Bankruptcy, London, div.-Benj. Lawrence, Crown-court, Old Broad-street, London, merchant, Aug. 11 at 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-John Wright, Tamworth, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, banker, Aug. 8 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham, aud. ac. and div.-Wm. Neilson, Liverpool, Aug. 7 at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool, div. CERTIFICATES. To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on the Joseph Miller, Whittlebury-street, Hampstead-road, Middlesex, painter, Aug. 10 at half-past 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Edward Clark, Mortimer-road, Kingsland, Middlesex, builder, Aug. 10 at half-past 1, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jos. Richard Holmes, Poplar, Middlesex, brewer, Aug. 10 at 2, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-J. White, St. Benet's-place, Gracechurch-street, London, wine merchant, Aug. 7 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London.-Jos. Taylor, Liverpool, merchant, Aug. 11 at half-past 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Liverpool. James Barber, Coleman-street, and Fore-street, Cripplegate, London, cloth worker: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Jean Pierre Parent, Air-street, Piccadilly, Middlesex, tailor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John E. Stewart, City-road, Middlesex, landscape painter: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Charles Knapp, Edgeware-road, Middlesex, furni To be allowed by the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, unless-Samuel Markham, Edmonton, Middlesex, out of business: Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before Aug. 7. Wm. Cross, Weymouth, and Melcombe Regis, Dorsetshire, coal merchant.-John Bacon, York, carpenter.-Sam. Shann, Leeds, cloth finisher.-Pryce Mottram, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, draper.-Thos. Harrison, Birmingham, victualler.-J. Blundell, Wigan, Lancashire, pawnbroker.-Cuthbert Parker, Liverpool, linendraper.-Thos. Sutton the younger, Atherstone, Warwickshire, draper.-Wm. Rich. Parsons, Limehouse-causeway, Middlesex, baker.-J. Howarth, Rochdale, Lancashire, woollen manufacturer.-Ed. Jos. Staples, Bristol, surgeon. FIATS ANNULLED. Ed. Weeks, King's-road, Chelsea, Middlesex, hot-house builder.-David Johnstone, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester, joiner. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. Wm. Pugh, Edinburgh and Glasgow, chemist.-W. Wilson, St. Evox, Ayrshire, cattle dealer.-Thos. Condie, Clackmantan, grocer. James Reid, Edinburgh, boot maker. INSOLVENT DEBTORS Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy, and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from Process. ture dealer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex. in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex..-Christopher Rawlings, Suffolk-street, Rotherfield-street, Lower-road, Islington, Middlesex, builder: in the Queen's Prison.--John Jackson, Canning-place, Kensington, Middlesex, clerk in the Admiralty, Whitehall: in the Queen's Prison.-W. Thirkell, Well-street, Hackney, Middlesex, farmer: in the Queen's Prison.-John Shaw, Tabernacle-square, Shoreditch, Middlesex, coachmaker: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-G. A. H. Manning, Brompton, Middlesex, articled clerk to an attorney: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John Hollingworth, Kingston-upon-Hull, ship owner: in the Gaol of Kingston-upon-Hull.-George Harris, Cromer, Norfolk, plumber: in the Gaol of Norwich.-Benj. Pearce, Gulval, near Penzance, Cornwall, farmer: in the Gaol of Bodmin.-Wm. Jose, Leury, Cornwall, farmer: in the Gaol of Bodmin. Joseph Brook, Hade-edge, near Holmfirth, Yorkshire, clothier: in York Castle.-Wm. Dyson, Chapel Allerton, near Leeds, Yorkshire, out of business: in York Castle.-Henry Tennatt, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, butcher: in the Gaol of Shrewsbury. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before Court-house, LEWES, Sussex, July 24, at 10. Frederick Tharratt, Alfred-mews, Tottenham-court-road, Court-house, WINCHESTER, Aug. 3, at 10. Court-house, SOUTHAMPTON, July 31, at 10. Court-house, SHREWSBURY, Shropshire, July 31, at 10. Court-house, HERTFORD, July 31, at 10. farmer. A HILL ON TRUSTEES. This day is published, in royal 8vo., price 17. 6s. boards, PRACTICAL TREATISE on the LAW relating to TRUSTEES, their Powers, Duties, Privileges, and Liabilities. By JAMES HILL, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law, and Fellow of New College, Oxford. V. and R. Stevens & G. S. Norton, Law Booksellers and Publishers, (Successors to the late J. & W. T. Clarke, of Portugal-street), 26 and 39 Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn. Of whom may be had, SMITH'S MANUAL OF EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE. A MANUAL of EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, as administered in England, founded on the Commentaries of Joseph Story, LL.D.. and comprising, in a small compass, a numerous collection of POINTS constantly occurring in CHANCERY and CONVEYANCING, and in the general practice of a Solicitor. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. SPENCE ON THE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION OF THE This day is published, in royal 8vo., vol. 1, price 11. 11s. 6d. boards, DAVIDSON'S COMMON FORMS AND RECITALS. COMMON FORMS in CONVEYANCING, including RECITALS, with Notes. By C. DAVIDSON, of the Middle Tem "A manual especially adapted to the exigences of a solicitor's prac-ple, Esq., Barrister at Law. tice."-Jurist, No. 465. VEAL'S RECORD AND WRIT PRACTICE.-New Edition. In 12mo., price 5s. bds., under the Orders of 8th May, 1845, THE RECORD and WRIT PRACTICE of the COURT of CHAN A. Maxwell & Son, Law Publishers, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn. CERY. BY JOHN VEAL, Esq., Clerk of Records and Writs. Second A TREATISE on COPYHOLD, CUSTOMARY FREE. Edition, adapted to the New Orders, and considerably enlarged. STARKIE'S LAW OF EVIDENCE.-THIRD EDITION. In 3 Vols. royal Svo., price 41. 14s. 6d. boards, A PRACTICAL TREATISE of the LAW of EVIDENCE, and DI- SELWYN'S NISI PRIUS.-ELEVENTH EDITION. An ABRIDGMENT of the LAW of NISI PRIUS. Eleventh Edition, enlarged and much improved, with the Statutes and Cases brought down to Hilary Term, 1845. By WILLIAM SELWYN, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, one of her Majesty's Counsel, late Recorder of Ports mouth.. LITTLETON'S TENURES. In a small Pocket Volume, price 68., LITTLETON'S TENURES IN ENGLISH. A new Edition, corrected, handsomely printed in a very small pocket volume. Just published, in 1 vol. 8vo., cloth boards, price 148., LIVES of EMINENT ENGLISH JUDGES of the Se venteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Edited by W. N. WELSBY, Esq., M.A., Recorder of Chester. Containing the Lives of Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Keeper Whitelocke, Lord Nottingham, Sir John Holt, Lord HOLD, and ANCIENT DEMESNE TENURE; with the Jurisdiction of Courts Baron and Courts Leet: also an Appendix, containing Rules for holding Customary Courts, Courts Baron and Courts Leet, Forms of Court Rolls, Deputations, and Copyhold Assurances, and Extracts from the relative Acts of Parliament. By JOHN SCRIVEN, Serjeant at Law. The Fourth Edition, embracing all the authorities to the present period, by HENRY STALMAN, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Henry Butterworth, Law Bookseller and Fublisher, 7, Fleet-street, THE EDINBURGH REVIEW, No. CLXIX., is this day published. CONTENTS: London: Longman & Co. Edinbugh: A. and C. Black. This day is published, in One thick Vol. 8vo., price 11.16s. boards, Cowper, Lord Harcourt, Lord Macclesfield, Lord King, Lord Talbot, DICKINSON'S GUIDE to the QUARTER SESSIONS. Lord Hardwicke, Sir William Blackstone, Lord Bathurst, Lord Mans field, Lord Camden, Lord Thurlow, Lord Ashburton. S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane. Of whom may be had, SWEET'S CONCISE PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANCING. Price 11. boards, A COMPLETE COLLECTION of CONCISE PRECEDENTS in A Practical Guide to the Quarter Sessions, and other Sessions of the Peace; with Forms of Indictment, &c. Adapted to the Use of Ma gistrates and Professional Gentlemen. By SERJEANT TALFOURD. The Sixth Edition, revised and corrected, with great Additions, by R. P. TYRWHITT, Esq., Barrister at Law. S. Sweet; V. and R. Stevens & G. S. Norton; A. Maxwell & Son; H. Butterworth; and O. Richards. CONVEYANCING, including all the usual Forms of Agreements, Ap-DEEDS for EXECUTION ABROAD.-Messrs. J. & R. pointments, Exchanges, Leases, Mortgages, Transfers, and Re-convey- SUPPLEMENT TO SWEET'S CONCISE PRECEDENTS. M'CRACKEN, Foreign Agents, 7, Old Jewry, beg to inform the Legal Profession that they undertake to forward Deeds for Execution by Parties Abroad, through their Correspondents on the Continent, for the Costs of Transmission and a simple Commission. List of Correspondents, and for further information, apply as above. Messrs. J. & R. M'CRACKEN are also Agents to the ROYAL ACADEMY, and devote their attention to the Receipt of Works of Art, Baggage, &c. sent home by Travellers on the Continent for passing through the Custom-house. They also undertake to ship Goods to all Parts of the World. The STATUTES of the SESSION, 8 & 9 VICTORIA, relating to METCALFE'S NEW PATTERN TOOTH-BRUSH, and CONVEYANCING, with a Commentary and Forms. By GEORGE A TREATISE on the LAW of EQUITABLE MORTGAGES, containing a Statement of the Law respecting the Liens of Vendors and Purchasers, of the Rights and Remedies of Equitable Mortgagees by Deposit of Deeds, of the Effect of Notice with regard to Equitable Mortgages, of the Priority of Judgments over Equitable Mortgages, with Observations on the Dictum of Lord Cottenham, and the Judgment of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, in WHITWORTH V. GAUGAIN, and on the Course of Proceeding on the Bankruptcy of an Equitable Mortgagor; with an Appendix, containing the Judgment of the ViceChancellor Wigram in WHITWORTH V. GAUGAIN, Forms for Equitable Deposits, &c., and an Index. By SAMUEL MILLER, Esq., Barrister at Law. In 8vo., price 10s. boards. "Mr. Miller has stated every case that bears upon the subject, accompanied by very able and judicious remarks; and his work cannot fail to be highly acceptable to the practitioner."