Insurance :

(xv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Life Policy-Deposit.-A. effected policy for the purpose, as he informed the company, of securing a debt to plaintiff : A. deposited the policy with plaintiff, requesting him to prepare the necessary assignment, but no such assignment was ever executed: A's debt at his death exceeded the amount of the policy: the company refused to pay the policy moneys without the assent of the legal personal representative of A.: Held that there had been no equitable assignment, and that the refusal was reasonable, but that the Court had power under 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 44, to dispense with presence of his representative, and ordered payment to A. of the policy moneys with interest, but deducting the company's costs.-Crossley v. City of Glasgow Life Assurance Co., L.R. 4 Ch. D. 421; 46 L.J. Ch. 65; 36 L.T. 285; 25 W.R. 264.

(xvi.) C. A. - Marine Insurance-Freight-Valued Policy.-Charter-party

provided "Sufficient cash not exceeding £600 to be advanced against freight, if required, at ports of loading, subject to insurance and 2 commission:" captain as owner's agent accepted disbursement account submitted by charterers for cash actually advanced, commission, and premium on policy of insurance on freight made on owner's behalf: charterers effected valued policy, on behalf of themselves and persons interested, in usual terms: this policy came to knowledge of owners after they heard of the loss: Held that the owners were entitled to ratify and benefit by the policy, and that the policy covered the whole freight. -Williams v. North China Insurance Co., 35 L.T. 884.

(xvii.) H. L.-Marine Insurance-Time Policy-Warranty of Seaworthiness.Plaintiff effected a time policy on a ship then on his premises under repair; she was lost on the return voyage through perils of the sea brought about by her unseaworthiness: Held that the policy did not imply any warranty of seaworthiness, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover.-Dudgeon v. Pembroke, 25 W.R. 499.

Jamaica, Law of:

(i.) P. C.-Practice-Service of Writ.-Service upon resident superintendent of a company domiciled in England is good service on the company under Supreme Court Procedure Act, s. 19.-Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. v. Braham, 36 L.T. 220.

Jurisdiction:

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Action for Rent of Premises Abroad.-Held that the Court had jurisdiction to try an action for rent of premises situated in a foreign country, when both parties were domiciled in England.-Buenos Ayres, etc., Rail. Co. v. Northern Rail. Co. of Buenos Ayres, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 210; 46 L.J. Q.B. 224; 36 L.T. 148; 25 W.R. 367.

(ii.) C. C. R.-Territorial Waters.-A foreign ship on a voyage to a foreign port, commanded by the prisoner, a foreigner, ran into and sank a British ship within three miles of the English coast, whereby a passenger was drowned: Held by the majority of the Court (7 Judges to 6) that the Central Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to try the prisoner for the offence of manslaughter charged against him.-Regina v. Keyn, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 90 & 2 Ex. D. 63; 46 L.J. M.C. 17.

Landlord and Tenant:

(xvi.) C. P. Div.-Distress.—Where proceeds of sale under distress are insufficient, landlord may sue for balance: no action lies against landlord under 2 W. & M. sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2, for not selling.-Philpott v. Lehain, 35 L.T. 855.

(xvii.) G. B. Div.-Lease Agreement-Specific Performance.-Specific performance of an agreement for a lease will not be enforced after long

lapse of time, although plaintiff has during the whole time occupied and paid rent for the premises.-Powis v. Lord Dynevor, 35 L.T. 940. (xviii.) App. Div. Ct.--Lease—Construction-Uncertainty.—By

written

instrument not under seal, W. purported to demise messuage to B. as tenant from year to year so long as B. kept his rent paid, and as W. had power to let the premises: the rent reserved was less than two-thirds of the annual value, and was paid quarterly: Held that the instrument was void as a lease for uncertainty, and because not under seal, and that B. was merely a yearly tenant.-Wood v. Beard, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 31; 46 L.J. Ex. 100; 35 L.T. 866.

