question had not been injuriously affected within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, and the court were of opinion that as the demurrer acknowledged this to be the fact, it would be useless to compel the company to take up the award. Mr. Morgan Lloyd, in support of the demurrer, contended that the proper time for arguing such a question as the return raised, was when an action was brought on the award, and that though the demurrer must be taken to admit the truth of the allegation contained in the return, yet the railway company should be compelled to take up the award. The court, however, overruled the demurrer, without calling on the other side. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. On Friday, the second day of term, there was but one motion in this court of the kind which frequently occupy the whole of the first four days. No less than three applications were, however, made to restore to the special paper cases in which counsel failed to appear during the sittings after last term. The rules upon which the different courts act in such matters are by no means well known, and are sometimes difficult to understand. One day last term a junior counsel of extensive practice, and well-known attention to business, applied to the Court of Common Pleas to have a registration appeal heard which had been struck out in consequence of his absence when the case was called on, he being instructed for the appellant. He explained that he had not anticipated that the cases before his would go off so quickly, and that the fault was all his; upon which, with scarcely any hesitation, the court granted his application. On Friday, however, although in one case at least the facts seemed to be very similar, no such mercy was accorded to either counsel or attorney on the plea of peccavi. Five days were allotted to the special paper after Hilary Term, and the list of cases looked formidable enough for four times that period, but somehow they were all got through on the fourth day. Some were allowed to stand over, by consent and application, before their turn came, and some turned out to have nothing in them, but many were either struck out, no counsel appearing on either side, or put an end to by summary judgment on behalf of the one side for which alone some counsel could be found. Mr. Denman was the first to apply to the court. He said the case of Myers v. The London and South-Western Railway Company was twenty-five off on the day before the last of the sittings, and the attorneys. relying upon a continuance of the steady pace with which the special paper generally advances, thought they might safely postpone the delivery of their briefs till this term; the consequence was, when the officer of the court came to the case in order, no one answered, and his pen was passed through it. Although both parties consented in applying for restoration to its former place in the list, the court would not allow anything but its re-entry as a new cause. In the next case of Shelburne v. Steele the briefs had been long previously delivered, and the counsel on one side asked for and obtained judgment; the application by the absent counsel to have the judgment set aside and the case heard was peremptorily refused. The other application was in Barnes v. Johnson, and as counsel, armed with the consent of the other side, asked no greater favour than that the case should be entered at the bottom of the list without second delivery of paper books, and second payment of court fees, he was successful. 1 had written that they were instructed by the Attorney-General to assent to the claims of the plaintiff being brought before the arbitrator, provided the arbitrator should admit his application for compensation. The plaintiff declined to refer with this condition, and now proposed that the submission to arbitration on the original terms should be made a rule of court, or that the cause should be reinstated in the list for trial. Rule nisi granted. A rule nisi to set aside a nonsuit in the General Iron Foundry Company (Limited) v. Kirk, a case which had been sent for trial to the Shoreditch County Court, was also granted. The action was for goods sold and delivered; the defendant paid part of the sum claimed into court, and pleaded never indebted as to 2l. 7s. 6d., the residue. The ground of nonsuit was the non-production by the plaintiffs of the certificate of incorporation of their company. A rule nisi was also granted in Field v. Megaw, tried before Mr. Justice Byles at Guildhall, on the question whether the facts constituted an equitable assignment of a debt. The court afterwards got through two cases in the new trial paper, Biner v. Walters, and Beddall v. King both of which may be found in the present number of the LAW TIMES Reports; and commenced a third, Baughan v. Physick, which took three days to be tried at Nisi Prius, and from the array of counsel on each side, may be expected to last some time longer before it is settled. On Monday the Chief Justice was absent from ill-health, and Mr. Justice Keating and Mr. Justice M. Smith heard motions all day. Five rules nisi were granted, and two were postponed for reference to the judges before whom the cases were tried. Three of the applications by a strange coincidence turned upon the construction of guarantees as to whether the words used created a continuing liability. In Dibdin v. Fenwick, an action by a fireman belonging to the defendant's steamer, Conservator, for injury in consequence of an explosion, the court refused a rule to enter a verdict for the plaintiff, the evidence having been sufficient to show that the explosion was the consequence of improper stowage rather than of the construction of the ship. In Pillar v. Llynri Coal and Iron Company (Limited), an unusual question was raised upon the application and construction of the Truck Act. The plaintiff had for upwards of ten years supplied the defendants with tin goods, for the value of some of which he now sued; the materials had been furnished by the defendants, and they set-off the value of them in this action. At the trial, at Bristol, Mr. Justice M. Smith, held, upon the authority of ths Truck Act (1 & 2 Will. 4, c.37), that the set-off was bad. Prideaux, Q. C., for the defendants, moved to enter a nonsuit, or to reduce the verdict on the ground that the plaintiff was not an artificer within the meaning of the Act, that he was not obliged to buy his materials at the defendants' shop, that part of the set-off was the amount due from the plaintiff as his contribution to a school and sick fund, that most of the transactions for which plaintiff claimed had been before action finally settled, and also generally that the evidence was in favour of the defendants. A rule was granted. In Warburton v. Oliver, a legislative casus omissus in the provisions for County Court practice was brought before the court. Defendant's attorney had accidentally omitted to give notice of defendant's intention to defend within the time fixed for such notice under sect. 2 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142. The registrar accordingly refused to summon a jury, and the County Court judge held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case. On the authority of the section which enacts that the last County Court Act is to be read with preceding ones, it was contended that the analogy of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, ss. 66, 78, 81, and rules 66 and 83 of 1857 imposed upon the judge the duty of trying the case under the circumstances, and a rule was granted accordingly, together with a stay of proceedings. In Edmunds v. Greenwood, which has been before the court on several occasions, and the facts of which are even better known in Chancery, again occupied their Lordships' attention. Mr. Digby Seymour made an ex parte application on behalf of Mr. Edmunds for a rule calling upon the defendant to show cause why the case should not be re-entered for trial on the ground that the agreement upon which the record was withdrawn had not been fulfilled by the defendant. The action was for a libel contained in certain reports made by Mr. Greenwood, the solicitor to the Treasury, and Hill and Reeves v. Brunsdell was a consolithe late Mr. Hindmarch, relating to the Patent dated action to decide the right of the defendant Office, concerning matters submitted to them for to levy an execution upon seven cows, four of investigation. The cause had been set down for which were claimed by one plaintiff and three by trial, but on its being considered desirable to have the other. Reeves abandoned his claim at the the whole matter referred, the plaintiff had been trial, but a verdict was found for the plaintiff as to induced to withdraw the record. Before this step Hill's cows; a motion was now made by the defenhad