NOTES OF THE WEEK. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Wednesday, May 22. Negligence-Injury caused by third party-Improper rejection of evidence. THIS was an action tried in the Mayor's Court for an injury sustained by the plaintiff owing to the alleged negligence of the defendant's servant. The plaintiff was employed as a labourer at some lime kilns, at which the defendant contracted to bring limestone to supply the kilns, and to remove the lime when burnt. For this purpose a tramway had been laid down, and the lime was drawn up in a truck from the kiln by means of horse power along the tramway, which was laid in an inclined plane. At the bottom of the gradient was placed a block of wood to prevent any truck from passing that point, should it happen to run down the incline. Some person unknown to the defendant had removed the stop from its proper position, and a driver of the defendant, while unhooking the horse from the truck at the top of the incline, allowed it to descend the gradient. The truck passed down to the lime kilns, and knocked down and injured the plaintiff who was at work on the spot. At the trial the Common Serjeant refused to allow the defendant to give evidence that the stop had been removed by a third party, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff. Anderson accordingly obtained a rule for a new trial, on the ground that the case disclosed by the defendant at the trial was an answer to that of the plaintiff, and that the facts submitted to the jury on behalf of the defendant should have been left to the jury. Clarke showed cause. The COURT (Bovill, C. J., Willes, Byles, and Keating, JJ.) were of opinion that the defendant was not responsible for the acts of the person who removed the planks, and that the evidence of the defendant ought to have been admitted by the common serjeant. Rule absolute. Attorneys for plaintiff, Hicklin and Washington. Attorney for defendant, Hewitt. June 21, 1871, and May 22, 1872. BECKERVAISE v. LEWIS. Partnership-Promissory note-Joint and several debt-Surety. THIS was a demurrer to an equitable plea. The declaration was on a promissory note made by the defendant to pay the plaintiff three months after date a sum of money therein mentioned. Plea, on equitable grounds, that the note was made by the defendant and one Rowe, jointly and severally, on behalf of a debt due to.the plaintiff by Rowe, and that he was only liable as a surety: and that the plaintiff was indebted in the lifetime of Rowe in an amount equal to the amount of the note; and that the plaintiff so became indebted to Rowe without consent of the defendant; and there. by prevented himself from recovering the amount of the note from either Rowe or his personal repre. sentatives, in the manner following: The plaintiff and Rowe were partners, and certain debts were due to them as partners, which the plaintiff sold for a certain price to Rowe, and the defendant made the promissory notes, relying on the sale and on the faith that the plaintiff would allow Rowe to receive the debts which the plaintiff well knew at the time of making the note. Demurrer. Issue. accounts stated between the plaintiff as such defendant claimed as assignee under the said trustee and the defendant. Pleas: First, never in- Elizabeth A. Violett. The parties, after writ, debted; secondly, payment; thirdly, a special plea agreed to a special case, in which the main on equitable grounds that the defendant had been facts were shortly as follows: By articles adjudged bankrupt, and one Bullard having been of agreement dated 11th April 1823, and appointed trustee of the bankrupt's estate, and made in consideration of the intended marbecome possessed as such trustee of divers monevs riage of the said E. W. Violett and E. A. Brookof the defendant, equal in amount to the plaintiff's man, the said T. Brookman (the father) coveclaim, the said Bullard, before the bankruptcy nanted with trustees that in case his daughter in the declaration alleged of the said Kerrisons should survive him, or dying leave any child or (therein styled the said bankrupts), paid the said issue of a child, to make a settlement by will, and amount, after and with notice of the premises, to assign to proper trustees "a child's share, or the said bankrupts and the said Sir R. Harvey, equal part with all his other children, or their who thereupon became indebted in respect thereof issue, of all his real and personal estate, to the to the said Bullard as such trustee, and after the death of Sir R. Harvey the said adjudication in with remainder to the child or children of the use of his said daughter and her assigns for life, bankruptcy of the defendant was duly annulled, marriage, or any one or more or all of them, as whereupon the amount so paid by the said Bullard the said husband and wife should jointly appoint, as aforesaid, reverted to and became and was, with certain limitations in default of such ap before commencement of the suit, and con-pointment, in favour of the children as therein 66 And in case there should be no tinued to be, the money of the defendant, and the mentioned. defendant claimed equitably to set off the said child of the said intended marriage, or there amount against the plaintiff's claim in the said being such child or children, if all of them action. Averment of happening of all conshould die under the age of twenty-one years, ditions, &c.; fourthly, set-off. At the and without any of them leaving lawful issue, trial, before Blackburn, J., at the Suffolk or having such born in due time afterwards, Spring Assizes 1871, it appeared that the de- then to the use of the heirs and administrators fendant, being a customer of the Crown Bank of the said daughter, as if she had died sole and (carried on at Norwich by the Kerrisons and Sir R. unmarried. The marriage was duly solemnized Harvey under the firm of "Harveys and Hudsons"), shortly after the date of the said articles. On the was indebted to them in several hundred pounds 23rd Jan. 1840 the said T. Brookman made his will him a bankrupt, and one Bullard was appointed present question, and after reciting the said maron an overdrawn account, whereupon they made and thereby, after certain devises, not affecting the the trustee of the bankrupt's estate, which he riage articles, and that he was desirous of specithereupon proceeded to realise, and paid the pro-fically performing his said covenant according to ceeds into the bank to his account, as trustee of the true intent and meaning of the said articles, the the bankruptcy, the bank being at the time aware testator in part satisfaction and performance of the of the circumstances, and that an appeal was said covenant, gave and devised to certain trustees pending to annul the bankruptcy. Harveys and therein named, their heirs, executors, administraHudsons were themselves subsequently declared tors and assigns, all and singular the freehold bankrupt, and the plaintiff was appointed trustee and leasehold lands, &c. (the subject of the preof their bankruptcy; and a week after that the sent action), to the uses and upon the trusts defendant's bankruptcy was annulled, on appeal, thereinafter declared, viz., to the use of the said by the Lords Justices, who made no order under trustees upon trust, during the joint lives of the sect. 