may be due to them from the assignor, and the account must be taken once for all in the presence of all parties interested.-Bergmann v. Macmillan, L.R. 17 Ch. D. 423.

(ix.) C. A.-Employment of Agent Ignorant of Defect-Misrepresentation— Fraud.-Where a principal enploys an agent ignorant of the truth, in order that such agent may make a fale statement believing it to be true, and may so deceive the party with whom he is dealing, the agent's representation amounts to a fraudulent misrepresentation by the principal.-Ludgater v. Love, 44 L.T. 694.

(x.) C. A.-Undisclosed Principal-Sale-Contract.-Decision of Q. B. Div. (see Principal and Agent iii., p. 31) reversed.—New Zealand Land Co. v. Watson (Reeston), 50 L.J. Q.B. 433; 44 L.T. 675; 29 W.R. 694. (xi.) C. A.-Unincorporated Society-Borrowing Powers-Authority.—Held, varying decision of C. P. Div. (see Principal and Agent iv., p. 31) that the directors were liable but the society not liable.-Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 696; 50 L.J. C.P. 372; 44 L.T. 449; 29 W.R. 519.

Principal and Surety :

(iv.) C. A.-Co-Sureties-Contribution.-A surety cannot call upon his co-surety for contribution until he has paid more than his proportion of the debt due to the principal creditor, provided that the co-surety has not been released by the creditor.-Ex parte Snowdon, Re Snowdon, L.R. 17 Ch. D. 44; 29 W.R. 654.

(v.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Co-Sureties-Right to Share of Security.-Any security taken by one surety will, generally speaking, inure for the benefit of his co-sureties equally with himself.-Steel v. Dixon, 29 W.R. 735.

Probate:·

(xi.) P. D. A. Div.-Codicil-Erroneous Reference-Two Wills.-Testator executed a will in 1877, and in 1878 he executed another will superseding the first. In 1880 he executed a codicil which, by a mistake of the solicitor who prepared it, was drawn as a codicil to the first will: Held that all three instruments must be admitted to probate.-In the goods of Stedham, 29 W.R. 743.

(xii.) P. D. A. Div.-Compromise of Action.-In sanctioning arrangements between parties to probate causes, the Court does not intend to bind infants or other persons not sui juris.-Norman v. Strains, 50 L.J. P.D.A. 39; 29 W.R. 744.

(xiii.) P. D. A. Div.-Execution—Subsequent Alterations.-The clause in a will appointing executors was written partly on the second and partly on the third side of a will. Afterwards testator altered the clause, but his signature and those of the witnesses appeared only opposite the alteration on the second side. Probate granted to all the alterations.— In the goods of Wilkinson, L.R. 6 P.D. 100.

(xiv.) P. D. A. Div.-Executor-Erroneous Description-Extrinsic Evidence. -Extrinsic evidence admitted to show which of two persons was intended by testator to be his executor, the description in the will being erroneous and ambiguous.-In the goods of Brake, 50 L.J. P.D.A. 48; 29 W.R. 744.

(xv.) P. D. A. Div.-Married Woman Executrix-Grant to Attorney-20 & 21 Vict., c. 77, s. 79-The husband of a sole executrix of a will and universal legatee having objected to her taking probate, the Court made the grant to her attorney.-Clerke v. Clerke, L.R. 6 P.D. 103; 29 W.R. 823.

(xvi.) P. D. A. Div.-Revocation-Mutilation.-Will found after death with signature and attestation clause cut off and folded inside the will: Held sufficient evidence of an animus revocandi. -Magnesi v Hazelton, 44 L.T. 586.

Public Health :-
:-

(xi.) C. A.—Local Authority-Contract exceeding £50-38 § 39 Vict., c. 55, ss. 174, 200.-Decision of Ex. Div. (see Public Health viii., p. 103) reversed.-Eaton v. Basker, 50 L.J. Ex. 444; 44 L.T. 703; 29 W.R. 597. (xii.) C. A.-Nuisance-Injunction-Transfer of Local Authority-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, s. 275.-In 1875 an injunction was granted against the cor. poration of B., as the local sanitary authority, restraining them from polluting a river. In 1877 the sanitary authority of the corporation and the sewage works were transferred to a district drainage board, under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875: Held that it was not competent in an action against the board to enforce the injunction obtained against the corporation.-Attorney-General v. Birmingham District Drainage Board, 29 W.R. 793.

