plaintiff was a party grieved within the Act, and could not sue after two years: Held a good plea.-Robinson v. Curry, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 21; 50 L.J. Q.B. 9; 43 L.T. 504.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Concealed Fraud-Intestacy-3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, s. 26; 23 & 24 Vict., c. 38, s. 13.—Plaintiff brought an action to recover possession of real and personal estate which had belonged to M., who had died intestate eighty years ago, alleging that defendant's predecessor in title had, on M.'s death, fradulently represented himself to be heir-at-law and next-of-kin of M., whereas plaintiff's predecessor in title was, in fact, M.'s heir-at-law and next-of-kin: Held that, as to the real estate, the alleged fraud might have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and therefore the claim was barred by the Statutes of Limitation, and, as to the personal estate, it was barred by 23 & 24 Vict., c. 38, s. 13.-Willis v. Earl Howe, 50 L.J. Ch. 4; 43 L.T. 375; 29 W.R. 70.

Lord Mayor's Court:

(i.) C. A.-Foreign Attachment-Plea of Custom.-The allegations in a plea of the custom of foreign attachment that the serjeant-at-arms had summoned defendant and certified that he had nothing within the city and cannot be found there, and that defendant had been called at four courts and made default, are material and must be proved.-London Joint-Stock Bank v. Mayor of London, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 494.

(ii.) C. A.—Sale of Lunatic's Property-Reservation of Minerals-16 & 17 Vict., c. 70, s. 124.-The Court has power to make an exchange of the land of a lunatic without the minerals under it.-Re Dicconson, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 316; 29 W.R. 222.

Master and Servant:

(i.) C. A.-Wages-Forfeiture for Leaving without Notice-Weekly Hiring— 38 & 39 Vict., c. 90, s. 11.—Plaintiff, a work-woman in a factory, was paid by the piece, the amount of work done being booked each Wednesday and paid on the following Saturday; and the rules of the factory provided that any operative leaving without giving a fortnight's notice should forfeit all wages then due. Plaintiff left on a Wednesday without giving notice, and applied on the Saturday for the price of her work done up to Wednesday. The employer claimed to retain this under the rules: Held that the hiring of plaintiff was not a weekly hiring, and that she was protected from the forfeiture by sec. 11 of Employers and Workmens Act, 1875.Warburton v. Hayworth, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 1; 43 L.T. 461; 29 W.R. 81. (ii.) C. P. Div.-Workman-Sub-Contract-38 & 39 Vict., c. 90, ss. 3, 10.— Appellant was employed by respondents as a potter's printer, and by the trade custom it was his duty to find a person called a transferer to assist him. The transferers struck, and appellant's work was rendered useless: Held that, though he was willing to work, he was properly convicted of absenting himself from respondent's employment.-Grainger v. Aynesley, 43 L.T. 608; 29 W.R. 242.

Metropolitan Management:

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Dangerous Structure-Party Wall-Adjoining Owner18 & 19 Vict., c. 122, s. 73.-The appellant pulled down his house, except two party walls, which separated it from the adjoining houses; and the Metropolitan Board of Works served notices on him and the adjoining owners to take down, or make secure the party walls, and on their default, the Board did the necessary work, and summoned appellant for the

amount of the expenses: Held that the magistrate rightly made an order under sec. 73 of Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, for the whole amount against appellant. -Debenham v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 43 L.T. 596. (iv.) C. A.-Erection of Urinal-Nuisance-18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, s. 88.— Section 88 of Metropolis Management Act, 1855, does not authorize a vestry to erect a urinal, where it will be a nuisance to neighbouring householders.-Vernon v. Vestry of St. James', 29 W.R. 222.

Mortgage:

(xi.) C. A.-Attornment Clause-Bankruptcy-Fixtures-Second MortgageGoodwill of Public-House.-Though a mortgage contains an attornment clause, tenants fixtures placed on the premises after the date of the mortgage, pass to the mortgagee as against the mortgagor's trustee in liquidation. An attornment clause in a second mortgage is valid, though the first mortgage contain an attornment clause. The good-will of a mortgaged public-house belongs to the mortgagor's trustee in liquidation as against the mortgagee.-Er parte Punnett, Re Kitchen, 29 W.R. 129.