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1869, as to the said husband and wife, for the latter's sole and vesting of the defendant's property. The defendant separate use; and after the husband's death to the then claimed as his own property the money paid use of the said wife and her assigns for life, with divers remainders over for the benefit of the in by Bullard to the bank, but the plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy of the bank, refused to children or child of the marriage, as the said admit the claim, and sued him for the amount of husband and wife should jointly, or as the surhis overdrawn account, to which the defendant vivor of them should solely, appoint, with remainpleaded the equitable set-off aforesaid. A verdict der in default of appointment to the use of all the was found for the defendant, on the third plea, children as tenants in common, or, if one child leave being reserved to enter a verdict for the only, then to the use of such only child, his or her plaintiff on the ground that there was no mutual heirs and assigns for ever; "and in case every child credit, debt, or dealing between the bankrupts and of the said husband and wife, born or to be born, the defendant available under the Act of Parlia- should die under the age of 21 years, and without ment, and that the defendant's bankruptcy having leaving issue, then the said lands, &c., were to go been annulled after the bankruptcy of Harveys and to the use of the heirs and assigns of his daughter, Hudsons, the debt and liablity to the defendant the said E. A. Violett, as if she had continued sole arising from the annulling of the bankruptcy could and unmarried, with the ultimate remainder, in not be set-off. The Court of Exchequer (Kelly, C.B., case his daughter should die in his lifetime without and Martin, Bramwell, and Cleasby, BB.), after argu- leaving issue of her body her surviving, to the ment discharged that rule, and held that the right use of the testator's right heirs. The daughter's to set-off existed, and that upon the annulment of three only children died without issue in the testhe bankruptcy the defendant took all the title tator's lifetime, but subsequently to the date of and interest in the property which Bullard for- the said will, one of them only, a son, having merly possessed: (See report of the case below, lived to attain the age of 21 years. The testator 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 711; L. Rep. 6 Ex. 279; 40 died in 1849 without having altered his will. By L. J. 189, Ex.) The plaintiff appealed from that an indenture, dated 21st April 1855 (duly acdecision, and now, knowledged), the said husband and wife conveyed the said lands to the use of a trustee therein named, his heirs, &c., upon trust for such persons, &c., as the said wife should, by deed or will, appoint, and she, subsequently, by her will dated 25th June 1860, in exercise of her said power, devised the same lands to the use of the defendant, George Smith, his heirs, &c., upon certain trusts for sale therein mentioned, and, after certain bequests, she gave the residue of the said sale moneys and all other her moneys to the said defendant absolutely. She died in 1868, and the plaintiff, her brother and heir-at-law, and heir-at-law also of his father the testator, claimed the estates, which the defendant claimed under the daughter's will. Thereupon this ejectment was brought and case stated, upon the argument of which, the court (Kelly, C.B., and Martin, Pigott, and Cleasby, BB.), after taking time to consider, gave judgment in the plaintiff's favour (see report of 6 Ex. 291: 40 L. J. 161, Ex.) From that decision the case below, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 625; L. Rep. the defendant appealed. May 13.-Field, Q.C. (with him were O'Malley, Q.C., and C. G. Merewether) argued on his behalf. W. Graham (with him were J. Brown, Q.C., and Bulwer, Q.C.) for the defendant. Joseph Brown, Q.C. (Macrae Moir with him) for Blackburn, Keating, Mellor, Lush, Brett, and the demurrer. BAILEY (Trustee. &c.), v. JOHNSON. Bankruptcy Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vicl. c. 71). ss. 4, 39, 81-Bankruptcy annulled on appeal-Property reverting to bankrupt Mutual credits, debts, and dealings-Set-off-Equitable plea of. DECLARATION for money payable by the defenlant to the plaintiff, as trustee, for work and materials done and provided, as bankers, by R. A. Kerrison and R. Kerrison, and one Sir R. J. Harvey, Bart., before the said Kerrisons became bankrupts, and in the lifetime of Sir R. Harvey, since deceased; and for commission, &c., due from defendant to Kerrisons and Sir R. Harvey in respect thereof; and for money lent, money paid for defendant for interest, and money found to be due from defendant to Kerrisons and Sir R. Harvey, and for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff as such trustee as aforesaid on Cur. adv. vult. May 14.-The COURT (Cockburn, C. J., and Grove, JJ.), without calling on the defendant's counsel to argue, now pronounced judgment, unanimously affirming the decision of the court below, and holding it to be clear, upon the distinct terms of sect. 81 of the Act of 1869, that on the annulment of the bankruptcy, the money, the proceeds of the bankrupt's estate, reverted to and vested in him. Judgment affirmed. Attorneys for the plaintiff Sole, Turner, and Turner, 68, Aldermanbury, E.C., agents for Coaks and Rackham, Norwich. Attorney for the defendant, Lewis Hand, 22, Coleman-street, E.C. May 14 and 15. BROOKMAN v. SMITH. Devise-Ultimate limitation-Children "born or to be born"-Feme covert-Limitations to heirs and assigns of, "as if she had continued sole and unmarried"- Coalescing with previous life estate-Rule in Shelley's case-Construction. THIS was an ejectment by the plaintiff as heir at law of one Thomas Brookman, deceased, to recover possession of certain freehold and leasehold lands in Somersetshire, devised by the will of the said Thomas Brookman, in performance of a covenant contained in certain marriage articles executed on the marriage of his daughter, Elizabeth Ann Brookman, with one E. W. Violett. The The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., and Blackburn, Keating, Lush, Hannen, Brett, and Grove, JJ.), at the conclusion of a very long argument, lasting nearly the whole of two days, pronounced judg ment seriatim, affirming unanimously the decision of the court below, and holding that the ultimate limitation in the will in favour of the daughter never took effect, and so she never took an estate in fee simple. The will was framed to meet the case of a child dying under twenty-one, and here the son survived that age. The testator, not having anticipated the event that had hap- Attorneys for the plaintiff, Pitman and Lane, 27, Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street, E.C. Attorneys for the defendant, Sharp and Turner, 32 and 33, Lombard-street, E.C. LEGISLATION AND JURIS- THE BALLOT BILL. 66 a justice of the peace. The returning officer must SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. PARTNERSHIP-DISSOLUTION-RIGHT TO CON- dissolution of partnership the whole of the stock V.C. W.) spect of the levy that was beneficial to A., he was not entitled to recover: (Neuman v. Merriman, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S, 397. Ex.) LEGACY DUTY-BEQUEST OF MONEY TO BE LAID OUT IN LAND-EQUITABLE CONVERSION. use of his second son J. for life, with remainder A testator dying in 1800, bequeathed by will to trustees a fund in Consols, to be laid out in the purchase of land to be settled to the use of his eldest son C. for life, with remainder to C.'s first and other sons in tail male, with remainder to the to F.'s first and other sons in tail male, with remainder to his own right heirs. The testator's thereupon S., the only daughter and other child of the testator, became entitled by inheritance law, but as heir-at-law of her brothers, the said to the fund in question, not only as his heir-atC. and J. Upon her death, a spinster and intestate and without having in any way dealt with the fund, which had never been invested in land but remained as money at the time of her death, E., the grand nephew of the testator, became entitled thereto as heir-at-law of the testator, and also of C. and J. and S. Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (Cockburn, C. J. and Willes, Blackburn, Mellor, Brett, and Grove, J. J.), affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer (Kelly, C.B., and Martin, Bramwell and Cleasby, BB.), that legacy duty was payable by E. upon the amount of the fund at the rate of 5 per cent., under sect 9 of the Legacy Duty Act (36 Geo. 3, c. 152) as if it had been legally bequeathed to him by S.: (De Lancey v. The Queen, 26 L. S. Rep. N. S. 400. Ex. Ch.) two sons died intestate and without issue, and APPORTIONMENT TRUST TO ACCUMULATE A testator gave his residuary personal estate to trustees, upon trust for his two grand-daughters as tenants in common, their shares to be vested at should first happen. And he directed that in case the age of twenty-one, or upon marriage, which his grand-daughters, or either of them, should marry under twenty-one, then the trustees should settle the share of the grand-daughter so marrying in the trust fund, and in the accumulations of the income thereof not applied for her benefit during her minority, upon certain trusts in favour of herself and her children. Both the grand-daughters HUSBAND AND WIFE-MARRIAGE SETTLEwere married under twenty-one, one before and one PROPERTY-DIVORCE.