COLLIER Thos.), Howard Town, Glossop, Derbyshire, grocer. Dec. 3; Brooks, Marshall, and Brooks, solicitors, Manchester. Dec. 10; V.C. S., at noon. GRANGER (Frances), Thurlow-place, Norwood, Surrey, Esq. Dec. 12; J. Perry, solicitor, 2, Guildhall-chambers, Basinghall-street, London. Dec. 23; V.C. S., at noon. LYNCH John), 55, Royal Mint-street, Whitechapel, Middlesex. Dec. 2: McLeod and Cann, solicitors, 51, Lincoln'sinn-fields, London. Dec. 16; M. R., at eleven. ROBERTS (Hannah), South Mims, Middlesex, widow. Dec.2;

M. R., at noon.

R. Chandler, solicitor, 2, Bucklersbury, London. Dec. 16; WHIELDON (H. T. T., Middleton-house, Yapton, Sussex, Es. De 4: Johnson and Raper, solicitors, Chichester. Dec. 23; M. R., at eleven.

BURFORD (John Old Brentford, Middlesex, pawnbroker, Dec. 21; Woodbridge and Sons, solicitors, 8, Clifford's-inn, CLAXTON (Elizabeth), Woodford, Essex, spinster. Dec. 6; Taylor and Jaquet, solicitors, 15, South-street, FinsburyCOLQUHOUN (Sarah), 19, Bessboro'-street, Pimlico, Middlesex, spinster. Jan. 2, 1869; Bower and Cotton, solicitors, 46, Chancery-lane, London.

square, London,

ROZIER (W.P., Marina, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, a captain in the Royal Navy. Jan. 1 1869; Moore, St. Barbe, and Moore, solicitor, Lymington. MYLNE (G. E., 9. Upper Chadwell-street, Myddelton-square, Islington, Middlesex, watchmaker. Dec. 8; H. Cowlard, solicitor, 14, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London. FORT Richd, Read-hall, Whailey, Lancashire, and 24, Queen's-gate-gardens, Middlesex, M.P. Jan. 24, 1869; Uptons, Johnson, and Upton, solicitors, 20, Austin-friars, London. HERBERT (F. C.), North Grange, Sunderland, Esq. Dec. 1; Frere, Cholmeley, and Co., solicitors, 28, Lincoln's-innFields, London. LE KEUX HY., Bocking, near Braintree, Essex, gentleman. Dec. 21; J. C. G. Bennett, solicitor, 30, Friday-street, MOORE Joseph), Neverton, Stanford, Worcestershire, farmer. Jan. 8, 180; Day and Ivens, solicitors, Kidderminster. POCKLINGTON (John), Goverton, Bleasby, Notts, farmer. Jan. 2, 1860; Stenton and Townsend, solicitors, Southwell, QUAINTRELL (HY., White Hart Tavern, 116, Bethnal-green

London.

Notts.

road, Middlesex, licensed victualler. Dec. 31; G. R. Dod, solicitor, 26, New Broad-street, London. RAWLINSON (Ann), the Cedars, Hammersmith-road, Middlesex, spinster, Dec. 1: J. W. Taylor, solicitor, 1, Hardwickterrace, Buxton, Derbyshire. RAWLINSON (Mary A.), the Cedars, Hammersmith-road, Middlesex, spinster. Dec. 1: J. W. Taylor, solicitor, 1, Hardwick-terrace, Buxton, Derbyshire. SATCHWELL (John), Erdington and Birmingham, bead merchant. Dec. 19: Reece and Harris, solicitors, 101, Newstreet, Birmingham. SMITH George), Stonecutter-street, London, hosier. Dec.

12: W. A. Plunkett, solicitor, 37, Gutter-lane, London. SWALES (Sam), the younger, Tollerton, North Riding,

Yorkshire, farmer and butcher. Jan. 1, 1869; W. Walker, solicitor, 15, Lendal, York. VAUGHAN (N. V. E.), Rhenia, Glamorganshire, Esq. Dec. 15; Ellis and Ellis, solicitors, 16, Spring-gardens, London. UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS IN THE

BANK OF ENGLAND.

[Transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and which will be paid to the persons respectively, whose names are prefixed to each, in three HILL (Joseph), Limehouse-fields, joiner, and BROWN (Wm.), of Pleasant-row, Stepney-green, joiner. 50. Three per Cent. Consols. Claimants, said J. Hill and W. Brown. LECKIE Wm.), of Snaresbrook, Essex, Esq., and NAPIER Thos.), of Peckham, Surrey, Esq. 316. 138. 11d. New Three per Cents, Elizth. B. Woolley, administratrix. MAITLAND (Lauderdale), Eccles, near Thornhill, N.B., Esq., and STRINGER (E. P.), of Bayswater, Esq. 20877. 38. 8d. Three per Cent. Consols. Claimant, said L. Maitland. PROBY Rev. B. J.), LEVETT (Rev. T.), SCOTT (J. B.), banker, all of Lichfield, HARDING (W.), of Liverpool, merchant, and SIMPSON (Stephen), of Lichfield, Esq. 4207. New Three per Cents. Claimants, the official trustees of charitable funds.

months, unless other claimants sooner appear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT. The number of private Bills which will come before Parliament during the forthcoming session will exceed 300; and amongst this large number of private schemes will be found three direct lines to Brighton.

AN IDAHO DIVORCE COURT.-There is in Idaho territory a judge who is well known as "Alec Smith.' A woman brought a suit in his court for divorce, and had the discernment to select a particular friend of her own, who stood well with the jadge, as her attorney. One morning the judge called up the case, and addressing himself to the attorney for the complainant, said: “Mr. H., I don't think people ought to be compelled to live together where they don't want to, and I will decree a divorce in this case." Mr. H. bowed blandly. Thereupon the judge, turning to another attorney, whom he took to be the counsel for the defendant, said: "Mr. M., suppose you have no objection to the decree ?" Mr. M. nodded assent. But the attorney for the defendant was another Mr. M., not then in court. Presently he came in, and finding that his client had been divorced without a hearing, began to remonstrate. Alec listened a moment, then interrupted saying, "Mr. M., it is too late. The court has pronounced the decree of divorce, and the parties are no longer man and wife. But if you want to argue the case, right bad, the court can marry them over again and give you a crack at it.”

THE BENCH AND THE BAR.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR ON LAW
REFORM.

At the Guildhall banquet Lord Cairns, responding to the toast of the Lord Chancellor, said: I rise Mayor, for the toast you have proposed, and to to return my very sincere thanks to you, my Lord your Royal Highness, and to you my lords, ladies, and gentlemen, for the manner in which that toast has been received. My Lord Mayor, I know well that, notwithstanding the much too flattering observations you have made with respect to myself, that the notice which is taken on the occasion of sumptuous civic hospitalities of the office which I have the honour to hold, is not, on the one hand, a mere empty courtesy, and yet is not, on the other hand, to be appropriated as a compliment merely to the person by whom that office may happen to be filled. I prefer to regard it rather as a customary recognition in this ancient and illustrious corporation of the dignity of the law, and of the confidence which, happily, is felt by the public in the administration of the law in this country. (Hear, hear.) My Lord Mayor, I speak of others, and not of myself, when I say that I believe there never was a period when that confidence was more felt, and more deservedly felt, than at present. I am reminded that even within the last few months a new and most unusual proof of that confidence has been given. The House of Commons, on a and most justly tenacious of their privilegessubject on which they have been most uniformly I mean the trial of controverted elections-has been content to place in abeyance the exercise of their privileges, and to intrust them for a time to the judges of the Superior Courts of law. My Lord Mayor, you will, at least, agree with me that at the present crisis the best wish we can express for those upon whom the responsibility of this duty has been cast is, that they should have very little to do (a laugh); but, whether it be little or much, I feel sure it will be discharged with ability and impartiality (cheers). Now, I may mention one significant mark of the willing and earnest manner in which the judges of our courts of law have addressed themselves to the discharge of the duty thus assigned to them by Parliament. It is a duty involving considerable sacrifice of ease and comfort-the expenditure of much labour, and labour of a very unusual and somewhat disagreeable character, and we could not have been much surprised if that duty had been devolved by the judges upon the junior members of the different courts. I am glad, however, to be able to state-and to have an opportunity in the presence of some of the learned judges of saying, what perhaps they might scruple to say themselves that the rota of the election judges has been chosen, and that with a spirit of devotion to the public service worthy of all praise, the senior Justice in each of the three Superior Courts has been selected, and has consented to place at the disposal of the public his great ability and experience, in order to insure the most hopeful and successful working of that experiment. (Loud cheers.) My Lord Mayor, I know well that the City of London is deeply interested, not merely in the public administration of the law, but also that the system of law administered shall be the most perfect possible. (Cheers.) But I fear I must confess that in recent years, amid the pressure of public questions supposed to be of greater urgency, the subject of the amendment of the law has not received from the Legislature the amount of attention which it deserves. (Hear.) I regret that that has been the case when I think of the millions of property which in this city alone are at stake, of the innumerable and intricate questions which, in our complicated state of society, are constantly arising as to its ownership and protection, questions which require to be disposed of with facility and expedition; when I remember, on the other hand, what yet remains to be done in the way of simplifying our too cumbrous mode of procedure, in economising the time and money of the suitor, in making the most of the strength of the judges of the courts which we possess, in arranging and reducing the huge undigested mass of the written and unwritten law of this country, in remodelling that which is the standing disgrace of our legal system-I mean the law of bankruptcy—when I remember these things I cannot avoid expressing the hope that the time may not be far distant when they will receive from public opinion and from Parliament a greater and more earnest degree of attention than they have ever yet done. (Loud cheers.) I feel, however, that important as is the subject of the amendment of the law, it is, after all, one more suitable for discussion before than after dinner; and, therefore, with your permission, I will conclude by thanking you, my Lord Mayor, and this distinguished company again most cordially for drinking my health. (Cheers.)

