works were within the Rating Act, 1874, s. 7, and that a deduction must be made in respect of gross dues in respect of premises in Union A., to obtain rateable value of mine in Union B.-Snailbeach Mine Co. v. Forden Guardians, 35 L.T. 514.

(v.) C. A.-Rateability-Moorings.-Held that the grantees of certain permanent moorings constructed and used by them subject to regulations of the Thames Conservancy, had exclusive occupation thereof, and were liable to pay rates.-Cory v. Bristow, L.J. 45, M.C. 145; 33 L.T. 624.

(vi.) Q. B.

Div.-Rateability-Railway.-Appellants' line ran through a district in which there were other competing lines; their gains in the parish of I. part of the district did not cover expenses: Held that appellants were rightly rated on basis of enhanced value by traffic on other parts of the line.-London and N. R. Rail. Co. v. Churchwardens of Irthlingboro', 35 L.T. 327.

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Rateability-Sporting Rights-Reservation-37 & 38 Vict., c. 54.-A. granted lease of land, excepting all manner of game, &c., with liberty of hunting, fowling, and fishing during the term: Held that the sporting rights were severed from the occupation, and rateable.-Rogers v. St. German's Union, 35 L.T. 332.

Practice

(lxxii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Account.-án accounting party cannot refuse to be sworn on ground of insufficient notice of points of examination, but he may on such ground refuse to answer.-Meyrick v. James, L.J. 46, Ch. 38.

(lxxiii.) C. A. -Appeal-Divorce Suit.-Appeal from order of a single judge in a divorce suit refusing new trial lies to the Full Divisional Court whose decision is final.-Westhead v. Westhead and Gordon, 25 W.R. 35.

(lxxiv.) C. A.-Appeal-Evidence-Costs-Ord. 58, r. 12.-The Court of Appeal in this case acted on its own view of conflicting evidence, and reversed the decision of the Court below on a question of fact; fresh evidence to correct this apprehension, arising from double signification of a word, is admissible at any stage of the proceedings: costs of transcribing and printing, but not of taking, shorthand notes of evidence in Court below allowed.-Bigsby v. Dickinson, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 24; 35 L.T. 679; 25 W.R. 89, 122.

(lxxv.) C. A.—Appeal-Time.-Where several claims are joined in one application, an appeal from a partial refusal must be brought within 21 days from the refusal, not from the perfecting of the order. -Trail v. Jackson, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 7; L.J. 46, Ch. 16; 25 W.R. 36.

(lxxvi.) C. A.—Appeal-Time-Ord. 58, rr. 8, 9, 15.-An appeal must be set down before day named for hearing in the notice of appeal: an appeal from a winding-up order must be brought within three weeks of the order. -Re National Funds Assurance Co., 35 L.T. 689; 25 W.R. 151, 158. Ixxvii.) C. A.--Appeal-Ord. 58, r. 15.-Special leave to appeal after time expired will not be granted on ex parte application.—Evennett v. Lawrence, 25 W.R. 107

(lxxviii.) C. P. Div.-Appeal from Chambers-Time.-Ord. 54, r. 6.-This rule is peremptory, so that there is no appeal from chambers after eight days from decision, even though no Court has been sitting, unless the time is larged under Ord. 57, r. 6.-Crom v. Samuel, L.R. 2, C.P.D. 21; L.J. 46, C.P. 1; 35 L.T. 423; 25 W.R. 45.

(lxxix.) C. A.-Appeal from Chambers-Time.-Ord. 54, r. 6.-The motion by way of appeal must be made within eight days of decision appealed from. For v. Walas, 35 L. T. 690.

(lxxx.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal from Justices—Jurisdiction.—An application under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, s. 5, for rule to Justice to state case is properly made to Q. B. Div., not to App. Div. Ct.—Ex parte Longbottom, L.J. 45, M.C. 163.

(lxxxi.) Q. B. Div.-Appeal from Justices-Time.-The time for giving notice of appeal under Public Health Act, 1875, s. 269 from order of justices runs from date of order, not of service of order.-Regina v. St. Alban's Sanitary Authority, 35 L.T. 362.

(lxxxii.) C. P. Div.-Attachment-Ord. 45, r. 2.-A notice to treat under Lands Clauses Act, 1845, is not a "debt owing or accruing" which can be attached.-Richardson v. Elmit, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 9.

(lxxxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Attachment-Contempt of Court.-Any conduct which renders it impossible for litigation to be carried on properly and fairly is in contempt of the Court before which such litigation is pending. -Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, Ex parte Edwards, 25 W.R. 752. (lxxxiv.) C. A.-Attachment-Costs.-Held that a person committed for contempt and ordered to be released on payment of costs is not in prison for debt within Debtor's Act, 1869, nor entitled to be released until he has paid such costs.-Re M., L.J. 46 Ch. 24.

(lxxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Charging order-1 & 2 Vict. c. 119, s. 14.— Stock of a company standing in trustee's name is not affected by charg ing order in respect of trustee's own debt.-Re Blakely Ordnance Co. 35 L.T. 617; 25 W.R. 111.

(lxxxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.—Consent order-Counsel.—Held that defendant having understood an order made in his presence, by consent of his counsel, the order would not be set aside.-Holt v. Jesse, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 177; 24 W.R. 879.

(lxxxvii.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Application after Trial — Ord. 55.—Held affirming decision of Ex.Div. (35 L.T. 671) that no order as to costs can be made on application made after the trial either to court or in chambers, even on fresh facts discovered since the trial except to Divisional Court.— Baker v. Oakes, 25 W.R. 220.

(lxxxviii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Default of Pleading.—Ord. 29, r. 2, as to entering final judgment on default of pleading does not apply to Admiralty actions in rem.-The Sfactoria, 35 L.T. 431; 25 W.R. 62.

(lxxxix.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Default of pleading.-On application for dismissal for want of prosecution, under Ord. 19, r. 1, the court will be guided by the circumstances of the case.-Higginbotham v. Aynsley, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 288; 24 W.R. 782.

(xc.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Discontinuance.-Ord. 23.-Form of writ of fi. fa. for recovery of defendant's costs where plaintiff has given notice of discontinuance.-Bolton v. Bolton, L.R. 3, Ch.D. 276; 35 L.T. 358; 24 W.R. 663.

(xci.) Ch Div. V. C. H.-Discovery.-Plaintiff having ascertained that defendants had shipped goods bearing trade marks imitated from those of plaintiff, brought action against defendants for discovery of names of the consignors: demurrer on the ground that the defendants had not sufficient interest, but were in the position of mere witnesses in intended litigation against the consignors, was overruled.—Orr v. Diaper, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 92; L.J. 46, Ch. 41; 35 L.T. 468; 25 W.R. 23.

(xcii.) Ex. Div.-Discovery-Attachment.--Ord. 31, r. 20, as to attachment for disobedience of order for discovery does not apply to order for statement of names of partners under Ord. 16, r. 10, or for account under Ord. 15, r. 1.-Pike v. Keene, 35 L,T. 311; 24 W.R. 322.

(xciii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Discovery—Interrogatories—Specific performance. -In action for specific performance of agreement for sale it was statel

that plaintiffs, the purchasers, were trustees. Held that interrogatories delivered by defendant as to the terms and nature of the trust must be struck out as irrelevant.-Mansfield v. Childerhouse, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 82; L.J. 46, Ch. 30; 35 L.T. 590; 25 W.R. 68.

(xciv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H-Discovery-Reference.-Where a reference is directed application for discovery necessary for the purpose of the reference must be made to the judge, not to the official referee.-kowcliffe v. Leigh, L.J. 46, Ch. 60; 25 W.R. 57.

(xcv.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Hearing in Camera.—The Court has no power to try any case in private, even by consent, except cases relating to lunatics or Wards of Court, and cases in which the object would be defeated by public trial, and cases within Divorce Act (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 22.-Nagle Gilman v. Christopher, L.J. 46, Ch. 60.

(xcvi.) Ch. Div. M. R—Interlocutory Application— Costs.— Costs of applications ordered to stand over on remand until trial, follow event of trial without special directions.-Hodges v. Hodges, 25 W.R. 162.

(xcvii.) Ch. Div. M. R-Joinder of Causes of Action-Ord. 17.-A foreclosure action is not an action for recovery of land within Ord. 17, r. 2.-Tawell v. Slate Co., L.R. 3, Ch. D. 629.

(xcviii.) C. P. Div.-Leave to sign Judgment.-Upon an application under Ord. 14, r. 3, the Court has discretion to allow plaintiff to file affidavit in reply to defendant's affidavit.-Davis v. Spence, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 719. (xcix.) C. P. D.-Leave to Sign Judgment—Affidavit in Reply.—Ord. 14, r. 3. -Where defendant shows cause by affidavit against an application for leave to enter final judgment, leave may be given to plaintiff to file aflidavit in reply.-Davis v. Spence, 25 W.R. 229.

