family, and when he arrived there he found himself in the same predicament as Messrs. Cross and Webber. The bankrupt seems to have received several hundred pounds as "security," none of which he has returned. THE BENCH AND THE BAR. LAW COURTS COMMITTEE. At the first sitting of this committee there were present Lord Stanley (chairman), Lord Grosvenor, Lord John Manners, Lord Enfield, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Messrs. Layard, Beresford Hope, Ward Hunt, Corrance, Russell Gurney, W. Cowper, Tite, Mowbray, Gregory, and Morgan. Mr. W. E. Field, examined by the chairman, said he was the secretary to the Law Courts of Justice Commission, and had held that office since the passing of the Act in 1865. The commission began its duties in that year, and its first meeting was held on 5th July 1865. Since that time the commission had met regularly, and had taken the evidence of witnesses as to the sufficiency of the site which had been selected in Carey-street. The limits of the site were fixed before the commission began its duties, and it had nothing to do with the naming of a place likely to be more suitable than that named in the Act of Parliament. What the commission had to do was to report to the Government its opinion as to the best way of erecting the courts of law. The commission did not come to the conclusion that the site was not sufficient to hold all the courts of law, nor did it report to that effect to the First Commissioner of Works or the Treasuy. By Mr. Layard. When the site was fixed before the commission was appointed all it had to do was to lay out the ground to the best advantage. The commission while limited to space was also restricted to a certain sum which was to be paid for the site and for the building of the courts, and the amount fixed was 750,000l. for the site, and 750,000l. for the buildings, which was fully detailed in the Act of Parliament. The commission did grant a certificate that the cost of the site and buildings would be equal to the sum already stated in terms of the requirements of the Act; but he did not recollect on whose authority it was granted, but the certificate would be found in the Treasury office. He acted on all occasions entirely under the directions of the commission; and, though secretary, he could not say beyond what was printed who gave orders for the certificate called for to be granted. He was aware that Mr. Abrahams prepared plans for the commission, and was paid 5001. for his services. The amount of accommodation shown on the plans in question was, in the opinion of the commission, adequate for the requirements of the courts, and that led to the granting of the certificate. Lord Cranworth was chairman of the committee that granted the certificate. It was at the first meeting of the commission that the certificate was granted (5th July 1865). The sums named as the price of the site and the buildings did not include the different accesses which would be required. In fact, the commissioners contemplated further sums being required for that purpose. In making its calculations the commission calculated the expense of the approaches to the courts from the north, east, and west. There was a proposal came from Mr. Childers, Commissioner of Public Works, on 8th Dec. 1865, to the effect that certain other lands should be bought which lay on the north-east corner of the site, near to Chancery-lane, as it would give an improved access from Chancerylane. The commission instructed another architect to prepare plans; but when he found he would be debarred from competing with other architects for the principal plans, he resigned, and Mr. Burnett was appointed, and on his suggestion it was thought advisable these additional buildings should be purchased. Mr. Burnett acted under the requisition committee, and his instructions were given on the 17th April 1866. Witness considered the carriage-way from the north sufficient for all the cabs that brought lawyers to the courts, and the passage from the courts could not be worse than what it was at present; and in his opinion vehicles that stopped the thoroughfare in the morning were not the lawyers cabs, but those of the city merchants. The case would not be improved were the site to be removed to Howard-street; indeed, he doubted if matters would not be made worse. He admitted Sir Roundell Palmer proposed a motion at a meeting of the commission approving of the Careystreet in preference to the Howard-street site; but in his opinion the commission had no power in the matter, and were bound to abide by the Act of Parliament. The approaches to the Howardstreet site were even more objectionable than those of Carey-street. By Mr. Tite: Was aware that the plan prepared by Mr. Burnett, showing the localities of the legal offices in London, was incorrect in minor details; but on the general principle it was correct. It was in the colouring where the error had occurred. By Lord John Manners: It was the opinion of the commissioners when the certificate was granted that the ground in Carey-street for the law offices was sufficient; but in consequence of additional offices being required, the commissioners thought the adjoining land should be bought, and Mr. Childers was made aware of this. Mr. Childers continued to hold office under the Government of Mr. Disraeli, and only resigned when the new Government came into office. When the commission had to reduce the plans, the Wills and Bankruptcy Courts were struck out, and it was agreed that Doctors' Commons should remain where it is, as it was not of much importance whether or not it was with the other courts. In the opinion of witness it was quite possible to erect all the courts on the Carey-street site. By Mr. Cowper: The sub-committee used every endeavour to obtain information regarding the accomodation of law courts all over Europe, and that was partly obtained through the Foreign Office. The judges on the assizes made inquiries at the county courts, and reported the result to the commission. Upwards of twelve months was spent in searching out the desired information. The sub-committee was composed of members of Parliament, the Law Profession and the City Corporation. Witness admitted that, in the event of the Carey-street site being adopted, Great Turnstile and Gate-street would require to be widened to permit of cabs passing to and from the courts of law. He considered that the access to Carey-street and Howard-street from the north was identical, but he would give the preference to Carey-street. By Lord Grosvenor.-Would there not be more light and air were the Howard-street site adopted? Witness.-That may be so; but the Howardstreet site is so objectionable otherwise, that it overweighs all other advantages. By the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The number of offices, according to Mr. Street's plan, was substantially the same in Howard-street as was contemplated in 1865. The commission has no right to condemn the Howard-street site and approve of Carey-street, when they were merely instructed to carry out the provisions of the Act of Parliament. It was of the utmost importance that the Government should buy up the old property in the neighbourhood of the new courts in Carey-street, as the most of it had imperfect titles, and, if it were once in the hands of the Government it would be readily taken up by merchants for offices. The distance between the new courts and the "slums" would be about 30ft. The Chairman.-While you consider the purchase of this land not necessary for the new courts, you think it desirable? Witness.