showing a legal or equitable defence, or such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration; or upon payment of the debt into court: (see Hallilay's Digest, 20, 21, 4th edit.; Smith's Action, 70, 9th edit.)

12. Award Costs.-Yes: they may be so taxed: (R. G. 170; O'Toole v. Potts. 28 L. T. Rep. 248; Hallilay's Digest, 92, 4th edit.)

14. Award. The plaintiff may enforce the award by the authority of a judge on such terms as may be reasonable on the expiration of seven days from the time of publication, although the time for moving to set it aside has not elapsed. The award is enforced by the same process as the finding of a jury on the matter referred; but judgment must be signed before execution can issue: (Smith's Action, 503, 504, 9th edit.)

15. Discharging debtor.-The sheriff or gaoler is justified in discharging the debtor upon the written order of the attorney in the cause by whom the ca. sa. was issued, unless the plaintiff has given written notice to the contrary: (Smith's Action, 283, 9th edit.)

16. Ejectment.-Such person will be allowed to come in and defend upon an order from a judge obtained on affidavit that he is in possession of the property by himself or his tenant, and in his appearance he must state the character in which he appears: (see Hallilay's Digest, 110, 4th edit.; Whitmore v. Humphries, 1 L. T. Rep. N. S. 301.)

17. Lost bill-An action may now be brought on a lost bill of exchange, for the court or judge may order that the loss be not set up, provided that an indemuity is given to the satisfaction of such court, judge, or a master against the claim of any other person upon such instrument: (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 87; Hallilay's Digest, 24, 4th edit.)

18. Railway accident.-Lord Campbell's Act does not give the widow power to sue; under that Act the action is to be brought by the executors or administrators for the benefit of the widow, &c. By the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 95, however, if there be no executor, &c., or if one, and he does not sue within six months after the death, the action may be brought by the persons to be benefited by the result of the action: (Hallilay's Digest, 28, 4th edit.)

19. Will-Yes; by the 20 & 21 Viet. c. 77, probate is sufficient, if the plaintiff has given the defendant

ten days' notice before the trial that he intends to

give such probate in evidence to establish any devise

therein contained, unless the defendant after receiving such notice gives the plaintiff four days' notice that he intends to dispute the validity of the devise: (Hallilay's Digest, 71, 72, 4th edit.)

20. Criminal.-The convicted felon is a good witness in all cases; for the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85 expressly enacts that criminals shall not be excluded from giving evidence in any action, suit, or proceeding, civil or criminal, in any court, &c.: (Hallilay's Digest, 67, 4th edit.; Pow. Ev. 15.)

III CONVEYANCING.

21. Disclaimer.-The disclaimer will be imperative, as the Statute of Uses takes everything out of A. the moment the will operates and transfers it to B., in whom both the legal and equitable estates are vested: (see Lewin on Trusts, 161, &c., 4th edit.; Sug. Pow. 171-175, 6th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 185, 4th edit.)

22. Fees. A fee simple absolute is one without any qualification or condition annexed to it, whilst a base fee has some qualification subjoiued which determines the estate when the qualification is at an end, as in the case of a grant to A. and his heirs tenants of the manor of Dale; whenever the heirs of A. cease to be tenants of that manor, the grant is defeated: (1 Steph. Com. 244. &c., 5th edit.; Hallilays Digest, 128, 133, 4th edit.)

23. Adrowson.-An advowson is the perpetual right of presentation to a church or ecclesiastical benefice. It may be acquired by a private individual by his bulding a church and endowing it; by purchase (in its technical sense), and by descent. It may be acquired by the bishop by lapse, by the Crown by pse, and by forfeiture on simony being committed. The owner or pation has no interest in the title or glebe, merely a right of nomination from time to time as the living bec mes vacant: (3 Steph. Com. 72, et seq.. 5th edit.; Hallay's Digest, 146, 4th edit.) 21. Charity.-The bequest must be of pure personalty, as money, or stock; but nothing which savours of the realty can be so given, such as money on mortgage, or leaseholds, or unpaid purchasemoney, or New River shares, as these come within

the Statute of Mortmain, the former do not: (Hayes & Jarm. Wills, 318, 351, 6th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 23, 4th edit.)

25. Entail-As A. takes an estate tail under the rule in Shelly's case, it follows that he alone is the person to bar the entail, by deed enrolled in the Court of Chancery within six months after its execution: (Hallilay's Digest, 154, 253, 4th edit.) 26. School. The conveyance is usually made to the clergyman of the parish, and the churchwardens

28. Lapse. The legacy to the daughter, not being for life merely, will not lapse, but will be paid to her next of kin, unless she leaves a will disposing of the legacy thereby. The legacy to the nephew will lapse and fall into the residue, if one; if none. it goes to the testator's next of kin : (Hayes & Jarm. Conc. Wills, 73, 105, 6th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 231, 6th edit.)