(xvii.) C. A.-Liability to Fence Adjoining Lands-Release by Owner-Occupier-8 Vict., c. 20, s. 68.—Decision of C. P. Div. (see Railway xiii., p. 104) affirmed.-Corry v. G. W. Rail. Co., 50 L.J. C.P. 386; 44 L.T, 701; 29 W.R. 623.

(xviii.) Q. B.

Div.—Passenger-Bye-Law—Validity—Divisibility—8 Vict., c. 20, s. 103.-A bye-law of a railway company provided "any person travelling without permission in a carriage or by a train of a superior class to that for which his ticket is issued, is hereby subject to a penalty of 40s., and shall, in addition, be liable to pay his fare from the station where the train originally started, unless he shows that he had no intention to defraud:" Held that the bye-law was divisible, and that the first part was bad, as it did not make intention to defraud necessary to the infliction of the penalty.-Dyson v. L. & N. W. Rail. Co., L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 32; 50 L.J. M.C. 78; 44 L.T. 609; 29 W.R. 565.

(xix.) Q. B. Div.—Passenger Travelling in Superior Class to that for which Fare paid-Intent to Defraud-8 Vict., c. 20, s. 103.-A passenger who travels in a carriage of a class superior to that for which he has taken his ticket, with intent to defraud the railway company of the difference between the fares, is liable to be convicted under 8 Vict., c. 20, s. 103, for travelling without having previously paid his fare.-Gillingham v. Walker, 44 L.T. 715.

(xx.) C. A.—Railway Commissioners — Jurisdiction — Arbitration Clause— 22 & 23 Vict., c. 59; 36 y 37 Vict., c. 48, s. 8.-The Railway Companies Arbitration Act, 1859, does not confer on railway companies any powers to refer to arbitration, not before possessed by them, and sec. 8 of Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, applies only to certain particular differences between companies which in any Act are required or authorised to be referred to arbitration.-Great Western Rail. Co. v. Waterford and Limerick Rail. Co., 50 L.J. Ch. 513; 44 L.T. 723.

(xxi.) C. A.-Railway Commissioners-Jurisdiction-Fares in Excess of Limit -17 & 18 Vict., c. 31, s. 2.-Held that the Railway Commissioners had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a company of having demanded fares exceeding the limit fixed by statute.-Great Western Rail. Co. v. Railway Commissioners, 50 L.J. Q.B. 483.

Revenue:—

(v.) H. L.-Income Tax-Coal Mine-Deduction for Exhausted Pits5 & 6 Vict., c. 35; 29 Vict., c. 36, s. 8.-A tenant of coal mines is not entitled, in computing profits for assessment of income tax, to deduct from the gross profits a sum estimated to represent the capital expended in sinking pits which have been exhausted by the year's working.Coltness Iron Co. v. Black, L.R. 6 App. 315; 29 W.R. 717.

(vi) Q. B. Div.—Income Tax-Foreign Telegraph Company—16 & 17 Vict., c. 34, s. 2.-Held that a foreign telegraph company having marine cables in connection with the Post Office lines in England, and having offices in England for the transmission of messages, were chargeable with income tax on the balance of profits from their receipts in this country.— Erichsen v Last, L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 12.

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Income Tax-Revenue Applied to Specific Purpose.-- A docks and harbour board was directed by its statutes to apply receipts in certain specific ways, and such moneys were to be applied for no other purpose: Held that the board's revenue was not liable to income tax.-Mersey Docks, &c., Board v. Lucas, 50 L.J. Q.B. 449; 44 L.T. 645; 29 W.R. 606.

(viii.) Q. B. Div.-Inhabited House Duty-41 Vict., c. 15, s. 13.-Part of a house was occupied by the owner for business purposes, part was occupied as a residence, and other parts were let and occupied for business purposes, and a care-taker and his wife resided in and attended to the house: Held that the parts occupied for business purposes were liable to inhabited house duty.-Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Clayton, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 557; 50 L.J. Q.B. 471; 44 L.T. 302; 29 W.R. 539.