been taken proceedings had been instituted in dant for a new trial on the ground of surprise, the the Court of Chancery, and there had been a long alleged surprise apparently being the fact that the correspondence between Mr. Edmunds and the plaintiff Reeves having abandoned his claim was Lords of the Treasury, and with Mr. Selater- not called as witness, in Booth, in which a reference was agreed to, the defendant was unable consequence of which the case by arbitrator to take into consideration any subse-cross-examination. The rule was refused. quent moral or legal grounds of relief the plaintiff The days fixed for the registration appeals are might have from the payment of any part of the Friday the 23rd, Tuesday the 27th, and Wedaccounts, and also any claim for compensation nesday the 28th of the month. Notice was given which the plaintiff might make against the Crown; that Mr. Justice Brett would take his seat in court each party was to name a legal arbitrator, and the on Saturday next, and the new trials before him Hon. G. Denman, Q. C. was appointed for the would then be proceeded with. Crown Solicitor, and Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, Q. C. On Wednesday the only case of importance for Mr. Edmunds. Subsequently, on the 12th which was brought before the court was that March 1869, the solicitors acting for defendant' of Wetherfield v. Nelson, which had been tried before the Recorder, in the Mayor's court. It was an action by an attorney, who had been appointed temporarily by the judge of the City of London County Court, Mr. Commissioner Kerr, to act as registrar of that court, in order to recover from the City of London solicitor the value of his services, whilst acting upon that appointment. The defendant had accepted the registrarship upon election by the Common Council, on condition that he might be permitted to carry out the duties by deputy; and he had appointed his brother, a properly qualified attorney, to act for him. The judge declined to approve of that appointment, and on the 14th Sept. last, at ten o'clock in the morning, the judge, on coming into court, inquired if the registrar was present. Mr. Grant, who is not an admitted attorney, but who represented the defendant in those duties of the court which apparently did not require the presence of the registrar himself, answered that he had not arrived; upon which the judge appointed the plaintiff to act as deputy. This occurred also on three following days, but on each day the defendant himself arrived about half-past ten, and conducted the business which devolved upon the registrar. A verdict of 211. had been found by the jury for the plaintiff, as reasonable remuneration for the plaintiff's services. the questions of the liability of the defendant, and the authority of the judge to appoint the plaintiff, being left for the court to determine. The plaintiff's case was based mainly on rule 8 of the Rules and Orders in County Courts of 1867, which, as was alleged, imposed upon the judge the duty of appointing a deputy if the registrar were absent at the sitting of the court. This court, Keating, J., and M. Smith, J. (the Lord Chief Justice was again absent), expressed some doubt as to the validity of this 8th rule, and held that the evidence did not show such an absence of the registrar, even upon the proper construction of that rule, which would justify the appointment of the plaintiff so as to make the defendant liable for his services. The rule to enter a nonsuit was therefore made absolute. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. On the first day of term, Mr. Bradlaugh, the well-known democratic politician, moved the court in person to enter a verdict for himself, or in the alternative for a new trial upon an information against him by the Attorney-General for penalties for non-compliance with the regulations established with respect to newspapers by the 60 Geo. 3, and 1 Geo. 4, c. 9, and the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 76. The publication in respect of which the information was laid was the National Reformer, the object of which was alleged to be the promulgation of certain views with relation to politics and religion. The statute (60 Geo. 3, and 1 Geo. 4, c. 9) is aimed against the publication in great numbers, and at very small prices, of pamphlets and printed papers containing observations upon public events, and occurrences tending to excite hatred and contempt of the Government and constitution of these realms as by law established, and also vilifying our Holy religion, and provides that no person shall print or publish for sale any newspaper, or any pamphlet or other paper containing any public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations thereon, or upon any matter in Church or State which shall not exceed two sheets, or shall be published for sale at a less price than 6d. without entering into a recognisance for securing fines upon conviction for libels. It also provides for the delivery to the commissioners of stamps by the printer or publisher of any such pamphlet or paper on every day of publication of one copy of such pamphlet or paper signed by the printer or publisher in his handwriting, with his name and place of abode. The 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 76, which relates to the duties on newspapers, provides that no person shall print or publish any newspapers until a declaration has been delivered at the Stamp-office setting forth the title of the paper, the place of printing and publication, and the name and address of the printer and proprietor, and various other particulars. The defendant contended that the verdict which was entered against him should be set aside on various grounds, the principal of which were the following: It appeared that the various counts of the information complained of the infringement of the statutory regulations in respect of a newspaper," and it was contended that therefore, even though the 60 Geo, 3 and 1 Geo. 4, c. 9, referred to pamphlets and other papers, the counts based on that statute conld only be sustained if the publication in question were a newspaper, and as the 6 & 7 Will. 4 only related to newspapers, of course the counts on that statute must stand or fall by the same test. The defendant urged that the National Reformer was not a newspaper, the correct definition of a newspaper, being a publication whose primary object was to give news, whereas the primary object of the National Reformer was to advance certain views and modes of thought in relation to politics, religion, and social matters; and although it gave certain items of information, these were only incidental to and illustrative of its main topics. Another point taken was that there was no evidence that the defendant was the publisher of the National Reformer on the days laid in the counts of the information. These counts claimed penalties in respect of publication on the 1st and 10th May, and the only evidence at the trial was that on the 10th April, by a letter in answer to a communication from the authorities at Somerset House, the defendant had admitted that he was at that date the publisher, and that on the days laid in the information a messenger from Somerset House had purchased two copies of the paper at a house with which, and from a person with whom, it was not shown that the defendant had any connection. It was contended by the defendant that it was quite consistent with the terms of his letter that he had ceased to be the publisher at the dates of those purchases, and that it could not be presumed in an information upon a penal statute that he continued to be the publisher, merely because he had admitted himself to be the publisher on a previous date, but there must be clear evidence that he was the publisher on the dates of the offences alleged in the information. It was likewise contended that some of the regulations alleged to have been infringed were only aimed at the collection of the duties, and these having been swept away by 18 Vict. c. 27, s. 1, these regula tions were also gone. The court intimated an opinion as to this point, that the regulations had the twofold object of collecting the duties and affording security against libels. The defendant further urged that the provisions of the 21 Jac. 1, c. 4, s. 3, by which the informer must make oath that the offence was committed in the county where the suit is commenced, had not been complied with. The court intimated an opinion that this might afford ground for a substantive motion on affidavit, to set aside the proceedings, but could not be taken advantage of on motion to enter the verdict, or for a new trial. The defendant there fore abandoned this point for the present, and the court granted him a rule nisi upon the points with respect to the question whether the