29. Title.-It is said these two terms include every mode of acquiring lands; for purchase includes in its scope title by occupancy, conveyance, devise, forfeiture, partition, elegit, bankruptcy, and inclosure; and descent includes not only where the property is cast upon the heir on intestacy, but also escheat, dower, and curtesy. However, it is difficult to say whether descent, strictly speaking includes escheat, dower, and curtesy: or purchase inclosure, elegit, and bankruptcy. The more comprehensive titles are by the act of law and by the act of the party: (see 1 Steph. Com., c. 10: Will. R. P. 92, 7th edit., note; Halliday's Digest, 93, 4th edit.) 30. Reconveyance.-By the heir-at-law of the mortgagee joining with his administrators in a reconveyance of the mortgaged property. The heirat-law conveys the legal estate, but is not entitled to the purchase-money, and the administrators ratify

and confirm and give a receipt for the money: (Will. R. P. 394, 7th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 176, 4th edit.)

31. Sale.-Yes; A. may apply by petition to the Court of Chancery for an order for a sale of such estates. The tenant in tail being under age, a guardian must be appointed to consent, which is done by summons, supported by affidavit, showing (1) the age of the infant; (2) whether he has a parent or guardian; (3) where he resides and by whom maintained; (4) in what way the guardian is connected with the infant, how qualified, and that he has no adverse interest; and (5) consents to act; also the consent of all persons having any estate or interest under the settlement prior to the estate tail, whether as trustees for unborn persons in their own right: (see 19 & 20 Vict. c. 120; Judges' Reg., Aug. 1857; Hallilay's Digest, 166, 368, 4th edit.) 32. Mortgage-debt.-On the land; for the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 113, enacts that the devisee or heir-at-law of the mortgagor shall take the land subject to the mortgage, unless he has by deed or will signified a contrary intention. The Act operates from the 31st Dec. 1854: (see Hallilay's Digest, 176, and note,

4th edit.)

33. Husband and wife.-During coverture the husband has a freehold interest in the lands, which gives him a right to receive the rents and profits, and to make leases thereof for twenty-one years; but subject to these rights he cannot convey or charge the lands for a longer period than while his own interest continues. If the issue are capable of inheriting as next heirs of the wife, and he survives, he becomes tenant by the curtesy: (2 Steph. Com. 278, &c., 5th edit.; Hallilay's Digest, 154, 4th edit.) 34. Heir-at-law.-His half-brother C.; for A. is not the root of descent, as he took the estate from his father by descent, who is the person from whom the descent is traced; and C., being a male, and equally related to the purchaser, is preferred to the daughter by the first wife: (see 3 & 4 Will. 4, e. 106; Hallilay's Digest, 242, 244, 4th edit.; Will. R. P., 92, &c., 7th edit.)

35, Heir-at-law.—The lands of A. will go to the brother or his mother; for here A. took the lands ex parte maternâ, and consequently relations on the father's side cannot inherit, the descent never having been broken. The lands of B. will, however, go to the brother of the father, for the will of the mother broke the line of descent, and made B. the purchaser and root of descent, and the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, 8. 7, enacts that the paternal line of the ancestors is preferred to the maternal: (see Steph. Com. 416, 432, 433, 5th edit.; Hal ilay's Digest, 224, 4th edit.)

EXAMINATION OF ARTICLED CLERKS. The following circulars have been issued by the Incorporated Law Society:—

INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION.

Sir, I am directed by the Examiners appointed for the Intermediate Examination of persons under articles of clerkship to attorneys, to inform you that Thursday, the 6th June, is the day appointed for the examination, and that candidates for examination are to attend on that day, at halfpast nine in the forenoon, at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, in Chancery-lane. The

On the day of examination, papers will be dehvered to each candidate, containing questions to be answered in writing, selected from the works specified by the Examiners; and a paper of questions ou Book-keeping.

If you apply to be examined under the 4th section of the Attorneys Act 1860, you may, on application, obtain copies of the further questions relating to the ten years' service antecedent to the articles of clerkship; and such questions, duly answered, must be left with your articles, &c., on or before the 18th May. (a)

Fee, each term, on articles and testimonials of

service, 58.-not to be sent in postage-stamps.

FINAL EXAMINATION.

for the examination of persons applying to be adSir, I am directed by the Examiners appointed mitted attorneys, to inform you that Tuesday, the 4th, and Wednesday, the 5th June, are the days appointed for the examination, and that

candidates for examination are

to attend on those

days, at half-past nine in the forenoon of each day, at the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Chancery-lane. The examination will commence at ten o'clock precisely, and close at four o'clock. ship and assignment, if any, with answers to the I have to remind you that your articles of clerkquestions as to due service, according to the regalations approved by the judges, must be left with me on or before Saturday, the 25th May. If your articles were executed after the 1st January 1861, the certificate of your having passed the Intermediate Examination should be left at the same time; and in been deposited here, they should be re-entered, the case your articles and testimonials of service have fee paid, and the answers completed on or before the 25th May.

If you apply to be examined under the 4th section obtain copies of the further questions relating to the of the Attorneys Act 1860, you may, on application,

ship; and such questions, duly answered, must be left with your articles, &c., on or before the 25th May.(a)

ten years' service antecedent to the articles of clerk

Where the articles have not expired, but will expire during the term, or in the vacation following such term, the candidate may be examined conditionally; but the articles must be left on or before the 25th May, and up to that time. rister, special pleader, or London agent, answers If part of the term has been served with a bar

answers

to the questions must be obtained from them, as to the time served with each respectively. No candidate will be examined who shall not have complied with these conditions, or whose testimonials

as to service or conduct shall not be satisfactory to the Examiners.

