revenue of the college. Trespass or case would lie in certain cases. An action of contract would lie under the ordinary rules of contract where a college was a party.1 If the question as to the sufficient learning of a graduate in holy orders be raised, it must be by duplex querela in one of the provincial courts, it cannot be by quare impedit, a secular court being, as Lord Ellenborough said, unfitted to sit as a court of error upon matters of grammar.3

Several questions of evidence have been decided by the courts, but some would probably not be considered binding at present. Possibly judicial notice of the common seal will be taken since 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113. But it is still necessary to prove, on any objection, that the seal was affixed with proper authority. Two cases of interest arose before the Act, and they may still be useful as guides. Both were actions of slander by Doctors of Medicine of St. Andrews against defendants who had alleged that the plaintiffs were unqualified. In the earlier case the production of the diploma of M.D. from St. Andrews University was held not to be sufficient evidence that the seal affixed was the seal of the university. In the later case the plaintiff produced evidence that the seal was the seal of the university and on that succeeded. In an anonymous case the King's Bench refused to act without an attested copy of the statutes of All Souls, on an application to the visitor to appoint as founder's kin fellow a candidate rejected by the college. It was the practice at King's for the proceedings of the Provost and fellows to be entered in the Liber Protocollorum signed by the registrar as a notary public. The

6

4

5

1 As in Jones v. St. John's College, Oxford, L. R. [1871], 6 Q. B., 115, a question of counter-signature by the bursar to a building contract.

2 Willis v. Bishop of Oxford, above.

3 R. v. Archbishop of Canterbury [1812], 15 East, 143.

4 Moises v. Thornton [1799], 8 T. R., 303.

5 Collins y, Carnegie [1834], I A. & E., 695.

6 Anon. [1734], 2 Barnard, 437.

book contained an entry of the expulsion of Mr. Bearblock from his fellowship by decision of the visitor, but the entry was not signed. Evidence was given that the handwriting of the entry was the same as that of the signed entries. The unsigned entry was held to be inadmissible. A testator made a gift of his library to Selwyn. The catalogue was a voluminous document, a copy of which would have entailed considerable expense. Probate was granted without requiring the catalogue to be brought into the registry, the college undertaking to hold it for the registry. Usage will be taken into consideration. So will the manner in which the donor of a trust fund conducted himself in the distribution of a trust fund.3 Inspection of corporation books will be allowed to an interested party provided that the evidence is required in a civil action, but not in a criminal prosecution.5 At Oxford statutes of the university are printed or written in duplicate, one copy being deposited in the archives, one in the Bodleian Library, Stat. x, 2, 2. Probably either would be evidence.

(b) Differences between Oxford and Cambridge. Several of these have already been noticed, but it may be useful to give a short summary in this place.

(1) A hall is a corporation at Cambridge, but not at Oxford. Trinity Hall is as fully a corporation as Trinity College, and the same was the case with Clare, Pembroke, and St. Catharine's, when they were called halls. Selwyn is technically a hostel and corresponds very nearly to the Oxford private halls, such as Marcon's.

(2) The government and discipline differ both in names. and functions. The Oxford names of Congregation (in the

1 Fox v. Bearblock [1881], 17 Ch. D., 429.

2 In the goods of Balme, L. R. [1897], P. 261.

3 A.-G. v. Brasenose College [1834], 2 C. & F., 295, the case of Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's, and Middleton School; A.-G. of Ireland v. Bishop of Limerick [1870], 1 R. 5 Eq., 403.

4 Grant, 311.

5 R. v. Purnell, above.

Oxford sense), Delegacy, Board of Faculty, Visitatorial Board, are unknown at Cambridge; Syndicate,1 Senate, Sex Viri, are equally unknown at Oxford. The rights of jurisdiction over bad characters have had a different growth in the two universities. The powers and tenure of office of the Vice-Chancellor are not the same.

(3) The procedure in the Chancellors' courts are not the same, and the right of conusance is more restricted at Cambridge.

(4) The degrees differ, especially the law degrees. D.C.L. and B.C.L. are peculiar to Oxford; LL.D., LL.M., and LL.B., to Cambridge. A smaller difference is the variety of caps and gowns at Cambridge, which also has no distinctive scholars' gowns, as at Oxford.

(5) The position of both heads and tutors differs considerably in the two universities. Nor has Cambridge gone so far as Oxford in attaching professorships to colleges.

(c) Acts of Parliament affecting Colleges.