(xii.) C. A.-Attornment

Clause -Landlord and Tenant-BankruptcyDistress.- A mortgage deed, under which mortgagor attorned tenant from year to year to the mortgagee at a rent payable quarterly, contained a proviso enabling the mortgagee at any time after a certain date to enter and determine the tenancy without notice. The mortgagor having filed a liquidation petition, and a receiver having been appointed the mortgagee distrained for two quarters' rent in arrear: Held that the distress was good.-Ex parte Queen's Benefit Building Society, Re Trelfall, 29 W.R. 128.

(xiii.) C. A.-Contemporaneous Mortgages-One Debt-Debt borne Rateably.Decision of V.C.H. (see Mortgage v., p. 23) affirmed.-Athill v. Athill, 43 L.T. 581.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Contemporaneous Mortgages-One Debt-Debt borne Rateably.-E. mortgaged policies of assurance to secure repayment of a sum of money, and at the same time deposited title deeds of certain lands with the mortgagee, and gave a memorandum stating that the deeds were deposited as collateral security for the repayment of the same sum. He died intestate: Held that the debt was payable rateably out of the insurance moneys and the land.-Early v. Early, 49 L.J. Ch. 826 n.

(xv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Foreclosure-Personal Order Against Mortgagor.—An equitable mortgagee is entitled to obtain a personal order against a defaulting mortgagor as well as a foreclosure decree.-Greenough v. Littler, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 93.

(xvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Proviso for Reducing Rate of Interest-Mortgagee in Possession. When a mortgage deed contains a covenant for payment of interest with a proviso for reducing the rate on punctual payment, a mortgagee in possession is entitled, on taking accounts, to be credited with the higher rate.-Union Bank of London v. Ingram, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 53; 50 L.J. Ch. 74; 29 W.R. 209.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Alderman-Disqualification Arrangement with Creditors-5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76, s. 52; 32 & 33 Vict., c. 62, s. 21.— Held that an alderman who had made a private arrangement with his creditors, under which they accepted a composition on their debts, had not become disqualified under sec. 52 of Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, or sec. 21 of Debtors Act, 1869; and that the Chancery Division

had jurisdiction to restrain by injunction persons threatening to remove him from office.-Aslatt v. Southampton Corporation, 50 L.J. Ch. 31; 43 L.T. 464; 29 W.R. 117.

(v.) C. A.-Conveyance of Prisoners to Prison-40 & 41 Vict., c. 21, ss. 4, 57.-The Prisons Act, 1877, transfers the liability for the expenses of conveying to prison a prisoner committed by justice summarily or for trial, from the county treasurer to the Secretary of State.-Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey, 29 W.R. 179.

(vi.) Ex. Div.—Local Authority-Bye-Law-Construction.-A bye-law of an urban sanitary authority, provided that every person who laid out a new street should comply with certain requirements as to its width: Held that a person who, in accordance with a contract with a building owner, built along a line of street already laid out by the owner, was not a person who laid out a new street within the bye-law.-Sunderland Corporation v. Brown, 43 L.T. 478.

(vii.) C. A.—Maintenance of Insane Prisoners-3 & 4 Vict., c. 54, s. 2; 40 & 41 Vict., c. 21.—The liability for the maintenance of insane prisoners, which by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 54, s. 2, is imposed upon the county in default of any ascertained place of settlement, is not transferred to the Consolidated Fund by the Prisons Act, 1877.-Regina v. Mews, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 47; 43 L.T. 403; 29 W.R. 66; Regina v. Oastler, 50 L.J. M.C. 4. (viii.) C. A.-Vestry Meeting-Summoning Authority.-The vicar and church. wardens of a parish have power to fix the hour of holding vestry meetings, and the parishioners cannot, by mandamus, compel them to alter it.— Regina v. Vicar of Tottenham, 49 L.J. Q.B. 870; Regina v. Wilson, 43 L.T. 560.