National Reformer was a newspaper, and the insufficiency of the evidence of the defendant being the publisher. A very curious question arose from an exceptional concatenation of circumstances in the case of Hart v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, in which Mr. Manisty, Q.C. moved for a new trial on Saturday, the 17th inst. The action was brought to recover compensation for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the company. The motion was made on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence to go to the jury, and that the verdiet was against the weight of the evidence. It appeared that the plaintiff was a passenger by one of the defendants' trains to Manchester; a short distance from Manchester two sets of lines join, one of which comes from Yorkshire, and the other from Ashton. The train by which plaintiff was a passenger was one on the Ashton branch, and it had, not far from this junction, come to a standstill. About three or four hundred yards from the spot were a number of sidings leading to engine and coaling sheds. It appeared that on the occasion in question an engine which had come off a journey had, in accordance with the usual course of business, been given in charge by its driver and stoker to a servant of the company, whose business it was to see to the coaling of the engines. It had been coaled at the coaling shed, and was in the course of being removed by the man in charge from the shed to another siding when just at the time when he should have turned off the steam he was seized with a fit and fell senseless on the footboard of the engine. The result was that the engine proceeded along the siding towards the main line. When it was approaching the main line, the pointsman who managed all the points from a box at the junction saw it coming and the man lying senseless. With an amount of presence of mind which elicited considerable praise at the trial, he considered what would be the least hazardous course to adopt: he saw an express coming up one line of the Yorkshire branch, and another train coming down on the other at a great rate; he knew that any train which might be due on the Ashton branch would probably be slackening speed or stationary, and so he deliberately turned the runaway engine on to the Ashton branch; seeing that a terrific accident would probably occur if he turned it on to the Yorkshire branch, while if he turned it on to the Ashton a much less violent and probably less dangerous accident would be the utmost that could ensue. The consequence was that it ran on till it reached the place where the train in which plaintiff was was standing and, coming into collision with it, caused the injuries complained of. Baron Bramwell suggested that perhaps the contention on the other side would be that there ought always to be two men in charge of an engine in case of such a contingency as that which had happened. [Chief Baron Kelly. That would be as much as to say that there must be two men to do work for which one was amply sufficient except in an extraordinary state of circumstances which could not be contemplated by anyone. Baron Bramwell. It might almost as reasonably be suggested that there ought to be three men in case two of them were taken ill.]-The court granted a rule. In Heckler v. The North-Eastern Railway Company, a case which created considerable interest and surprise at the last Leeds Assizes, Mr. Overend, Q.C., moved for a rule for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive. The action was brought to recover for injuries alleged to have been occasioned to the plaintiff by a railway accident. It appeared that the plaintiff was a young woman who had been a passenger in one of defendants' trains, and that the carriage in which she was riding had got off the line. It was alleged that in consequence of the shock she then received she had suffered very greatly from hysteria and functional disease of the heart, which if not alleviated would probably lead to permanent organic disease in time. It was stated that she had fainted after the accident, and had been taken homewards in an almost insensible state by two gentlemen, who delivered her to her mother. who had come to find her, by whom she was supported home still in the same condition. She appeared at the trial a complete wreck, fainted in the witness box, and ultimately had to be examined in the judge's room. For the defendant it was proved by various medical men that they had attended her many years before for disorder of the heart, that she had been obliged to give up keeping a school three years before, because it was too much for her health, and that she had been deserted by her husband under circumstances calculated to produce great mental anxiety, and consequent nervous derangement. No other person has complained of any injury from the accident, nor did the plaintiff make any complaint at the station. No person who had been in the carriage with the plaintiff was called, but since the suit the defendants had found persons who were in the carriage, and now moved, on the affidavits of such persons, that the shock was hardly perceptible, that the plaintiff was not hurt or shaken at all, and never fainted or was carried away from the station. They had also found a gentleman to whom the plaintiff's attorney had applied to give evidence for plaintiff, but whom, on hearing what he was prepared to say, he did not subpoena. He was prepared to swear that the carriage left the rails without any shock; that no one seemed hurt, and that on leaving the station he asked plaintiff whether he should call a cab for her, but she said she thought she could walk home; that he thereupon, as his way home lay in the same direction, offered her his arm, and they walked on till they met her mother, with whom she walked home. The jury, notwithstanding the evidence for defendants, gave the plaintiff 4001. damages, a verdict which the defendants' counsel attributed to the sympathy created by her appearance. The court granted a rule nisi. In Bennett v. Humpreys and others, which was alleged by the plaintiff to be a case of fraudulently getting up a company, Mr. Holker, Q. C. moved to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff. The action was for false representations contained in the prospectus and reports made by the promoters of a certain company, by which the plaintiff was induced to purchase shares, and so incurred great loss. It appeared that the capital of the company was to be 25,000l. in shares of 101. each. The prospectus stated that the promoters had made arrangements to purchase on very favourable terms a certain patent invention. It appeared that certain of the promoters were principally interested in this patent, and the price to be paid was 50001. in cash, and 15,0001. in fully paid-up shares. These it was contended at the trial for plaintiff were not at all favourable terms. Baron Bramwell-The whole capital is only 25,0001. of which 20,000l. is the price of this patent; it looks like getting up a company only for the purpose of selling the patent. Mr. Holker, Q. C.-The evidence showed the patent to be of considerable value, and the parties interested might not have capital to work it without some such expedient. The second misrepresentation was, that 1600 shares had been allotted, 1500 of these being the 1500 shares which were given for the price of the patent. It was contended that there was no misrepresentation in this, inasmuch as anyone reading the prospectus would see that 1500 of these shares must be allotted in respect of the price of the patent. Baron Bramwell.-Would it operate equally as an inducement to a man to take shares in the company if it had been put thus: "One hundred shares have been allotted, besides the 1500 on which nothing is payable for the price of the patent?" Chief Baron Kelly.-Is it not clear that the impression created would be that bona fide subscriptions for the amount of 16,000. had been received? Mr. Holker, Q. C.