(c.) C. A.-New Trial-Costs-Shorthand Notes.- Plaintiff having obtained a verdict on two out of three issues, defendants on new trial obtained an entire verdict: Held that defendants were entitled under the circumstances to recover costs of first trial relating to issue found in their favour: the master having declined to allow costs of shorthand notes, the Court refused to interfere with his discretion.-Marcus v. General Steam Navig. Co., 35 L.T. 353.

(ci.) Q B. Div.-New Trial-Evidence.-A new trial will not be granted for premature admission of evideuce which becomes admissible in the course of the trial.-Faund v. Wallace, 35 L.T. 361.

(cii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parties-Ord. 16, r. 2.-Alteration of parties will not be ordered on ex parte application.-Tildesley v. Harper, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 277.

(ciii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parties--Counter-claim-Ord. 16, rr. 17, 18.-A. motion by a person not originally a party, but brought before the Court by counter-claim, to have the counter-claim excluded as against him, was under the circumstances of the case dismissed with costs.-Dear v. Sworder, 25 W.R. 124.

(civ.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Parties-Addition of representation of Heir-at-law and Next-of-kin.—Ord. 16, r. 9a.-In a case where it was extremely difficult to ascertain the heir-at-law and next-of-kin of testator, the Court appointed persons to represent such heir-at-law and next-of-kin before determining the construction of the will.-Re Peppitt's Estate, 25 W.R.

211.

(cv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Pleading.--Ord. 19, r. 17.-The rule that every allegation of fact not specifically or by necessary implication denied will be strictly enforced.-Thorp v. Holdsworth, L.R. 3 Ch.D. 637; 45 L.J.Ch. 406.

(evi.) Ch Div. V. C. M.-Pleading-Amendment.-One of several defendants who had put in a joint statement of defence, subsequently changed his

solicitor, applied for leave to amend the joint statement or deliver a fresh separate statement; the new solicitor's affidavit merely stated that H. had additional grounds of defence, but not the nature of the proposed amendments; leave was given accordingly.-Cargill v. Bower, L.R. 4, Ch.D. 78; 35 L.T. 621; 25 W.R. 221.

(cvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Pleading-Counter-claim.-Defendant obtained leave to file counter-claim, but through negligence of his solicitor, none was delivered, and a decree was made in his absence. Defendant applied more than six months afterwards, having changed his solicitor, for leave to file counter-claim: leave refused on ground of delay.-Wilkins v. Bedford, 35 L.T. 622.

(cviii.) Q. B. Div. Pleading -Demurrer.-The Statute of Limitations must now be pleaded and cannot be raised by demurrer.-Wakelee v. Davis, 25 W.R. 60.

(cix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Pleading-Demurrer.-Where defendant obtains extension of time for delivery of defence, he may demur within the extended time.-Hodges v. Hodges, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 112; L.J. 45, Ch. 750; 24 W.R. 293.

(cx.) C. A.-Pleading-Demurrer.-A. agreed to sell property settled as he and his wife should jointly appoint, and in default of appointment in trust for wife for life, with remainder for A. in fee; the purchase money having been invested in consols in the name of the trustees of the settlement, A. died suddenly before completion; Demurrer of purchaser to statement of claim of widow asking for declaration whether she could be compelled to concur and whether purchaser was entitled to compensation out of purchase money, overruled. Demurrer of widow to statement of claim of purchaser for specific performance subject to widow's interest and compensation in respect of such interest ordered to stand to hearing of action.-Cox v. Barker, Barker v. Cox, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 360; L.J. 46 Ch. 62.

(cxi.) C. A.- Pleading—Ord. 19, r. 23.-Where a party relies on the illegality or insufliciency of a contract under Statute of Frauds or otherwise he must expressly plead such illegality or insufficiency.—Clarke v. Callow, L.J. 46, Q.B. 53.

(exii.) C. A.-Pleading-Counter-claim-Ord. 19, r. 3.-A counter-claim on facts arising after action brought, not expressly so pleaded, may be struck out: where there is no real question between the parties the Court will determine their rights on interlocutory application.-Ellis v. Munson, 35 L.T. 585.

