(viii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Specification-Sufficiency.-The specification must describe the invention fairly, and with reasonable precision, so as to enable an ordinary workman to manufacture the article without further assistance.-Wegmann v. Corcoran, 39 L.T. 563; 27 W.R. 357.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Rating Appeal—Arbitration-Assessment CommitteeCosts-25 & 26 Vict., c. 103, s. 20.-Where on a rating appeal a reference to arbitration was agreed upon, the agreement being expressed to be made between the appellants and the assessment committee on behalf of the guardians, and an award was made in favour of appellants, which directed the other party to pay costs: Held that an action would not lie against the assessment committee to recover such costs.-Leicester Waterworks Co. v. Nuttall, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 18; 48 L.J. M.C. 41; 39 L.T. 624; 27 W.KR. 364.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Illusory Appointment-11 Geo. IV., & 1 Will. IV., c. 46. Since the passing of the Illusory Appointments Act, an appointment under a non-exclusive power of an entire fund amongst the objects and the survivors and survivor of them is valid. - Re Capon's Trusts, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 484; 27 W.R. 376.

Practice :

(cxxvii.) C. A.-Appeal-Parties-Costs-Shorthand Notes-Ord. 58, rr. 2, 3.A., B., and C., having jointly agreed to take certain shares in a company, were, on its winding-up, settled on the list of contributories in respect of such shares, and a sum of £310, which had previously been paid for them, was credited to A.: B. appealed, and served only the official liquidator. The Court held that the £310 ought to be credited to A., B., and C. generally, and made an order crediting B. with one-third of it. Costs of shorthand notes of evidence in the Court below will only be allowed on an appeal, when a case is made out for such allowance.Re Duchess of Westminster Silver Lead Ore Co., L.R. 10 Ch. D. 307. (cxxviii.) C. A.-Appeal-Special Case-Arbitration under Lands Clauses Act -8 Vict., c. 18, s. 25.-An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of a Divisional Court, on a special case submitted by an arbitrator appointed under Sec. 25 of Lands Clauses Act, 1845.-Bidder v. North Staffordshire Rail Co., 48 L.J. Q.B. 248.

(cxxix.) C. A.—Appeal—Time-Verdict of Judge-Ord. 39, r. 1a.—Where in an action in the Chancery Division issues of fact are settled at the com. mencement of the trial, then the finding of the judge on the facts is an interlocutory order, whether delivered at the same time as his judgment or not; but if no definite issues are settled, the whole judgment and the finding of facts may be appealed from together.-Lowe v. Lowe, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 432; 40 L.T. 236; 27 W.R. 309.

(cxxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Attachment-Contempt - Untrue Copy of Order Delivered.-An order was made ordering the father of an infant to deliver the infant to the mother. The order was entitled in the matter of the infant and of the Act 36 & 37 Vict., c. 12. The copy delivered to the father was entitled only in the matter of the Act, but had the surname of the infant endorsed outside. The father did not comply with the order: Held that the service was insufficient, and writ of attachment against the father set aside.-Re Holt, 40 L.T. 207; 27 W.R. 485.

(cxxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Attachment of Debt-Order to Pay Money.-Ord. 42, r. 20; 45 r. 2.-Ord. 45, r. 2, applies only to judgments, and does not include an order of the Court for payment of money.-Cremetti v. Crom, 27 W.R. 411.

(cxxxii.) Q. B. Div.-Charging Order-Death of Judgment Debtor-1 & 2 Vict., c. 110, ss. 14, 15.-An order charging stock under 1 & 2 Vict., c. 110, ss. 14, 15, cannot be made absolute where it appears that the judgment debtor was dead when the order nisi was obtained.-Finney v. Hinde, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 102; 48 L.J. Q.B. 275; 40 L.T. 193; 27 W.R. 413. (cxxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Claim in Chambers-Cross-examination before Special Examiner-Transfer into Court.-On a claim in Chambers in an administration suit, a special examiner was appointed to hear the crossexamination of witnesses. Though the cross-examination was nearly completed, the further hearing of the matter was transferred into Court. -Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Uzielli, 39 L.T. 665; 27 W.R. 356. (cxxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Conduct of Action-Executor.-Where an executor had commenced an action to recover moneys due to his testator's estate, the Court refused to deprive him of the conduct of the action at the instance of beneficiaries, though the action was against his own father.-Longbourne v. Fisher, 40 L.T. 124; 27 W.R. 405. (cxxxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Administration Action-Attending Proceedings-Special Leave.-A party served with notice of decree in an administration, who attends proceedings in Chambers under the common order of course without obtaining special leave, will not be entitled to costs, but may be ordered to pay extra costs occasioned by his attendance. -Sharp v. Lush, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 468; 48 L.J. Ch. 231.

