(ccxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Counter-Claim--Wife's Separate Estate.-In an action seeking to charge a wife's separate estate in respect of a debt due to plaintiff, to which the husband was made a party: a cunter-claim in respect of moneys due to the husband and pictures of the husband detained by the plaintiff was allowed.-Hodson v. Mochi, 38 LT. 635;

26 W.R. 590.

(ccxviii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Default of Appearance-Payment into Court-In an administrative action, notice of motion was served on defendant, an executor, for payment into Court of money, part of testator's esta, which it was shown by affidavit that he had received: defendant did n appear: Held that he had sufficiently admitted that the money was in his hands by not answering the affidavit, and that he must pay it into Court.-Freeman v. Cox, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 148; 26 W.R. 689.

(ccxix.) C. A.—Default of Appearance-Setting aside Judgment.—Ord. 36, r. 20.—Decision of F.J. (see Practice cxl., p. 97) reversed.---Burgoine v. Taylor, 38 L.T. 438; 26 W.R. 568.

(ccxx.) C. A.-Default of Appearance-Setting aside Judgment—AppealOrd. 36, r. 20.—-Plaintiff being unready to proceed with the trial of his action, when it came on applied for a postponement, which was refused, and he let judgment go by default: a Divisional Court having refused to set aside the judgment, the Court of Appeal, on the production of fresh evidence explaining plaintiff's unreadiness, set aside the judgment, and restored the action to the list on plaintiff paying all costs thrown away and costs of applications to both Courts.-King v. Sandeman, 38 L.T. 461; 26 W.R. 569.

(ccxxi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Default of Appearance-Test Action-Ord. 36, r. 19. -Where, at the trial, a plaintiff declined to proceed, the Court declined to take into consideration the fact that the action had been made a test action for the purpose of deciding rights between plaintiffs in similar actions and the same defendants, but ordered the action to be dismissed, with costs.-Robinson v. Chadwick, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 878; 38 L.T. 415; 26 W.R. 556.

(ccxxii.) C. A.—Discovery—Interrogatories-Tendency to Criminate.—Decision of V.C.B. (see Practice cxlvi, p. 97) reversed.-Fisher v. Owen, 38 L.T. 577; 26 W.R. 581.

(ccxxiii.) C. P. Div.-Discovery-Interrogatories—Time for Delivery—Ord. 31, rr. 1, 5.-A., having brought an action against B. for expenses incurred on his behalf, and authorised by a letter from C., B. denied C.'s authority to write the letter: A. joined C. as defendant, and before his statement of defence was delivered, interrogated him as to B.'s authority: Held that the interrogatories were not premature.-Beal v. Pilling, 38 L.T. 486. (ccxxiv.) C. A.-Discovery-Production of Court Rolls.-In an action concerning disputed rights as to a sheepwalk, plaintiff alleged that he was a free. holder of a farm, and as such entitled to the sheepwalk; and defendant, the lord of the manor, alleged that plaintiff was only a freehold tenant of the manor in respect of the farm: Held that plaintiff was not entitled to the production of the Court rolls of the manor.-Owen v. Wynn, 38 L.T. 623; 26 W.R. 552.

(ccxxv.) C. A.-Evidence-Appeal-Further Evidence—Ord. 58, r 5.—Affidavits which were used in chambers were rejected, on further consideration, by V. C. H. (see Practice, cliii., p. 98): plaintiff, in his notice of appeal, gave notice of motion for leave to read them: Held that they were further evidence within Ord 58, r. 5, and leave given to read them.Jones v. Chennell, 38 L.T. 494; 26 W.R. 595.

(ccxxvi.) C. C, R.-Evidence-Deposition-Pregnancy-11 & 12 Vict., c. 42, s. 17.-Pregnancy alone may be a source of illness within 11 & 12 Vict.,

c. 42, s. 17, so as to give the judge power to admit in evidence in a prosecution the deposition of a witness unable to travel in consequence of her approaching confinement.-Regina v. Wellings, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 426; 47 L.J. M.C. 100; 38 L.T. 652; 26 W.R. 592.

(ccxxvii.) Ex. Div.-Execution-Order to Pay Amount Levied-Notice to Sheriff -Ord. 53, rr. 1, 2.—An application for an order to compel a sheriff who has returned a writ of fi. fa. to pay over the amount levied is a proceeding in an action within Ord. 53, r. 1, 2, and should be made on motion after notice to sheriff.- -Delmar v. Freemantle, 26 W.R. 683.

(ccxxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Foreclosure-Summons at Chambers-Ord. 15, r. 1, 2; Ord. 33.-There is no jurisdiction to give judgment for foreclosure upon summons, though the facts are not in dispute.-Lloyd v. David Lloyd & Co., 26 W.R. 572.

(ccxxix.) C. A.-Interpleader-1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 1; 23 & 24 Vict., c. 126, s. 12.-A defendant can obtain an interpleader order under 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 1, although the claims of the claimants are not coextensive. Attenborough v. St. Katherine's Dock Co., 38 L.T. 404; 26 W.R. 583.

(ccxxx.) C. P. Div.-Interpleader-Claim for Part of Goods.—On

an

interpleader issue the claimant was ordered to specify which of the goods seized he claimed (see Practice lxxxiv., p. 62), but did not do so : a verdict having been found for claimant as to part of the goods only: Held that the execution creditor was entitled to the amount paid into Court under the interpleader order, and that claimant must pay the costs of the trial.—Plummer v. Price, 26 W.R. 682.

(ccxxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Interpleader-Discharge-Jurisdiction as to Costs.-The usual interpleader order having been made in an action, by which costs were reserved, defendant obtained an order to discharge the interpleader order unless plaintiff took certain steps: plaintiff not having taken these steps within the time limited: Held that the Court had jurisdiction to make an order that plaintiff should pay costs.-Wick v. Wood, 26 W.R. 680.

(ccxxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Mandamus-Jurisdiction-Judicature Act, 1873, ss. 25, 34.-A writ of mandamus, under section 25, sub-sec. 8 of the Judicature Act, 1873, can only be obtained in a pending cause or matter, the prerogative writ being preserved to the Q.B. Div. by section 34.-Re Paris Skating Rink Co., L.R. 8 Ch. D. 731; 46 L.J. Ch. 831.

(ccxxxiii.) C. P. Div.—Order for Sale of Goods—Ord. 52, r. 2.—An order in an action may be made under Ord. 52, r. 2, for the sale of a horse, which for a just and sufficient reason it may be desirable to have sold at once.Bartholomew v. Freeman, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 316; 26 W.R. 743.

(ccxxxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties-Conflicting Interest.-A., who was interested under a will, died insolvent, and his creditors obtained an administration decree: A.'s executrix, who had also an interest under the will opposed to that of A., was made defendant in another action for the administration of the trusts of the will, and the creditors obtained an order for leave to intervene in this action: Held that the order was irregular, and that some other person ought to have been appointed to defend in the action in the name of the executrix on the behalf of the son's estate. Samuel v. Samuel, 26 W.K. 750.

(ccxxxv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties- Representative Party-Ord. 16, r. 9; 31, r. 14. The practice of making an officer of a corporation a party for the purpose of discovery is now abolished: a person must show that the parties having the same interest are numerous before he can be authorised to defend on behalf of all such parties.-Wilson v. Church, 26 W.R. 735.

(ccxxxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parties-Infant Plaintiff-Ord. 16, r. 8.— In an action for breach of trust and execution of the trusts of a will by infants by their step-father as next friend, who was also made a defendant, the Court ordered his name to be struck out as defendant, and gave the wife leave to defend without her husband.-Lewis v. Nobbs, 26 W.R. 631. (ccxxxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Parties-Joinder-Ord. 16, r. 17.-Plaintiff having bought property from defendant brought an action to have £2,000 of the purchase-money returned to them: defendant was also being sued in the Ex. Div. for the £2,000 by persons claiming it as com mission on the sale: the Court refused to order the plaintiffs in the Ex. Div. to be served with a third party notice, or made defendants to this action under Ord. 16, r. 17. —Associated Home Co. v. Whichcord, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 457; 38 L.T. 602; 26 W.R. 774.

(ccxxxviii) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Parties-Partition-31 & 32 Vict., c. 40.— In a partition action relating to leasehold property, where plaintiffs were executors and trustees for sale, entitled to part of the property, and defendants were a person entitled to the rest of the property for life, and other executors and trustees for sale entitled in remainder, it was Held that the beneficiaries under the trusts were not necessary parties.-Stace v. Gage, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 451; 26 W R. 605. (ccxxxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Pleading-Allegations of Fraud-Particulars -In an action to re-open accounts on the ground of fraud, defendant took out a summons for further particulars as to charges that the accounts were untrue, and that excessive profits had been made, or in default of particulars that the charges should be struck out: plaintiff amended his statement by alleging that all the accounts were untrue, that defendant had the particulars of the profits made by him, and that the improper charges appeared in the accounts, and that defendant was well aware of them: Held that this was not a compliance with the order.-Harbord v. Monk, 38 L.T. 411.

