Queen v. Cumberlege, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 366; 46 L.J.M.C. 214; 36 L.T. 700; 25 W.R. 605.

Mines:

(v.) C. P. Div.--Special Rules-35 & 36 Vict., c. 76.-By the special rules of a mine made under the Mines Regulation Act, 1872, "persons employed" on the works were forbidden to go up or down the mine contrary to the directions of the hooker-on certain workmen having discharged themselves while in the mine insisted on being drawn up out of the pit contrary to the directions of the hooker-on: Held that they were still subject to the rule, and were guilty of a breach thereof.Higham v. Wright, 46 L.J.M.C. 223.

Mortgage:

(xiii.) C. A.-Construction of Deed-Redemption.-Bonds of a public loan were issued by railway contractors at £7 per cent. interest, and redeemable by drawings: Held that bonds drawn but not redeemed could only be redeemed by payment of principal together with interest from time of drawing until payment: Decision of M.R., Mortgage (vi.), p. 61, varied.-Gordillo v. Weguelin, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 287; 36 L.T. 206; 25 W.R. 620. (xiv.) Q. B. Div.—Fixtures—Machinery.—Held that a portable engine and boiler which was bolted to a wooden framework embedded in mortar laid upon a brick foundation was affixed so as to pass by a mortgage of a freehold.-Cross v. Barnes, 46 L.J. Q.B. 479; 36 L.T. 693. (xv.) C. A.-Priority-Purchase of Equity of Redemption-Keeping Charge Alive for Benefit of Purchaser.-Decision of V.C.H., Mortgage (x.), p. 62, affirmed.--Adams v. Angell, 46 L.J. Ch. 352; 36 L.T. 334.

Municipal Law:

(xiii.) C. A.-County Rate-Addition to Borough-2 & 3 Wm. IV., c. 64; 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 76.-The borough of New Windsor up to 1832, consisted of the parish of New Windsor and part of the parish of Clewer, and was not subject to county rate; subsequently other part of Clewer which had been subject to county rate was added to the borough: Held that the borough was liable to contribute to the county rate in respect of the added district. Decision of Q. B. Div. affirmed.-Reg. v. Justices of Berks. 36 L.T. 720.

(xiv.) C. A.-Nuisance-·Injunction-Notice of Action. Decision of V.C.M., Municipal Law (xi.), p. 98, reversed.-Flower v. Layton Local Board, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 347; 36 L.'. 760; 25 W.R. 545.

(xv.) Ex. Div.-Street-21 & 22 Vict., c. 98.-Held that under Local Govern. ment Act, 1858, s. 32, the urban sanitary authority had power to pull down houses erected in a new street, on ground of non-compliance with bye-laws as to structure and deposit of plans.-Baker v. Mayor of Ports. mouth, 25 W.R. 677.

(xvi.) Q. B. Div.-Street-Paving, &c.-Where expenses of improvements of a street are charged on owners of premises fronting the street, notice of demand of payment must be served before taking summary proceed. ings to enforce payment, and the six months within which proceedings must be taken run from such demand.-Grace v. Hunt, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 389; 46 L.J.M.C. 202; 36 L.T. 404; 25 W.R. 543.

Negligence:

(iii.) C. A.—Building Works-Sub-contractor.-Defendants having completed buildings in a street, removed the hoarding: a workman employed by S., a sub-contractor, who had undertaken the interior decoration of the buildings, let fall a tool from the window, whereby plaintiff was injured: Held that defendants were not liable.-Pearson v. Cox, 36 L.T. 495.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Furious Driving-Cab.-Held upon the facts of the case, having regard to the arrangement between the proprietor and driver of a cab, that the relation of master and servant existed between them so as to render the proprietor liable for an accident caused by the furious driving of the driver.-Venables v. Smith, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 279; 46 L.J. Q.B, 471; 36 L.J. 509; 25 W.R. 584.