(cxxxvi.) C. A.-Costs-Claim under £20-Contract-30 & 31 Vict., c. 142, s. 5.-An action against carriers for non-delivery of goods from negligence is founded on contract within Sec. 5 of the County Courts Act, 1867.Fleming v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln Rail. Co., L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 81 ; 39 L.T. 555; 27 W.R. 481.

(cxxxvii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Costs-Counter Claim.-In a case in which both claim and counter-claim are dismissed with costs, the defendant has only to pay the sum by which the costs of proceedings have been increased by the counter-claim.-Saner v. Bilton, 27 W.R. 472.

(cxxxviii.) Q. B. Div.-Costs-Counter-Claim-Action Remitted to County Court-Alteration of Certificate.-An action in which plaintiff claimed £50 and defendants counter-claimed £10 and paid £40 into Court was remitted to a County Court, and the registrar certified a verdict for the plaintiff for fifteen shillings: Held that the Court could alter the certifi. cate by distributing the findings on the issues so far as to give defendant the costs of the counter-claim.-Davidson v. Gray, 40 L.T. 192.

(cxxxix.) Ex. Div.-Costs- Counter-Claim-General Costs. In an action and counter-claim a verdict was found for plaintiff for £90 on his claim, and for defendant for £15 on his counter-claim, and one shilling damages for detention of a book which the judge ordered to be returned, and assessed at £150 to ensure return. There was no counter-claim for detinue. The associate's certificate stated that the judge directed judg. ment to be entered for plaintiff for £75, and for defendant for the return of the book or £150 and one shilling damages: Held that plaintiff was entitled to general costs of the action, and defendant to costs of those issues on which he had succeeded.-Halliman v. Price, 27 W.R. 490. (cxl.) C. A.-Costs-Higher or Lower Scale-Jurisdiction of Judge-Rules of Court (Costs), Ord. 6, r. 3.—A judge has no power to delegate to a master the authority given him by Rules of Supreme Court (Costs), Ord. 6, r. 3, with reference to allowing costs on higher or lower scale.Corticene Floor Covering Co. v. Tull, 27 W.R. 373.

(cxli.) C. A.- Costs-Interlocutory Proceedings.-E. having been joined as a third party in an action, appealed against the order joining him, and his appeal was dismissed with costs, and at the trial he obtained a judgment

dismissing him from the action with costs against the party joining him, which order was affirmed on appeal: Held that the Court of Appeal had no power to alter their judgment on the interlocutory proceedings so as to give E. his costs of those proceedings.-Beynon v. Godden, 48 L.J. Ex. 80.

(cxlii.) Q. B. Div.-Costs-Payment into Court-Ord. 30, rr. 1, 2, 4.—Where defendant pays money into Court under Ord. 30, rr. 1, 2, and plaintiff accepts the same in satisfaction but not within the time provided by r. 4, he loses his absolute right to all the costs, and must apply to the Court under Ord. 55, when the Judge will exercise his discretion as to any circumstances by which the defendant may have been prejudiced by the delay, allowing defendant costs properly incurred since the payment in.-Greaves v. Fleming, 27 W.R. 458.

(cxliii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Petition under Statute-Discretion of Court, Ord. 55-The effect of the Judicature Act, 1875, and Ord. 55, is to repeal all previous enactments directing costs to follow certain rules, and to give the Judges of the High Court discretion as to costs in all cases, including proceedings under previous statutes which are silent as to the costs of those proceedings.-Ex parte Mercers' Co., L.R. 10 Ch. D. 481; 27 W.R. 424.

(cxliv.) C. A.-Counter-Claim-Discretion of Judge-Ord. 19, r. 3; 22, r. 9.— The question whether a counter-claim shall be excluded is not so entirely in the discretion of the Judge as to preclude an appeal.-Huggons v. Tweed, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 359.

(cxlv.) Ex. Div. Ireland.-Counter-Claim-Slander.-In an action for slander, defendant set up a counter-claim for damages in respect of slander spoken by plaintiff on a prior occasion to that on which the words complained of by plaintiff were uttered: Held that the counterclaim was good.-Quin v. Hession, 40 L.T. 70.

