them by B. himself: Held that B. was entitled to injunction to restrain the company from obstructing any of the thirteen lights.-Bourke v. Alexandra Hotel Co., 25 W.R. 393.

(v.) C. A.-Right of Way-Severance of Ownership. A grant of a right of way to the "owner and owners for the time being" of land is severed when the land is severed, so as to give a right of way to the owner for the time being of every part of the land.-Newcomen v. Coulson, 25 W.R. 469.

Ecclesiastical Law:

(viii.) Ar.-Contempt of Court.—Where a clergyman disobeyed an order of the Court of Arches, the Dean pronounced him to be contumacious and in contempt, and directed the same to be signified to the Queen in Chancery, whereupon a writ "De contumace capiendo" was issued for the arrest and detention of such clergyman.--Parishioners of Hatcham v. Tooth, 36 L.T. 820.

(ix.) C. P. Div.-Exchange of Livings.-With a view to a proposed change of livings, one of the incumbents executed a deed of resignation: the arrangement having fallen through, the patron appointed a new incumbent to the vacant living: Held that an action by the late rector against the new rector would not lie.-Rumsey v. Nicholl, 36 L.T. 252. Estoppel:-

(i.) Ex. Div.-Deed-Recital-Receipt Clause.-Deed recited agreement for transfer by plaintiffs to defendant of certain Letters Patent for £1,000, and witnessed that in consideration of £1,000 upon the execu. tion, &c., paid by the defendant to plaintiffs (the receipt of which the plaintiffs thereby acknowledged and therefrom discharged the defendant), plaintiffs assigned to defendant the Letters Patent: in action for recovery of the money, which, in fact, had not been paid: Held that no covenant on the part of defendant to pay the money could be implied. Morgan's Patent Anchor Co. v. Morgan, 36 L.T. 811.

Evidence ::

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Bastaroÿ Act, 1872-Corroboration.--In an affiliation case, evidence of facts which happened before the begetting of the child is admissible in corroboration of the evidence of the mother.-Cole v. Manning, 46 L.J. M.C. 175; 35 L.T. 941.

(v.) App. Div. Ct.-Cheque-Stamp-Admissibility in Evidence.—Held that a cheque payable to bearer, but post-dated to knowledge of person receiving and suing on it, and therefore in fact insufficiently stamped, is nevertheless admissible in evidence.-Gatty v. Fry, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 265; 36 L.T. 182; 25 W. R. 305.

(vi.) C. A.-Descent-Failure of Superior Line.-Decision of Ex. Div., see Evidence (i.), p. 13, affirmed.-Greaves v. Greenwood, 46 L.J. Ex. 252; 36 L.T. 1.

Foreshore:

(i.) Ex. Div.-Duchy of Cornwall.-The Charter 11 Ed. III. granted to the Duke of Cornwall all the foreshores in that county then belonging to the Crown.-Mayor, &c., of Penrhyn v. Holm, 25 W.R. 498.

Highway :

(vi.) Ex. Div.-Locomotive.-Held that a locomotive engine the bearingsurfaces of whose wheels were not continuous was not in conformity with the Locomotive Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict., c. 70), s. 3.-Stringer v. Sykes, L.R. 2 Ex. Div. 240; 46 L.J. M.C. 139; 36 L.T. 152; 25 W.R. 273. (vii.) Ex. Div.-Toll-Exemption--Military Officer.-Held that an officer on duty and in uniform, driving in his own carriage a charger, which would

be required for duty on arrival, and carrying in the carriage articles required for purposes of her Majesty's service, was not entitled to exemption from toll, under 39 Vict., c. 8, s. 86.-Hinds v. Thring, 36 L.T. 217.