-No one reading the prospectus could think that, the whole capital being only 25,000l. It was further contended on the defendant's part, that the allegation that the plaintiff had been induced to pur chase shares was not proved, inasmuch as the real nature of the transaction was, that the shares had only been transferred to him as a security, The court said they would consult the learned judge who tried the case before deciding whether they would grant a rule or not. In the case of Holmes v. The North-Eaters Railway Company, on Friday, the 16th, Mr. Overend, Q. C., with Mr. Kemplay, moved, suant to leave reserved at the trial, for a rule to set aside the plaintiff's verdict, and to enter it fr the defendants, or to enter a nonsuit. The action was tried at the last York Assizes, before Baron Cleasby and a special jury. It was brought by the plaintiff, a farmer, to recover damages from the railway company, under the following cis stances:-The plaintiff had ordered a waggon had of coals, which had arrived in a coal truck at the Coughton station of the defendants' line. I appeared that at that station the coal trucks are there run into a siding in which there are a series of "cells" or hollow spaces between the lines of rail; and in the roadway, underneath the siding, customers' waggons are driven in under these cells through which the coals are shot from the trucks above into the waggons beneath. On the day in question the plaintiff, on arriving at the station and asking for his coals, was told he could not have them just then, as all the "cells" were full. Being in an urgent hurry for his coals fr certain agricultural purposes, the plaintiff told the station master that he would himself get up on the coal truck, and with the assistance of his own farm servant, load his own waggon. To this the station master neither assented nor objected, and the plaintiff got up upon the truck and then handed out to his man, who stood below, enough coal for his present purposes. In the cr nary course it was the company's duty to deliver their coals, and to do it there was what is called a flagway" on the sing running alongside the coal trucks which stan over the cells. When the plaintiff had finished taking out as much coal as he required at the time, he proceeded to descend from the truck, when the flagway upon his coming upon it broke throath, and he was precipitated some ten or eleven feet into the cell beneath. And it was to recover compensation for the injuries received in that fall that he brought this action. It was proved that, spa examining the flagway after the accident, the stones or flags were very thin and in a dangerous state, but there was no evidence that the defen dants knew that such was the case, and it was also said by the defendants that the plaintif ha jumped from the truck on to the flagway, ani so had caused it to give way. The jury fomnia verdict for the plaintiff with 751. damages. Mr. Overend now contended that the plaintiff wa a pure volunteer in the matter, and had not guce upon the track by any "invitation" of the company. At the most he was but a mere licencee, and was there acting for his own purposes and benefit solely, and not in the performance of the company's contract to deliver. The danger, if any, was hidden. He was more like a guest at a house than a person invited to a shop. He cited Indermaur v. Dames, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 44; L. Rep. 1 C. P. 274; 35 L. J. 184, C. P. (affirmed in error, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 293; L. Rep. 2 C. P. 311; 36 L. J. 181, C. P.); and the distinction "where a person is in the nature of a visitor, and must take care of himself," as in Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247. [Baron Bramwell.-The man took the place tale quale. The station master neither prevented nor encouraged his going upon the truck.] The Court (Chief Baron Kelly, and Barons Bramwell and Cleasby) granted a rule nisi, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. On the same day a point of practice arose in the case of Cairncross v. Wills. The plaintiff was one of the registered officers of the West of England and South Wales District Bank, and the action was brought to recover 6981. 11s. 9d., the balance of the defendant's banking account, to which the defendant pleaded never indebted, on which issue was joined and delivered, with notice of trial, on the 25th March last, for the then next assizes at Bristol, for which assizes the 31st March was the commission day. On the 27th March the defendant executed, under sect. 192 of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, a deed of composition and release, which was on the same day duly registered in bankruptcy under the said statute, and notice of the registry of the same deed was also on the same day served on the London agents of the plaintiff. On the 30th March, the day before the commission day at Bristol, the defendant's attorney delivered to the plaintiffs agents in London a plea, puis darrein continuance, of the execution and registry of the said deed, and an affidavit verifying the same, a copy of which plea was received by the plaintiff's attorney at Barnstaple on the 31st March, the commission day, who thereupon sent to his London agents, by that night's post, a joinder of issue, on such plea and on the following morning, the 1st April, the said plaintiff's attorney entered the record in the action with the said plea puis darrein continuance, and AND JURIS PRUDENCE. rule to set aside the above verdict on the ground LEGISLATION HOUSE OF LORDS. NATUTAK NAK COUNTY MAGISTRATES. The EARL of ALBEMARLE said he did not propose to move, as he had given notice, for a select committee to inquire into the administration of justice in country places, but he now gave notice that on the 4th May he would lay on the table a Bill to repeal as much of the Act of Geo. 2, c. 20, as imposed a landed property qualification for the magistracy. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. joinder thereon, prior to the sitting of the court on that day. On the same 1st April, about 4 p.m., the replication taking issue on the said plea was delivered by the plaintiff's London agents to the defendant's attorneys in London; but no notice of trial of the said issue, or of the entry thereof for trial, was then delivered to the defendants said attorneys, nor was any notice of trial, other than the notice given on the 25th March, ever given to the defendant or his attorneys in this cause. On the 2nd April the plaintiff, by summons taken out before the learned judge at Bristol, obtained leave to demur. On the 3rd April the cause was called on for trial at the Guildhall at Bristol; whereupon counsel for the defendant applied to the learned In the House of Lords, the second reading of judge, Mr. Justice M. Smith, to stay the the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill was moved by Lord trial on the grounds of the delivery of the A case raising almost precisely the same point as said plea, puis darrein continuance, before, that which was discussed and decided in the Ex- SHAFTESBURY, who explained that its object was to correct the abuses of those courts and simplify and the joinder of issue thereon after, the chequer Chamber lately in Siner and Wife v. Great commission day, and of the want of due notice Western Railway Company (19 L. T. Rep. N. Sy and lessen the cost of procedure. It did not prointo the question of notice of trial, and left the of Smith v. The London and Brighton Railway place those institutions on an improved basis. It of trial. But the learned judge declined to enter came before the court to-day (April 19) in the case pose to alter fundamental principles or the law, or to interfere with existing rights; but simply to plaintiff to proceed at his own risk in case he had Company. The plaintiff was a passenger from failed to give a proper notice. The jury were then London-bridge to Peckham Rye on the defen- provided a superior judge, and judges for the sworn, and as no one appeared for the defendant, dants' line on the 21st July in last year, and the same footing as proctors; established a court diocesan courts; admitted solicitors to practise on a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 7011. on arriving at the Peckham Rye Junction a of appeal and a safe and proper register, and (amount of debt and interest), no evidence, few minutes before ten o'clock that night, the restored to the clergy their rights of provocation however, being offered on his behalf. On the 5th train ran beyond the line of platform. The plainApril the demurrer and joinder in demurrer (dated tiff got out of the carriage, presently after the and proclamation, and to the laity their right to appaLondon by the plaintiff's agents to the defen, going to step upon the platform, he fell down, Act. The noble lord made it matter of complaint respectively the 2nd April) were delivered in train stopped, and, as he said, supposing he was promote the office of the judge, which had rently been taken away by the Church Discipline dant's attorneys. Mr. M. Bere (with him was somewhere between eighteen inches and three feet, that he had received so little encouragement from Mr. R. G. Turner), for the defendant, now upon the ground, and received serious injuries. moved for a rule to set aside the plaintiff's There was no light at the spot, though there the episcopacy in the preparation of his Bill; but verdict with costs for irregularity, and for a new were lights at the platform. It was proved on he entertained that in the forthcoming struggle justified his own action in the matter by the desire trial on the ground that