matters of inheritance was granted to the duly appointed attorney of the person to whom the property in England was appointed by the Court, limited to the property specified in the decree.-In the goods of Dost Ali Khan, L.R. 6 P.D. 6; 49 L.J. P.D.A. 78; 29 W.R. 80.

Public Health:

(iv.) 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 Farmers' Manure Co., 49 L.J. M.C. 90.

(v.) C. A.-Paving Rate-Demand-Recovery before Justices--11 & 12 Vict., c. 43, s. 11; 11 & 12 Vict., c. 63, s. 68.—A local board having served notices of demand for payment of an apportioned rate for sewering and paving roads on an owner, failed to take proceedings before justices to. enforce the demand within six months: Held that they could not after. wards be allowed to prove in the administration of the owner's estate for the amount of the rate.-West v. Dowman, 29 W.R. 6.

(vi.) C. A.-Paving Rate-Recovery of-11 & 12 Vict., c. 43, s. 11; c. 63, ss. 69, 90; 21 & 22 Vict., c. 98, s. 62.-The limitation of time for taking summary proceedings before magistrates imposed by sec. 11 of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 43, does not apply to the enforcing of the charge created by sec. 62 of the Local Government Act, 1858; and the fact that a local board has resolved that expenses made a charge on the premises in respect of which the work was done, by that section, were private improvement expenses under sec. 90 of Public Health Act, 1848, and should be recovered by annual instalments, does not prevent the board from enforcing the charge on the land in respect of such instalments as are in arrear.- -Tottenham Local Board v. Rowell, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 378; 43 L.T. 616; 29 W.R. 36.

Railway :

(ix.) C. P. Div.-Carrier-Passengers' Luggage-Negligence.-Plaintiff took a through ticket at S. on the G. W. railway to a station on the N. W. railway: Held that the latter company were bound to take proper care of plaintiff's luggage after it had been delivered into their charge, and were liable for damage to the luggage resulting from negligence.-Hooper v. L. & N. W. Rail. Co., 43 L.T. 570; 29 W.R. 241.

(x.) Ex. Div.-Negligence-Level Crossing.-A level crossing and footbridge crossed defendants' railway, and were used by persons employed at a neighbouring manufactory. Plaintiff, a boy employed at the manu. factory, was injured by a train while crossing over the level crossing. It appeared that a servant of the company stationed near the bridge was in the habit of preventing the boys at the manufactory from crossing by the bridge, and making them use the level crossing: Held that there was evidence of negligence to go to the jury.-Clarke v. Midland Rail. Co., 43 L.T. 381.

(xi.) Ex. Div.-Rolling Stock and Plant-Execution against-30 & 31 Vict., c. 127, s. 4.-The restriction against taking in execution the rolling stock and plant of a railway company contained in sec. 4 of Railway Com. panies Act, 1867, applies, though the railway has been closed for traffic and it is doubtful whether it will ever be re-opened.-Midland Wagon Co. v. Potteries and Shrewsbury Rail. Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 36; 50 L.J. Ex. 6; 43 L.T. 511; 29 W.R. 78.

(vi.) H. L.-Vendor and Purchaser-General Warrandice-Concealment— Misrepresentation.-Articles of roup of lands stipulated that the pur. chaser was to take the property with all risks of error in the particulare. The particulars contained the statement, "The lands hold of the Crown." The conveyance contained a clause of warrandice in the usual general terms. Immediately before the sale, the agents of B. the disponee of the last superior, wrote to the vendor claiming the right of mid-superiority, but did not persevere with the claim. Afterwards D. renewed, and succeeded in establishing, his claim: Held that the vendor was not liable to the purchaser either for breach of warrandice or for misrepresentation.-Brownlie v. Campbell, L.R. 5 App. 925.

(ix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Marriage Settlement-After-acquired PropertyCovenant to Settle-Wife's Separate Estate.-A marriage settlement contained a covenant to settle after-acquired property of the wife except such as should previously be otherwise settled: Held not to include a fund coming to the wife under a bequest made to her after the marriage for her separate use.-Kane v. Kane, 50 L.J. Ch. 72; 29 W.R. 212.

