ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY MARRIED WOMAN-filing
certificate after more than a month from the
time of acknowledgment]-Where several years
had elapsed between the making the acknow-
ledgment and the taking the certificate thereof
to the office for enrolment, the Court allowed
the certificate to be enrolled, the delay being
accounted for and shewn to have been uninten-
tional, and the Court being satisfied as to how
the property had been dealt with, and the pur-
pose for which the certificate was now wanted
to be enrolled. In re Edge, C.P. 263

ACTION-lateral support by adjoining landowners :
damage]-In order to entitle the owner of land
to succeed in an action against a neighbour for
excavating near his boundary, it is necessary
that appreciable damage should have been
caused thereby. Smith v. Thackerah, C.P. 276

APPEAL TO SESSIONS-against order removing
lunatic pauper where union within several juris-
dictions. R. v. the Justices of Kent, Q.B. 174;
MC. 201

APPRENTICE DEED. See Attorney and Solicitor.
Covenant.

ARBITRATION-reference to master: power to ap-
point surveyor] - Upon a reference of an action
on a builder's bill to the master, he may appoint
a surveyor to report as to value, but he must
receive the report in the same way as other
evidence, and cannot refuse to hear additional
evidence tendered by the parties. Gray v. Wil-
son, C.P. 123

--time for moving to set aside award: agreement
as to time]-Where two terms have elapsed after
the publication of an award. it is too late to move
to set the award aside, notwithstanding that both
parties to the reference may have agreed to the
motion being then made. In re the North
British Rail. Co. and Trousdale, C.P. 262

action on award: order of reference embody-
ing an agreement of the parties]-By a Judge's
order, made by consent of both plaintiff and
defendant, an action of trespass and other
matters in difference were referred, and, by the
like consent, the parties were ordered to per-
form the award of the arbitrator. Afterwards an
indorsement was made on the order by both
parties agreeing that the arbitrator should have
power to order what the parties, or either of
them, should do to prevent a repetition of the
trespass complained of. The arbitrator ordered
a wall to be built by defendant:-Held, that

a

the Judge's order embodied an agreement by
the parties to do what the arbitrator should so
order, and that an action lay for its breach in
not building the wall as ordered. The case
of Hookpayton v. Bussell distinguished. Lievesley
v. Gilmore, C.P. 351

ARBITRATION (continued) - necessity for separate
findings on matters in difference - Where certain
specified matters in dispute and all matters in
difference are referred to arbitration, the arbitra-
tor is not bound to award separately what sum is
to be paid in respect of any specific matter in
dispute, unless it clearly appears from the sub-
mission that the parties intended that he should
so find. In the matter of an arbitration between
Whitworth and Hulse, Ex. 149

Issue of fact for a jury. See Compulsory

Reference.

See Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

ARTICLES OF CLERKSHIP-Sée Attorney and Soli-
citor.

ASSAULT, ACTION FOR-Previous conviction: bad
plea: insufficient proof. Hartley v. Hindmarsh,
C.P. 349; М.С. 255

ATTAINDER. See Pedigree.

ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR-articled clerk: form
of articles: indenture of apprenticeship-In the
year 1847 F, being then in his sixteenth year,
was, with the consent of his father, bound by
indenture to serve H, an attorney, for a period
of more than five years. The indenture was in
the form of an indenture of apprenticeship, but
contained the usual covenants inserted in arti-
cles of clerkship: and it was stamped with a 11.
stamp. After F. had served under it for two
years, he discovered that it was not in the proper
form, and he applied to H. to cancel it, and
enter into proper articles. Although H. was
willing that this should be done, it was not
carried out, in consequence of the inability of
the father of F, and also of F. himself, to find
the money for the stamp and penalty. F.
served H. as a clerk until 1858, when H. died,
and he afterwards continued to serve the suc-
cessor of H. until 1864. He was competent to
carry on the business of an attorney and
solicitor:-Held, that the indenture might
betreated as articles of clerkship, and upon its
production, properly stamped, it might be en-
rolled, and the service allowed to count from
the time at which F. entered upon the service
with H. Ex parte Forrest, Q.B. 131

