods, Held, reversing decision of Ex. Div., that the words "on account of J. M. & Co." freed the brokers from liability on the contract.-Gadd v. Houghton, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 357; 35 L.T. 222; 24 W.R. 975.

(v.) C. A.-Liability-commission.-K. contracted by letter to purchase goods of plaintiff; the letter stated that K. bought as agent of defendants, and contained terms of contract, and provided for K.'s commission, but was not signed "as agent." Held that the defendant was liable as purchaser of the goods.-Concordia Chemische Fabric auf Actien v. Squire, 34 L.T. 824.

(vi.) H L.-Liability-Stock-jobber.-M. through broker contracted with jobber for sale of shares: on name day N. passed to M. as purchaser of shares name of person who turned out to be a minor; M. executed transfer and received price. Held that jobber not having passed name of a person competent to contract was bound to indemnify M. from calls in respect of shares.-Nickalls v. Merry, L.R. 7, H.L. (E. & T.) 530; 45 L.J. Ch. 575.

Principal and Surety :

(i.) H. L.-Agreement between Sureties.-A., B., C. & D. were sureties for various bills of E.; in no instance had they all joined, and the amounts of their liabilities differed; an agreement was drawn up and signed by C., B. and D.that as between themselves the parties would each contribute of the amount required to meet liabilities. Held that upon the construction of the agreement it was the intention that such contribution should only be in the first instance and not to alter the existing rights and liabilities.Arcedeckne v. Howard, 45 L.J. Ch. 622.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Joint-debtors-Notice.-R. & H. in partnership had bill transactions through plaintiffs whereby if remittances did not enable plaintiffs to meet bills when due defendants were bound to made up deficiency; this was by long practice frequently done by means of fresh bills accepted by plaintiffs, which defendants negotiated and handed proceeds to plaintiffs; on dissolution of partnership, of which plaintiffs had notice, outstanding acceptances were met by fresh drafts of H alone; on sale of goods, there being a deficiency, plaintiffs brought action against R. & H. Held that R. & H. could not as against the plaintiffs be treated

as principal and surety, and that the giving time to H. did not discharge R.-Oakley v. Pasheller (4 Cl. & F. 207) distinguished.—Swire v. Redman, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 536; 24 W.R. 1069.

Probate:

(i.) P. D. & A. Div.-Attestation.-Testatrix after making her will signed a paper giving additional legacies; the paper was pinned to the original will, and was signed on the back by two witnesses. Held that the paper was admissible to probate.-In the goods of Braddock, 24 W.R. 1017.

(ii.) P. D. & A. Div.- Domicile-24 & 25 Vict., c. 114, s. 2.-An Italian having been naturalized in England made his will according to English Law, but afterwards he went back to Italy and died domiciled there. Held that the will must be admitted to probate.-In the goods of Gally, 24 W.R. 1018.

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Executor-Costs.—Costs of litigation as to probate of a will were allowed to the executors in an administration suit.-Re Harrison, Fulton v. Andrew, 24 W.R. 979.

(iv.) P. D. & A. Div.—Incorporation—English and American wills.—Testator executed will with 9 codicils disposing of property in America, and subsequently a will with 3 codicils disposing of property in England; in latter will he desired that it should be treated as a separate testamentary document, but if not, that it should be regarded as a codicil to American will; Court granted probate of English will and codicils, without incorporating the American will and codicils, but directed affidavit of execution thereof to be filed and a note of filing to be appended to probate.- In the goods of Astor, L.R. 1 P.D. 150; 45 L.J. P.D. & A. 78; 34 L.T. 824; 24 W.R. 539.

(v.) P. D. & A. Div.-Incorporation-Revocation by marriage.-Testator in a will, made after his marriage, directed that if his wife should die without issue a will made before his marriage should be revived; on his death leaving widow and infant children: Held that first will must be incorporated in probate of the later will.-In goods of Bangham, 45 L.J.P.D. & A. 80; 24 W.R. 712.

(vi.) C. A.-Jurisdiction.-Testator gave all his property to his wife, and appointed her executrix; the heir-at-law and sole next-of-kin filed a bill to have her declared a trustee for him on the ground of fraud: Held that the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Probate. -Meluish v. Milton, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 27; 35 L.T, 82; 24 W.R. 892.