Husband and Wife:

(xi.) P. D. A. Div.-Dissolution Suit-Citation.-Where petitoner's solicitor had absconded taking with him the citations, the Court refused to dispense with return of the citations to the registry without proof of service on respondent and co-respondent.-Perret v. Perret & Alt, 35 L.T. 910. (xii.) P. D. A. Div.-Dissolution Suit-Counter-charge-Cross Suit.-An application to strike out of answer counter-charges set up in answer to a suit for dissolution of marriage, on the ground that such charges have been disposed of in a cross suit, must be supported by an affidavit show. ing the charges are identical.-Robinson v. Robinson, 25 W.R. 376. (xiii.) C. A.-Dissolution Suit-Queen's Proctor-Jurisdiction of C. A.-Costs. -Held that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to order papers to be sent to the Queen's Proctor for the purpose of instructing counsel as directed by 23 & 24 Vict., c. 144, s. 5: also that on withdrawal of the appeal the Court had no power to allow the Queen's Proctor his costs.Le Sueur v. Le Sueur, 36 L.T. 276; 25 W.R. 402.

xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Dower.-Wife married before Dower Act, joined in and acknowledged mortgage of husband's freeholds to release her dower, the reconveyance on redemption and surplus proceeds of sale being reserved to husband alone: subsequently by deed executed by husband alone, property was purported to be conveyed free of dower, subject to first mortgage, to a second mortgagee, who afterwards by deed executed only by the first mortgagee and himself, took a transfer of the first mortgage, and sold the property: the mortgagor having died: Held that the widow was entitled to dower out of the proceeds of sale, after payment of expenses and of the first mortgage debt, interest and costs.-Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 639.

(xv.) C. P. Div.-Separation-Maintenance-Husband living apart from his wife directed her not to pledge his credit, and allowed her £12 10s. per month, which however he did not pay regularly: she incurred expenses for medical attendance: Held that husband was liable.-Beale v. Arabin, 36 L.T. 249.

Indian Appeals:

(ii.) P. C.-Champerty and Maintenance.-The English laws as to maintenance and champerty are not in force in India: an agreement to share the property in litigation is not necessarily against public policy, but is only invalid if extortionate or otherwise improper: a stranger to record cannot be rendered liable to costs on ground of interest in the suit, in the absence of malice or want of probable cause.-Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee, L.R. 2 App. 186.

Infant:

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Custody.-All divisions of the High Court of Justice have jurisdiction with regard to the custody of infants, and in deciding whether a father shall retain or be deprived of custody of his child, will follow the rules of equity.-Re Goldsworthy, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 75; 46 L.J. Q.B. 187.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Voidable Deed.-Plaintiff advanced money to an infant to provide necessaries, on the security of an assignment by the infant of a reversionary interest: Held that the security could not be enforced.-Martin v. Gale, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 428; 46 L.J. Ch. 84; 25 W.R. 406.

Insurance :

(xv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Life Policy-Deposit.-A. effected policy for the purpose, as he informed the company, of securing a debt to plaintiff: A. deposited the policy with plaintiff, requesting him to prepare the neces sary assignment, but no such assignment was ever executed: A's debt at his death exceeded the amount of the policy: the company refused to pay the policy moneys without the assent of the legal personal representative of A.: Held that there had been no equitable assignment, and that the refusal was reasonable, but that the Court had power under 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 44, to dispense with presence of his representative, and ordered payment to A. of the policy moneys with interest, but deducting the company's costs.-Crossley v. City of Glasgow Life Assurance Co., L.R. 4 Ch. D. 421; 46 L.J. Ch. 65; 36 L.T. 285; 25 W.R. 264. (xvi.) C. A.-Marine Insurance-Freight-Valued Policy.-Charter-party provided "Sufficient cash not exceeding £600 to be advanced against freight, if required, at ports of loading, subject to insurance and 2 commission:" captain as owner's agent accepted disbursement account submitted by charterers for cash actually advanced, commission, and premium on policy of insurance on freight made on owner's behalf: charterers effected valued policy, on behalf of themselves and persons interested, in usual terms: this policy came to knowledge of owners after they heard of the loss: Held that the owners were entitled to ratify and benefit by the policy, and that the policy covered the whole freight. -Williams v. North China Insurance Co., 35 L.T. 884.

(xvii.) H. L.-Marine Insurance-Time Policy-Warranty of Seaworthiness.— Plaintiff effected a time policy on a ship then on his premises under repair; she was lost on the return voyage through perils of the sea brought about by her unseaworthiness: Held that the policy did not imply any warranty of seaworthiness, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover. Dudgeon v. Pembroke, 25 W.R. 499.

