of the estate against liabilities properly incurred in priority to the claims of the testator's creditors, and that the indemnity was not limited to that portion of the assets which had come into existence or changed its form since the testator's death.-Dowse v. Gorton, L.R. [1891] A.C. 190.

(i.) C. A.-Renunciation of Probate-Right to Select Beneficiaries.- Decision of Ch. D. (see Vol. 15, p. 79, ii.) reversed.-Crawford v. Forshaw, L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 261; 39 W.R. 484.

(ii.) C. A.-Misappropriation by Officer-Conviction under Statute-Bar to Action-Friendly Societies Act, 1875, s. 16, sub-s. 9.-Judgment of Q. B. D. (See Vol. 16, p, 80, iii.) affirmed.-Vernon v. Watson, 39 W.R. 519.

Gaming:

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Bet-Lottery-Prize for naming Winners of Races-Betting Act, 1853, ss. 1, 3, 4-Betting Act, 1874, s. 3, sub-s. (3)—42 Geo. III., c. 119, s. 2-4 Geo. IV., c. 60, s. 41.-A book was published weekly and sold for the price of one penny, which contained a coupon announcing that sums of money would be given to persons who correctly inserted the names of the winners of certain named horse races, which were to take place in the ensuing week. Held, that the transaction was not a bet or a lottery within the statutes above-mentioned.-Reg. v. Hulton, 39 W.R. 540; Caminada v. Hulton, 64 L.T. 572.

Gift:

(iv.) Ch. D.-Chattel-Delivery.-Delivery first and gift afterwards of a chattel capable of passing by delivery, vests the property therein in the donee as effectually as if the gift preceded the delivery.-Alder son v. Peel, 64 L.T. 645.

Highway :

(v.) C. A.—Cutting Trees-" Lopping "—5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 50, s. 65.—The term "lop," in the section above-mentioned, means to cut off the branches laterally, and therefore the section does not empower the county surveyor or the justices to cut off the tops of any trees.— Unwin v. Hanson, L.R. [1891] 2 Q.B. 115; 39 W.R. 587.

(vi.) C. A.-Local Board-Sewer Authority-Negligence-Personal InjuryPublic Health Act, 1875, ss. 15, 16, 21, 73, 149.-C., the owner of cottages fronting a public highway, was required by the defendants to connect the drains of the cottages with the sewer, and in compliance with such requisition he dug a trench in the road, and, having made the connection to the satisfaction of the defendants' surveyor, he filled up the trench. The earth then subsided, in consequence of which the plaintiff was injured. The defendants were the highway and sewer authority. Held, that they were not liable as the highway authority, as no action would lie against a local board for personal injuries arising from the non-repair of a highway; nor as the sewer authority, as they had not constituted C. their agent. Steel v. Dartford Local Board,

60 L.J. Q.B. 256.

-

(i.) Q. B. D.-Main Road-Highway District-Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, ss. 13, 14, 15.-The commissioners of a district in the Fens of Norfolk, appointed and incorporated under various local Acts for draining and enclosing lands and providing roads, applied to the County Council for an order under sect. 15 of the Act of 1878, declaring a certain road in their district to be a main road. Held, that the Act only included the three highway areas mentioned in sect. 14 and the highway authorities within those areas, and did not include an exceptional area and an exceptional authority. The commissioners and their district were an exceptional authority and area, and the County Council was not bound to make the order applied for.-Reg. v. Norfolk County Council, 60 L.J. Q.B. 379.

(ii.) Q. B. D.-Road Authority-County Council-Tramways Act, 1870, s. 3 -Local Government Act, 1888, s. 11.-A County Council continues to be the road authority under the Tramways Act, 1870, over main roads, notwithstanding that the council has contracted with a highway board for the repairs of such roads by the board.- Highway Board of the Stockport and Hyde Divisions of the Hundred of Macclesfield v. County Council of the County of Chester, 39 W.R. 606.

Husband and Wife :

(iii.) P. D.- Divorce

Decree Nisi Rescinded- Costs-23 & 24 Vict., c. 144, s. 7; 41 Vict., c. 19, s. 2.—A decree nisi for divorce on the ground of adultery, was rescinded on the intervention of the Queen's Proctor on the ground of collusion. The co-respondent, who was cited, but did not appear, was condemned in costs.-Taplen v. Taplen, L.R. [1891] P. 283.

(iv.) C. A.-Divorce-Maintenance to Wife-Dum Casta-29 & 30 Vict., c. 32, s. 1.-There is no general rule that a dum sola et casta clause should be inserted in an order for permanent maintenance in default of reasons for its omission, and where a guilty husband was ordered to make a small annual payment to his wife, who had no property, the clause was omitted.-Wood v. Wood, L.R. [1891] P. 272; 64 L.T. 586. (v.) P. D.-Nullity of Marriage-Colonial Decree-Variation of Settlements -Jurisdiction-20 & 21 Vict., c. 85, s. 45-22 & 23 Vict., c. 61, s. 5.A decree of nullity of marriage having been made by a Colonial Court, the parties, who had returned to this country, petitioned for a variation of settlements. Held, that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Moore v. Bull, L.R. [1891] P. 279.

