plantiff and the engineer were engaged in common employment under orders of W., and that defendants were not liable.-Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., L.R. 1 C.P.D. 556; 35 L.T. 160.

(iv.) C. A.-Sub-Contractor -- Privity of Contract.

By agreement with defendants the S. Club held a cattle show in defendants' hall; the gate keepers were provided by defendants, but were under exclusive control of the Club; by rules of the Club a delivery order was to be given up before removal of the animals; by default of one of the gate keepers those sheep bought by plaintiff were mis-delivered. Held, affirming decision of C. P. Div., that there was not any privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants, and that they were not liable for the acts of the gate-keeper.-Goslin v. Agricultural Hall Co., L.R. 1 C.P.D. 482; 35 L.T.

92.

Mines:

(i.) Ex. Div.-Reservation.-S. the owner in fee of land A and land B, granted land A to plaintiffs with reservation of right of mining on payment of damages for injury to buildings to be erected on the land by plaintiffs; defendants, assignees of S., worked mines under lands A and B: Held that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation in respect of workings under both pieces of land.-Aspden v. Seddon,34 L.T. 906; 24 W.R. 828. Mortgage:

(i.) Ch. Div. V.C.M.-Equitable Mortgage-Arrears of Interest.—Land, subject to an equitable mortgage, was taken by a Corporation and money paid into Court. Held that petition by mortgagee, under the Lands Clauses Act, was a suit within s. 42 of the statute of limitations, and that he was entitled only to principal and six years arrears of interest. In re Stead's Settlement Trusts, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 713; 45 L.J.Ch. 634; 24 W.R. 698.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V.C.H.-Equitable Mortgage-Locke King's Act.-Absence of & memorandum does not take an equitable mortgage by deposit out of Locke King's Act (17 and 18 Vic., c. 113).—Davis v. Davis, 24 W.R. 962. (iii.) H. L.-Forcible entry-Malicious prosecution.-L., a mortgagee, entered into possession of the mortgaged premises, without notice to the mortgagor or T., his tenant, and was expelled therefrom by T.; L. indicted T. for assault, who, being acquitted, brought action against L. for malicious prosecution: Held that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, as the facts showed that L., at the time of his expulsion, was lawfully in possession.-Lows v. Telford, L.R. 1 App. 414; 45 L.J. Ex. 613; 35 L.T. 69.

(iv.) C. A.-Registration-Priority.-Actual notice, or fraud, is necessary to deprive a deed, registered in Middlesex, of priority over a prior unregistered charge.-Lee v. Clutton, 35 L.T. 84; 24 W.R. 942.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Transfer.-A transferee, for value of a mortgage, without notice of equitable grounds entitling mortgagor to set aside the mortgage as against the original mortgagee, is entitled to the full benefit of his security.-Nant-y-gle and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Tamplin, 35 L.T. 125.

Municipal Law:

(i.) C. A.—Public Pleasure Grounds.—Land purchased by a local board, under the Public Health Act, 1848 s. 74, for purpose of public pleasure grounds, allowed, to be appropriated to erection of a museum, free library, and conservatory, but not to the erection of a school of art or town buildings. -Atty. Gen. v. Corporation of Sunderland, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 634, 34 L.T. 921; 24 W.R. 991.

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Street.-Respondent's premises were separated from D street by a small stream but connected therewith by two bridges: Held

that the premises "fronted and abutted" on D street, within Public Health Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63) s. 69.-Wakefield Local Board v. Lee, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 336.

Negligence:-

(i.) C. P. Div.-Telegram-Remoteness of damage.-Defendant, a collector of telegrams for profit, neglected to transmit a telegram in cipher entrusted to him, whereby plaintiff lost amount of commission on order, to which the telegram referred. Held that plaintiff could only recover nominal damages. Saunders v. Stuart, L.R. I O.P.D. 326; 45 L.J. C.P. 682; 24 W.R. 949.

Nuisance :-

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Artificial Work.-The occupier of premises is liable for continuance thereon of any artificial work causing nuisance though placed on the premises by his predecessors in title.-Broder v. Saillard, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 692; 24 W.R. 1011.

(ii.) C. A.-Injunction-Damages.-Where a nuisance by brick burning was proved, it was held that plaintiff was entitled to damages though her bill only asked for an injunction.-Crawford v. Hornsea Steam Brick and Tile Co., 34 L.T. 923.