-I do. In further examination the witness said that were the Courts of Equity and Common Pleas brought together, great advantage would accrue to the suitor, as more business would be got through, and at much less expense. At the present time the Vice-Chancellor frequently complained of the absence of the clerks when the causes came on for hearing, and that witness attributed to the courts being separated. He objected to the Howard-street site on the same principle as a man would object to his kitchen being several streets apart from his dining room; for when solicitors, junior counsel, and clerks were separated, as would be the case with the Howardstreet site, the suitor would be sure to suffer. To insure a speedy despatch of business in the equity courts, he was strongly of opinion that, by bring ing all the courts under one roof, the greatest advantages would flow from it. He admitted that the estimated value of the additional buildings was set down at 668,000l., and that he had heard a report was being circulated to the effect that were the Government to sell the Carey-street site they would lose by the transaction 500,000l. After some further examination of the witness on minor details, the committee adjourned. The names of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at Bridgwater, Beverley, Cashel, Sligo, and Norwich have been gazetted. The commissioners for Bridgwater are, Mr. E. P. Price, Q.C., Mr. Chisholm Anstey, and Mr. C. E. Coleridge; for Beverley, Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, Mr. T. I. Barstow, and Mr. Homersham Cox; for Cashel. Mr. Waters, Q.C., Mr. C. Molloy, and Mr. W. Griffin; for Sligo, Dr. Heron, Q.C., Mr. J. A. Byrne, and Mr. W. R. Bruce; and for Norwich, Mr. G. M. Dowdeswell, Q.C., Mr. H. Mansfield, and Mr. R. J. Biron. Burke appeared for Mr. Edmunds; and the Attorney-General, Mr. Field, Q.C. and Mr. Archibald for the Crown. At the sitting of the court Mr. Denman, Q.C. stated that he and Mr. Pollock, Q.C., acting under an order of the Court of Common Pleas, had chosen Mr. Manisty, Q.C. as umpire. "This court (he added) will sit and hear the whole case together. But the arbitrators wish it to be thoroughly understood by all parties, in order to prevent any sort of misconception, that neither of us would have accepted this reference on any other terms than that we should sit here as joint arbitrators between Mr. Edmunds and the Crown, that we should not be considered the one as arbitrator for Mr. Edmunds, and the other as arbitrator for the Crown, but that we sit here strictly as joint arbitrators to see justice done in the case.' After some discussion, the arbitration was adjourned till Thursday, the 21st Oct. next, at ten o'clock, when the court will sit de die in diem. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH LAWYER. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT-EXPENSE OF MAKING NEW SEWER.-The 52nd section of the Metropolis Local Management Amendment Act 1862 enacts that where any sewer shall be constructed by any vestry, in and for the drainage of any new street, or of any house or houses erected since 1st Jan. 1856, the expense of constructing such sewer should be borne and defrayed by the owners of such street or houses, and of the land bounding or abutting on such street. The 53rd section enacts that where any sewer shall be constructed by any vestry in a there had been no sewer, or only an open sewer, street in which previously to such construction but where sewers rates have been levied previously to such construction, the expense of constructing such sewer should be borne and defrayed only in part by the owners of the houses situate in, and of the land bounding and abutting on, such street respectively, and the residue by the vestry, out of the sewers rates levied in their parish: Held, that the 53rd section applied to all streets, both old and new; and, therefore, when a sewer was constructed in a new street, but sewers rates had been levied in the street previously to the construction of the sewer, the owners of property in the street could not be charged with the whole expense of constructing the sewer: (Vestry of St. Giles v. Weller, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 756. Ex.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Before Mr. Justice KEATING and Special Juries.) VARLEY V. ELLIS. Robinson, Serjt. and E. P. Wood were for the plaintiff; Giffard, Q.C. and F. H. Lewis for the defendant. The plaintiff, who was said to be a dressmaker, sued the Daily Telegraph, or rather the proprie. tors of that journal, for penalties incurred under the stat. 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 1. This section runs as follows: "Whereas the advertising a reward with no questions asked for the return of things which have been lost or stolen is one great cause of thefts and robberies, be it enacted, &c., that any person publicly advertising a reward with no questions asked for the return of things which have been stolen or lost, or making use of any words in such public advertisement purporting that such reward shall be given or paid without seizing or making inquiry after the person producing such thing so stolen or lost, or promising or offering in any such public advertisement to return to any pawnbroker or other person who may have bought or advanced money by way of loan upon such thing so stolen or lost the money so paid or advanced, or any other sum of money or reward for the return of such thing, and any person printing or publishing such advertisement, shall respectively forfeit the sum of 501. for every such offence to any person who will sue for the same." The plaintiff sought to recover penalties on thirteen advertisements, but on proof being given several were abandoned. Giffard, for the defence, raised several legal questions, the principal of which was that the statute declared on had been repealed by the 1st section of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29. THE EDMUNDS SCANDAL-The court of arbitration, consisting of Mr. Manisty, Q.C. (umpire), the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. C. Pollock, Q.C. (arbitrators), appointed to inquire into all matters in dispute between Mr. Leonard Edmunds and the Crown, held a preliminary meeting on Wednesday morning in the Court of Common Pleas, Westminster-hall. Mr. Digby Seymour. Q.C., Mr. Napier Higgins, and Mr. Haviland Pleas. After a long and learned discussion, the verdict was entered for the defendant, with leave to the plaintiff to move, his LORDSHIP observing that the verdict was only a formal one, but that the case must not go beyond the Court of Common BOROUGH When holden. Thursday, July 22. Tuesday, July 13 Tuesday, July 20 Thursday, July 13. Tuesday, July 27 Monday, July 19 Wednesday, July 14. Saturday, July 10.. Monday, July 19 Wednesday, July 21 Thursday, July 15 Wednesday, July 21... SURREY SESSIONS. Saturday, July 3. WHEELER V. THE CONVICTION OF E. H. WOOLRYCH ESQ. Cruelty to Animals. The appellant in this case is chief cook at the Trafalgar Tavern, Greenwich, and he appealed against the conviction of Mr. Woolrych, who sentenced him to three months' hard labour for cruelty to a dog which he destroyed in the Camberwell New-road. Clarke, in opening the case, said that the appelant was proceeding on horseback when a half-bred spaniel barked at the horse's heels. He got off his horse and seizing up the dog dashed it against the wall, and eventually killed it by trampling on it. He called Mr. William Jenkins, who said that between ten and eleven at night he was leaving the railway station when he saw the appellant standing by a horse holding up a dog by the neck. A gentleman named Tolhurst was near, and Wheeler said to him, "Is this your dog?" He replied that it was not. Appellant then said that it had run at his horse and frightened it so as to nearly throw him off, and asked if he might do as he liked with the dog. Mr. Tolhurst said yes, when he dashed it several times against the wall, and afterwards trampled it to death. James then addressed the Court for the appellant a young man holding a very