(x) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Compensation—“ Improvements."-Compensation money in Court may be expended in additions to house, part of the settled estate. Re Speers Trusts, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 262; 24 W.R. 880. (xi.) Ch. Div.—Compensation-Investment.-A petition for investment in land of £50 in Court, application to dispense with usual order of reference as to title was refused, but leave was given to apply in chambers.-Re Blomfield, 25 W.R. 37.

(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Payment out to Trustees.-Proceeds of land taken by a Railway Company were ordered to be paid out of Court to trustees for sale, the cestui que trust being an infant.-In re Gooch's Estate, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 742.

Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Acts:

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Affidavit of no settlement of interest of a married woman, Held not to be necessary. In re Standish's Settled Estates, 25 W.R. 8.

(iv.) C. A.-Lease.-The Court, affirming decision of M.R., refused, having re. gard to the construction of a will and the nature of the property, to authorise a lease dispensing with concurrence of a trustee who had a beneficial interest.-Taylor v. Taylor, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 145; L.J. 45 Ch. 848; 35 L.T. 451.

Licensed House:

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Gaming-35 & 36 Vict. c. 94.-A private friend entertained by the landlord was found playing cards for money after closing hours; conviction for being on the premises after closing hours under Licensing Act, 1872, s. 25, was quashed.-Cooper v. Osborne. 35 L.T. 347.

Lord Mayor's Court :

(iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Appeal-Jurisdiction.-Appeal from judgment upon demurrer from the Mayor's Court lies not to this Court, but to the Court of Appeal,-Le Blanche v. Reuter's Telegram Co., L.R. 1 Ex. D. 408; 25 W.R. 115.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Foreign Attachment.-Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 12 -A writ of foreign attachment in Mayor's Court, perfected by judgment signed subsequently to filing of liquidation petition by debtor, gives the creditor a security within Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 12.-Re London Cotton Mills Co., 25 W.R. 109.

Lunacy:

(v.) L J. J.-Costs.-A petition for inquiry was presented by a stranger; in pursuance of the visitor's report an inquiry was held, and jury returned verdict of sound mind; the Court, inasmuch as the inquiry was justified by the visitor's report, but being of opinion that the matter had been set on foot by petitioner's solicitor for his own profit, refused to make any order as to costs.-In re S., 25 W.R. 133.

(vi.) L. J. J.—Jurisdiction—Trustee-Vesting order - Real Estate in Ireland.— On a petition presented to L.C. and Ch. Div., this court made an order for the appointment of new trustees in the place of a lunatic trustee, and for vesting in such new trustees real estate in England and Ireland.-Re Lamotte, 25 W.R· 149.

Malicious Prosecution:

(i.) A box of defendant's was missed by him at Oxford railway station, and discovered at Reading in apparent possession of plaintiffs in a railway carriage; plaintiff travelled with defendants to London and there gave them in charge: Held that the question whether an apprehension without warrant under 24 and 25 Vict., c. 96, s. 103, is "immediate" is for the jury.-Griffiths v. Taylor, 25 W.R. 196.

Master and Servant :

(v.) Ex. Div.-Negligence-Defective Machinery.-A chain, originally badly welded and so worn as to be unfit for use, broke and injured a servant using it: Held that the master was guilty of negligence for not examining, and liable for the injury.-Murphy v. Phillips, 35 L.T. 477; 24 W.R. 647. Metropolitan Management:

(i.) App. Div. Ct.-Old Building-Additions.—18 & 19 Vict. c. 122.-Appellant taking down an external wall of an old building containing more than 216,000 cubic feet, made an addition in itself containing less than 216,000: Hela that such addition was within Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, s. 27, and that a magistrate's order to divide the old building from the new was good.-Scott v. Legg, 35 L,T. 487.

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Party Wall.-In a case of dispute as to a party wall, the Court has power under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 12, and the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, s. 85, to appoint a third surveyor where the two surveyors appointed by the parties refuse, notwithstanding a pending action to restrain obstruction of ancient lights in the party wall.-Ex parte Mc Bryde, 35 L.T. 543.