Jamaica, Law of:

(i.) P.C.—Practice-Service of Writ.-Service upon resident superintendent of a company domiciled in England is good service on the company under Supreme Court Procedure Act, s. 19.-Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. v. Braham, 36 L.T. 220.

Jurisdiction:

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Action for Rent of Premises Abroad.-Held that the Court had jurisdiction to try an action for rent of premises situated in a foreign country, when both parties were domiciled in England.-Buenos Ayres, etc., Rail. Co. v. Northern Rail. Co. of Buenos Ayres, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 210; 46 L.J. Q.B. 224; 36 L.T. 148; 25 W.R. 367.

(ii.) C. C. R.-Territorial Waters.-A foreign ship on a voyage to a foreign port, commanded by the prisoner, a foreigner, ran into and sank a British ship within three miles of the English coast, whereby a passenger was drowned: Held by the majority of the Court (7 Judges to 6) that the Central Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to try the prisoner for the offence of manslaughter charged against him.-Regina v. Keyn, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 90 & 2 Ex. D. 63; 46 L.J. M.C. 17.

Landlord and Tenant:

(xvi.) C. P. Div.-Distress.-Where proceeds of sale under distress are insufficient, landlord may sue for balance: no action lies against landlord under 2 W. & M. sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2, for not selling.--Philpott v. Lehain, 35 L.T. 855.

(xvii.) G. B. Div.-Lease-Agreement-Specific Performance.-Specific per. formance of an agreement for a lease will not be enforced after long

lapse of time, although plaintiff has during the whole time occupied and paid rent for the premises.-Powis v. Lord Dynevor, 35 L.T. 940. (xviii.) App. Div. Ct.--Lease-Construction-Uncertainty.-By

written instrument not under seal, W. purported to demise messuage to B. as tenant from year to year so long as B. kept his rent paid, and as W. had power to let the premises: the rent reserved was less than two-thirds of the annual value, and was paid quarterly: Held that the instrument was void as a lease for uncertainty, and because not under seal, and that B. was merely a yearly tenant.-Wood v. Beard, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 31; 46 L.J. Ex. 100; 35 L.T. 866.

(xix.) Ex. Div.-Lease-Statute of Frauds.-A lease for term less than three years, with option to lessee to extend the term to period exceeding three years from date of demise, is within Statute of Frauds, and must therefore be by deed under 8 & 9 Vict., c. 106.--Hand v. Hall, 46 L.J. Ex. 242. (xx.) C. A.-Mining Lease-Lessee's Covenant to pay Rent Free from Rates.Decision of Q.B. Div., see Landlord and Tenant (xiv.), p. 59, affirmed.Duke of Devonshire v. Barrow Hematite Steel Co., 25 W.R. 469.

Lands Clauses Act:

(xiii.) C. A.--Compensation-Arbitration.—Decision of C. P. Div., see Lands Clauses Act (i.), p. 18, affirmed.--Stone v. Mayor, &c, of Yeovil, L.R. 2, C.P.D. 99; 46 L.J. C.P. 137; 36 L.T. 279; 25 W.R. 240.

(xiv.) C. A.-Compensation-Right of Tenant.-Where defendants had, under the powers of the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Act, 1872, purchased a house from its owner and given notice to the quarterly tenant thereof to quit on expiration of his tenancy: Held that the tenant had no interest under Lands Clauses Act, s. 8, so as to entitle him to compensation. Syers v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 36 L.T. 277.

(xv.) Ch. Div., V. C. M.-Fund in Court-Payment out-Costs.-Two petitions were presented by same petitioners for payment out of money paid into Court by a railway company: petitioners were entitled to part of fund under a will, whereof the trustees were parties to first petition, and to remainder under a settlement, whereof the trustees were parties to the second petition: Held that only one petition should have been presented, and that company should pay petitioners' costs of first petition, and only 5 guineas towards petitioners' costs of second petition, and 3 guineas towards costs of each set of trustees.-Re Pattison's Settled Estates, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 207.