On the first day of examination, papers will be delivered to each candidate, containing questions to be answered in writing, classed under the several heads of-1. Preliminary. 2. Common and Statute Law and Practice of the Courts. 3. Conveyancing.

On the second day, further papers will be delivered to each candidate, containing questions to be answered in-4. Preliminary. 5. Equity and Practice of the Courts. 6. Bankruptcy and Practice of the Courts. 7. Criminal Law, and Proceedings before Justices of the Peace.

Each candidate is required to answer all the preliminary questions (Nos. 1 and 4); and also to answer in three of the other heads of inquiry, viz.-Common Law, Conveyancing, and Equity. The Examiners will continue the practice of proposing questions in bankruptcy and in criminal law and proceedings before justices of the peace, in order that candidates who have given their attention to these subjects may have the advantage of answering such questions, and having the correctness of their answers in those departments taken into consideration in summing up the merit of their general examination.

Tee, each term, on articles and testimonials of service, 158.-not to be sent in postage stamps. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, EDWARD WALTER WILLIAMSON, Secretary. 11th May 1867.

CAMBRIDGE LAW HONOURS. The rirá roce examination of candidates for Honours in Law will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 22 and the following days, at 10 a.m. in the Law Schools. Each candidate will have to prepare a

(a) Candidates who have already proved to the satisfaction of the examiners the ten years' antecedent service are not required to leave replies to the further questions again.

Townsend were for the plaintiffs; Jessel, Q. C. and Crack all for the defendant.-Lord ROMILLY made an order for an injunction, to be continued until the hearing of the cause, or the further order of the court.

Re THE LONDON AND EXCHANGE BANK -In this matter, it appeared that the above-named company was formed for the purpose of taking over the business of the General Exchange Bank, which had been ordered to be woundup. Three gentlemen, of the names of Collison, Sweetinburg, and Browning had been shareholders in the General Exchange Bank, and an arrangement was entered into, subject to the approval of the court, for the taking over of the business of that bank. A part of that arrangement was, that the three gentlemen should take shares in the London and Exchange Bank" in lieu of their shares in the General Exchange Bank. The Court afterwards decided that the proposed arrangement could not be entered into, and this was a motion by the three gentlemen above named to have their names taken off the list of shareholders in the London and Exchange Bank, the object for which, and for which alone, they took their shares in it having failed-Jessel, Q. C. and Caldecott were for the motion; Baggallau, Q. C. and Graham Hastings opposed it.-Lord ROMILLY made the order, as asked by the notice of motion.

SHANKS . THE LANCASHIRE BUILDING COMPANY.-This was an injunction suit, to restrain the defendants from so making bricks at their works at St. Helen's, near the plaintiff's residence, as to injure his property and annoy him in the enjoyment of it.--Baggallay, QC. and Rowcliffe appeared for the plaintiff; Sehen, Q. C. and T. Hughes were for the defendant.-Lord RoMILLY said the case was a very clear one, and that an injunction must be granted as asked for by the notice of motion.

V. C. STUART'S COURT.
Reported by EDWARD WINSLOW, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.
EASTER TERM 1867.

Thursday, May 9.

OWEN . SWANCOTT.--This was a motion on behalf of the defendant in the above suit, that the plaintiff might be ordered to pay certain costs incurred in bringing witnesses from the country.-G. N. Colt appeared in support of th motion; O. Morgan, contra. Motion refused with costs.

SACK . SELFK-This was a motion on behalf of one of the defendants in the above cause, that the bill might be dismissed as against him for want of prosecution.- Taylor for the motion; Vaughan Hawkins against it.

Ordered as asked.

GARDNER. THE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANY. This was a motion that the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company and the receivers might be ordered not to issue any tickets to passengers from any station on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, the Sevenoaks Railway, the Mid-Kent, on the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway, other than the Faversham station on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, to any station on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway the Sevenoaks Railway, the Mid-Kent Railway, on the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway, other than the Faversham station, and that the said London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, and that the said receivers may be ordered not to carry passengers from any station on the London, Chatham, and Dover, Railway Company, the Sevenoaks Railway, the Mid-Kent Railway, the Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway, other than the said Faversham station, to any station on the Kent Coast Railway, or from any station on that railway to any station on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, other than the said Faversham station, and that the costs of the application might be costs in the cause. The facts of the case appeared to be these:-By an agreement between the Kent Coast Railway, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, the latter company worked the line on certain terms The Kent Coast line have filed a bill to enforce this agreement, and the persons interested in the tolls of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company have filed a bill to set the agreement aside. In the meanwhile this motion was made to stop the issuing of the through tickets. Bacon, Q. C. and Martineau appeared in support of the motion. Kekewich, for the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, submitted that the Kent Coast Railway Company ought to be before the court, and had not been served. - The VICECHANCELLOR said the Kent Coast Railway Company had leave to attend in chambers, and ought to have been served with notice of the motion. He could not proceed with it in their absence.