The 24th general meeting of the Courts of Justice Commission was held on Friday, at 33,

Lincoln's-inn-fields, when the following members attended:-The Lord Chancellor, Lord Justice Wood, Lord John Manners, Vice-Chancellor Stuart, Vice-Chancellor Malins, Mr. Justice Manley Smith, Esq., William Morgan Benett, Montagu Smith, George Hume, Esq., Charles Esq., H. Cadogan Rothery, Esq., Augustus Edwin W. Field, Esq., hon. sec., G. E. Street, Frederic Bayford, Esq., J. Greenwood, Esq., and Esq., A.R.A. (the architect), was in attendance.

THE RETIREMENT OF SIR R. PALMER FROM for the representation of Oxford University, his OXFORD.-Sir R. Palmer is no longer a candidate committee, after a careful calculation of the promises received, having come to the conclusion that he would not be supported by a majority of the electors. The Times thinks that the friends of the University will deeply regret this issue of the attempt to redeem its reputation. It has, indeed, rejected an opportunity of honour. The preference of Mr. Mowbray to Sir Roundell Palmer shows that this University prefers to support anyone who will promise to fight for exclusive privileges rather than trust a man who takes his stand upon principles of equal justice.. It is not the first time that Oxford has shown this disposition, and not the first time it has shown it in vain, save to its own dishonour.

MAGISTRATE AND PARISH LAWYER.

THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACT. Mr. W. M. Wilkinson, solicitor, writes to a contemporary:

"This most beneficent Act has now been in operation more than two years, and yet I fear that its provisions are little known to the general public, and even that there is some influence at work which deters the police and the magistrates from clearing our streets of the objects of it.

In a late impression of your paper I see that Mr. Tyrwhitt is represented to have said of the Marquis Townshend in remanding a child charged with begging, that it was a fortunate thing that there was a person in the world who interested himself in such matters;' and yet this Act contains provisions which would in any one week place every destitute child in the kingdom apart from the influence of vice, provide it with ali the blessings of food and education, and stop at the fountain the source of our criminal population.

In fact, if Sir Richard Mayne considered it as much within his duty to look after the children as he does after the dogs of the metropolis, we should long ago have made a good progress with thousands who have now already graduated in crime.

