JUS TERTII.

See BANKRUPT, 7.

LACHES.

See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 3.

[Lease.

520

2. The plaintiff, who had leased premises to B. for a term of years, which was unexpired at B.'s death, afterwards, in the belief that no one would administer to B.'s estate, agreed with B.'s son for him to occupy the premises as a yearly tenant, at the rent reserved by the lease to B. The son accordingly ocenpied and paid rent. The plaintiff repaired the premises shortly before Michaelmas, 1861, and having afterwards discovered that the defendant, a daughter of B., was the administratrix to his estate, and, as such, claimed to hold the premises for the remainder of the term under B.'s lease, the plaintiff sued her on the covenant in the lease to repair, and also brought ejectment for forfeiture for non-repair. In the action on the covenant the defendant paid a sum of money into Court, which the plaintiff accepted in satisfaction. There was no want of repair to the premises after the plaintiff had so repaired them, and the rent due up to Michaelmas, 1861, was paid by B.'s son, and received from him by the plaintiff before either action:-Held, in the action of ejectment, that either the rent paid by B.'s son was to be taken in satisfaction of the rent under the lease, and so there had been a waiver of the forfeiture, or else there had been an eviction of the defendant by the plaintiff which would prevent his taking advantage of a forfeiture for non-repair during such eviction.

Held also, per Erle, C. J., and Byles, J., that the statement in the plaintiff's declaraton in the action on the covenant, that the breach for non-repair occurred during the existence of the term, was a further ground against the plaintiff recovering in ejectment. Pellatt v. Boosey,

LETTERS. Property in.

885]

The receiver of a letter has a sufficient pro

Construction of Specification and Disclaimer. An invention of "improvements in embossing and finishing woven fabrics and in the machinery or apparatus employed therein," as described in the specification, consisted in the use of rollers having "any design grooved, fluted, engraved, milled, or otherwise indented upon them." A disclaimer was afterwards entered, from the statements wherein it appeared that the effect desired could only be produced by the use of a certain species of roller not particularly described in the specification viz. a roller having circular grooves round its surface. All other rollers were expressly disclaimed:Held, by the Exchequer Chamber,-affirming the judgment of the Court below,-that such a disclaimer was in effect an attempt to turn a specification for an impracticable generality into a grant for a specific process which was comprised within the generality in one sense, but could not be discovered to be there without going through the same course of experiment which led to the discovery of the specific process in the disclaimer: and, consequently, that the disclaimer was void, as an attempt to extend the patent. Ralston v. Smith,

LIGHTS.

See ANCIENT LIGHTS.

471

LLANDAFF AND CANTON DISTRICT
MARKETS ACT, 1858.
See MARKET.

MAIDENHEAD WATCH RATE. See WATCH RATE.

MARKET.

to a wharf on the old canal within the limits

was not a "shop" within the exemption. Wiltshire, app., Baker, resp.,

237

MEMORANDA.

Resignation of Hill, J. 120.
Appointment of Mellor, J. 120.
Death of Lord Campbell, 476.

Appointment of Sir Richard Bethell to be
Chancellor, 476.

Sir William Atherton appointed Attorney General, 476.

of the party himself. Wiltshire, app., Willett,

4. The 13th section of the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 14), enacts that "after the market place is open for public use, every person other than a licensed hawker who shall sell or expose for sale in any place within the prescribed limits except in his own dwelling-place or shop, any articles in respect of which tolls are by the special Act authorized to be taken in the market," shall forfeit 40s.

The 38th section of the Wolverhampton Improvement Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. xxviii.), enacts that "the local board and their lessees may from time to time demand and take from any person occupying or using any shop, stall, stand, bench, or ground space in any market-place for the time being under the management of the local board, and used as a general market, such tolls as the local board or their lessee's from time to time to appoint, not exceeding the several tolls specified in the schedule A. to the Act annexed:" and the schedule in terms imposed the "toll" on the occupier of "every shop, stall, or ground space" in the market, and not upon the commodities sold or exposed for sale there:

Held, that a person who sold fruit and fish (which are marketable articles) from door to door within the prescribed limits, did not thereby become liable to the penalty imposed by the 13th section of the general Act: Caswell, app., Cook, resp., 637

5. And that the "prescribed limits" meant the limits to which the local Act applied, viz. the boundaries of the borough.

MASTER AND SERVANT. Wrongful Dismissal,-See EVIDENCE, 2. And see COSTS, 8.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES. See DAMAGES, 1.