responsible situation at an hotel at Greenwich, and incapable of acting cruelly to any animal. He (the learned counsel) contended that there was no evidence to convict under the Act of Parliament quoted by Mr. Clarke, as there wasnothing to show that the appelant wilfully tortured or acted cruelly towards the dog. The latter was running loose in the road and nearly caused the appellant to be thrown from the horse he was riding, and not seeing an owner, he killed it as quickly as possible. The learned gentleman said that did not make an offence, as it was well known that the police killed hundreds of stray and vicious dogs with their truncheons and other means. He therefore contended that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had acted cruelly towards the dog, consequently he called on the court to allow the appeal. Clarke having replied, The MAGISTRATES consulted for a few minutes, when Sir Thomas Tilson said that it was not a case coming within the meaning of the Act, therefore the appeal would be allowed. HUNTINGDON COUNTY SESSIONS. (Before the Hon. OCTAVIUS DUNCOMBE, M.P., Chairman.) REG. v. BEWLEY AND ANOTHER. Upon an indictment under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 13, it is no answer that the demolition complained of was caused for the purpose of convenience in using the premises, and cutting down a wall from 9in. to 4in., is evidence of malice to go to the jury. And it is sufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting that the defendant assisted to remove the bricks so taken from the wall. The defendants, Thomas Hunter Bewley, and Thomas Gibson Bewley, were indicted under the 24 & 25 Vic. c. 97, s. 13, as follows: The jurors for our lady the Queen upon their oath present, that Thomas Hunter Bewley on the 31st May 1869, being then possessed of a certain dwelling-house at Eynesbury, in the county of Huntingdon, as tenant from year to year to Octavius Robert Wilkinson, did then and there unlawfully and maliciously pull down and demolish part of the said dwelling-houseand build. ing sagainst the form of the statute, &c. Second count. For that Thomas Gibson Bewley at the time of committing the said offences referred to in the first count, did aid and abet counsel, and procure the said Thomas Hunter Bewley to commit the aforesaid offence against the form of the statute, &c. Abdy for the prosecution. What notice of appeal to be given. 10 days 1 day Clerk of the Peace. J. Gordon. C. Simpson. H. Salwey. T. F. A. Burnaby. C. Hughes. 8 days. 1 day P. Wright. 10 days 10 days 8 days 10 days Statutory Statutory J. Torkington. G. B. Aldridge. R. Rausom. From the evidence it appeared the prosecutor' Mr. Octavius Robert Wilkinson, became possessed of certain unfurnished premises at Eynesbury, which he completed and let to Thomas Hunter Bewley, under an agreement dated 19th Oct. 1865, at an annual rent rent of 10%., the tenant to pay all rates and taxes, to keep and leave the glass in good repair, to use the premises in a careful manner, and not to do any damage to the same. The buildings had been originally designed for a machinist's shop and outbuildings, but were divided by Mr. Wilkinson into a cottage and outbuildings. The defendant Thomas Hunter Bewley had been in possession of the premises ever since, but the rent was not paid at all punctually. Upon an examination being made of the premises, there was a hole cut in the roof, one rafter cut away, about 300 bricks removed, a 9in. wall cut down to 44in.; the total damage being estimated at about 31. or 41. Evidence was given as to the defendants having disposed of a quantity of bricks, and that Thomas Gibson Bewley assisted the tenant of the premises to remove them. In cross-examination Mr. Wilkinson admitted that he had offered to settle the matter if the hole in the roof were repaired. A builder named Wildman was called, and proved that the hole in the roof had been done some little time; there had never been a chimney there before the house was altered, the rafter had the north end of the premises about fifty bricks been cut away, and two slate laths cut away. At had been cut away, and about 150 bricks had been removed to make way for a window, and the window had been glazed, but it was not usual for tenants to make such alterations without asking the consent of the landlord. A wall had been reduced from nine inches to four and a half inches. there was no case to go to the jury, the injuries M. B. Byles, for the defendants contended that such as detailed by the witnesses were not such as contemplated by the statute, these alterations had been made by the defendants for the more convenient use of the premises, and had not been done maliciously, it was merely a sidewind to get the damage out of the defendant. friends of his, and one of the men was a lodger. Witness knew that the man was not a lodger, and he went away from the house about five minutes after the witness had left it. Cross-examined by Cousins: There was no riot in the house. The house was closed, both the front door and side door being shut. Witness did not rap, but went in when the side door was opened to let one of the women out. The house was not opened or kept open to let anybody in, but only opened to let them out. The woman who was drinking appeared to be finishing up her liquor. Saw nothing ordered or paid for. The above evidence was corroborated by another police-constable. Cousins, for the defence, submitted that the charge of keeping open could not be sustained. If any offence was disclosed by the evidence for the prosecution it was that of selling, and not keeping open. He quoted Cates v. South, 1 L. T. Rep. N. S. 365. He also referred to the recent case of Davis v. Scrace, 4 L. Rep. C. P. 172, in order to show that the informant was bound to prove affirmatively all the allegations contained in the information. To carry the case still further, two witnesses were called for the defence who proved that the house was closed at one o'clock, and that no one was admitted after that hour, and that no excisable liquors were sold after one o'clock. Also that the time the police visited the house was between twenty and twenty-five minutes past one. The Justices held that if the defence was allowed the Act would become a dead letter, and they therefore convicted the defendant, and fined him 1l., including costs. Cousins asked that a case might be stated for the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, which was granted. Mr. Robert Phippen, High Sheriff of Bristol, died suddenly on Monday evening. He was dining with the Mayor, at his private residence, Cretehill, Stoke Bishop, when he was seized with fainting fits. Restoratives were administered, and he rallied a little, but soon afterwards he became sixty-ninth year, was a prominent member of the drowsy and died. Mr. Phippen, who was in his Conservative party in Bristol, had more than once been mayor of the city, and at the time of his death held the offices of high sheriff, senior alderman, city magistrate and deputy mayor. THE TRADES UNION BILL. On Saturday evening a meeting of the various trades of Painters' Association, was held at the Athenæum, Birmingham, convened by the Operative House for the purpose of supporting the Trades Union Bill now before Parliament. The Rev. Arthur O'Neill presided, and expressed his hearty concurrence with the measure that had been intro duced, as intended to remove most unjust and oppressive restrictions that at present weighed down the working classes. Resolutions warmly approving of the Bill, expressing confidence in its promoters, protesting against any delay in its passing, and urging the members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of its second reading, were passed unanimously. The CHAIRMAN held that it was a case for the jury, and refused to withdraw it; and in charging