(v.) Q. B. Div.-Furious Driving-Compensation.-An award of compen sation by magistrate, under 6 & 7 Vict., c. 86, s. 28, for damages caused by furious driving, is a bar to further proceedings against driver's employers by party injured.-Wright v. London General Omnibus Co., L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 271; 46 L.J. Q.B. 429; 36 L.T. 590; 25 W.R. 647. (vi.) C. P. Div.-Master and Servant-Carman.-A carman employed by defendant to go round with defendant's cart and collect empty casks from customers, one day took out the cart for purposes of his own, without defendant's leave, and on his way back collected some casks, for which defendant afterwards paid him: whilst thus returning, he ran into and damaged plaintiff's cab: Held that defendant was not liable.Rayner v. Mitchell, 25 W.R. 633.

(vii.) Q. B. Div.-Master and Servant-Coal-grate.-A carman delivering coal removed iron plate on pavement communicating with a coal cellar: plaintiff, not being warned, fell into the opening and was injured: Held that the carman's employers were liable.-Whiteley v. Pepper, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 276; 46 L.J. Q.B. 436; 36 L.T. 588; 25 W.R. 607.

(viii.) C. A.-Railway-Workman.-A workman in employment of contractor while engaged on works in defendant's tunnel, was injured by a train: Held that defendants were not liable.-Woodley v. Metropolitan Rail Co., 36 L.T. 419.

New South Wales, Law of :

(ii.) P. C.-Bankruptcy-Proof-Partnership.-Where two partners had joined with others not partners, as sureties for a person not a partner, in a bond rendering them jointly and severally liable: Held that on bankruptcy of the firm, the bond creditors were entitled to prove pari passu with the partnership creditors.-Hoare v. Oriental Bank Corpora tion, 25 W.R. 757.

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Abatement-38 and 39 Vict., s. 94.-An order was granted for abatement of a nuisance caused by flow of refuse from defendant's works on to premises of another person, and for execution by defendant of necessary works: Held that the order must be quashed.-Regina v. Trimble, 36 L.T. 508.

Partition :

(v.) Ch. Div. M. R.—Sale—Fund in Court-Married Woman-Reconversion. -In a partition suit, a married woman was declared entitled to share of real estate she agreed, with her husband's consent, to sell the share to plaintiff the purchase-money was ordered to be paid into Court: the woman died before the deed was executed: Held that the money belonged to her heir-at-law, not to her husband, as her administrator.-Mildmay V. Quicke, 26 W.K. 788.

Patent :-

(xvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Infringement — Injunction—Appeal.—Defendants applied for suspension of an injunction granted to restrain infringement of plaintiff's patent for making ornamental tin plates on the ground that non-fulfilment of existing contracts would cause them irreparable damage: Held that this was no ground for suspension, as defendants could buy the plates and so fulfil their contracts.-Flower v. Lloyd, 36 L.T. 444.

(xvii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Infringement-Validity.-The rule that assignor of a patent is estopped from disputing its validity does not prevent his partner from separately raising that defence to an action for infringement.-Heugh v. Chamberlain, 25 W.R. 742.

(xviii.)_Ch. Div. M. R.-Specification—Clerical Error—Jurisdiction.—The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 17, reserves to M. R. his jurisdiction as keeper of the records to order amendment of a clerical error in a specification filed in the Patent Office.-Re Johnson's patent, L.R. 5 Ch. 503. (xix.) H. L.-Specification-Combination.-A patent for a combination in one thing of several integers will protect not only the whole thing but the separate integers and subordinate combinations thereof, provided such integers and combinations are so described in the specification as to make it clear that the patent is intended to apply to them as well as to the whole.-Clark v. Adie, L.R. 2 App. 315.

(xx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Specification-Construction-Held upon the construction of a specification of the patentee of a lamp burner, and having regard to drawings accompanying the specification, that the patent was bad for want of novelty.-Hinks & Son v. Safety Lighting Co., 36 L.T.

392.

Poor Law:-

(xiv.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Removal Order.-An order of removal, made in 1810, was produced at hearing of an appeal to prove pauper's last settlement it was proved that the pauper had from the date of the order regularly received relief from, but not that he had actually been removed to, the parish: Held that there had been a sufficient execution of the order.-Reg. v. Clifton Union, 46 L.J. M.C. 209. (xv.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Removal.-Held that a person who resided in parish for three years, terminating before the passing of 39 and 40 Vict., c. 61, did not acquire a settlement under s. 34.-Reg. v. Ipswich Union, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 269; 46 L.J. M.C. 207; 36 L.T. 317; 25 W.R. 511.

