those books that are not so, many particulars may escape the notice of the student, and others may not be thoroughly understood; thirdly, it should not be burdened with disquisitions and discussions on moot points, for until a perfect knowledge of a subject and all that bears on it is obtained it is impossible rightly to argue upon it, and by doing so mistaken ideas may be formed, which are not easily eradicated; fourthly, it should consist of comparatively few, but well chosen books, so that the student may within his time, and between his examinations, obtain a thorough and well grounded knowledge of the subjects of which they treat; and, fifthly, it should be analytical, for, says Lord Eldon, "a cursory and tumultuous reading doth ever tend to a confused memory." In thus presuming to point out some of the qualifications which I deem should belong to a proper course of legal study, I have considered both the amount of time which ought to be given to the practical department, and also the examinations necessary to be passed to the satisfaction of the Incorporated Law Society, for which a well chosen curriculum is of course requisite. Should any fellow-students, readers of the LAW TIMES, fall in with my views on this subject, I should be pleased to receive communication accordingly, and as "in many counsellors there is wisdom," so, by dint of a little reasoning, a good and effectual routine of study may be proposed and accepted by any who may thereafter approve of the same; for, although many excellent courses have already been marked out, yet are there several law students whose requirements they fail to meet some from their prolixity, some from their difficulty, and some from not being sufficiently comprehensive. Wyndham-house, Yeovil, June 19, 1867. A. H. M. CREDIT AND COUNTY COURT COMMITMENTS.You have done good service to the cause of common sense in your short but pithy article last week on the necessity to the working classes of the system of credit. It would be of benefit to the public if you would show them in equally forcible terms the necessity for, and indeed the reasonableness of, retaining a power of imprisonment for disobedience to orders of the County Court for payment of small debts by instalments. When so called "public instructors" like the Daily News, and senators who shall be nameless, display such gross ignorance on the very A. B. C. of a question like this, is high time that the public should be enlightened at least on the facts of the case. Much pity has of late been expended on the poor small debtors who are sent to prison by the County Court Judge because they cannot pay their debts. Will it be believed that no such case can possibly occur? See 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, sects. 98 & 99 which govern the case; also B. A. 1861, s. 105. Before a poor small debtor can be committed to prison, the County Court Judge is bound to have him before the court on special summons, to examine him as to his ability to pay the instalments which he has previously been ordered, but has failed to pay; and it is only on proof that he has the means and won't pay, that he is ordered to be committed; and then only for a short period limited to forty days, but in practice rarely exceeding twenty days. Will the wiseacres who wish to withhold this power of commitment say that such a case is deserving of pity? or will they suggest a remedy by way of substitute, always remembering that these poor working men have no property for creditors to take? In practice the County Court Judge, before ordering committal, goes minutely into the circumstances of the debtor, the number of his family, the amount of their earnings, the question whether there are other judgments hanging over him, and it is only on the plainest proof that it is extravagance, drunkenness, or downright contumacy which has made him refuse to pay, that he is sent to prison. It is plain, therefore, that the public instructors and senators, before alluded to, are altogether misleading the public with representations of the actual facts of the case. In the court with which I am connected more than 6000 small debts were entered last year. In disposing of these there were only 192 orders of commitment, and, most of them being paid as usual at the eleventh hour, actually only forty-four went to prison; and they were of a class likely to be all the better for the lesson, as many of their wives would acknowledge. This power of commitment is rigidly guarded by statute. The system of allowing the working classes to pay their debts by instalments, secured by this County Court remedy, is a most merciful provision. Take it away, destroy the credit system, try to force the poor working man to pay cash for everything, food, clothing, and medical attendance, and you will bring about a state of things not to be contemplated without horror. A COUNTY COURT REGISTRAR. BUSINESS AT THE ASSIZES.-We have been pressed to print the following letter which we do, not with the desire to censure the conduct of the judge, but to show that the pressure of business at the assizes may occasionally cause hardship to be imposed upon suitors which everyone must regret. judges is the remedy for these ills: More circuit after asking Mr. Wells if he had one, and he having replied in the negative, it not being usual to prepare an abstract in such a case, said, "We have no abstract;" on which the judge said, "Then I shall adjourn the case until one be made;" and the trial was stopped accordingly. Our counsel then asked the judge when he would resume the hearing of the cause, who said that he would not allow the other Holmes v. Walker and others. SIR.-We beg leave to call your attention to an act of injustice which was caused to the plaintiff in this case, which came on for trial at the recent assizes at Leeds, on the 5th of April last, before Sir Montague Edward Smith, and we, who are the plaintiff's solicitors in the case, are sure that you will not hesitate to give publicity to what has been done, in your widely circulated paper. The facts are as follows, for the truth of which we are ready to vouch:-The plaintiff is a worsted spinner and manufacturer at Baildon, near this town, and he is the owner and occupier of a substantial dwellingland is adjoining to a close of land belonging to the house there, and of land adjoining, part of which defendant, a Mr. Thomas Walker, an innkeeper and maltster, at Baildon, or to his late father's representative. There is a footway through the plaintiff's close, adjoining to the property of the defendant, adjoining, belonging to a third party. and also an occupation road leading to one field only At the end of the occupation road there has always been a gate leading out of the plaintiff's close into the land of the third party, and between the gate post and the defendant's land adjoining there has always been a stile to go over from the plaintiff's close into the next close not belonging to the plaintiff, and toward the places were the footpath leads to. In the month of Oct. 1866, the defendant Walker, and the other defendant, by his direction, came on to the plaintiff's land and demolished a new stile which he had erected thereon, and they also threw down certain new walls which he had also erected on his property For these alleged trespasses this action was brought, and notice of trial having been given, the cause stood ready for trial at the last Leeds assizes, which commenced on Thursday, the 28th of March last. The plaintiff thought it was desirable that it should be tried by a special jury, and that they should view the premises. He accordingly gave notice of a special jury, and obtained the usual rule for a view, the under-sheriff fixing it for Friday the 29th March, at which six of the jurors attended. We entered the cause for trial on the 28th March, and, as we wished it to come on during the early part of the assizes, we entered it number sixteen in the list, there being only three special juries entered before it. On Friday the 29th, or on Saturday the 30th March, it was announced that no special jury cases would be taken before Thursday the 4th April, and as we found one of the three entered before ours was arranged to be taken after ours, we were told by our counsel that our witnesses must be in