(ccxl.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Pleading-General and Particular Denial-Ord. 19, r. 17.-In an action for an infringement of copyright of a song, defendant, in his statement of defence, alleged that the song had not been registered until the 9th Dec., 1876, and added, "defendant denies that the song has been duly registered: the time of the first publication thereof is not truly entered on the register: Held that defendant could not prove that the name of the publisher had been untruly stated: leave to amend refused.-Collette v. Gorde, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 842; 47 L.J. Ch. 370; 38 L.T. 504.

(ccxli.) C. P. Div.-Pleading-Special Indorsement-Demurrer-Ord. 21, r. 4.-A defendant is entitled to demur to a specially-indorsed writ, where a notice, in lieu of statement of claim, has been delivered.Robertson v. Howard, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 280; 47 L.J. C.P. 480; 38 L.T. 715; 26 W.R. 683.

(ccxlii.) C. P. Div.-Security for Costs.-Where, after an action had been set down for trial, plaintiff filed a liquidation petition, he was ordered to give security for past as well as future costs.-Brocklebank v. King's Lynn Steamship Co., 47 L.J. C.P. 321; 38 L.T. 489.

(ccxliii.) C. A.-Security for Costs-Admiralty Action-Joinder of ActionCounter-Claim against one Plaintiff.-Where owners of a ship which has sunk and owners of the cargo on board join as plaintiffs in an action against another ship for damages sustained by collision, the Court will order the claim by the shipowner to be dismissed in default of his giving security for the counter-claim, but will allow the owner of the cargo to proceed without security.—The Carnarvon Castle, 38 L.T. 736.

(ccxliv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Service of Statement of Claim-Further Time.— A writ was issued in August, 1877, in respect of a claim which would

have become barred by statute in November, 1877: appearances were entered in February, 1878: by a mistake the statement of claim was served a day too late: the Court gave plaintiff further time.-Canadian Oilworks Corporation v. Hay, 38 L.T. 549.

(ccxlv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Stay of Proceedings-Frivolous Action.—An action against the Attorney-General, in which plaintiff claimed a pension in respect of offices held by him, and a public audit of his accounts was stayed on summons as frivolous and vexatious, on the grounds that no right to a pension under the Superannuation Act, 1859, could arise until it had been granted by the Commissioners of the Treasury, and that plaintiff had waived his right to a public audit by a previous reference to arbitration.-Edmunds v. The Attorney-General, 47 L.J. Ch. 345; 38 L.T. 213; 26 W.R. 550.

(ccxlvi.) C. A.-Substituted Service-Setting Aside Judgment—Ord. 9, r. 2.-Decision of Q. B. Div. (see Practice cxciii., p. 102) affirmed.-Watt v. Barnett, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 363; 26 W.R. 745.

(ccxlvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Transfer of Action—Ord. 51, r. 2a.—An action was brought in the Ex. Div. against an executor personally in respect of a debt due from his testator's estate, charging devastavit : after an order had been obtained in the Ch. Div. for the administration of the estate, the executor applied to have the action against him transferred to the Ch. Div. and stayed: the Court transferred the action, but refused to stay it.-Re Timms, 38 L.T. 679; 26 W.R. 692.

(ccxlviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Trial-Counter-Claim-Evidence.-The Court being of opinion that it would be more convenient that the claim and counter-claim in an action should be tried separately, directed the defendant's counsel at the trial of the claim to confine his cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses to the questions raised thereon, giving him leave to call the plaintiff's witness as his own on the counter-claim.— Thompson v. Woodfine, 38 L.T. 753; 26 W.R. 678.

(ccxlix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Trial-Jury.—In an action against directors for fraud and misrepresentation, a motion by one defendant to have the action tried before a judge and jury was refused, on the grounds that the other defendant did not consent, and that, under the circumstances, such a trial did not appear desirable or convenient.-Mirehouse v. Barnett, 26 W.R. 690.

(col.) C. A.- Trial-Jury.—Where parties to an action agree to take evidence by affidavit, the Court will not, on the application of either party, grant a jury after evidence has been taken.-Brooke v. Wigg, 38 L.T. 732; 26 W.R. 729.

