VOL. VIII.

PUMP COURT.

IN Duncan v. Lawson we have a valuable decision on what was previously a moot point. In that case a domiciled Scotchman died, leaving a will, which, however, did not take effect as to certain leaseholds situate in England. Now the rule regulating the devolution of personal estate in general is that the law of domicil regulates succession to it, for mobilia sequuntur per

But as to leaseholds, though undoubtedly personalty, considerable difficulty has been felt. Leaseholds, unlike moveable property, have a locality. They are not mobilia, but immobilia, and in Freke v. Lord Carbery, L. R. 16, 461, a dictum was expressed that the succession to leasehold depended not on the domicil of the intestate, but on the lex loci rei sitae.

Previously, however, to Duncan v. Lawson, there was no distinct authority, but Kay, J., adopted the view taken in the Freke v. Lord Carbery (ubi supra), and decided that the persons to take the leaseholds of the intestate were the next of kin of the testator, according to the English law, and not to Scotch law.

Under the Temple Law Reports, we give a note of the decision of the Court of Appeal in re The Railway Time Tables Publishing Company. In that case shares had been issued at a discount, and Stirling, J., considering that he was following in re The Almada and Tirito Company, 38, Ch. D. 415, held that the issue of the shares was wholly void, and that the name of the holder must be removed, as she desired, from the register, and an order made for repayment to her of the amount she had paid. in respect of them. The Court of Appeal, however, were of opinion that although as long as the matter rested in contract, being ultra vires, it could not be enforced, yet when the allottee was placed, as she knew, on the register, and acted in such a way as to evidence an agreement as to treat herself as a member of the company, she was liable to remain on the register, and keep the shares, and could not avoid liability to pay the amounts remaining unpaid, though

No. 131.

she accepted the allotment originally on an agreement not to enforce payment of the balance.

A curious point arose before North, J., in re Dean, Cooper-Dean v. Stephens. In that case the testator gave to his trustees his eight horses and ponies at Littledown, and also his hounds and the kennels there, and charged his freehold estates, therein before devised, with the payment to his trustees for the term of fifty years from his death, if any of the said horses and hounds should so long live, of an annual sum of £750, and declared that his trustees should apply the said annual sum for the maintenance of the horses and hounds for the time being living, and in maintaining the stables, kennels, and buildings inhabited by them. He declared that his trustees should not be bound to render any account of the application or expenditure of the said sum of £750, and that any part remaining unapplied should be dealt with by them at their sole discretion, and his will was that so long as any horses, ponies, or hounds should be living, they should be kept in the stables, kennels, and buildings which they then occupied. The horses and ponies were not to be worked after his death, nor were they or the hounds to be sold. North, J., held that the gift, being for the purpose of supporting particular horses and dogs, was not a charity, and therefore not void as offending against the mortmain law, nor invalid merely by reason of there being no person who could enforce it. He also came to the conclusion, on the construction of the whole will, that the trustees did not take any personal benefit in any surplus of the £750 per annum that there might be, but that they had an absolute discretion as to how much of it was to be expended for the maintenance of the horses and hounds, as long as any of them might be alive.

THE case of MacDougall v. Knight et al., draws attention to what we believe many people will think a state of the law requiring remedy. In that case the plaintiff had a dispute with the defendant. The dispute begot an action in Chancery, and North, J., in the course of a long judgment, made comments unfavourable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeal, although confirming the judgment of North, J., stated that they did not agree with his disparaging remarks concerning the plaintiff. Meanwhile, however, Messrs. Knight and Sons had issued, prior to the hearing of the appeal, a pamphlet purporting to be a verbatim report of the judgment of North, J. The question was, whether the separate publication of the judgment of a court or judge could be the subject of an action for libel. That question, although it was the only question of general importance dealt with in the House of Lords, was not properly raised by the pleadings, and therefore their lordships' utterances were of course only dicta; but each of the judges positively guarded himself against laying down that the publication of the judgment of a learned judge must necessarily be privileged. Lord Halsbury, L.C., pointed out that the ground on which privilege attaches to accurate report of what takes place in a court of justice is that judicial proceedings are, in this country, public, and that publication is merely enlarging the area of the Court, and communicating to all that which all had a right to know. But it was obvious