(xix.) Ex. Div.-Lease-Statute of Frauds.-A lease for term less than three years, with option to lessee to extend the term to period exceeding three years from date of demise, is within Statute of Frauds, and must there. fore be by deed under 8 & 9 Vict., c. 106.-Hand v. Hall, 46 L.J. Ex. 242. (xx.) C. A.-Mining Lease-Lessee's Covenant to pay Rent Free from Rates.Decision of Q.B. Div., see Landlord and Tenant (xiv.), p. 59, affirmed.— Duke of Devonshire v. Barrow Hematite Steel Co., 25 W.R. 469.

Lands Clauses Act:

(xiii.) C. A.-Compensation-Arbitration.-Decision of C. P. Div., see Lands Clauses Act (i.), p. 18, affirmed.--Stone v. Mayor, &c., of Yeovil, L.R. 2, C.P.D. 99; 46 L.J. C.P. 137; 36 L.T. 279; 25 W.R. 240.

(xiv.) C. A.-Compensation-Right of Tenant.-Where defendants had, under the powers of the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Act, 1872, purchased a house from its owner and given notice to the quarterly tenant thereof to quit on expiration of his tenancy: Held that the tenant had no interest under Lands Clauses Act, s. 8, so as to entitle him to compensation. Syers v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 36 L.T. 277.

(xv.) Ch. Div., V. C. M.-Fund in Court-Payment out-Costs.-Two petitions were presented by same petitioners for payment out of money paid into Court by a railway company: petitioners were entitled to part of fund under a will, whereof the trustees were parties to first petition, and to remainder under a settlement, whereof the trustees were parties to the second petition: Held that only one petition should have been presented, and that company should pay petitioners' costs of first petition, and only 5 guineas towards petitioners' costs of second petition, and 3 guineas towards costs of each set of trustees.-Re Pattison's Settled Estates, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 207.

Licensed House:-
:-

(iii.) C. P. Div.-Permitting Drunkenness-Licensing Act, 1872.-An inn. keeper cannot be convicted under 35 & 36 Vict., c. 94, s. 13, by reason of himself getting drunk on his own premises.-Warden v. Tye, L.R. 2, C.P.D. 75; 46 L.J.M.C. 111; 35 L.T. 852.

(iv.) App. Div. Ct.-Refreshment House-Sunday Trading.-A licensed refreshment-honse keeper may not sell articles for consumption off the premises on Sundays.-Duffell v. Curtis, 35 L.T. 853.

Lien :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Custom of Trade-Stoppage in Transitu.-P. Com. pany agreed to supply rails to S. & Co. in equal instalments, to be delivered free at Liverpool, payment to be partly by cash, partly by buyer's acceptances of seller's drafts, as each instalment was ready for delivery invoices of instalments were sent to S. & Co., together with warrants, which S. & Co. pledged with plaintiffs for value, and became insolvent part of the rails were lying in a railway company's goods depôt in the name of agents of S. & Co.: Held that the form of the warrants, by the custom of the iron trade, deprived the vendors of their

lien, and that the right to stop the goods in transitu was gone.-Merchant Banking Co. v. Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co., 25 W.R. 457.

Market:

""

(i.) Q. B. Div.-Shop-Exmouth Market Act, 1867.-Held that a covered skittle ground with door opening to the street, let to respondent for two days, was not his "shop within the meaning of the Exmouth Market Act, 1867, s. 20, incorporating the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict., c. 14).-Hooper v. Kenshole, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 127; 46 L.J.M.C. 160; 36 L.T. 111; 25 W.R. 368.

Master and Servant:

(vi.) C. A.-Negligence-Common Employment - Servant Lent to Contractor.Decision of C. P. Div., see Master and Servant (iii.), p. 19, affirmed.Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., 36 L.T. 49; 25 W.R. 263.

Mines :(iii.) Ch. Div., V. C. M.-Coal Mine-Wrongful Working-Statute of Limitation. In 1863 defendant inadvertently passed boundary of adjoining mine, and took therefrom plaintiff's coal in 1870 plaintiff first discovered what had been done: Held that there being no lack of diligence on part of plaintiff, a suit for an account of the coal worked, and for consequential damage was not barred by 21 Geo. I., c. 16.— Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. N. E. Rail. Co., 36 L.T. 174.

