B. gave him notice that she claimed the goods, but the auctioneer put them up for sale and returned those not sold to A.: Held that the autioneer was liable to B. for value both of the goods sold and those returned to A.-Davis v. Artingstall, 49 L.J. Ch. 609.

(iii.) C. P. Div.-Judgment Debtor-Commitment-Means of Payment— 32 & 33 Vict., c. 62.-An application was made under the Debtor's Act, 1869, to commit defendant to prison for default in payment of an instalment of £10, on an affidavit that defendant lived in a large and well-furnished house, and was living in the stile of a gentleman of means, and always appeared to have money at his command. Defendant swore that he had no money, and that the effects in the house belonged to his wife: Held that the order for committal was rightly made.Harper v. Scrimgeour, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 366.

(iv.) C. A.-Promissory Note-Payment of Interest-Statute of Limitations.— Held that in the absence of rebutting evidence a promissory note twenty years old will be presumed to have been paid; and that payment of interest on the note is evidence of a demand for payment of the note.Brown v. Rutherford, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 687; 49 L.J. Ch. 654; 43 L.T. 105.

Defamation :-
:-

(i.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Libel-Injunction-Trial by Judge-32 Geo. III., c. 60. -An injunction may be granted to restrain the publication of a libel calculated to injure a man in his trade, without proof of actual damage. Fox's Act applies only to informations, and not to actions, for libel.Thomas v. Williams, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 864; 49 L.J. Ch. 605; 43 L.T. 91; 28 W.R. 983.

(ii.) C. A.-Libel-Inuendo-Question for Jury.-Where words taken in their primary sense are not libellous, in order to prove a libel depending on an inuendo there must be evidence of facts which would reasonably make them defamatory in their secondary sense, known both to the person who indicted the libel and to those to whom it was published.-Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 28 W.R. 851.

Easement:

(i.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Air-Implied Covenant.-Damages were given in respect of an obstruction of access of air to a slaughter-house which had been used for upwards of thirty years, on the ground of an implied covenant.-Hall v. Lichfield Brewery Co., 49 L.J. Ch. 655.

(ii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Light-Obstruction-Mandatory Injunction.—Where the damages caused by the obstruction of ancient lights did not exceed £7, a mandatory injunction was refused.-Webster v. Whewall, 42 L.T. 868.

(iii.) C. A.-Light-Prescription-Building Pulled Down.-Where a building containing ancient lights has been pulled down, the Court, if satisfied that the owner will rebuild, will grant an injunction against a substantial interference with the easement.-Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Kino, 49 L.J. Ch. 529.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Light-Prescription-New Windows.-Where new windows have been substituted for ancient lights, accurate evidence of the position of the ancient lights and of their coincidence with the new windows must be produced in order to obtain an injunction against obstruction.-Fowlers v. Walker, 49 L.J. Ch. 598.

(v.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Right of Way-Access to Road-Unreasonable Inter. ference-Damages.-A builder had three ways of access to a building site, but used only one, and so as to interfere with the access of

customers to plaintiff's shop: Held that such user by the builder was wrongful, and that, as the building operations had come to an end pending the action, the plaintiff was entitled to damages to the extent of the injury inflicted both before and after the commencement of the action.-Fritz v. Hobson, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 542.

(i.) H. L.-Ecclesiastical Commissioners-Land Vested in-Statute of Limitations-3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, s. 29; 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, s. 50.-When land annexed to a deanery becomes vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by virtue of 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, s. 50, they have the same time within which to enforce their claim to the property that the dean would have had under sec. 29 of 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27.-Ecclesiastical Com. missioners v. Rowe, L.R. 5 App. 736.

(ii.) H. L.-Ecclesiastical Offence-Commission-Mandamus-3 & 4 Vict., c. 86, s. 3.-A bishop having refused to issue a commission to inquire into a charge made against the rector of a parish in his diocese under 3 & 4 Vict., c. 86, s. 3, on the grounds of the rector's age and high character, the opposition of the majority of his parishioners to the inquiry, and the usually abortive nature of such proceedings: Held that the bishop had a discretion vested in him as to issuing a commission or not. Mandamus to compel him to proceed refused.-Julius v. Bishop of Oxford, 49 L.J. Q.B. 577.

Election:

(i.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-Borough Vote-Notice of Objection-Amend. ment-41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 28.-In a notice of objection to a person on the list of voters for a borough, the objector described himself as "on the list of voters for the parish of W.," omitting the word "parliamentary:" Held that this was a mistake which the revising barrister ought to correct.-James v. Howarth, 28 W.R. 923.

(ii.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-County Vote-Equitable Seizin-Trust for Sale-30 & 31 Vict., c. 102, s. 5.-The share of a cestui-qui-trust in property devised in trust for sale and division amongst the cestuis-quetrustent, where the sale has been postponed by parol agreement amongst them, is not such an estate as to entitle the cestui-que-trust to a vote under sec. 5 of 30 & 31 Vict., c. 102.-Spenser v. Harrison, 28 W.R. 985. (iii.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-Election Petition-Change of Place of Trial.— The power to change the place of trial of an election petition under the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, can be exercised only by the Court, and not by the election judge.-Re Tewkesbury Election Petition, 49 L.J.C.P.685. (iv.) C. P. Div.—Parliament-Election Petition—Interrogatories-31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, ss. 2, 26.-The Court has no power to order interrogatories to be delivered to a respondent to a parliamentary election petition under the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.-Re Wallingford Election Petition, Wells v. Wren, 49 L.J. C.P. 681.