Id.

Roundell Palmer, Esq., appointed Solicitor General, 476.

MERGER.

Of Term of Years in the Fee.

1832, a farm was conveyed to A. for life (subject to a term of 1000 years), with power to lease for three lives, with a remainder over which ultimately became vested in B. and C. The term of 1000 years was created for the securing a sum of 30007., and was at the time of such settlement vested in two trustees, one of whom was A., the tenant for life. In exercise of the leasing power, A. granted a lease of the farm for three lives, under which lease the plaintiff (below) became tenant, subject to the rent thereby reserved, and which rent was paid by the plaintiff (below) to B. and C. (or to R. & D., their attorneys) upon their coming into possession of the property.

Subsequently, R. & D., as the attorneys for B. and C., wrote to the plaintiff (below) stating that the legal estate under the term for 1000 years was in J. S., and directing him to pay the rent to J. S.; and, in consequence of that communication, the plaintiff (below) allowed J. S. to recover judgment against him in an action for rent under the lease. B. and C. afterwards distrained for rent as due to them; whereupon the plaintiff (below) brought replevin, and a case was stated by the County Court Judge for the opinion of this Court :

Held, that, as the term of 1000 years had (as to one moiety) merged in A. and B., and C. had therefore a right to distrain for a moiety of the rent, the effect of the representation by R. & D. would not estop B. and C. from recovering rent which the plaintiff (below) had not paid in consequence of such representation, or had not made himself liable to pay under the judgment obtained against him by J. S. White, app., Greenish, resp., 209 2. Whether the representation by R. & D. was binding on B. and C. as an estoppel, they being married women and consequently incapable of appointing attorneys,-quære? Id.

METROPOLIS GAS ACT, 1860. Construction of 8. 56: Expenses of Soliciting the Act.

1. The 56th section of the Metropolis Gas Act,

1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 125), enacts that "the costs, charges, and expenses of an incident to the passing of this Act, and preliminary thereto, shall be paid by the Metropolitan Board of Works" out of certain funds :

Held, that the persons to whom such payment is to be made by the board, are, the promoters of the Act, and not the solicitor or parliamentary agent retained and employed by them for hire and reward to do the neces

him (and there being nothing in its appearance to indicate) its dangerous nature. Whilst being carried by the plaintiff to the cart, the carboy from some unexplained cause burst, and its contents flowed over and severely injured the plaintiff :- Held, that the defendant was liable for the injury thus resulting from his breach of duty. Farrant v. Barnes, 553

of Works,

Regulation as to Price and Quality.

744

2. The price to be charged for gas supplied to the Metropolis (as well as the quality) is regulated by the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 125. The Great Central Gas Consumers Company v. Clarke, 814

3. Where, therefore, a gas company under their private Act were limited to a charge of 48. per 1000 cubic feet for gas of such a quality as to produce from an argand burner of a given size a light equal in intensity to the light of twelve wax candles of six to the pound-Held, that, on the coming into operation of the public Act, under which they were compelled to supply gas of a considerably better quality, the company were justified in increasing the charge to any sum within the maximum authorized to be charged by that Act.

Id.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT.

See NEGLIGENCE, 6, 7.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. See METROPOLIS GAS ACT, 1860, 1.

MINERALS.

See ENCLOSURE.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.

See WATCH-RATE.

NEGLIGENCE.

In Conveyance of dangerous Articles. 1. One who employs a carrier to carry an article of such a dangerous nature as to require extraordinary care in its conveyance, must communicate the fact to the carrier, or he will be responsible for any injury which may result to the carrier or his servants from his omission to do so. Farrant v. Barnes, 553 2. The defendant being desirous of sending a carboy of nitric acid to Croydon, his foreman gave it to one R., the servant of a railway carrier, who (as the railway company would only carry articles of that dangerous character on one day in each week) handed it to the plaintiff, the servant of a Croydon carrier, without communicating to

fare.

