assigned by way of mortgage leasehold land, together with engines, machinery, plant, &c., placed or used thereon, to hold the land and such of the machinery, &c., as were landlord's fixtures for the residue of the term, and such as were tenants' or trade fixtures to the mortgagee absolutely, and the deed gave power to the mortgagee to sell the premises, or any part thereof, either together or in parcels: Held that the deed empowered mortgagee to sever the trade fixtures and sell them separately, and required registration under the Bills of Sale Act.In re Eslick, Ex parte Alexander, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 503; 46 L.J. Bpcy. 30; 35 L.T. 914; 25 W.R. 260.

(viii.) C. A.-Growing Crops.-Held, affirming decision of C.P. Div., that growing crops, not being capable of immediate transfer by delivery, are not within the Bills of Sale Act.-Brantom v. Griffiths, 36 L.T. 4; 25 W.R. 313.

Canada, Law of:

(v.) P. C.-Appeal.-Order of Superior Court.-Held that an appeal lay to the Court of Queen's Bench from an order of Superior Court for the removal of Commissioners in expropriation.--Mayor, &c., of Montreal v. Brown, L.R. 2 App. 168.

Charity :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Action for Recovery of Land.-The sanction of the Charity Commissioners is not necessary, under 17 & 18 Vict., c. 137, ss. 17-18, to enable governors of a charity to bring an action for recovery of possession of lands of the charity.-Holme v. Guy, 46 L.J. Ch. 223; 25 W.R. 390.

Common:

(i.) App. Div. Ct.-Inclosure Act-Rate-Distress.-By an Inclosure Act, Commissioners were empowered to perform certain works, and were required to direct by their award "by whom and at whose expense, at what time and in what manner "the works were to be made and maintained: the award directed that the works should be maintained by a rate enforceable by distress: Held that an action would not lie to recover the amount of the rate.-Darby v. Watson, 25 W.R. 465. Company:

(xxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Directors-Borrowing Powers.-Where directors having borrowing powers issued debentures at a discount: Held that the issue was not illegal, and that a director taking such debentures was not liable for difference between issue price and par. Re Compagnie Generale de Bellegarde. Campbell's Case. L.R. 4 Ch. D. 470; 35 L.T. 900; 25 W.R. 299.

(xxxiii.) C. A.-Director-Qualification-Fraudulent Agreement Misfeasance. -Articles of Association, alterable only by general meeting of company, or special resolution, contained no provision as to directors' qualification: the board resolved that qualification should be 250 shares: an agreement was afterwards entered into between the company and a promoter for, amongst other things, allotment of certain shares to himself or his nominees, and for the acceptance of his nominees as directors: R., nominated by the promoter, was elected director, being informed that qualification was 200 shares, which were allotted to him out of promoter's shares: he approved of a second agreement in effect ratifying the former: Held, upon the facts of the case, that R. was not bound by the resolution of the board, nor liable to contribute in respect of 250 shares, but that he was guilty of misfeasance in being a party to the agreement, and was liable, under Companies Act, 1862, s. 165, to pay the liquidator the full nominal value of 200 shares. -Re British Provident Life, &c., Asson., De Ruvigne's Case, 25 W.R. 476.

(xxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M. & C. A.-Director-Trustee.-L., who had been a director of a company, bought at a reduced price debentures of the company which had been improperly issued during his directorship: Held by V. C. M. that L. was a trustee for the company, and was not entitled to make a profit by the transaction: on appeal the suit was compromised but the Court expressed approval of V. C. M.'s decision.-Re Imperial Land Co. of Marseilles, Ex parte Lurking, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 566; 46 L.J. Ch. 235.

(xxxv.) C. A.-Misrepresentation-Prospectus-Sale by Promoters to Company —Qualification and Nomination by Vendors of Directors.-Decision of V. C. M., see Company (xxi.), p. 52, reversed.-New Sombrero Co. v. Erlanger, 36 L.T. 222; 25 W.R. 436.

(xxxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Novation.-The St. N. Co. being indebted to the E. Bank, was amalgamated with the Société de Commerce, which undertook the liabilities of the company: the Société having gone into liquidation, proceedings were taken in France by the bank to recover the amount due from the company at the date of the amalgamation, when it was decided that the Société was not liable: Held that the company, having omitted to effectually substitute the Société as debtor to the bank, remained liable for the debt.-Re the St. Nazaire Co., 25 W.R. 424. (xxxvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Resolution-Reduction of Capital.-A company having capital divided into shares of £32 each, on which (except as to 515 shares fully paid-up) £29 had been paid, passed a resolution in conformity with their Articles for reduction of the capital by extinction of £9 per share, retaining liability of £3 on each share not fully paid-up: Held that the Court had no jurisdiction to confirm the resolution.-Re Ebbw Vale Steel, &c., Co., 46 L.J. Ch. 24.

(xxxviii.) C. A.-Vendor's Guarantee of Profits-Discontinuance of WorksEffect on Guarantee.—Decision of V. C. B., see Company (viii.), p. 9, reversed.-Brown & Co. v. Brown, 36 L.T. 272.

(xxxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Director's Qualification.-Articles of association provided that director's qualification should be the actual holding of twenty-five share warrants each representing one fully paidup share on appointment of the directors a promoter deposited with company's bankers twenty-five share warrants to the amount of each director as his qualification: Held that each director was liable under Companies Act, 1862, s. 165, for full nominal value of twenty-five shares. -Re Caerphilly Colliery Co., Pearson's Case, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 222. (xl.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Winding-up-Disputed Claim - Injunction.— The Court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction the creditor of a solvent company whose claim is disputed from presenting a petition to wind-up the company.-Niger Merchants Co. v. Capper, 25 W.R. 365. (xli.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Guarantee Fund.-Vendor of property agreed to invest part of purchase-money as guarantee fund for payment of dividends for four years: the articles of association referring to this agreement provided that the fund should be considered as profits and applicable only to the payment of dividends: Held that on winding-up of the company the guarantee fund must be paid over to the liquidator.-Re Stuart's Trusts, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 213; 46 L.J. Ch. 86; 25 W.R. 295.

(xlii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Winding-up-Liquidator.-The same person will not be allowed to act as liquidator to two companies having conflicting interests.-In re City and County Investment Co., 25 W.R. 342. (xliii.) C. A.-Winding-up-Maritime Lien-Leave to proceed in Admiralty Division.-Master of ship drew bill of exchange on company for expenses: the bill was accepted by the company, but dishonoured, and was paid by the master: Held that the master was entitled to order giving leave

to proceed in Admiralty Division, to enforce his maritime lien on the ship, against mortgagees in possession thereof, for his claim and costs properly incurred.-Re Rio Grande do Sul Steamship Navigation Co., 25 W.R. 328.

(xliv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Winding-up-Vendor's Guarantee.-On sale of property to a company, vendor guaranteed a dividend for four years, and a part of the purchase-money was invested as a fund to meet such dividends by selling out and paying to the directors half-yearly a part of such fund: before the fund was exhausted the company went into liqui. dation: Held that the balance of the fund was part of the assets of the company and belonged to the liquidator.-Re the Welsh Freehold Coal and Iron Co., 36 L.T. 788.

(xlv.) Q. B. Div.-Vendor's Guarantee-Releases.-By agreement on sale of a business to a company U. the vendor guaranteed a dividend for five years, and was appointed managing director: within two years it was arranged by a resolution that U. should be released from his guarantee on his surrendering his qualification shares and giving to the company five patents connected with the business: U. surrendered his shares and a new director was appointed, but it turned out that only one of the patents was valid: the jury had found that there was no wilful misrepresentation by U.: Held that the resolution was not ultra vires, and that plaintiffs were not entitled to set aside the arrangement.-Sheffield Nickel Plated Co. v. Unwin, 36 L.T. 246; 25 W.R. 493.

Copyhold:

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Right of Lord to Gravel.-Lord of Manor may take gravel, loam, etc., for his own use or for sale, from waste lands, so long as he does not infringe rights of commoners; the onus probandi as to such infringement is on the tenant.-Hall v. Byron, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 667; 24 W.R. 317.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Turbary and Estovers-Approvement.-Lord of Manor is not of common right and in virtue of ownership of soil entitled to approve against common of turbary and estovers, but evidence of custom may be adduced to justify such right, and it was held, on the facts of this case, that such custom was sufficiently proved.-Lascelles v. Lord Onslow, 25 W.R. 496.