(v.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-Election Petition-Recognizance-Sureties31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, s. 6.—It is a sufficient compliance with sec. 6 of Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, if one surety enters into the recognizance thereby required.-Hereford Election Petition, Preece v. Pulley, 49 L.J. C.P. 686.

(vi.) C. P. Div.-Parliament-Incapacity from Voting-Receipt of Parish Relief-41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, s. 28 (7).-The provisions of sec. 28 sub. sec. 7, of 41 and 42 Vict., c. 26, do not apply to cases of temporary incapacity to vote at any particular election, such as incapacity caused by the receipt of parochial relief.-Hayward v. Scott, 28 W.R. 988.

(vii.) C. P. Div.-School Board-Petition against Election-33 & 34 Vict., c. 75, s. 33; 35 & 36 Vict., c. 6, s. 2.-A petition against the election of a member of a school board cannot be sustained under the Corrupt Practices (Municipal) Act, 1872.-Re West Bromwich School Board, 49 L.J. C.P. 641.

Evidence:

(i.) P. D. A. Div.—Affirmation in Lieu of Oath--Foreign Subject-17 & 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 20.-The Court refused to receive as evidence the affirmation of a German subject made in Germany before a British viceconsul, though it was alleged that, by the law of Germany, all voluntary oaths are illegal.-In the Goods of Prince Henry of Reuss-Kostritz, 49 L.J. P.D.A. 67.

(ii.) Ch. Div. F. J.—Banker's Books-42 & 43 Vict., c. 11, s. 3.—Copies of entries in the books of the bankers of a defendant are evidence against the plaintiff.-Harding v. Williams, 49 L.J. Ch. 661.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Deed-Stamp-33 & 34 Vict., c. 97, s. 17.-A mortgage stamped with a deed stamp, but not with the proper ad valorem stamp, cannot be received in evidence, though tendered only as proof of the devolution of the legal estate.-Whiting to Loomes, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 822; 49 L.J. Ch. 617; 43 L.T. 83.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Privilege - Professional Communications—Pursuivant. -A pursuivant of the College of Arms, though necessarily employed for the purpose of protesting against a baronet's pedigree being recorded by the college, is not entitled to claim privilege when called as a witness for cross-examination.-Slade v. Tucker, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 824; 49 L.J. Ch. 644; 43 L.T. 49.

(v.) H. L.-Pablic Document.-Facts stated in.-The report of a Committee appointed by a foreign government to inquire into the fitness of A. to to hold a certain office: Held that statements therein could not be pro

duced as evidence of A.'s birthplace and age.-Sturla v. Freccia, L.R. 5 App. 623; 43 L.T. 209.

(vi.) C. P. Div.-Witness-Proof of Previous Conviction-17 & 18 Vict., c. 125, s. 25.-A party to a cause who gives evidence in support of his case may be cross-examined as to whether he has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanour, and, if he denies or declines to answer, the opposite party may prove the conviction under sec. 25 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, though the fact be irrelevant to the matter at issue in the cause.-Ward v. Sinfield, 49 L.J. C.P. 696.

Fishery :

(i.) C. P. Div. - Royal Grant.- Inference Claim by Inhabitants. — Plaintiffs, in an action of trespass for disturbance of their several oyster fishery in a tidal navigable river, established a primâ facie title to the soil of the river and the fishery: Held that a claim by defendants to a right to fish at certain times in the river as inhabitants of ancient tenements in a borough could only be supported on the presumption of a lost royal grant incorporating them, and that such presumption could not be entertained as it would be antagonistic to the plaintiffs' rights; and that a general right to the defendants as subjects of the realm was inconsistent with the plaintiffs' rights.-Mayor of Saltash v. Goodman, 49 L.J. C.P. 565; 42 L.T. 872.

Foreshore :

(i.) C. A.-Prerogative of Crown-Removing Shingle.-The Crown has a prerogative and duty to defend the realm from inundations of the sea,

and therefore the Court will restrain the removal of shingle forming a natural barrier against the sea.-Attorney-General v. Tomline, 42 L.T. 880; 28 W.R. 870.

Friendly Society :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Trades' Union-Action by Member Against—Right to Sue-34 & 35 Vict., c. 31-Irrespective of the Trades' Union Act, 1871, a trade union is an illegal association, and there is nothing in that Act which enables a Court of justice to enforce the agreements of members among themselves.-Rigby v. Connol, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 482.

(ii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trades' Union-Illegal Association-34 & 35 Vict., c. 31, s. 4.—Held that an action by the head establishment of a trade union against a branch, for an injunction to restrain the latter from dividing the funds in their possession, would not lie.-Duke v. Littleboy, 43 L.T. 216; 28 W.R. 977.