-Legal Observer. A TREATISE on PRESUMPTIONS of LAW and FACT, with the Theory and Rules of Presumptive or Circumstantial Proof in Criminal Cases. By W. M. BEST, Esq., A. M., LL. B., of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law. In 8vo., price 15s. boards. DREWRY ON INJUNCTIONS. A TREATISE on the LAW and PRACTICE of INJUNCTIONS. By CHARLES STEWART DREWRY, Esq., Barrister at Law. In 8vo., price 148. boards. AN ELEMENTARY VIEW of the COMMON LAW, Uses, Devises, and Trusts, with Reference to the Creation and Conveyance of Estates. By WILLIAM HAYES, Esq., Barrister at Law. In 8vo., price 5s, boards. SMYRNA SPONGES.-The Tooth-brush has the important ad vantages of searching thoroughly into the divisions of the Teeth, and cleaning them in the most effectual and extraordinary manner, and is famous for the hairs not coming loose, 18. An improved Clothes' Brush, that cleans in a third part of the usual time, and incapable of injuring the finest nap. Penetrating Hair Brushes, with the durable unbleached Russian bristles, which do not soften like common hair. Flesh Brushes of improved graduated and powerful friction. Velvet Brushes, which act in the most surprising and successful manner. The genuine SMYRNA SPONGE, with its preserved valuable properties of absorption, vitality, and durability, by means of direct importations, dispensing with all intermediate parties' profits and destructive bleaching, and securing the luxury of a genuine Smyrna Sponge. ONLY at METCALFE'S, 130 B, Oxford-street, one door from Holles-street. Caution.-Beware of the words "from Metcalfe's," adopted by some houses. Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (postpaid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, or to V. and R. STEVENS & G. S. NORTON, (Successors to J. & W. T. Clarke, late of Portugal Street), 26 and 39, BELL-YARD, will insure its punctual de livery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country. Printed by WALTER M'DOWALL, PRINTER, residing at No. 4, Pemberton Row, Gough Square, in the Parish of St. Bride, in the City of London, at his Printing Office, situate No. 5, Pemberton Row afore said; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE. in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 11, John Street, Bedford Row, in the County of Middlesex. Saturday, July 18, 1846. No. 498-VOL. X. JULY 25, 1846. PRICE 18. The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity: We remember, in a former volume of THE JURIST, to have discussed the question to what extent counsel is bound to communicate to the court, the knowledge that he possesses upon the law of the case that he is dealing with; whether, in particular, counsel may properly conceal from the court the knowledge of a decision which he believes would influence the judgment of the court against him; and we came to the conclusion, that the court has a right to expect at the hands of counsel, such information on the law, as counsel believe to be material to the matter in hand; that counsel may properly use the utmost ingenuity that his intellectual acumen can suggest, to convince the court that the authorities brought before it are in his favour: in other words, he may influence the understanding of the judge, if he can; but he may not mislead him, passively, any more than actively, upon the state of the authorities. Upon this point we were not at the time aware that we had authority in support of our views, going much beyond anything we then ventured to contend for; and though we should be very loth either in our own person to experience, or to see applied to others, quite so strong a jurisdiction as that which appears formerly to have been assumed by the judges for the correction of transgressions in the bar, we cannot forbear quoting, for the amusement if not for the edification of our readers of the senior branch of the Profession, the following anecdote, cited by Mr. Spence in his treatise on the Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, (p. 243, note b.):"Mr. Phillips," says Mr. Spence, "as counsel for the plaintiff, having moved, before Sir C. Hatton, L. C., to set aside a decree of the late Lord Keeper Bromley, asserting, as one of his grounds, that it was without precedent to make an order against the plaintiff, many VOL. X. BB precedents of such decrees in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI having been produced, Mr. Phillips was, for such his assertion, committed to the Fleet. The