(ccli.) C. A.-Writ-Renewal-Barred Claim.-Decision of Q.B. Div. (see Practice cxxi., p. 65) affirmed.-Doyle v. Kaufman, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 340. Principal and Agent:

(ix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Acceptance-Repudiation-Payment into Court.Plaintiff claimed £37 from defendant for the use and occupation of a house, and authorised him to pay it to G.: G. called on defendant, who expressed his readiness to pay, but G. refused to receive the money: plaintiff having brought an action for £238 for use and occupation, defendant paid £37 into Court: Held that plaintiff could not recover more than this, and that defendant was entitled to his costs of action after payment into Court.-Gretton v. Mees, L.R. 7 Ch. D. 839; 38 L.T. 506; 26 W.R. 607.

(x.) Q. B. Div.-Corrupt Bargain—Bias.—Where a bargain is made between one who is in the employ of another and a third party, who has contracted with the employer, which is calculated to bias the mind of the employed and cause him to act to the prejudice of the employer,

such bargain is corrupt, even though no damage result to the employer. -Harrington v. Victoria Graving Dock Co., 26 W.R. 740.

(xi.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Payment to Agent-Set-off of Debt.-Where A. owes money to B., and B. authorises him to pay it to C., he must actually pay the money to C., and is not entitled to set-off a debt due to him from C. against the payment of the debt to A.-Pearson v. Scott, 38 L.T. 747. (xii.) C.A.-Sub-Agent-Liability to Principal.-Plaintiff assigned a steamer to G. for sale at a minimum price of 90,000 dollars cash payment: defendant living in Japan undertook, with plaintiff's sanction to sell the steamer as G.'s agent at Japan: being unable to procure 90,000 dollars in cash, he took her himself at that price and resold her for 160,000 dollars partly in cash and partly on credit: plaintiff first learnt this in June, 1869, and took no proceeding against defendant till 1873: Held that defendant must account to plaintiff for all the profit he had made on the transaction.-De Bussche v. Alt, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 286; 47 L.J. Ch. 381; 38 L.T. 370.

(xiii.) H. L.-Termination of Agreement.-An agreement between F. and R. provided that F. should act as R.'s agent at L. for the sale of coals from R.'s colliery for seven years, that R. should employ no other agent at L., nor F. act for any other principal, and that if F. could not sell or R. supply a certain amount of coal within the year either party might terminate the agreement: before the end of seven years R. sold the colliery Held that F. could not maintain an action for breach of agreement.-Rhodes v. Forewood, 47 L.J. Ex. 396.

:

Principal and Surety :

(iii.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Change of Circumstances-Concealment-Discharge. -The officer of a company believing that the retention of money by one of its agents amounted to felony directed his arrest: friends of the agent offered to deposit a sum of money as security for any deficiency: and afterwards the company was advised that the acts of the agent did not amount to felony and the directions for his arrest were withdrawn in a subsequent interview with the officer, the offer of the agent's friends was accepted without telling them of the withdrawal of the directions for arrest, and the money was deposited with trustees: Held that the concealment of the change of circumstances from the sureties was improper and the money must be returned.-Davies v. London & Provincial Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 8 Ch. D. 469; 47 L.J. Ch. 511; 38 L.T. 478.

:

(iv.) C. J. B.--Guarantee-Bankruptcy-Proof.-A bank held B.'s guarantee for the debtor's account, being a continuing guarantee to the extent of £800, and which provided that the guarantee should not be considered as wholly or partially satisfied by the payment or liquidation of any sums due, but should extend to all future sums due to the bank, and that all dividends, compositions, and payments should be taken as payments in gross, and the guarantee should apply to secure any ultimate balance due the debtor having filed a liquidation petition, B. paid £800 to the bank: Held that the bank, and not B., was entitled to prove in the liquidation for the £800.-Ex parte Midland Banking Co., Re Sellers, 38 L.T. 395.

:

Public Health :

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Dismissal of Officer-Quo Warranto.-The Court refused to grant a rule for a quo warranto, applied for by a former officer of a local board, on the ground that his dismissal from office was illegal, as it appeared that if re-instated, he might legally be dismissed immediately. -Ex parte Richards, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 368; 38 L.T. 684; 26 W.R. 695. (viii.) Q. B. Div.-Local Authority-Contract by Owner with-38 & 39 Vict.,