(xvi.) Q. B. Div.-Settlement-Removal-Dreak of Residence.-A pauper had resided continuously for 15 years, and received relief for two years and a half in respondent's union: having received notice to quit his house, he removed to a house in a neighbouring union, and slept there one night: next morning he discovered his new residence was not in respondent's union, to which he accordingly returned: Held that there was sufficient break of residence to support order of removal to his last place of settlement.-Newark Union v. Glanford Brigg Union, 36 L.T. 793.

Practice :

(cxcix.) C. A.-Appeal-Costs-Security-Delay.-Where Court has ordered appellant to give security for costs without fixing time, appellant must comply within a reasonable time or the appeal will be dismissed.--Vale v. Oppert, 25 W.R. 610.

(cc.) C. A.-Appeal-Interpleader.-An appeal lies to Court of Appeal from judgment on trial of an interpleader issue.-Witt v. Parker, 46 L.J. Q.B. 450; 36 L.T. 538; 25 W.R. 518.

(cci.) C. A.-Appeal - Re-hearing-Bill of Review-Ord. 58, r. 2.—The Court has no power to re-hear appeals: in cases where discovery of facts after judgment would have entitled a party to file a bill of review, he must commence a new action to set aside the judgment.-Flower v. Lloyd, 25 W.R. 793.

(ccii.) C. A.-Appeal-Salvage-Costs.-Where an appeal to increase the amount of salvage awarded is successful, appellant is entitled to his costs. The City of Berlin, 25 W.R. 793.

(cciii.) C. A.-Appeal-Trustee Relief Act.-Costs.-Trustees who have been ordered to pay costs personally under Trustee Relief Act cannot appeal from such order.-Re Hoskin's Trusts, 25 W.R. 779.

(cciv.) C. A.-Appeal in Criminal Matter.—A judgment of App. Div. Ct. against conviction for keeping gaming house on case stated is a judgment of the High Court in a criminal matter from which there is no appeal.-Blake v. Beech, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 335; 36 L.T 723.

(ccv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Attachment.-A sale by a promoter to a company was set aside, and he was ordered to repay the purchase-money: before repayment he filed liquidation petition: Held that he was not a trustee or person acting in fiduciary relation to the company within Debtors' Act, 1869, s. 4, and was protected from attachment by Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 12.-Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hartmont, 25 W.R. 742.

(ccvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Attachment- Ord. 44, r. 2.-Service of notice of motion to commit on a party or his solicitor is sufficient.-Richards v. Kitchen, 36 L.T. 730; 25 W.R. 602.

(ccvii.) C. A.-Attachment-Contempt―0 d. 42, r. 2.-Orders were made in an action for inspection of documents at the office of C., defendant's solicitor, and also for stay of proceedings till security was given for costs: E., plaintiff's solicitor, attended accordingly, but C. refused to produce documents or to accept proposed security: E. left, but afterwards returned and asked for the draft bond: C. refused, and abused and forcibly ejected E. Held that C. was not guilty of contempt of Court.-Re Clements, Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, 46 L.J. Ch. 375; 36 L.T. 332.

(ccviii.) Q. B. Div.-Attachment-Examination-Conduct-Money - Ord. 45 r. 1.-A party applying for attachment of judgment debtor for default in appearing for examination must show by affidavit offer of conductmoney and good reason for examination away from his place of residence.-Protector Endowment Co. v. Whitham, 36 L.T. 467.

(ccix.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Attachment - Refusal to Obey Order-Lease.— Where a person has been directed to execute a lease, Court can only enforce the order by attachment, the Trustee Act, 1850, not having provided for such a case.-Grace v. Baynton, 25 W.R. 506.

(ccx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Attachment-Service-Ord. 44, r. 2.—Service of notice of motion for attachment on defendant's solicitor is sufficient.Browning v. Sabin, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 511.

(ccxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Bill taken Pro Confesso.-Where a bill was ordered to be taken pro confesso, and it turned out that defendant was dead at the date of such order, on application by plaintiff under 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, s. 42, for appointment of a representative, a supplemental order was made to serve defendant's widow with notice that unless she appeared within six weeks from service of notice, Court would appoint a representative.-Alforth v. Espinach, 36 L.T. 367.

(ccxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Charging Order—1 & 2 Vict., c. 110, s. 11; Ord. 46, r. 1.-Where judgment orders defendant to pay a sum certain on a future day plaintiff is entitled to charging order on defendant's property. -Bagnall v. Cariton, 36 L.T. 730.

(ccxiii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Consolidation-Ord. 55, r. 4.-Court can consolidate actions only at instance of defendants, not of different plaintiffs against the same defendant, but may, with a view to one being tried as a test action, enlarge time in the remaining actions.-Amos v. Chadwick, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 869.

(ccxiv.) C. A.-Costs-Ord. 55.-Where a nonsuit had been set aside and new trial granted, which resulted in judgment for the plaintiff : Held that the costs of the first trial must "follow the event" of the second trial.— Creen v. Wright, 46 L.J. C.P. 427; 36 L.T. 355; 25 W.R. 502.

(ccxv.) Q. B. Div.-Costs--Case Stated-Striking Out.-A case having been stated by justices, but the appellant not having complied with requirements of the Act, an application to strike the case out of the paper was granted with costs against the appellants.-Great Northern Committee v. Inett, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 284; 25 W.R. 584.

(ccxvi.) Ex. Div.-Costs-Collision.-Where a defendant in an action for damages from collision of two ships succeeded only on ground of compulsory pilotage: Held that plaintiff was entitled to his costs.-General Steam Navig. Co. v. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co., 36 L.T. 743; 25 W.R. 694.

(ccxvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Costs-Next Friend.-Where costs are ordered to be paid by a next friend without reservation, the order is final against him personally, and cannot be re-opened on further consideration.-Caley v. Caley, 25 W.R. 528.

(ccxviii.) Q. B. Div.-Costs-Reference.-Where order of reference under Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, was silent as to costs, Court refused application under Ord. 55 for costs on behalf of the party in whose favour the Master decided.—Wimshurst v. Barrow Shipbuilding Co., L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 335; 46 L.J. Q.B. 477; 25 W.R. 557.

(ccxix.) C. A.-Costs-Priority - Citation to Prove Will-Administration.—A company, creditors of testator, cited executrix to prove the will: subse. quently R., also a creditor, obtained an order for administration of the estate an order of the Prob. Div. having directed that the company's costs of the citation should be paid in priority to all other claims: Held that notwithstanding the order the costs of the administration must have priority.-Re Mayhew, 25 W.R. 521.

(ccxx.) P. D. A. Div.—Costs-Security-Foreign Defendants.-Foreign defendants intervening in action of collision in rem by foreign plaintiffs, who have given security for costs, must, if they seek relief by counterclaim, give security for whole costs of action.-The Julia Fisher, 25 W.R. 756.

(ccxxi.) C. A.--Costs-Slander.-In action for slander where only one farthing damages were awarded: Held that enactment in 21 Jas. 1, c. 16, was still in force, and that plaintiff was only entitled to one farthing costs.— Garnett v. Bradley, 36 L.T. 725; 25 W.R. 653.

(ccxxii.) C. A.—Costs - Slander - Ord. 55.-Plaintiff, in action for slander recovered one farthing damages, no order was made as to costs: Held that plaintiff was entitled to one farthing costs only: decision of Q. B. Div. reported 36 L.T. 550 reversed.-Bowey v. Bell, 36 L.T. 640. (ccxxiii.) C. P. Div.-Costs-Witness-Ord. 6, Sched. 2, 8.-The Court allowed expenses of inspection of a building by surveyors, &c., to qualify them to give evidence at the trial.-Mackley v. Chillingworth, 46 L.J. C.P. 484; 36 L.T. 514; 25 W.R. 650.

(ccxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Default of Appearance-Ord. 13, r. 9.— Where defendant makes default in appearance plaintiff must deliver statement of claim before setting down action on motion for judgment.— Menton v. Metcalfe, 36 L.T. 683.

(ccxxv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Defence Struck out-Default of Pleading.-In action for removal of a trustee defendant failed to file affidavit of documents: his defence was struck out, and order made against him on motion for judgment as in default of pleading.-Fisher v. Hughes, 25 W.R. 528.

(ccxxvi.) C. A.-Discovery.-Defendant obtained an order for discovery of documents: liquidator filed affidavit setting forth certain documents, and