the jury said the question was whether the cutting away of a wall from nine inches to four and a half inches was not a malicious act; and with respect to the defendant, Thomas Gibson Bewley, his assisting the other defendant in removing the bricks was sufficient to satisfy the offence of aiding and abetting. No doubt it was a peculiar prose- REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND cution, but they were there to administer the law as they found it. Verdict-Guilty against both defendants. PORTSMOUTH POLICE-COURT. (Before E. EMANUEL and T. HODGKINSON, Esqrs.) Public-house Closing Act-Keeping open. Albert Mew Judd, of the Prince of Wales' tavern, Hambrook-street, Southsea, in the borough of Portsmouth, was summoned by Mr. Richard Barber, superintendent of the Portsmouth police, for having, on the 1st July, inst., kept open his house for the consumption of exciseable liquors, to wit, two glasses of gin and water, at half-past one house, without having obtained an occasional in the morning, otherwise than to lodgers in the licence, and contrary to the Public-house Closing Act 1864, which, it was admitted, had been adopted within the borough of Portsmouth. Cousins, solicitor, of Portsea, appeared for the defendant. A police-constable stated that he was on duty in Hambrook-street, Southsea, about half-past one in the morning of the 1st July, inst., and he heard women and men laughing and talking. He stopped a moment, and heard the door leading into a passage by the side of the house open, and CONVEYANCER. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. INVESTMENT BY TRUSTEES. - A settlement empowered trustees in the purchase of lands and tenements of a clear and indefeasible estate of inheritance in fee simple in possession. This was held to empower an investment in freehold ground rents: (Re Peyton's Settlement, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 728. M. R.) WILL-CONSTRUCTION.-A testator gave 8001. upon trust for his son G. for life, and after his decease unto and equally between and amongst survive him) and all and every the child and the wife of G. (in case she should happen to children of G. in equal proportions. The shares of the children to be paid as they should attain twenty-one or be married. G. survived the testator, his wife died between the date of the testator's will and death. After the testator's death G. married again, and his second wife survived him. G. had by his first wife a daughter, who survived the testator, but there were no children of the second marriage: Held, that the fund was at the death of G. divisible equally between his widow and his child: (Re Lyne's Trust, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 735. V. C. M.) gravel pit vested by allotment made in pursuance ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A GRAVEL PIT.-A of an Act of Parliament in the surveyor or surveyors of a particular hamlet for the repair of its roads and ways was left unused by the surveyors from 1837 to 1863, the surveyors in or personal estate and effects of the said D. D., my about the year 1837 having purchased gravel for ELEMENTARY PRECEDENTS IN CON- ▲ Collection of practical Forms designed for pro- (Continued from page 187.) PRECECENTS. POWERS OF ATTORNEY (b). 108. Power of attorney from partners to draw bills (concise form). Know all men by these presents that we, A. B. and C.D., of &c., have made, constituted, and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute, and appoint E. F., of &c., our true and lawful attorney for us, and in our names, place, and stead, to sign, indorse, draw, accept, make, execute, and deliver all such notes, cheques, bills of exchange, and other contracts or instruments in writing, with or without seal; and such verbal contracts as he may deem proper; giving and granting unto our said attorney full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as we ourselves, or either of us, might or could do if personally present; with full power of substitution and revocation hereby ratifying and confirming all that our said attorney or his substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. In witness, &c. 109. Power of attorney to two persons to obtain letters of administration to two estates. To all to whom these presents shall come I, A. B., of, &c., send greeting. Whereas C. D., the deceased wife of D. D., late of, &c., died intestate on or about, &c., leaving the said D. D. her surviving. And whereas the said D. D. hath since also died, to wit, in or about the month of 18 a widower, and intestate. Now know all (a.) By THOMAS WILKINSON, Esq., Liverpool. INSURANCE-BOTTOMRY.-In the case of Hirsch v. Davis, tried at the Guildhall this week before the Lord Chief Justice and a jury, the court deof a material fact in a policy of insurance. The cided a point as to what amounts to concealment defendants had granted a policy of insurance on a bottomry bond on the Eugene Edmond, at and from Swinemunde to Hartlepool, the slip being signed on the 1st Feb. 1867, and the policy de livered on the 5th. The ship, however, had sailed from Swinemunde on the 22nd Dec., and the contention for the defendant was that "at and from" in an insurance on a bottomry bond meant that the ship was then in good safety at the port where the risk was to commence. The Lord Chief Justice directed that if the jury thought it was ship was not at the port of departure they should material to be known to the underwriters that the find for the defendants; and as the jury did so their opinion may be inferred that the point was material. It appeared, though it did not affect the case, that the defendants knew all the facts before the policy was delivered, though not at the signing of the slip. This was according to the honourable understanding at Lloyd's, by which, when a slip is signed, a policy is given as a matter of course.-Economist. MERCANTILE LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. GUARANTEE, CONTINUING-FUTURE DEALINGS CONSTRUCTION.-The defendant's nephew, W. Y., being desirous of dealing with the plaintiff on credit on a larger scale than he had hitherto done, and the plaintiff refusing to so deal with him without a guarantee, and agreeing if he had a guarantee to supply him with meat as he had done his father, the defendant gave this guarantee:-"50% I, J. M., of ——, will be answerable butcher, -(Signed) JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW for fifty pounds that W. Y., of JOURNAL. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. WINDING-UP-CONTRIBUTORY.-B. applied for fifty shares, which were allotted, registered in his name, and notice of allotment posted to his registered place of abode. He deposed that he had never received the notice. He was held not to be a contributory, the posting of the notice not being sufficient: (Finucane's case, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 729. M. R.) B. signed an agreement to take twenty shares in case the company should be "successfully floated," and two-thirds of the shares bona fide taken up. It was not proved that he had ever received an allotment, or had signed an application for shares. The condition was not performed, and he was held not to be a contributory: (Ex parte Harwood, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 736. V.C.'M.) C. signed an application for twenty shares, but neither paid nor authorised any other person to pay anything in respect of them. There was forwarded, and he had paid no deposit. He also no proof of a letter of allotment having been was held not to be a contributory: (Ex parte Gull, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 737. V.C. M.) LIABILITIES OF RAILWAYS-NEGLIGENCE. On the trial of an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendants, a railway company, the plaintiff proved that he went to the company's