Partition :

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Sale-Time for Sale fixed by Will-31 & 32 Vict., c. 40.-Testator devised real estate to trustees upon trust for A. and B. equally for life, and after the death of either his share for his children, with a direction to sell and divide upon the death of survivor of A. and B. A. having died, his children asked for a sale: Held that a sale could not be ordered in the lifetime of B.-Swaine v. Denby, 49 L.J. Ch. 734.

(v.) C. A.-Trust to Work Quarries.--Partition at the suit of the equitable tenant for life of real and leasehold property held on trust, with power for the trustees to work quarries, refused.-Taylor v. Grange, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 165; 49 L.J. Ch. 794; 43 L.T. 233.

Patent :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Allegation of Infringement - Slander of Title-Injunction. A patentee who issues notices against purchasing from a vendor, alleging infringements of his patent, is not bound to take legal proceed. ings to prevent the alleged infringements, and if he issues his notice bona fide, he is not liable to an action by the vendor for injury caused thereby, though he may be restrained by injunction from continuing to issue the notice.-Halsey v. Brotherhood, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 514; 49 L.J. Ch. 786; 43 L.T. 366; 29 W.R. 9.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Infringement—Injunction against Agent.-Plaintiffs were patentees of an invention, an element of which was the rendering nitro-glycerine less liable to explode, so that it could be transported with safety: Held that the trans-shipping in an English port of a preparation of nitro-glycerine manufactured abroad by a similar process was an infringement, and injunction granted restraining defendants from acting as Custom House agents so as to enable the foreign owner

of this preparation to pass it through the English Customs.-Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jones, Scott, & Co., 49 L.J. Ch. 726.

Poor Law:

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Rate-Appeal-Time-17 Geo. II., c. 38., s. 4; 12 & 13 Vict., c. 45, s. 1.-Where a rate was published on the 21st of March, and the next Quarter Sessions were held on the 6th of April: Held that appellant was not bound to appeal to these sessions, but might appeal to the next following sessions.-Regina v. Surrey Justices, 50 L.J. M.C. 10; 43 L.T. 500.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Rate-Occupation- Sale of Pasturage. The owner of certain lands on the 7th May, 1879, sold the grass thereon in lots, under conditions that each lot was sold from the day of sale to the 21st of March, 1880, to be fed by different kinds of stock; the seller to pay all rates and taxes: Held that the owner was the occupier of the lands, notwithstanding the sale, and rateable in respect of them.-Mogg v. Yatton Overseers, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 10; 29 W.R. 74.

(v.) Q. B.Div.-Rate-Woodlands—Right of Sporting-Valuation—37 § 38 Vict., c. 51, s. 4 (a).—In estimating the value of land used as a plantation or wood, the value of the right of sporting over the land may be taken into account.-Eyton v. Mold Overseers, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 13; 43 L.T. 472; 29 W.R. 122.

(vi.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Order of Removal-Appeal-Evidence-39 & 40 Vict., c. 61, s. 34.-An appeal was made to Quarter Sessions from an order by justices for the removal of a pauper to M., by reason of a settlement required under sec. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876; the appeal being on several grounds, including the objection that no corroboration of the pauper's evidence was given before the justices; Held that it was competent for the sessions to receive such corroborative evidence, though not tendered before the justices making the order appealed from.-Regina v. Abergavenny Justices, L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 31; 50 L.J. M.C. 1; 43 L.T. 602.

Power of Appointment :

(ii.) C. A.—Testamentary Appointment to Trustee-Real Estate-Failure of Trust-Resulting Trust.-Testatrix having a general testamentary power of appointment over real estate subject to a gift over on default of appointment, devised the property to trustees upon trust for A., who died in her lifetime: Held, reversing the decision of V.C.M. (49 L.J. Ch. 705), that the property vested in the trustees subject to a resulting trust for testatrix's heir-at-law.-Spirling v. Rochefort, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 18; 50 L.J. Ch. 1; 29 W.R. 84.