-A husband and wife, by Held, that in both cases the income was apportion MENT-COVENANT TO SETTLE AFTER-ACQUIRED after the passing of the Apportionment Act 1870: their marriage settlement, covenanted to assignable up to the time of the marriage. The testator thereof, any property which the wife or the husband to the trustees of the settlement upon the trusts in her right shou'd at any time become possessed of or entitled to during the coverture. A decree misi for the dissolution of the marriage was pronounced; but ending the decree being made absolute, the husband and wife appointed a new trustee of the settlement, and property fell into possession of the wife. Subsequently the wife married again. Held, that the property was not bound by the covenant in the settlement: (Re Pearson's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 393. V.C. W.) The penalty is imprisonment not exceeding six months. In the clauses relating to Ireland it is provided that the 6th section of the Bill, allowing the use (free of charge), for taking the poll, of a room in a school receiving aid from the Parliamentary grant, is not to apply to any school adjoining or adjacent to any church or other place of worship, nor to any school connected with a nunnery or other religious establishment. WILFULLY TRESPASSING - PREMISES CONClauses have been introduced into the Bill proNECTED WITH A RAILWAY STATION-3 & 4 VICT. viding for the punishment of personation, and the C. 97, s. 16.-Respondent, a cabdriver, had been correction of the poll on a scrutiny in respect of charged before a magistrate under 3 & 4 Vict. votes obtained by personation, bribery, treating, c. 97, s. 16, for that he unlawfully and wilfully or undue influence. The clauses have been trans- did trespass upon certain premises connected ferred to the Ballot Bill from its companion the with the Fenchurch-street Railway Station. The Corrupt Practices Bill. The offence of persona- magistrate found in the special case stated under tion, or aiding in it, is made felony; and it is to 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, that the respondent refused to be the duty of the returning officer to prosecute move away his cab from a place, for the use of any person whom he may believe guilty of it. A which, as a cab stand, certain other cab drivers candidate found guilty of it, by himself or his paid the railway company 4s. a week each; that agents, on the trial of an election petition, will be this place presented the appearance of a public incapable of sitting for that constituency during street, was opposite certain shops, and although the Parliament then in existence. The "Rules for stated to belong to, was not proved to be, the Elections" have been somewhat altered in com- private property of the company; that no bond mittee. Notices of county elections are to be pub-fide claim of right to occupy this place was made lished among the notices at the principal post by the respondent; and that the respondent was office of every polling place, and notices of the not wilfully trespassing. Held, upon appeal from polling at all the postal telegraph offices. The the dismissal of this information, that the only 26th rule provides : ground upon which this proceeding could be found to be not a wilful trespass was that the respondent had a bona fide claim of right. The (Foulger (app.), v. Steadman (resp.), 26 L. T. Rep. case, therefore, was ordered to be restated: N. S. 395. Q.B.) "That the presiding officer, on the application of any voter who is incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause from voting in manner pre scribed by this Act, or (if the poll be taken on Saturday) of any voter who declares that he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious grounds to vote in manner prescribed by this Act, or of any voter who produces a declaration that he is unable to read, shall in the presence of the agents of the candidates cause the vote of such voter to be marked on a ballot-paper in manner directed by such voter, and the ballot-paper to be placed in the ballot-box, and the name and number on the register of voters of every voter whose vote is marked in pursuance of this rule, and the reason why it is so marked, shall be entered on a list, in this Act, called the list of votes marked by the presiding officer.' The declaration of inability to read is to be made by the voter, after the expiration of the time during which candidates can be nominated, before SHERIFF'S OFFICER'S FEES OF A LEVY UNDER A FI. FA.-ABORTIVE LEVY-CLAIM TO FEES.-A sheriff's officer employed to execute process (a levy) cannot recover his fees from the attorney at whose instance the process has issued if the execution becomes abortive, and does not result in any benefit to the party at whose instance it is issued. A., who was the attorney of B., who had recovered judgment against C., issued a fi. fa., and delivered it to the sheriff of L., who made out his warrant to D. to make a levy on the goods of C. D., however, levied on goods which were claimed by E., and having kept possession for eleven days, he went out of possession pursuant to an interpleader order. D., having sued A. for his fees, Heid, that as he had done nothing in re trust for his grand-daughter L. on her attaining devised his residuary real estate to trustees upon the age of twenty-one or marrying, which should first happen, and he directed that in case she should settle the real estate upon her for her life should marry under twenty-one, the trustees with remainder to her children as tenants in comfor her separate use, without power of anticipation, her husband by the settlement a life estate to mcn in tail, and he empowered the trustees to give commence after her decease, and to be with or without impeachment of waste: Held, that L.'s life estate in the realty must not be without impeachment of waste, as the restraint upon antici pation prevented the trustees from giving her power to commit waste: (Clive v. Clive, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 409. Ch.) "who could CHARITY-SCHEME CY PRÈS-APPLICATION TO RESTORE MONEY TO ORIGINAL PURPOSE.-When a scheme for the regulation of a charity has been settled by a decree of the court, and acted upon for a number of years, no alteration will be made in the scheme, except upon the clearest evidence that great benefit will result from the change. Money was subscribed in 1809 to provide a Gaelic service in London for Highlanders not speak English." An information was filed in 1827, and in 1830 a decree was made confirming a scheme by which the money was applied in pay ment of a clergyman who conducted a Gaelic service in London until 1844, when he resigned. On a reference being made to the master, he found in 1846 that a fit and proper person could not be found to undertake the duty: that Gaelic preaching was not required or desired in London: the money in educating Scotch children at the and he approved a scheme for the application of Caledonian Asylum. The master's report was confirmed by decree, and the money was applied accordingly until 1871. A petition was then presented (in the suit, and also under 52 Geo. 3. c. 101) by three Highlanders residing in London, alleging that a fit and proper person could now be found to conduct a Gaelic service, and praying that the money should be so applied: Held, that the money must be considered as raised for the benefit of those "who could not speak English sufficiently to attend an English service with profit." And no evidence having been given of there being any such persons in London, and the Attorney-General opposing the application, the court refused to make any alteration in the scheme: (Attorney-General v. Stewart, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 419. V.C. M.) GUARANTEE FULFILMENT OF CONDITIONS OF. The plaintiff, who was a creditor of a limited liability company, called "John King and Co. (Limited)," presented a petition in Chancery for compulsory winding up. Upon this the defendants, on the 21st April 1870, gave him the following guarantee:- Sir,-In consideration of your withdrawing the petition you have presented for winding-up the company called 'John King and Company (Limited),' we agree to pay all the costs you have incurred, of and in relation to such petition, and to indemnify you against all costs, if any, you may be liable to pay to the company, or to any other parties appearing upon or in reference to the petition. We further agree to guarantee the payment to you within eighteen months from this date, by the company or the liquidator thereof, of the principal of your debt of £722 17s., provided that in case the said debt is not paid in full by the company or the liquidator, our liability upon this guarantee shall not exceed £361 18s. 6d. Any sum paid by the company in respect of or for interest on such debt shall not be taken into account as against the guarantee. This agreement and guarantee is to be construed as binding on us severally as well as jointly. Dated 21st April 1870, Chas. John Venables.