(vii.) P. D. & A. Div.—Special circumstances.—20 and 21 Vic., c. 77, s. 73.— Where the insolvency of an intestate's estate was disputed, and the sole next-of-kin was alleged to be of low position and bad character: Held that there were "special circumstances," and probate granted to a creditor.-In the goods of Ferrands, 24 W.R. 1018.

(viii.) P. D. A. Div.-Revocation-Revival.--Testator, on marriage, executed codicil, confirming previous will; on his wife's death he destroyed the codicil: Held that the destruction was not animo revocandi, and granted probate of will and codicil.-James ▼. Shrimpton, 45 L.J.P.D & A. 85 ; 24 W.R, 740.

Railway :

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Carrier-Felony of Servant.-Valuable pictures, not declared, were given to defendants for carriage, and were stolen by a man who falsely represented himself to defendants' clerk as in the employ of defendants, and obtained from him a pass and delivery sheet. Held that the defendants were not liable.—Way v. Great Eastern Railway Company, 35 L.T: 253.

(ii.) C. A.-Carriers-Goods carried beyond destination. Pictures above the value of £10 were, without notice by owner, as required by the Carriers'

Act, s. 1, carried in a train by which the owner travelled; through negligence of defendants' servants the pictures were carried beyond their destination and were then injured: Held that defendants continued to hold the pictures as carriers and were protected by the Act.-Morritt ▾. North Eastern Railway Co., 34 L.T. 940; 24 W.R. 386.

(iii.) App. Div. Ct.-Carriers-Passenger.-Plaintiff took a ticket from B. to L., but owing to floods the train was delayed between B. and D., and failed to catch corresponding train from D. to L.; the station master at D. told plaintiff that there were no more trains that night, but that the usual train would run next day, by that time the line between D. and L. became impassable: Held that the contract was that the company would use due diligence to catch the corresponding train at D., and as the failure to do so was unavoidable, they were not bound to forward plaintiff by special train, nor were liable in damages.-Fitzgerald ▼. Midland Rail. Co., 34 L.T. 771.

(iv) Ex. Div.-Carriers-Passengers' luggage.-S. 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, (17 & 18 Vict., c. 31) is incorporated in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, (31 & 32 Vict., c. 119) and therefore applies to luggage conveyed by railway companies on board steam vessels.-Cohen v. S. Eastern Rail. Co., L.R. 1, Ex. D. 217; 45 L.J. Ex. 298; 35 L.T. 213; 24 W.R. 522.

(v.) H. L.—Carriers-Services.-The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com. pany were empowered by their Special Act, 22 & 23 Vict., c. 110, s. 66, to make a further charge beyond the maximum rate thereby fixed with respect to conveyance of coal, for services incidental to the business of a carrier. Held that neither the taking of wagons from private siding and attaching them to trains of Company, nor permission to stack coals on land of com. pany, were services within the exception. Also, under s. 73, that a restriction requiring at least 15 wagons at a time to be made up, was reasonable. Also, that award by arbitrator to colliery owner, of damages for loss of customers through restriction was right.-Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company v. Gidlow, L.R. 7, H.L. 518; 45 L.J. Ex. 625; 24 W.R. 144.

(vi.) C. P. Div.-Deposit of luggage. -On depositing luggage at cloak room of railway station, plaintiff received a ticket at foot of which was printed "see back;" on the back were conditions restricting liability of the company; plaintiff neither had read nor knew of conditions. Held that the company were liable for the loss of the luggage.-Parker v. S. E. Rail. Co., L.R. 1, C.P.D. 618; 45 L.J. C.P. 515; 34 L.T. 654.

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Deposit of luggage.-On depositing luggage at the cloakroom of a railway station, plaintiff received a ticket at the foot of which was printed" subject to the conditions on the other side;" on the back were conditions exempting the company from responsibility for goods above a certain value; plaintiff neither had read nor knew of the conditions: Held that the luggage was deposited subject to the conditions, and that the company were protected thereby.-Harris v. Great Western Railway Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 515; 45 L.J. Q.B. 729; 34 L.T. 647.