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Liability of lessor.-A. let to B. a field to be worked as a lime quarry; the blasting and smoke from the kilns caused nuisance to adjoining occupiers. Held that that the nuisance was consequent on the mode of occupation contemplated by the demise, and that A. was liable.— Harris v. James, 45, L.J. Q.B. 545; 35 L.T. 240.

(iv.) App. Div.

Ct.-Prohibition-Abatement.-Appellants, the Urban Sanitary Authority of S., deposited refuse in a field for removal by purchasers thereof the field was not in possession or under control of appellants; the deposit formed a nuisance. Held that an order under Public Health Act, 1875, (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55) for abatement of nuisance and prohibition of recurrence was bad as to the abatement, but good as to the prohibition. -Mayor, etc., of Scarboro' v. Rural Sanitary Authority of Scarboro', L.R. 1 Ex. D. 344; 34 L.T. 768.

Partnership:

(i.) H. L.-Agreement-Construction.-A. borrowed £250 from B., and signed a paper declaring that in consideration of the £250 he undertook to execute a deed of co-partnership to B.; he afterwards wrote a letter to B. treating the matter as a loan, and tendered payment; B. filed bill for specific performance of agreement for partnership, when A. put in answer denying existence of partnership, but submitting in the alternative that it was a partnership at will, and had been determined by the letter. Held that a partnership at will had been constituted, and was determined, not by the letter, but by the answer.-Syers v. Syers, L.R. 1, App. 174; 33 L.T. 101; 24 W.R. 970.

Patent :

:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Foreign Patent.-English letters patent granted for a foreign invention after a foreign patent has been obtained, are to be taken as granted the day of the date not at the time of sealing.-Holste v. Robinson, 24 W.R. 1064.

(ii.) C. A.-Infringement-Crown Rights.-Held that letters patent granted to plaintiff for manufacture of rifles did not affect right of Crown to use the invention, and that a company which had manufactured patented rifles by order of the Crown was protected against claims for infringement of patent.-Diron v. London Small Arms Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 384; 35 L.T. 138; 23 W.R. 766.

(iii.) C. A.-Infringement-Disqualification as patentee. To bill to restrain infringement of patent, defendant pleaded defective specification, want of

novelty, anticipation, prior user of process, and that plaintiff was disqualified from being patentee from having acquired bis knowledge as a gas referee, with statutory powers of inspection. Held that plaintiff's patent was not valid, as he had not discovered any new process but only more efficient method of working a formerly known process: quære whether he could take out a patent for discovery, the result of official investigation.-Paterson v. Gaslight and Coke Co,, 35 L.T. 11.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R-Infringement -Novelty-Specification.-Plaintiff in 1863 took out an American patent for roller-skates: drawings and letter press relating to the invention were published in America and received in the Patent Office in London before August, 1865, when plaintiff took out an English patent: in a suit to restrain infringement of the patent, defendant set up want of novelty: Held upon the facts that the invention had not become part of stock of public knowledge in England before the taking out of the English patent, and that no ordinary workman could have made the skates from the drawings and letter-press, and that the patent was therefore valid.-Betts v. Nelson, (37 L.J. Ch. 321); dissented from.-Plimpton v. Malcolmson, L.R. 3, Ch. 429; 45 L.J. Ch. 505; 34 L.T.

340.

(v.) C. A.-Licenses - Account.-A licensee having been ordered to account for articles made under his license endeavoured to adduce evidence that plaintiff's patent was bad for want of novelty: Held that the evidence was not admissible.-Trotman v. Wood (16 C. B. N.S. 479) explained. Alie v. Clark, 24 W.R. 1007.

Petition of Right:

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Military Officer-An officer in permanent medical charge of a military prison, holds his appointment, subject to the rules and regulations of the service, and is liable to dismissal or removal at any time at the pleasure of the Crown: no petition of right will lie for alleged wrongful removal.-Re Petition of Right of T. J. Tufnell, 34 L.T. 838; 24 W.R. 915.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.—Sovereign and Subject--Statute of Limitations -The Sovereign is neither agent of, nor trustee for, her subjects: petition of right will not lie to recover a share of compensation money paid by a foreign government: the statute of limitations does not apply to a petition of right.-Rustomjre v. The Queen, L.R. 1 Q. B. D. 487; 45 L.J. Q. B. 249; 34 L.T. 278; 24 W R. 428.