the cause was entered for the part of the defendants that the guard of the Church of England should be able to say that trial before issue was joined, and was tried without the train, as the train was running past the platdue notice of trial, and that the judge had no form, put his head out of the window of the she was progressing with the times, that she was power to try the cause, and he contended that carriage in which he was riding, and called a Church without discipline, and that her wether it was delivered in banco or at Nisi Prius, on the platform cried out, Keep your seats till lord that the episcopal bench were not hostile to where a plea, puis darrein continuance was pleaded, out, Keep your seats and a porter also, assailable points were as few as possible. The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY assured the noble the judge had no power to try the cause, but must the train stops," but the plaintiff, and also a witrafer it to the court, and in support of that posiness who was in the same compartment with the his proposal. On the contrary, they had had for a tion he cited Archbold's Practice, p. 921, edit. of plaintiff, and who with other passengers got out of long period Bill after Bill upon the subject under their consideration. He himself had one with a 1866, and Payne v. Shenstone, 16 L. J. 61, Q, B. the carriage before the plaintiff did, swore they did similar object then standing for second reading, The court granted a rule nisi. not hear the caution. The learned Chief Baron, and he had no objection that both measures should before whom the case was tried at the Middlesex be referred to one and the same committee. After sittings after last term, told the jury, if they thought there was no duty on the defendants to and the Bill ordered for reference to a short debate the second reading was agreed to a select comtake any precautions or make any provisions for the alighting of passengers, &c., then they would find for the defendants, which they accordingly did, and Mr. Dowdeswell Q.C., now moved for a new trial on the ground, first, that the verdict was against the evidence; secondly, for misdirection; and, thirdly, on matters stated in an affidavit. He contended that the learned judge left to the jury what was a matter of law and not a question of fact, and that the direction should have been that if the train was beyond the platform, and the place was dark, it was the defendants' duty to take precautions to prevent people from getting out, or to provide proper means for their so doing, and he referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Hannen in Siner and Wife v. Great Western Railway, in the Exchequer Chamber (ubi. sup.), as supporting his contention that there was negli gence on the part of the company in that respect. With regard to the third ground, the affidavit referred to a matter to which he thought the attention of the court should be drawn, as it pointed to a course of proceeding of a very objec tionable and reprehensible character. The clerk of the plaintiff's attorney had made an affidavit that he saw the clerk of the defendant's attorney after the trial, and after the proper fees had been paid to the officer of the court, go up to and pay money to the foreman of the jury, and that upon subsequently having an interview with the foreman and two others of the jury, the foreman said he had received 17. from the clerk of the defendant's attorney to be divided amongst the jury and the other two jurymen stated that they had received their share of the money-one of them adding that he knew the secretary and some of the directors of the company and he ex pected they would have come down handsome, but they had only given 1. The court granted a rule on the ground of the verdicts being against évidence, and also as to the matter stated in the affidavit, so far as related to what the clerk saw of the payment of the money, but not as to what any of the jurymen had said, and they declined to grant a rule upon the point of misdirection, as they did not consider that there had been any the learned Chief Baron adding that at the trial he had the recent case in the Exchequer Chamber before him and fully in his mind, and that he had no alternative but to accept the law there laid down as binding upon him, whether he agreed with or dissented from it,andw no 006] ond In Freeman v. The North Eastern Railway Company, a question was raised as to whether certain articles of wearing apparel and personal trinkets, &c., came within the definition and description of some of the articles in sect. 1 of the Carriers Act (11 Geo. 4,and 1 Will. 4, c. 68), so as to relieve the defendants from liability for their loss. The plaintiff's wife was a passenger by the defendants' railway from Hull to London, and on arriving at Peterborough, it was found that her luggage had been set on fire by sparks from the engine. The articles destroyed comprised, amongst other things, a silk velvet mantle, a satin dress, a silk velvet dress, silk stockings, lace collars, and cuffs, &o. The value of the articles destroyed was 57. 58., and the defendants paid 15. into court and pleaded the above Act at the trial before Baron Cleasby at York. The plaintiff relied on the ruling of Lord Chief Baron Abinger in Davis v. Mason, 1 Car. & M., and the defendant, on the other hand, relied on Berustein v, Baxendale, 6 C. B. 260. The jury found for the plaintiff, with 521. 5s. damages; and now Mr. Overend, Q. C. moved, pursuant to leave, to enter the verdict for the defendants, or to reduce the damages. He referred to the Carriers Act and the cases above mentioned, and in the result the court granted him a rule to show cause. On Monday, the 19th April, the question of the liability of sharebrokers, to findemnify the vendor of such shares from liabilities in respect of future calls, was again mooted in the case of Street v. Morgan, which was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, in London, in February last, when the plaintiff had a verdict for the amount claimed, leave being reserved to the defendant to move, The plaintiff was the owner of eleven Overend and Gurney shares which, about a month before the stopping of that firm, he employed his brokers to sell for him. The defendant, a dealer or jobber in shares, at Norwich, by telegraph directed one Pater, a London broker, to purchase 800 shares for him, and amongst the shares which Pater accord ingly purchased were the above eleven shares of the plaintiff. The plaintiff executed the ordinary transfer, and Pater, the defendant's broker, paid for the shares, the defendant's name being inserted in the transfer as that of the ultimate purchaser. Upon the failure of Overend and Gurney, on the 11th May, the defendant on the 12th May wrote to Pater, the broker, that his buyer could not pay for the 800 shares, nor could he (defendant), and authorising Pater to do the best that he could. Morgan took no steps to complete the purchase, and consequently the plaintiff's name remained on the register of the company as the owner of the eleven shares in question, so that, upon the failure of Overend and Gurney, he had to pay calls upon them to the official liquidators, and it was to recover the amount so paid that he A SUCCESS UNPRECEDENTED MARAVILLA COCOA Is PERFECTION.The Globe says "Taylor Brothers' Mara villa Cocoa has achievedla thorough success, and supersedes every other cocos in the market. For more argeeable or valuable beverace." Sold in packets only, by all Grocers.-ADVT. mittee, to whom also the Clergy Discipline and Ecclesiastical Courts Bill of the Primate was referred, after being read d a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. ASSESSED RATES BILLI BW Lord HENLEY asked the President of the Poor Law Board whether it was his intention to proceed with the Assessed Rates Bill, and if not, whether he was about to propose any other measure for the amendment of the system created by the rating clauses of the Reform Bill. Mr. GoSCHEN.-It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Assessed Rates Bill. It is right, however, to add that I propose to move clauses in committee for the purpose of facilitating and securing, as far as possible, the adoption of that most advantageous system of agreements for the payment of rates between the overseers and the owners of the poorer class of house property, the latter being allowed a reasonable commission in consideration of the risks they undertake. (Hear.) It would, of course, follow that a modification should be made with regard to clause 4 of the Bill. I mean the clause which provides for a uniform deduction of 25 per cent. from, houses let for short periods, without distinction whether the landlords agree to pay the rates or not. (Hear, hear.) I need scarcely add that it will be our duty to take the most rigid precautions that such agreements should not imperil the placing of the name of the occupier on the register. I think the fairest and most convenient course will be to place the clauses to which I have alluded on the notice paper before the Honse is asked to consent to the second reading, and that is the course which I propose to take. boner. 