(viii.) Ex. Div.-Negligence.—Owing to the length of a train, some of the carriages overshot the platform of a station, and plaintiff, a passenger, in alighting beyond the platform was injured; plaintiff and several passengers did not hear any caution to keep their seats, but there was evidence that such caution was given. Held upon the facts that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the company's servants.-Rose v. North Eastern Railway Company, 34 L.T. 761.

(ix.) Q. B. Div. -Negligence.-An administratrix sued first under Lord Campbell's Act and afterwards for damage to personal estate of the deceased: Held, that judgment under the first action were no bar to the second, and that findings of the jury in the first action were no estoppel

to defence in the second.-Leggott v. Great Northern Rail. Co., L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 559; 45 L.J.Q.B. 557; 24 W.R. 784.

(x.) Q. B. Div-Negligence.-Where a passenger, instead of crossing the line by a bridge, walked across the rails and was injured by falling into an excavation, there being no evidence of any incitation on the part of the Company's servants: Held that the Company were not liable for negligence.-Wilby v. Midland Rail. Co., 35 L.T. 244.

(xi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Regulation of Railways Act, 1842.-When the report of a Board of Trade inspector states that the opening of a railway would be dangerous by reason of incompleteness of works, the Board of Trade has absolute jurisdiction to postpone such opening; incompleteness includes imperfection or defect generally.-Attorney General v. Great Western Rail, Co. 35 L.T. 302; 24 W.R. 1015.

(xii.) H.L.-Running powers.-Appellants, in consideration of a loan, agreed to grant to respondents running powers over their line on certain specified terms; differences under the agreement to be settled by arbitration under Railway Cos.' (Arbitration) Act, 1859. No limit of time was mentioned nor any power of revocation given to either party: Held (affirming decision of L. J. J.) that the agreement was not terminable by notice.Llanelly Railway and Dock Co. v. London and North-Western Railway Co., 45 L.J. Ch. 539; 23 W.R. 927.

Revenue:

(i.) C. A.-Inhabited house duty.-Held that 7 blocks of buildings each consisting of distinct sets of rooms with separate door to every set, opening on common staircase, some let as offices and business and residential chambers, and some being unlet, were chargeable for inhabited house duty under rule 6, not under rule 14, of statute 48, Geo. III, c. 55, as seven separate dwelling houses.-Attorney General v. Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association. 35 L.T. 224; 24 W.R. 996.

(ii.) Ex. Div.-Income tax.-Traders are not entitled, in making income tax returns, to deduct from profits for depreciation of buildings, plant or machinery.-Forder ▾. Handyside, L.R. 1 Ex.D. 333; 35 L.T. 62; 24 W.R. 764.

(iii.) Ex. Div.-Income Tax.-The proper mode of assessment of the net profits of a fire insurance company under 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, is to take the balance of total receipts over the total expenditure of a given year; any wrong done by losses in respect of premiums on which income tax has been assessed and paid, must be taken into account in the following year. -Imperial Fire Insurance Company v. Wilson, 35 L.T. 271.

(iv.) Ex Div.-Income Tax.-Held that two companies, the control of whose business was exercised by directors in London, were rightly assessed in respect of the whole of the gains of their businesses carried on in Italy and India respectively.-Cesena Sulphur Company v. Nicholson-Calcutta Jute Mills Company v. Nicholson, 35 L.T. 275.

Scotland, Law of:—

(i.) H. L.—Harbour—Beaching fishing boats—Local Act.-The fishermen of a sea village had been from time immemorial accustomed to beach their boats in winter on land adjoining the harbour; the landowner obtained a local Act, authorising him to levy a toll. Held that he must not exclude the fishermen without substituting another beaching ground; a local Ast must be judicially noticed.-Aiton v. Stephen, L.R. 1 App. 456.

(ii.) H. L.-Matrimonial Banns.-Marriages in "facie ecclesia" must be preceded by proclamation of banns: in a "quoad sacra parish the proclamation must be in the church of such parish; the ministers and elders of such parish enjoy the status, etc., of ministers and elders of the Church of Scotland.-Hutton v. Harper, L.R. 1, App. 464.