Copyright :

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Periodical-Registration.-Registration before the actual date of publication of a periodical is no protection under 5 & 6 Vict., c. 45.-Henderson v. Maxwell, 25 W.R. 455.

County Court:

(vi.) App. Div. Ct.-Appeal in Equity Cases-Judge's Notes.-Notes com. piled by County Court Judge without request of the parties, and subsequently to the trial, were, being in Court, received: to give ground for appeal in equity cases there must be a misapplication of principles of equity to the facts found by the Judge.-Hill v. Perssé, 25 W.R. 275. (vii.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal by Motion.-Under County Courts Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 50), s. 6, the right to appeal by motion applies to all actions where leave to appeal may be given, and where such leave is unnecessary. -Turner v. Gt. Western Rail. Co., L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 125; 46 L.J. Q.B. 226; 35 L.T. 809.

(viii.) C. A.-Bankruptcy Jurisdiction-Injunction.-County Court judge has power under Bpcy. Act, 1869, to restrain by injunction action for foreclosure brought in Chancery Division, even though such action be com. menced before the bankruptcy proceedings.-Snow v. Sherwell, 25 W.R.

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Prohibition-Jurisdiction-Letter sent by Post.-Held that the fact that a letter was written and posted at C., requesting defendant to collect a debt elsewhere, did not give the C. County Court jurisdiction to try action for recovery of sum collected.-Rennie v. Ratcliffe, 35 L.T. 833; 25 W.R. 319.

(x.) App. Div. Ct.-Remission of Action.-When an action is remitted for trial to a County Court, the division of the High Court in which it was instituted still retains it for further direction.-Swan v. Inglis, 36 L.T. 114.

(xii.) Q. B. Div.—Remission of Action.—Motion for new trial in action remitted to County Court must be made to the County Court.—White v. Mainwaring, 25 W.R. 253.

(xii.) Q. B. Div.—Remission of Action.—Where action is remitted to County Court, judgment must be signed in Superior Court.-Scutt v. Freeman, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 177; 46 L.J. Q.B. 173; 35 L.T. 939; 25 W.R. 251. Crimes and Offences :

-

(xv.) App. Div. Ct.-Adulteration.-An excessive admixture of water in gin is a fraudulent increase of the article within 38 & 39 Vict., c. 63, s. 6.-Pashler v. Stevenitt, 35 L.T. 862.

(xvi.) C. A.-Conspiracy.-Decision of Q.B. Div., see Crimes and Offences (iv.), p. 11, affirmed.-Regina v. Aspinall, L.R. 2 Q.B. Div. 48; 46 L.J. M.C. 145; 35 L.T. 738; 25 W.R. 283.

(xvii.) C. C. R.-Debtor's Act, s. 19-Indictment.-Held that an indictment for fraudulently pledging property within four months of presentation of bankruptcy petition, which did not allege the adjudication thereon, was bad after verdict.-Regina v. Oliver & Austin, 36 L.T. 115; 25 W.R. 323. (xviii.) C. C. R.-False Pretences-Previous Conviction for Felony.—In indict. ment for false pretences a previous conviction for felony may be charged, and on conviction on both charges the least sentence of penal servitude that can be awarded is for seven years.-Regina v. Deane, 46 L.J. M.C. 155; 35 L.T. 31.

(xix.) C. C. R.-False Pretences-Sale of Spurious Goods.-Prisoner knowingly misrepresented as good tea a mixture only one quarter in weight of tea, the remainder being articles unfit to drink and injurous to health, and by such representations induced people to purchase the mixture: Held that he was rightly convicted.—Regina v. Foster, 46 L.J. M.C. 128; 36 L.T. 34.

(xx.) C. C. R.-Innkeeper-Refusal of Entertainment.-Defendant was proprietor of an hotel, and also of a refreshment bar under the same roof, and held under the same license: prosecutor, a householder living a few hundred yards from the bar, while walking about for pleasure, applied for refreshment, but was refused because he was accompanied by dogs, whereby he caused annoyance to customers: Held that the refusal was justified because the bar was not an inn, the prosecutor was not a traveller, and there were reasonable grounds for refusal.-Regina v. Rymer, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 136; 46 L.J. M.C. 108; 35 L.T. 774; 25 W.R. 415. (xxi.) C. C. R.-Larceny-Animals Buried in Soil.-Where prisoners dug up diseased pigs, buried in owner's land more than three feet deep in the soil, and sold them: the Court affirmed a conviction for larceny.-Regina v. Edwards, 36 L.T. 30.