an

that a partial account of proceedings, in a court of justice, which a judgment alone may be, might be the exact reverse of putting the person to whom publication was made in the same position as if present himself, nor did he think there was any presumption, one way or the other, as to whether a judge's judgment did, or did not, give such a complete substantially accurate account of the matters upon which he may be adjudicating as to bring it within the privilege. No doubt this reasoning is not conclusive, for the publication of the judgment alone, would put the person to whom publication was made in the same position as if present during the delivering of the judgment, though not as if present throughout the proceeding. Mr. J. F. Oswald has since, in a letter to the Times, stated that what was complained of was that the publication of a report which was not verbatim of the judges' judgment alone, and that "all which has to be guarded against in consequence of what fell from the law lords in the publication (except in a clear case) of any part of a judgment reflecting on anyone personally." We confess, however, we think the dicta of the law lords, which went further than this, cannot be safely disregarded; a judgment may contain expressions not warranted by the evidence addressed in Court, if both evidence and judgment are published, the public have the opinion of the judge, and the materials, in the main, on which he formed it, and can draw their own conclusions.

THE Incorporated Law Society U. K., carried by a narrow majority the resolutions of Mr. Herbert Low and Mr. Charles Ford, on Friday last, in favour of the abolition of the annual certificate duty. For many years Mr. Ford has brought forward at intervals notices of motion on this subject before the society. We understand, however, that the President of the society (Mr. B. G. Lake), there and then sta ted that the council would not give effect to the resolution as carried. There is a very strong feeling among many solicitors that the tax ought to be got rid of, and we have received a letter from Mr. Ford, of the Outer Temple, London, W.C., asking that all solicitors who support the abolition of the tax will communicate with him, as he proposes to form an association of solicitors to meet the circumstances of the case.

SOLICITORS notoriously conduct other people's business better than their own, and the proceedings at Friday's meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, gave additional force to Mr. Parker's argument in favour of the debates of the society being conducted on defined rules, for neither the chairman himself, nor the members, seemed well up in the matter. The meeting was remarkable in more ways than one. In the first

place the hall was crowded, at one time, more than we have ever seen it. We suppose it was Mr. Hastie's extraordinary motion that caused this phenomenal attendance, for after he had been duly "roasted" the numbers thinned to about the normal total. "The Toothpick Brigade" of the society (as the club men have been aptly named) would have done well to have, and supported the Council in opposition to Mr. Herbert Low's motion re Certificate Tax, but, apparently thinking that it had "no show" they decamped, as did others who had the same opinion, but would have stayed to vote in its favour had they known what "a close thing " the voting was to be. As it was, that gentleman actually defeated the Council, much to the undignified wrath of the President, who at an earlier stage had stated that the Council would "take no steps in the matter," and had asked Mr. Low if, "after that answer to his question," he proposed to proceed with his motion. The debate on the subject roused the oratorical ardour of several of the younger members present, in spite, or perhaps because of Mr. Finch's insinuations that they had no right to an opinion on the matter. The voting was very close, and was declared to be in favour of the motion by a small majority. This result roused the President to such a pitch of fury that,

if we may use the term of such an exalted personage, he completely "lost his head," and declared that he would recommend the Council to disregard the resolution, and refused to allow Mr. Low to move for a committee to carry it out, although he had previously. under exactly analagous circumstances, allowed that course in connection with Mr. Munton's excellent proposition; but then, Mr. Munton is a persona grata with the "powers that be," which we suppose makes all the difference. Mr. Low who seemed surprised at the result of his eloquence and audacity, may, however, congratulate himself on having knocked the first nail into the coffin of the iniquitous tax, for he should have no difficulty in finding supporters to enable him to compel the Council to carry out the legally expressed wish of the members or, failing that, carrying the matter through independently of the society altogether. dently of the society altogether. We think, however, that the Council will do the society irreparable injury if they still remain obdurate in the matter.

MR. A. H. HASTIE'S in his motion, alluded to above, showed that he was a funny man, and seemed to invite people to "write me down an ass." He asked the meeting to say that the confidence of the public in the profession had of late been greatly shaken by recent frauds and thefts of solicitors; secondly, that a system of mutual insurance should be adopted with a view to restore that confidence, and thirdly, that Parliament should be urged by the chief Law Society, to pass an Act requiring security from solicitors hereafter to be admitted, of not less than £5,000. Mr. Hastie said that two or three per cent. of the whole body of solicitors were struck off the rolls, and one of the results of the resolutions would be to limit the numbers entering an already over-crowded profession. Mr. A. E. Finch asserted that the council had been for years improving the condition of solicitors. The remedy proposed was most extraordinary and illogical. Mr. W. P. W. Phillimore said the guarantee would only affect a few of the poor, wretched county-court practitioners. Solicitors were quite as honest as bankers, doctors, merchants, and even parsons.. On the motion being put, only three solicitors in a meeting of over three hundred voted in its favour.

