Partnership:

(vii.) C. A.-Dissolution on Equitable Grounds-Terms.-Where a dissolution of partnership is decreed on equitable grounds, it should date from the judgment; and the arrangement of terms, including apportionment of premiums, is a matter of judicial discretion.- Lyon v. Tweddell, 29 W.R. 689.

Patent:

(vi.) C. A.—Infringement—Agent for Exportation. Decision of V. C. B. (see Patent ii., p. 60) reversed.-Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jones, Scott & Co., 41 L.T. 593.

Poor Law:

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Bastardy-Maintenance Order-Marriage of Mother.-A bastardy order obtained under 35 & 36 Vict., c. 65, s. 3, is not revoked by the subsequent marriage of the mother.-Sotheran v. Scott, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 518; 50 L.J. M.C. 50; 44 L.T. 522; 29 W.R. 666.

(x.) Q. B. Div.-Bastardy-Maintenance Order-Marriage of Mother.-A bastardy order can be enforced against the putative father after the mother's marriage; and the fact that her husband is capable of main. taining the child makes no difference.-Hardy v. Atherton, 44 L.T. 776; 29 W.R. 788.

(xi.) Q. B. Div.-Husband and Wife-Wife's Adultery-31 & 32 Vict., c. 122, s. 33.-A husband is not liable to be ordered, under 31 & 32 Vict., c. 122, s. 33, to maintain a wife with whom he has ceased to cohabit, in consequence of her adultery.—Culley v. Charman, L.R. 7 Q.B.D. 89 ; 29 W.R.803.

(xii.) Q. B. Div.-Maintenance-Married Woman-Separate Estate-Grandchildren.-43 Eliz., c. 2, s. 7; 33 & 34 Vict., c. 93, S. 14.-A woman, whose husband is alive, is not liable under the Poor Law Acts to contribute to the support of grandchildren, though she have separate estate.-Coleman v. Birmingham Overseers, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 615; 50 L.J. M.C. 52; 44 L.T. 578; 29 W.R. 715.

(xiii.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Children under Sixteen-39 & 40 Vict., c. 61, 8. 35.-Legitimate children under sixteen take the settlement of their widowed mother, though such settlement be a derivative one.-Hollingbourne Union v. West Ham Union, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 580; 50 L.J. M.C. 74; 44 L.T. 520; 29 W.R. 629.

(xiv.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Parish--39 & 40 Vict., c. 61, s. 34.-Residence for three years in different parishes in the same union does not confer a settlement under sec. 34 of Divided Parishes Act.-Plomesgate Union v. West Ham Union, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 576; 50 L.J. M.C. 51; 44 L.T. 610; 29 W.R. 630.

(xv.) C. A.—Settlement-Residence in Charitable Institution-9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, s. 1; 39 & 40 Vict., c. 61, s. 4.-Decision of Q. B. Div. (see Poor Law viii., p. 96) affirmed.-Fulham Guardians v. Isle of Thanet Guardians, 44 L.T. 678; 29 W.R. 723.

Power of Appointment :

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Appointment by Will-Real Estate-Failure-Residuary Devise-1 Vict., c. 26, s. 25.-Sec. 25 of Wills Act, 1837, applies to the case of an invalid appointment of real estate under a power created prior to date of that Act.- Freme v. Clement, 44 L.T. 399.

(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Partial Invalidity-Postponed Enjoyment — Intermediate Income.-Testatrix having a limited power of appointment

K

over a fund, appointed it to an infant, not an object of the power, on his attaining twenty-one, and if he should die during infancy then to S., who was an object of the power: Held that the income of the fund till the infant died or attained majority would go with the corpus, in the one case to S., in the other as in default of appointment.-Long v. Ovenden, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 691; 50 L.J. Ch. 314; 44 L.T. 462; 29 W.R. 709. (vii.) Ch. Div. K. J.- Power created subsequent to Will-1 Vict., c. 26, ss. 24, 27. Real estate was by a settlement conveyed to trustees to sell and pay the proceeds as A. should by deed or will appoint. By a second settlement A. appointed that the trustees should hold the proceeds of sale in trust for such persons as she should by will appoint. By her will, made before the second settlement, she in pursuance of the power in the first settlement, appointed the real estate to her three sons: Held that the property did not pass under the will.-Thompson v. Simpson, 50 L.J. Ch. 461; 44 L.T. 710.