station to travel by their line; that, on making inquiries respecting the departure of the trains he was referred by a porter of the company to a time table suspended on a wall outside the station, and under a portico; that whilst examining the time table at the place pointed out a plank and a roll of zinc fell upon him, and looking up he saw a man's legs through a hole may buy of Mr. J. H., of LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL. ANSWERS то THE FINAL Questions 36 to 40 inclusive. COURTS. (a) V. EQUITY AND PRACTICE OF is joined, either party may, within fourteen days evidence taken before an examiner will be admitted at the hearing. Subject to this, however, his case either wholly or partially by affidavit, or in which issue is joined may at his option verify and the 11th of these rules, each party in a cause by the oral examination of witnesses ex parte before an examiner: (Order 5th Feb. 1861, rr. 3 and 4; Digest, 273, 5th edit.) Admission of documents may be asked for on notice to inspect and admit, and if the party is competent to make the admission, and refuses or neglects to do so, he will have to pay the costs of proof, unless the court certifies that the refusal to admit was reasonable: (See 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27, s. 7.) 42. Evidence · Cross-examination. The eviat the hearing) is to be closed within eight weeks dence in chief (except that to be taken viva voce after issue joined, unless this time be enlarged by special order: (Digest, 379, 5th edit.) A witness (a) The questions are given ante, p. 168. may be cross-examined on his affidavit or depositions. If issue is joined, the cross-examination takes place before the court; if issue is not joined, it is before an examiner. Notice must be given to the defendant to attend to be examined. And a fourteen days' notice must be given to the party whose witness has made an affidavit, &c., to produce him for the purpose of being cross-examined, and forty-eight hours' notice should be given the witness: (Smith's Pr. 622, et seq., 7th edit; Digest, 374, 7th edit.) 43. Bill of discovery.-Every bill requiring an answer is, to a certain extent, a bill of discovery; but the species of bill usually so distinguished by this title is a bill for discovery of facts resting in the knowledge of the defendant, or of deeds, or writings, or other things in his custody or power, and seeking no relief in consequence of the discovery, and they were usually filed in aid of the jurisdiction of the courts of law, but now the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), has given to the courts of common law a power of compelling discovery on the application of either party, either of documents in their possession relating to the matter in dispute, or of facts in their knowledge, leave being first obtained: (ss. 50, 51; Digest 346, 347; 5th edit.) 44. Bill to perpetuate testimony.-A bill to perpetuate testimony is filed when the testimony of witnesses is in danger of being lost before the matter to which it relates can be made the subject of judicial investigation, a court of equity will lend its aid to preserve and perpetuate the testimony: (Ayck. Pr. 246, 7th edit.) The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 69. s. 1, enacts, that any person who would, under the circumstances alleged by him to exist, become entitled, upon the happening of any future event, to any honour, title, digniny, or office, or estate the right to which cannot by him be brought to trial before the happening of such event, may file a bill to perpetuate any testimony which may be material for establishing such right: (See Ayck. Pr. 247, 7th edit.; Digest 348, 349, 5th edit.) 45. Married woman suing.-A suit on behalf of the rights of a married woman is usually instituted by herself and her husband jointly. But if her interests are opposed to his, as if the suit is in respect of her separate estate, she sues by next friend: (Gold. Eq. 208, 209, 4th edit.; Ayck. Pr. 575, 7th edit.) The next friend must first, however, sign a written authority to the solicitor, to be filed with the bill (15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 11); and he is liable for the costs of the suit: (Hinde v. Whitmore, 27 L. T. Rep. 53.) 46. Mortgage debt. Where a person, after the 31st Dec. 1854, dies seised of or entitled to any mortgaged estate, and has not by his will or deed, &c., signified any contrary intention, the heir or devisee thereof is not entitled to have the mortgage money paid out of the personal estate. It is, however, provided that this enactment is not to affect any rights claimed under any deed, will, or other instrument made before the 1st Jan. 1855: (17 & 18 Vict. c. 113). Before this Act the heir or devisee was, as a general rule, entitled to have the mortgage debt discharged out of the deceased's personal estate: (Will. R. P. 404, 7th edit.; Digest, 187, 5th edit.; and see further 30 & 31 Vict. c. 69.) 47. Mortgage-Absolute conveyance- Evidence. -If the instrument was originally intended as a security for money, even parol evidence will be admitted to show this, though it appears on its face to be an absolute conveyance; and it will in equity be regarded as a mortgage. And if it be shown that the consideration was grossly inadequate; if the grantee was not let into immediate possession, or if he accounted to the grantor for the rents; or if the cost of preparing the conveyance was borne by the grantor, each of these is sufficient to show that the conveyance intended as a security: (Sm. Man. 290, 291, 8th edit.; Digest, 313, 5th edit.) was 48. Mortgagor not to account. So long as the mortgagor continues in possession by the permission of the mortgagee, he is entitled to take the rents and profits in his own right, without rendering any account whatever to the mortgagee, though the property be an insufficient security: (Sm. Man. 316, 7th edit) 49. Mortgages-Priority.-When the legal mortgagee had notice of the equtable mortgage, at the time he advanced his money. 50. Rights of surety.-Until the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, the surety was only entitled to collateral securities held by the creditor, and not to the principal security, as that was said to be satisfied by payment of the debt by the surety: (Copis v. Middleton, 1 Tur. & R. 229); by this Act, however, the surety so paying is entitled to every judgment, specialty, or other security held by the creditor in respect of such debt, whether it be or be not deemed at law to have been satisfied by payment of the debt, and the surety is entitled to stand in the place of the creditor: (sect. 5; Sm. Man. 350, 8th edit.) 51. Rights of surety.-At law, on the death of one surety, his representatives are discharged from liability, and the loss falls on the survivor, but in equity the representatives of the deceased one remain liable. So at law, if one of three sureties become bankrupt, and another pays the whole amount, he can only recover a third part from the solvent surety, but in equity the solvent surety must contribute a moiety: (See Dering v.Earl of Winchilsea, Tud. L. C. Eq. 95, 96, in notis, 3rd edit.) 52. Discharge of surety.-If the creditor does any act, or omits to do any act of duty which he is required to do by the surety, or is bound to do, and that act or omission may prove injurious to the surety, or if the creditor enters into a binding stipulation with the debtor unknown to the surety and inconsistent with the terms of the original contract, the surety may set up such contract as a defence to any suit brought against him either at law or in equity: (Sm. Man. 82, 8th edit.) 53. Law as to appropriation of payments.