Ordered to stand over, with leave to serve the Kent Coast line.

KELLY. HUTTON The Sporting Life-This was an adjourned summons by way of appeal against the decision of the chief clerk, that the defendant M-Murray was bound to produce his deeds. The chief clerk thought that the mortgagee's privileges did not count, on the ground that the questions in this suit were those of priority, and that they were rival claimants. The question arose out of the dealings between Mr. Beeton and Mr. M.Murray with regard to the right to the Sporting Life.- John Pearson, Q. C., and Langley appeared for the plaintiff; Bacon, Q. C. and Swanston for the defendants.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it was quite clear that the documents must be produced, and the defendant must pay the costs.

Saturday, May 11.

THE CITY AND COUNTY ASSURANCE COMPANY. These were two petitions, one by Mr. Hughes, a creditor, asking for a compulsory winding-up, and the other by Mr. Hensley, a contributory, asking for a voluntary windingup, under supervision, as resolved upon by the company. The evidence showed that the assets of the company were large and the liabilities small-J. Pearson, Q. C., and Renshaw were for Mr. Hensley, and submitted that, under the circumstances, a winding-up under supervision would be more beneficial to all parties.-Greene, Q. C., and Brooks

bank were for Mr. Hughes.-E. K. Karslake, Q. C., for a creditor, desired a compulsory order.- Dickinson, Q. C., Locock Webb, and Thomas were for other parties - The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he should make one order upon both petitions, and it would be for a voluntary winding-up under the supervision of the court. It would be open to Mr Karslake's client to apply at chambers to convert this order into a compulsory one if the winding-up were not properly conducted. The petitioners would have their costs out of the estate, and the other parties who had appeared-creditors and contributories-would have one set of costs each between them, according to the usual rule of the courts.

BOWACK. DAVIS, AND DAVIS r. BOWACK.-These suits were respectively instituted for administration, and for a partition of certain lands. It now appeared that since the iling of the bills the parties had come to an agreement to divide the lands themselves.- Bagshawe and Millar appeared for the parties interested, and stated that, as matters now stood, nobody had anything to pay or receive, and no costs were asked for. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he

would make no order, except one to stay all proceedings and to give any of the parties liberty to apply. Order accordingly,

Re WEIGATE.-An arrangement was come to between the parties in this case.-Lindley and Elderton appeared. LORD WALLACE'S SETTLED ESTATE. Part heard.

Monday, May 13.

LORD WALLACE'S SETTLED ESTATE. -The question in this case was whether certain coal-mines, which formed part of the estate of the late Lord Wallace, and which had been worked by him during his lifetime, could be considered as open at the date of his death.-J. Pearson, QC., O. Morgan, and Darey appeared in the case. -The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the mines must be considered as open, and ordered the rents to be first applied in payment of costs.

V. C. WOOD'S COURT. Reported by W. H. BENNET and R. T. BOULT, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. EASTER TERM 1867.

Thursday, May 9.

HAIGH & WATERMAN.-This was a motion by the plaintiff to restrain her landlord from bringing an ejectment against her for an alleged breach of covenant.-The Attorney-General, W. H. James, Q. C., and A. G. Marten appeared for the plaintiff, in support of the motion; E. K. Karslake, Q. C. and Swanston, for the defendant, contra.

Injunction granted.

CECIL. THE ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY.-This was a motion that the defendants might be ordered (within fourteen days from the date of the order) to pay into court the balance of purchase-money due to the plaintiff for certain land taken by the defendants under an agreement dated the 5th May 1863, with interest thereon, and that in default of such payment a receiver might be appointed. -Druce, Q. C. and F. N. Cates in support of the motion; Kekewich for the company.

Order for payment into court on or before the 20th Aug. nert of 2501, with interest at 5 per cent from the 5th May 1864. Aggregate amount to be verified by affidavit. Defendants to pay costs of the motion.

Part heard. Part heard. Part heard.

Monday, May 13. BARCLAY AND THE TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE COMPANY . THE INDIA-RUBBER, GUTTA-PERCHA, AND TELEGRAPH WORKS COMPANY.-This was a motion to restrain the defendants during the existence of three letters patent dated respectively the 15th Aug. 1855, the 9th Aug. 1858, and the 21st Dec. 1860, belonging to the Telegraphi Company, and under which they had constructed and laid down the two Atlantic Telegraph Cables in 1865 and 1866 between America and England, from using or employing in or about an electric telegraph cable which they had contracted to make for some Americans, to be laid between some part of Florida and the island of Cuba, or any other cable which they were manufacturing or might hereafter manufacture, the improved joint described in the first patent, or any mode of joining the portions of the conducting wire similar to or resembling the mode described in such patent, or otherwise violating or infringing the said patent; and also from employing in said Florida, &c., cable the insulating composition described in the second patent and known as "Chatterton's Compound," and from other wise violating said last-mentioned patent; and also from using a process described in the third, or any process similar to it; and also from parting with, selliu, using, or employing for any purpose said Florida cable, or any part of it, so as to infringe or violate the said three patents; for an account of profits, &c. Sir Roundell Palmer, Grove, Q. C., T. Aston, and Wickens

in support of the motion; The Solicitor-General (Karslake), Q. C., Giffard, Q. C., and Lindley for the India-Rubber Company; Webster, Q. C., Druce, QC., and Millar for other parties in the same interest.-After considerable discussion, the motion was directed to stand over until the next seal. Further affidavits being requisite, nothing to be done in the meantime.