(iii.) C. A.—Paving Rate. The expenses of paving one side of a new street cannot, under the Metropolitan Management Acts, be charged exclusively on owners of houses on that side.-Vestry of Mile End Old Town v. Guardians of Whitechapel, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 680; 35 L.J. 354; 24 W.R. 719. (iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Sewer-New Street.-Respondent, with sanction of Metropolitan Board of Works, laid down sewer under road in which he owned houses, being a "new street" within Metropolitan Management Amendment Act, 1862: Held that he was not liable to contribute to cost of a sewer laid down by appellants in place of such sewer.-Fulham Board of Works v. Goodwin, L.R. 1, Ex, D. 400.

(v.) App. Div. Ct.-Sewer-Street.-Streets were laid out on appellant's land since 1862, and sewers were laid down thereunder: Held, on the construction of the Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict., c. 102), ss. 52, 53, 112, an apportionment, not providing that part of the cost should be paid out of the district sewers rate, was invalid.Sheffield v. Fulham Board of Works, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 395.

(vi.) Q. B. Div.-Valuation List.-Deviation from times fixed by Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, does not render the valuation list invalid.Regina v. Ingall, 35 L.T. 552; 25 W.R. 57.

(vii.) Q, B. Div.-Vestry-Duty-Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855.Defendants refused to collect or remove dirt from plaintiffs' workhouse, built under 22 Geo. III., c. 56: Held that defendants were liable for misfeasance, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover cost of employing persons to remove it.-Holborn Guardians V. St. Leonards' Vestry, Shoreditch, L.J. 46, Q.B. 36; 35 L.T. 400; 25 W.R. 40.

Mines :

(ii.) H. L.-Adjacent owners.-Respondent so worked his mine that rainfall and surface water flowed through fissures into appellant's mine which was adjacent to and at lower level than respondent's mine. Held that respondent was not liable for damage done by natural user of his mine.-Wilson v. Waddell, 35 L.T. 639.

(vi.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction of deed.-Bonds of a public loan were issued by railway contractors at £7 per cent. and redeemable by drawings. Held, on the construction of the mortgage deed, that the holders of bonds, which had been drawn but not redeemed were not entitled to recover interest from time of drawing till redemption.-Gordillo v. Weguelin 35 L.T. 609,

E

(vii.) C. J. B.-Equitable Mortgage-Misdescription-Rectification.-A. signed a document intending to create an equitable charge on three leasehold houses, by mistake therein described as comprised in a certain lease which in fact comprised only one of them; on the bankruptcy of A., Held that mortgagees were entitled to have the document rectified. Ex parte National Provincial Bank of England, Re Boulter, L.J. 46, Bpey. 11; 35 L.J. 673; 25 W.R, 100.

(viii.) C. A.—Mortgagee in possession—Account—Statute of Limitations.—In 1860 the mortgagee of a life interest entered into possession, in 1866 the tenant for life disappeared; in 1874 the remainderman presented a petition for account of rents from 1866 to 1874; a presumption that tenant for life died in 1866 was established. Held that petitioner was only entitled to claim 6 years arrears of rents.-Hickman v. Upsall, 25 W.R. 175.

(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Power of Sale.-The usual proviso in a power of sale as to inquiry will protect a bona fide purchaser for value even if the power is exercised after the security has been satisfied.-Dicker v. Angerstein, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 600; L.J. 45, Ch. 754; 24 W.R. 811.

(x.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Priority.-First mortgagee purchased equity of redemption of mortgaged premises from trustee in bankruptcy of mortgagor: Held, upon construction of the deed of assignment, that it was the intention of the first mortgagee to preserve the priority of his charge as against a second mortgagee, and that Toulmin v. Steere, 3 Mer. 210, did not apply.-Adams v. Angell, L.J. 46, Ch. 54; 25 W.R. 139. Municipal Law:

:

(iii.) C. A.-Alderman-Interest in Contract.-An alderman supplied goods to the Town Council, and after termination of the contract acted as alderman without re-election: Held that the contract was within Municipal Corporations Act, 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 76, s. 28, but that he did not incur a penalty, under s. 53, for so acting.-Lewis v. Carr, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 484. (iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Construction of Statute.-Appellant had built a chimney within borough of H., not in accordance with 3 & 4 Vict., c. 85, s. 6; a subsequent local Act prescribed other directions regarding chimneys: Held that the local Act had not repealed the former general Act, and that appellant had been rightly convicted thereunder.-Hill v. Hall, L.R. 1, Ex, D. 411; L.J. 45, M.C. 150.