attendance, and that we must be ready for trial on Thursday morning, the 4th April. Our witnesses were about twenty in number, and they went from Baildon to Leeds on that day accordingly. The cause did not, however, come on on that day, and we and our witnesses were again in attendance on Friday morning, the 5th April, on which day the cause came on about twelve o'clock. The six jurors who had attended the view were there, and six other special jurors also attended, and were duly sworn. The plaintiff's plans of the property were handed to them and the judge, and our leading counsel (Mr. Field) proceeded to open the case on the part of the plaintiff. Before, however, he had finished his opening, the judge interposed by saying that he understood it was a case in which there would be a great number of witnesses; that the evidence would be contradictory; that it would occupy the court for a long time; and that it was a case which, by all means, should be settled out of court; that it should not have been brought into court; and that the parties should agree to have their rights ascertained by some mutual friend or referee. The defendant's counsel, on hearing this, immediately signified their acquiescence; and then our counsel asked Mr. Wells. of our firm (who had the management of the case), if he would yield to the judge's suggestions. Mr. Wells at once told our counsel that the plaintiff would not on any account consent to a reference of the cause, and, therefore, that the trial must go on. He also told them that, independently of the large costs which the plaintiff had incurred in bringing the cause to Leeds for trial, it was most important to him that it should be tried before a judge and jury, and that it was, in his (Mr. Wells's) judgment, a most unfit case to be decided by an arbitrator. Mr. Wells who was present and would not agree to refer) to was pressed on all hands (except by the plaintiff, yield to the judge's wishes, but he declined to do so; and, under these disadvantageous circumstances, our leading counsel told the judge that his hands were tied, and that the trial must go on. The judge then said he would go on with it, though he did so reluctantly; but he added that if it lasted more than one day he would adjourn it, and put it at the end of the list. Our junior counsel then proceeded to put in evidence one of the plaintiff's title-deeds, to prove his title to the close in which the alleged trespasses had been committed, and the judge took a note of the date of the deed so produced; but the moment he had done so, he suddenly said to our counsel, "Have you got an abstract for my use of the deeds you are about to put in evidence, as I cannot take the trouble to look at the deeds?" Our counsel, business of the assizes to be interrupted by such following Monday morning, when he would say a case, and that it might be mentioned again on the what he would do with it. The special jury then left the box, our witnesses returned home a second time, and so the cause stood over until the following Monday, the 8th April, when our leading counsel asked the judge when he would go on with the trial of the cause. His Lordship, in reply, said that if all the business of the assizes were finished on the following Thursday night (which from the state of the list, could not be) he would proceed with our cause on Friday morning (the 12th April), the last day of the assizes, and that it must take its chance as to whether it could be finished on that day. This was submitted to, and we were again expecting to have to take our witnesses to Leeds a third time, but on Tuesday the 9th April, the judge, addressing our counsel, said that as there could be no chance of finishing the other business on Thursday, he should at once make the cause a remanet; and as our counsel said that he was entirely in his Lordship's hands, the cause was, after all our preparation and expense, and notwithstanding it came on for trial in its turn, and simply because the plaintiff declined to accede to a reference, made a remanet accordingly. assizes, and in addition to all other expenses which The cause therefore stands over for trial until the next the plaintiff will have to incur will be that of another view by another jury. If we had entered the cause late in the cause list, and it had been made a remanet in the ordinary course, we should not have complained, but it must be remembered that it came on in its turn as a special jury cause so early as on the second day fixed for special juries, and because the plaintiff would not be forced into a reference the judge virtually refused to try it. His Lordship tried all the other special juries in the cause list, and for the reason we have mentioned, viz., that we declined to refer it, he singled out ours and placed it with the other remanets, all of which were common jury cases. We submit the judges are bound, whether causes are likely to be long or short, to try them as they stand in turn in the cause list, and not to shield themselves from trouble by either compelling the parties to refer or by giving such expressions of opinion on the case before they have heard the evidence as to render it hazardous for parties to try their causes before them. In addition to what we have already stated we may add that eighty-seven causes were entered at the late Leeds assizes for trial, eighteen of which were special juries, all of which (except the plaintiff's) were tried. There were eighteen remanets, seventeen of those being common juries. Several of the special jury cases were long and trivial, and yet the judge tried them, although they were entered after ours on the list. Bradford, May 11th. WELLS & RIDEHALGH. (Q. 271) WILL.-The effect of the proviso suggested by your "Inquirer" would just be none. If A. should become bankrupt the property would go to his assignees. Any elementary work would tell "Inquirer" all he wishes to know, and inform him that to give effect to the proviso or Your correready to take, and demanding the property. condition there must be a gift over to a person in esse spondent should have stated what it was the trustees were to pay to the son: dividend, rent, annuity, or tithes. T. W. The devise to A. during his life, or until he should become bankrupt, or do any act whereby the weekly sum would become payable to any other person, is as equally mining the life-interest on bankruptcy, &c., although it valid as a devise to one for life, with a proviso detervol. 2, 28.) The devise to A. would therefore, on bankhas been contended to the contrary: (see Jarman on Wills, ruptcy or alienation, be at an end, and equity would not (Q. 272.) MASTER AND SERVANT-In this case, as the servant's absence was not restricted with regard to time, and it does not appear that she absented herself for any unreasonable period (because it certainly was most reasonable that she should stay until the funeral was over), I do not think that she could be chargeable with neglect, or that her master would be justifled in dismissing her without a month's wages. There was nothing unlawful, and decidedly nothing unreasonable, in her protracted absence on account of her mother's decease. Bideford. W. P. Undoubtedly, absence without leave is a cause of dismissal. But under the circumstances of a mother's death would any master be found sufficiently devoid of feeling to insist on the letter of the law? Surely "Magister" admits the existence of some higher considerations than mere legal ones. It is the enforcing in such cases as this one of the litera scripta of the law which helps to make up the cause of complaint eternally cropping up in the newspapers between masters and servants. I speak the more strongly, from having (as the author of the article "Domestic Service" in a late number of the Law Magazine) had placed before me a mass of papers and letters which seemed to show that certain masters and mistresses, good in all other qualities and respects, regarded their servants as a class of beings exempt from similar feelings to themselves. W. R. A meeting of this society was held on the 19th June, with Mr. W. Best in the chair, when Mr. Chisholm Anstey read a paper on "Sir William Blackstone's Theory of the Omnipotence of Parliament." The learned reader severely criticised that theory as defending at once the legality of despotism and the legality of resistance, and properly condemned by the advocates of either proposition. He was of opinion that, although the courts would prefer any possible construction which would put a reasonable intention on a statute, yet occasions might occur when it might be even obligatory on courts of justice to declare an Act of Parliament a nullity. The Chairman expressed general approval of Mr. Anstey's very learned paper, instancing the hypothetical cases of Parliament requiring impossibilities, or making enactments purporting to bind foreign governments; but he doubted whether there could be a power in judicial tribunals to abrogate statutes of the supreme power in the realm as contrary to natural justice, and therefore void. The discussion was continued by Mr. Droop, Mr. Edward Webster, and Mr. William Stebbing; and Mr. Chisholm Anstey replied. was so novel as to entitle him to the injunction which he V. C. STUART'S COURT. TUBBS V. THE MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY Injunction granted. Wednesday, June 26. V. C. WOOD'S COURT. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. Re THE INNS OF COURT HOTEL COMPANY (LIMITED).-This Application granted. Re THE EAST KONSBERG NATIVE SILVER MINING COMPANY OF NORWAY (LIMITED).-This was an application on behalf Longueville Giffard for the liquidators; and A. E. Millar Application granted. Wednesday, June 26. LONDON, HAMBURGH, AND CONTINENTAL EXCHANGE BANK PROMOTIONS & APPOINTMENTS (LIMITED) v. SPIELMAN. [N.B.-Announcements of appointments being in the nature of advertisements are charged 28. Gd. each, for which postage-stamps should be inclosed.] The Queen has been pleased to appoint George French, Esq., to be Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Settlement of Sierra Leone, on the Western Coast of Africa. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Mr. Thomas Atkinson, of the firm of Shirley and Atkinson, Doncaster, to be a commissioner to administer oaths in Chancery, in Englard. The Lord Chief Justice has appointed Mr. Louis Charles Lumley, of the firm of Lumley and Lumley, of No. 15, Old Jewry-chambers, and 22, Conduitstreet, a London commissioner for taking oaths in common law. Mr. George Beswick, of the firm of Blakeley and Beswick, 10, Bedford-row, has been appointed a London commissioner to administer oaths in all the Common Law Courts. Mr. William Cooper, of the firm of Cooper Brothers and Co., public accountants, of 13, Georgestreet, Mansion House, has been appointed by V. C. Malins official liquidator of the North Atlantic Company (Limited). THE COURTS & COURT PAPERS. Equity Courts. HILTON . Woods.-This case was heard before the recess, involving a question of title to mines. The V. C. decided on the former occasion that the plaintiff had proved his title, but reserved his judgment on a question of champerty, subject to an arrangement.-Glasse, Q. C. (Martineau with him) now said that no arrangement had been come to.-Baily, Q. C. (T. C. Wright with him.)-The case then stood over. To be argued. GREENWOOD . TONGUE.-This case related to a patent for machinery for combing china grass, and was heard on demurrer. The cause had been set down. -Baily, Q. C., Glasse, Q. C., Higgins, and Bagshawe, for the different parties. The cause was ordered to stand over generally, with liberty to apply. ATKINSON v. CREWE.-Baily, Q. C. asked that this cause, which had before stood over, should again stand over on the old undertaking. Ordered. SOCIETE ATTRAITEUR, &C. v. THE GREAT EASTERN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.-Baily, Q. C. and T. C. Mathew (of the Common Law Bar) said that a person to be crossexamined in this case was too ill to attend-Cotton, Q C. and Fischer for the defendants. Undertaking as to damages by the plaintiffs, and also an undertaking by the defendants, to be continued. BEGBIE v. FENWICK-Baily, Q. C. referred to this case, which came on a short time since, as to sealing up documents relating to ships. There was a cause and cross cause.-Marten for the defendant.-After some discussion, the case stood over until the second day of Michaelmas Term. THE HOWE SEWING-MACHINE COMPANY v. SALOMON.Glasse. Q. C. appeared for the plaintiffs in this case; E. E. Kay, Q. C. and C. Locock Webb for the defendant.-The plaintiff and another person were to be cross-examined; the former was too ill to come.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR ordered the appointment of a special examiner to be agreed upon, and the case to stand over CANN v. SMITH.-Glasse, Q. C. and Bagshawe appeared in this case, which had been a suit of interpleader, but had ceased to be so, by the retirement of one party.-Shapter, Q. C. for the stakeholder.-The money in dispute was ordered to be brought into court. BUTLER V. FORBES.-E. F. Smith said that in this case an ex parte injunction had been granted against the sheriff to restrain parting with money under a fi. fa. against a shareholder in a company, and asked that the case might stand over.-Cole, Q. C. and F. H. Colt, objected to the standing over. The VICE-CHANCELLOR ordered everything to remain in statu quo. MACGRIGOR V. FRAZER.-Prendergast, QC. and Prendergast, jun., moved to continue an interim injunction to restrain an action by Capt. Fraser to recover the proceeds of a commission in the plaintiff's hands.-Solomon for creditors; Russell Roberts for Capt. Frazer.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that this was a clear case of interpleader, and ordered the money to be brought into court. BIGNOLD. HEMSWORTH.-Swanston mentioned this case, which referred to the interference with the defendant's business.-Osborne, Q. C. and Bristowe for the defendant. The case stood over. WEBSTER V. ROBINSON.-The question in this suit was whether George Henry Robinson had a right to grant a lease of premises in Half-moon-street. A sum of 3001, was also in dispute under articles of partnership.-Townsend for the plaintiff; Shapter, Q. C. and Sterens for the defendant.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR directed the case to stand over until the hearing, judgment to be given in an action for the 300l. to be dealt with by this court. WELLESLEY V. MORNINGTON.-Freeling said that this case being in the paper for to morrow, he was directed by the Attorney-General and Sir Roundell Palmer to ask that it Ordered. might stand over until the 3rd of July. over until the next seal. Wednesday, June 26. BEEVOR V. LUCK.-The plaintiff in the suit was the holder of seven different mortgages on different property of the AUSTIN v. WILSON-Higgins asked leave to serve a copy same mortgagor. Two of the mortgages so held by the of the bill on a party in Ireland. Ordered. plaintiff were on Nos. 11 and 14, Euston-terrace, respec- HAYMAN V. ROBERTS.-Higgins asked that this case, in tively, two others were on Nos. 32 and 34, Finchley-road, which a motion was to be made for a receiver, might stand The defendant Sibson had purchased the equity of redempand another was on No. 1, The Villas, Upper Druro-road. Ordered. tion in Nos. 11 and 14, Euston-terrace before the mortRICHARDS v. EDSALL.-This suit related to a partnership gages on Nos. 32 and 34, Finchley-road were transferred to at Yeovil in Hampshire, and there had been considerable the plaintiff. The defendant Standish had purchased the disagreement and complication of circumstances. A demurrer had been overruled.-Baily, Q. C. and Batten, for equity of redemption in No. 1, The Villas, after all the seven mortgages became vested in the plaintiff. The the plaintiff, opened a motion to restrain interference; Bevir opposed it. plaintiff filed a bill praying a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to any of the mortgaged preUltimately the VICE-CHANCELLOR directed the motion to stand over until the fourth mises without paying to the plaintiff what was due to seal; the arbitration to be speeded, and the plaintiff meanhim on all the mortgages, and for other consequential time to be appointed receiver. relief.-Giard, Q. C. and R. Horton Smith appeared for the plaintiff; and Amphlett, Q. C., Kay, Q. C., Mackeson, and T. Brooksbank for the defendants.-The VICE-CHANCELLOR now gave his reserved judgment, and held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief asked. LONDON, HAMBURGH, AND CONTINENTAL EXCHANGE BANK (LIMITED) v. SPIELMAN. Part heard. V. C. MALINS' COURT. TRINITY TERM 1867. NICHOLSON. BOWEN.