"Some may possibly doubt the propriety of general compulsory education, but here is an Act already passed which provides, that any person may bring before two justices or a magistrate, any child apparently under the age of fourteen years, that comes within any of the following descriptions :

"1. That is found begging or receiving alms (whether actually or under the pretext of selling or offering for sale anything), or being in any street, or public place for the purpose of so beg ging or receiving alms.

"2. That is found wandering, and not having any home or settled place of abode, or proper guardianship, or visible means of subsistence.

"3. That is found destitute, either being an orphan or having a surviving parent who is undergoing penal servitude or imprisonment.

"4. That frequents the company of reputed thieves.

The child may be sent to an industrial school and kept there till the age of sixteen, or, with his consent in writing, beyond that age; and there are powers of apprenticeship, &c. Parents of ability may be compelled to contribute towards the expense.

"The Act does not leave it to parishes and ratepayers to provide the funds, but this important part of the business is given to the magistrates in quarter sessions, and whatever is required is to be raised by a county rate, assisted, if necessary, out of the imperial treasury.

Now, why has Sir Richard Mayne confined his attention to the dogs? And why have the Lord Mayor and the magistrates been so chary of converting our street Arabs into wholesome members of society? I fear that the blame rests with the justices in quarter sessions in failing to provide proper and sufficient accommodation. Feltham is full, but there is no sign of the erection of commensurate buildings elsewhere. Industrial schools should be at once set about, all over the three kingdoms. They would be much cheaper than prisons, and might be nurseries for the army and navy, and be usefully connected with an emigration system. Cure the children, and you may almost let the men alone. The Lord Mayor, not long since, remon strated with the Marquis Townshend on the

city of London having already industrial children | who cost it (I think) 70007.; but Berlin, in 1865, provided giatuitous education for 32,700 poor children, at a cost of 48,500l., and this without taking into account those in charitable institutions. There is a cry now of No Popery,' but in discharging a young ragamuffin, a few weeks ago, because there was no place to send a Protestant to, the magistrate told the boy that if he had been a Roman Catholic he could have provided for him. There is great fear that the poor lad may soon become a thief as well as a Protestant, and then the magistrate will have no difficulty in finding him accommodation.

"I shall be glad to have some light thrown on the causes which are preventing the working of this most necessary and Christian law. It may be possible also to apply a somewhat similar remedy to our adult nomad population, and by its means to raise this fallen class to labour, in reclaiming waste land and in other industrial work."

RATES.-Ratepayers in the London parishes are exclaiming against the enormous sums that are being spent on the maintenance of the poor, and with good reason. When each pauper child in a great parish like St. Pancras costs 11s. 3d. a week, a sum that keeps a whole family of agricultural labourers in Dorsetshire or Devonshire, and must represent a large moiety of the earnings of many a St. Pancras ratepayer who has to maintain a wife and children, it is not to be wondered at that resistance should be aroused. The expense of London Pauper School has varied during the past three years from 291. 18s. 5d., to 24l. 10s. 1d. per annum. The children, in fact, cost quite as much if not more than a country clergyman or a parish doctor, with the average income of 4001. a-year, could possibly afford to spend on each of a family -say of eight children. Compared with the incomes of the class of City clerks, shopmen, and even of small shopkeepers, who form a large portion of ratepayers in St. Pancras, the sum is extravagantly large; but when it is remembered that many obliged to contribute to the rates are labourers who cannot earn more than the same amount per annum, the injustice of such an outlay becomes intolerable. The most astounding figures, however, have yet to be stated. A committee of the guardians of the City of London Union have been employed in investigating the accounts of the Central London District School at Hanwell, where during the past year each child has represented an outlay of 401. 10s. 7d., and the cost for the present half-year ending at Christmas is going on at the rate of 50l. per annum, or 101. a-year more than is charged at the college at Epsom. The lowest rate of expense in the middle-class schools started by Mr. Woodward in the West of England is 13 guineas a-year; for this boys are well fed, and receive an education fitting them for all the ordinary business of life. Is it not time that we had an association for the defence of poor ratepayers ?-Medical Times and Gazette.