which he and they were all interested. The
duties were discharged by a deputy, but the
clerk had gone and held courts on three days
during a year and a half of his clerkship, with
the consent of the attorneys to whom he was
articled. Under these peculiar circumstances,
the Court ordered the examiners, who had ex-
amined the clerk de bene esse, to grant him a
certificate of admission, notwithstanding 23 & 24
Vict. c. 127. s. 10. prohibits any articled clerk,
during the term of service, holding any office
or employment other than that of clerk to the
attorney to whom he is articled. Ez parte
Peppercorn, C.P. 239

AUCTION-Authority of auctioneer to take bill of
exchange. See Principal and Agent.

AWARD. See Arbitration.

BAILMENT - pledge: pawn: right to re-pledge:
pleading] - To a declaration in detinue for
debentures, the defendant pleaded that before
the alleged detention the plaintiff deposited the
debentures with S. as security for the repay.
ment at maturity of a bill of exchange indorsed
by the plaintiff and discounted by S, and upon
the agreement that S. should have power to sell
or otherwise dispose of the debentures if the bill
was not paid when it became due; that the bill
was not paid, but dishonoured; that before the
alleged detention and the commencement of this
suit S. deposited the debentures with the defen-
dant, to be by him kept as a security for and
until the repayment by S. to the defendant of
certain sums of money advanced by him to S.
upon the security of the debentures, which
sums of money have been and remain wholly
unpaid to the defendant, wherefore, &c.:-Held,
by Cockburn, C.J., Blackburn, J. and Mellor, J.
(Shee, J. dissentiente), that the plea was good.
Held, by Cockburn, C.J., that the transfer of a
pledge under such circumstances amounts only
to a breach of contract, upon which the owner
may bring an action for nominal damages if he
has sustained no substantial damage, or for sub-
stantial damages if the thing pledged is damaged
in the hands of the second pawnee, or if the
owner has been prejudiced by delay in not
having the thing delivered to him on tendering
the amount for which it was pledged. Held, by
Blackburn, J., that a replication that the plain-
tiff had paid, or was ready and willing to pay,
the bill, would have been good. Donald v.
Suckling, Q.B. 232

BANKRUPTCY-petition in forma pauperis: adjudi
cation, relation of: goods in possession, order or
disposition of bankrupt at time of arrest]-Sec-
tion 103. of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, which enacts
that "every adjudication against any prisoner
for debt so brought up as aforesaid shall, unless
the Court shall otherwise direct, have relation
back to the date of his commitment or detention,
as the case may be, shall be as valid and effec-
tual for all purposes as if it had been made
under any other of the provisions of this act,'
has reference to petitioners petitioning in forma

pauperis, and brought up and adjudicated bankrupts under sections 98. and 99. Eglinton v. Bramwell (Ex. Ch.), Q.B. 163

A debtor having been arrested under a ca. sa., and lodged in prison, petitioned in forma pauperis, under section 98, and was adjudicated a bankrupt under section 99. Goods which were in the apparent order and disposition of the bankrupt at the time of his arrest, by the consent of the true owner, were seized by the true owner after the first day of the imprisonment, and before the bankrupt filed his petition. At the time of the seizure the true owner had notice of the arrest and imprisonment. The bankrupt's assignee brought an action against the true owner for the conversion of the goods, and an order was made for the sale of them, under section 125. of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106:Held, affirming the judgment of the Court below, that section 103. of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 6 applied to the case of this debtor, who was "brought up" within the meaning of that section; and operated so that the goods passed to the bankrupt's assignee, since the effect of the section was to render the adjudication as complete as if it had been made on the first day of the imprisonment. Held, also, that sections 98. -103. formed a distinct chapter in the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, and were to be read with reference to 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. s. 57. (repealed), and that to sections 98.-103. section 133. of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, had no application; so that whether the seizure of the goods by the true owner was or was not a bona fide transaction without notice of a prior act of bankruptcy, within section 133. of the act of 1849, that section did not apply to the present case. Ibid.