(cxlvi.) P. D. A. Div.-Default of Appearance-Action in Rem-Ord. 9, r. 10. -In ordinary default causes in rem the times at which steps in the action may be taken date from the service of the writ of summons.-The Maria, 39 L.T. 549.

(cxlvii.) P. D. A. Div.-Discontinuance-Cross Cause-Substituted Service.— A letter from plaintiff's solicitors to defendant's solicitors announcing that they were instructed to proceed no further with the action: Held a sufficient notice of discontinuance: after such notice it is not competent for the defendant to obtain substituted service of writ in a cross cause on the solicitor of the original plaintiff. — The Pomerania, 39 L.T. 642. (cxlviii.) Q. B. Div.--Discontinuance-Ord. 23, r. 1.—After an action had been referred to an arbitrator to state a special case, and he had found the facts with regard to all but a small part of the claim in defendant's favour, plaintiff applied for leave to discontinue the action: Held that leave ought not to be granted.-Stahlschmidt v. Walford, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 217; 40 L.T. 194; 27 W.R. 412.

(cxlix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Discovery-Affidavit of Documents-Attachment.— Plaintiff having obtained an order for attachment of defendant for default in not filing an affidavit of documents, defendant filed an affidavit and obtained an ex parte order discharging his contempt: on motion by plaintiff the ex parte order was set aside on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient.-Price v. Price, 48 L.J. Ch. 215.

(cl.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Discovery-Affidavit of Documents-Lunatic Plaintiff Ord. 31, r. 12.-Where a plaintiff of unsound mind sues by a next friend, the defendant is entitled to an affidavit of documents by the next friend or by some one acquainted with the facts.-Higginson v. Hall, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 235; 48 L.J. Ch. 250; 39 L.T. 603; 27 W.R. 469.

(cli.) C. A.-Discovery-Affidavit of Document-Privilege—Ord. 31, r. 13.— An affidavit as to documents by a party objecting to produce them is insufficient if it merely states that the documents are privileged; it ought to state and verify the facts upon which the objection is grounded. -Gardiner v. Irvin, L.R. 4 Ex. D. 49; 48 L.J. Ex. 223; 27 W.R. 442. (clii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Discovery-Inspection of Documents-Notice to Produce-Ord. 31, rr. 15, 17.—Notice to produce documents referred to in a party's pleadings or affidavits must be in the form prescribed by Ord. 31, or an equivalent form, in order to entitle the applicant to an order for inspection under rule 17.-Re The Credit Company, 48 L.J. Ch. 221; 27 W.R. 380.

(cliii.) Q. B. Div.—Discovery—Interrogatories—Striking Out—Ord. 31, r. 5.— Objections to particular interrogatories on the ground of irrelevance, or that they relate to the other party's evidence, must be taken in the affidavit, and do not afford ground for striking out the interrogatories.Gay v. Labouchere, L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 206; 48 L.J. Q.B. 279; 27 W.R. 413. (cliv.) Ch. Div. M. R.--District Registry--Motion in Chancery DivisionOrd. 35, rr. 1, 4.-A motion made in the Ch. Div. in an action begun in a district registry has the effect of removing such action to London.Dyson v. Pickles, 27 W.R. 376.

(clv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Evidence-Admitting after Reply-Patent Action. -Farther evidence of plaintiff admitted after reply, when defendants had gone into evidence on questions not raised on their pleadings.—Adair v. Young, 40 L.T. 61.

(elvi.) C. A.-Injunction-Interpleader Issue-Sale by Sheriff-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 24, sub-sec. 5.-The sheriff being about to sell goods under an order in an interpleader issue directed between the trustee of a settlement and an execution creditor of the husband: the wife brought an action in the Chancery Div. against the creditor, the trustee, and the sheriff, claiming an injunction to restrain the sale: Held that the injunction was an order restraining proceedings in another division of the High Court, and was inconsistent with sec. 24, sub-sec. 5, of the Judicature Act, 1873.-Wright v. Redgrave, 40 L.T. 206.

(clvii.) C. A.-Interpleader-Claim for Part of Goods.-Held, reversing the decision of C.P. Div. (Practice xl., p. 27), that the claimant was entitled to the amount paid into Court, and to the costs.-Plummer v. Price, 39, L.T. 657.