1 SLIGO ELECTION: 90 qu gaiare Lord C. HAMILTON asked the first Lord of the Treasury whether his attention had been called to the special report made by Mr. Justice Keogh on the recent Sligo election, stating that "a system of intimidation and violences was organised and carried out for months previons to and during the said last election for the said borough of Sligo, subversive of freedom of election, and endangering the lives and properties of the electors, and that outrages were committed previous to and during the said election, which were calculated to deter and did in fact detery electors from exercising their franchise at said election" and that "it was proved before him that such intimidation was continued in said borough of Sligo from the time of said election down to and during the trial of said election petition; and whether he did not consider that this special report afforded a fitting case brought the present action. Mr. D. Keane, Q. homoeopaths and invalids we could not recommend a for the House of Commons to exercise the powers (with whom was Mr. Lanyon), now moved for a reserved to it by sect. 14 of 31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, and to order an inquiry into the organised and long-continued intimidation thus reported by Mr. Justice Keogh.- -Mr. GLADSTONE.-I am very much obliged to my noble friend for calling my attention to the subject. There can be no doubt at all as to the propriety of the object which he has in view. The only doubt that exists is as to the language of the law. My right hon. friend the Attorney-General has moved for a Commission of Inquiry into the corrupt practices at Sligo, and it is quite evident that it is desirable the law should look upon intimidation as a corrupt practice. As to the sufficiency of the grounds laid down by Mr. Justice Keogh, there is no doubt that his report affords ample reason for the inquiry. But the House of Commons has no power to proceed except under the terms of the statute, and those terms do not allow us to issue an inquiry into anything but into corrupt practices. We have no power to explain what corrupt practices are; that will be a subject for the Commissioners to consider. But I am informed by my right hon. friend and my hon. and learned friend that in their opinion intimidation to the opinion of competent authorities, that upon the law as it stands corrupt practices do not include inttmidation, then undoubtedly they ought to do so. THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION. Mr. SHERRIFF asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could inform the House when the report of the Judicial Com mission would be issued; whether it was intended to be sent out in two parts, and if so, whether the recommendations of the Commission as to alter ation of assize districts would be contained in the first or second portion of the report. Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said he had that evening presented the first report of the Judicial Commission. from which statement his hon. friend would doubtless infer that there was another part to follow. The Commissioners declare their opinion that the judicial business of the country ought no longer to be distributed according to the accidental division of counties, but that certain counties should be consolidated in convenient districts, and they also recommended the remodelling of circuits. The details of their scheme were not stated in the present report, but merely the general grounds upon which they had arrived at their decision. introduced, providing that the district prothono- THE CASE OF SIR EARDLEY EARDLEY. held, would not involve a month's delay, and he "the demon that the Thames Embankment should be utilised of which he warmly eulogised, he recommended to surrender Carey-street, the artistic capabilities for the Probate Registry or some other publie building which would be an ornament to it.Lord BURY grounded his support of the Thames Embankment on its architectural capacity and its admirable ready-made communications, while Mr. DENMAN, Mr. G. GREGORY, Mr. CowPER, and Mr. WHEELHOUSE defended the Carey-street site as the most central, and the most convenient. -Mr. GREGORY also urged the House not waste more time in closing this controversy authority, declared that the Carey-street site finally, and, on what he held to be good could not be resold under a loss of half Embankment site, but agreed with Mr. BERESFORD a million.- -Mr. TITE decidedly preferred the HOPE that both ought to be secured, and sug gested that a depository for wills should be buit Mr. SCOURFIELD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there was any foundation for a statement which had appeared in Eardley Eardley had been set free by his orders, some of the newspapers, to the effect that Sir on the application of one of his colleagues; and whether Sir Eardley Eardley was at present in this country. In asking that question he would only remark that for nearly twenty-one years he had held a situation that had placed him in constant connection with the Home Office, and he could speak with the most perfect confidence to the extreme care and impartiality exercised in that office in cases of that description.---Mr. BRUCE could only say that for none of those ought undoubtedly to be a corrupt practice. There are many other practices, such as personation, As, however, insinuations had been made gravely statements was there the slightest foundation. which may be considered corrupt practices, and impugning the impartial administration of justice, although popularly the name "corrupt practicas the House would require some satisfaction, and attaches only to bribery and treating, yet it is plain would allow him to state rather more fully what that according to common sense these others should the real facts of the case were. be included. But the only position open to us to Eardley was convicted of bigamy in the month of Sir Eardley take up is to say that if it should prove, according Jan. 1868, and received a sentence of eighteen anxious to secure both sites, and, while unwilling the month of July application was made to the months' imprisonment with hard labour, About Home Office for a remission of his sentence, on the ground of ill health; but the application was refused. Later on, in the month of October, the application was renewed, with a medical certificate stating that Sir Eardley Eardley was suffering under grave disorders, and that his life would be imperilled by his continuance in prison. His right hon. friend the then Home Secretary (Mr. Hardy), not content with that, which was the ordinary certificate, directed a special inquiry to be made by Mr. Perry, the inspector of prisons. Mr Perry made a careful investigation, and reported that the prisoner was at that time suffering from asthma and bronchitis, that he also had some symptoms of pulmonary complaints, and that that very morning he had suffered from an attack of that most painful disease, angina pectoris. Under these circumstances, in the case of an ordinary prisoner, it would have been the practice of the Home Office confusion, and would violate one of the chief reto release him at once; but his right hon. friend thought it his duty only to allow this prisoner to courts and their offices should be in close concommendations of the Commission-that the be released on the condition of expatriation-that tiguity, He supported the present arrangement, was that he would leave the country for the rest of and pointed out that the change was opposed his sentence. Immediately after his (Mr. Bruce's) by the lawyers and all who had business in accession to office, he received an application the courts, and was only promoted on æsthetic praying for a prolongation of the fourteen days' grounds by people who wished to make a great time which his right hon. friend had granted him metropolitan improvement." But even in that in order to allow Sir Eardley Eardley to make pre-light he contended that a building off the Careyparations for leaving the country. He refused to street site might be made the greater adornment; grant the prolongation of the fourteen days, and he and he urged that though the suitors might fairly received information that on the 7th Jan. Sir Eardpay for the site and a convenient building, it was ley Eardley had left this country, and he had every not fair that they should for architectural whins. reason to believe that he had never returned to it, He analysed Mr. GREGORY's estimates, and adand that he was now abroad. With respect to vanced some of his own, from which he argued that another portion of the question, whether that senthe river site, from the additional foundations, tence was remitted on the application of his right the alterations which would be needed in Somersethon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, he house, and other features, it would be infinitely was authorised to say, that neither directly nor the most costly. He earnestly deprecated a indirectly, through his common man of business or change in the plan merely for the sake of one anybody else, did his right hon. friend ever apply Government reversing the decision of its prefor the release of the prisoner? (Cheers.) The decessor-a deplorable practice, which had caused statement had no foundation. It was one of those much expenditure and delay in these matters.