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Inhabited House Duty-Exemption-41 Vict., c. 15, s. 13 (2).-Held that the Income Tax Commissioners were justified in exempting premises from inhabited house duty when they consisted mainly of warehouses, but a cashier with £200 a-year salary slept in a room in the premises.-Rolfe v. Hyde & Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 673; 50 L.J. Q.B. 481; 44 L.T. 775.

(x.) Q. B. Div.-Stamp Duty-Debenture on Promissory Note-33 & 34 Vict., c. 97, s. 49.-Held that an instrument not under seal, issued by a company, headed debenture, and stamped as a promissory note, whereby the company promised to pay A. or order £100, and to pay the holder interest thereon, on presentation of coupons attached, was a debenture within the meaning of the Stamp Act, 1870.-British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, 44 L.T. 378; 29 W.R. 610.

(xi.) Q. B. Div.-Succession Duty-Appointment-16 & 17 Vict., c. 51, ss. 2, 4, 18.-Testator, who died before the passing of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, bequeathed funds on trust for his daughter for life, remainder to whom she should appoint, in default to her next-of-kin ; and legacy duty was paid on the fund at the rate of one per cent. After the passing of the Act, the daughter appointed in favour of her nieces, testator's grandchildren: Held that the nieces were liable to pay a duty of one per cent. on a succession derived from testator; and that the legacy duty paid had not discharged their liability.-AttorneyGeneral v. Mitchell, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 548; 50 L.J. Q.B. 406; 44 L.T. 580; 29 W.R. 683.

(xii). Ch. Div. M. R.-Succession Duty-Settled Land-16 & 17 Vict., c. 51, s. 42; 40 & 41 Vict., c. 18, s. 22.-Where land settled by an instrument containing no power of sale is sold by the Court under the

provisions of the Settled Estates Act, 1877, it thereby becomes freed from any liability to succession duty in respect of the uses of the settlement.-Re Warner and Steel, 29 W.R. 726.

(vii.) H. L.-Agreement-Construction-Holograph Writing.-Tenants of quarries agree with the landlord to construct a tramway on certain terms: Held, on the construction of the agreement, that the tramway was to pass outside the inclosing walls of the landlord's policy, and that the undertaking of the landlord to give the land required only amounted to an undertaking to give such rights in the land required as were vested in him. A landlord entered into an agreement with a tenant, the terms of which were dictated by the landlord to his factor, and the agreement was then signed by the tenant: Held not a valid holograph writ.Sinclair v. Caithness Flagstone Quarrying Co., L.R. 6 App. 340.

(viii.) H. L.-Clyde Navigation Trustees-Riparian Owner-21 & 22 Vict., c. 149, ss. 76, 84.-The Clyde Navigation Trustees being empowered by 21 & 22 Vict., c. 149, to dredge the Clyde to a certain depth, cannot be interdicted from dredging ground which has been declared the property of a riparian owner subject to the rights of the public and the trustees.-Lord Blantyre v. Clyde Navigation Trustees, L.R. 6 App. 273.

(ix.) H. L.-Shareholders of Theatre-Right of Free Admission.-Trustees for shareholders of a theatre granted in 1858 a disposition of the ground and buildings to B., subject to a perpetual annuity to each shareholder, and each shareholder was to be entitled to free admission to the theatre. The theatre was burnt down and rebuilt, and was then sold, the conveyance being granted subject to the real burdens and conditions specified in the original disposition, including the conditions as to allowing the shareholders the privileges to which they were entitled: Held that the privilege of free admission rested only on the personal obligation of the original disponee and was confined to the theatre then existing.-Scott v. Howard, L.R. 6 App. 295.

Settlement:

(xv.) C. A.-Marriage Settlement -After-acquired Property.—In a marriage settlement it was witnessed that it was agreed and declared between and by the parties thereto, and the husband thereby covenated that the husband would make and concur in making all such assurances as would vest in the trustees on the trusts of the settlement any estate which should during the marriage vest in wife or in husband in her right after marriage; the wife became entitled to property to her separate use: Held that she was not bound by the covenant.-Dawes v. Tredwell, 44 L.T. 740; 29 W.R. 714, 793.

