as principal and surety, and that the giving time to H. did not discharge R.-Oakley v. Pasheller (4 Cl. & F. 207) distinguished.-Swire v. Redman, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 536; 24 W.R. 1069.

Probate:

(i.) P. D. & A. Div.-Attestation.-Testatrix after making her will signed a paper giving additional legacies; the paper was pinned to the original will, and was signed on the back by two witnesses. Held that the paper was admissible to probate. -In the goods of Braddock, 24 W.R. 1017.

(ii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Domicile-24 & 25 Vict., c. 114, s. 2.-An Italian having been naturalized in England made his will according to English Law, but afterwards he went back to Italy and died domiciled there. Held that the will must be admitted to probate.-In the goods of Gally, 24 W.R. 1018.

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Executor-Costs.-Costs of litigation as to probate of a will were allowed to the executors in an administration suit.-Re Harrison, Fulton v. Andrew, 24 W.R. 979.

(iv.) P. D. & A. Div.—Incorporation-English and American wills.—Testator executed will with 9 codicils disposing of property in America, and subsequently a will with 3 codicils disposing of property in England; in latter will he desired that it should be treated as a separate testamentary document, but if not, that it should be regarded as a codicil to American will; Court granted probate of English will and codicils, without incorporating the American will and codicils, but directed affidavit of execution thereof to be filed and a note of filing to be appended to probate. - In the goods of Astor, L.R. 1 P.D. 150; 45 L.J. P.D. & A. 78; 34 L.T. 824; 24 W.R. 539.

(v.) P. D. & A. Div.-Incorporation—Revocation by marriage.—Testator in a will, made after his marriage, directed that if his wife should die without issue a will made before his marriage should be revived; on his death leaving widow and infant children: Held that first will must be incorporated in probate of the later will.-In goods of Bangham, 45 L.J.P.D. & A. 80; 24 W.R. 712.

(vi.) C. A.-Jurisdiction.—Testator gave all his property to his wife, and appointed her executrix; the heir-at-law and sole next-of-kin filed a bill to have her declared a trustee for him on the ground of fraud: Held that the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Probate. -Meluish v. Milton, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 27; 35 L.T, 82; 24 W.R. 892.

(vii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Special circumstances.-20 and 21 Vic., c. 77, s. 73.— Where the insolvency of an intestate's estate was disputed, and the sole next-of-kin was alleged to be of low position and bad character: Held that there were "special circumstances," and probate granted to a creditor.-In the goods of Ferrands, 24 W.R. 1018.

(viii.) P. D. A. Div.-Revocation-Revival.--Testator, on marriage, executed codicil, confirming previous will; on his wife's death he destroyed the codicil: Held that the destruction was not animo revocandi, and granted probate of will and codicil.-James v. Shrimpton, 45 L.J.P.D & A. 85; 24 W.R, 740.

Railway :

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Carrier-Felony of Servant.-Valuable pictures, not declared, were given to defendants for carriage, and were stolen by a man who falsely represented himself to defendants' clerk as in the employ of defendants, and obtained from him a pass and delivery sheet. Held that the defendants were not liable.-Way v. Great Eastern Railway Company, 35 LT. 253.

(ii.) C. A.-Carriers-Goods carried beyond destination.- Pictures above the value of £10 were, without notice by owner, as required by the Carriers'

Act, s. 1, carried in a train by which the owner travelled; through
negligence of defendants' servants the pictures were carried beyond
their destination and were then injured: Held that defendants continued
to hold the pictures as carriers and were protected by the Act.—Morritt
▼. North Eastern Railway Co., 34 L.T. 940; 24 W.R. 386.

(iii.) App. Div. Ct.-Carriers-Passenger.-Plaintiff took a ticket from B. to
L., but owing to floods the train was delayed between B. and D., and
failed to catch corresponding train from D. to L.; the station master
at D. told plaintiff that there were no more trains that night, but that the
usual train would run next day, by that time the line between D. and L.
became impassable: Held that the contract was that the company would
use due diligence to catch the corresponding train at D., and as the
failure to do so was unavoidable, they were not bound to forward plaintiff
by special train, nor were liable in damages.-Fitzgerald ▼. Midland Rail.
Co., 34 L.T. 771.