-The debtor has the first right of appropriating the payment; but if he neglects to do so the creditor may appropriate it to which debt he pleases. It is not, however, essential that the debtor should make an express appropriation at the time of pay. ment; if circumstances show an intention to appropriate to a particular debt the creditor is bound thereby. If neither party appropriates, the law will do so to the earlier items of account: (see Chit. Cont. 664, 669, 7th edit.; Sm. Man. 262, 8th edit.) 54. Specific performance.-Equity will not, as a rule, enforce specific performance of contracts relating to personal property; because damages obtained in an action at law would amount to a But if damages would not compensate the party, it is otherwise: (see Sm. Man. 222, 8th edit.) sufficient compensation. 55. Cancellation of documents.-Equity will frequently cancel or set aside, &c., documents which have answered the end for which they were created, or instruments which are in reality void and yet apparently valid on the ground quia timet, that is, for fear such instruments should be vexatiously used when the evidence to impeach them may be lost or diminished, or for fear that they may throw a cloud or suspicion over the plaintiff's title and interests: (See further, Sm. Man. 386, et seq., 8th edit.) ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. CHURCHWARDENS-VESTRY-NOTICE-ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICT.-In an ecclesiastical district created by the Church Building Acts notice of a vestry meeting for the election of churchwardens was affixed to the church door on Good Friday, and the election took place on Easter Tuesday: Held, that this notice was sufficient, and that the 1st section of the 58 Geo. 3, c. 69 (Sturges Bourne's Act), which requires notice for a vestry meeting to be published three days previous to the Sunday after which it is to be held, is applicable only to ordinary parish vestries, and not to vestries of districts for ecclesiastical purposes: (Reg. v. Barrow, 20. L. T. Rep. N. S. 760. Lush and Hayes, JJ.) COUNTY COURTS. SKIPTON COUNTY COURT. (Before W. T. S. DANIEL, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) SIDGWICK V. THE YORKSHIRE MINING COMPANY (LIMITED). Common land-Rights of mineral owners and surface owners-Exercise of lawful rights. Shaw (instructed by George Robinson, Skipton) for the plaintiff. Middleton (instructed by Butler and Smith, Leeds), for the defendants. This case had been adjourned from 20th May last; and his Honour, in giving judgment, said :This action was brought to recover the sum of 61. 13s., as damages for the loss of four sheep, which had been drowned, as the plaintiff alleged, through the negligence of the defendants, under the following circumstances: The plaintiff is the tenant and occupier of a farm, formerly part of Appletreewick Common, the fee simple in the sur. face of which farm belongs to Mr. Chadwick. The defendants are the lessees of lead mines under lands formerly part of the same common, adjoining the plaintiff's, by virtue of a lease granted by Mr. Yorke, lord of the manor of Appletreewick, and the owner of the minerals under the whole of the said common. The lease to the defendants is for twenty-one years from the 7th May 1853; and since the lease, they have made across the lands of the plaintiff a watercourse, or a series of watercourses, for the purpose of diverting water from certain becks or gills in the plaintiff's lands, and conveying such water to the becks of the defendants on adjoining lands, to be used by them for mining purposes. The entire watercourse extends a considerable distance (upwards of a mile) through the plaintiff's land, and varies in width and depth. It is open the whole distance, and necessarily interferes with the beneficial occupation of the surface, which is occupied for pasturage for sheep; and the sheep, the subject of the present action, had, while depasturing there, fallen into the watercourse at different parts and at different times, and been drowned. The watercourse has proved to be dangerous to sheep, and might have been made less dangerous without diminishing its usefulness to the defendants, if crossings which sheep might use had been made here and there. The defendants insisted that they were at liberty to make the watercourse for the purpose of their works as they thought proper, and that they were not liable for any damage that might result to the occupier of the lands from its being an open watercourse, and they insisted that their rights as mineral owners were in all respects paramount to the rights of the surface owners. By a private Inclosure Act (55 Geo. 3, c. 27, 1815), certain stinted pastures in Appletreewick, containing 1130 acres, nine acres of open field lands, and Appletreewick Moor or Common, containing 5200 acres, were authorised to be inclosed; and the Act recited that John Yorke, Esq., was lord of the manor of Appletreewick, and the Duke of Devonshire, Earl Craven, and various other persons, were owners of cattle gates in the stinted pastures, the open field lands, and also of messuages and cottages, and sites thereof, which were entitled to rights of common, on the said moor or common; and by sect. 17, such part of the moor or common as-quantity and quality, and situation considered-should be equal in value to one-sixteenth part thereof was to be allotted to the said John Yorke, as lord, as, and in lieu of, and in full recompense for his right to the ground and soil of the said stinted pastures, open fields, and the said moor or common; and by the 39th section it is provided that nothing in the Act contained shall be construed or adjudged to defeat, lessen, or prejudice the right, title, or interest of the said John Yorke, lord of the manor of Appletreewick, his heirs and assigns, or any future lord, &c., of, in, and to the minerals or metals (including lead) within or under the said stinted pastures, open field lands, moor or common, intended to be inelosed, or the signories, &c., of or incident to the said manor, but that the said John Yorke, as such lord, and all persons claiming under him as lord, and enjoy all manorial rights (other than and and all future lords, &c., may thenceforth hold except such right of soil as is by this Act meant and intended to be barred, destroyed, and extinguished), in as full, ample, and beneficial a manner, to all intents and purposes, as they could have held and enjoyed the same in case this Act had not been passed; and that the said John Yorke, and all future lords, &c., shall and may from time to time, and at all times hereafter, have, hold, work, and enjoy all mines, and minerals, and quarries within or under the said stinted pastures, open field lands, moor or common, intended to be enclosed, as well those not opened as those already opened, and to have, enjoy, and be vested with all convenient and necessary ways, way-leaves, and liberties of laying, making, and repairing waggon ways, and other ways, in, over, and along the same or any part thereof, and of searching for, draining, winning, and working the mines and quarries, and dressing, smelting, and leading and carrying away the metals and minerals (including lands or grounds, and making pit shafts, &c., and lead) to be gotten thereout, or out of any other dams, reservoirs of water, and water-courses, and taking, diverting and using springs, brooks, and other waters, erecting and using fire-engines, and other engines, smelt mills, and other mills, houses and other buildings, and all and any other matters and things now in use, or hereafter to be invented for the purposes aforesaid, or any of them, in upon, through, over or along the said stinted pastures, open field lands, moor or common, or any of them, or any part or parts thereof, and all other powers, privileges, and authorities, for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, without paying any damage, or making any compensation for the same, in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.” It