Some of these have already been noticed, but there are many in addition. The Statute, 27 Hen. VIII, c. 42, s. 7, seems to be the earliest. It enacted that Durham College, Oxford (now Trinity), might take the advantage of the Act, which relieved the colleges from the payment of first-fruits and tenths. 18 Eliz., c. 6, contained provisions for leases made by Magdalen and St. John's, Oxford. By 13 Anne, c. 6, canonries were annexed to the headships of Oriel, Pembroke, Oxford, and St. Catharine's, and c. 17 gave to Brasenose the presentation to churches at Stepney. By 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, the canonry of Worcester was detached

1 The term "syndic" is adopted from Paris, where there was a syndicus or procurator ad litem.

2 The canonry was dissevered from the headship by the Act of 1877, and is now attached to the Oriel Professorship of Exegesis. Canonries attached to professorships also exist at Christ Church, Ely, and Durham.

from the Margaret Professorship of Divinity at Oxford, and the canonry of Christ Church substituted instead. The Cambridge Act of 1856 provided for Trinity scholarships, Grindal fellows and scholars at Pembroke, and similar matters. The Act of 1877 dealt with, inter alia, the Snell and Hulme exhibitions and the Dixie foundation at Emmanuel. The Statute, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 76, enabled a new ordinance to be made for Christ Church in substitution for previous ordinances. Hertford, dissolved by 56 Geo. III, c. 136,1 was reconstituted by the Hertford College Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 55). Private Acts are numerous. Among others may be named 46 Geo. III, c. cxlvii, enabling the Warden of Wadham to marry, 35 & 36 Vict., c. cliv, as to scholarships at St. John's, Oxford, 58 & 59 Vict., c. lxxiv, as to sale of Downing College lands, and 7 Edw. VII, c. cx, as to the Hulme trust estates.

(d) The Undergraduate.

The college has a discretion as to whom it will admit, and a sentence of rustication or expulsion cannot be appealed against except by those on the foundation, or elected to be on the foundation, who have an appeal to the visitor. In an indictment for assault on a pensioner of Queen's by turning him out of the college garden, the production of a sentence of expulsion by the college was regarded as a conclusive defence. The question that most often arises is that

1 After it had practically ceased to exist in 1805 owing to the failure of the college to elect new fellows on vacancies. See Co. Litt., 13 b, Dean of Windsor v. Webb [1614], Godb., 211. Any leases made by the extinct corporation are determined, and where it is a lessee the reversion accelerates and the land reverts to the lessor, Hastings Corporation v. Letton, L. R. [1908], 1 K. B., 378.

2 R. v. Grundon [1775], Cowp., 315. No reasons need be given, but it seems probable that if reasons be given they should be good ones. In Fitzgerald v. Northcote [1865], 4 F. & F., 656, the plaintiff was expelled from Oscott College for an alleged breach of discipline which the jury found had not occurred, and he obtained damages.

of necessaries supplied to an undergraduate under twentyone. Necessaries are defined by sect. 2 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 as "goods suitable to the condition in life of such infant and to his actual requirements at the time of delivery." This is in accordance with a judgment of the Court of Exchequer, except that the court went further, and held that necessaries supplied to a Cambridge undergraduate are not such things as are requisite for bare subsistence. Jewellery to the value of £8 was allowed.1 In another case of the same year an action was brought against an Oxford undergraduate for the hire of hunters. The jury found for the livery stable keeper, but the Common Pleas granted a new trial. Dinners supplied to an undergraduate in lodgings are not primâ facie necessaries. The latest case on the subject was an action brought by a tailor for goods supplied while the defendant was an undergraduate of Trinity, Cambridge. The bill included eleven fancy waistcoats at £2:25. each. The Court of Appeal held that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove not only that the goods were suitable to the condition in life of the infant, but that he was not sufficiently supplied with goods of that class. Judgment was entered for the defendant. Education is a necessary. This would include matters subsidiary to the main purpose of education, such as books for the schools, payment of battels, rent of lodgings, and drawing the necessary cheques. Where necessaries are bought the infant must, by the section of the Sale of Goods Act already cited, pay a reasonable price therefor." But he cannot give a

1 Peters v. Fleming [1840], 6 M. & W., 42. 2 Harrison v. Fane [1840], 1 M. & G., 550. 3 Brooker v. Scott [1844], 11 M. & W., 67. collegiate student, he would find dinner provided ▲ Nash v. Inman, L. R. [1908], 2 K. B., 1. Foster v. Redgrave, L. R. [1867], 4 Ex., 35 (n), the case of an Oxford undergraduate and his tailor.

Presumably because, if not a non-
for him in the college hall.
This is quite in accordance with

Pickering v. Gunning [1628], Sir W. Jones, 182; Phillimore, J., in Collins v. Cory, The Times, 5 Feb., 1901.