In Performance of Public Works. 6. Persons intrusted with the performance of a public duty, discharging it gratuitously, and being personally guilty of no negligence or default, are not responsible for an injury sustained by an individual through the negligence of workmen employed under them. Holliday v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch, 192 7. The vestry of L., in whom were by the Metropolis Local Management Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120) vested the powers and duties of surveyors of highways, under the powers conferred upon them by that Act appointed a surveyor at a salary. Workmen employed by the surveyor, and paid out of the parish funds, being directed to carry certain pavingstones from a public street under repair, and place them in another public street, so negli

1. It is no ground for a new trial, that, the plaintiff having been asked while under cross-examination whether he was the author of a certain pamphlet which contained expressions of opinion on religious subjects altogether at variance with those generally received amongst Christians, and having declined to answer on the ground that his answer in the affirmative might subject him to a criminal prosecution, the counsel for the defendant was permitted for a considerable time (obviously with a view to prejudice the plaintiff with the jury), to read various passages of a similar tendency from other printed documents, each time repeating the inquiry whether the plaintiff was the author or whether the passage read expressed his notions on the subject,—the jury being entitled to have before them all the facts and circumstances from which they might be enabled to judge of the degree of credit due to the party as a witness. Bradlaugh v. Edwards, 377

2. Nor is it a ground for a new trial, in an action for an assault and false imprisonment, that the plaintiff had incurred an expense of 71. 148. in procuring his discharge from custody, and the jury have awarded him a farthing only.

NITRIC ACID.

See NEGLIGENCE, 1, 2.

NOTICE.

Id.

Of Act of Bankruptcy,-See BANKRUPT, 3.

OBLITERATIONS.

See WILL, 4.

OBSTRUCTION.

Of Lights,-See ANCIENT LIGHTS.

OFFICE.

Contract for Sale of.

To a declaration for the price of certain volunteers' uniforms, the defendant pleaded

that the contract was corruptly entered into (in violation of the 49 G. 3, c. 126), with intent that the defendant might have a certain military commission:-Held, that the plea disclosed no illegality within the statute. Eicke v. Jones, 631

OYSTER-FISHERY.

See CROWN GRANT.

PARTNERSHIP.

Deed of Partnership.

By deed, dated the 2d March, 1861, between G. P. L., A. B. M., C. P. V., J. C., and R. J. R. (the plaintiffs in this action), of the first part; S. G., H. E. G., D. W. C., A. G. C., and R. B. (the defendants), of the second part; and one A. J. of the third part, it was recited that the plaintiffs G. P. L. and J. C. had for some time past carried on business in partnership as commission merchants at Fen Court, Fenchurch Street, in the city of London, under the style or firm of M. & Co., and at Glasgow, under the style or firm of C. P. V., and at Gibraltar, under the style or firm of J. C. & Co.; and that the said plaintiff G. P. L. had also for some time past carried on business as a commission merchant at Bucklersbury, in the City of London, and also at Manchester, under the style or firm of G. L. & Co.; and that the said plaintiffs G. P. L. and R. J. R. had for some time past carried on business in partnership at Liverpool, under the style or firm of G. L. & Co.; and that the said G. P. L. had also carried on business in partnership with one S. X. and one A. X., in Fenchurch Street aforesaid, under the style or firm of "The Greek and Oriental Steam Navigation Company." The plaintiffs, having determined to dissolve the said several partnerships, and to wind up and close the business of all the said firms, and in order to provide the necessary means, applied to the defendants for advances for this purpose, and furnished the defendants with a statement of account that the whole of the said debts and liabilities did not exceed the sum of 123,5801.; and the credits and assets of the said several firms were estimated to exceed 87,000.; that the defendants consented to give such assistance and to make the necessary advances, upon having the same secured by an assignment to a trustee of all the assets, &c., of the several firms aforesaid, and all other property of the plaintiffs, or any of them, save and except as thereinafter mentioned; and that the defendants had named the said A. J. to be such trustee, and that the defendants had made certain advances for the purposes aforesaid. Averment, that by the said deed they (the plaintiffs), and every one of them, according to their respective interests, assigned to the said A. J., &c., his