each child educated and maintained in the Central

tion of the parties in the action) is the occupier of a mine and works under a close of land. The defendants are the owners of a mill in his neighbourhood; and they proposed to make a reservoir for the purpose of keeping and storing water to be used about their mill upon another close of land, which, for the purposes of this case, may be taken as being adjoining to the close of the plaintiff, although in point of fact some intervening land lay between the two. Underneath the close of land of the defendants on which they proposed to construct their reservoir there were certain old and disused mining passages and works. There were five vertical shafts, and some horizontal shafts communicating with them. The vertical shafts had been filled up with soil and rubbish; and it does not appear that any person was aware of the existence either of the vertical shafts or of the horizontal works communicating with them. In the course of the working by the plaintiff of his mine, he had gradually worked through the seams of coal underneath the close and had come into contact with the old and disused works underneath the close of the defendants. In that state of things the reservoir of the defendants was constructed. It was constructed by them through the agency and inspection of an engineer and contractor. Personally the defendants appear to have taken no part in the works, nor to have been aware of any want of security connected with them. As regards the engineer and the contractor, we must take it from the case that they did not exercise, as far as they were concerned, that reasonable care and caution which they might have exercised, taking notice, as they appear to have taken notice, of the vertical shafts filled up in the manner which I have mentioned. However, my Lords, when the reservoir was constructed and filled, or partly filled, with water, the weight of the water, bearing upon the imperfectly filled-up and disused vertical shafts, broke through those shafts. The water passed down them and into the horizontal workings and from the horizonfal workings under the close of the defendants, it passed into the workings under the close of the plaintiff and flooded his mine, causing considerable damage, for which this action was brought. The Court of Exchequer, when the special case stating the facts to which I have referred was argued before them, were of opinion that the plaintiff had established no cause of action. The Court of Exchequer Chamber, before whom an appeal from their judgment was argued, were of a contrary opinion, and unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was a cause of action, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. My Lords, the principles on which this case must be determined appear to me to be extremely simple. The defendants, treating them as the owners or occupiers of the

REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND close on which the reservoir was constructed,

CONVEYANCER.

NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS.

WILL-LEASING POWERS - MINES.-B. devised lands for the use of his daughter for life, with power to lease or work mines then known or afterwards to be discovered, the profits to be laid out in the purchase of lands, which were to be settled to the same uses as those declared as to the lands devised. This power was held not to enable the tenant for life to make a valid lease for a term longer than her own life: (Vivian v. Jegon, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 218. H. of L.)

might lawfully have used that close for any purpose for which it might, in the ordinary course of the enjoyment of land, be used; and if in there had been any accumulation of water, either what I may term the natural user of that land on the surface or underground, and if by the operation of the laws of nature that accumulation of water had passed off into the close occupied by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not have complained that that result had taken place. If he had desired to guard himself against it, it would have lain on him to have done so by leaving or by interposing some barrier between his close and the close of the defendants in order to have prevented that operation of the laws of nature. As an illustration

WILL-LEGAL ESTATE.-B. devised the residue of his real estate to trustees upon trust to per- of that principle, I may refer to a case which mit his wife to have the free and uninterrupted was cited in the argument before your Lordships, use and possession of the same, and to permit the case of Smith v. Kendrick in the Court of her to receive and take the rents, &c., during her Common Pleas, reported 7 C. B. 564. On the life, she keeping the same in good and tenant- other hand, if the defendants, not stopping at able repair, and after her decease to the use of the natural use of their close, had desired to use certain persons their heirs and assigns for ever. it for any purpose which I may term a nonThe trustees were held to take the legal estate: natural use, for the purpose of introducing into (Whittemore. Whittemore, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. the close that which, in its natural condition, 236. V.C. M.) was not in or upon it-for the purpose of introTRESPASS-DAMAGE TO ADJOINING LAND.-ducing water, either above or below ground, in A person who brings or accumulates on his land quantities and in a manner not the result of anything which if it should escape would injure any work or operation on or under the land; his neighbour, does so at his peril. If such a and if in consequence of their doing so, consequence should ensue, he is responsible, or in consequence of any imperfection in however careful he may have been and the mode of their doing so, the water whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage. This is a question of so much importance that the following judgment of Lord Cairns should be noted. He said: In this case the plaintiff (I may use the descrip