(iv.) Ex. Div.-Carriers-Passengers' luggage.-S. 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, (17 & 18 Vict., c. 31) is incorporated in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, (31 & 32 Vict., c. 119) and therefore applies to luggage conveyed by railway companies on board steam vessels.-Cohen v. S. Eastern Rail. Co., L.R. 1, Ex. D. 217; 45 L.J. Ex. 298; 35 L.T. 213; 24 W.R. 522.

(v.) H. L-Carriers-Services.-The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company were empowered by their Special Act, 22 & 23 Vict., c. 110, s. 66, to make a further charge beyond the maximum rate thereby fixed with respect to conveyance of coal, for services incidental to the business of a carrier. Held that neither the taking of wagons from private siding and attaching them to trains of Company, nor permission to stack coals on land of company, were services within the exception. Also, under s. 73, that a restriction requiring at least 15 wagons at a time to be made up, was reasonable. Also, that award by arbitrator to colliery owner, of damages for loss of customers through restriction was right.-Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company v. Gidlow, L.R. 7, H.L. 518; 45 L.J. Ex. 625; 24 W.R. 144.

(vi.) C. P. Div.-Deposit of luggage-On depositing luggage at cloak room of railway station, plaintiff received a ticket at foot of which was printed "see back;" on the back were conditions restricting liability of the company; plaintiff neither had read nor knew of conditions. Held that the company were liable for the loss of the luggage.-Parker v. S. E. Rail. Co., L.R. 1, C.P.D. 618; 45 L.J. C.P. 515; 34 L.T. 654.

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Deposit of luggage.-On depositing luggage at the cloakroom of a railway station, plaintiff received a ticket at the foot of which was printed "subject to the conditions on the other side;" on the back were conditions exempting the company from responsibility for goods above a certain value; plaintiff neither had read nor knew of the conditions: Held that the luggage was deposited subject to the conditions, and that the company were protected thereby.-Harris v. Great Western Railway Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 515; 45 L.J. Q.B. 729; 34 L.T. 647.

(viii.) Ex. Div.-Negligence.-Owing to the length of a train, some of the carriages overshot the platform of a station, and plaintiff, a passenger, in alighting beyond the platform was injured; plaintiff and several passengers did not hear any caution to keep their seats, but there was evideuce that such caution was given. Held upon the facts that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the company's servants.-Rose v. North Eastern Railway Company, 34 L.T. 761.

(ix.) Q. B. Div. -Negligence.-An administratrix sued first under Lord Campbell's Act and afterwards for damage to personal estate of the deceased: Held, that judgment under the first action were no bar to the second, and that findings of the jury in the first action were no estoppel

to defence in the second.-Leggott v. Great Northern Rail. Co., L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 559; 45 L.J.Q.B. 557; 24 W.R. 784.

(x.) Q. B. Div—Negligence.—Where a passenger, instead of crossing the line by a bridge, walked across the rails and was injured by falling into an excavation, there being no evidence of any incitation on the part of the Company's servants: Held that the Company were not liable for negligence.-Wilby v. Midland Rail. Co., 35 L.T. 244.

(xi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Regulation of Railways Act, 1842.-When the report of a Board of Trade inspector states that the opening of a railway would be dangerous by reason of incompleteness of works, the Board of Trade has absolute jurisdiction to postpone such opening; incompleteness includes imperfection or defect generally.-Attorney General v. Great Western Rail. Co. 35 L.T. 302; 24 W.R. 1015.

(xii.) H.L.-Running powers.-Appellants, in consideration of a loan, agreed to grant to respondents running powers over their line on certain specified terms; differences under the agreement to be settled by arbitration under Railway Cos.' (Arbitration) Act, 1859. No limit of time was mentioned nor any power of revocation given to either party: Held (affirming decision of L. J. J.) that the agreement was not terminable by notice.Llanelly Railway and Dock Co. v. London and North-Western Railway Co., 45 L.J. Ch. 539; 23 W.R. 927.

Revenue:

(i.) C. A.-Inhabited house duty.-Held that 7 blocks of buildings each consisting of distinct sets of rooms with separate door to every set, opening on common staircase, some let as offices and business and residential chambers, and some being unlet, were chargeable for inhabited house duty under rule 6, not under rule 14, of statute 48, Geo. III, c. 55, as seven separate dwelling houses.-Attorney General v. Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association. 35 L.T. 224; 24 W.R, 996.