-H. J. Turner." In pursuance of this guarantee the plaintiff put an end to all further proceedings upon the petition for liquidation. After the lapse of fifteen months, the plaintiff, having received only 2s. 6d. in the pound, and there being no probability of any further dividend being paid, he presented another petition in Chancery for a compulsory winding-up of the company, and he also brought an action upon the guarantee against the defendants, to which they pleaded the foregoing facts as to the guarantee, and "that the plaintiff after the alleged promise and after the alleged withdrawal of the said petition, and before a reasonable time had elapsed, and within the said eighteen months, did present another petition to the said Court of Chancery, for the compulsory winding-up of the said company, and that the presentation of the last-mentioned petition did prevent and retard the collection of the assets of the said company, and the defendants have thereby been discharged from their said promise." At the trial the jury (in answer to a question left to them by the judge), found that the plaintiff had allowed a reasonable interval to elapse before he presented his petition, and that the presentation of that petition did not retard the company in collecting their debts: Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain his action, for that under the circumstances he was under no obligation to abstain from presenting another petition: (Horris v. Venables and another, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 437) LUNACY AGREEMENT BY COMMITTEE TO GRANT LEASE OF LUNATIC'S PROPERTY-PETITION BY LESSEE-JURISDICTION.-The committee of a lunatic's estate having agreed, through their agent, without the sanction of the Master in Lunacy, to grant a lease of part of it for a term of three years, let the lessee into possession, and, subsequently, after he had expended a large sum on repairs, gave him notice to quit. On a petition by the tenant to have the agreement carried out: Held, that the court had jurisdiction to make an order to that effect: (Re Wynne, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 406. Chan.) dict for the plaintiff. Upon a rule for a new trial, on the ground that the facts alleged had established a felony by the defendant, and on the ground that subsequently to the verdict criminal proceedings had been instituted against the defendant: Held, that these were not grounds for setting aside the verdict upon application of the defendant. Wellock v. Constantine (2 H. & C. 146), discussed and questioned: (Wells v. Abrahams, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 433. Q. B.) PATENT, INFRINGEMENT OF ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF DEFENDANTS' BOOKS, AND TO ADMINISTER INTERROGATORIES.-The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for the infringement of a patent, and obtained a verdict for 40s., subject to an account, leave being reserved to the defendants to move to set aside such verdict and enter a nonsuit. A rule having been obtained for that purpose was afterwards discharged, whereupon the defendants proceeded to appeal to the Exchequer Chamber. Pending such appeal the plaintiffs applied for a rule requiring the defendants to permit them to inspect their books, and to be at liberty to administer interrogatories. The court, notwithstanding the pen dency of the appeal, made such rule absolute: (Saxby and another v. Eastbrook and others, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 439. Ex.) LOST CODICIL-NO PROOF OF EXECUTIONPROBATE REFUSED. The court refused to grant probate of a lost codicil of the execution of which no proof was forthcoming: (In the Goods of Wilson, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S 405. Prob.) WILL-EXECUTOR AND RESIDUARY LEGATEE SIGNED AFTER THE TESTATRIX-PROBATE.-A testatrix left a will, which was signed by her executor as well as by two attesting witnesses. The executor was also residuary legatee. The court held that by signing as executor, the residuary legatee did not forfeit his interest, and granted probate to his representative: (In the Goods of Purssglove, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 405. Prob.) PRACTICE-INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS.-In an action for making false and fraudulent representations with respect to a ship, whereby plaintiff was induced to take a passage in her, and was afterwards obliged (as were many other passengers) to leave her on discovering the falsehood of the defendants' representations, inspection was refused of the letters which the other passengers, who had been obliged to leave the ship with the plaintiff, had written to defendants; also of letters of the captain of the ship to the defendants, written after plaintiff left the ship, relative to plaintiff and his leaving the ship; also of letters to defendants (who were agents for the ship) from the owner of the ship, written after plaintiff had left the same: (Richards v. Gellatley and others, 26 L. T. Rep. N.S. 435. C. P.) POLICE The mouth of NEGLIGENCE ILLEGAL ACT AT COMMENCEMENT- REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE REGULATION ACT (2 & 3 VICT. c. 47), s. 54.The defendant's servant washed his master's van in frosty weather in the public highway, which was admitted to be an illegal act and against the provisions of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54. The surplus water ran from off the road into the gutter, which the mouth of the common sewer. was its normal course, and from thence towards the sewer being choked, the water again ran over the road and there froze. The plaintiff's horse, LIMITED ADMINISTRATION-BENEFICIAL IN- passing at the time, fell down and was injured. TEREST ASSIGNED.-A. assigned in his own right In an action to recover damages for the injury to his share in B.'s estate to C., under the impres- the horse: Held, that although the defendant sion that he was entitled to it. The Court of was generally answerable for the natural conseChancery subsequently decided that this share quences of his negligence, yet that he was not belonged to D., A.'s father. A. was the adminis-liable, for the proximate cause of the injury to the trator of D., and left part of his estate unadmin- plaintiff was not such as might be reasonably istered, in which was the sum derived from B.'s expected to result from such negligence; and also succession. The person who was entitled to a grant of administration to the unadministered 2A L. T. Rop. N. S. 436. C. P.) that the damage was too remote: (Sharp v. Powell, estate of D. was cited, but did not appear. The court, under these circumstances, refused to make a grant to the executor of C., the assignee of the unadministered estate of D., limited to his share in B.'s estate, but made a grant limited to enabling the executor to assert C.'s rights as assignee under the deed in the Court of Chancery, and to receive what the court might consider him entitled to: (Burdon v. Morgan; in the Goods of Longhurst, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 405. Prob.) PRACTICE-UNCLAIMED STOCK-TRANSFERFORM OF ORDER.