Quære-Whether a prisoner, against whom an adjudication is made by the Registrar, under section 101. of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, is a "prisoner for debt so brought up as aforesaid," within the meaning of section 103. Ibid.

covenant to pay premiums not a liability to pay money within the statute]-A. borrowed money of B, and executed a deed of assignment, by way of mortgage, to B, of a policy of assurance on his own life, with a covenant to keep up the annual payments for premiums:-Held, affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that this was not a liability to pay money upon a contingency provable under the 178th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1849. Mitcalfe v. Hanson (House of Lords), Q.B. 225

protection from arrest] - An order for protection, granted under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106. s. 112, does not protect a bankrupt from arrest at the suit of a subsequent creditor, even though he has not passed his final examination. Phillips v. Poland, C.P. 128

arrest after protection: penalty-An adjudicated bankrupt, who had obtained protection, was arrested by a sheriff's officer by virtue of a warrant issued under an attachment out of Chancery for non-payment of money; he shewed

his protection and claimed his discharge, but the officer detained him longer than would have been necessary to obtain a copy of the protection, and on the same day lodged him in gaol; the bankrupt brought an action against the officer for penalties under the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, s. 113:- Held, that the officer was liable for one penalty. Lecs v. Newton, C.P, 285

creditors' assignce, appointment of: evidence: certificate under the seal of the Court]-In order to prove his title as creditors' assignee, plaintiff put in evidence a certificate, dated before action, certifying his proper appointment before action, signed by the Registrar for the Commissioner, and sealed with the seal of the Bankruptcy Court:-Held, that the certificate so sealed was conclusive, and that defendant could not go into evidence to shew that there was no signature by the Commissioner or his deputy till after action brought. Kelly v. Morray, C.P. 287

vesting of cause of action in assignee: special damage resulting from false representation -To a declaration charging that the defendant, by a false and fraudulent representation respecting the solvency of a third person, induced the plaintiff to advance to that person the sum of 2,000l., and that by reason of the said false and fraudulent representation the plaintiff sustained great loss, and became and was adjudicated a bankrupt, and suffered personal annoyance, and was put to great trouble and inconvenience, and was greatly injured in character and credit," the defendant pleaded, except as to the claim in respect of the plaintiff's becoming and being adjudicated a bankrupt, and the personal annoyance, trouble, inconvenience and injury to character and credit, that the loss alleged in the declaration was a pecuniary loss, and that the cause of action in respect thereof vested in his official assignee :-Held, on demurrer, that this was a good plea to the whole declaration, the exception in the plea being idle, and the only damage recoverable under the declaration being for pecuniary loss. Hodgson v. Sidney, Ex. 182

Quære-Whether in the case of injury to a bankrupt's estate, with special damage to himself, resulting from the act of a wrongdoer, the cause of action can be split between the bankrupt and his assignee, so as to enable the former to sue for the personal damage and the latter for the damage to the estate. Ibid.

- Composition and Trust Deeds. See Debtor and Creditor.

BARON AND FEME-disposition of interest in personalty without concurrence of husband: husband and wife living apart]-After an order had been made, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 57, giving a married woman leave to dispose of her reversionary interest in certain personal property, without the concurrence of her husband, on an affidavit, by the wife, that she was living apart from het husband by mutual consent; and after such

-

ably required under the circumstances, and it
is reasonable to hold that notice of dishonour,
valid according to the law of the place where
the bill is payable, is reasonable notice for the
different countries of the different parties to a
bill, unless the particular circumstances of the
case are exceptional; secondly, that the alter-
ations rendered the bill void in the hands of the
plaintiff. Hirschfield v. Smith, C.P. 177

fictitious payee: forgery: acceptance for ho-
nour: estoppel] - A person calling himself P.
presented to S. in England a Spanish bill of
exchange, professing to be drawn by C, of Lima,
on S, payable to order of R, and indorsed by
R. & P. S, having stopped payment, sent to
the plaintiffs the bill and a letter telling them
that no doubt the defendant would intervene
for the honour of C, and that with his signature
they would perhaps not object to discount the
bill; the plaintiffs sent the bill and letter to the
defendant, who accepted for honour of C, and
on the faith thereof the plaintiffs discounted the
bill. The bill turned out to be a forgery on C,
who had not drawn the bill, and did not know
any such persons as R. & P:-Held, that as the
bill was discounted by the plaintiffs on the faith
of the defendant's acceptance, they were enti-
tled to recover against him. And if it had been
necessary to decide the point, the Court were
inclined to hold that the bill must be considered
to have been accepted as a bill payable to
bearer. Phillips v. Im Thurn, C.P. 220