Licensed House:

(iii.) C. P. Div.-Permitting Drunkenness-Licensing Act, 1872.-An innkeeper cannot be convicted under 35 & 36 Vict., c. 94, s. 13, by reason of himself getting drunk on his own premises.-Warden v. Tye, L.R. 2, C.P.D. 75; 46 L.J.M C. 111; 35 L.T. 852.

(iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Refreshment House-Sunday Trading.-A licensed refreshment-house keeper may not sell articles for consumption off the premises on Sundays.-Duffell v. Curtis, 35 L.T. 853.

Lien :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Custom of Trade-Stoppage in Transitu.-P. Company agreed to supply rails to S. & Co. in equal instalments, to be delivered free at Liverpool, payment to be partly by cash, partly by buyer's acceptances of seller's drafts, as each instalment was ready for delivery invoices of instalments were sent to S. & Co., together with warrants, which S. & Co. pledged with plaintiffs for value, and became insolvent part of the rails were lying in a railway company's goods depôt in the name of agents of S. & Co.: Held that the form of the warrants, by the custom of the iron trade, deprived the vendors of their

lien, and that the right to stop the goods in transitu was gone.-Merchant Banking Co. v. Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co., 25 W.R. 457.

Market:

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Shop-Exmouth Market Act, 1867.-Held that a covered skittle ground with door opening to the street, let to respondent for two days, was not his "shop" within the meaning of the Exmouth Market Act, 1867, s. 20, incorporating the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict., c. 14).-Hooper v. Kenshole, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 127; 46 L.J.M.C. 160; 36 L.T. 111; 25 W.R. 368.

Master and Servant:

(vi.) C. A.-Negligence--Common Employment - Servant Lent to Contractor.Decision of C. P. Div., see Master and Servant (iii.), p. 19, affirmed.Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., 36 L.T. 49; 25 W.R. 263.

Mines:

(iii.) Ch. Div., V. C. M.-Coal Mine-Wrongful Working-Statute of Limitation.-In 1863 defendant inadvertently passed boundary of ad. joining mine, and took therefrom plaintiff's coal: in 1870 plaintiff first discovered what had been done: Held that there being no lack of diligence on part of plaintiff, a suit for an account of the coal worked, and for consequential damage was not barred by 21 Geo. I., c. 16.— Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. N. E. Rail. Co., 36 L.T. 174.

(iv.) C. A.-Reservation-Damage to Surface-Covenant Running with the Land.-S., owner in fee of land A. and land B., granted land A. to plaintiffs with reservation of right of mining on payment of damages in respect of any injury to buildings to be erected on plaintiffs' land: S. afterwards granted land B, with right to work mines thereunder and under land A, to defendants: Held, affirming decision of Ex. Div., that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for injury to their buildings caused by workings under land A. and land B.-Aspden v. Seddon, 25 W.R. 277.

Mortgage:

(xi.) Ch. Div., M. R.-Equitable Mortgage-Pledge.-A. deposited with B. certain Canada Railway Bonds as security for a debt: Held that B. was a pledgee and entitled to order for sale, but not for foreclosure.-Carter v. Wake, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 605.

(xii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Power of Sale.-In 1849 a tenant for life of settled real estate mortgaged his life interest: in 1852, B., the remainderman, mort. gaged his interest to the same persons: Held that the mortgagees could, in exercise of the separate powers in the two mortgages, sell and convey to a purchaser the fee simple in possession of the land.-Re Cooper's Contract with Harlech, 46 L.J. Ch. 133; 35 L.T. 890; 25 W.R. 301. Municipal Law:

(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Building--Frontage Line-Penalty-Injunction.— Where plaintiff alleged that plans of a building erected by him had been submitted to the Local Board, and that the board had made no objection till the building was completed, the Court refused to grant ex parte injunction to restrain Local Board from taking proceedings to recover penalty for advancing building beyond frontage line.-Kerr v. Mayor, &c., of Preston, 25 W.R. 265.

(x.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Compulsory Powers-Prolongation-Special Act.By a Special Act, compulsory powers limited to seven years were given to a Local Board for the purchase of land to construct waterworks and establish markets: shortly before the expiration of the time limited, the ratepayers authorised the board to take plaintiff's land for a market.