(xxii.) C. C. R.-Rape-Consent-Fraud.-A girl submitted herself to a man under the bona fide belief that he was about to perform a surgical operation upon her for the benefit of her health, whereupon he had sexual intercourse with her: Held that there was no consent such as to acquit the prisoner of a charge of rape.-Regina v. Flattery, 46 L.J. M.C. 130; 36 L.T. 32; 25 W.R. 398.

(xxiii.) C. C. R.-Receiving Stolen Goods-Husband and Wife.-Wife left her husband, taking with her money and other articles belonging to him: she was afterwards found living in adultery with prisoner, who was in possession of part of the property: Held that as a wife cannot steal her husband's goods prisoner could not be convicted of receiving.Regina v. Kenny, 46 L.J. M.C. 156; 36 L.T. 36.

(xxiv.) Ex. Div.- Rogue and Vagabond-Spiritualist.-Held that a person who received money for conducting spiritualistic séances was a rogue and vagabond within 5 Geo. IV., c. 83, s. 4.-Monck v. Hilton, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 268; 46 L.J. M.C. 163; 36 L.T. 66; 25 W.R. 373. (xxv.) Q. B. Div.-Vagrancy-Married Women.-A married woman, deserted by her husband and destitute, cannot be convicted for leaving her children chargeable to the parish under the Vagrancy Act 5 Geo. IV., c. 83, s. 4.-Peters v. Cowie, L.R. 2, Q.B.D. 131; 36 L.T. 107.

Debtor and Creditor:—

-

(ix.) Ex. Div.- Statute of Limitations - Acknowledgement. Defendant wrote, "If you send me here the particulars of your account, with vouchers, I shall have it examined, and cheque sent for what is due; but you must be under some great mistake in supposing that the amount due is anything like the sum you now claim :" Held, a sufficient acknowledgement to take the case out of Statute of Limitations.Skeet v. Lindsay, 46 L.J. Ex. 249; 36 L.T. 98; 25 W.R. 322. Defamation:

(iv.) C. P. D.-Libel.-Plaintiffs having been advertised to sing at music halls certain songs, by permission of the publishers: Held that certain letters of defendant to the proprietors of the music halls expressing doubts as to the permission, and warning them as to possible liabilities under Copyright Acts, were capable of a libellous construction, and must be submitted to jury.-Hart v. Wall, 46 L.J. C.P. 227.

(v.) C. A.-Libel-Privilege.-Where privilege is claimed on behalf of either a private person or the public press on the ground that the defamatory matter is a report of a trial, it is for the defendant to show that the report is a fair one, and the question of fairness is for the jury.-Melessich v. Lloyds, 25 W.R. 353.

(vi.) C. A.-Libel-Privilege.-Held that a newspaper proprietor could not claim privilege for a report of charges made at a meeting of a board of guardians against a Poor-law medical officer.-Purcell v. Sowler, 25 W.R. 362.

(vii.) C. P. Div.-Libel-Question for Jury.-Where in consequence of certain letters written to plaintiff's employers, plaintiff lost her employ. ment: Held that the question whether or not such letters were libellous was for the Jury.-Hart v. Wall, 25 W.R. 373.

Detinue :

(ii.) C. A.-Acquittal of Prisoner-Detention of Property-Action against Constable.-Judgment of Ex. Div., see Detinue (i.), p. 56, affirmed.— Bullock v. Dunlop, 45 L.J. Ex. 151; 36 L.T. 194; 25 W.R. 293. Easement:

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Light and Air.-B. obtained parol consent of a company to open two windows in a party wall, wherein were three other windows which B. had within twenty years opened without consent of the company subsequently the company served B. with notice to block up all five windows, and also to raise a party wall, which would darken eight other ancient lights in B.'s tenement: these eight windows had previously been darkened to some extent by a conservatory, built over