(iv.) C. A.—Reservation-Damage to Surface-Covenant Running with the Land.-S., owner in fee of land A. and land B., granted land A. to plaintiffs with reservation of right of mining on payment of damages in respect of any injury to buildings to be erected on plaintiffs' land: S. afterwards granted land B, with right to work mines thereunder and under land A, to defendants: Held, affirming decision of Ex. Div., that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for injury to their buildings caused by workings under land A. and land B.-Aspden v. Seddon, 25 W.R. 277.

Mortgage:

(xi.) Ch. Div., M. R.-Equitable Mortgage-Pledge.-A. deposited with B. certain Canada Railway Bonds as security for a debt: Held that B. was a pledgee and entitled to order for sale, but not for foreclosure.-Carter v. Wake, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 605.

(xii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Power of Sale.-In 1849 a tenant for life of settled real estate mortgaged his life interest: in 1852, B., the remainderman, mortgaged his interest to the same persons: Held that the mortgagees could, in exercise of the separate powers in the two mortgages, sell and convey to a purchaser the fee simple in possession of the land.-Re Cooper's Contract with Harlech, 46 L.J. Ch. 133; 35 L.T. 890; 25 W.R. 301. Municipal Law:

(ix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Building-Frontage Line-Penalty-Injunction.— Where plaintiff alleged that plans of a building erected by him had been submitted to the Local Board, and that the board had made no objection till the building was completed, the Court refused to grant ex parte injunction to restrain Local Board from taking proceedings to recover penalty for advancing building beyond frontage line.-Kerr v. Mayor, &c., of Preston, 25 W.R. 265.

(x.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Compulsory Powers-Prolongation-Special Act.— By a Special Act, compulsory powers limited to seven years were given to a Local Board for the purchase of land to construct waterworks and establish markets: shortly before the expiration of the time limited, the ratepayers authorised the board to take plaintiff's land for a market:

subsequently, the time having been prolonged by a second Act, providing only for constructing waterworks and gasworks, not for markets, the board gave plaintiff notice to treat, and ultimately notice of intention to summon jury to assess compensation: motion for injunction to restrain the board from proceeding refused with costs.-Bentley v. Rotherham Local Board, L.R. 4 Ch. 588.

(xi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.— Nuisance — Injunction — Notice of Action.— Where in au action against a Local Board for an alleged nuisance, asking for damages and also for an injunction, plaintiff had not for six months after commencement of the action moved for an interim injunction: Held that defendants were entitled to one month's notice of action under Public Health Act, 1875, s. 264.-Flower v. Leyton Local Board, 36 L.T. 236; 25 W.R. 423.

(xii.) App. Div. Ct.-Voting Paper.-A candidate against whom votes have been fabricated is a party aggrieved within Public Health Act, 1875, 8. 253. Verdin v. Wray, 46 L.J. M.C. 170; 35 L.T. 942; 25 W.R. 274.

Negligence:

(ii.) C. A.-Horse Mart.-A horse, led by a halter at a horse mart to show his paces, was suddenly struck by defendant's servant, and, there being no barrier, swerved and kicked, and thereby injured plaintiff: Held, reversing decision of Ex. Div., that there was no evidence on which a jury could find negligence.-Abbott v. Freeman, 35 L.T. 783.

Newfoundland, Law of:

(i.) P. C.-Telegraph - Monopoly - Bay-Three-mile Limit.—Where the Legislature gave to a telegraph company a monopoly for fifty years: Held that the laying down by another company of a cable within a well. defined bay on the coast of Newfoundland, but more than three miles from the shore, was, upon the construction of the Act constituting the monopoly, an infringement of the monopoly.-Direct United States Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Telegraph Co., 36 L.T. 265.

Nuisance :-
·-

(viii.) C. P. Div.-Sewage - Escape-Occupier's Liability. - Occupier of house is liable, even in absence of knowledge or negligence, for escape of sewage from a defective drain under his house to adjoining premises.Humphreys v. Cousins, 36 L.T. 180; 25 W.R. 371.

Partition:

(ii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Sale.-Where owner of undivided share of property claims a sale, the fact that another part owner is in occupation of part of the premises and would find difficulty in obtaining premises suitable for his business elsewhere in the neighbourhood, is not good reason to contrary within 31 & 32 Vict., c. 40, s. 4.-Roughton v. Gibson, 36 L.T. 93; 25 W.R. 269.