Practice :-
:-

(cxlix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Accounts-Direction to Chief Clerk-15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 54.-Where an account has been directed to be taken, the Court has jurisdiction, on subsequent summons, to give a direction as to the principle on which it shall be taken.-Shaw v. Brown, 44 L.T. 339. (cl.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs.-In an action for infringement of copyright, the judge held that plaintiff had established his claim, but as defendant had discontinued the infringement before the trial, made no order except that defendant should pay the costs: Held that defendant was entitled to appeal from this order.-Dicks v. Yates, 44 L.T. 660. (cli.) C. A.-Appeal-Death of Appellant-Revivor-Ord. 50, r. 4. Where an appellant dies pending an appeal, his personal representative may obtain leave to carry on the proceedings by order on petition of course at the Rolls.-Ransom v. Patten, 44 L.T. 688.

(clii.) C. A.—Appeal-Dismissal-Appeal by one Plaintiff.—Where an action by two or more plaintiffs is dismissed, any one plaintiff may appeal.— Beckett v. Attwood, 44 L.T. 660; 29 W.R. 796.

(cliii.) C. A.-Appeal-Time-Refusal of leave to Amend-Ord, 38, r. 15.—When application for leave to amend pleadings is refused at the trial, the refusal forms part of the judgment, and on appeal from the judgment the Court of Appeal can give leave to amend. It is contrary to the practice to insert in the judgment any mention of the refusal.-Laird v. Briggs, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 665; 44 L.T. 361.

(cliv.) Q. B. Div.-Attachment of Debt-Garnishee Order-Partnerhip Firm— Ord. 45, r. 2.-A garnishee order will not be granted on partners in the name of the firm.-Walker v. Rooke, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 631; 50 L.J. Q.B. 470. (clv.) P. D. A. Div.-Commission for Examination-Probate Action-20 & 21 Vict., c. 77, s. 26.-Under sec. 26 of Probate Act, 1857, the Court can order a commission to issue to examine a person as to her knowledge of a testamentary document.-Banfield v. Pickard, L.R. 6 P.D. 33; 29 W.R. 613.

(clvi.) P. D. A. Div.-Costs-Administrator and Receiver pending SuitAppeal. The costs of an administrator and receiver pending suit were allowed from date of appointment until the dismissal of an appeal from the decree in the action.-Taylor v. Taylor, L.R. 6 P.D. 29; 50 L.J. P.D.A. 45.

(clvii.) C. A.—Costs-Co-Defendant-Form of Order.-The old practice of ordering a successful plaintiff to pay costs of a defendant, to_be recovered from the principal defendant, is no longer to be used. The

proper order is to make the principal defendant pay the costs directly.Rudow v. Great Britain Life Assurance Society, 50 L.J. Ch. 504; 44 L.T. 688; 29 W.R. 585.

(clviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs-Interrogatories Disallowed.-Where an order was obtained by plaintiff for further answers to two interrogatories, but nine others were disallowed, the costs of adjournment into Court were ordered to be costs in the cause.-Alison v. Alison, 44 L.T. 547; 29 W.R. 732.

(clix.) P. D. A. Div.-Costs-Probate Codicil proved by Legatee.-A legatee successfully propounding a codicil is entitled to the same costs as an executor under like circumstances.-Wilkinson v. Corfield, L.R. 6 P.D. 27; 50 L.J. P.D.A. 44; 29 W.R. 613.

(clx.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs-Sequestration for-Ord. 47, r. 2.-Plaintiff having failed to comply with an order for payment of costs, and having no property except an army pension, a four-day order was made for payment of the costs, and in default leave given to issue a writ of sequestration against plaintiff.-Snow v. Bolton, L.R. 17 Ch. D. 433; 44 L.T. 571; 29 W.R. 583.

(clxi.) C.

A.-Costs-Taxation-Apportionment.-Held, reversing the decision of C. P. Div. (see Practice cxxiv., p. 99) that plaintiff was entitled to the general costs of the action.-Sparrow v. Hill, 29 W.R. 705. A.-Costs-Taxation-Counter-Claim.-Held,

(clxii.) C.

reversing the decision of Ex. Div. (see Practice lxvii., p. 63) that plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the action.-Baines v. Bromley, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 691; 50 L.J. Ex. 465; 29 W.R. 706.