-A legacy to an infant was invested in stock in the names of two executors, and the dividends not having been claimed for ten years, the stock was transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. One of the executors having died, the survivor presented a petition for a re-transfer of the stock. The court, without requiring the concurrence of the beneficiaries, made an order directing the stock to be transferred to the petitioner, and that he should thereont pay the costs of the Attorney-General and the commissioners: (Re Ackland's Trusts, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 418. V.C. M.) TROVER-FELONY BY DEFENDANT-DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT. In an action for trover for a brooch; pleas not Builty, and not possessed; the jury found a ver LAMBETH POLICE COURT. Saturday May 18th. (Before Mr. ELLISON). Professional malpractices-Touting attorneys. TO-DAY the magistrate heard complaints with regard to the system of certain attorneys and their agents "touting" for business. In consequence of certain information, Mr. Ellison directed the attendance of parties complaining. The first complainant, John Hardcastle, said he was a paper-hanger. About a month back, understanding his wife had taken out a warrant against him for assault, he came to the court, and while waiting about was addressed by Mr. Mayo, a solicitor, who asked if he wanted any assistance, or a solicitor, and added that he had defended the parties in the "baby farming case" at Brixton. Complainant said he told him he had no money for a solicitor, when Mayo remarked, "You have got a home, have you not?' Complainant said he had one, such as a poor man would possess. The solicitor then said, "Will you give me an I. O. U. on your goods and chattels to defend you?” Complainant said it would be hard for him to do that, considering his children The at that time. man In answer to questions the complainant said no neighbour called upon Mayo to engage his services. Mr. Mayo solicited him to give the I. O. U. on his goods, but he had not since applied to him for any payment. He said, "I'll draw you through this, as I defended the 'baby farming case." Newbatt, one of the warrant officers of the court, said when he brought the complainant to the court, Mr. Mayo said, "You have got a client of mine," and afterwards said to the complainant, "I am going to defend you." The complainant told him he did not require his services, upon which he said, "Well, you'll have to pay me something, and I shall expect to be paid after what you said to me yesterday." Edward Adams, father of a lad charged at this court, stated that Mr. Mayo came to him a week back in the precincts of the court, and said, "What's your game? What have you got on?" He told him nothing in particular, but his boy was in a little trouble. Mr. Mayo asked if he could be of any assistance, and said he thought he had done business for him before. The complainant thought he was mistaken, but added that if his boy were committed he might want some one then. He did not ask for any money, but handed him the envelope produced, with his name and address written upon it. He did not ask for Mr. Mayo's assistance, but when he took the envelope said he thought a friend might perhaps want him. ments and said he had been asked by friends of the Mayo denied the greater part of these stateparties to attend the cases. He went on to accuse several officials of the court of being prejudiced against him, and declaring he was not guilty of .. touting for business. Mr. ELLISON said he saw two respectable solicitors present, and should be glad to hear what they had to say in the matter. Fullagar, solicitor, expressed his regret at hearing such charges brought against one of in Mr. Mayo's statement that officers of the court the profession, and said there was no truth brought him business. Mayo added that it was the custom of some solicitors to give drink to the officials for business. Ody, a solicitor of several years' standing, said, on one occasion, when engaged to appear in a case, he arrived at the court a few moments after 2 o'clock in the afternoon, when he found Mr. Mayo had taken the fee due to him, the woman in the case stating that he had told her that Mr. Ody was not coming. Witness asked Mayo to return the woman her money, but he refused. Before the magistrate she stated that the case was in Mr. Ody's hands. Ultimately, upon the authority of the woman's husband, he brought an action in the Lambeth County Court against Mr. Mayo for the recovery of the fee. The judge (the Hon. Mr. Cust, then sitting for Mr. Pitt Taylor) decided in plaintiff's favour, and ordered, in addition to the amount claimed, all the costs, at the same time adding some severe remarks against the defendant's conduct. Mayo denied that any remarks were made against his conduct, but were in reference to ungentlemanly conduct between professional gentlemen. Ody said his statement could be borne out by the Hon. Mr. Cust. Mr. ELLISON said he should have the whole matter thoroughly sifted, and should consult his colleague, Mr. Chance, upon it, before giving his decision. Mr. Mayo gave quite a different statement to the two cases laid before him, but in the first case he thought there was little doubt. The real question, however, was whether a disgraceful systein of "touting," utterly derogatory to the character of the profession, had not been carried on in and around this court. That was the question, and he should have it thoroughly investigated. The matter was then adjourned for Mr. Ellison's decision, a note of the complaints having been made by the chief clerk. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND. [Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively whose names are prefixed to each in three months, unless other claimants sooner appear.] COLLIER (Win. M.), Castle Camps, Cambridge, farmer, one dividend on the sum of 6100 Three per Cent Annuities. Claimant, John Duchesne, one of the executors of Wm. Martin Collier, deceased. COMYNN Rev. John, Bishop's Teignton, Devon: and COMYNS (Rev. Geo. Thos.), Axmouth, Devon, clerk. £333 68. 8d. Reduced Three per (ents. Claimant, said Goo. Thomas Comyns, the surv vor. SMITH (Rev. Edward Orlebar, Holcote, Reds, clerk, and MARTIN Rev. Harry), Combe Rectory, Teignmouth. One dividend on the sum of £3047 18s. 9d. Three per Cent. Annuities. Claimant, Maria Dale Smith, spinster, and John Green, executor of Rev. Edward Olebur Smith, deceased. TURSER (Richard), Esq, Longhton, Essex, and SUTTON (John), Stock Exchange, gentleman, £1091 128, od. Three per Cont. Annuities, claimant, said Richard Turner, the survivor. CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOF. BARTON (John', Great George-street, Westminster and Hamilton-3 rrace, Middlesex, auct oncer, June 10; barton and Pearman, solicitors, 54, Kenninglon-road, Surrey. June 4. V. C. W. at twelve o'clock. CHADWICK (Jas), Manchester, cotton waste dealer. June 5: W. H. Hewitt, solicitor, 8, Marsden-street, Manchester. June 17; V.C. W., at two o'clo k. CLARKE (Robert E,, East Halton, Lincoln, miller, May 31; T. Massey, solicitor, 5, Gray's-ian-square, W.C.; June 11, V.C. B. at twe've o'clock. GOBLE (Iden', 48, High-street, Southwark, Surrey. June 1; Champion and Co., solicitors, 17, Ironmonger-lanc, E.C. June is; V.C. W., at 12 o'clock, MARTEN Geo. F. W., 15, Brunswick-square, Camberwell, Surrey, June 14: R. J. Dobie, soliciter, 61, Basinghallstreet, E.C. June 25; V.C. W., at 12 o'clock APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT-STOCK WINDING-UP ACTS. ALVAREZ SILVER MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY LIMITED. Creditors to send in, by July 19, their names and addresses, and the particulars of their claims, and the names ani addresses of their solicitors, if any, to T. H. Bolton, solicitor, 11, Gray's-in-square, W.C. July 26, at the chambers of the M.R., is the tine appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon such claims. BRITISH COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.- Petition of winding-up to be heard, May 31, before V.C. M. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. Last Day of Claim, and to whom Particulars to be sent, ASHBURNHAM (General the Hon. Thos., C.B., 101, Parkstreet, Grosvenor-square, Middlesex. June 15; Ranken and Co., solicitors, 4, South square, Gray's-inn, W.C. BARNS (AP) Sherbourne Hotel, Sherbourne-roa 1. Balsall Heath, Worcester. July 1; D. Dimbleby, solicitor, 1., Bennett's-hill, Birmingham. BELL (Jas.), G, Radnor-street, Hulme, Manchester, bookkeeper. June 24; Cobbett and Co., solicitors, 61, Brownstreet, Manchester. BELL (Susanna), Lesbourne Lands, Reigate, Surrey. June 15; Heathfield and Young, solicitors, 6, Serjeant's-inn, Fleet street, E.C. BIDMEAD Sannel), Watercombe House, Bisley, Gloucester, gentieinan. July 18; C. W. Lawrence, solicitor, Cirencester. BigG (Edward S.), Hyde, Siangham. Sussex. June 21: Prior and Co., solcitors, 61, Lincoln's-inu-fields, W.C. BINGHAM (Elza'. Au hey, North Thoresby, Lincoln. July 1: J. H. Bell, solicitor. Tower Hali, Louth BRIGGS Camila), Southwood, Sydenlum-hill, Kent. June 30; White and Co., solicitors, 6, Whitehall-place, Westminster. BUTLER (Cornelius), Brentwood, Essex, surgeon. May 31; Lewis and Sons, solicitors, Brentwood COLE (Sampson), 11, Piml co-road, Pimlico, Middlesex, licensed victualler. June 21; Nash and Co., solicitors, 2, Suffolk-lane, Cannon-s reet, E.C. CONSTABLE (Rev. Jas. P. G., Cotesback Rectory, Leicester, clerk. June 21; E. Harris, solicitor, Rugby. CRONKSHAW (James), Constable, near Randenstall, Lincaster, cotton manufacturer. June 26; Woodcock and Son, solicitors, West-view, Haslingham, Lancashire. CUSSACK (Geo.), Esq., Laytoo-villa, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, Anz. Bircham and Co., solicitors, 46, Parliamentstreet, S.W. DAVIES Ezabeth), 17, Waterford-road, Fulham, Middlesx. June 17; Nichols and Co., solicitors, 9, Cook's-court, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. DIMMOCK Edward M., Esq., Prospect House, Hatfield, Brenchley, Kent. July 1, C. Sawbridge, solicitor, Woodstreet, Cheapside, E.C. DRIVER (Louisa), 4, Highbury-park, Highbury, Middlesex, FORD (Jos.), Fenchurch-street, E.C., hair l'esser, July 1; GEORGE Jas. G.), Monmouth, gentleman. July 29; Thos. W. Oakley, Monmouth. GRIMES (John A.), Esq., 25, Portland-terrace. Regent'spark. Mittlesex. July 31; A. O, Underwood, solicitor, 89, Chancery-lane, W.C. HANCOCK (Elizabeth, Wokingham. July 10; J. C. Asprey, solicitor, 6, Furnival's-inn, E.C. HAWES Michael), Ipswich. June 15; E. Thompson Smith, Colchester. HAY (Wm., 91. Lorrimore street, Walworth, Surrey, barman. June 21; Nash and Co., solicitors, 2, Suffolk-laue, Cannon-street, E.C. HOLYROYD Daniel, Salem, Oldham, Lancaster. June 13; HOYLE (Jas., Rochdale, Lancaster. June 30; J. W. LIEBERT (Bernhard), Esq., Victoria-park, Manchester, July 31; Cunliffe and Leaf, solicitors, 50, Brown-street, Manchester. LOWRY (Mary A., Darran-hill House, near Carlisle. July 1; E. Houghty, solicitor, 51, Fisher-street, Carlisle. LYON (Jane), 17A. Albert-terrace, Knightsbridge, Middlesex. July 1; H. E. Bailey, solicitor, 51, Sloane-street, Knights. bridge. MACKMURDO (Edward), Esq., Edmonton, Middlesex. July 1; G. Weston, solicitor, 11, Gray's-inn square, W.C. MARSHALL (Alexander, 32, Gilbert-street. Grosvenorsquare, Middlesex. Juue 17; Lawrance and Co., solicitors, 14, Old Jewry Chambers, E.C. MARSHALL (Eliza), 49, Great Portland-street, Middlesex. June 17; Lawrance and Co., solicitors, 14, Old Jewry, E.C. NIBLETT (Edward), Fountain Inn, Orcop. Hereford, innkeeper. July 5; J. Sayce, solicitor, Lion-street, Aber gavenny. NORTH (Mary), Brackley, Northampton. July 15; Taylor and Co., solicitors, 25, Great James-street, Bedford-row, W.C. OSBORNE (Sarah), Lytham Cottage, Wordsworth-road, Small-heath, Aston, Warwick. July 18; Reece and Harris, solicitors, New-street, Birmingham. PEACH (Jas.), Ashborne, Derby, gentleman. July 1; J. Bamford, solicitor, Ashbourne. PERRY (Omega, otherwise Alfred, Milford-crescent, Amherst-road, Hackney, Middlesex, gentleman. Aug. 31; Deacon and Co, solicitors, 1, Paul-bakehouse-court, Doctors'-commons, E.C. PEYTON (Sir Algernon W.), Bart., Swift's House, near POTTICARY (Mary), 18. Dorset-square, Middlesex. July 8; RIDLEY (George.), Crutched Friars, E.C., wine merchant. July 1; S. H. Head, solicitor, 29, Mark-lane, E.C. SAMBROOK Thos.), 307, High Holborn, W.C., brushmaker. June 2; J. H. Lydall, solicitor, 12, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, W.C. SCOTT (Admiral Sir Jas.), K.C.B., Cheltenham. June 23; Booty and Sor, solicitors, 1, Raymond-buildings, Gray'sinn, W.C. SMALLMAN (Richard), 209 Piccadilly, a civil engineer. July 17: Mackenzie and Co., solicitors, 1, Crown-court, Old Broad-street, E.C. SPRENT (Geo. A., Hope Villa, Portswood-road, South Stoneham, Southampton. July 8; T. Johnson, solicitor, Midhurst. Sussex. STEVENSON (Samuel, W.), March, Isle of Ely and Cambridze, common brewer. June 29; Dawbarn and Wise, solicitors, March. STRANGE (Alice). Shrewsbury, Salop June 5; Broughall and Son, solicitors, St. John's-hill, Shrewsbury. STRONG (Henry), 7, Cambridge-terrace. Lynembe and Widcombe, Bath, gentleman, Aug 14; E. M. Harris. solicitor, 9, Westgate buildings, Bath. TAYLOR (Philip), Old Market-street, Bristol, corn factor and miller. July 3; William Plummer. solicitor, Bristolchambers, Nicholas-street, Bristol. TEALE (Benjamin H.), Leeds. Aug. 1; J. E. Upton, solicitor, 6, East-parade, Leeds. TEALE (Benjamin), Lucknow, India, a private in H.M.'s WALNE (Thos. Tasburgh, Norfolk, farmer. July 5; C. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Enston-road. No. 49, Drummond-crescent, term 46 yearssold for £280; No. 39, adjoining-sold for £295; No. 51sold for £275; No. 52-sold for £255. By Messrs. C. C. and T. MOORE. Mile-end-road, No. 377, copyhold-sold for £920. No, 379, adjoining-sold for £89) Limehouse. No. 1. Anglesea place, freehold-sold for £530. Two cottages, adjoining-sold for £125. Walthamstow, Hawthorne-villa, freehold-sold for £100. Plaistow, Sewell-street, a plot of land-sold for £100. Nos. 1 to 8. Palace-terrace, Nos. 3 and 4, Rose-cottages, freehold-sold for £850. Nos. 1 to 4, George-street; and Nos. 1 and 2, Rose-cottages, freehold-sold for £540. Nos 1 to 3, Myrtle-villas, freehold-sold for £100. By Mr. H. E. MARSH, at Guildhall Tavern. Lower Norwood-Seven houses with shops, and other houses and plot of land, leasehold-sold for £500. Peckham .Nos. 26 and 28, Lyndhurst-road, term 35 yearssold for £850. Nos, 30 and 32, adjoining-sold for £850, Friday, May 17. By Messrs. RUSHWORTH, ABBOTT, and Co., at the Mart. Oxford-street, No. 61, Poland-street, freehold -sold for £1200. By Messrs. GADSDEN, ELLIS, and Co. Holborn. The Royal Amphitheatre, with dwelling-house and stabling, terin 50 years-sold for £8000. Clapham-road.--Nos. 27 and 29, Studley-road, term 65 years -sold for £690. By Messrs. NORTON, TRIST, WATNEY, and Co. Bayswater.-No. 33, Porchester-terrace, term 51 years-sold for £6.00. Tuesday, May 21. By Messrs, E. and H. LUMLEY, at the Mart. Upper Berkeley-street West, No. 10, term 50 years-sold for 2845. By Messrs. NEWBON and HARDING. Ratcliff, Nos 21 and 2, Broad-street, freehold-sold for £900. City, Pavement, an improved rent of £165 28. 8d., term 2 years-sold for £1710. Walthamstow, Nos. 18 and 19, Prospect-row, term 86 years -sold for £345. Nos 20 and 21, adjoining-sold for £320. An improved ground rent of £9, term 85 years-sold for £135. By Messrs. DEBENHAM, TEWSON, and FARMER, City, freehold property known as the "Poultry Chapel and Schools"-sold for £50,200. Gordon square, No. 3, term 51 years-sold for £1000. Cheshunt, Flainstead-end, dwelling-house, stabling, &c., and cottage, and 3a. 2r. 3Sp., copyhold--sold for £350. Hackney, No. 14, Darnley-road, term 65 years-sold for £400. MAGISTRATES' LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. POOR LAW REMOVAL-BREAK OF RESIDENCE -TEMPORARY ABSENCE-WHAT IS-Since the enactment of the 28 & 29 Vict. c. 79, s. 8, constituting the status of irremovability upon a one year's residence, and the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 55, s. 1, and the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 105, s. 1, rendering a resi dence in any parish of the same union a residing for the purpose of irremovability, it is no matter of surprise that few appeals against orders of removal are made to the quarter sessions in which irremovability on such a ground is not a promi nent feature. Such being the case, any decision of our courts upon the question of what constitutes a break of residence, cannot be otherwise than of considerable practical interest and importance. For some time after the passing of the first statute upon the subject, the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, an interpretation was put upon the law of much greater stringency than of late has prevailed, and thus we find Blackburn, J., a judge so sound in his views and so exact in the language he uses, expressing his opinion of the