-Shebbeare asked that this case ROLLS COURT. Reported by H. R. YOUNG, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. SITTINGS AFTER TERM. Wednesday, June 26. READING . RYLAND.-This was an injunction suit, in which the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from invading a patent of his for clasps, for brooches, and bracelets, and such like articles.-Grove, Q. C., Ferrers and Macrory (of the Common Law Bar) appeared for the plaintiff; and Baggallay, Q. C., J. Kaye, and Theodore Aston (of the Common Law Bar) for the defendants.-LORD ROMILLY thought the evidence did not show that the plaintiff's patent-Glasse, Q. C. did not object. applied to extend the time for advertising for seven days Ordered. YELVERTON V. BOWEN.-Baily, Q. C. and Rigby, appeared for the plaintiff, in this mining case; Glasse, Q. C. and Bardswell for the defendant-The plaintiff had brought an action of ejectment and sought to restrain the working meantime. This case also eventually stood over until the fourth seal. HODDER V. LANE.-This case related to the renewal of a lease. It now came on on motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.-Glasse, Q. C. and G. F. White for the plaintiff, asked that it might stand over; Almaric Rumsey for the defendant. Ordered. Re OVEREND, GURNEY, AND Co., ex parte MUSGRAVE,Baily, Q. C. and Higgins appeared on this summons by Messrs. Musgrave, to put the name of a Mr. Hart on the list of contributories in the voluntary winding-up; Hart having purchased thirty shares in the name (as was alleged) of Martha Street, his domestic servant, without her knowledge.-Cotton, Q. C. and Westlake for Mr. Hart; Roxburgh, Q. C. and Ferrers for the liquidators. Wednesday, June 26. Part heard. Re OVEREND, GURNEY, AND Co. (LIMITED), er parte MUSGRAVE.-The arguments in this case were continued and concluded to-day. The question was whether the names of Messrs. Musgrave, or of a Mr. Hart, should be on the list in the voluntary winding-up. It appeared that the name of Marthe Street, then Hart's domestic servant, was given when the shares were purchased.-Baily, Q. C. and Higgins appeared for Messrs. Musgrave; Cotton, Q. C. and Westlake for Mr. Hart; Roxburgh, Q. C. and Ferrers for the liquidator; Baily, Q. C. in reply. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that he should give his opinion on this most important question on Tuesday morning, and if he could put Mr. Hart's name on the list he would, as he was morally liable. 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. SITTINGS AFTER TRINITY TERM 1867. Tuesday, June 25. MACKENZIE T. STIRLING-This was an action for breaking and entering the plaintiff's mine lying under a certain road and working the same. The second count was for the conversion of the plaintiff's goods. The plaintiff had a verdict for the value of the minerals carried away, with leave to enter a verdict for the defendant. A rule was obtained in pursuance, against which Quain, Q. C, T. C. Foster and Herschell showed cause. The plaintiff and defendant were owners of lands separated by an occupation road, under which a valuable mine of hematite iron was recently discovered, and the question was whether the medium filum vix was to be considered as equidistant from the fences on 'each side of the road, or whether the middle of the beaten track formed the boundary of the two properties-Quain, Q. C. TC. Foster and Herschell showed cause against the rule; Kemplay in support of the rule. The case was adjourned. ALLEN . THE MAYOR &C. OF HASTINGS-This was an action by the chaplain of the Hastings burial ground against the defendants as the burial board of the borough, to recover fees in respect of interments performed by him as chaplain of the burial ground. The plaintiff had a verdict and a rule was subsequently obtained to enter a verdict for the defendants. The question was, whether the fees in question were payable by the corporation into whose hands moneys, arising from interments were paid, or by the incumbents of the different parishes in Hastings. from whom the plaintiff received his appointment of chaplain to the burial ground.-Sir G. Honuman, Q. C. showed cause: Gates in support of the rule.-The case was unfinished at the rising of the court. Wednesday, June 26. MACKENZIE. STIRLING.-The counsel for the parties announced at the sitting of the court that this case had been arranged, and the cross rules obtained suffered to drop. ALLEN . THE MAYOR &c. OF HASTINGS.-This case was also arranged. HEINKER P. SCHENCK This was an action for the breach of a charter-party. The plaintiff had a verdict, with leave to enter a verdict for the defendant.-The COURT called on T. Jones Q. C. and Kemplay in support of the rule, without hearing Manisty, Q. C. and Shield who were to have shown Rule discharged. cause. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. WILSON r. SMITH-In this appeal from the decision of defendant. in his second plea, alleged that he had executed Tuesday, June 25. STRUDWICK ". CROW.-This was an action on a bill of paper, and that the said Gazette was taken in at Lloyds” and read by underwriters, with the view of their obtaining early intelligence. That plaintiff lived at Sunderland, and only saw the paper the day after its publication, and that defendant being an underwriter in London had earlier access to the report. The question was, whether the assured was bound to call the insurer's attention to a mere newspaper report which might or not relate to the ship in question, the newspaper being open to all-Mellish, Q. C. (with Leiers) for the plaintiff, contended that he was not, and cited (1) Arnould on Marine Insurance, by Maclachlan, p. 541. [CHANNELL, B. refer to Bates v. Heritt in the Q B. (the Georgia case).]-Cohen for the defendant. After some discussion it was eventually agreed, on the suggestion of the COURT that the argument on the demurrer should stand over until after the trial of the issues of fact. Stands over accordingly. THE EASTERN EXCHANGE BANK (LIMITED) T. CHAMBERS AND OTHERS-This was an interpleader issue, tried at Liverpool, at the spring assizes, before Mellor, J., when a verdict was taken for the plaintiffs by consent, subject to a special case to be stated by an arbitrator for the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs were bankers at Liverpool, and defendants were inspectors of the estate of Holderness and Co.. merchants, who became bankrupt in 1866. The inspectors were appointed by deed under the B. A. 1861. The question was, whether plaintiffs were entitled, as against the defendants or the bankrupts, or some or one of them, to all or any part of a sum of 47101. 17s. Sd. advanced on letters of credit-Mellish, Q C. (with him McConnell) for the plaintiffs: E. James, Q. C. (Quain, Q. C. and Baylis with him) for the defendants. To be referred back to the arbitrator for a further statement of certain facts, SCHOLES . CLAPPERTON.-In this case, in which a rule nisi had been granted for a new trial, and in which at the close of the argument, on the 13th May last, the court took time to consider.-KELLY, C. B. now delivered the judgment of the court, that, looking at the nature of the evidence, and having consulted the learned judge who tried the cause, and who stated that he was not dissatisBLAKE T. IZZARD.-This was a special case. By a build-fled with the verdict, the court were not inclined to disturb before the lease was granted were to become the property of the verdict, and therefore the rule would be discharged. ing agreement all the materials brought on to the land Rule discharged. the lessor. and the question raised by this case was whether the claimant, the lessor, was entitled to certain building materials which were on the land, as against the execution creditor of the lessee-Grantham for the claimants; Bush Cooper for the execution creditor. Judgment for the claimant. ISAACS T. GREEN.