(clviii.) C. P. Div.-Interpleader-1 & 2 Will. IV., c. 58, s. 1.—Defendant, the proprietor of a horse depository, sold there a horse belonging to A., to B., under conditions under which B. might, if he considered the horse unsound, return it within two days of sale, and refer the question of soundness to veterinary surgeons. B. accordingly returned the horse, and claimed the purchase-money. A. also claimed from defendant

the proceeds of the sale: Held that defendant was not entitled to an interpleader order.-Wright v. Freeman, 48 L.J. C.P. 276; 40 L.T. 134. (clix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Motion for Decree-—Admissions—Ord. 40, r. 11. -On admissions in a statement of defence in an administration action, on notice of motion for a decree or decretal order, an order can be made under Ord. 40, r. 11, on motion without setting down the motion.-Re Barker, Hetherington v. Longrigg, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 162; 48 L.J. Ch. 171; 27 W.R. 393.

(clx.) C. A.-New Trial-Action Remitted to County Court-Ord. 39, r. 1.— When an action in a Superior Court has been remitted to a County Court under 19 & 20 Vict., c. 108, s. 26, and tried by a judge without a jury, application for a new trial must be made to a Divisional Court, and not to the Court of Appeal.-Davis v. Godbehere, 27 W.R. 485.

K

(clxi.) Q. B. Div.-Parties-Adding Plaintiff— Consent-Ord. 16, r. 2.—When an application is made under Ord. 16, r. 2, to add another person as plaintiff, the Court will require proof of the consent of such persons.— Turquand v. Fearon, 40 L.T. 191; 27 W.R. 396.

(clxii.) C. P. Div.-Parties-Substituting Plaintiff-Ord. 16, r. 2.—Plaintiff company having paved roads under the control of the M. vestry, and being under a contract to keep them in repair, brought an action against defendants, alleging that they had injured the pavement, and thereby caused plaintiffs additional expense. An order was made substituting the M. vestry as plaintiffs without their consent.-Val de Travers Asphalte Co. v. London Tramways Co., 40 L.T. 133.

(clxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Payment into Court-District Registry-Receiver -35 & 36 Vict., c. 44.-A receiver in a cause proceeding in a district registry having been ordered to pay balances into Court, paid them to the district registrar, who placed them to an account in his own name in the Liverpool branch of the Bank of England: Held that this was improper, and that the money must be paid into Court.-Finlay v. Davis, 39 L.T. 662; 27 W.R. 334, 352.

(clxiv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Payment out-Person of Unsound Mind-Trustee Relief Act.-Money to which a married woman, whose husband was of unsound mind not so found, was entitled, having been paid into Court, was ordered to be paid out on her separate receipt, she undertaking to apply it towards the maintenance of herself and her husband.-Re Dixon's Trusts, 40 L.T. 208.

(clxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Payment out of Court-Trustee Relief ActCosts.-A person presenting a petition for payment out of a sum in Court, under the provisions of the Trustee Relief Act, cannot object to pay the costs of the payment in, and of the appearance on the ground that the party, who paid the sum in, had no power to do so under those Acts.-Re Sutton, 27 W.R. 429.

(clxvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Payment out of Court-Trustee Relief Act-Service on Absent Parties.-On a petition under the Trustee Relief Act for pay. ment out of Court of a fund to which numerous parties were entitled, most of whom were not before the Court; a former order having directed inquiries necessary to ascertain the parties entitled, and the chief clerk having made his certificate, it was ordered that the petitioner be at liberty to serve a copy of the petition, and of the former and present order, and of the certificate, upon the several persons named in the certificate, and that the petition stand over till such service had been effected.-Re Battersby's Trusts, L.R. 10 Ch. D. 228.

Plaintiff claimed

(clxvii.) H. L.-Pleading-Demurrer-Statute of Limitations.-Where a defendant demurs to a statement of claim in an action for the recovery of real estate, he may raise the defence of the statute of limitations, although that is not the express ground of the demurrer.-Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn, L.R. 4 App. 51; 39 L.T. 583; 27 W.R. 173. Fraud Amendment. (clxviii.) C. P. Div. - Pleading damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, whereby he was induced to receive bills drawn by N., in payment of purchase-money, which bills were dishonoured, and alleged that defendant undertook to discount the bills, but did not allege any consideration for this promise, nor specific damages for the breach of it: the jury found that defendant was not guilty of fraudulent representation, but that he had agreed to discount the bills: Held that defendant was entitled to judgment: leave to amend refused.-Noad v. Murrow, 40 L.T. 100.

(clxix.) C. P. Div.-Pleading-Matter of Law-Ord. 27, r. 1.-Statements in a pleading which are not demurrers, but allege only matters of law that might be raised by demurrer, may be struck out as embarrassing.-Stokes v. Grant, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 25; 40 L.T. 36; 27 W.R. 397.