(exiii.) C. A.-Pleading-Reply-Plaintiff may in his reply, instead of by amending statement of claim, allege new facts to support plea by way of confession and avoidance of defence, and may thereby traverse and plead to each defence set up.-Hall v. Eve, 35 L.T. 735; 25 W.R. 177. (exiv.) Q B. Div.- Pleading-Striking out-Pauper Lunatic.-An action was brought on a justice's order under 17 Vict. c. 97, s. 96, on guardians for maintenance of a pauper lunatic: the Court refused to strike out the guardians' statement of defence, on the ground that the order was final, but held that the proper mode of objecting to the defence was by demurrer.-Finch v. Guardians of York Union, 35 L.T. 360.

(cxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Pleading-Reply-Striking out.-In an action where the only question raised by statements of claim and defence was whether or not certain land was included in an agreement, plaint by his reply joined issue generally on the statement of defence, and the plea iel fresh matter: Held that such new matter must be struck out as irrelevant to the issue.--London and St. Catharine Docks Co. v. Metropolitan úri. Co., 35 L.T. 733.

(exvi.) C. A.-"leading-Striking out. The whole of a statement of claim of which parts are unintelligible, irrelevant, or offensive, may be struck out under Ord, 16, r. 1.—Cashin v. Craddock, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 376; 35 L.T. 452; 25 W.R. 5.

(cxvii) P. D. & A. Div.-Pleading-Striking Out-Ord. 19, r. 12.-Where statement of claim in probate action does not deny defendant's interest the Court will not strike out statement of "defence for not alleging defendant's interest.-Medcalf v. James, 25 W.R. 63.

(exviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Receiver.-Where an executor's impending bankruptcy threatened loss to the estate, appointed a receiver before service of writ. Re H.'s estate, L.R. 1 Ch. D. 276; L.J. 45, Ch. 749; 24 W.R. 317. (exvix.) Ex. Div.-Reference.-A motion to set aside report of official referee must be supported by affidavit.-Stubbs v. Boyle, 25 W.R. 184. (cxx.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Reference -Account.-The Court will refer any matter of complicated account, or requiring scientific investigation, of a special or official referee.- Re Leigh, L.R. 3, Ch.D. 292; 46 L.J., Ch. 60; 24 W.R. 782.

(exxi.) C. P. Div.-Referee. -The direction in Ord. 36, r. 30, that a referee shall sit de die in diem is directory, and that a person who has acquiesced at the time in non-compliance therewith, cannot move to set aside award on that ground; an application to set aside an award may be made without notice to the other side.-Robinson v. Robinson, 35 L.T. 337; 24 W.R. 675.

(cxxii.)--C. A. -Reference-Old Practice.-Verdict, subject to reference, was taken before, but award made after, Judicature Acts came into operation: Held that motion for judgment was not necessary.-Lloyd v. Lewis, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 7; 35 L.T. 539; 24 W.R. 102.

(cxxiii.) -Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Service out of Jurisdiction, Ord. 11, 22, 1, 3.— Defendant not having been served with statement of claim moved to discharge order for service out of jurisdiction on ground that neither indorsement of writ nor affidavit in support of the application showed sufficient cause: Held that Court might consider allegations of statement of claim, and refused to discharge order.-Great Australian Gold Mining Company v. Martin.---35 L.T. 703.

(cxxiv.)-C. P. Div.-Service out of jurisdiction.-Leave cannot be given under Ord. 11, in an action for damages for slander depreciating property to serve writ out of jurisdiction.-Casey v. Arnott, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 24; L.J. 45 C.P. 3; 35 L.J. 424; 25 W.R. 46.

(cxxv.)-Ch. Div. V. C. H-Service ont of jurisdiction.

Ord. 11 v. 1.

Where leave is given to issue writ for service out of jurisdiction the words "by leave of the Court or a judge," may be omitted from the writ and notice, so as to enable plaintiff to proceed without such leave in default of appearance.-Bacon v. Turner, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 275; 34 L.T. 647; 24 W.R. 637.

(cxxvi.) Ch. Diy. V. C. M.-Service-Substitution.-Substitution of notice for service of absconding defendant out of jurisdiction, ordered by advertisement in London Gazette and Times, and a newspaper the subject of the action.-Hartley v. Dilke, 35 L.T. 706.

(cxxvii.) P. D. & A. D.-Service Substitution

Probate Action.-Where husband and wife were both defendants, and husband could not be found, the Court ordered substituted service by advertisement.—Whitely v. Honeywell, 35 L.T, 517; 24 W.R. 851.

(cxxviii.) C. Div. V. C. M.-Special Case.-Where a special case was stated as to the effect of an assignment of a contingent interest: Held that the assignment was of a mere possibility, and that no order ought to be made. Bright v. Tyndall, 25 W.R. 109.