-In this case, argued a few days ago by H. James for the plaintiff, and M Kellar for the defendant, and which involved a question of the validity of a deed of composition under the B. A. 1861, which had been pleaded in defence to an action by a non-assenting creditor, and which plea had been demurred to on the ground that only a certain specified portion of the creditors of the defendants were parties to and bound by the deed, and in which the court had taken time to consider-KELLY. C. B. now delivered the judgment of the court, that it was impossible to reconcile the various authorities cited: but, looking at the intention of the Legislature in the B. A. 1861, and the obvious intentions of the parties to the deed, and following Maclaren v. Barter, in the C. P. a few days ago (16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 521; and Gurria v. Kopera, in this court, 12 Ib. 452, the court would hold the deed good, and pronounce judgment for the defendant. Judgment for defendant. BROOM. NICHOLSON.-In this case KELLY. C. B., and BRAMWELL and CHANNELL, BB, gave judgment. discharging the rule for a new trial on the ground of the verdict being against the weight of evidence, the two latter learned Barons assenting to that judgment with hesitation. Rule discharged. THE ALLIANCE BANK (LIMITED) ". TUCKER AND ANOTHERThis was a special case. The Alliance Bank held a lease of a house as security for advances to client of the defendants, who were attorneys in partnership. It being desired to assign the lease, Tucker gave an undertaking in the name of the firm, that if the bank would give up the lease they would pay the debts, amounting to 4501. The question raised by this case was whether Tucker's partner, who was not aware that this undertaking was given, was liable upon it.-E. James, Q. C. and Hannen appeared for defendant-The COURT was of opinion that this was not the plaintiffs: Hayes, Serjt. and Morgan Howard for the a mere guarantee for the debt of a third party, and that as the defendant knew that it would be necessary to get the lease before it could be assigned, and as the undercourse of the defenuant's business, both defendants were Judgment for the plaintiff's, MCINTOSH (аpp.) г. THE CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF ROMFORD (resps).-This was a special case raising a question whether the appellant was entitled to be rated for his interest in Romford market.-Pretnice, Q. C. (Taylor with him) contended that the tolls received by the appellant Reported by T. W. SAUNDERS, W. GRAHAM and E. LUMLEY, were not tolls in gross, but were paid in respect of the occupation of the land, as they were paid whether the beasts were sold or not. At the conclusion of his argument the court rose. — Brown, Q. C. and F. M. White appeared for the appellant. Part heard. WILLIAMS . JAMES-This case had been partly heard.-taking was given for that purpose, and in the ordinary Rule absolute. WITTEN v. MAXWELL-This special case was intended to raise the liability of the defendant for the price of shares in Overend, Gurney, and Co. The plaintiff was seller, and the defendant was named as buyer by a stock-jobber to plaintiff's broker. The facts contained in the case were not, however, sufficient to make the circumstances clear, so the Court directed a nonsuit to be entered.-Pollock, Q. C. (with him Woollett), for plaintiff; Honyman, Q. C. (with him J. C. Mathew), for defendant. Plaintiff nonsuited. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. Saturday, June 22. MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF LONDON . CHURCHWARDENS OF ST. ANDREW, HOLBORN.-This was a case stated by consent under 12 & 13 Viet c. 45. The plaintiffs are the undertakers of the Holborn Valley Improvement and by the 133rd section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the undertakers are to make up the deficiency in the poor-rates during the carrying out of an undertaking. The defendants maintained that the plaintiffs were bound to pay the poor-rates just in the same way as the occupiers had done previously; in which case they would be liable for other rates and taxes payable by persons paying poor-question of the true construction of the terms of a charterrates.-The COURT, however, decided that this was not the effect of the statute.-Poland for plaintiffs; Macnamara for defendants. Judgment for plaintiff's, ASIATIC BANKING CORPORATION (LIMITED) v. DUNBARThis special case raised a question as to the liability of the defendant upon a guarantee.-Ilannen (with him Kaye), for plaintiffs; Field, Q. C. (with him Archibald), for defendants. Judgment for plaintiff's Friday, June 21. WATSON . THE MID-WALES RAILWAY COMPANY-This was a demurrer to an equitable replication raising a question as to the right of set-off as against the assignee of a Lloyd's Bond - Lord for the plaintiff; Macnamara for the defendants. (To be reported.) Judgment for the plaintiff. HARRISON . THE EAST INDIA RAILWAY COMPANY.-This was an action for breach of a contract by which the plaintiffs were to supply ships for carrying up the conntry the materials for the defendants' railway. The defendants pleaded that before they could perform their part of the contract it was necessary to obtain the consent of the government, which they had failed to do. To this there was a demurrer.-Sir G. Honuman, Q. C. appeared in support of the demurrer.-W. Williams, for the defendants, admitted that the plea could not be supported. Judgment for the plaintiff PORTER T. KIRKUS-This was an action for rent, and the BUCKLE. ASHBURNER AND OTHERS.-This was a special party, and whether on such construction the ship in JONES . HOLME-In this case, which was argued on the last day of Trinity Term, by Mellish, Q. C. (with him D) for the plaintiff, and Watkin Williams for the defendaut, and on which the court then took time to consider, judgment was now delivered for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintif. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. ERRORS FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH. (Before MARTIN, B. WILLES, and KEATING, J.J., CHANNELL, and PIGOTT, BB., and SMITH, J.) Wednesday, June 19. DE MESCHIN. Lross-The Court without hearing the respondent gave judgment affirming the judgment of the court below. THE QUEEN . THE LORD MAYOR OF LONDON.-This case was part heard. ERRORS FROM THE COMMON PLEAS. Thursday, June 20. APPLEBY C. MYERS-The arguments in this case, which were commenced at the sittings after Easter Term, were concluded The action was brought to recover the price of some machinery put up on the defendant's premises, which were burnt down by an accidental fire before the contract was completed, and the question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover for so much of the work as was done at the time of the fire.-Holl for the plaintiff, concluded his argument.—Hannan in reply. Cur, adv. cult. THOMAS. WELSH.-This was an action for the infringment of a patent.-Macrory for the defendant now applied to postpone the argument on the ground that an action between the same parties was coming on in Ireland, and that his client and models were there-Grove, Q. C., resisted the application on the ground that there had already been repeated postponements, and that the cause would not be tried in Ireland for a fortnight.-The COURT thought that no sufficient reason was shown for a postponement. and Macrory not being prepared to argue, gave judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment armed. MEYERSTEIN T. BARRER-In this case the consignee of goods landed on a sufferance wharf, and under a stop for freight, obtained an advance from the plaintiff on two parts of the bill of lading, and a subsequent advance from the defendant on the third part. The defendant having obtained possession of the goods, and sold them, this action was brought to recover them or their value. The defendant now appealed from the judgment of the Court of C. P. discharging a rule to enter the verdict for the defendant.-J. Brown, Q. C. (Brett, Q. C. with him) for the defendant; E. James Q. C. (Sir G. Honyman, Q. C. with Judgment affirmed. him), for the plaintiff, were not called upon. Friday, June 21. (Before MARTIN and CHANNELL, BB., BLACKBURN J., PIGOTT, B, and SHEE, J.) AZEMAR T. CASELLA-This case in the court below is reported 16 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 14.-Honyman, Q.C (with him MLeod) for plaintiff; Brown, Q. C. (with him Hannen) for defendant. Judgment affirmed. CORNER V. BIRT.