than in the other. That is not the question. The question, as I regard it, is whether the contract to insure a British ship is the same thing as to insure a Belgian ship." "It is in vain to say that the vessel in point of fact was seaworthy. That may be so, but the question is whether the misrepresentation or concealment had the effect of leading the underwriters to believe there were means of ascertaining the seaworthiness of the vessel which were neutralised by the registry under the Belgian flag." English authorities were quoted, especially Ionides v. Pender. 27 May, 1874. L.R., 9 Q.B., 539. Lords Neaves, Ormidale, and Gifford concurred. 23 May, 1876., Hutchinson & Co. v. Aberdeen Sea Insurance Co., 3 S.C., 682.

Ship-Culpa-Reparation.

After a vessel had left its moorings in a tidal harbour the keel was found to have sustained injury. A stone was found in the mud where the vessel had rested: Held that assuming that the stone was the cause of the injury the harbour trustees were not liable in damages, having taken all reasonable means to make the harbour safe, and that no fault in them or their servants had been established. Per Lord President (Inglis): "Harbour trustees provide accommodation for shipping, and invite the masters and owners of ships to occupy that accommodation, and charge them a price for it. The obligation thence arising is not an obligation to insure from accidents, but only an obligation to use reasonable diligence to prevent the occurrence of injuries to vessels." 20 July, 1876. Thomson and others v. Greenock Harbour Trustees, 3 S.C., 1194.

Ship-Ship's Husband.

When a vessel is in a home port, and the owners easily accessible, the managing part-owner cannot, without special authority, bind his co-owners for extensive structural alterations. English decisions were chiefly relied on. 8 July, 1876. Steele & Co. v. Dixon, 3 S.C., 1003.

Ship-Shipbroker-Commission.

Held that a shipbroker is not entitled to commission upon the sale of a ship: that although the seller had been introduced to the purchaser by the broker the sale was not in consequence of the introduction. English cases chiefly cited. Lord Justice. Clerk (Lord Moncreiff) dissented from the decision. 11 July, 1876. White v. Munro, 3 S.C., 1011.

Foreign Contract-Stamp.

A Scotch firm of shipbuilders entered into contract in France to build certain vessels for a French firm. One of the members of the Scotch firm at same time and place gave a letter to a member of the French firm to pay a certain commission on the contract price. In an action founded on the letter: Held that the letter constituted a Scotch contract, and was not to be construed according to French law, and required no stamp. Per Lord President (Inglis): "The party who undertakes the obligation, who is to perform the contract, is a Scotchman, whose place of business is in Scotland, and this obligation is in direct connection with another contract, viz., that of building the steamers, which is in Scotland." 4 July, 1876. Valery v. Scott, 3 S.C., 150.

Railway-Collaborateur-Jury-Trial.

A fireman of one company was killed whilst on a train running on another line over which the first company had running powers, and that by the fault of a station-master on the line of the second company. The second company held liable, and that the claim was not barred by contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the first train and another fellowworkman of the fireman. Per Lord Justice Clerk (Lord Moncreiff): "I am of opinion that the deceased was employed solely by the first company, and that the fact that they had the right of running over the rails of another company had no more effect in making the deceased the servant of that other company than the use of a private wharf or pier, or private road, would convert the servants using it into servants of the proprietor." It being proved that the driver was able to stand, "the fact that a fellowservant did, or contributed to do, the wrong, liberates the master, but it does not liberate the fellow-servant, who remains liable for the wrongful act, and still less can it liberate a stranger who perpetrates the wrong." By minute of consent, the jury assessed the damages at £300, leaving the question of legal liability to the Court. The Judge asked the Jury to say whether they were of opinion that the driver and guard of the train were also to blame, to which they answered that they were not. The Court (Lord Ormidale dissenting) held they were not bound by this expression of opinion, and Held the reverse in point of fact, but that this did not affect the legal liability. The authorities chiefly relied on were the English cases Thorogood v. Bryan (1849. 8 Com. Bench Rep., 1st Ser. 115), Armstrong v. Lancashire

and Yorkshire Railway (1875. L.R. 10 Ex. 47). 7 Dec., 1875. Adams v. Glasg. & South Western Rail. Co., 3 S.C., 215.

Railway Clauses Scotland Act, 1845-Tolls-Lien.

Held that the word "tolls," in the 90th section, must be construed to mean tolls proper, or payments for the use of the line by persons using their own carriages, and that the remedies given under that section are not available for the recovery of charges for goods carried by a railway company as common carriers, so as to give a lien on goods, not only for payment of individual carriage, but for the carriage of goods previously removed. The decision was mainly given on the authority of the English case of Wallis v. London and S.W. Rail. Co., L.R. 5, Exch. 62. 16 June, 1876. Highland Rail. Co. v. Jackson, 3 S.C. 850.

VII. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF MESSINA IN THE RAINFORD APPEAL CASE.