law in the somewhat early case of Reg. v. Glossop (L. Rep. 1 Q. B. 227; 35 L. J. 148, M. C.; B L. T. Rep. N. S. 672) in language which in a very recent case he declined to adopt. As was well observed in Reg. v. Glossop, nice points sometimes Victoria-park, No. 32, Approach-road, term 52 years-sold arise as to whether a person who is physically for £100. Mile-end, No. 29, Trafalgar-square, freehold-sold for £300. No. 67. Longfellow road, term 88 years-sold for £150. Stepney-green, No. 5, Diamond-row, copyhold-sold for £275. £600. A dit o of £64 per annum, term 43 years-sold for £855, Brunswick-quare, No. 58, Judd-street, termn 31 years-sold for £150. Tottenham, No. 1, Park-road-villas, term 80 years-sold for £330. No. 2 adjoiting-sold for £260. away from his residence is still constructively resident there? If the party has gone elsewhere for a permanent purpose, although he may afterterwards return, a break of residence is obviously the consequence. Each case of this nature must depend upon its own peculiar facts: the principle is well established and clearly understood. The cases which apparently present a difficulty are those in which the pauper has no residence of his own to which to return after a temporary absence. In Reg.v. St. Leonard Shoreditch (35 L. J. 48, M. C.; Romford, Nos. 1 to 8, Lime Tree-cottages, freehold-sold for 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 278), the pauper had lived £750. Nos. 1 to fi, Lea's Cottages, freehold-sold for £610. Suaresbrook. Perey-jodge, freehold-sold for £1220. A treehold villa, being Lot 5-sold for £1160. for upwards of three years in lodgings in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, and then from want was compelled to give them up, and she wandered Three plots of land, each 60 feet by 163 feet-sold for £170 houseless about the parish. She slept one night on a A ditto. 85 feet by 161 feet-sold for £230. Three plots, 6) feet by 161 feet-sold for £150 each. Bedford-square, Gower-street, a ground-rent of £11 11s., terin one year, and half year's reversion-sold for £55. A dito of 1 s.--sold for £25. door step in the parish, and for the next twentyone days wandered about, chiefly in the parish, and went at night to sleep at a refuge for the houseless poor out of the parish, returning in the Brixton-hill, Lucas's coach factory, term 8 years-sold for day to the parish. Upon these facts it was held Mile end-road, the Albion public-house, freehold-sold for £-00. that there was no break of residence. In giving his judgment, Cockburn, C.J., said:-" There are Brunswick-square, No. 19, Kenton-street, term 34 years- unhappily people who are obliged to seek a neces Marylebone, No. 18, Bolsover-steet, and 14, Buckingham-sary shelter in the open air, or, as has been sug sold for C330. street, term 34 years-sold for £200, By Mr. H. E. MARSH. Walworth, Nos. 30, 32, and 31, Heiron-street, freehold-sold for £115. Nos. 21, 28, and 25, Royal-road, freehold-sold for £255. Nos. 1 to 9, Hill-street, and Nos. 1 to 18, James-place, term 33 years-sold for £2260. Peckham, Nos. 1 to 31, Regent-street, and Caroline cottage, and Nos. 171 to 189 (odd numbers), Sonthampton-street (with short reversion), term 40 years-sold for £920. Tooting, an improved rental of £41 78., term 30 years-sold for £150. Norwood, a freehold ground-rent of £18 2s. 6d., amply secured-sold for £60, Giusy-hill, Elm-house, freehold-sold for £720. gested, under the dry arches of bridges. Such people have no other habitation, and sleep how best they can, and the parish of such habitation is then their place of residence, and for that purpose persons having their place of sleeping in the open air are precisely on the same footing as persons sleeping in a house or within walls; and I think such a residence will not be broken by a temporary It was said in ar absence for convenience. gument that in all the cases where the residence had been held to be constructive, there was a place of residence in the parish during must be quashed." These judgments are of great comprised in her marriage settlement, and upon condition that she should release this sum of £6000, so that it might become vested in his trustees, whom he directed to apply the same in augmentation, and as part of the fund to arise from the residue of his said real and personal estate. And he further directed that his trustees should, by and out of the said trust estates, moneys, and premises therein before devised, and bequeathed to them, raise and levy £10,000 for each of his six sisters (naming them): Held (affirming the decision of Bacon, V.C.), that the testator intended to constitute, and had effectually constituted, a mixed fund, consisting of his residuary real and personal estate, for the payment of the annuity to his wife and the legacies to his six sisters, which were therefore payable rateably out of the residuary real and personal estate: Allan v. Gott, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 412. L. J.J.) COMPANY LAW. ie temporary absence from it, and therefore nat as such place of residence was wanting ere, the residence was broken. But I think that bjection begs the question-whether there can be residence by sleeping in the open air? As, owever, a residence of that nature is, in my pinion, as much a residence as if it were in a ouse, and as the absence here was only for a emporary purpose, the pauper has never broken er residence, and is irremovable." Blackburn, also in his judgment said: "Where a person leeps, is a matter affording an important element n determining where a person resides, but is by o means conclusive on the point." In this case, herefore, an actual place of habitation was eemed unnecessary, a residence in a parish or inion being complete by an actual abiding within he locality, though there has been no dwelling vithin any building. In the very recent case of Reg. v. St. Ives Union (26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 333), he question of residence and irremovability reeived a further illustration. In that case the auper had resided in the respondent parish or the requisite period, and being for a short ime in domestic service there, and intending to NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. go back into the union workhouse of the same ASSURANCE COMPANY-WINDING-UP-PROOF inion in which workhouse she had formerly been, OF POLICY HOLDERS.-The amount for which a she resolved to visit some relatives before doing POACHING-PROOF OF HAVING TAKEN GAME. policy holder is entitled to prove in the windingo; and accordingly upon leaving her service she -The appellants, a mason and a carpenter, were up of an assurance company is the sum which at vent and visited her son who was living out of the together upon a highway about nine o'clock of a the date of the winding-up order would have been Farish, and remained with him for three days. misty winter evening; one had a net for game, required to be paid by a solvent assurance comThereupon she went on a visit to a friend, who which was wettish, under his arm. Two police-pany, having the same rate of premiums, and the ulso lived out of the parish, and remained with her men who met them about 100 yards from their in liquidation, in order to give the policy holder same extent of proprietary capital as the company also three days, and having afterwards stopped houses, which adjoined each other, had heard a with another friend, residing within the parish for dog yelping just before, and one of the police said a policy of the same amount, under the same conone day, she went back into the workhouse. It he saw a dog with them, but this they denied. ditions, whether ordinary or special, and at the being contended that this residence out of the They did not say where they had been, but after- same premium. Bell's case (L. Rep. 9 Eq. 706; parish for the six days constituted a break of re-wards they asked the police to say nothing about 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 697) approved and followed; sidence; the court held that it did not do so. the matter. Justices convicted the appellants of Lancaster's case (16 Solicitor's Journal, 103) disThe judgment of Blackburn, J. is peculiarly lucid poaching under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 114, s. 2. Held, that approved: (Holdich's case, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. and