-Plaintiff advanced 1804 to be repaid by defendant on sale of a cargo of corks consigned to Sydney. The cargo could not be sold except at serious loss, and is still in charge of the consignee. This action was for repayment of the advance.-The COURT below held that no action would lie until the sale had taken place, or the plaintiff could show that the sale was absolutely impossible. -Brown, Q. C. (with him Woollett) for plaintiff; Macnamara (with him Murphy) for defendant. Judgment affirmed. ERRORS FROM THE EXCHEQUER. Saturday, June 22. LORD LECONFIELD . DIXON.-This was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Ex. negativing the existence in the plaintiff, as lord of the manor of Croylin in Cumberland, of a right of shooting over certain allotments made under an Inclosure Act.-Manisty, Q. C. (with him Kemplay) for the appellant; Temple, Q. C. (with him Herschel) for the respondent.-The COURT took time to consider their judg Cur. adr, vull. ment. BUCKLE T. KNOOP AND OTHERS.-J. A. Russell (with him NISI PRIUS. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. (Before COCKBURN, C. J. and Special Juries) ACTON . THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.-Action to recover compensation for injuries received by the plaintiff on the defendants' railway.-Coleridge, Q. C. and Mellor for the plaintiff; the Solicitor-General and Beasley for the defendunts. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 15001. BOYCE v. HALL.-Action to recover damages for causing an obstruction to the plaintiff's lights by building opposite the plaintiff's window.-Hayes, Serjt. and White for the plaintiff; Chambers, Q. C. and Pearce for the defendant. Part heard. VIGERS . PETO AND OTHERS. Adjourned till Thursday next. BOYCE v. HALL-Concluded. Verdict for the defendant. MAGRATH . LAURIE.-Purry, Serjt, and R. E. Turner for TULLY. CORRIE-Action to recover damages from defendant for giving the plaintiff into custody on a false charge, and for breaking into her room and searching her box-Huddleston, Q. C., J. O. Griffits, and Kenealy for the plaintiff; Coleridge, Q. C. and H. Janes for the defendant. Monday, June 24. TULLY. CORRIE.-Continued. Tuesday, June 25. TULLY CORRIE.--Concluded. Part heard. Verdict for the plaintiff on first count; damages 801 BONNY . SMITH.-Action to recover damages from the defendant for certain slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff, and reported in the British Medical Journal,—Coleridge, Q. C. and H. Mathers for the plaintiff; Robinson, Serjt. and Inderwick for the defendant, Part heard. BRUFF. CONYBEARE Made a remanet, pending certain proceedings in error. BONNY U. SMITH-Concluded. A juror withdrawn. BEAUMONT . THE PROVINCIAL BANKING CORPORATION (LIMITED), AND SAME . SAME. -Actions on breach of covenants in a lease.-The Solicitor-General, Cole, Q. C., and Chitty for the plaintiff: Collier, Q. C. and Kelly for the defendants. Turned into a special case for the full court. ABSOLOM . STATHAM. Put at the bottom of the list, in consequence of being unable COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Before BOVILL, C. J. and Special Jury.) WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER v. MOORE -This was an action on a promissory note.-Parry, Serjt. and Barnard for the plaintiff; Coleridge, Q. C. and H. Matthews for the defendant. Part heard. (Before BYLES, J. and Common Juries.) DAVIS. MILLER.-This was an action on a bill of exchange.-Beresford and Crump for the plaintiff; Pearce for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff with leave to defendant to more. JARRETT T. DAVEY.-An action on a bill of exchange. Plea that defendant was induced to accept the bill by the fraud of the plaintiff.-E. T. Smith for the plaintiff; Pearce for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff. CANN (Secretary of the West of England Fire and Life Insurance Company) . SMITIL-This was an action on a bond. Day for the plaintiff. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for 6967. 188. 4d. LONDON ENGINEERING AND IRON SHIPBUILDING COMPANY (LIMITED) v. CowAN. -This was an action for the amount of calls for seventy-five shares of the company.-Rosher for the plaintiffs; Philbrick for the defendant. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiffs for 3821, 115, 2d. MORRIS T. SHURMER AND WIFE.—An action on a promis sory note drawn by the female defendant before marriage. I Verdict for the defendants, with leave to plaintiff to move. (Before KEATING, J. and a Special Jury.) (Before BYLES, J. and Common Juries.) pleaded a set off-Pickering, Q. C. and Baylis for the Verdict for the plaintiff for 291. 2s. 6d. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff for 20791. 4s. 2d. (Before KEATING, J. and Special Juries.) GEDYE . THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY injuries sustained-Collier, Q.C. and Rosher for the plaintiff; (Before BYLES, J. and a Special Jury.) Verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to defendant to more. MIZES . LUCAS.-This was an action for breaking and Verdict for the plaidliff; damages 40s., with leave to ATTREY V. JONES.-M'Lloyd for the plaintiff; Harston for Verdict by consent for the plaintiff for 1s. upon terms. (Before BYLES, J. and Special Juries.) damages for slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff in The plaintiff was nonsuited. EDWARDS AND ANOTHER . PENSON AND ANOTHER-This an (Before BYLES, J. and a Special Jury.) Verdict for the defendants. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for 191. 3s. 9d. (Before BOVILL, C. J. and Special Juries.) KNOX r. GODSON-This was an action for wrongful dis- Verdict for the plaintiff for 3007. charge of stealing a cheque from Lady Cardigan.Huddleston, Q. C., Sleigh, and Kenealey for the plaintiff; Coleridge, Q. C., Garth, Q. C., and Poland for the defendant. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Part heard. (Before KELLY, C. B. and Special Juries.) Fox T. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.-This was an action for non-delivery of goods by the company.-James, Q. C. and Horace Lloyd for the plaintiff; Field, Q. C. and another for the defendants. Verdict for the plaintiff for 1911, with leave to defendant to more to enter a nonsuit, the court to draw inferences of fact. BLAKELY U. NICHOLAY AND ANOTHER.-An action for goods bargained and sold, sold and delivered, and on accounts stated. Pleas: never indebted, set-off and accord and satisfaction.-Ballantine, Serjt., Hance, and M. Griffiths for the plaintiff; Huddleston, Q. C. and E. T. Smith for the Verdict for the defendants. defendants. CLARE v. MARSHALL-This was an action for an assault. Pleas: not guilty, and that plaintiff previously assaulted the defendant-M. Chambers, Q. C. and Ilance for the plaintiff; Huddleston, Q. C. and Lewis for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 51. Saturday, June 22. (Before KELLY, C. B. and Special Juries.) PERRYMAN v. LISTER.-This was an action for false ime prisonment.-Seymour, Q. C. and Brandt for the plaintiff; Ballantine, Serjt, for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 100. SINCLAIR 7. THE LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY.This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the negligence of the defendants' servants.-Parry, Serjt. and another for the plainAfter tiff; Giffard, Q. C. and Shaw for the defendants. the examination of witnesses for the defence A juror was withdrawn by consent. Monday, June 24. (Before KELLY. C. B. and Special Juries.) LEWIS v. MCKEE. Postponed by consent until Saturday. COOPER T. THE WOOLWICH STEAM PACKET COMPANY.An action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained. Warton and another for the plaintiff; Keane, Q. C. and Talfourd Salter for the defendant. Verdict for the defendant. SARGEANT. IMпOF.-This was an action of trover of a musical instrument.-Oppenheim for the plaintiff; Ballantine, Serjt. and B. Cooper for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 2501. Tuesday, June 25. (Before KELLY, C. B. and Special Juries.) COULCHER T. FLEET.-This was an action for work and labour done in the way of printing for the Universal Tourist Company (Limited).-Giffard, Q. C. and Philbrick for the plaintiff; Powell, Q. C. and Macnamara for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 7631. RICHARDS . SMART.-This was an action for a malicious prosecution.