THE meeting of the Bar, at which some 600 members were present, was held on Saturday, and the AttorneyGeneral presided. Several members cheered vociferously, got on the benches, and waved their hats enthusiastically. No allusion, whatever, was made to recent events and this was prudent and proper. But Mr. Pope, Q.C., spoke in general terms of the high esteem in which Sir Richard was held, and he was vociferously cheered.

TERRY'S Theatre will be closed on the evenings of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday next, and will re-open for the morning performance on Saturday, April 20th, when "Sweet Lavender " will continue its successful career.

ROYAL PRINCESS'S THEATRE.-In response to a public to see Mr. Wilson Barrett in his great successes, very generally expressed desire on the part of the previous to his departure to tour in America, Miss Grace Hawthorne has arranged to revive (for a limited, number of performances only) "The Silver King,' with all the original scenery and effects, on Monday, April 15.

TEMPLE CHURCH.-APRIL, 1889.

April 19.-Good Friday.-Morning: Te Deum Laudamus, Chant; Benedictus, Chant; Anthem," He was despised (Handel). Evening Magnificat, Chant; Nunc Dimittis. Chant; Anthem, "He was despised" (Hopkins).

April 21.-Easter Sunday.-Morning: Te Deum Laudamus, in C (Boyce); Jubilate Deo, in C (Boyce); Anthem, "Behold, I shew you a mystery." Evening Cantate Domino, in D (Attwood); Deus Misereatur, in D (Attwood); Anthem, "Blessed be the God and Father" (S. S, Wesley),

THE TEMPLE NEWSPAPER LAW

REPORTS.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

COWPER-ESSEX V. LOCAL BOARD FOR DISTRICT OF ACTON. -Compensation on taking Lands for Sewage Farm by Compulsory Purchase.-Lands taken Separated from other Lands of the same Owner by Railway.-Power of Jury to Award Damages for Injury Sustained by Severance.-Appellant owned an estate at Acton. Part of this estate had been compulsorily purchased by the Acton Local Board for the purpose of a sewage farm. The under-sheriff's jury assessed value of land at £8,737, and £4,000 as damages sustained by reason of appellant's lands being injuriously affected by severance. The land of appellant acquired by Board was separated by a railway from the remainder of his property. The Queen's Bench Division, notwithstanding this, affirmed the finding of the jury, but the Court of Appeal held that the lands acquired, having been separated from other lands of the same owner by the railway, could not be said to be injuriously affected. Held (by Lord Halsbury, L.C., Lords Watson, Bramwell, Fitzgerald, and Macnaghten) reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, that it was competent to the jury, notwithstanding the land taken was separated from the remaining lands belonging to the same owner by a railway, to award such damages.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL. COOPER V. STUART.-Law of Mother Country whether in Force in Colony.-Law of Perpetuities as Applied to a Reservation in a Crown Grant made in 1823.-Reservation of Right to Resume for certain Purposes Part of Land Granted.-Repugnant to Grant.Operation by way of Defeasance and not of Exception.-Grant was made to H., his heirs and assigns, on 27th May, 1823, of 1,400 acres of land in the district of Sydney, N.S.W., "reserving to His Majesty, his heirs, and successors such timber as may be growing or to grow hereafter upon the said land which may be deemed fit for naval purposes; also such parts of the said land as are now or shall hereafter be required by the proper officer of His Majesty's Government for a highway or highways; and further, any quantity of water and any quantity of land not exceeding ten acres in any part of the said grant as may be required for public purposes; provided always that such water or land so required shall not interfere with or in any manner injure or prevent the due working of the water mills

erected or to be erected on the lands and watercourses hereby

granted." Proclamation was made by the Governor of the Colony in November, 1882, that pursuant to the reservation in the grant, he resumed and took possession on behalf of the Government of the Colony, of ten acres of the land granted to the intent that they should revest in Her Majesty as a public park. Appellant contended that the reservation was void. Held (by Lords Watson, Hobhouse, and Macnaghten and Sir Richard Couch) that the reservation, operating by way of defeasance and not exception, was not invalid as repugnant to the grant, also that, assuming the Crown to be affected by the rule against perpetuities in England, it was in 1823 inapplicable to a Crown grant of land in the Colony of New South Wales, or to such a reservation as that in question.