came to escape and to pass off into the close of the plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril; and if in the course of their doing it the evil arose to which I have

referred-the evil namely, of the escape of the water, and its passing away to the close of the plaintiff and injuring the plaintiff-then for the consequence of that, in my opinion, the defendants should be liable. As the case of Smith v. Kendrick is an illustration of the first principle to which I have referred, so also the second principle to which I have referred is well illustrated by another case in the same court, the case of Baird v. Williamson which was also cited in the argument at the Bar, and is reported in 15 C. B., N.S., 376. My Lords, these simple principles, if they are well founded, as it appears to me they are, really dispose of this case. The same result is arrived at on the principles referred to by Blackburn, J., in his judgment in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, where he states the opinion of that court as to the law in these words: "We think that the true rule of the law is that the person who for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so is primâ facie answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default, or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or of the act of God; but, as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general rule as above stated seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without any iault of his own; and if it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has brought something on his own property (which was not naturally there), harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequence.

And upon authority, this, we think, is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches." My Lords, in that opinion, I must say, I entirely concur. Therefore I have to move your Lordships that the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber be affirmed, and that the present appeal be dismissed with costs: (Rylands v. Fletcher, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 220. H. of L.)

LANDLORD AND TENANT-COVENANT THAT

RUNS WITH THE LAND.-A covenant in a lease not to assign without the licence of the lessor, runs with the land. B. demised to C., who covenanted not to assign without B.'s licence. to D., who, without licence, assigned to E. In C., with the licence of B., assigned the lease an action against D. for breach of the covenant bound by the covenant. It was held, also that not to assign without licence, he was held to be the increase of damages was the loss, if any, resulting to the plaintiff from the substitution of the liability of the assignee for that of the defendant: (Williams v. Earle, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 238. Q. B.)

held in the case referred to just now, the making of a road and the spoiling of land for the original owner; the road not being a purpose of the railway, they might have spoilt it for ever, and, therefore, as soon as the landowner said that they had done that, he might have come, and it would not be necessary to wait for the expiration of the ten years. It appears to me for all these reasons that this is a case in which what the company have done is properly within the purposes of the Act, and the bill should be dismissed with costs :" (Earl Beauchamp v. The Great Western Railway Company, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 189. L.JJ.)

WINDING UP - DELIVERY OF PROPERTY TO LIQUIDATOR.-Sect. 100 of the Joint Stock Companies Act 1862, which empowers the court after a winding-up order to require delivery to the liquidator of money, effects, &c., to which the company is prima facie entitled, does not confer jurisdiction to make an order for such delivery except in cases of certain classes mentioned as holding such money or effects. The word "trustee" in that section does not include a

constructive trust: (Hawkins's case, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 232. L. JJ.)

CONTRIBUTORY-PRACTICE.-A resolution to wind-up the affairs of a limited liability company voluntarily must be confirmed at a subsequent meeting of the shareholders; and such resolution is only effective from such confirmation. Where, therefore, a shareholder had transferred his shares, and such transfer had been accepted by the company before the date of a resolution to wind-up voluntarily, and confirmation of such resolution at a subsequent meeting of shareholders was passed, such transfer was held conclusive, and his name ordered to be taken off the list of contributories: (Re Ottoman Company, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 237. V.C. G.)

RAILWAY-LANDS CLAUSES ACT-COMPENSATION.-An arbitrator to assess compensation under sects. 28 and 68 of the Lands Clauses Act was held to be empowered by sects. 6 and 16 of the Railway Clauses Act to award a sum for damage to the goods on the plaintiff's premises as well as for material injury to and depreciation of the land: (Knock v. The Metropolitan Railway Company, 19 L. T. Rep. N. S. 239. C. P.)

LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION. MICHAELMAS TERM 1868-FIRST DAY.

I. PRELIMINARY.

Questions 1 to 5 inclusive.

II. COMMON AND STATUTE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS.

6. A defendant who has been served with a writ of summons purporting to be issued by an attorney, desires to know the description and abode of the plaintiff. What steps should he take for this purpose?