Poor Rate :

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal.-An objection to assessment was made, under 27 & 28 Vict. c. 39 s. 1, to the assessment committee, who deferred their decision till decision of a pending case in a Superior Court with regard to a previous rate: the appellant thereupon appealed to Quarter Sessions: Held that the appellant had not "failed to obtain relief and that the appeal was premature".-Regina v. Bedminster Union, L.R. 1 Q. B. D. 503; 45 L.J. M.C. 117; 34 L.T. 795.

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Rateability-Lead Mine. -A Company worked a mine under three leases; by the first a royalty of one-fourteenth of the minerals was reserved to the lessor, or at his option the value in money; by the second and third leases, the reddendum was wholly in money: Held that the Company must be rated in respect of the machinery, and buildings and surface lands, and the lessor of the first lease in respect of the royalty in kind.- Van Mining Co. v. Overseers of Lia.diloes, L.R. 1 Ex. D. 310; 45 L.J. M.C. 138; 34 L.T. 692.

Practice:

(i.) C. A.-Appeal-Affidavits.-Affidavits to be used on appeal should be filed in the Division from which the appeal is made.-Watts v. Watts, 45 L.J.Ch 658.

(i.) C. A.—Appeal-Interlocutory Order.-An appeal from a refusal of an interlocutory order may be set down without production of order or of copy thereof.-Smith v. Grindley. Smith v. Charrington, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 80; 35 L.T. 112: 24 W.R. 956.

(iii.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs.-On motion to commit a defendant not being pressed, V.C.B. made no order except that defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs; defendant appealed without leave: Held that the order was not as to costs which are within the discretion of the Court, and that the appeal was not prohibited by Judicature Act, 1873, s. 49.-Witt v. Corcoran, 45 L.J.Ch. 603; 24 W.R. 501.

(iv.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs-Security.-Ord. 58, R. 15.-Appellants from the Admiralty Division will not be ordered except under special circumstances to give security for costs.-The Victoria, L.R. 1 P.D, 280; 34 L.T 931; 24 W.R. 596.

(v.) C.A.-Appeal-Costs-Security. The Court refused to require insolvent appellant to give security for costs of appeal where question at issue had not been considered in a Court of Error.-Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., L.R. 1 C P.D 556.

(vi.) C. A.-Appeal- Costs-Security.-Where security for costs of appeal was ordered, a bond with securities was allowed: costs of the application to follow result of appeal.-Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hartmont, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 811.

(vii.) C. A.-Appeal-Evidence. -The decision of a judge on questions of fact after hearing evidence will not generally, but his inferences from the evidence may, be reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Glannibanta. The Transit, L.R. 1 P.D. 283; 34 L.T. 934; 24 W.R. 1033.

(viii.) C.A.-Appeal—Stay of proceedings.-Proceedings stayed, pending appeal from order for payment of money by defendant, on payment of money and costs of application into Court.-Cooper v. Cooper, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 492; 45 L.J.Ch. 667; 24 W.R. 628.

(ix.) C. A.-Appeal-Time.-The time for appealing from the refusal of an interlocutory order, when an order is, nevertheless, made as to costs of the application, runs from the refusal, not from the entering of the order as to costs: the Chancery Division has, in causes within its exclusive jurisdiction, discretionary power to refuse a jury.—swindell v. Birmingham Syndicate, 35 L.T. 111; 24 W.R. 911.

(x.) C. A.—Appeal to House of Lords.-The practice as to appeals to House of Lords is not altered by Judicature Acts or Rules: on appeal from C.A. in action attached to a Common Law Division appellant must give bail in error to entitle him to stay of execution pending appeal: application for enlargement of time for giving bail in error must be made to the Division to which the action is attached.-Justice v, Mersey Steel and Iron Co., L.R. 1 C.P.D. 575; 24 W.R. 955.

(xi.) Q. B. Div.-.Ippeal from Inferior Court.-Application for rule to justices to state case under 20 & 21 Vict., c. 43, should be made Q. B. Div. not to Divisional Court of Appeal.-Re Ellershaw, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 481.