(x.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Marriage Settlement-Limitation to Next-of-kin— Wife's debts.-By a marriage settlement, the wife's property was settled on certain trusts, giving her a general power of appointment by will, in the event of her dying before her husband without children, and, in default of appointment, for her next-of-kin; but if she survived her husband and there were no children, then in trust for her absolutely. The wife had contracted debts, and there were no children, and no probability of there being any. On the application of the wife, the corpus of the trust fund was directed to be applied in payment of her debts.-Paul v. Paul, L.R. 15 Ch. D. 580; 50 L.J. Ch. 14; 43 L.T. 239.

(xii.) P. D. A. Div.-Bail for Safe Return-Dissentient Co-Owner.—The minority in interest of co-owners are entitled to bail for safe return of the ship, as far as the value of their shares extend, if they object to the proposed employment of the ship; and the fact that the manager who arranged the employment was appointed with their acquiescence is no bar to their claim.-The Talca, L.R. 5 P.D. 169; 29 W.R. 123.

(xiii.) C. A.-Bill of Lading-Set of Three-Right of Indorsee-Warehouse. man's Liability.-The consignees of a cargo to arrive in London indorsed and delivered the first of three bills of lading to plaintiffs to secure money advanced. When the ship arrived the goods were placed in defendants' warehouse, the master signing an authority to defendants to deliver the goods to the holders of the bills of lading. After receipt from the consignees of the second of the biils of lading and after removal of a stop for freight which the master had lodged, defendants delivered the goods to various persons upon delivery orders signed by the consignee. Plaintiff did not know of this until after the consignees' bankruptcy: Held that defendants were not liable to plaintiffs for the value of the goods.-Glynn, Mills & Co. v. E. & W. India Docks, 50 L.J. Q.B., 62; 43 L.T. 584.

(xiv.) P. D. A. Div.-Bottomry Bond-Necessaries-Money advanced to pay Dock Dues-Priority.-Plaintiffs, in an action of necessaries against a foreign ship, having, at the request of the master, advanced money to pay dock dues for the ship at the port of discharge, were held entitled

to have the amount paid out of the proceeds of the ship in priority to a bottomry bond-holder, who had avanced money on bottomry at the port of lading. The St. Lawrence, L.R. 5 P.D. 250; 49 L.J. P.D.A. 82. (xv.) H. L.-Collision-36 & 37 Vict., c. 85, s. 17.-The regulations for preventing collisions at sea, made under the authority of the Merchant Shipping Acts, must be strictly followed, actual necessity alone being a sufficient excuse for their non-observance.-Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., L.R. 5 App. 876; 43 L.T. 610; 29 W.R. 173.

(xvi.) P. D. A. Div.-Collision

--

Compulsory Pilotage-Tug and Tow.When a ship in charge of a pilot, whose employment is compulsory, is being towed by a steam-tug, and the tug without waiting for orders adopts a wrong manoeuvre and causes the ship to come into collision, the owners of the ship are responsible.—The Sinquasi, L.R. 5 P.D. 241. (xvii.) P. D. A. Div.—Collision— Measure of Damages-Loss of Charter-Party. -A vessel on its way to load a cargo pursuant to charter-party was damaged by collision and obliged to put into port to repair, and was in consequence so delayed that she could not have got to her port of loading before it was closed for the winter. Her owners therefore abandoned the charter-party: Held that the loss arising from this was a loss caused by the collision.-The Consett, L.R. 5 P.D. 229. (xviii.) P. D. A. Div.-Collision-Sailing Vessel.—A sailing vessel hove-to on the port-tack is bound to keep out of the way of a crossing vessel under sail close-hauled on the starboard-tack.- The Rosalie, L.R. 5 P.D. 245.