executors, &c., all the stock in trade, goods, merchandise, money, book or other debts, bills of lading, and securities of whatever nature, and all other property, real and personal, not only at London, but in all other places wheresoever, and of whatever nature the same might be, of the plaintiffs, or of any one or more of them, in which they, or any one or more of them, might be interested, save and except the leasehold, furniture, plate, &c., and all other the property and effects of the plaintiffs in and upon their respective dwelling-houses or places of residence, and save and except all other the separate estate and effects of the said plaintiffs A. B. M., C. P. V., J. C., and R. J. R., belonging to each of them respectively; and also save and except all right, title, and interest in the premises situated in Bothwell Street, Glasgow, wherein the business of the said firm of C. P. V. had been recently carried on, to have and hold the same, except as above excepted, to the use of the said A. J., his executors, &c., absolutely, but in trust, nevertheless, to sell, or otherwise collect and realize and convert into money, all the premises thereby assigned, and from and out of the proceeds thereof, and also out of a sum of 10001. hereinafter mentioned, and all such money as should be received as part of the assets of any of the said firms, &c., to pay the expenses of preparing the said deed, and all other deeds or instruments, &c., and all expenses incurred in and about the execution of the said trust, it being intended that the assignment thereby made, and the keeping of the covenants therein contained by the several plaintiffs, should exonerate them from all claims in respect of the said firm, as well amongst each other as by the defendants. And it was also in and by the said deed further provided, that at the expiration of one year from the date of the said presents, unless all claims of the defendants should first have been satisfied out of the assets of the said firms, or other money received under the said trust, and all liabilities of the said firms should have been discharged, then, in case any part of the assets should not have been completely realized, it should forthwith be valued by a firm of accountants, who should state

2.

the amount of deficiency or surplus, as the case might be, &c., and the surplus over and above the claims should be held in trust by the said A. J. for the defendants, and at their disposal. Then a power was given to the defendants to extend the time for such valuation. Then the deed declared that a sum of 1000, therein agreed to be paid by the said plaintiff C. P. V. to the said A. J., should, when so paid, be held subject to the trust therein contained. The defendants, by the said deed, covenanted, jointly and sever-1. ally, that they would make advances, &c., as

aforesaid, so as to enable the said trustee to wind up the business of the said several firms; but such advances were not, together with the advances then already made, to exceed the sum of 123,5007., unless the defendants should think proper. In an action by the plaintiffs against the defendants for a breach of covenant in not making advances, &c., to which they pleaded, that after the execution by the others, J. C. had refused, and still refused, to execute the deed-Held, a good answer to the action, for that the deed was inoperative unless executed by each of the parties to it. Lascaridi v. Gurney, 890]

PATENT.

See LETTERS PATENT.

PAWN.

Right of Pawnee to sell the Pledge. The plaintiff, being indebted to one B. in the sum of 407., entered into a written agreement with him, whereby he agreed that B. should have his horse, van, cart, and two sets of harness, "for what he owed him;" and by the memorandum it was further agreed that B. should keep the articles mentioned until the plaintiff paid him the 407.: and the memorandum concluded thus,— "The said B. has received into his possession the said horse, van, cart, and two sets of harness this 24th December, 1860." B. received into his actual possession the horse and van and one set of harness, but, having no place to put them in, he left the cart and the other set of harness with the plaintiff, with an understanding that he was to take them whenever he pleased. B. having become insolvent, the plaintiff got back the horse, van, and set of harness: but B.'s assignee seized the whole of the things mentioned in the memorandum, and caused them to be sold by the defendant, an auctioneer :Held, that being the only question raised at the trial,-that there had been a sufficient delivery of the goods to B. to vest the property in him, subject to the right of the pawnor to redeem; and that, consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Martin v. Reid, 730

Quare, as to the right of a pawnee to sell the pledge, where no day has been fixed for the payment of the sum for which the chattel is impignorated? Id.

PHOTOGRAPHS. See PRACTICE, 1.

PLEADING.

What put in Issue under “ Not Guilty.” Quare, as to what is put in issue under "not guilty" in an action against the sheriff for