- Kenealey for the plaintiff; Horace Loud for the defendant. Wednesday, June 26. Part heard. (Before KELLY, C. B. and Special Juries.) RICHARDS v. SMART.-Part heard on Tuesday. Concluded. The plaintiff was nonsuited. BARWICK . THE ENGLISH JOINT-STOCK BANK.-This was an action on a guarantee, with a count alleging fraud on the part of the defendants.-Brown, Q. C. and J. O. Griffits for the plaintiff; fellish, Q. C. and Watkyn Williams for the defendants. Verdict for the defendants. SECOND COURT. Tuesday, June 25. (Before PIGOTT, B. and Common Juries.) ANGLE . ATKINS AND ANGLE v. O'CALLAGHAN.-These were both actions arising out of the same circumstances, and were brought to recover the value of some horses let out by the plaintiff to the defendants for the Dover review; the dispute being as to the terms of the letting.-Parry, Serjt, and Murphy for the plaintiff; Garth, Q. C. and Francis for the defendants. Verdict for the plaintiff. BINT. MAILLARD -Action to recover the rent of a house let on lease to the defendant-Russell for the plaintiff; Udall for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintif for 271. 1s. 11d. IRVINE V. THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY.Verdict for the plaintiff by consent for 21. Wednesday, June 26. ANCILL. CRAWLEY.-Action to recover damages for false representation in reference to the extent of some shooting sold by the defendant to the plaintiff.-G. Browne and Joyce for the plaintiff; Keane, Q. C. for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff; damages 51. THE BWLCH-Y-PLWN LEAD MINING COMPANY (LIMITED) v. BAYNES.-Action to recover the amount of a call made on the defendant in respect of shares held by him in the company. Plea (inter alia), that defendant was induced to take the shares by fraud and misrepresentation.-Lloyd and Coron for the plaintiffs; Powell, Q. C. and R. E. Turner for the defendant. Part heard. BAIL COURT. (Before MELLOR, J. and Common Juries.) MORFIT C. GREENE.-Seymour, Q. C. and B. Rigby for the plaintiff; Joyce for the defendant, Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. LORD T. LEE. -Action to recover money due on an award.- Denman, Q. C. and Willoughby for the plaintiff; Chambers, Q. C. and Bush Cooper for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 2541. 7s., subject to be set aside on certain points raised. HAMILTON . HOLLAND.-Action to recover the amount of two bills of exchange accepted by the defendant.L. Smith for the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff for 118!. SOUTHGATE. LOVEGROVE-Action to recover damages from the defendant for breach of a warranty of a horse. Pleas, denying the breach and the warranty.-Thompson and B. Rigby for the plaintiff; Besley and Thomas for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 181. Friday, June 21. RYAN. THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.Action to recover damages for injuries received by the plaintiff while travelling as a passenger on the defendants' line.-Huddleston, Q. C. and Jelf for the plaintiff; the Solicitor-General and Philbrick for the defendants. Verdict for the defendants. Saturday, June 22. (Before LUSH, J. and Common Juries) TRIPP AND WIFE . THE GREAT WESTERN AND METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANIES.-Action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the female plaintiff while travelling on the defendants' line.-O'Malley, Q. C. and E. T. Smith for the plaintiffs; Clark, Q. C. and Archibald for the defendant. TRIPP AND INFANT. THE GREAT WESTERN AND METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANIES.-Action arising out of the same circumstances as the last, and tried with it. Verdict for the plaintiff in both actions; damages 501. in the first, and 104, in the second action. Monday, June 24. (Before LUSH, J. and Special Juries.) LARA V. RADCLIFFE-Action to recover a sum of 2001. as commission on the sale of a living for the defendant. Plea, never indebted.-O'Malley, Q. C. and Joyce for the plaintiff; Denman, Q. C. for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 31. 4s., the expenses he had incurred in advertising. INGLEDON . HUDSON AND WIFE-Action to recover damages for a slander spoken of the plaintiff in saying that she was of drunken habits, and took more than was good for her.Thompson and L. Ingram for the plaintiff; J. Sharpe and Moir for the defendants. Verdict: plaintiff nonsuited. (Common Juries.) HARRIS v. ROBERTSON -Action to recover the hire of a billiard-table which had been let out by the plaintiff to the defendant.-Atkinson for the plaintiff; Rosher for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for 351, 10s. LANGEN. DONALDSON.-Action to recover damages for an assault committed upon the plaintiff by the female defendant, and for injuries to the plaintiff's clothes.Wood for the plaintiff; Robinson, Serjt. for the defendant. Part heard. Tuesday, June 25. LANGEN V. DONALDSON.-Concluded. Verdict for the defendant. (Special Juries.) WOOD. WILD AND ANOTHER-Action by a bankrupt against an attorney who had acted for him. for negligence in refusing to advise him (plaintiff) to sign certain accounts.-Wood for the plaintiff; Parry, Serit, and Horace Lloyd for the defendant. Verdict, plaintiff nonsuited. BEECHING. WHITE-Action to recover a quantum valeat from the defendant for instruction given to him in the art of brewing-Ballantine, Serjt, and Francis for the plaintiff; Parry, Serjt. and E. Clarke for the defendant. Part heard. Wednesday, June 26. BEECHING. WHITE.-Concluded. (Common Juries.) Jury discharged. THE WIGAN COAL, &c. COMPANY . THE NORTH WALES COAL, &C. COMPANY.-Action to recover the price of certain pig iron sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants.-Fitzadam for the plaintiffs. Verdict for the plaintiffs. HAWKINS AND OTHERS. JACKSON.-Action of ejectment. -Parry, Serjt., and Philbrick for the plaintiff; H. James for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff, on terms arranged between the parties. KOTT AND WIFE U. ENNOR-Action to recover damages from the defendant for injuries received by the female plaintiff through the defendant's negligence in repairing a house adjoining the plaintiff's.-H. James and Eyre Loyd for the plaintiffs; Thesiger for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff. COURT OF ADMIRALTY. Reported by HENRY F. PURCELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. SITTINGS AFTER TRINITY TERM 1867. Thursday, June 20. THE LIZZIE-The present sitting was only for the examination of Thomas Le Maistre, master of the brig Lizzie. This is a bottomry suit; the plaintiffs are Messrs. W. A. and G. Maxwell and Co., of Liverpool; the defendants are Messrs. James Graham and Co., the owners of the cargo. The bottomry bond had been given to Messrs. W. H. Wall and Co., of Key West, in the state of Florida. -Vernon Lushington for plaintiffs; Butt for defendants. Friday, June 21. THE PERCY DOUGLAS.-Salvage.-This was a cause of salvage instituted on behalf of the master, owners, and crew of the steam-tug Rambler for services rendered the vessel Percy Douglas on the 14th March last. This vessel had gone on shore near Shakspeare's-cliff, Dover; when the tug came up, another tug, the Palmerston, already had a hawser fast to her. By the combined assistance of the tugs the ship was brought safely into the Downs, and subsequently towed by the Rambler to London. The vessel is the property of Thomas Hayley, of Jersey, and was on a voyage from Colombo to London. Her value at the time of the services was alleged to be 60004, her cargo and freight 57,000l. The defence was that the ship had been got off when the Rambler came up, and the services were simple towage.-Brett, Q. C. and Clarkson appeared for plaintiffs; Dr. Deane, Q. C. and Lushington for defendants. -The COURT held that when the Rambler came up the salvage services had been already rendered. The suit therefore dismissed with costs. N.B. As a salvage suit had been brought for towage services and dismissed, the plaintiffs are debarred from now bringing a towage suit in the same case. THE CHIARA-This was a claim for damage done to goods shipped on board the Chiara, an Italian ship.Cohen now moved, on part of plaintiffs, that certain articles of the defendants' answer should be reformed. In the pe tition the bill of lading had been set out. The defendants' answer alleged the further exception, not mentioned in bill of lading, that all "accidents, perils of the seas and of navigation whatsoever," without stating that by Italian law this exception is incorporated in the bill of lading. Another article stated that the damages had arisen from evaporation and other natural causes. This article was alleged to be too vague-Clarkson appeared for the defendants.