was contended by Mr. Middleton, for the defendants, that the large and comprehensive terms of this clause empowered the lord to make the watercourse in question, it being a work convenient and necessary for working the portion of the mines demised to the defendants, and that he and the defendants, as his lessees, are by the Act expressly exempted from paying any damage or making any compensation for the same. Roberts v. Hinnis, 6 Ell. & Bl., 643, affirmed in error, 7 Ell. & Bl. 625, and in Wakefield v. Duke of Buccleuch, L. Rep. 4 Eq. 613, it was held that in the case of inclosures made under private Acts similar to the present, the allottees of the surface take prima facie all the rights which belong to the owner of the surface when the In minerals beneath are the property of another. In each of these cases the mineral owner was expressly made liable to compensation for surface damages; in the present case he is expressly exempted. But that difference does not, in my opinion, affect the question to be determined here, which depends not upon the act which the lord or his assignee is authorised to do, nor so much upon the manner of doing it, but rather upon the liability for damage which may result from the act done. An act lawful in itself, and in intention innocent, may, however, involve a liability to compensate for injuries to person or property which are the consequences of that act. Thus, it is a lawful act for a mine owner to get his minerals from beneath the surface of another, but if afterwards injury results to the surface from the act of the mineral owner, the surface owner may, when such injury occurs, recover compensation for it from the mine owner; and such right takes effect from the time when the injury was sustained, and not from the time when the act causing the injury was done: (Bonomi v. Backhouse, Ell. Bl. & Ell. 655; 9 H. L. Cas. 503.) The liability rests upon the maxim, sic utere tuo vt alienum non lædas, which is not so much a prohibition against doing an act, as a recognition by law of a latent liability to answer for its consequences if injurious to another. It being thus established that the lawful character of the act does not relieve from the liability of answering for its conequences, if injurious, it is equally well established that when exemption from such liability is claimed, that exemption must be shown expressly, and not inferentially, or by mere implication, the cases of Robotham v. Wilson, 8 H. of L. Cas. 348, and Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 K. & J. 695, may be referred to as authorities in point. The question then arises, do the terms of the 39th section before referred to show that express exemption? This exemption is to be found, if anywhere, in the words without paying any damage, or making any compensation for the same, in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed." Now, if the Act had not been passed, could the lord for mining purposes have used the surface in a manner which would have been injurious to the commoners in the rightful exercise of their rights of common? Could he, for instance, by mining beneath have let down the surface so as to have injuriously affected the common for commonable purposes? Could he have sunk pits or shafts, or made drains or reservoirs, and left them unfenced, so as to be dangerous to the commoners' cattle lawfully using the common? The answer, according to the authorities, must be that he could not, and the reason is, that so to act would be to derogate from his own grant. And it appears to me that the same limitation must be applied to the exercise of his rights as reserved by the Inclosure Act. Under this reservation, he may occupy and use the surface by sinking pits or shafts, erecting smelting houses, constructing dams or reservoirs, making watercourses, roads, or tramways, or erecting any other works on the surface, necessary or convenient for profitably working the minerals underlying any part of the manor, and that without paying any damage for the immediate injury to the surface, or making any compensation for its exclusive use or occupation; but if any of such works are so executed as to be dangerous to the use or occupation of the rest of the surface, as, for instance, if pits are unfenced, he is in law responsible for the damage thereby occasioned. In the present case, the evidence established the fact that the watercourse, as constructed, is dangerous to the surface as used, and properly used, for depasturing sheep, and the sheep for the loss of which damages are claimed, with an exception that I shall notice presently, were drowned in the watercourse, owing to the dangerous manner in which it was constructed. Therefore, I have assumed that the defendants, as lessees, have acquired by their lease all the rights of the lord. A question, however, was raised by Mr. Shaw, on behalf of the plaintiff, whether under the terms of the lease the defendants had acquired the right to make any watercourse except on the surface of the lands the minerals beneath which were leased to them; and as the plaintiff's lands were not part of these (the minerals under the plaintiff's lands having been leased with working powers to another company, the Grimwith Mining Company, for whose use the watercourse in question was not made or required), and he urged the defendants had not acquired the right to make the watercourse at all, and, therefore, were mere trespassers. By the terms of the lease, the lead mines, under a certain area described by metes and bounds, and a plan endorsed on the lease, are demised to the defendants for the purpose of working, with power to the defendants to divert any watercourse or watercourses, drains, levels, trenches, dams, or sluices, in or through the aforesaid mining ground or premises, or any part thereof, for (among other things) washing, cleaning, or dressing all such lead as may be got from and out of the said mines or works, and for which this watercourse was made, subject to a proviso that the same should not unlawfully obstruct, hinder, or prejudice any other mines or works of the said John Yorke, his heirs or assigns, or any other person or persons working by his authority. There was no evidence that the watercourse created any such obstruction, hindrance, or prejudice; the only party to be affected by it was the Grimwith Mining Company, and some evidence was tendered of a licence by that company, but it was insufficient as evidence of a licence, and I held that any evidence of a licence was unnecessary. The terms of this express power to make a watercourse perhaps leave it doubtful whether upon that construction the power is not limited to a watercourse in or through the lands constituting the mining ground demised to the defendants, and including, of course, the surface; but I am satisfied, as a fact, that the power as exercised was necessary, or at least convenient, for the profitable working of the mines demised; and the lease, after the enumeration of the particular powers to be exercised, contains these words, "and to do all matters and things whatsoever (excepting washing, which has not been done) that may be necessary or requisite to be done for the working, getting, washing, and cleaning the lead ore, discovered, or to be discovered, in any part of the said mining ground." These words, as it appears to me, are large enough to include the power to do the act done, if the express terms in which the power is given should be considered insufficient. I therefore decide this case upon the general ground of the rights of the lord, treating them as vested by the lease in the defendants. Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff for 51. 