COURT OF APPEAL.

IN re DUNN'S TRADE MARK APPLICATION.-Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883, Sect. 73.-Use of Words "Fruit Salt."-Trade Mark already Registered containing the words for Saline Preparation.—Application to Register Trade Mark containing the words for Baking Powder.-Calculated to Deceive.-Dunn made two applications to register two trade marks, comprising in a conspicuous position the words "fruit salt for baking powder. J. C. Eno opposed on the ground of prior user of the term "fruit salt" for a saline preparation, he having registered the words as a trade mark, claiming user prior to August 13, 1875. Dunn took out a summons to rectify the trade marks register by removing Eno's trade mark. At the hearing of these summonses before Kay, J., counsel for Eno admitted inability to prove user by him of words "fruit salt" before August 13, 1875, save as part of the label, and submitted to an order removing his trade mark. Kay, J., decided that Dunn, having admitted knowledge of the extensive use by Eno of the words "fruit salt" before he adopted it, and being unable to show that the words were to be found in any work on chemistry, the case fell within sec. 73 of the Patent Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, and refused one of Dunn's applications (he having abandoned the other) with costs. Held (by Lindley and Fry, L.JJ., dissentiente, Cotton, L.J.) reversing Kay, J., that the articles to which the expression "fruit salt" was sought to be applied, were so different in their objects and purposes, that the registration of Dunn's trade mark was not calculated to deceive within the scope of sect. 73 of that act.

In re THE RAILWAY TIME TABLES PUBLISHING COMPANY.Issue of Shares at a Discount.-Motion by Allottee to Rectify Register by Striking out Name, and for Repayment of Amount Paid per Share.-Motion to rectify the register of members of above company by striking out the name of S. as holder of 673

£5 shares allotted to her by company as fully paid-up shares, in consideration of 10s. only per share. The company, at a meeting held November 29, 1886, resolved to issue 5,000 £5 shares (of which the 673 formed part) at a discount of £4 10s. per share, and they were allotted to the original shareholders on their application in proportion to the number of shares already held by them. In February, 1888, directors proposed to make further issue of 7,000 shares, to which S. objected, and the issue was never carried out, but S. did not repudiate the allotment made to her. As to 150 of the shares, S. had sold them to a friend, who had no notice that they had been issued at a discount, but after the decision of the Court of Appeal, in the case of The Almada and Tiwito Co., 38 Ch. D. 415, S. obtained a re-transfer of these 150 shares in consideration of a transfer of 150 other fully paid-up shares. Stirling, J., held that the issue of the shares in question was wholly void, and not voidable; that no new contract to retain the shares and pay in full had been shown, and that the delay of S. was not sufficient to disentitle her to relief from liability in respect of the shares, that as to the 150 shares re-transferred to S. by the transferee without notice, S. was entitled to hold them as fully paid up; but that as to the remaining 523 shares, her name must be removed from the register and an order made for repayment to her of the 10s. per share paid in respect of them. Held (by Cotton, Lindley, and Bowen, L.J.J.) reversing Stirling, J., that the respondent had, by her conduct, assented to being the holder on the register of the 523 shares, and that the liability to pay the full amount on each share was a statuary liability, arising from the fact of being the registered holder of the shares from which she was not entitled to be relieved by reason of her mistake as to a matter of general law.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

HYDE V. BERNERS.-Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act (31 and 32 Vic., c. 139. Sect. 27).-Charging Order Made Pursuant to Action for Against Whom to be Brought.-Tenant or Reversioner.-Action brought against reversioner to recover a sum due under a charging order made pursuant to the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, on certain premises in Union Street, Marylebone. Held (by Denman and Stephen, J J.), that under Sect. 27 of that Act the premises were charged with the payment of the sum, and that the tenant was liable during his tenancy therefor.

ROSS v. BEERBOHM.-R.S.C. Order xxxi. vv. 25, 26, and 27.Insufficient Sum Paid into Court by plaintiff on Obtaining Order Disfor Interrogatories.-Delivery and Answer.-Subsequent covery of Insufficiency.-Power to Make Order for payment of Further Sum.-£5 had been paid into court by the plaintiff on obtaining an order for interrogatories. These interrogatories had been delivered and answered when it was discovered they contained four additional folios. Defendant then applied that plaintiff should pay into court £2 in respect thereof. The Master made the order, and Mathew, J., upheld it. Held (by Denman and Stephen, JJ.), that there was power to make the order.