following is an abstract of the order, which is curious in many respects:- And because the said Mr. Phillips could not excuse himself of rashness and oversight in making the aforesaid information, (though he protested he never meant by the same to impeach the honourable proceedings of this court, but was deceived therein by the untrue information of the plaintiff, and craved pardon), therefore, and because the motion tended to the open accusation of the late Lord Chancellor and this honourable court, that they had not proceeded seriously and according to right and equity in this cause, which might not, for the honour of this court, escape altogether unpunished, it was ordered, that Mr. Phillips be committed to the prison of the Fleet for his rash motion only, and not for any other fault or respect."" (Reg. Lib. 1587, fol. 626, Brocas v. Savage, Knight, and the Lady Eleanor his wife). Mr. Phillips, as the subsequent books shew, did not suffer in his business from this act of oppression. Thus, we see, in those days, counsel were punished not merely for wilful misleading of the judge in matters of law, but even for ignorance,-for a rash assertion of that which they believed to be a fact in the history of the law, but which turned out not to be so. Though this is going very far, yet the principle of it is partly the same as that which ought, we think, at this day, to govern the general relation between the court and the bar, viz. that the court relies upon the bar to assist it with legal knowledge, and not to entrap it, either by the untrue statement of that as law, which counsel knows or believes not to be so, or by the wilful with holding of that knowledge, the absence of which leaves the judge under an unfounded impression as the law really is. It may be said that it is a ne dis NEWSPA what tinction which treats it is as unlawful not to inform the judge of the state of the authorities, and as lawful to press his judgment upon those authorities, in a wrong direction. But the answer is, that the judge expects, and relies upon counsel for the information, and cannot, if he had a memory of forty-counsel power, be possessed of it at the very moment it is wanted, unless furnished with it by counsel; whereas he does not, in the least degree, rely upon counsel to assist him with inferences, and is, on the contrary, well aware, that, on that point, his express function is to weigh the reasonings of counsel, but to act upon his own. of the defendant's work; and, as to the question of damnum, it was held, that where there was clearly injuria, the damnum was matter of which the plaintiff was to judge; and an injunction was granted. It is clearly settled, and this is more on the ground of fraud than of invasion of a right of property, that a person will be restrained from putting forth a literary work in such manner as to delude the public into the notion that it is the work of another; and to this principle may be referred the case of Seeley v. Fisher, (11 Sim. 581), where an injunction was granted to restrain A. from putting forth his work under advertisements tending to produce the impression, contrary to the truth, that it contained matter which was, in fact, the property of B. But if there be no such fraudulent misrepresent POINTS ON THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF ation, but only statements which, whether true or INJUNCTIONS. (Continued from p. 279). Injunctions to restrain Proceedings at Law. Where the purchaser of premises from the sheriff, under a sale, in pursuance of an execution, obtained possession, but no assignment, so that he had not the legal title, and the question between him and the defendant was, whether the sale was regular or not, a question which would not be at all tried in ejectment, the defendant in equity was restrained from proceeding in ejectment against the purchaser of the premises, and liberty was given to the latter to take such proceedings at law as he might be advised, to try the legality of the sale, and to perfect his title at law. (Jones v. Hughes, 1 Hare, 383). So, where the allegation of the bill and affidavits were, that A., being indebted to B., B. in his lifetime desired A. not to return the money, but to hold it for C., and that B. never in his lifetime called upon A. to pay him, and, after B.'s death, his executor brought an action against A. for the debt, an injunction was granted to restrain the action, at the suit of the alleged cestui que trust, the money being brought into court, on the ground that the real question, which was, whether a trust was created by B. in favour of C., could not be tried in the action. (M'Fadden v. Jenkins, 1 Hare, 458). Both these cases proceed on the principle, that equity will not suffer proceedings at law, where there is some equitable claim set up by the plaintiff in equity, which, owing to the forms of legal proceedings generally, or of the particular legal proceedings, cannot properly be tried in them. The following case is referrible