instructive. He says: "I think myself, that proof of having actually taken game was not ne415. M. R.) when a person is clearly shown to have been re- cessary for a conviction; and that these facts considing in a parish, the onus of proof is upon those stituted evidence from which the justices might who wish to establish that a break of the residence infer that an offence under the Act had been comhas occurred. Prima facie, no doubt the fact mitted: (Jenkin v. King, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 428. of departure is evidence of a break of resi- Q. B.) dence; this, however, may be rebutted by proof of an intention to return. When an actual residence is abandoned, as, for instance, when a house which has been occupied is given up altogether, the presumption is strong that there is no intention to return. In the same way, when a house is retained there is strong ground for assuming that the occupier intends to return. But neither of these things is of itself absolute proof of intention. The real test of a break of residence is, whether the person going ont of the parish entertains an intention to remain away permanently or for some indefinite time. There must always be a difficulty in deciding a matter of more or less, but it would be monstrous to hold that a definite intention of being absent for a few days only should create a break of residence merely because there is no particular house to which the absent person has a right to return. Mr. Poland properly pressed upon us the language which I am reputed to have used in Reg. v. Glossop, but whatever words I actually used in that case, I was conscious at the time, and I am clear now, that those contained in the report are not the law; all that I meant to say was, that the fact of having a residence or no residence to return to, should be a strong element in determining the intention to return. A complete break of residence would be established if the person departing had begun to reside elsewhere, or even if he had gone away with a clear intention to reside out of the parish in which he had been stationed. A dwelling house to which he might return must be an important element in determining what was his intention, but is not essential for either conclusion. Here, I think, there was no break of residence, and the order Borough. Berwick-on-Tweed Canterbury Carmarthen Chichester Deal MARITIME LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY.-CERTIO- SHIP-DAMAGE TO CARGO-DUTY OF MASTER RARI. A conviction by justices, under the Mali--EXCEPTED PERIL.-Plaintiff's shipped on board cious Injuries to Property Act 1861, cannot be the defendants' steamship a cargo of beans to be brought up upon a writ of certiorari on the carried from Alexandria to Glasgow under a bill of ground that their jurisdiction was ousted by a lading, excepting the usual" perils of the sea," &c. mere bond fide claim of right. The proviso in The vessel, after calling at Liverpool, having been sect. 52, that "nothing herein contained shall damaged by a collision in the Mersey, not caused extend to any case where the party acted under a by any default of the defendants, was obliged to fair and reasonable supposition that he had a run ashore to prevent her sinking, and the beans right to do the act complained of" impliedly were wetted by the sea water in consequence of restricts the exemption of bona fide claims of the collision, and the vessel had to remain for right from summary jurisdiction to cases where some days in a graving dock at Liverpool for the the justices are satisfied of the fairness and rea- purpose of repairing the damage done to her. sonableness of the claims: (R. v. Mussett, 26 L. T. Plaintiffs, who were at Liverpool, requested the Rep. N.S. 429. Q.B.) defendants' agent to give up the beans on payment of pro rata freight, but the defendants' agent refused to deliver them except on payment of the entire freight, and the vessel proceeded on her voyage to Glasgow, where the beans, on their arrival, were found to be greatly deteriorated in value in consequence of having been so long left in their state of saturation with HACKNEY CARRIAGE-WHAT IS A PLYING FOR HIRE-WHAT IS A PUBLIC PLACE.-The appellant, a licensed driver of a hackney carriage, had been convicted under 6 & 7 Viet. c. 86, s. 33, of plying for hire elsewhere than at some standing or place appointed for that purpose. He was the servant of a cab proprietor, who was also the occupier of a public house immediately opposite to the Putney railway station. In front of the public house, and between it and the road, is an open piece of ground, part of the land attached to the public house, and private property. Here the appellant stood with his master's cab, and when hailed from the station drove across the street and picked up a fare. This place was not appointed by the Commissioners of Police as a standing for hackney carriages under sect 29: Held, upon a case stated by the convicting magistrate, that these facts did not constitute an offence under this Act, and 1 & 2 Wid. 4, c. 22, which is to be read with it: (Skinner v. Usher, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 431. Q.B.) BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. When holden. Friday, June 28 REAL PROPERTY AND his trustees, in case and as often as they should think fit, to sell and absolutely dispose of, call in, and convert into money, all and every his said real and personal estate; and he directed them to NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. stand possessed of the residue of the said real and WILL-LEGACIES-CHARGE-PERSONALTY.-A personal estate, and of the moneys arising from testator, by his will, directed his debts and funeral the sale thereof, or of any part thereof, if and and testamentary expenses to be, in the first place, when sold, upon trust after payment of his debts paid and discharged out of his personal estate. and funeral and testamentary expenses, and of Then, after giving certain pecuniary legacies, and the pecuniary legacies thereinbefore bequeathed, making certain specific devises of real estate, he to invest the residne, and out of the income to gave all other his real estate, and all his personal pay his wife an annuity of £1200 for her life. And estate not therein disposed of, to trustees upon he declared that this annuity was given to her in the trusts thereinafter declared; and he empowered satisfaction of the interest upon a sum of £6000, salt water. The beans might, at Liverpool, have been removed to warehouses for the purpose of being spread out and dried, and such accommodation might have been found within half a mile of the graving dock, and this would have materially checked the process of decompo sition. The expense of unshipping, drying, and reshipping would have been particular average payable by the owner of the cargo An action having been brought by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of the damage caused to the cargo of beans by neglecting to do this: Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench) that the taking of the beans on to Glasgow was, under the circumstances of the case, unjusti fiable, and rendered the shipowner liable for the loss thereby occasioned to the plaintiffs; the facts of the case showing that the beans might have been taken out, dried, and reshipped without unreasonably delaying the whole adventure. There is a duty on the part of shipowners, through the master, to take active measures to prevent the cargo from being spoilt by damage originally occasioned by sea accidents without fault on their part, and for the proximate and unavoidable effects of which accident they are exempt from responsibility by the terms of the bill of lading; where the taking of such measures is reasonably practicable under all the circumstances of the case: (Notara v. Henderson, 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 442. Ex. Ch.) COLLISION-CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES-DUTY OF MASTER OF INJURED VESSEL-UNJUSTIFIABLE ABANDONMENT.-Where a collision takes place between two vessel by the negligence of the crew of the defendants' vessel, whereby the plaintiff's vessel is injured, and afterwards and before any effort has been made to save the vessel her master and crew unjusti her, and she is consequently totall dants will not be liable for s |