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Void Limitation on default of Appointment—Sub. sequent Re-settlement.-Testator bequeathed residuary estate to his children in equal shares, and directed that a part of each son's share should be set apart in trust for the son until bankruptcy, and then for such of his children as he should appoint, and in default of appointment for such children as should attain twenty-five: Held that there was an intestacy in default of appointment as to the moneys subject to this trust. All the testator's children executed a settlement reciting the will, and declaring that the son's shares should be held on the trusts of the will: Held that the gift over on default of appointment was rendered effectual by the settlement.-Miley v Cape, 43 L.T. 236.

Practice:

(xlix.) C. P. Div.-Acknowledgment by Married Woman-Colony—3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74 ; 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 22.—The acknowledgment of a

E

disentailing deed by a married woman taken in a colony, can, by virtue of sec. 22 of 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, be taken before any person authorized to adminster oaths in the colony.—Re Smith, 50 L.J. C.P. 32; 43 L.T.

438.

(1.) C. A.-Action against Foreign State-Jurisdiction.-A foreign sovereign or state cannot be served with a writ or other process of our courts except where the claim is in the nature of a cross-action to one by the sovereign or state, or where the plaintiff and the sovereign or state have claims upon funds in the hands of third persons within the jurisdiction of our courts.-Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 29 W.R. 125. (li.) C. A.-Action against Foreign Subject-Litigation in Foreign CourtPower to Restrain.—When a foreign subject has appeared in an English court, he gives jurisdiction to that court to restrain him from proceeding to litigate the same subject-matter in the courts of his own country, but it is a matter of discretion, and the court ought only to exercise this jurisdiction to prevent double vexation.-Dawkins v. Simonetti, 29 W.R. 228. (lii.) C. P. Div.-Appeal-Enlarging Time-Ord. 57, r. 6.—The Court will, in a proper case, enlarge the time limited for appealing after the expiration of the time so limited, though the omission to appeal within the limited time was not induced by the conduct of the opposite party, nor due to inevitable accident.-Carter v. Stubbs, 50 L.J. C.P. 4; 29 W.R. 132. (liii.) C. A.-Appeal-Leave to Person not Party to Appeal.-Leave to a person not a party to an action to appeal from an order may be obtained by ex parte application to the Court of Appeal.-Markham v. Markham, L.R. 6 Ch. D. 1; 29 W.R. 228.

(liv.) C. A.-Appeal-Security for Costs-Delay in Applying for.-An appli. cation for security for costs of an appeal will be refused unless made promptly before costs of the appeal have already been incurred.-Mayor of Saltash v. Goodman, 43 L.T. 464.

(lv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Appeal-Staying Proceedings pending-Inquiries.— Inquiries having been directed as to the amount to be paid to a plaintiff who had succeeded in an action for specific performance and damages, the Court refused to stay proceedings pending an appeal.-Hyam v. Terry, 29 W.R. 32.

(lvi.) C. A.-Appeal-Time-Refusal to make Order.-An order containing a declaration as to the rights of parties, no further order being made, is not a simple refusal to make an order so as to limit the time for appealing therefrom to twenty-one days.-Re Clay and Tetley, 43 L.T. 402; 29 W.R. 5. (lvii.) C. A.--Compromise-Infants.-The Court has no power to compromise a claim in which infants are interested against the wish of their next friend or guardian ad litem acting under the advice of counsel.-Wilson v. Birchall, L.R. 16 Ch. D. 41; 29 W.R. 27.

(lviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Contempt—Attachment-Motion to Commit.—When an order has been made upon notice of motion for an attachment, the Court will not afterwards, on an ex parte application, alter the order to one of committal.-Buist v. Bridge, 43 L.T. 432; 29 W.R. 117.

(lix.) C. A.-Contempt-Attachment--Extradition Act, 1870, s. 19.-A party to an action in the Chancery Division was arrested in Paris for a crime under the Extradition Act, 1870, and while in prison in England under the warrant, was served with an attachment for disobedience to an order in the action: Held that the attachment was valid, and that the prisoner was not entitled to his discharge till he had cleared his contempt, though