ALLEN . INNIS-This was a motion to restrain the erection of the defendant's party-wall adjoining premises of the plaintiff's, "The Ship Tavern," in Talbot-court, Eastcheap. There was the usual conflict of evidence as to whether the plaintiff's premises would be injuriously affected in the obstruction of light and air therefrom-wallcock, Q. C. and Bagshaw in support of the motion; Druce, Q. C. and Colt opposed it-The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought the plaintiff was entitled to his injunction in somewhat moderated terms from the prayer of his bill until the hearing or further order.

MACANN . BORRODAILE.-This was a motion to discharge an order which had been made for a writ of ne

ereat regno against the defendant, the sole trustee in England (the other being in China) of a marriage-settlement. The bill had been filed by the cestuis que trust, a lady and her children, for the purpose of having the trusts declared and carried into effect under the directions of the court. The writ had been marked for 26001. The defendant con

Thursday, May 9.

HILTON. WOOD.-Baily, Q. C., Glasse, Q. C., and Martineau appeared upon this motion, which was asked to stand over, costs to be costs in the cause. Ordered.

ROCHE . COLES-Baily, Q. C and W. W. Cooper appeared on this motion, which it was asked might stand over until the first day of Trinity Term. Ordered. YELVERTON . BOWEN, Baily, Q. C. appeared upon a defendant, undertook in the usual form. motion in this case for an injunction.-Bardswell, for the Motion ordered to stand over.

GREENWOOD . TONGUE.-This case has been before the court more than once on a motion for an injunction and a demurrer, which was overruled. Certain times were now fixed within which to put in the answer and file antidavits. There was also a cross-suit; both suits relating to certain patents and machinery for combing China grass.-Baily, Q. C, Glasse, Q. C., Higgins, and Bagshawe appeared for the several parties.

BLANCHARD . GORRINGE. Robinson appeared upon this motion for an injuuction.-Osborne, Q. C., for the defendants, continued the undertaking.

PRIDDELL V. BIRD.-Daniel Jones appeared on this motion for an injunction; Glasse, Q. C. for the defendant. Terms arranged.

DAVIS. DAVIS.-Speed obtained an order for an injunction in this case as to one defendant, and an arrangement was come to as to another.-G. O. Morgan appeared for one defendant.

CORSER . POUND.-J. H. Palmer, Q. C. and Baily, Q. C. asked that this motion might stand over for an arrange

ment.

Re THE EMPIRE ASSURANCE COMPANY.-C. Locock Webb moved to take the name of James George Lawrell off the register. It appeared that he had attended a meeting at which nothing was done, and never having been applied to to become a director, his name was put upon the register for fifty shares.- Woodroffe, for the company, did not oppose, it appearing that the shares were paid up.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR ordered each party to pay their own

costs.

UPTON. MAVOR-Freeling asked leave to give short notice of motion to commit for breach of an injunction. Ordered.

LOCKE V. LAMB.-This was a question of construction and as to the interest of the children of Wadham Locke in certain property devised by the testator in the cause, the question being as to the period of distribution -Kenyon, Q. C., Bush, C. Herbert Smith, Wickens, and Chitty appeared in the case.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR reserved his judgment.

MAXWELL. HYSLOP.-The principal question in this suit was under Mr. Locke King's Act, whether an intention could be deduced from the will of the late Mr. Wellwood Maxwell that a charge secured upon his estate of Glenlee in Scotland in the form of a heritable bond, and tantamount to an English mortgage, should be paid out of his residuary estate. The testator's domicil was admitted on all hands to be English.-Anderson, Q.C., Appach, Osborne, Q. C., Stallard, Baily, Q. C., Wickens, Haddan, Karslake, QC., and Neish appeared for the different parties interested-The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the operation of Mr. Locke King's Act was excluded by the contrary intention which was shown by the will, and the charge was therefore payable out of the residue. He was also of opinion that whatever benefits the children of Mr. Maxwell took under his will they took in addition to certain benefits which they took under a prior deed of settlement in Scotch form, and were not put to their election.

Re BLACKBOROUGH.-Jason Smith mentioned this petition, which stood over from the 10th inst. The petition asked for payment out of court of 21437. Cousols, the money being the property of Mrs. Blackborough under the Dutch law, and she having renounced such rights, the only question was the regularity of the proceedings. The authority of husband and wife, verified under the official seal of a notary public, was now produced.-bush, for the other parties, consented.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he was only anxious to see that the money got into the right

RIDGER . BEST.-This was an administration suit. The testator by his will gave his residuary estate to his widow plaintiffs being the assigns of the issue of one child. Class for life, and then to his four children and their issue; the inquiries were asked for, and the usual accounts.-Caldecott, for the trustees, asked for a receiver.-W. Pearson, for the Order made. plaintiffs, agreed.