(xix.) P. D. A. Div.-Collision-Thames Navigation-Breach of Bye-Law.If a collision in the Thames is caused solely by plaintiff, there is no cause of action against defendant on account of the damages being increased by the breach of a bye-law of the Thames Conservancy on his part.— The Margaret, L.R. 5 P.D. 238.

(xx.) P. D. A. Div.-Co-Ownership-Receiver.-The Court will appoint a receiver in a co-ownership suit where circumstances render such a course just and convenient.-The Ampthill, L.R. 5 P.D. 224.

(xxi.) C. A.-Foreign Mail Packet-Arrest.-An unarmed packet belonging to the sovereign of a foreign state and in the hands of officers commissioned by him, and employed in carrying mails, is not liable to arrest in a suit in rem to recover redress for a collision.-The Parlement Belge, L.R. 5 P.D. 197.

(xxii.) C. P. Div.-Insurance-Constructive Total Loss-Sale by Master.-A ship which was stranded was sold by the master for a small sum, and the owners sought to recover from the insurers for a constructive total loss: Held, by Lord Coleridge, C.J., that the only question was whether the ship was at the time she was sold, constructively lost, and that on the facts there was no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find this; by Grove, J., that the question was, whether the circumstances were such as to afford sufficient evidence to be laid before the jury that the sale was justifiable.—Hall v. Jupe, 49 L.J. C.P. 721; 43 L.T. 411. (xxiii.) Ex. Div.-Insurance-Incorporated Company-Liability-30 & 31 Vict., c. 23, s. 7.-Held that a policy of sea insurance issued by an insurance association, incorporated under the Companies Acts, under the common seal of the association, authenticated by the manager's signature, complied with the requirements of sec. 7 of 30 & 31 Vict., c. 23; and, on the rules of the association, that the policy disclosed a contract between the association and the assured.-Marine Mutual Insurance Association v. Young, 43 L.T. 441.

(xxiv.) C. A.—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 for £3,000, and the policies, which were for total loss only, 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 under the sue and labour clause in the policies.-Dixon v. Whitworth, 43 L.T. 365. (xxv.) C. A.-Insurance-Stranding.-A policy of marine insurance on a cargo contained a warranty of freedom from average unless the ship stranded. The voyage was to a tidal harbour, where the ship must necessarily take ground at every tide. She grounded before reaching the quay on a small bank, and settled down into a hole, whereby the cargo was damaged. The existence of the bank and hole was caused by the passage of steamers and was previously unknown: Held that the ship had been stranded within the meaning of the policy.-Letchford v. Oldham, L.R. 5 Q.B.D. 538.

(xxvi.) C. A.—Insurance-Time Policy-Loss by Explosion-A time policy contained a clause rendering insurers liable for perils of the seas, fire, and all perils, losses and misfortunes, causing hurt to the ship insured. The vessel, which was a steamer, was damaged by the bursting of a boiler: Held that the insured were entitled to recover.-West India Telegraph Co. v. Home and Colonial Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 51; 50 L.J. C.P. 41; 43 L.T. 420; 29 W.R. 92.

(xxvii.) C. P. Div.-Insurance-Valued Policies-Compensation for Excess Value.—Plaintiffs granted to defendants valued policies on a cargo of a United States merchant ship, which was destroyed by the Alabama during the American War. The Alabama Indemnity Fund was distributed by the United States, under an Act of Congress, which provided for its distribution to subjects of the States, whose losses were not fully covered by insurance. Plaintiffs were precluded by the Act from making any claim. Defendants obtained compensation in respect of so much of their loss as exceeded the amount insured: Held that they held the money so obtained as trustees for plaintiffs.-Burnand v. Rodocanachi, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 424; 49 L.J. C.P. 732.

(xxviii.) P. D. A. Div.-Mortgage of Ship-Charter by Owner-Arrest by Mortgagee. When the owner of a mortgaged ship charters her before the mortgagee takes possession, the mortgagee cannot interfere to prevent the execution of the charter-party, unless it will materially impair the value of his security.-The Fanchon, L.R. 5 P.D. 173. (xxix.) P. D. A. Div.-Salvage-Agreement set Aside as Inequitable.-Where' in the opinion of the Court, a salvage agreement is exorbitant, the Court will refuse to enforce it.-The Silesia, L.R. 5 P.D. 177; 43 L.T. 319; 29 W.R. 156.