7. Describe a " concurrent" writ of summons. Can it be issued after the original writ has expired and been renewed?

8. A bill of sale was duly filed, under the Bills of Sale Act 1854, on the 1st Jan. 1863. What further Act must have been done to render it valid against creditors on the 1st Feb. 1868 ?

9. Where a party has a claim for damages for non-performance of a duty, and also desires to compel a performance of that duty, can he do so in one action? State the nature of the proceedings in such a case.

10. A mortgagor makes a lease of the mortgaged land. Can the mortgagee, who has done nothing more than given the lessee notice of the mortgage, distrain for the rent?

11. Under what circumstances can a possession be treated as "vacant," for the purpose of service of a writ of ejectment? State the mode of service proper in such a case.

12. Under what circumstances may comparison cf handwriting be made on the trial of a civil cause?

13. In what cases can a party to an action at law obtain discovery, and inspection of documents, in the possession of the opposite party?

14. Premises, let to a tenant, have been burned down, is this either a legal or equitable defence to an action for use and occupation?

15. A bill is accepted without consideration, and for the accommodation of the drawer. What facts must be shown to entitle the acceptor to set up this defence against a subsequent indorsee? 16. When goods are sold on credit, and no time

for their delivery is agreed upon, in whom is the right of property; and in whom is the right of possession immediately after the sale?

17. In what case does the New County Court Act prohibit an action being brought for the price of ale, beer, &c. ?

18. Where a debtor pays money to his creditor, who has two distinct debts due to him, which of the two has the right to direct to which debt the payment shall be applied? In the absence of any express appropriation, how will it be applied? 19. What is the extent of the authority which the master of a ship has to bind his owners by contracts made by him during the voyage? 20. An action of debt is brought in a Superior Court, the sum indorsed on the writ not exceeding 201. Can an order be now made for a trial before the sheriff, or in any, and what, other inferior tribunal? State by which party, and at what stage of the proceedings, such an order may be applied for.

III. CONVEYANCING.

21. The purchaser of an estate devises it to his son, who sells part, and mortgages the remainder. In what respect would the covenants for title differ in the conveyance and mortgage?

22. What provision does the Succession Duty Act contain with regard to timber on an estate? 23. Is a tenant for life without impeachment of waste liable for any, and if so what, damage to the estate?

24. If A. and B. are joint tenants of an estate, and A. conveys his interest to C.; in what relative position do B. and C. stand?

25. If the proprietor of an estate has verbally agreed to sell it, and instructs his solicitor to prepare a written agreement, what are the duties of such solicitor, prior to the signing of the contract by his client?

26. The owner of an estate is desirous of creating a settlement under which the rents shall be accumulated as long as the law will allow. Within what limits must he confine the accumu

lation?

27. A merchant on his marriage proposes to settle 10.0007., and his intended wife is to settle 50007.; and it is desired that he should have the first life interest in the two funds. Can this life interest be in any way, and if so how, protected for the benefit of the wife and children against the husband's creditors, and against any assignment by him?

28. If A. (aged 30) being in possession of a life interest in a rentcharge of 2001. a-year, and entitled on the death of B. (aged 60) to a sum of 30007. in the hands of the trustees of B.'s settlement, applied to a client of yours for a loan of 1000l., what security should you require, and how should you perfect it?

29. Is it absolutely necessary, on the payment off of a mortgage secured by a term of years, that the term should be surrendered, and if not, what other course can be adopted to complete the mortgagor's title ?

30. When a mortgagor occupies the mortgaged premises himself, what special security should the mortgagee have in the deed?

31. Under the ordinary covenants to pay rent and repairs, to what extent is a tenant liable to rebuild in case of accidental fire, and to pay rent whilst the house is uninhabitable by reason of such fire?

32. Can a chose in action be legally assigned, or how can such property be transferred?

33. An intestate dies leaving a mother, brother, three sons of a deceased sister, and two granddaughters of a deceased brother. How will his personal estate be divisible?

34. Is any, and what, form of attestation to a will necessary or advantageous?

35. If a married woman is appointed executrix of a will, what joint or separate powers have the executrix and her husband over the testator's estate?