— statements which, if made upon such authority The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER went elaboreceived, he thought, with general indignation; startled the House by stating that the estimate as that against a private individual, would be rately into the finances of the question, and and as against a public man, he left it to the judg-now made by the commissioners for site and ment of the public. (Cheers.)Mr. HARDY could confirm what his right hon. friend had stated with regard to his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. He had nothing whatever to do with the release, the case having been treated in the ordinary way, but with special care, as the Home Secretary had just stated. (Hear, hear.) Under the special circumstances, he (Mr. Hardy) had thought it right to impose special conditions. SALMON FISHERY LAWS, YO Sir H. CROFT asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intended to introduce a Bill during the present session to amend the salmon fishery laws of England. Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said he had stated to a deputation at the Home-office early in the present session that a Bill would be introduced to amend the salmon fishery laws, and would be placed in his charge, and he was anxious still to fulfil that pledge: Having, however, entered upon the subject with an innocent confidence (a laugh), he found that this approximated to rashness, not only on account of the difficulty of the subject itself, but of the almost irrogon. cilable difference of opinion existing between those who concurred in desiring to bring about a change. He would do his best, however, to reconcile conflicting views, and still hoped that a measure acceptable to the House might be introduced. *** DURHAM COUNTY COURTS, Mr. HENDERSON asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he was aware that 20001. was paid two years ago for a site on which to erect suitable offices for the County Courts in the city of Durham, and that the present premises did not contain the requisite accommodation for transacting the business of the district, and if he would state when the erection of the new offices was likely to commenée. Mr. AYRTON was sorry to say that he was aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. member, which rendered it necessary for him to introduce an item into the estimates for the present year. in HABITUAL CRIMINALS BILL. T d! Mr. BRUCE fixed the 31st May as the day on The House went into committee on this Bill.Mr. CRAUFURD objected to any further progress being made with the Bill until the report of the commissioners on the subject had been laid on the table, and made a proposition to that effect. After some discussion Mr. AYRTON explained that the report of the commissioners had already been published in substance, and that no good would be effected by postponing the further progress of the Bill.-On a motion to report progress, the committee divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 70 -majority 63. In clause 1 an amendment was SITE OF THE NEW LAW COUrts. Mr. W. H. GREGORY moved a resolution calling for the reconsideration of the present arrangement to build on the Carey-street site, and argued earnestly for the Thames Embankment, which he maintained had never yet been considered. Altogether the calculated the Carey-street site, including approaches, would cost 8,150,000, while the river site could not cost more than 1,500,000, and would require no new approaches, The Embankment, he argued, would be the most convenient for the lawyers--both barristers and solicitors and the general public; it would secure the important desiderata of light, quiet, and ample accommodation; and among other inducements he mentioned that a company was ready to buy the land recently cleared in the Strand for the purpose of building chambers and offices. The change, he between and Essex-street.-Lord JOHN MAndel-street this would lead to great building, &c., was 3,200,0007., and that, with not get out of the business for less than 4,000,000); approaches and other accompaniments, we should whereas the original estimate was only 1,500,00 This increase he (Mr. Lowe) attributed to the frenzy to enlarge their original plan, and to propose what for concentration which had led the commissioners he called a "Tower of Babel," and a " Vanity Fair." Believing that there was a great disadvantage in over-concentration, he advised the House to retrace its steps and return to the original modest scheme. Acting on his own responsibility, he said he had already stopped all the expenditure on the present scheme within his reach, and had refused his sanction to the outlay of 600,000), fər additional land until the pleasure of the House could be taken. Before giving his opinion as to the course the House ought to pursue, he dispelled a general delusion that the cost was to be paid by the suitors, by showing that the courts as a whole required 52,000l. from the Consolidated Fund beyond the sum they received in fees. The security which the commissioners offered for the 1,395,000l., which they proposed to borrow from the Treasury, was the imposition of a storeage fee on every probate, and this be contended was merely another form of Imperial taxation. He advised the House to dissolve this commission, with which it was impossible for him to co-operate, and to place the power and responsibility in the hands of the Government, and he stated that the mode in which the Government would propose to exercise this power would be by building on a site of six acres between Howard-street, running from Surrey-street across Norfolk-street to Arundel-street, and the Embankment. This, he anticipated, might be bought for 600,000l., and a building which would contain all the courts and their offices might be erected for 1,000,0001. there; and he suggested that the façade designed by Inigo Jones for Charles I.'s palace might be placed in front of it. Asked by Sir John Pakington what he proposed to do with the Carey-street site already cleared. He (Mr. Lowe) was strongly of opinion that by a little confidence and patience the Government might dispose of it without a sacrifice. At any rate, it would be wise to know when to make a loss, but above everything he urged the House to shake itself free at the earliest moment from the extra San Paulo.-Dividend at the rate of 63 per cent. per annum. ASSURANCE COMPANIES. National Provincial Marine Insurance, Limited. -A third dividend, 2s. in the pound, is announced to the creditors. MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES. Penryn Granite Quarries, Limited.-Creditors' claims must be forwarded to Mr. J. J. Harris, the liquidator, by the 11th May. Rio de Janeiro Gas.-A dividend at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. Staverton Cloth, Limited. The official liquidators require that creditors' claims shall be sent in to them by the 19th May. MINING COMPANIES. Great Northern Copper of South Australia.Price, of 13, Gresham-street, by 20th May. 19 Creditors' claims must be forwarded to Mr. S. L. Valgodemard Mining, Limited-Particulars of claims must be forwarded to the liquidators, June being fixed for their adjudication.ar SOLICITORS' JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. JUDGMENT-Creditor WRIT OF ELEGITLIEN ON LAND-PRIORITY.-Since the passing of the Judgment Act 1864, it is necessary in order to affect land by a judgment that the land should have been actually delivered in execution by virtue of a writ of elegit or other lawful authority: (Re Bailey's Trusts, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 168. V.C. M.) CONTEMPT BY NEWSPAPERS.-A local newspaper, noticing that a certain company established in that place was the subject of a winding-up petition, that certain proceedings were intended against the directors, and that the petitioner had made some strong observations, in a subsequent number, published the day before the petition was to be heard, printed such petition in extenso, containing the gravest charges vagance to which the commissioners' latest plan Messrs. Good and Lukis, by the 1st June, the 15th of fraud, &c., against the directors; but omitting would lead it.