(clxiii.) Ch. Div. M.R.-Costs-Taxation-Party and Party-6 & 7 Vict., c. 73, s. 38.-On the withdrawal of a winding-up petition the solicitor of the company gave a personal undertaking to pay the petitioners' taxed costs, and afterwards obtained an order on the company's petition, under sec. 38 of Solicitors Act, 1843, for taxation: Held, that the order was irregular.-Re Grundy, Kershaw & Co., L.R. 17 Ch. D. 108; 50 L.J. Ch. 467; 44 L.T. 541; 29 W.R. 581.

(clxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Taxation-Transfer of Mortgage-Right to Retain Copies.-A solicitor acting in the transfer of a mortgage, transferred at instance of mortgagor, for 5 persons interested in the mortgage moneys, charged the mortgagors with five copies of the draft transfer: Held that he was only entitled to charge for one copy. A mortgagee or transferee on being paid off has no right to keep copies of the mortgage or transfer.-Re Wade & Thomas, L.R. 17 Ch. D. 348; 44 L.T. 599; 29 W.R. 625.

(clxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Taxation-Winding-up of Company-Repre sentative Summons.-The costs of summons by a contributory in the winding-up of a company, which has been selected as a representative case, are not to be allowed as between solicitor and client.-Re The Mutual Society, 50 L.J. Ch. 400.

(clxvi.) C. A.-Costs-Third Party-Ord. 16, r. 18.-Where third parties had been brought in under Ord. 16, r. 18, and on the trial judgment was given for defendants, the Court refused to make any order as to the costs of the third parties.-Witham v. Vane, 44 L.T. 718.

(clxvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs-Withdrawal of Defence—Ord. 23, r. 1.—By an order in an action one of two defendants was allowed to withdraw his defence on the terms of his paying to plaintiffs their costs so far as occasioned by that defence down to date of application for leave to

withdraw: Held that this relieved the withdrawing defendant from the general costs of the action.-Real & Personal Advance Co. v. McCarthy, 44 L.T. 514.

(clxviii.) Q. B. Div.-Cross Action-Different Issues -Stay of Proceedings.-A. brought an action against B. for detention of a ship and for freight of cattle, and B. brought an action against A. claiming a much larger amount for loss of the said cattle through A.'s negligence. The writs were issued on same day, but A.'s claim was served first. The Court refused to stay B.'s action and give him leave to counter-claim.Adamson v. Tuff, 44 L.T. 420.

(clxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Default of Appearance-Setting Aside Judgment. -Costs-Ord. 29, r. 14.-Leave given to defendant to set aside a judg. ment by default and liberty to appear and defend, on the terms of paying plaintiff his costs subsequent to delivery of statement of claim. -Williams v. Brisco, 29 W.R. 713.

(clxx.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Defendant of Unsound Mind-Guardian-Ord. 13, r. 1.-One of the defendants to an action was of unsound mind, not so found by inquisition. He did not appear and no relief was asked against him: Held that plaintiff was not compelled to apply for the appointment of a guardian of the defendant.-Taylor v. Pede, 44 L.T. 514; 29 W.R. 627.

(clxxi.) C. A.-Discovery—Inspection of Documents-Deceased Lunatic.-A lunatic having died intestate, defendant in an action to recover his real estate, who produced primâ facie evidence that he was heir-at-law of the lunatic ex parte paternâ, was held entitled to an order to inspect documents relating to the estate in the custody of the Registrars of Lunacy, though it was sworn and not contradicted that the lands had descended ex parte materná.-Re Smyth, L.R. 16 Ch.D. 673; 29 W.R. 585.

(clxxii.) C. A.-Discovery-Inspection of Documents - Privilege. Where a solicitor is consulted by a client in a matter as to which no dispute has arisen, and he applies to a third party for information to enable him to give legal advice to the client, the communications between the solicitor and third party are not privileged in subsequent legal proceedings.Wheeler v. Le Marchant, 44 L.T. 632.

(clxxiii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Discovery-Interrogatories—Administration.—In an administration action, persons beneficially entitled may require a defendant executor, before close of pleadings, to answer interrogatories as to the accounts of the estate.-Alison v. Alison, 44 L.T. 547; 29 W.R. 732.

(clxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.- Discovery - Interrogatories

Insufficient Answers-Ord. 31, r. 10.-Where the whole of the answers are objected to, the summons for further answer need not specify the interrogatories seriatim.-Furber v. King (2), 50 L.J. Ch. 496; 29 W.R. 536.

(clxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Evidence-Affidavit-Motion for JudgmentOrd. 37, r. 1.-On motion for judgment the Court has no power to order that the evidence shall be taken by affidavit.-Ellis v. Robbins, 50 .L.J. Ch. 512.

(clxxvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Evidence-Attestation of Notary Public-15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 22.-The documents in respect of which, under sec. 22 of Chancery Procedure Act, 1852, judicial notice is to be taken in the Chancery Div. of the seal or signature of a notary public, include a deed of release attested by a Canadian notary public.-Brooke v. Brooke, 50 L.J. Ch. 528; 44 L.T. 512.

(clxxvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Official Referee-Order for Production of Documents -Ord. 36, r. 32.-An official referee cannot make an order for production of documents.-Dauvillier v. Myers, L.R. 17 Ch.D. 346; 29 W.R. 535. (clxxviii.) C. A.—Parties—Bankruptcy of Defendant-Costs-Ord. 50, rr. 2, 3. -Where defendant in an action bocomes bankrupt, and the the question in dispute is one of a mere money demand capable of determination by the Bankruptcy Court, the trustee will not be joined as defendant, nor will the Court make any order as to costs already incurred.Barter v. Dubeux, 44 L.T. 596; 29 W.R. 622.

(clxxix.) C. A.-Parties-Third Party Notice-Application for DirectionÓrd. 16, rr. 18, 21.-Decision of Q. B. Div. (see Practice cxxxv., p. 100) affirmed.-Schneider v. Batt, 50 L.J. Q.B. 389.

(clxxx.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Pleading-Amendment after Judgment-Ord. 41a; 59 r. 2.-After an order in a partition action had been made for sale and partition of property referred to in the order as the heriditaments described in the statement of claim, an error in the description was discovered. Leave was given to amend the claim, and judgment was ordered to be post-dated as of a day after the amendment.-Winkley v. Winkley, 44 L.T. 572; 29 W.R. 628.

(clxxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Reference-Charge of Misconduct―Judicature Act, 1873, s. 57. In an action for wrongful dismissal involving matters of account, when defendant justified on grounds of plaintiff's misconduct : Held that an order referring the issues to an official referee was rightly made.-Sacker v. Ragozine, 44 L.T. 308.

(clxxxii.) C. A.-Service out of Jurisdiction-Slander-Ord. 11, r. 1.Leave will not be given to serve a writ out of the jurisdiction in an action for special damage resulting from a slander spoken out of the jurisdiction.-Bree v. Marescaux, 44 L.T. 644; 765.

(clxxxiii.) C. A.-Set-off and Counter-claim-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 24 (7)— Ord. 19, rr. 2, 3, 8.-Where defendant counter-claims, and the Court holds that the nature of plaintiff's claim is such that no set-off can be allowed, defendant is not entitled to separate judgment on his counter. claim.-Gathercole v. Smith, 29 W.R. 577.

(clxxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Substituted Service-Ord. 9, r. 2.-Substituted service of writ will not be ordered unless reasonable grounds are shown for supposing that it will come to the notice of the person served.— Furber v. King (1), 29 W.R. 535.

(clxxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Transfer of Action-Lord Mayor's CourtCorporation Aggregate.-An action was brought in the Lord Mayor's Court against a company and S. to restrain the company from paying money claimed by plaintiff to S., and an interim injunction was granted. On motion by the company the proceedings were transferred to the Chancery Div.-Vickers v. Stevens, 44 L.T. 679; 29 W.R. 562.

(clxxxvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trial-Jury-Specific Performance--Ord. 36, rr. 3, 26.-An action for specific performance was directed, against wish of defendant, to be tried without a jury.-Usil v. Whelpton, 50 L.J. Ch. 511; 29 W.R. 799.

Principal and Agent:

(viii.) Ch. Div, F. J.-Account-Assignment to Third Party.-When an assignment is made of a share of profits arising from the working of a patent by licensees, the assignee is entitled to an account from the licensees; but if he seeks such account he must place himself in the position of the assignor by offering to pay the licensees anything that