SECOND DAY.

IV. PRELIMINARY.

Questions 36 to 40 inclusive.

V. EQUITY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS.

41. Can a plaintiff proceed both at law and in equity at the same time, and for the same thing What course should a defendant take under such circumstances?

42. Will an appeal to a Superior Court stop proceedings under the decree or order from which the appeal is made?

43. What is being in contempt, and how is a party in contempt proceeded against?

44. Can real estate be administered by the Court of Chancery by summons, under any, and what, circumstances?

45. Can a bill be filed on behalf of an infant without his or her consent?

43. What are the duties of a Receiver in Chancery ?

47. Will a court of equity enforce an agreement to refer a matter?

49. In a suit for partition, can the court, under any, and, if so what, circumstances order a sale? 50. If a legacy is left to a particular person, for a particular purpose which cannot be effected, what will become of such legacy? 51. Is a legacy to be applied in building a parsonage house within the Mortmain Act? Give the reasons for your answer.

tered under the Companies Act 1862, for calls 52. A person dies indebted to a company, regisupon shares held by him. In the administration of his assets, has the company any priority over any, and which, of his other debts?

53. A company registered under the Companies Act 1862, with a nominal capital of 200,0007. in 10,000 shares of 201. each, is desirous of reducing such nominal capital to 100,000l. in 10,000 shares of 101, each. Has it any power of doing so, and, if so, by what course of procedure?

54. What is the course of procedure when a proposal of marriage is made to an infant ward of court?

55. Can a partnership for a term of years be dissolved by the Court of Chancery during such term, under any, and what, circumstances?

VI. BANKRUPTCY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS.

56. State the requisites to sustain an adjudication of bankruptcy on the petition of a creditor. 57. What are the requisites on the petition of a debtor, and in what, if any, respects do they differ from those required under a creditor's petition?

58. Is a Peer of the Realm liable to the Bankruptcy Laws, and if so, what are the Acts of Bankruptcy in respect of which he can be adjudicated?

59. Is a Member of Parliament, being a trader, liable to the Bankruptcy Laws? and, if so, how can adjudication be obtained against him?

60. Can adjudication be obtained adversely against one member of a firm? and, if so, to what, if any, extent does that affect the joint estate of the solvent partners?

61. If under an adjudication against all the members of a firm, the separate estate of either of them be more than sufficient to pay 20s. in the pound to the separate creditors, how is such surplus dealt with?

62. State when, and how, proceedings in bankruptcy may be stayed at the option of creditors. 63. When how, and by whom, may debts be proved?

64. Can proof be made in respect of debts which have not become payable at the time of bankruptcy?

65. Can sureties, and persons liable for the debts of a bankrupt prove; and, if so, when?

66. When, and how, does the bankrupt apply for his order of discharge?

67. State the objections to such order being obtained.

68. What is the operation of the order of discharge when obtained?

69. On what ground can an order of discharge be reviewed?

70. State in what important particulars the Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1868, has altered the 102nd and following sections of the Bankruptcy Act 1861, as to trust deeds for the benefit of creditors, composition and inspectorship deeds executed by a debtor.

VII. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES.

71. What consequence attaches specially at common law to felony? Define misdemeanor. 72. What constitutes the crime of murder and state the difference between express and implied malice.

73. What is the difference between a principal in the first, and a principal in the second decree? 76. What is the duty and power of justices with respect to admitting to bail? State cases in which justices are bound to admit to bail, and other cases in which it is discretionary.

75. What constitutes a riot at common law, and what is the meaning and effect of reading the Riot Act?

76. At what age can an infant be guilty of felony and what is necessary to be proved in order to bring home a charge of felony against a person between the ages of seven and fourteen?

77. What is the meaning of the rule that in all cases the best evidence only is admissible? 78. Is the evidence of an accomplice admissible, and what is the proper weight to be given to it? 79. Can an indictment for perjury be preferred in the first instance before a grand jury? What evidence is necessary to support a charge of perjury?

80. Under what circumstances can depositions be used as evidence against an accused person? What must be proved to make them admissi ble?

81. Have justices the power of adjudicating summarily in larceny; and if so, in what cases?