- -Mr. HENLEY remarked that the issue now raised was an entirely fresh one, and as the House could not possibly decide on the new plan submitted to it he proposed that the debate should be adjourned.Mr. CRAWFORD seconded this, and animadverted rather sharply on the dilatoriness of the Ministry in acquainting the House with its change of mind.--Lord JOHN MANNERS suggested that, as the motion and amendment were now equally irrelevant, the adjournment should be merely formal, to enable the Government to submit a scheme entirely on their own responsibility.--The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER acceded to this understanding, and after some further conversation the debate was adjourned for a month. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.-Mr. Gilpin's Bill to abolish capital punishment proposes to repeal sects. 1, 2, and 3 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, and to enact that whosoever shall be convicted of murder shall be sentenced to penal servitude for life; and whosoever shall be convicted of high treason shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than seven years. ESTATE AND INVESTMENT JOURNAL. STOCK AND SHARE MARKET.NET The Stock Markets have been a trifle firmer, the ease in the money-market, the improved character of the bullion movement, and New York exchange, counteracting the influx of new foreign stocks. The following week: are the fluctuations of the *te it star tr ENGLISH FUNDS. Fri. Sat. Mon Tue Wed Thu annun-sold for 50. t By Messrs. WINSTANLEY and HORWOOD, at the Mart. Freehold, three cottages, Nos. 1 to 3, Willow Cottages, Mount Pleasant-lane, Upper Clapton, producing 107. 18. per Leasehold, five houses, Nos. 1 to 5, Park-street, Victoria. park, producing 71. per annum; also a plot of building land, term 87 years unexpired, at 35, per annum-sold for 1507. Leasehold house, No. 11, Baum's Cottages, Wick-lane, Victoria-park, let at 27 per annum, term similar to above, at 5. per annum-sold for 1857, Leasehold, two houses, Nos. 9 and 10, Baum's Cottages, producing 1. 10, per annum, term similar to above, at lor. per annum-sold for 2017, Y Leasehold house, No., Baum's Cottages, let at 197, 10s per similar to above, at 27. per annum sold Leasehold house and shon, No.7, Banm's Cottages, let at 307; per annum, term similar to above, at 57. per annum sold for 2007 Leasehold, improved rent of 207. per annum, aridins from thirteen houses in Cowdry-street, Victoria-park, term similar to above-sold for 2154. Leasehold piece of land, situate in rear of Baum's Cottages, Lensehold, two houses, Nos, & and 1, Deerfoot-cottages, Vic. toria-park, producing 39, per annum, term similar to above, at W. per annum sold for 2157. Leasehold, two houses, Nos. 1 and 2, Doerfoot-cottages, producing 97 per annum, term and ground-rent similar to By Messrs. WILKINSON AND HORNE, Leasehold residence, No. 5, Manor-road, Green-lanes, Stoke Newington, term 97 years from 1865, at 127. per annumsold for S007. Lensehold residence. No. 9, Manor-road, and stabling No.5, Lordship-mews, let at 1057, per annum, term similar to above, at 12. per annum-sold for 9507. Leasehold residence, No. 10, Manor-road, let at 907, për annun, term 98 years from 1861, at 127. per annum-sold Leasehold residence, No. 13, Manor-road, term 97 years for 9007. from 1863, at 127. per annnin-sold for 7507. rent similar to above-sold for 8507. some other matters. On a motion to commit for contempt: Held, that such publication was a contempt, and the printers and publishers ordered to pay the costs: (Re The Cheltenham, &c. Wagon Company, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 169. V.C. M.) SEPARATION DEED-SETTLEMENT IN FAVOUR OF WIFE AND CHILDREN IN CONTEMPLATION OF SEPARATION WHICH NEVER TOOK PLACE.-By an indenture, which recited that B. and his wife had agreed to live apart during the remainder of their lives upon the conditions thereinafter contained, B. covenanted with trustees that his wife should, during their joint lives, live apart from him, and might carry on business and enjoy and dispose of her property as if she were sole and unmarried. He also thereby settled a sum of 30001. in trust for his wife during her life, and after her death in trust for all her children by him in equal shares. And the indenture provided that if at any time afterwards B. and his wife should agree by any writing under their hands, attested by two or more credible witnesses, to live and cohabit together, then the income of the trust moneys should be paid to B., and not to the wife. The deed also contained the provisions and covenants usually inserted in separation deeds. No separation ever took place. Held, that the deed never took effect, as the separation in contemplation of which it was made never took place, and that it was consequently altogether void. Ordered, that the deed be delivered up to be cancelled: (Bindley v, Mulloney, 20 L.T. Rep. N. S. 263. M. R.) SLANDER OF TITLE-PARTICULARS-PATENT 15 & 16 VICT. c. 83, s. 41,-To an action for slandering the plaintiffs' title to certain spooling machines by writing and orally stating to various purchasers of the machines from the Leascholl residence, No. 11, Manor-road, term and ground. Leasehold residence, No. 8, Manor-road, term and ground-plaintiffs that the machines were infringements rent similar to above-sold for 8507. Leasehold stabling, Nos. 1 and 2, Lordship-park-mews, Stoke Newington, let at 527. 10. per annum, term similar to above, at 12. The, per annum sold for 4408. Leasehold coach-house and stable, No. 3, Lordship.mews, term 97 years from 1865, at 27. per annum -sold for 2307. 93 Leasehold conch-house and stable, No. 1, Lordship-mews, let at 277. per annum, term and ground-rent similar to abovesold for 2207. ༄། :: 91 91 913 91 Cent. Cons. Ann.. 93 981 New 2 Cent. Ann...., do. Jan. 1594.. Do. New 3 Cent. Aun. 5 Cents. Jan. 1873 Ann. 30 years exp.. April 5, 1985 Do. exp. Jan. 5, 1880 Consols, for Acc.. India 5 Cent. for Acc.. Do. 5 Cents. July 1880 India Stock, July 1880. India Stock, 1874 India 5 Cent. India 4 Cents. 1888.. 100 1001" India 5 Cent. 1870... India Bonds (10001.) Ex. Bills, 10001. Do. 1113 93 93 93 93 931 ::3:ཀེཾ བྲུ ::: 210 114 1144 of certain patents of the defendant, the defendant pleaded not guilty. The court ordered the defendant to deliver within fourteen days particulars showing in what part or parts the plaintiffs' spooling machines mentioned in the declaration were an infringement of the defendant's patent, and pointing out, by reference to the page and line of the defendant's specifications, Freehold business premises. Nos. 91 and 93, Newington he alleges to have been infringed:" (Wren v. which part of the inventions therein described By Messrs. EDWIN Fox and BOUSFIELD, at the Marti 100 Freehold round-rents, amounting to 21 per annum, 15s.c 108.c 83.c 15s.c (under 10001.) 10s.c 8s.d Do. 5001 Do. 1001, and 2001. BREAKFAST - Epps's Cocoa GRATEFUL AND Com FORTING. The very agreeable character of this prepara tion has rendered it a general favourite. The Civil Service Gazette remarks:-"The singular success which Mr. Epps attained by his homeopathic preparation of cocoa has never been surpassed by any experimentalist. By a thorough knowledge of the natural laws which govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful application of the fine properties of wellselected cocoa, Mr. Epps has provided our breakfast tables with a delicately flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctors' bills." Made simply with boiling water or milk. Sold by the Trade only in lb. lb., and 1lb. tin-lined packets, labelled "JAMES EPPS and Co., Homœopathic Chemists, London." Arthy. Joseph Bridge, Chelmsford-J. Parker, Chelmsford; and W. Wilson, Chelmsford Atkey, Frederick Walter, 20, Austinfriars-J. R. Upton, 20, Austinfriars Baines, Arthur Edward, 24 and 25, Fenchurch-streetA. Billson, Liverpool; and J. A. Redhead, 24 and 25, "Fenchurch-street Barnett, Francis Gilmore, Bristol; and 8, New-inn, Strand-W. H. Clarke, Bristol Bill, Frederic, 82, Queen's Head-street, Islington; and Wednesbury and Great Barr, Stafford-W. H. Duignan, 57, Chancery-lane; and Walsall Birch, Frank, Lichfield-G. Birch, Lichfield Bosworth, Henry Wright, 2, Wells-street, Gray's-innbroad; and Loughborough-W. J. Woolley, Loughborough Bradley, Geo., the younger, Castleford, York-G. Bradley, Castleford, York Bradstock, John Samuel, Cobrey Park, near Ross; and 76, Union-grove, Wandsworth-W. P. Hooper, Ross Brooke, Frederic, 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields-Z. Brooke, 51, Lincoln's-inn-fields |