We have been favoured by His Excellency the Italian Ambassador, General Count Menabrea, with an official translation, accompanied by the authentic Italian text, of the Judgment delivered by the Civil and Correctional Tribunal of Messina, in the matter of the Appeal of Mr. Paul Edward Rainford, British subject, residing in Taormina. We have much pleasure in publishing it as a document of public interest likely to be appreciated by readers of the Law Magazine and Review, while, at the same time, refraining from the expression of any opinion of our own as to the merits of the case.

"IN THE NAME OF

"HIS MAJESTY VICTOR EMMANUEL II., "BY THE GRACE OF GOD AND THE WILL OF THE NATION, "KING OF ITALY.

"The Civil and Correctional Tribunal of Messina, correctional section, the bench consisting of the Judges Giuseppe di Stefano Nicolosi, acting as president, and Giuseppe Melita; with Vin

cenzo Voce, judicial assistant; the King's Procurator-Substitute, Signor Enrico Gatti, intervening; and the Vice-Chancellor, Signor Amato Grio, assisting;

"Held its sitting in the Public Hall, and proceeded to hear the evidence and to give judgment in the case against Paul Edward Rainford, son of the late Edward Rainford, aged 56 years, gentleman, born in London, and residing in Taormina, the appellant, who makes appeal against the judgment pronounced by the Praetor of the Department of Taormina, on the 28th of June of the present year, by which the appellant was condemned to pay a fine of one hundred lire and costs, as guilty of an affront against the Royal Carabiniers.

Against the above-mentioned sentence the King's Procurator attached to this Tribunal also made appeal, by an Instrument (Atto) dated the 7th of July, 1877, by which said sentence the said Rainford was condemned to pay a fine of one hundred lire and costs, he having been found guilty of an affront (oltraggio) by words against the Brigadier of the Royal Carabiniers.

“Having heard the report of the case made in Court by the acting President: Having read the necessary documents: Having heard the witnesses for the prosecution: Having heard the arguments (orali conclusionali) of the Public Prosecutor, by which he has asked that the appeal made by Paul Edward Rainford be entertained as to its form, but be rejected as to its merits, And that, instead, the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor be accepted, and therefore that the said Rainford be condemned to one month's imprisonment in lieu of a fine of one hundred lire Having, lastly, heard the defendant and his witnesses: The Court, having withdrawn to the Council Chamber in order to consider their judgment, out of the presence of the Public Prosecutor, of the Vice-Chancellor, and of all other extraneous persons, has pronounced the following Sentence:

"Mr. Paul Edward Rainford, aged 56, of London, having been condemned by the Praetor of Taormina, by a sentence of the 28th of June last, to a fine of one hundred lire, for an affront committed by words and threats on the 17th September, 1876, in Taormina, against the person of an agent of the Public Force (viz., a Vice-Brigadier of the Royal Carabiniers) whilst in the exercise of his duty, has made appeal against such

sentence:

"Ist. Because the Vice-Brigadier Rasconi was examined as a witness at the public hearing, whereas he was not put down as such in the list which was furnished to the defendant:

"2nd. Because it had not been proved at the public hearing that the words which the Praetor held (ritenne) to have been spoken by Rainford against the Vice-Brigadier had been uttered: 3rd. Because, even if it were admitted that the said words had really been uttered, they would not constitute the affront and much less the threat charged (l'oltraggio, la minaccia):

66

"The Public Prosecutor has also made appeal against the above-mentioned sentence, on the grounds that the Praetor had been too lenient in having inflicted a penalty which was merely pecuniary, having taken too much into consideration the circumstances of person, time and place, which on the contrary, in the case now under examination, constitute an aggravating circumstance, and that, therefore, the proper (corrispondente) penalty would have been imprisonment, if it were desired to adjust (proporzionare) the punishment to the breach of the law. "Having examined the proceedings (atti) in the suit and the sentence appealed against, we find:

"That at the public hearing which took place before the Praetor, it was beyond doubt ascertained that Mr. Rainford, when requested by the Vice-Brigadier of the Royal Carabiniers to give his name, answered, "I do not give my name either to you or to God." (Il mio nome non lo do nè a voi, nè a Dio.) It was also proved that the words were uttered by Rainford in a harsh tone, in a loud voice, and in an excited manner.

"These facts were deposed to by the witnesses Vincenzo Blandano, Domenico Portatore, Domenico Gullotta, Giuseppe Gullotta, and Angelo Caroparto, the first a shopkeeper, the second a tailor, the third a Communal Secretary, the fourth and fifth, gentlemen, who also bore witness to the calm, courteous, and polite demeanour maintained by the Vice-Brigadier during the occurrence.

"These facts, moreover, are corroborated by the depositions made by Salvatore Lo Giudice, and Vincenzo Garufi, the former in the employ and in the pay of Rainford, and the latter a person employed about the house as a working blacksmith in his pay, neither of whom could deny that Rainford would not give his name when requested so to do by the Vice-Brigadier, and Lo Giudice even adds that Rainford having been requested to give his father's name, answered: 'This is too much. If you want to know such things, come to my house.' (Ma questo è troppo. Se volete sapere cose simili venite a casa mia.)

"Garufi, moreover, seems to have desired to lead us to believe that Mr. Rainford was calm and collected, but he forgot