delivery of the bill, between the plaintiff, defendant, and acceptor, that the acceptor should deposit with the plaintiff certain securities, to be held by the plaintiff for the due payment of the bill, and that until these should be sold, and the proceeds applied, the defendant should not be liable to be sued upon the bill; and that the acceptor deposited the securities with the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff had not sold, but still held them. Held (WILLES, J., dubitante), that oral evidence of this agreement was inadmissible, as tending to vary the written contract. Abrey v. Crux, L. R. 5 C. P. 37.

2. After B. had paid one bill, of which M. was the holder, and to which B.'s signature had been forged as acceptor, M. sued B. on another similar bill. The acceptance was not written, authorized, or adopted by B., nor did B. know that M. had held the former bill, or lead M. to believe that the acceptance sued on was B.'s. Held, that B. was not estopped to deny that the bill sued on was accepted by him, by having paid the other, and that the judge was not bound to rule that M. was entitled to a verdict as a matter of law. Morris v. Bethell, L. R. 5 C. P. 47.

3. A bill drawn by A., accepted by B., indorsed to C., and by C. indorsed to D., was dishonored at maturity. The next morning D., not knowing A.'s address, applied to C. for it, and C. then being from home, called again at 5 P. M., got the address, and, after six, sent A. notice of dishonor. It was not received that night, as it would have been if posted before six. All the parties lived in London. D. sued A., and the jury found that he had used reasonable diligence in forwarding the notice. The court refused to disturb a verdict for the plaintiff. - Gladwell v. Turner, L. R. 5 Ex. 59.

See BANKRUPTCY, 2; CONSIDERATION; DAMAGES, 2.

BURDEN OF PROOF. See DEATH.

CARRIER.

The plaintiff was induced by the fraud of A. to send goods by defendants' line to the Z. Company (which had in fact ceased to carry on business), at a certain address. The goods were tendered there and refused. The defendants then addressed a notice to the Z. Company, that they held the goods to their order, subject to warehouse charges, and asking directions. A. afterwards produced this note, and a delivery order signed by A. for the Company, and obtained the goods. The same thing happened a second time, except that no notice was sent. It was left to the jury whether the defendants had acted reasonably and without negligence as to the goods, and in delivering them to A. Held, that a verdict for the defendants should not be disturbed. — Heugh v. London & North Western Railway Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 51.

See PUBLIC EXHIBITION; RAILWAY.

CASE FOLLOWED.-See WINDING UP, 1, 2, 3.

CESSER. See FORFEITURE.

COMPANY.

1. P. signed the memorandum of association of a company for 1350 shares, and F. and J. for 50 shares each. P. sold a business to the company, to be paid for in part by 1500 paid-up shares. By P.'s directions, 50 of these shares were allotted to F., and 50 to J. Held, that this did not satisfy F.'s and J.'s subscriptions. Forbes & Judd's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 270.

2. The agent of a company, being requested to take shares in it, offered to apply for 100, if all moneys which might be payable in respect of them might be deducted from his commission. The manager of the company told him that he would be "allowed the privilege of paying them up as convenient; " whereupon he took the shares, and was registered as holder, but never paid any money on them, or received any dividends. He also signed and sent to the manager a proxy paper, but wrote to him that it was on condition that he did not thereby cancel the agreement to allow him to pay calls from commissions. He attended two meetings. His commission was not sufficient to pay for the shares. Held, that he was liable as a contributory. The above agreement was not a condition to the subscription, but was collateral. Also, having held himself out as a shareholder, to induce others to take shares, he was precluded, as against them, from denying it. - Bridger's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 74.

3. When a shareholder, who has notice of misrepresentations of the company, which entitle him to avoid his subscription, says nothing, but stands by, while he sees other shareholders bringing suit for relief on like grounds, he cannot long afterwards elect to avoid his contract. Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 263.

4. A. owned shares in Railway Company X., and also stock in Company Z. He gave his address at B.'s bank to X. Co., and at a club to Z. Co. B., who had charge of the certificates, fraudulently sold them, and forged transfer deeds. X. Co. and Z. Co. wrote to A., informing him of the transfers, (X. Co. receiving no answer, Z. Co. receiving one forged by B.), and then registered the transfers, and delivered new certificates. On bills against X. Co. and Z. Co. and the purchasers: held, that A. was entitled to delivery up of the certificates, to have the transfers cancelled, and to have dividends then or thereafter to be due, but without costs. Decree without prejudice to any question at law or in equity between the co-defendants. -Johnston v. Renton, L. R. 9 Eq. 181.