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Construction of Statute-Private Road-Oldham Improve ment Act. 1865.-11 & 12 Vict. c. 63.-28 & 29 Vict. c. 75. - 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. The Corporation of Oldham, under their Local Act, broke up plaintiff's private road for purpose of constructing a sewer: Held on the construction of the Local Act and of the Statutes, above referred to, that plaintiff's road was a street, and that the Corporation were entitled to break it up and lay down, sewers thereunder.-Taylor v. Corporation of Oldham, 35 L.T. 696; 25 W.R. 178.

(vi.) App. Div. Ct.-Construction of Statute.-" Town "-Local Act, passed in 1822, prohibited sale of fish within the "town" of R., except in the market respondent sold fish in a thoroughfare, the site of which in 1822 was in the fields: Held that an offence against the Act had been committed.-Collier v. Worth, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 464; 35 L.T. 345.

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Rate-Railway.-By a Local Act, Commissioners of W. had power to levy improvement rate within a district less than the Municipal borough afterwards constituted, and it was thereby provided that railway premises should be rated at one quarter of net value; by the Public Health Acts, 1872 & 1875, the whole Municipal borough was formed into one sanitary district: Held that the assessment must be according to the Local Act.-London & N. W. Rail. Co. v. Overseers of Walsall, 35 L.T. 626,

(viii.) Q. B. Div.-Rates—Railway.-A partial exemption from payment of borough improvement rates conferred by a Local Act, is not affected by subsequent Public Acts unless such intention is expressed or implied therein.-Regina v. London & N. W. Rail. Co., 25 W.R. 59.

New South Wales, Law of :

(i.) P. C.-Land Act, 1861-Crown Grant.-A grant under the Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1861, may be made to an infant.-O'Shanassy v. Joachim, L.R. 1, App. 82; L.J. 45, P.C. 43; 31 L.T. 265; 24 W.R. 791.

New Zealand, Law of:

(i.) P. C.-Waste Lands Act, 1865.-Held that under the law of New Zealand a purchaser of waste lands who had entered his application before the price was raised by order of the Governor in Council, had not a vested right to have the land allotted at the lower price.-Bell v. Receiver of Land Revenue of Southland, L.R. 1, App. 707; L.J. 45, P.C. 47; 34 L.T. 629.

Nuisance:

(v.) Ex.

Div.-Conviction--Abatement-Prohibition.-On 11th March, 1871, justices made order of abatement under Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, s. 12, on E. to cease from sending forth black smoke from a chimney: on 14th March, 1874, a further order was made under the same section for discontinuance and prohibition of nuisance; E. was, on evidence regarding emission of smoke one day, convicted of disobedience to both orders: Held that one of the convictions must be quashed.-Barnes v. Edleston," L.R. 1, Ex. 67; L.J. 45, M.C. 162; 34 L.T. 497.

(vi.) App. Div. Ct.-Public Sewers.-Two separate drains of the Company discharged into public sewer liquid impregnated with muriatic acid and sulphur respectively; the combination produced sulphuretted hydrogen, the escape of which was injurious to public health: Held that a nuisance within 18 and 19 Vict., c. 121, s. 8, had been created by act of the Company, and that complaint of the same might be made by the Corporation, though they had not properly trapped and flushed the sewer as required by Local Act.-St. Helen's Chemical Co. v. Corporation of St. Helen's, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 196; L.J. 45, M.C. 150; 34 L.T. 397.

(vii.) Ch. Div. V. C.

H.-Information-Injunction-Corporation.-The Attorney-General may take proceedings in cases of public nuisance at relation of any person whether or not resident near or interested in the property where the nuisance exists, also held that public corporate bodies making no profits are liable for nuisance.-Att.-Gen. v. Mayor, &c., of Basingstoke, L.J, 45, Ch. 726; 24 W.R. 816.

Partition:

i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Sale-Affidavit-31 & 32 Vict. c. 40, s. 4,-Where plaintiff asked for and defendant consented to a sale, no defence having been delivered: Held that the statement of claim must be verified by affidavit.-Senior v. Hereford, 25 W.R. 223.

