NAMES OF CASES DISCUSSED IN THIS VOLUME. Attorney-General v Dowling, Ex. D. 628 Ballard v Marsden, Fry, J., 741 Camberwell, &c., Building Society v Hollo- Hallett's Estate, In re, C. A. 723, 305 Harvey's Estate, In re, V. C. H. 703 Hawkesley v Bradshaw, C. A. 616 Hodgson v Williamson, V. C. B. 817 Household Fire Insurance Co. v Grant, C. A. Jackson to Oakshott, V. C. H. 759 Jay, Ex parte, In re Harrison, C. A. 704 Labouchere v Earl of Wharncliffe, M. R. 101 Lax v Corporation of Darlington, C. A. 305 Roussillon v Roussillon, Fry, J., 587 Rutherford, In re, Brown v Rutherford, Saffron Walden Building Society v Rayner, Simm v Anglo-American Telegraph Co., South-Eastern Railway Co. v Railway Com. Spencer v Harrison, C. P. D. 831 Stocker v Planet Building Society, C. A. 81, 83 Taylor v McKeand & Co., C. P. D. 607 Thorley's (J. W.) Cattle Food Co. v Massam, Woodhouse v Walker, Q. B. D. 722 Worthington & Co., In re, C. A. 322 Yorkshire Banking Co. v Beatson, C. A. 606 NAMES OF CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. COUNTY COURTS. Ashford Fire Engine Association v Richard- Pickersgill v Hastings, 633, 665 Salter v Brooks, 93 Tattersfield, Re, 634 Wordsworth v Webster, 512 ELECTION PETITIONS. Tottenham Local Board v Rowell, 744 Trotter v Maclean, 145 Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull, Re, 316 Union Bank of London v Manby, 29 Von Heyden v Neustadt, 385 Waller v Tanqueray, 465 Ward, Ex parte, 743 v Eyre, 537 v Ward, 523 Watson v Gray, 381 Wayne's Merthyr Co. v Powell's Duffryn Webster v British Empire Mutual Life As- v Chatterton 109 v Whewall, 707 Wedderburn v Pickering, 126 Wegmann v Corcoran, 46 Werner v Beyer, 860 Westminster Association (Limited) v Up. ward, 690 All letters intended for publication in the "Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticated by the name of the THE INCONVENIENCE we pointed out some months ago (23 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 693) in connection with the MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Q.C., in a letter published THE ACT for the formation of the Central Office of the Supreme Court came into operation on Tuesday last, but hitherto no change has been made in the arrangements of the legal offices. Everything is kept in abeyance until the issue of the rules, which are to be made by the judges under the Act. The scope of these rules is so extensive that extreme care is essential to prevent confusion, and it is not surprising that considerable time should be He says, "The issue in each case is brought back to this simple question of fact, whether, when the original photograph was ordered and the price agreed upon, the bargain really extended to and included the negative of the photograph or merely the photograph itself." With great respect to Mr. Watkin Williams, the question is not that which he states, but whether the negative has been, in the words of section 1 of the Act, "made or executed for or on behalf of any other person [than the photographer] for a good and valuable consideration;" and if it has been so made or executed the Act vests the copyright in that person and not in the photographer, although the photographer may still remain the owner of the negative. If this is not so, to what conceiv- |