5s. I don't allow the plaintiff damages for the one sheep that was drowned in June 1866, this falling into the watercourse shortly after it had been washed, and while its fleece was heavy with water, as I consider it was negligence in the plaintiff not to take care of the sheep while in that condition. If the defendants wish to appeal, and require my consent, I give it. The case involves an important question of right, affecting an extensive district, and large and valuable interests of many persons. BANKRUPTCY LAW. LIVERPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT. (Before Mr. Commissioner THRING.) Proof of debt-Distinct_trades-Partnership debt allowed to be proved against an individual partner. Where two partners carried on business at Bahia, and one of them, who carried on a distinct trade in England, dissolves partnership, and succeeds to the joint business: Held, on his bankruptcy, that the proofs of debt by the creditors of the partnership were admissible against his estate. This was a meeting for declaration of dividend. Gill and Martin (solicitors) tendered proofs of debt on behalf of creditors of the firm in Bahia, consisting of the bankrupt and his late partner. Lockett, for the assignees, objected to their admission for several reasons, and more particularly on the ground that it was inequitable to allow the creditors of the firm at Bahia to come into competition with those of the individual partner who carried on a distinct trade in England. His HONOUR, who had reserved his judgment, said:-Two proofs of debt have been tendered by Mr. Gill against the estate of this bankrupt. The one on behalf of William Collier for 2491. 14s. 6d., money had and received by the bankrupt for the use of the claimant, the other on behalf of Messrs. Johnston, Comber, and Co., for 6571. 13s. 11d., goods sold and delivered to Benn and Co. In the former case a bill of exchange for the amount, dated Bahia, Jan. 27, 1869, had been drawn on the bankrupt by H. C. Wells, per pro Benn and Co. In the latter a bill had been drawn in a similar manner, dated Bahia, Feb. 26, 1869. Both bills were presented for acceptance to the bankrupt, but refused in consequence of his having been adjudicated bankrupt on Feb. 25, 1869. The facts are as follows. In 1868 Edward Benn, the bankrupt, carried on business at Bahia in partnership with his son, Arthur Benn, under the title of Benn and Co. During the same period he carried on business as a merchant in Liverpool in his own name only. The firms at Bahia and Liverpool respectively carried on separate and distinct trades. The partnership at Bahia was dissolved on Dec. 31, 1868, by an arrangement between Benn and his son, under which Benn the son retired from the firm, and Benn the father undertook to discharge all debts, liabilities, and responsibilities whatever of Benn and Co. The notice and terms of dissolution were duly advertised three times in the Bahia papers according to the custom of Brazil, and Edward Benn, the bankrupt, appointed H. C. Wells as his manager to conduct and windup the business of Benn and Co., at Bahia. Mr. Lockett contended that Collier's proof was only admissible under sect. 152 of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, and Johnston's proof must be rejected on the authority of the numerous cases relating to double proof. I am of opinion that there is no ground for such a contention. Both proofs stand on the same basis. On the retirement of Arthur Benn from the partnership in Dec. 1868, the property at Bahia was no longer the joint property of the two partners, but was converted into the separate property of Edward Benn, the bankrupt, and all his creditors are entitled to an equal distribution of his assets. Both proofs will, therefore, be admitted to rank against the estate of the bankrupt. JOINT NOTES.-The words-"We jointly and severally, and any two of us jointly promise to pay""-used in a promissory note, have been held by the commissioner in bankruptcy sufficient to enable the holders of the note to prove against the separate estate of the three parties who signed it, against the joint estate of the three, and against a partnership consisting of two of them. The dispute was one of the numerous ones which have arisen out of the litigation of Peto, Betts, and Crampton; and the interest in the litigation arose from the attempt of the noteholders to prove against the joint estate of Peto and Betts. This they were entitled to do under the phrase "any two of us jointly," which was however absolutely essential for the purpose. In a liquidation in Chancery the double proof would have been allowed in any case but the rule in bankruptcy, as we have explained on a former occasion, is different and less reasonable. The commissioner seems to have been troubled a good deal before coming to a conclusion about the meaning of " any two of us." It was suggested that this only meant a right of selection against one out of the possible combinations of two among the three signers, in which case the clause would be void for vagueness. But the common practice of conveyancers, as well as the authority of Dr. Latham, set his doubts at rest, and the ingenuity of the drawers of the note was rewarded. The form may be still more useful where there are more signatures than three-the words then being "any two, any three, any four, &c., of us jointly," which would cover all possible combinations. But it would be better to abolish altogether the absolute rules against double proof. -Economist. CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PROFESSION. [NOTE.-This department of the LAW TIMES being open to free discussion on all professional topics, the Editor is not responsible for any opinions or statements contained in it. COUNTY COURT RULES AND ORDERS 1867MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT ACT.-By the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97), s. 5, any person who, being a surety, &c. for a debtor, shall pay such debt, &c., shall be entitled to have assigned to him, or to a trustee for him, every judgment, specialty or other security which shall be held by the creditor in respect of such debt, &c. This section is understandible as to judgments in the Superior Courts, but does it extend to the County Courts? 201 of the County Court Rules and Orders 1867 states that, execution on a judgment may issue on behalf of any person not a party to the suit by leave of the registrar upon proof of title to the benefit of the judgment, and upon substitution of the name of the new plaintiff, together with a statement of his deriva tive title for that of the original plaintiff, and the registrar shall give notice of such substitution to the defendant by post, and execution shall not issue upon the judgment until the expiration of six clear days after the posting of the notice." I became surety for B. Judgment was obtained against both of us in the County Court, and I had to pay the whole amount. Coupling the sect. 5 with the rule 201, I applied to the registrar to have the judgment assigned to me, upon my affidavit setting forth the facts that I was surety only, and paid the amount as such. The registrar is of opinion, first, that the Mercantile Law Amend ment Act does not apply to County Courts; secondly, that being a party to the suit, I was not entitled to have the benefit of the judgment as signed to me as surety; that the rule applied only to a purchaser of the judgment-debt, or to assig nees or other representatives of the original plaintiff. I shall feel obliged if some of your correspondents will give me their practical views and experience in cases like this. D. MARAVILLA COCOA FOR BREAKFAST-The cocoa (or cacao) of Maravilla is the true Theobroma of Linnæus. The Globe says: "Taylor Brothers' Maravilla Cocoa has achieved a thorough success, and supersedes every other cocoa in the market. For homoeopaths and invalids we could not recommend a more agreeable or valuable beverage." Sold, in packets only, by all grocers, |