Held that they were not liable for damage caused by a pile negligently left in the river so as to injure a barge.-Forbes v. Lee Conservancy Board, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 116; 48 L.J. Ex. 402; 27 W.R. 688.

Will:

(lxii.) C. A.-Annuity-Deficiency of Income-Arrears out of Corpus.— Decision of V. C. H. (see Will. iii., p. 38) reversed.-Gee v. Mahood, 40 L.T. 663.

(lxiii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Apportionment--Clear and Undisposed of Rents-33 & 34 Vict., c. 35.-By a will, dated before the Apportionment Act, 1870, testator, after disposing of his personal estate, made a gift of the clear and undisposed of rents of certain estates to trustees for a term after his death, and by a codicil, subsequent to the Act, confirmed his will: Held that the clear and undisposed of rents included only the rents accrued since testator's death, and that the apportioned rents up to his death belonged to the personal estate.-Constable v. Constable, 40 L.T. 516.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Construction.-Testator directed his executors to take a house for his three daughters to live in with their governess: Held that the daughters were entitled to the money which ought to have been expended in taking a house for them during their minorities. Testator gave residuary real and personal property to trustees in trust out of the rents and profits of realty and out other moneys to form a fund to be applied in establishing his three sons in professions. One son only had adopted a profession: Held that the sons were entitled to the residue in equal shares. A gift of household furniture and effects of all kinds, followed by a gift of "all my other real and personal estate:" Held to include only household furniture and effects, ejusdem generis.-Hutchinson v. Rough, 40 L.T. 289.

(lxv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Construction-Charge of Debts-Mortgage—Legacy— 17 & 18 Vict., c. 113; 30 & 31 Vict., c. 69.-Testator, after giviny certain realty and personalty in trust for his wife, gave all his residuarg estate upon trust for sale, and out of the proceeds to pay debts, including debts due upon mortgage of any of the property the enjoyment whereof was secured to his wife; and he then gave legacies to his executors : Held that mortgages on the residuary real estate must be borne by the produce of sale of such estate exclusively, and that the legacies to the executors were charges on the real and personal estates pro ratâ.-Elliot v. Dearsley, 40 L.T. 548.

(lxvi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Construction-Exoneration.-Subject to the payment of his debts and certain legacies previously given, testator gave his real and residuary personal estate to trustees in trust for A. A. died in testator's lifetime: Held that the personal estate was primarily liable for payment of debts and legacies.-Wells v. Row, 48 L.J. Ch. 476; 40 L.T. 715.

(lxvii.) C. A.-Construction-Life Estate by Implication.-Testator gave all his property to trustees in trust for payment of debts, with power to sell, and he directed that after the death of his wife and payment of all debts and legacies the residue should be divided amongst children of his aunts, the descendants of those who might have died being entitled to the benefit which their deceased parent would have received had he been alive Held that the wife did not take a life estate by implication, and that all descendants of the children of testator's aunts living at the period of distribution were entitled per stirpes.-Ralph v. Carrick, 40 L.T. 505.

(lxviii.) H. L.

Construction-Next-of-Kin.

Bequest among testator's daughters for life with remainder to their children respectively, and

after the death of the last surviving daughter, if without issue,"to such person or persons as will then be entitled to receive the same as my next-of-kin under the Statute for the Distribution of Intestates' Estates: Held that the next-of-kin were a class to be ascertained at the time of the testator's death.-Mortimore v. Mortimore, 48 L.J. Ch. 470; 40 L.T. 696; 27 W.R. 601.

(lxix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Specific Chattels--Power to Appropriate.-Gift of plate to trustees to permit testator's widow to appropriate absolutely such parts as she should signify in writing her desire to have: Held that the widow was entitled to all the plate.Arthur v. Mackinnon, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 385; 27 W.R. 704.

(lxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Construction-Vesting-Maintenance.-Bequest, after death of A. and his wife, on trust to apply the interest of the fund, or so much as the trustees should think proper, for the maintenance of A.'s children during their minorities, and on their attaining twenty-one to divide the principal and accumulations equally among them; in default of children to A. absolutely: Held that the gift to the children was contingent on their respectively attaining twenty-one.-Re Grimshaw's Trusts, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 406; 48 L.J. Ch. 399; 27 W.R. 514. (lxxi.) C. A.-Conversion-Election.-An estate was devised to trustees on trust to sell, and half the proceeds belonged to the wife of one of the trustees for her separate use, and the other moiety belonged. to another trustee. The trustees did not sell the property, but granted various leases of part of it, and they also opposed a bill for a projected railway which would pass through the estate, and stated in their petition that they intended to lay out the estate for building. The trustee's wife died in her husband's lifetime: Held that her share went to her heir-at-law as realty.-Martin v. Trimmer, L.R. 11 Ch. D. 341.

(lxxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Perpetuity-Restraint on Anticipation.-Gift of fund to a person for life, and after her decease to her surviving children, accompanied as to daughters and female issue with a restraint on anticipation: Held that the restraint was bad as infringing the rule against perpetuities.-Buckton v. Hay, 27 W.R. 527.

ADDENDA.

(Cases reported only in the Law Times and Weekly Reporter for July 26th.)

Administration:

(xxiii.) C. A.-Priority-Secured Creditor-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, subsec. 1.-Sec. 25, sub-sec. 1 of Judicature Act, 1873, did not take effect on the passing of that Act, and was therefore postponed by the Suspending Act of 1874.-Sherwen v. Selkirk, 40 L.T. 701.

(iv.) Ch. Div. F. J.—Agency-Following Money.—A firm at S. sent to a bank at C. average orders to collect and pay the proceeds to bankers in London. The bank collected the orders, and received a cheque for one and cash for the others, which they paid into their till. They stopped payment and went into liquidation: Held that the cheque could be followed by the firm at S., but not the money-Ex parte Dale, Young & Co., Re West of England Bank, 40 L.T. 712.

Bankruptcy:

(ci.) C. J. B.-Partnership-Joint and Separate Creditors.-A partnership agreement between A. and B. provided that certain machinery should remain the property of A. A. died, having by his will appointed B. and others trustees and empowered them to carry on the business and employ any part of his estate in doing so. The business was carried on for ten years, when B. filed a liquidation petition: Held that the machinery was a joint asset of A. and B., and divisible among their joint creditors. -Ex parte Manchester and County Bank, Re Mellor, 40 L.T. 723.

Copyright :

(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Infringement—Assignment-8 Geo. II., c. 13.— The copying the design of a copyright engraving by a chromo-printed pattern for wool-work is an infringement. A written assignment is not necessary to establish the right of the assignee to the penalties under 8 Geo. II., c. 13, for piracy.—Dicks v. Brooks, 40 L.T. 710. Evidence :

(xi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Public Document-Nationality.-The report of a committee appointed by a foreign government to inquire into the fitness of A. to hold a certain office: Held that statements in the report could not be produced as evidence of A.'s birthplace and age. -Sturla v. Freccia, 40 L.T. 709.

Landlord and Tenant:

(xxvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Covenant to Repair-Breach-Power of Re-Entry.Entry of a lessor upon the demised premises for the purpose of effecting repairs which the lessee refused to do: Held a trespass in the absence of express power in the lease.-Stocker v. Planet Building Society, 27 W.R. 793.

Licensed House :

(v.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal to Quarter Sessions-35 & 36 Vict., c. 94, s. 52.— Held that the question whether an appellant to quarter sessions entered into a recognizance immediately after giving notice of appeal in accordance with sec. 25, sub-sec. 3, of the Licensing Act, 1872, was a question of fact to be determined by the quarter sessions.-Regina v. Berkshire Justices, 27 W.R. 798.

Mine :

(ix.) C. A.-Water-Injury to Neighbour's Land.-Everyone is entitled to deal with water on his own land so long as he does not cause it to go on his neighbour's land in such a way as to affect that land otherwise than it had been previously affected.-West Cumberland Iron Co. v. Kenyon, 40 L.T. 703.