HALL v. FLETCHER.-L. Mackeson said this suit was to rectify a settlement.-The solicitor had read it over to the lady in draft, and secured the property to her separate use, without power of anticipation. She was desirous to deal with it; but swore that she did not comprehend that there was a clause against anticipation.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that this was not the subject for a short cause; he must have evidence on the point. The case must stand over until the 13th in order to see whether it

ought not to go into the general paper.

HARRIS . WRIGHT.-This was a suit to administer the trusts of a settlement-The parents of the plaintiff, the only child, were both dead, and the question was whether the child, being an infant, could be a trustee with another person. The same thing was done by Stuart, V.C. in Rivers v. Rivers.-Vaughan Hawkins, for other parties, said that was so.-Kekewich for the plaintiff.

Ordered.

COLES. MORRIS.-Waller asked leave to give short notice of motion for the 13th to take certain depositions off the file on the ground of being improperly taken. The time for answering was nearly out. Ordered,

ALLEYNE . ALLEYNE.-E. Forster appeared in the suit, which came on at the hearing and on a petition. As to the suit, nothing but an inquiry was asked. The question arose on the petition. Mrs. Alleyne had married whilst a ward, and had four children, and the father was dead, having dissipated a great part of her property. Only 30001. remained out of 5000l. for the children. The question was whether, under the ordinary maintenance clause in the settlement, the mother could be allowed 7501. for supporting the children, which she had been obliged to borrow. The case of Re Mary England, 1 R. & M. 499, was in point-The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he would see Mrs. Alleyne himself on the subject. Decree taken in the suit.

WOOD v. BENNETT.-Woodhouse appeared for the plaintiffs in this suit, which was for the usual administration of an estate. The minutes had been agreed upon.-Baily, Q. C. appeared for the other parties, and consented. Ordered.

-Joseph Brown, Q. C. moved on behalf of the defendant for a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the award in the case should not be set aside. Rule nisi. Re THE COMPANIES ACT 1862, AND THE BAHIA AND SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY.-Watkin Williams, on behalf of this and another company, had obtained a rule calling on Amelie Tritton to show cause why the company's register of shareholders should not be settled in compliance with sect. 35 of the Companies Act 1862 (26 & 27 Vict c. 89).- Against which, D. Campbell showed cause, stating that Miss Tritton was the holder of certain shares in this and another company; and that on going abroad last year she authorised a broker named Oldham to receive the dividends for her during her absence; that soon after her departure Oldham transferred her shares to a purchaser by means of a forged signature of Miss Tritton's name, and left the country. Upon learning what had happened Miss Tritton returned to England, and caused writs to be issued against both companies; whereupon the company obtained the present rule, to which the transferees of the shares were also made parties. Under these circumstances it was urged on behalf of Miss Tritton that she was entitled to have her name restored to the

MURRAY . COCKERELL-A difficulty as to the settling of minutes in this redemption suit was again mentioned by Hemming, but the VICE-CHANCELLOR said that he had arranged that Mr. Latham, the registrar, should settle the decree forthwith.

HOLMES v. DUDLEY.-This was an adjourned summons to decide a question as to the validity of a marriage contracted at a registrar's office between a lady aged twentyfour and an infant ward of court aged fifteen. They had given their wrong ages, and not their full Christian names.-Osborne, Q. C., Rudge, and Langworthy appeared. Part heard.

Monday, May 13.

COLES v. MORRIS.-The motion in this case related to a question of practice as to the mode of taking the crossexamination of witnesses.-Waller in support of the motion; Glasse, Q C. and Higgins contra.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR refused the motion with costs.

Re MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1854; Re BRITISH SHIP PHOENIX; Re DACOTAIL-Robinson moved under the 85th section of the above Act for an order prohibiting any dealing with the above ships or with any shares in them, giving the usual undertaking as to damages.-The VICECHANCELLOR made an interim order for an injunction in the same mode as upon bill filled.

HOLMES v. DUDLEY.-This adjourned summons was directed to stand over, in order that the question as to the validity of the marriage might be fully argued.

MAXWELL . BERGER-Swanston moved to restrain the defendants Berger and Griffiths from printing, publishing, or selling a tale called "John Hazell's Vengeance," the copyright in which was claimed by the plaintiff, he having purchased it from the author of the work. The manuscript was in the possession of the defendant.-Speed, for the defendant, said that the plaintiff had purchased as agent for a person under whom he claimed-The VICECHANCELLOR directed the motion to stand over, further affidavits to be filed, the defendants to keep an account of their sales of the numbers of the London Herald, in which publication the novel in question was appearing.

Re OVEREND, GURNEY, AND COMPANY (LIMITED); Ex parte MUSGRAVE-This adjourned summons stood over.

PETERSON . PETERSON.-In this adjourned summons a surcharge was sought to be made out against a surviving executor in consequence of the defalcations of a deceased executor.-Bristore in support of the summons; Glasse, Q. C. contra. -The VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the surcharge must be disallowed.