(vi.) C. A.-Restitution of Conjugal Rights-Non-compliance with Order— Settlement-Matrimonial Causes Act, 1884, s. 45.-Decision of P. D. (see Vol. 16, p. 81, iv.) reversed.-Michell v. Michell, L.R. [1891] P. 208; 60 L.J. P. 46; 64 L.T. 607.

(vii.) C. A.-Equity to Settlement-Assignment for Value-Malins's Act, s. 1 -Form of Settlement.-A husband and wife assigned for value the wife's reversionary interests in two funds, derived under instruments executed before Malins's Act, all parties believing that the Act applied. The funds having fallen into possession, the husband and wife obtained one fund and applied it to their own use. Upon an application by the assignees for payment of the other fund, the wife claimed her equity to a settlement. At that time the wife entirely supported her husband and three children. Held (varying the order of the Ch. D.), the assignees having consented to a settlement of half of the fund, that the wife's conduct had disentitled her to any further settlement. Under the special circumstances a settlement was ordered which directed annual payments out of corpus to the wife.-Roberts v. Cooper, L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 335; 60 L.J. Ch. 377; 64 L.T. 584.

(i.) Ch. D.-Paraphernalia-Old Family Jewels. -A husband, who had acquired certain jewels from his mother, allowed his wife to wear them. He died, and she married again. Her second husband survived her, took out administration, and claimed the jewels. The trustees of the first husband's will claimed the jewels as being "old family jewels," and alleged that they were included in a bequest to the wife for her life of articles of personal or domestic use." Held, that they had not been proved to be "old family jewels," that they therefore were the "wife's paraphernalia " and her absolute property.-Laing v. Walker, 64 L.T. 527.

Infant.-See Will, p. 145, iii.

Injunction:

(ii.) C. A.-Mandatory-Erection of Building after Notice of Action.Where the defendant to an action to restrain interference with light and air by building, on receiving notice of a motion for injunction, hurries on his works, and so endeavours to anticipate the action of the Court, he ought to be ordered to pull down what he has so built without regard to the ultimate result of the action.-Daniel v. Ferguson, L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 27; 39 W, R. 599.

Innkeeper :

(iii.) C. A.-Liability-Duration of-Guest-26 & 27 Vict., c. 41, s. 1.-M. went to a hotel in the morning and asked for a bedroom. He was told that he could only have a room to dress in, and he was shewn into a room which was to be occupied by other persons later in the day. He left the room unlocked and certain valuables exposed. He went out, after paying for breakfast and returned at night. In the meantime the person who had engaged the room arrived, and M.'s luggage was placed in the corridor with the valuable property exposed as he had left it. On M.'s return some of the valuables were found to be stolen. Held, that M. occupied the room as a guest until the arrival of the persons who had engaged it, and that as the relationship of innkeeper and guest continues until the guest's property is delivered to him on his departure, the defendants were negligent in placing the property in the corridor. By so doing they were debarred from proving that the loss was contributed to by M.'s negligence, and he was therefore entitled to recover to the extent of £30. Held, also, that he could not recover beyond that amount, as his negligence prevented him from proving that the loss occurred wholly by the "wilful act, default, or neglect" of the defendants.-Medawar V. Grand Hotel Co.,

L.R. [1891] 2 Q.B. 11; 60 L.J. Q.B. 209.

Insanitary Dwellings :

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Demolition of-Compensation-Liverpool Sanitary Amend. ment Act, 1864, ss. 5, 13-Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1879.-By a presentment of the grand jury at the Liverpool City Sessions, certain houses were condemned as unfit for human habitation. Held, that in determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the owner for the demolition thereof, the houses ought to be valued as they stood, as houses which might be let, without regard to the fact that they were to be demolished, and that their value was unaffected by the presentment of the grand jury.-Gough v. Corporation of Liverpool, 64 L.T. 596.

Interest:

(i.) Ch. D.-Railway Companies— Agreement—Monthly Accounts-3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 42, s. 38.-By a traffic agreement between two railway companies, it was agreed that monthly accounts should be exchanged to ascertain the amount receivable by each company in respect of certain joint traffic, and that after the expiration of a fixed period the balances from time to time appearing on such accounts to be due from the one to the other should be paid. An action was brought to determine the construction of the agreement, and the accounts were referred to an official referee. He allowed 5 per cent. interest on unpaid balances. Held (1), that interest was payable; (2), that the Court would not vary the report by reducing the rate to 4 per cent., the official referee having followed the general rule as to rate of interest after full consideration of the circumstances.-L.C. & D.R. v. S.E.R., 64 L.T. 501.

Landlord and Tenant:

(ii.) C. A.-Covenant to Deliver up in Repair-Measure of Damages.The damages for breach of a covenant to deliver up the demised premises in repair ought to be the sum required to put the premises in the state of repair required by the covenant, and the rule is not affected by the fact that by reason of the terms of a lease granted to another lessee from the expiration of the defendant's term, the lessor is at the time of action brought in no worse position than if the covenant had been performed.—Joyner v. Weeks, L.R. [1891] 2 Q.B. 31; 39 W.R. 583.