5. The broker of a bank, by order of the directors, bought shares in the same, to be taken by the directors and the company, and was credited for the price paid by him in his banking account, kept with the same bank. The bank was afterwards wound up. Held, that, although the transaction was ultra vires of the directors, the broker was to be allowed the item of the above credit in the balance for which he proved. — Zulueta's Claim, L. R. 9 Eq. 270.

See DAMAGES, 1; NOVATION; PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION; WINDING UP, 4.

COMPENSATION. - See NOTICE.

COMPOUND INTEREST.

- See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 2.
COMPROMISE. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 5.
CONDITION. See COMPANY, 2; FORFEITURE.
CONDITIONAL LIMITATION. See FORFEITURE.

CONSIDERATION.

A. gave a note for 520l. on demand, with interest, to B. Afterwards B. signed an agreement that the 520l. should be repaid at 251. each quarter, with interest. In a suit by B.'s administratrix for the 520l., held, that the agreement was without consideration, and no defence. - McManus v. Bark, L. R. 5 Ex. 65.

See VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE.

CONSTRUCTION. -See BANKRUPTCY, 1; COVENANT; DAMAGES, 1; GUARANTY; INFANT; INSURANCE, 2, 3; MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT; NOVATION, 3; PATENT, 3; POWER, 1, 2, 3; SHERIFF; SHIP; STATUTE; WILL, 3-6, 8-12. CONTRACT. See ACTION; BILLS AND NOTES, 1; COMPANY, 1-3; CONSIDERATION; GUARANTY; HUSBAND and Wife, 1-3; INTEREST; LIMITATIONS, Statute of; MORTGAGE, 1; NOVATION; PARTIES; PUBLIC EXHIBITION ; RESTRAINT OF TRADE; SECURITY; TRUST.

1. The proprietor of a newspaper has, without registration under the Copyright Act, such a property in its contents as will entitle him to sue in respect of a piracy. But the piracy of "a list of hounds" is not a case for an interlocutory injunction, as a correct list is easily got, and it is liable to frequent changes. Cox v. Land and Water Journal Co., L. R. 9 Eq. 324.

2. Plaintiff wrote an essay for the "Welsh Eisteddfod," to prove that the English are the descendants of the ancient Britons, which he published. Defendant afterwards did the like. His book was like plaintiff's in theory, arrangement, and, to a great degree, in the citation of authorities. The latter facts were explained by both parties having taken their references from Prichard, and the theory by the occasion of writing. Two authorities were seemingly taken from the plaintiff, and certain results were based upon his tables. The writing was the defendant's. Held (reversing the decision of JAMES, V. C., the facts), that plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction.

On

Defendant had a right to take authorities from Prichard, even though sent there by plaintiff's book, which took the same.

An author has no monopoly in a theory propounded by him.

Per JAMES, V. C. In cases of literary piracy, the defendant is to account for every copy of his book sold, as if it had been a copy of the plaintiff's. — Pike v. Nicholas, L. R. 5 Ch. 251.

3. Although a rival publisher is not justified in copying slips cut from a directory previously published by another party by having sent out canvassers to verify them, and to obtain the leave of those whose names were on the slips to publish them in that form, he may use such slips to direct his canvassers where to go for the purpose of obtaining the addresses anew. - Morris v. Wright,

L. R. 5 Ch. 279.

CORPORATION. See COMPANY.

COSTS.

1. A defaulting trustee is entitled to his costs of a suit for the execution of the trusts incurred after his bankruptcy, or after the registration of a composition deed executed by him. - Bowyer v. Griffin, L. R. 9 Eq. 340.

2. When an executor, who pays a particular fund into court under the Trustee Relief Act, has in his hands the general residuary estate, the court has jurisdiction to order him to pay out of the residue the costs of proceedings relating to the particular fund. — In re Trick's Trusts, L. R. 5 Ch. 170.

3. One who moves for leave to inspect documents without applying to the party in possession of them, must pay costs. The Memphis, L. R. 3 Adm. & Ecc. 23.