BEGBIE v. FENWICK.-Baily, Q. C. and Bardswell in support of an application for the production of documents.Marten, for the defendant, stated that they had no objection to produce the documents for inspection at reasonable times. It was arranged that the plaintiffs should furnish the defendants with a schedule of those documents which they required to inspect.

Common Law Courts.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Reported by T. W. SAUNDERS and C. W. LOVESY, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. EASTER TERM 1867.

Thursday, May 9.

CHARLTON . HUNTLEY.-Boden, Q. C. and Shaw showed cause against the Master's report.-Manisty, Q. C. and Aston contra. Rule absolute as to part.

Ex parte - RUSSELL, ESQ., M.P.—Coleridge, Q C. moved for a rule upon the printer of the Railway Times and Mr. S. F. Williams to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against them for a libel contained in a letter published in the Railway Times Rule nisi.

BROOKS (app.) v. THE OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF ACKLAND, KENT.-Biron moved for a rule for a mandamus commanding the justices of Kent to enter continuances and hear an appeal. Rule nisi.

Friday, May 10.

THE CHARTERED MERCANTILE BANK OF INDIA V. ROBERTSON AND ANOTHER-Honyman, Q. C. and Hannen showed cause against a rule for referring this cause to the Master. -Field, Q. C. and Archibald in support of the rule.

register of the companies, and that the companies should pay all costs incurred in the actions she had commenced against them; in support of which Swan v. The Australasian Company, 7:C. B., N. S., 400, was cited.- Joseph Brown, the shares, who were sub-purchasers.-The COURT ordered the rule to be made absolute, that Miss Tritton's name should be restored to the register, and that a case should be stated between the company and the sub-purchasers, the holder of the shares.

COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS OF LONDON . THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS-A rule had been obtained calling on the board to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to them to alter and amend an assessment upon the City of London for the metropolis main drainage rate for the year ending Aug. 1867, and the precept issued by them to the Chamberlain of the City of London for the payment of the amount of the rate, by making the sum assesed on the city such as in their judgment will be equivalent to a rate of 3d. in the pound of the annual value of the property in the city, estimated according to the estimate or basis on which the county rate is assessed, or according to an estimate, pursuant to the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act, and the Acts amending the same.-Sir J. B. Karslake, S. G., Mellish, Q. C., and Raymond showed cause, contending that inasmuch as no county rate had ever been levied in the city, which by sect. 10 of the Metropolis Local Management Amendment Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 104) was to form the estimate or basis of the rate for the purposes of the Act, the board were justified in adopting the parochial assessment, which they had accordingly done, there being no other estimate upon which the rate in question could be based.-The COURT, after hearing Joseph Brown (Grifits with him) in support, discharged the rule. Rule discharged.

Monday, May 13.

Ex parte HIGGINS.-Francis moved for a rule calling on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to them to take up these awards. Rule nisi.

ELWOOD . EVANS-L. Smith moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus to the clerk of the peace for the county of Sussex to tax the costs of an appeal. Rule refused.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS r. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.-The question in this case, which arose under rule 26 of Trinity Term 1853, which on error from one of the Superior Courts enables such court "to allow interest for such time as execution has been delayed by the proceedings in error, for the delaying thereof," was whether the rule is applicable to proceedings upon appeal under the subsequently framed Common Law Procedure Act 1854. A rule nisi had been obtained to set aside an order of Lush, J. to the master to compute the interest due in pursuance of the rule above mentioned, against which G Bruce showed cause.-The COURT held that the distinction between error and appeal had not been sufficiently provided for by the Legislature, and discharged the rule.

Rule discharged.

Re ROBINSON.-Woollett had obtained a rule calling on the official assignee of Robinson, a bankrupt, to show cause why the bankrupt should not be discharged from the custody of the sheriff of London. The bankruptcy of Robinson took place in 1857, and in the following year, after several adjournments, the commissioner adjourned the case sine die, without protection, and a ca. sa. issued against him under sect. 257 of the B. L. C. A. 1849, which was never executed, the bankrupt having quitted the country. Upon his return to this country after the passing of the B. A. 1861, sect. 230 of which repeals the above section of the older Act, the bankrupt was arrested. It was contended that, inasmuch as the arrest had been made under the provisions of a repealed section, the bankrupt was entitled to his discharge.-Murray showed cause, contending that the rights of creditors under the repealed section had been reserved by the Act of 1861.-Woollett in support of the rule.

Rule discharged.

THE RYDE PIER COMPANY (apps.) r. JAMES PORTER (resp.) This was a case stated upon a refusal of justices to convict of an offence under a bye-law.-Grey, Q.C. for the appellant; Russell for the respondent.

Judgment for the appellant YOUNGMAN (app.) v. MORRIS (resp)-This was a case stated upon a decision of Mr. Knox, one of the metropolitan police magistrates, wherein he refused to convict.-F. M. White appeared for the appellant; J. Brown, Q.C., for the respondent. Judgment for the appellant.

REG. 7. TOMPKINS. -This was a rule to quash a warrant which had been brought up upon a certioruri.Macnamara showed cause; Harrington contra.

Rule discharged.

bility of a pauper.-Poland and Le Breton appeared in support of the order of sessions; Metcalf contra. - (To be reported.) Order of sessions affirmed. Wednesday, May 15.