(iii.) Q. B. D.-Relief against Forfeiture-Under-Lessee-Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 14.-An under-lessee, whether of the whole or a part of the premises comprised in a lease, is not entitled to apply for relief against a forfeiture, as against the lessor.-Burt v. Gray, L.R. [1891] 2 Q.B.98; 39 W.R. 429.

(iv.) Q. B. D.-Wrongful Holding Over-Damage to Tenant's Goods.-The plaintiff, who was tenant of the defendant's cottage, refused to give up possession on the expiration of the tenancy. The defendant sent workmen to remove the roof. The removal was effected without any personal violence, but the plaintiff's furniture was damaged by tiles which unavoidably fell from the roof. Held, that the facts disclosed no cause of action.-Jones v. Foley, L.R. [1891] 1 Q.B. 730; 64 L.T. 538; 39 W.R. 510.

See Tenant for Life, p. 142, i.

Lands Clauses Act:

(v.) C. A. & Ch. D.—“ Party in Possession" —Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 77 & 79.-In 1867 land was taken under the Lands Clauses Act. G. was in possession for the residue of a long term of years which expired in 1878. He claimed to be absolute owner. In a suit commenced by him for specific performance, it was ordered, without prejudice to his claim to the reversionary interest, that the value of the leasehold interest should be paid to him, and that the value of the reversionary interest should be paid into Court. Twelve years after the expiration of the term, G. took out a summons to have the fund in Court paid out to him. Held, that the application failed, as G. had never been "in possession" of the reversion, and had no inchoate title thereto.-Gedye v. Commissioners of Works, 60 L.J. Ch. 332; 39 W.R. 598.

See College, p. 112, i.

Libel:

(i.) C. A.-Injunction to Restrain Publication.-There is jurisdiction to restrain the publication of an alleged libel pending an action in respect thereof, but when justification is pleaded, the Court will, as a general rule, decline to interfere previously to the trial. If the defendant's affidavit in opposition to a motion for an injunction pleads justification, but does not shew the grounds of his belief in such justification, the Court will be justified in granting an injunction.—Bonnard v. Perryman, L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 269; 39 W.R. 435.

(ii.) C. A.—Interlocutory Injunction.-An interlocutory injunction will not be granted to restrain the publication of statements which are not shewn to be likely to cause immediate injury to the person or property of the person seeking the injunction, although such statements are extremely annoying, and appear to be wholly unjustifiable, and grossly libellous unless justified, and although the plaintiff had previously obtained a verdict for heavy damages (which had not been paid) for the publication by the defendants of practically identical statements. Salomons v. Knight, L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 294; 64 L.T. 589; 39 W.R. 506. (iii.) Q. B. D.-Publication-Letter Applying to Plaintiff Derogatory Remarks made by Third Person.-The defendant published in a newspaper, under the heading "Parochial Matters at E.," a letter containing the words: "I refer all readers of the letters on this subject to the Primate's speech on the Clergy Discipline Act." The said speech contained serious allegations against an unnamed clergyman. The rector of E. sued the defendant for libel, three paragraphs of the statement of claim setting out the defendant's letter and the portion of the Primate's speech which contained the allegations, and alleging that the defendant's letter intended that the plaintiff was the object of the allegations. Held, on an application to strike out the three paragraphs, that the matters therein alleged amounted to the publication of a libel by the defendant upon the plaintiff, and disclosed a cause of action.Lawrence v. Newberry, 39 W.R. 605.

(iv.) C. A.-Privilege.-The plaintiff was a guard in the service of the defendants, and was dismissed for gross neglect of duty. The defendants published his name, and the fact and reason of his dismissal in a monthly circular addressed to their servants. Held, that the statement was made on a privileged occasion.-Hunt v. G.N.R., L.R. [1891] 2 Q.B. 189.

Licensing:

(v.) Q. B. D.-Bona Fide Traveller-Licensing Act, 1872, s. 25-Licensing Act, 1874, s. 10.-The appellants arrived at the town of M. on a Sunday morning during closing hours, having driven from a town twenty miles distant. They dined at a public-house. Some hours afterwards they obtained refreshments at a second public house during closing hours. Held, that they were bonâ fide travellers when they entered the second public-house.-Oldham v. Sheasby, 60 L.J. M.C. 81.

(vi.) Q. B. D.-Change of Occupation-New Tenant-Second Licence9 Geo. IV., c. 61, s. 14.-The duly licensed tenant of a beerhouse gave up possession, and A. became tenant in his stead. A. obtained at a special transfer sessions a licence as "the new tenant" of the house. The licence expired on the following 10th of October, and after the expiration of the licence, A. applied at another special transfer sessions for a similar licence to run till the succeeding 10th of October. Held, that A. had ceased to be a "new tenant," and that the justices had no jurisdiction to grant the second licence.-Reg. v. Powell, L.R. [1891] 1 Q.B. 718; 39 W.R. 574.

K