Partnership :—

(ii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Loan or partnership—" Contract in writing," 28 & 29 Vict. c. 86-Construction of contract.-A. & Co. obtained an advance from B. under an agreement which was embodied in a draft deed never executed providing that loan should be secured by covenant of members of the firm and repaid at end of partnership term, and that B. might inspect books, &c., and receive a proportion of yearly profits; the firm also obtained an advance from C. under a similar agreement which was executed: Held that B. was not protected by any "contract in writing," within Bovill's Act, and that, on the construction of the agreements, the relation of partnership, not of debtor and creditor, had been established between the firm and B. & C.-Pooley v. Driver, 25 W.R. 162.

Patent:

(vi.) H. L.-Combination.-The invention of a new and beneficial combination and application of old machinery may be protected by patent.-Harrison v. Anderston Foundry Co. L.R. 1 App. 574.

(vii.) C. A.-Foreign Patent.-English letters patent granted for a foreign invention after a foreign patent has been obtained, are to be taken as granted on the day of the date, not at the time of sealing: decision of M.R., see Patent (i.), affirmed.- Holste v. Robinson, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 9; L.J. 46, Ch. 1; 35 L.T. 457.

(viii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Infringement-Injunction.-Plaintiffs were patentees of an invention for stopping bottles of aerated waters: defendant subsequently took out a patent for an invention which attained precisely the same result by slightly different means: Held, upon the facts of the case, that the defendants' invention was a colourable imitation and infringement of plaintiffs' patent, and injunction granted.-Barrett v. Vernon, 35 L.T. 755.

(ix.) C. A.-Infringement Interim Injunction.—Where defendant had recently commenced his trade, and it appeared that plaintiff had a strong case, and that the usual practice of the Court in ordering defendant to keep account of profits, could effectually compensate plaintiff if successful: Held that an interim injunction might be granted, on plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.-Plimpton v. Spiller, 35 L.T. 656; 25 W.R. 152. (x.) C. A.—Infringement-Prior User.—Where defendant pleads prior user he cannot be ordered to furnish further particulars as to such user than arə required by Patent Law Amendment Act (15 & 16 Vict., c. 83), s. 41.— Flower v. Lloyd, L.J. 45, Ch. 746; 35 L.T. 454; 25 W.R. 17.

(xi.) H. L.-Infringement - Manufacture for Crown.-Defendants, in executing Government contract for manufacture of rifles, infringed plaintiff's patent for breach-action, and lock: Held that defendants were not exempt as agents or servants of Crown from liability in respect of the infringement. --Dixon v. London Small Arms Co., L.R. 1, App. 632; 35 L.T. 559; 25 W.R. 142.

(xii.) Q. B. Div.-Licence-Ambiguity-Evidence of Intention.-Plaintiff by deed granted to defendant license to use a patent for breach-loading rifles, on payment of a royalty for every rifle manufactured under the license; at the time of the execution of the deed the exemption of the Crown from royalties was supposed to extend to Government Contractors, but, on decision of Dixon v. London Snall Arms Co., plaintiff sought to recover royalties for rifles manufactured for the Government; the jury found that such was not defendant's intention to the knowledge of plaintiff: Held that on the construction of the deed there was a latent ambiguity admitting extrinsic evidence of intention, and that plaintiff could not recover.-Roden v. London Small Arms Co, 35 L.T. 505.

(xiii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Specification.-Omission of part of provisional from final specification, is notice of abandonment of such part which any one is at liberty to work and obtain patent for.-Stones v. Todd, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 58; L.J. 46, Ch. 32; 35 L.T. 660; 25 W.R. 38.

Poor Law:
:-

(iii.) Q. B. Div.-Lunatic-Maintenance.-A retrospective order may be made for payment of maintenance of a pauper lunatic for more than one year.— Finch v. Guardians of York Union, L R. 2, Q.B.D. 15; 35 L.T. 708; 25 W.R. 42.

(iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Ra'eability-Lead Mine.--37 & 38 Vict. c. 54.-A Company held under a lease comprising land and works in Union A., and a mine and works in Union B.: the ore being crushed and washed was taken by a tramway to a smelting-house, half a mile distant in Union A., and held under the same lease: Held that all the crushing, washing, and smelting