--

Power to accept. See Railway and Railway
Company.

BILL OF LADING-transfer of right of action by
indorsement: Bills of Lading Act, 18 &19 Vict.
c. 111. 8. 1.]-Plaintiff having shipped goods on
board defendants' vessel in the port of London,
upon the terms of a bill of lading given by de-
fendants by which the goods were made deliver-
able at Bombay to plaintiff or his assigns,
indorsed the bill of lading to A. B. before the
arrival of the ship at Bombay, as a pledge for
moneys advanced to plaintiff. Such moneys
having been afterwards repaid, A. B. re-indorsed
the bill of lading to plaintiff, but not until after
the goods had arrived at Bombay and had been
delivered there to a wrong person :-Held, that
plaintiff was entitled to sue for such wrong de-
livery, although the same took place whilst A. B.
was the holder of the bill of lading, as by such
re-indorsement plaintiff was remitted to his
rights under the original contract with defen-
dants. Short v. Simpson, CС.Р. 147

Semble that by the Bills of Lading Act
(18 & 19 Vict. c. 111. s. 1.) plaintiff, as such in-
dorsee, even if he had not been a party to the
original contract, would have been entitled to
sue for its breach. Ibid.

Araxes, by which care the collision would have been avoided:-Held, that the contravention of the rules of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, by those in charge of the Black Prince, in starboarding instead of porting the helm, did not amount to barratry within the exception in the bill of lading. Held, also, that the direction of the Judge was right, and that, being bound by the case of Lloyd v. the General Iron Screw Collier Company, he did right in not directing the jury that the loss of the Black Prince was caused by perils of the sea, within the exception in the bill of lading. Grill v. the General Iron Screw Collier Co. (Lim.), C.P. 321

BILL OF SALE-trading company giving bill: description of occupation of company: attesting witness to seal: directors]-A trading company may give a bill of sale of its effects as a security for a debt due from the company, in respect of goods supplied for the purpose of its trade. Shears v. Jacobs, C.P. 241

The company who gave the bill of sale was called "The Glucose Sugar and Colouring Company":-Held, that its name was a sufficient description of its trade or occupation to satisfy the requisites of the Bills of Sales Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36. s. 1), as to stating the occupation of the person giving the bill of sale. Ibid.

A bill of sale given by a company had the seal of the company affixed to it, and opposite such seal were the signatures of two directors, with the word "directors" after such signatures, and also the signature of the secretary, with the word "secretary" after it. It was proved to be the practice of the company to affix the seal in the presence of the board and for two directors to attest the sealing, and also for the secretary to attest, and that the articles of association of the company authorized the directors to make regulations for the use of the company's seal:-Held, that the two directors did not sign as attesting witnesses, and that, therefore, their residence and occupation were not required to be stated in the affidavit of verification. Ibid.

- affidavit of description of residence] - The Bills of Sales Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36), requires that with every bill of sale shall be filed an affidavit of the time of such bill of sale being made or given, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving it:-Held, that an affidavit which swears positively as to the time of the making of the bill, but qualifies the description of the residence and occupation of the person making it by stating them to the best of the belief to the deponent, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the act. Roe-v. Bradshaw, Ex. 71

BOUNDARIES-construction of written documents : deed with map indorsed: parcel or no parcel: parol evidence: falsa demonstratio : latent ambiguity]-A grant of a mine was made to L. by deed, with map indorsed; the southern boundary being described in the deed as "a straight line drawn from J. V.'s house" to a certain boundstone; and the description of parcels concluded