(xxx.) P. D. A. Div.-Salvage-Derelict.-The Court awarded, as salvage, £2,300 for navigating a derelict, valued at £5,100, which was found in the North Atlantic Ocean, into port.-The Craigs, L.R. 5 P.D. 186. (xxxi.) P. D. A. Div.-Wages and Disbursements - Habitual Drunkenness of Master. A shipmaster who has been habitually drunk during his employment cannot maintain an action for his wages.-The Macleod, L.R. 5 P.D. 254.

Solicitor :

(iii.) P. D. A. Div.-Lien for Costs-Alimony.-A solicitor's lien for costs does not extend to money paid to him for a wife's alimony pendante lite

in the absence of a direct waiver by her of her right to have it applied as she requires.-Cross v. Cross, 43 L.T. 533.

(iv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Lien for Costs-Money in hands of Third Party-23 & 24 Vict., c. 127, s. 28.-An action having been brought against W. and a building society, in which plaintiff claimed money standing in W.'s name on the books of the society, judgment was given for defendants, and W.'s solicitor petitioned for a charging order on the fund; the society opposed on the ground that they had a lien on the fund for their costs: Held that the society had no lien on the fund, being in the position of trustees for W.-Porter v. West, 43 L.T. 569.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Mortgage-Declaration of Trust-Solicitor for Both Parties-Notice.-A client borrowed from his solicitor £8,000 on mortgage, and the solicitor subsequently, by a declaration of trust, declared himself trustee of £800 of this sum for R., another client, who had advanced the £800. The mortgagor had no notice of this advance, and paid off the whole debt to the solicitor, who never paid R.: Held that the mortgagor was not affected with constructive notice of R.'s rights. Allen v. Lord Southampton, Roper's Claim, 43 L.T. 625; 29 W.R. 210.

(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Mortgage-Constructive Notice-Solicitor for Both Parties.-S. made a mortgage to his solicitor B., for £3,000 by deposit of title deeds and memorandum, and B. handed over the deeds and memorandum to C., another client, who had entrusted him with £2,000 for investment, with a memorandum, stating that £2,000 of the mortgage belonged to C. B. afterwards induced C. to give back the deeds, promising to give him deeds of equal value, and he gave C. deeds of no value. Subsequently, the property was sold, and the mortgage paid off to B.: Held that S. was not affected with constructive notice of the transfer to C.-Allen v. Lord Southampton, Banfather's Claim, 29 W.R. 231.

(vii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Solicitor and Client-Mortgage-Improper Sale— Damages-Costs.-A solicitor took a mortgage from a client containing a power of sale without giving any notice, and afterwards sold under the power: Held that the onus lay upon him to show either that he had properly explained the nature of the mortgage, or had given the usual notice; and failing to prove this he was liable for damages to the extent of the costs caused by the sale, the costs of procuring a new investment of a similar nature by the client, the difference between the plaintiff's costs as between party and party and as between solicitor and client, and the increasing value of the property.—Cockburn v. Edwards, 29 W.R. 136.

Tithe Rent Charge:

(i.) Ex. Div.-Payment by Mistake.—Plaintiff made over-payments to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of tithe rent charge, supposing the amounts claimed in notices served on him by them were correct, whereas such amounts included rent charge on land not in his occupation : Held that he was entitled to recover the sums paid in mistake, though the time for levying these rent charges upon the land actually liable thereto had run out.-Durrant v. Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 50 L.J. Ex. 30.

Trade Mark :

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R. Registration Cotton Trade Mark Colour.Difference of colour in cotton trade marks will be taken into consideration in considering the question of their similarity to other cotton trade marks already registered.-Re Robinson'. Trade Mark, 29 W.R. 31.