(ii.) Ex. Div.-Income tax.-Traders are not entitled, in making income tax returns, to deduct from profits for depreciation of buildings, plant or machinery.-Forder v. Handyside, L.R. 1 Ex.D. 333; 35 L.T. 62; 24 W.R. 764.

(iii.) Ex. Div.-Income Tax.-The proper mode of assessment of the net profits of a fire insurance company under 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, is to take the balance of total receipts over the total expenditure of a given year; any wrong done by losses in respect of premiums on which income tax has been assessed and paid, must be taken into account in the following year. -Imperial Fire Insurance Company v. Wilson, 35 L.T. 271.

(iv.) Ex Div.-Income Tax.-Held that two companies, the control of whose business was exercised by directors in London, were rightly assessed in respect of the whole of the gains of their businesses carried on in Italy and India respectively.-Cesena Sulphur Company v. Nicholson-Calcutta Jute Mills Company v. Nicholson, 35 L.T. 275.

Scotland, Law of :—

(i.) H. L.-Harbour-Beaching fishing boats-Local Act.-The fishermen of a sea village had been from time immemorial accustomed to beach their boats in winter on land adjoining the harbour; the landowner obtained a local Act, authorising him to levy a toll. Held that he must not exclude the fishermen without substituting another beaching ground; a local Aet must be judicially noticed.-Aiton v. Stephen, L.R. 1 App. 456.

(ii.) H. L.-Matrimonial Banns.-Marriages in "facie ecclesia" must be preceded by proclamation of banns: in a "quoad sacra parish the proclamation must be in the church of such parish; the ministers and elders of such parish enjoy the status, etc., of ministers and elders of the Church of Scotland.-Hutton v. Harper, L.R, 1, App. 464.

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-After-acquired Property.-Held that a covenant to settle after-acquired property of the wife included a contingent reversionary interest which could not fall into possession until both the husband and wife were dead without issue.-Cornmell v. Keith, 45 L.J. Ch. 689; 35 L.T. 29; 24 W.R. 633.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-After-acquired Property.-A post-nuptial settlement contained a covenant to settle after-acquired property of wife.

Held that an interest to which the wife was at the date of the settlement contingently entitled, and which fell into possession after her death, was included. -Agar v. George, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 706; 31 L.T. 487; 24 W.R. 696.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-After-acquired Property.-A marriage settlement contained a covenant to settle after-acquired property. Held that a vested reversionary interest to which the wife was entitled at the date of the settlement, and which fell into possession after her death, was not included. Re Jones' Will.-L.R. 2, Ch. D., 362; 45 L.J. Ch. 428; 35 L.T. 25; 24 W.R. 697.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Confirmation.-By marriage settlement it was provided that certain reversionary interests of the infant wife should be conveyed to the trustees; after the husband's death, in administration suit relating to property settled by the husband, a decree was made with consent of the widow for payment thereof to the trustees; the widow having married again, an order was made on petition by the second husband and his wife that her funds might be paid to account of the settlement made ́ on the first marriage. Held that the settlement had been successively confirmed by the widow and the second husband.-White v. Cox, L R. 2, Ch. D, 387; 45 L.J. Ch. 685; 34 L.T. 418.

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-" Payable."-Trust, subject to life interests of parents, for children, being sons at 21, and being daughters at 21 or marriage, "the issue of any child whose parent should die before his or her share should become payable" to take parent's share: Held that as daughter's shares vested on marriage, "payable" could not mean vested, but must refer to period of distribution.-Day v. Ratcliffe, 24 W.R. 961. (vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction-Power of sale.-An ordinary power of sale and exchange in a settlement of an individual moiety of real property authorises a partition.-Re Frith and Osborne, 85 L.T. 146; 24 W.R. 1061.

(vii.) H. L.-Divorce-Election.-A lady having an absolute reversionary interest under parents' marriage settlement, married while an infant; on coming of age a post-nuptial settlement of the reversionary interest, and of property of her husband and father was executed; the marriage was afterwards dissolved: Held that she was put to her election to take under or against the settlement.-Codrington v. Codrington, 45 L.J.Ch. 660; 34 L.T. 221; 24 W.R. 648.

(viii.) Ch. Div M. R-Divorce-Husband's interest-Re-marriage.-A fund was settled in trust for wife if she should survive her husband, but if she should die in his lifetime, in trust for him for life or till re-marriage, and upon his decease or marriage, in trust for wife's next-of-kin; the marriage was dissolved; both parties married again, and the wife died: Held that the next-of-kin of the wife at her death were entitled, and that husband's interest was destroyed by his second marriage in his wife's lifetime.-Re Matthew's trusts, 24 W.R. 960.