Mortgage :

(xxx.) P. C.—Rights of Mortgagee- Action Against.— Where in an action against a mortgagee, he denies his character as such and claims as owner, if he is unsuccessful he will not be allowed to claim the benefits attached to the character of a mortgagee.-National Bank of Australasia v. United Hand in Hand Co., 40 L.T. 697.

Negligence:

(iv.) C. P. Div.-Dangerous Article-Injury to Bystanders.-A party dealing with an article dangerous in itself is bound to use great caution, and if he fail to do so and in consequence a stranger is injured, the injured person has a right of action against him.-Parry v. Smith, 27 W.R. 801.

Practice:

(celii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Attachment for Contempt-Non-payment of Costs of Motion.-On a motion for an attachment no order was made except that the respondent pay the costs of the motion; on default of payment: Held that the Court had no jurisdiction to commit him to prison for the default.-Micklethwaite v. Fletcher, 27 W.R. 793.

(ccliii.) C. A.-Costs-Counter-claim-30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, s. 5-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 67.-A claim for £97 and counter-claim for £24 were referred to a master, the costs to abide the event of the reference, and he certified that £16 was due on the claim and £23 on the counterclaim: Held that plaintiff must pay defendant's costs both on the claim and counter-claim.-Chatfield v. Sedgwick, 27 W.R. 790.

(celix.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Payment in Satisfaction of Claim.- Where a defendant paid a sum into Court in satisfaction of plaintiff's claim, and the issues were afterwards referred to an official referee, who reported that the sum paid in was sufficient, the Court allowed plaintiff his costs up to the payment into Court.-Buckton v. Higgs, 27 W.R. 803. (celv.) Q. B. Div.-Dismissal for want of Prosecution Summons for Extension of Time.-An order was made dismissing an action for want of prosecution unless plaintiff delivered a statement of claim within fourteen days. Plaintiff took out a summons for extension of time returnable on the last of the fourteen days, and it was adjourned by consent: Held that the action came to an end on the last of the fourteen days.-King v. Davenport, 27 W.R. 798.

(celvi.) Q. B. Div.-New Trial-Insufficient Damages. In an action for personal injury a new trial will be granted where the damages awarded by the jury are unreasonably small.-Phillips v. L. & S. W. Rail. Co., 27 W.R. 797.

(cclvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Pleading-Wilful Default.-In an administration action in which there were no pleadings affidavits were filed by the sur viving partners of the testator raising a case of fraud against him. On a summons by the partners eight years afterwards an account was ordered of all sums in which the testator or his estate was indebted to the partners for sums fraudulently retained or improperly applied by him. -Barber v. Mackrell, 27 W.R. 794.

(celviii.) C. A.--Recovery of Land-Joinder-Ord. 17, r. 2.-Decision of Fry, J. (see Practice ccxxxvii., p. 127) affirmed.-Pilcher v. Hinds, 27 W.R. 789. Public Health :

(xiii.) Ex. Div.-Offensive Trade-38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, s. 114 - A manufac turer who carries on an offensive trade and so causes a nuisance within the district of an urban sanitary authority may be convicted under sec 114 of the Public Health Act, 1875, though the nuisance is injurious to sick persons only.-Malton Local Board v. Malton Farmer's Manure Co., 27 W.R. 802.

Ship:

(lviii.) C. P. Div.-Marine Insurance-Insurable Interest.-D. having undertaken to transport the Cleopatra Obelisk to England, expended £4,000 in constructing a vessel to carry it and providing for its transport. He insured the obelisk and vessel with one underwriter for £2,000 and another for £1,000, and the policies provided that the vessel and obelisk should be valued by agreement at £4,000. On the way to England the obelisk incurred salvage liabilities, and the salvors were awarded £2,000, the obelisk being valued at £25,000: Held that the insurers were liable to repay D. the £2,000 in amounts proportionate to their policies.Dixon v. Whitworth, 40 L.T. 718.