IN RE SHEFFIELD BUILDING SOCIETY.-Lessor and Lessee.Mining Lease.-Covenant to win and get Coal Regularly.-Reservation of Certain Yearly Rent, and Royalty for any Ton of Coals Gotten.-Neglect to Work Mine.-Condition of Re-entry. Forfeiture.-Payment of certain Rent.-Equitable Ground to Relief. In 1875 J. demised a colliery, the lease reserving a rent of £500 per annumn, to be paid at all events, and a royalty of 6d. per ton on all coal raised. The lease contained a covenant by the lessee, that he would at all times during the term win and get the coal regularly and effectually in the proper way and so as to get the largest quantity of coal, with the usual condition for re-entry on breach of any of the covenants. The lease had been mortgaged to the Building Society, which was being wound up in the County Court, and J. moved to have the lease delivered up, as forfeited for the breach of the covenants to work the mine. This was based on the fact that though the certain rent had been duly paid, yet the mine had never been worked, and so no royalties over and above the certain rent had become repayable. The County Court Judge ordered the lease to be given up. Held (by Lord Coleridge L. C. J., and Hawkins, J.) that the judgment of the County Court Judge was right, for that the lessees having done nothing to work the mine, there had been a breach of the covenant in that behalf, and that there was no equitable title to relief against the legal right to enter.

BOWKER v. WILLIAMSON.-Bills of Sale Acts 1878 and 1882.— Transaction Valid Independently of the Document in Question.--Pledge.-J. B. addressed in June 1886 to his brother F. B., a letter saying "You having this day advanced me the sum of £50, I agree to repay you the amount with 5 per cent. interest, and I charge the plate I have deposited with you to-day with the payment of the sum of £50, and interest, and also the sum of £200 already owing by me to you." F. B. then handed a cheque for £50 to J. B., who gave him the keys of his plate chest, and F. B. selected certain articles of plate. Afterwards defendant W., who took care of J. B., went to F. B., and asked for the keys of the plate chest for J, B., and F. B. sent them, but only, as he wrote, on the distinct understanding that W.

held the plate for him. In March 1887, J. B. wrote to F. B. for a piece of plate, being one of those pieces selected by F. B., and when it was sent to him, gave it to defendant W. In Sept. 1888 J. B. died. An action was brought in the County Court to determine whether F. B. or W. was entitled to this piece of plate. Held (by Lord Coleridge, L. C. J., and Hawkins, J.) affirming the decision of the County Court Judge that a pledge had been constituted by the verbal agreement of the parties independently of the letter of June 1886, and that F. B. had therefore a good title against, W., which was not invalidated by invalidity of that document as a bill of sale, assuming that were so.

JAMES LEWIS AND SONS v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE.-Stamp Act, 1870.-Agreement to Sell Goodwill of Business to Limited Company.-Liability of to Ad valorem Duty as a Conveyance on Sale-An instrument purporting to be an agreement made the 14th day of May, 1888, between James Lewis and Arthur Hornby Lewis, merchants, carrying on business under the firm names of James Lewis and Sons (thereinafter called the vendors), of the one part, and James Lewis and Sons, Liverpool, Copper Wharf Company, Limited (thereinafter called the Company), of the other part-recited that the vendors carried on business as wharfingers and warehousemen-that the company had been formed with, inter alia, the object of acquiring and carrying on the said business, and that the value of the vendors' interest in the land and premises occupied by them had been taken at the sum of £1,000, and the value of the goodwill of the business and the machinery and the outstanding debts at the sum of £79,000. An apport, onment of this sum being called for by the Commissioners it was apportioned as follows:-Machinery, £1,500; outstanding debts, £10,000; goodwill, £67,500.

By this agreement the vendors were to sell, and the company were to purchase the said business of the vendors for £80,000, the purchase money to be paid partly in cash and partly by allotment of paid-up shares in the company. Company to be entitled to the profits as from the 1st of January, 1888, and the vendors to account for profits from that date till the company took possession, and to pay over the same to the company. The purchase to be completed on the 1st of July, 1888, and the company to be entitled to possession of the business and property as from the 1st of January, 1888, and to be deemed to have accepted the title to the said property, and to pay all costs and expenses of the vendors and purchasers of and incident to any assurances and acts required for the completion of the purchase. This agreement, stamped with the duty of ten shillings, was presented by the company to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under section 18 of the Stamp Act, 1870, for adjudication. The Commissioners assessed it liable to £337 10s., being ad valorem conveyance duty at the rate of five shilings for every £50 of the sum of £67,500, and also as liable under the head, "Deed of any kind whatsoever, not described in this schedule" to ten shillings. The Commissioners were required by the appellants to state a case for

an appeal under section 19 of the Stamp Act, 1870. Held (by Lord Coleridge, L.C.J. and Hawkins, J.) that the agreement did not fall within the definition of conveyance on sale given in section 70 of the Stamp Act, 1870, and was therefore not chargeable with ad valorem duty under the head conveyance on sale, but only with ten shillings.