(ix.) C. A.-Divorce-Husband's interest.—Where decree for divorce had been made on petition of wife. Held that husband did not forfeit his life interest under his marriage settlement in his wife's property, - Burton v. Sturgeon, L,R. 2 Ch.D. 318; 45 L.J.Ch. 633; 34 L.T, 706; 24 W.R. 772.

C

(x.) P. D. A. Div.-Divorce-Variation.-Held that Court will not review order for variation of settlement on ground of matters arising subsequently, also that where a provision is ordered to be paid to wife out of funds settled by her, the restriction, "dum casta et sola vixerit," will not be imposed.-Gladstone v. Gladstone, 45 L.J.P.D. & A. 82; 24 W.R. 739. (xi.) P. D. & A.-Divorce-Variation.-Held that under the circumstances the marriage of the respondent and co-respondent after a divorce obtained by the petitioner did not preclude the Court from granting an application by the petitioner for variation of his marriage settlement.-Benyon v. Benyon and O'Callaghan, 24 W.R. 950.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Mortgage-Arrears of interest.-A. was under a settlement owner in fee of land subject to a mortgage and to a contingent charge created by the settlement in favour of B., the interest fell into arrear, and on a sale by the mortgagees they retained a sum in respect of the arrears. Held that the trustees of the settlement were entitled to claim against the estate of A. in respect of the sum retained by the mortgagees.-Butcher v. Simmonds, 35 L.T. 304; 24 W.R. 781.

(xiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Power-Improvements. By settlement trustees were directed to apply three-fourths of the income of settled real estates as capital which it was thereby provided should be invested in purchase of real estate to be held on the same trusts: Held, the income being insufficient, that trustees might apply part of the capital to permanent improvements, e.g., drainage and new farm buildings.Leslie's Trusts, Re, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 185; 45 L.J. Ch. 668; 34 L.T. 239; 24 W.R. 546.

(xiv.) Ch. Div. M. R-Satisfaction.-By marriage settlement, in 1856, a fund
was settled, subject to a power of appointment by deed or will given to
C. W., in trust for C. W. for life to her separate use, and after her death
in the event, which happened, of her surviving her husband, for herself
absolutely; C. W. during coverture covenanted that her heirs, executors,
or administrators, should pay £1,000 to the trustees of her daughter's
marriage settlement to be held by them upon trusts therein mentioned;
she subsequently by her will gave £1,000 upon trusts substantially
similar. Held that the covenant of C. W. created a debt binding the
property comprised in the settlement of 1856, also that the legacy was n
satisfaction of the covenant, also that savings made by C. W. out of her
separate property during coverture passed by the will.—Mayd v. Field,
45 L.J.Ch. 699; 34 L.T. 614; 24 W.R. 660.

(xiv) C.A.-Suit to set aside Mortgage.-Held that a bill by a tenant for life and
infant remainderman to set aside a mortgage of the settled property on
ground of fraud and for execution of the trusts, must, on failure of the
charges of fraud, be dismissed, with liberty for the tenant for life to apply
at Chambers for account of income.-Wade v. Broadhurst, 34 L.T. 924.
(xv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.- Voluntary Settlement-Confirmation by will.-A.
transferred a sum of consols to trustees upon trust to hold them, together
with certain bank shares, mortgage debts, and furniture for herself for
life with remainders over; the bank shares were never transferred, and
the settlor received herself moneys payable in respect of some of the
mortgages: A. by her will confirmed the settlement. Held that the
settlement was of itself operative as regards the consols, furniture, and
mortgage moneys received by the trustees, and by virtue of the confirmation
by will, as regards the bank shares, but not as to the mortgage debts
received by the settlor.-Bizzey v. Flight, 24 W.R. 957.

(xvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Will-Re-building house.-A. was under a will
tenant for life of real estate with remainder to his infant son in tail; he
was also under a deed entitled to life interest in a fuud with remainder
to the same son on attaining 21: Held that a sum might be allowed ont
of the fund, to be repaid by accumulations of the same fund, for the
purpose of re-building the mansion house on the real estate.-Donaldson
v. Donaldson, 34 L.T. 900; 24 W.R. 1037.