4. To a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife replied cruelty, &c., but abandoned the charges at the hearing. A decree was made against her, but could not be served, as she was out of the jurisdiction. On proof that the wife had a separate income of 7601., the court ordered that she should pay the costs of the proceedings. — Miller v. Miller, L. R. 2 P. & D. 13.

5. Although a man having no defence enters no appearance to a suit for dissolution of marriage, he may attend before the registrar on the taxation of his wife's costs. - Letts v. Letts, L. R. 2 P. & D. 16.

See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 4; PLEADING, 2; SOLICITORS; STATUTE; SUR

VEYOR.

COVENANT.

A. covenanted on the marriage of his daughter, B., that if B. should survive him, or, dying, leave any children or issue, A. would devise, or otherwise settle, an equal part with A.'s other children, of the property A. should have at his death, to the use of B.'s husband for life, then to B. for life, then to the children of the marriage with a clause of survivorship and accruer in the event of children dying under twenty-one without issue. The children of B.'s marriage all died without issue before A., only one of them, C., having attained twenty-one. B. survived A. A.'s will followed the covenant, but did not protect the interest of such of B.'s children as reached twenty-one from lapse. Held, that A. was not bound to do so, and that C.'s representatives took nothing. — In re Brookman's Trust, L. R. 5 Ch. 182.

See ACTION; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 1; MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT ; TRUST. CREDITOR. -See SECURITY.

CRIMINAL LAW.-See EMBEZZLEMENT; INDICTMENT; INFANT.

CROWN. See FISHERY.

CRUELTY.

Force, whether physical or moral, systematically exerted to compel the submission of a wife, in such a manner, to such a degree, and during such a length of time, as to injure her health and render a serious malady imminent, is legal cruelty. Kelly v. Kelly, L. R. 2 P. & D. 31.

DAMAGES.

1. By the articles of association of a company, L. was to be manager, and if he should be "at any time deprived of or removed from his office for any other

cause than gross misconduct, the directors shall pay to him as compensation for loss of office a certain sum "within one month from the time of such removal." The company was ordered to be wound up. Held, that this event entitled L. to said sum, and that he could prove for the whole sum without any deduction on the ground that L. might get another appointment. — In re London & Scottish Bank, L. R. 9 Eq. 149.

2. Defendants at L. undertook by a letter of credit to accept bills for plaintiffs at A., plaintiffs to provide funds to meet the bills before maturity. Defendants after having accepted bills for which plaintiffs had provided funds, stopped, and notified plaintiffs that they could not pay. In an action on the letter of credit: Held, that expenses of necessary telegraphing from A. to L., of protesting the bills, and commissions paid for taking up the bills at L., could be recovered. Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool, L. R. 5 Ex. 92.

3. When a sale of real estate goes off through the fault of the vendor, the purchaser can recover the expense of investigating the title.-Frend v. Buckley, L. R. 5 Q. B. 213.

See COPYRIGHT, 2; NEGLIGENCE; NOTICE.

DEATH.

Those who found a right upon the fact that a person, who has not been heard of for seven years, survived a particular period, must establish that fact affirmatively by evidence.

A., a testator, died Jan. 5, 1861, and left a residue to his nephews. The last that was known of B., one of his nephews, was that he was entered in the books of the American Navy as having deserted June 16, 1860, while on leave. Held, that B. was not shown to have survived A., and that his personal representatives could not claim a share under A.'s will. In re Phené's Trusts, L. R. 5 Ch. 139.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.- See BANKRUPTCY, 2.

DESERTION.

A wife who after her husband has deserted her, but within the statutory time, becomes a party to a deed by which she agrees to live apart from him, and he agrees to pay her an allowance, although she has never been paid the allowance, can no longer establish the desertion. — Parkinson v. Parkinson, L. R. 2 P. & D. 25.

DEVISE. See COVENANT; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 3; WILL, 6-12. See CRUELTY; DESERTION.

DIVORCE.

DOWER.

A mother entitled to dower in land of an infant which was taken by a railway company, and the value paid into court under the Lands Clauses Act, was held entitled to be paid the value of her right of dower out of the corpus of the fund, instead of receiving one-third of the dividends for life. In re Hall's Estate, L. R. 9 Eq. 179.

EASEMENT.-See ANCIENT LIGHT.

ELECTION.-See COMPANY, 3.