-The COURT ordered the articles to be reformed. Tuesday, June 25. THE EDWARD OLIVER.-This was a cause of towage. The proceeds in court are insufficient to pay the claim.V. Lushington moved the court to pronounce for the claim. -There was no opposition. Motion granted. THE VALIANT.-This was a suit for wages and disbursements.-Clarkson moved for a commission of appraisement and sale. Motion granted. THE SHEARWATER-Bayford moved the court to pronounce for a bottomry bond. Motion granted. THE JEFF DAVIS-This was a master's suit for wages and disbursements. It had been referred to the registrar and merchants with the consent of the defendant. the mortgagee of the ship. The registrar had expressed an opinion as to how the costs of the reference are to be borne.-Clarkson now moved that the plaintiff should have the costs of the suit as he had succeeded in it, and the defendants had put in an answer denying that there was anything due to the master. Had he not done so, the matter might have gone to a reference at once.-Cohen opposed the motion, alleging that the claim of the master had been most exorbitant. He and the owner of the ship had been in collusion to defeat the mortgagee's claim. Application refused. THE PRIDE OF THE OCEAN-This was a motion to review the registrar's taxation. It is alleged that the allowance to the master is not sufficiently large.-Lushington moved; Butt contra-The COURT said, as the facts were not sufficiently before the court, that the present order should be for the registrar to make a statement of his reasons for the award. THE HALLEY.-Adjourned to Thursday next. THE KARNAK.-In this case Clarkson moved on the part of a bottomry bondholder that the plaintiff be allowed to pay pilotage and wages, and to be reimbursed in priority to other claims. Application granted, subject to consents being filed by the owners of cargo. THE SAME.-Clarkson moved that the defendants, the owners of cargo, should pay into court certain deductions from freight.-Cohen contra-The COURT said that the general rule of the court was that all freight should be paid in. In this case the facts were not sufficiently before the court. A petition therefore should be filed; this court would then be in a position to see whether the general rule might be dispensed with. THE GREAT EASTERN.-Butt moved in this suit for the court's sanction to a sale of perishable articles which were on board. Besides the other suits against this ship, there was one by the charterers, a French company, who had obtained an injunction in Chancery against the sale of anything on board before this day.-Dr. Swabey, for the French Company, said he would make no opposition to the motion the proceeds to be paid into the registry. Motion granted. THE SAME-This was a suit for certain services rendered the ship.-Butt moved that the defendants be dismissed from the suit on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the items of claim came under the 5th section of the Admiralty Court Act 1861, and she was a registered British ship with the owners domiciled in England.-Lushington contra contended that the items came under the 4th section, in which case the court would have jurisdiction.-The COURT said it was impossible on inspection to state what sections each item came under. The plaintiffs, therefore, to make a statement under which section they claim each specific item, with leave to them to file a petition if they chose. THE PRINCE RUPERT. -This cause, in which petition and answer had been filed, came on upon motion praying the court to decide that a commission should be issued decreeing possession of the vessel to the plaintiffs, and referring all outstanding accounts between the plaintiffs and defendant to the registrar and merchants. The plaintiffs are Charles Darby and William Cass, the registered owners of 33-64th shares, and the defendant is William Redman, the owner of the remaining 31-64th shares in the vessel. The defendant acted as ship's husband to the Prince Rupert, and had mortgaged 17-64th of his shares to the plaintiff Cass, and disputes having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to a Carter which had been entered into by the latter, and also with respect to some accounts, the vessel was arrested by the plaintiffs. The defendant resisted the application for possession, and prayed the court to order the ship to be sold, and the proceeds paid into the registry.-C. P. Butt for the plaintiff; E. C. Clarkson for the defendant. Cur, adv. vult. THE SYLPH.-An award of 410% had been given against this vessel under the following circumstances: On the 29th Oct. last a diver named Jevons was employed on a wreck in the river Mersey, when the rope by which he ferry-boat Sulph, he was drawn up by the paddle-wheel was attached to a barge was run foul of by the steam and carried part of the way round inside the paddle-box, by which he sustained severe injuries. He commenced an action against the owners of the steamer, the Mersey River Steamboat Company. The matter, however, was referred, and in due course the arbitrator made an award against the company of 410. The Sylph had been previous to the accident mortgaged by the company, which is now being wound-up. The award not being paid, a suit in rem. was instituted in this court to recover it. Butt now moved the court to dismiss the plaintiff's petition, or to order that certain articles should be struck out, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction in matters of personal ralty Court Act 1861 gave no jurisdiction in such cases; injury. He contended that the 7th section of the Admithat there were no precedents; and that the word damage in the section had a technical meaning and was limited to damage arising from a collision of one ship with another, also that an award though unliquidated was a bar to an action of this nature, this was not a court to enforce awards.-V. Lushington and Bruce for plaintiffs, rested their case on the before mentioned section and contended that the word "damage" was not limited in the technical sense stated, it also included damages to cargo, to seamen's effects, and personal injuries arising from a collision, that this court had power to assess damages for personal injury, and that an award cannot be pleaded without performance. Cur. ado, vult. THE GAZETTES. Professional Partnership Dissolbed. Gazette, une 18. SMITH, RICHARD, and SMITH, W. BEALY, attorneys and solicitors, Bridgwater. June 7 Bankrupts. Gazette, June 18. To surrender at the Bankrupts' Court, Basinghall-st BROOME, WILLIAM, accountant. Great Ormond-st, Queen's - #q, Bloomsbury. Pet. June 14. Reg. Brougham O. A. Edwards. Sol. Steadman, Mason's-avenue, Coleman st. Sur. July 8 BUTCHER, THOMAS, jun, shipowner, Whitstable. Pet. June 14. Reg. Pepys. O. A. Graham. Sols. Messrs. Walker, Swithin's-la- Sur. July 4 COMER, ELLIS, photographer, Langley-pl, Commercial-rd east. Pet. DICKENS, FREDERICK WILLIAM, no business, Great Pulteney-st. Pet Reg ELLIS. ROBERT AUSTIN, builder, Chelmondiston. Pet. Jane 3 FOOT, JOHN EUTYCHUS, out of business, Portland-pl, Rotherhithe. Pet. GEBER, FERDINAND GRISAE, wholesale stationer, London-wall. REDFORD, CHRISTOPHER EDWIN, printer. London-rd, Southwark. ROBERTSON, WILLIAM, and BOND, HENRY, wholesale grocers, Ever- SMITH, HENRY GEORGE, currier. Euston-rd. Pet. June 13. Reg. TEAGUE, CHARLES ROBERT, surveyor, Old Jewry, and Devonshire- To Surrender in the Country. ASTON, THOMAS, carpenter, Hereford. Pet. June 15. Reg. & O. A BELL, FREDERICK WILLIAM, cricketer, Cambridge. Pet. June 14. Pet. May 14. BUCKHAM, WILLIAM, sailmaker, Newcastle. Pet. June 13. Reg. & HICKLING, CHARLES JOHN, and Cox, JOSEPH WILLIAM, rivet manu- LEWIS, DANIEL, publican. Bridgend. Pet. June 14. Reg. Wilde. LONG, JAMES, draper, Leamington. Pet. June 14. Reg. Hill. O. A. Kinnear. Sols, Snape, Warwick; and Mesars. Hodgson, Birmingham. Sur. July 8 |