Highway :

(i.) Q. B. Div.—Improvement-Street Diversion-10 & 11 Vict., c. 34, s. 66. -The Commissioners under the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, s. 66, have no power to divert a highway by widening it and altering its course so as to close a part of the old highway; street, in that section, is used in its popular acceptation of a line of buildings, and does not include a highway generally.-Regina v. Platts, 43 L.T. 159; 28 W.R. 915.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.—Projection over or upon Pavement—Local Act—Construction.-A local act provided that no projection should be made in front of any building over or upon the pavement of any street: Held that this included only such projections as would be an obstruction to foot passengers.-Goldstraw v. Duckworth, 49 L.J. M.C. 73.

(iii.) C. A.-Repair-Extraordinary Traffic-41 & 42 Vict., c. 77, s. 23.— Held that the use of two traction engines, each drawing two waggons, was extraordinary traffic on a road, intended only for vehicles drawn by horses, and that twenty-four tous, the weight of an engine and two waggons, was an excessive weight within sec. 23 of the Highway and Locomotive (Amendment) Act, 1878.-Lord Aveland v. Lucas, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 351; 49 L.J. C.P. 643; 42 L.T. 788.

(iv.) C. P. Div.-Repair of Footway - Apportionment -38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, 8. 150.-An urban authority repaired the footway on the south side of a street, and apportioned the whole cost among the owners and occupiers of premises on that side: Held that the apportionment was right.~ Wakefield Sanatory Authority v. Mander, 28 W.R. 922.

(v.) C. P. Div.-Street Expenses-Apportionment-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, ss. 150, 257.-An apportionment of street expenses, under sec. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, not disputed within three months from notice of it to the owner of the premises in respect of which the expenses were incurred, is binding and conclusive.-Shanklin Local Board v. Miller, 49 L.J. C.P. 512.

Husband and Wife :

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Assignment of Leaseholds to Wife.-A husband about to leave England executed an assignment by deed to his wife of a leasehold house, to hold unto her, her executors, administrators, and assigns, as her separate estate. No trustee was appointed: Held that the deed operated as a valid declaration of trust.-Fox v. Hawks, 49 L.J. Ch. 579.

B

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Debt of Wife before Marriage-Action against Husband and Wife-Pleading.-In an action against a husband and wife, married since the Married Woman's Property Act, 1874, for a debt con. tracted by the wife before marriage, it is not necessary to allege that the husband has received assets of the wife.-Matthews v. Whittle, 43 L.T. 114.

(iii.) P. D. A. Div.—Divorce—Decree Nisi-Re-Marriage before Decree made Absolute.-A wife having obtained a decree nisi for dissolution of her marriage, and being under the impression that it had been made absolute, went through the ceremony of marriage with another man. She afterwards found that the decree had never been made absolute : Held that she was entitled to have it made absolate.-Wickham v. Wickham, 49 L.J. P.D.A. 70.

(iv.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Desertion.-Petitioner's husband having eloped with another woman in 1877 with whom he still continued to live; she alled a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty but withdrew it at the hearing, and three years afterwards filed a petition grounded on adultery and desertion. Respondent had not contributed towards her support since he left her: Held that she was entitled to a decree.-Knapp v. Knapp, 49 L.J. P.D.A. 69.

(v.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Variation of Settlement-41 Vict., c. 19.Held that the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, applied to the case where a decree nisi for dissolution was obtained before, and was made absolute after the passing of the Act.-Ansdell v. Ansdell, 49 L.J. P.D.A. 57; 43 L.T. 224.

(vi.) C. A.-Liability for Necessaries-Express Prohibition to Pledge Credit.A husband who has prohibited his wife from pledging his credit is not liable for the price of articles of dress supplied to her credit, though they may be necessaries in the sense that they are suitable to her station in life, and have been supplied in ignorance of the prohibition.— Debenham v. Mellon, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 394; 49 L.J. Q.B. 497.

(vii.) Ch. Div. D. J.-Married Woman- Charging Expectancy under a Will-Cansideration.-It is competent for a married woman to give a valid charge on property which she expects to become entitled to under the will of a person living at the time she makes the charge, which will take effect on her becoming entitled to the property charged: and the advancing money to pay off debts of her husband is a sufficient consideration to support the transaction.-Flower v. Buller, 43 L.T 948. (viii.) C. P. Div.—Married Woman.-Conveyance by under 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74, s. 91.-On an application for an order under 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74, s. 91, dispensing with the concurrence of a husband in the execution of a deed by his wife on the ground that they were living apart, and the husband, by reason of intemperate habits, was not in a fit mental state to execute the deed, the Court required medical evidence of the hus. band's state of mind, and evidence of his refusal to concur, and directed notice of the application to be served on him.- Re Clare's Will, 49 L.J. C.P. 557.

(ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Separate Estate-Debts and Funeral ExpensesStatute of Limitations.-Moneys advanced by a stranger for the support of a married woman, living separate from her husband, are debts binding her separate estate, and are not barred by the Statute of Limitations.Hodgson v. Williamson, 28 W.R. 944.

(x.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Separate Estate-Restraint on Anticipation.— A general engagement of a married woman who has separate estate, made on the credit of such estate, binds all property belonging to her