REDHEAD . THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.-This was an action for damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff while journeying by the defendants' railway by reason of their alleged negligence. It appeared that the accident arose from a latent defect in a carriage-wheel, which the usual caution of the company's servant and the usual tests employed before the starting of the train had failed to discover. Lush, J., before whom the cause was tried, directed the jury that under the circumstances the company were not liable for negligence. A rule was obtained for a new trial upon the ground of misdirection, and the court took time to consider.-The judgment of the Court was now delivered, LUSH end MELLOR, JJ. being of opinion that the direction was right, dissentiente BLACKBURN, J. Rule discharged.

REG. v. WIDNULL-Metcalfe appeared for the appellant in support of a rule to quash an order brought up by certiorari. No paper books had been delivered on the other side. The COURT, after referring to rule 23 on the Crown side, which states that "judgment shall be given by the Court against the party neglecting to deliver paper books to the judges, or delivering the same without the points for argument if the court shall so please," intimated that in future they would adhere to the terms of the rule instead of striking out the case, as has been of late the practice.

JONES. HUXTABLE-This was an appeal against a conviction for selling bread short of weight under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 37, 8. 4.-J. A. Russell in support of the conviction; Bosanquet contra. Conviction affirmed.

REG. v. FARR-In this case the point was whether the defendant was rateable to the repairs of a highway under a general district rate or a highway rate; and depended upon the question whether the local board of the town of Boston had rightly exercised their powers in dividing the area under their jurisdiction by an arbitrary line round the town, by which means the defendant was rated in respect of property within the circle at a higher rate than would otherwise be payable.-W. H. Cooke, Q. C. appeared for the local board. Order affirmed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Reported by W. GRAHAM and M. W. McKELLAR, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.
EASTER TERM 1867.
Thursday, May 9.

MATTHEWS v. THE DISCOUNT CORPORATION.-The arguments in this case were concluded. Cur, adv. vult. Curling, stated that the counsel on the other side had reBINGHAM. CURLING.-Coleridge, Q. C., on behalf of turned their briefs, and were not going to support the rule, and he therefore asked that he might give notice that, if no one was instructed to support the rule, it would be discharged.-The COURT stated that it might be brought on peremptorily on Saturday.

SEVERN. THE POTTERIES, SHREWSBURY, AND SOUTH WALES RAILWAY COMPANY.-H. Matthews moved for rules calling on two shareholders in the defendants' company to show cause why writs of scire facias should not issue against them. Rules nisi.

THE UNION BANK OF LONDON v. SPRAGUE AND OTHERS; THE CONSOLIDATED BANK Garnishees. H. James and Thesiger showed cause against a rule to enter the verdict for the garnishees, or to reduce the damages.

Part heard,

Friday, May 10. BOWRING . PARKER.-Day moved for a rule calling on an attorney to show cause why he should not pay over money and taxed costs, pursuant to an undertaking.

Rule nisi.

KENT v. TOMKINSON.-F. Turner moved for a rule calling on the Sheriff of Surrey to show cause why he should not withdraw from the possession of goods seized under a fi. fa, the defendant having executed a composition-deed. Rule nisi.

THE UNION BANK OF LONDON . SPRAGUE; THE CONSOLIDATED BANK Garnishees.-The arguments in this case were concluded. Rule absolute.

COPCUTT . THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.This cause was directed by Willes, J. to be tried before a County Court judge, and a verdict having been entered for the defendant, a rule was obtained in this term for a new trial.-H. James now appeared to show cause, and contended that the rule was moved too late, and should have been moved within four days after the cause was tried. It appeared that the cause was tried on the 24th Jan., and the certificate was returned to the master's office on the 21st Feb. Holl contended that the time for moving must be computed from the date of the return of the certificate. -The COURT were of opinion that the rule was moved too late, and therefore discharged it. Rule discharged. SHRIMPTON . THE SIDMOUTH RAILWAY AND HARBOUR COMPANY.-Barnard and Holl showed cause, on behalf of two shareholders, against rules calling on them to show cause why writs of scire facias should not issue against them.-J. Brown, Q. C. and Philips in support. Cur, ade, rult.

Saturday, May 11. HOWARTH V. SMITH.-R. G. Williams moved for a rule to send back to the arbitrator an award which had been made in this case on grounds of mistake and informality. Rule nisi.

WEBRER V. WILLICOMBE. This was an application to set aside an agreement made at the trial of certain crossactions, which came on for hearing at the Maidstone Spring Assizes 1866. A similar application had been made in May of last year, and had been refused by the court; fraud was alleged to have been discovered since this refusal.-M. Chambers, Q. C. appeared for the plaintiff.

Postponed in order to amend affidavits. DAVIDSON v. BURNAND.-Action on policy of insurance upon goods shipped on board the Montezuma from New York. There was a clause in the bill of lading with a condition that the owner should be free from loss occasioned by the neglect of the crew. Willes, J., at chambers, had struck out a plea alleging this condition as an answer to the action. Application was now made for leave to plead this plea. Without expressing an opinion concerning the plea, the CoгRT held that the most satisfac