(xii.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal from Justices.-Under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 48, the time within which notice of appeal from the order of Justices must be given runs from the decision of the Court not from service of the order.-Regina v. Barnet Rural Sanitary Authority, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 558; 45 L.J. M.C. 105.

(xiii) Ch. Div. V. C. M.Attachment-Ord. 44 r. 2.-Held that a writ of attachment in a suit in which plaintiff was on 1st Nov., 1875, in a position to give notice of motion for decree must be discharged, having been made without notice to defendant under Ord. 44 r. 2.-Dallas v. Glyn, 34 L.T. 897; 24 W.R. 881,

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Attachment-Costs.-The costs of attachment are now by order 55, r. 1, in discretion of court and should be applied for at the same time as the writ.-Abud v. Riches, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 528; 45 L.J. Ch. 649; 34 L.T. 713; 24 W.R. 637.

(xv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Costs-Charging order.-Where a party has been ordered to pay costs when taxed, a charging order may be made before taxation.-Burns v. Irving, 34 L.T. 752.

(xvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Costs-District Registry.-Where administration decree ordered accounts and enquiries in a District Registry and future consideration in London, the Court refused to allow taxation in the District Registry.-Irlam v. Irlam, 24 W.R. 949.

(xvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Costs.-Counsel's Fees.-Held that the Taxing Master has discretionary power to allow refreshers to counsel where it appears to him reasonable.-Smith v. Daniell, 34 L.T. 899.

(xviii.) Q B. Div.-Costs-Plea of Bankruptcy.-A plea of bankruptcy of plaintiff after action brought waives all prior defences, and when confessed by plaintiff entitles him to sign judgment for his costs.-Foster v. Gamgee, 45 L.J. C. B. 576; 34 L.T. 248; 24 W.R. 319.

(xix.)-Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs-Security.-A shareholder of a Company appearing to oppose a winding up petition, cannot be required to give security for costs, on the ground that he is resident abroad.-R. Percy & Kelly Cobalt &c., Mining Co, L.R. 2 Ch. D. 531; 45 L.J. Ch. 526; 24 W.R. 1057.

(xx.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Costs-Security.-The court will generally follow the old rule as to amount of deposit as security for costs.-Paxton v. Bell, 24 W.R. 1013.

(xxi.) C. A.-Costs-Security-Where security for costs had been given in a suit instituted before November, 1875: Held that further security to cover future costs must be given, under Ord. 55 of Rules of Court, February 1876: Order of Malins V. C. (34 L.T. 675: 24 W.R. 888) reversed.—Rep. of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 62; 35 L.T. 19; 24 W.R. 955.

(xxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Default of Appearance-Ord. 19 r. 6.-Notice of motion for judgment, if no appearance has been entered by the party to be served, is sufficiently delivered by being filed under Ord. 19, r. 6.Dymonds v. Croft, 45 L.J. Ch. 612; 35 L.T. 27; 24 W.R. 700.

(xxiii.) C. A.-Default of Appearance-Ord. 19, r. 6.-Such delivery in case of default of appearance is sufficient.-Morton v. Miller, 45 L.J. Ch. 618; 23 W.R. 723

(xxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Discovery-Affidavit.-In an action relating to land defendant must, in affidavit of documents, specify in detail all documents in his possession relating to the land, even though such documents relate only to his own title.-Fortescue v. Fortescue, 34 L.T. 847; 24 W.R. 945.

xxv.) Ch. Div. V.C.B.-Discovery-Affidavit.—Where defendant in schedule, to affidavit of documents gave dates but no further particulars of deeds which he stated related solely to his own title: Held that the affidavit was sufficient.-Taylor v. Oliver, 34 L.T. 962.

(xxvi.) H. L.-Discovery-Affidavit.-Appellants filed insufficient sffidavit of documents after repeated extensions of time, Court of Chancery ordered that unless a sufficient affidavit was filed by a day named, the bill should be dismissed, and a fund in Court paid over to defendant. Held that the Court had power to make the order, and that its discretion ought not to be interfered with.-Republic of Liberia v Roze, L.R. 1 App. 139; 45 L.J. Ch. 297; 34 L.T. 145; 24 W.R. 967.

(xxvii.) C. A.-Discovery-Interrogatories.-Defendant is not entitled to have