INSURANCE.

THE annual meeting of the Lancashire Lancashire In- was held at the offices of the company, surance Company Exchange Street, Manchester, on the 14th ult., when the directors' report, together with the accounts and balance-sheet, was presented to the shareholders. These are all of an extremely satisfactory character in regard to both branches of the business, and the continued progress that is being made is one of the best criterions of the growing favour in which this company is held by the insuring public. Few offices have obtained the same result in the same time, or whose record can show such marked progression. At the close of 1888, the invested funds were £1,581,373, which comprised a life reserve fund of £801,443, and a fire reserve fund of £387,240, the increase in the life fund during the year being £42,172, whilst, at the same time, the fire fund had been augmented by the sum of £38,602. The growth of these reserve funds is best instanced in the following illustration :

The entire report for the year is confidence inspiring, and of a nature that cannot fail but be acceptable both to share and policy-holders. In the life department 580 policies were issued, assuring £168,515, and producing in new premiums £6,433. The net income of this branch amounted to £114,529, which is an increase of £3,088 upon that of the previous year.

The claims from death were 123 in number, and amounted to £49,300, which, compared with te premium income, shows good selection, and a mortality within expectation.

In the fire department, the net premiums received amounted to £592,148. The claims for loss and damage by fire, together with provision for outstanding losses, amounted to £358,567. The surplus balance of £55,511 was carried to the profit and loss account. The entire experience for the year 1888 will no doubt have a beneficial effect upon future business, as it is of a kind that has advanced the strength and interests of the office in every particular.

The life policy issued by this office is one of the most liberal in its terms, and embodies all clauses of advantage to the policy-holder that can be safely given. A perusal of the prospectus will amply reward intending

assurers.

THE 48th annual meeting of the . Wesleyan and General Assur- Wesleyan and General was held on the ance Society. 26th ult. at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham, when the directors' reports and also abstracts from the valuation report by H. W. Manly, Esq., F.I.A., were presented to the members. When the nature of the business transacted by this society is taken into consideration, being for the greater part industrial as far as the life portion is considered, and including also sickness insurance, and a comparatively small annuity business, the reports taken as a whole must be considered satisfactory, and in fact Mr. Manly's endorsation is merited. He says:-"Considering you have passed from a 4 per cent. to a 3 per cent valuation, and that you have obtained large industrial business without any extraneous aid, I am of the opinion that the result is highly satisfactory."

The Life Assurance Fund shows an increase during the past year of over £10,000, notwithstanding that abnormally heavy expenses have been incurred on the extension of the business. This office is purely mutual, and in consequence there is not the same latitude for expenditure that exists where shareholders expend their own money for the development of new branches or increasing of business. Nevertheless, though keeping within the bounds allowed, it has been progressive, and has now in force a goodly amount of business, from which no doubt more will accrue, and also the general good of the society be improved. As an evidence of growth it is only necessary to compare the total incomes of the two last quinquenniums. For the 5 years ending December 31st, 1883, the total income in the life department was £233,159, while for the 5 years ending December 31st last, it was £615,568, or an increase of £382,409 on the 5 years. The total number of members and assurers at the close of the year was 363,022, being an increase of 37,000 in the The annual income from all sources was year. £180,937.

From these figures the nature of the business is deducible at once, and such business naturally entails a heavy expense account. This office, however, shows careful and conservative management, and its expense rate is being decreased, during the past 3 years the total decrease being over 5 per cent.

Mr. Manly's repute as an actuary is sufficiently high to give any offices that show surplus, under his treatment of the summary of particulars, an acceptable endorsement.

Notwithstanding, the rate of interest was lowered in the last valuation from 4 per cent. as used at valuation, December 31st, 1883, to 3 per cent. The surplus was sufficiently high to declare a dividend of 10 shillings per £100 assurance in the way of reversionary sums. Altogether the Wesleyan and General is in a pros