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Sale of Leaseholds-Infant.—Where plaintiff, en. titled to undivided moiety of leaseholds, claimed a sale: Held that the probability that the income of an infant entitled to the other moiety would be thereby diminished was not a "good reason to the contrary within 31 and 32 Vict., c. 40, s. 4.-Rowe v. Gray, 25 W.R. 250.

(iv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Sale of Leaseholds-Investment — Right of Tenant for Life.-Proceeds of leaseholds, sold by order of the Court in a partition suit, were invested and produced an income less than the yearly rents of the leaseholds: Held that a tenant for life of the leaseholds was not entitled to any allowance out of corpus of proceeds of sale to make up deficiency in her income: also that such proceeds could not be invested in East India stock.-Langmead v. Cockerton, 25 W.R. 31.

Partnership:

(iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Expiration of Term Continuation.-Where a partnership is continued after expiration of term, the assumption that it continues on the same footing as before only extends to such of the articles of the partnership as are properly applicable to the new contract.-Hogg v. Hogg, 35 L.T. 792.

Patent:

(xiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Infringement. — Plaintiffs were patentees of wooden stoppers for soda-water bottles, such stoppers being of greater specific gravity than water, and self-adjusting as the bottle was filled: Defendants took out patent for wooden stoppers of less specific gravity than water, adjusted, as the bottle filled, by means of a removeable metal clip: Held that defendants' stopper was a colourable evasion of plaintiffs' patent.-Barrett v. Vernon, 25 W.R. 343.

(xv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Novelty-Ambiguity of Claim.-Where, upon the natural construction of the claim, a patent was bad for want of novelty: Held that patentee was not entitled to refer to the description in and drawing accompanying the specification for the purpose of validating the patent.-Hinks & Son v. Safety Lighting Co., L.R. 4 Ch. D. 607; 46 L.J. Ch. 185.

Peerage:

(i.) H. L.-Shifting Clause.-Held that the validity of a patent of Peerage is not destroyed by invalidity of a single clause: also that a clause in a patent shifting a peerage on the happening of a certain event from the existing peer to another person was invalid.—The Buckhurst Peerage, L.R. 2 App. 1.

Petition of Right:

(iii.) C. A.—Crown Prerogative— Treaty. — Held (affirming decision of Q.B. Div., see Petition of Right (ii.), p. 22) that the Sovereign is not agent or trustee for her subjects, and that a petition of right will not lie to recover money received under a treaty with a foreign power on account of debts to British subjects.-Rustomjee v. The Queen, L.R. 2 Q.B. Div. 69; 46 L.J. Q.B. 238; 36 L.T. 190; 25 W.R. 333.

Poor Law:

(viii.) C. A.—Rateability-Corporation Property.—The rateable value of property occupied by a public corporation for public purposes must be ascertained with reference to the profits actually earned. --Mayor, &c., of Worcester v. Droitwich Union, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 49; 36 L.T. 186; 25 W.R. 336.

(ix.) Q. B. Div.—Rateability—Market Tolls-First Charge-By local Act appellants were authorised to regulate markets at B. and receive the whole of the tolls, subject to payment thereout to the corporation of £210 per annum as a first charge thereon: Held that appellants were not entitled to deduct such annual sum in assessment of rateable value.Brecon Markets Co. v. St. Mary's Brecon, 36 L.T. 109.

(x.) App. Div. Ct.-Rateability-Mine.-Where a mine was drowned out and yielding no profits: Held that the land was rateable at its value to a yearly tenant, and that the engine-house, machinery, and plant must be assessed at their value (if any) independent of the mine.-Tyne Coal Co. v. Overseers of Wallsend, 35 L.T. 854.

(xi.) H. L.-Rateability-Moorings-Thames.-C.

obtained permission to

lay down moorings for two derricks in the River Thames, under a resolution of the Conservators, whereby it was provided that the work was to be done to the satisfaction of the Conservators, subject to payment of rent and to removal, if required by the Conservators, under s. 91 of the