Ship:

(xli.) C. A.-Charter-party-Deliver at Safe Port-Breach.-Decision of P. D. A. Div. (see Ship ii., p. 35) reversed.-The Alhambra, L.R. 6 P.D. 68; 50 L.J. P.D.A. 36; 44 L.T. 637; 29 W.R. 655.

(xlii.) P. D. A. Div.-Charter-party-Measurement of Cargo.-The general rule that cargo is to be paid for according to quantity delivered at port of discharge, must prevail in the absence of express contrary provisions in the charter-party.--The Skandinav, 50 L.J. P.D.A. 46.

(xliii.) P. D. A. Div.-Collision-Foreign Ship-Liability-Lex Loci.-A collision took place on the high seas between a British and Spanish ship, and both sank. The English owners brought an action against the

Spanish owners who had an office in England, and defendants pleaded that by Spanish law there was no personal liability: Held a bad defence. -The Leon, 44 L.T. 613.

(xliv.) P. D. A. Div.-Collision-Regulations for Preventing-Infringement.— A barque left port a few days before the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1879, came into operation: Held that the barque was, nevertheless, liable for not having on board a fog-horn of the sort required by Art. 12 of the Regulations.-The Love Bird, L.R. 6 P.D. 80; 44 L.T. 650. (xlv.) C. A.-Collision-Thames Navigation-Breach of Bye-Law. -Decision of P. D. A. Div. (see Ship xix., p. 70) reversed.-The Margaret, L.R. 6 P.D. 76; 44 L.T. 291; 29 W.R. 533.

(xlvi.) C. A.-General Average-Deck Cargo-Jettison-Liability of Ship. owner.-Defendants agreed to let to plaintiff the upper deck of their ship for a cargo of cattle for a particular voyage, the vessel not to be responsible for mortality or accident of any kind. On the voyage the master found it necessary, through stress of weather, to jettison the cattle: Held that defendants were not liable to plaintiff either by way of damages or general average.- Wright v. Marwood, L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 62; 29 W.R. 673.

(xlvii.) Q. B. Div.-General Average-Loss of Freight-Fire.-A cargo of coals shipped to be delivered at S. on payment of freight, took fire spontaneously, in consequence of which part had to be thrown overboard and the rest was so wetted in putting out the fire that it had to be discharged and sold at a port of refuge. As no freight was payable there, the coals realised more than if sold at port of discharge: Held that the shipowner was entitled to general average contribution for loss of freight.-Pirie v. Middle Dock Co., 44 L.T. 426.

(xlviii.) C. A.-Insurance-Freight-Option to Discharge Ship-Perils of the Seas.-Plaintiffs' ship was chartered with the condition that freight was not to be payable in the event of the ship becoming unseaworthy. Plaintiffs insured the freight with defendants against perils of the seas. The ship struck on a rock and was damaged so as to require repairs and the charterers discharged the ship: Held that defendants were not liable on the policy.-Inman Steamship Co. v. Bishhoff, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 648; 50 L.J. Q.B. 440; 44 L.T. 763; 29 W.R. 697. (xlix.) Q. B. Div.-Insurance-Freight-Option of cancelling Charter-partyRisks incident to Steam Navigation.-A charter-party provided that if the ship did not arrive at port of lading before a particular day char. terers were to have the option of cancelling the charter-party. The owners insured the freight with defendants against all risks incident to steam navigation. Defendants did not know of the option to cancel in the charter-party. The ship owing to the failure of her machinery did not reach the port of lading till after the day named, and the charterers cancelled the charter-party: Held that defendants were not liable on the policy.-Mercantile Steamship Co. v. Tyser, L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 73; 29 W.R. 790.

(1.) P. D. A. Div.—Nautical Assessors.-The Court should be guided by the advice of assessors only on matters of nautical science, and ought not to allow any advice given by them, which it does not agree with, to influence its decision.-The Aid, L.R. 6 P.D. 84; 50 L.J. P.D.A. 40; 29 W.R 614.

(li.) C. A.-Salvage-Pilotage.-A ship having been driven out of her course was in great danger of being lost, and some pilots put off to assist her, and by means of preceding and signalling to her, led her