to a different principle, viz. that equity will not suffer proceedings to be taken at law, where proceedings, in which full justice could be done, have already been taken in equity. In the case referred to, an estate had been the subject of an administration suit, and had been fully administered, the executor having every opportunity of examining every charge upon the estate, and every particular constituting it; he was, on that ground, restrained from continuing actions, brought without the leave of the court, against persons parties to the suit, to recover property belonging to the testator. (Oldfield v. Cobbett, 6 Beav. 515. See also Oldfield v. Cobbett, 5 Beav. 132). Injunctions to restrain Infringement of literary Rights. In a recent case, (Campbell v. Scott, 11 Sim. 31), which was a case of alleged infringement by printing whole passages from the plaintiff's book, the taking of the plaintiff's compositions by the defendant was admitted. The defence was, that the matter taken from the plaintiff was trivial in quantity, and that it was used by way of illustration, and could not injure the plaintiff's sale. The court thought it was not used merely by way of illustration, but formed part of the substratum false, tend merely to encourage a belief that the matter contained in A.'s work is the truly valuable matter, and that contained in B.'s is spurious and of no value, an injunction will not be granted to restrain such representations. In Palin v. Gathercole, (1 Coll. 565), the point decided as to the right of the receiver of letters to publish them was this, that he will not be permitted to publish them for the purpose of representing to the public as true, that which he has, in legal proceedings upon that very question, admitted to be false. The circumstances of that case were these:-Palin, the plaintiff, had written to Gathercole, the defendant, who was the editor of a newspaper, certain letters, containing information respecting one Nokes, and Gathercole, from these letters, drew up an article which he published in his newspaper. Nokes brought an action against him for libel, and he compromised the action, paying Nokes costs, and apologising. Gathercole then claimed of Palin half the costs that he, Gathercole, had so incurred, and, Palin refusing to pay them, Gathercole published in his newspaper a statement that the libel upon Nokes was communicated to him, Gathercole, by Palin. Palin thereupon brought an action against Gathercole, and Gathercole pleaded that the matter, however libellous as between Nokes and Gathercole, was matter of which, as between Palin and Gathercole, Palin was the author; but, before trial, Gathercole submitted to what was in effect a general verdict, establishing in substance, as his Honor Knight Bruce, V. C., expressed it in his judg ment, that the libel published by Gathercole of Nokes, was not a libel which Palin had communicated to Gathercole. Gathercole then proceeded to shew Palin's letters to third persons, upon which Palin filed his bill for an injunction to restrain Gathercole from publishing or shewing the letters, and obtained an ex parte injunction. The use which Gathercole desired to make of the letters was, it will be observed, to establish the fact that Palin was the author of the libel upon Nokes, the very fact which he had, by submitting to the general verdict in Palin's action, admitted not to exist. Under these circumstances the court refused to dissolve the injunction, permitting, however, the defendant to exhibit the letters to his solicitors and counsel in the cause. Injunctions in Aid of specific Performance, and to restrain Breach of Trust and Confidence. A covenant by an articled clerk to a solicitor, that he will not, during nor after the expiration of the term of his articles, be professionally concerned for any persons who had been, or should from time to time thereafter become, the master's clients, has been held recently not to be so far in restraint of trade as to prevent the court from granting an injunction to restrain the clerk, after the expiration of his articles, from acting for persons who had been clients of the master during the articles; and that although, by the terms of the agreement, the master might put an end to the period of the articles at any any time upon one week's notice. (Nicholls v. Hutton, 7 Beav. 42). An appeal was presented in this case, and a case at law directed; but whether anything further was done in it, the writer has been unable to ascertain. It may be thought that this case goes much further than of the preceding cases upon agreements in restraint of trade, as, by the terms of the covenant, the defendant was restricted from being employed by any persons whatsoever who might at any time during the whole life of the covenantee become his clients,-whether the covenantor acquired his knowledge of them through his connexion with the covenantee, or not. In Whittaker v. Howe, (3 Beav. 383), where an injunction was also sustained for enforcing the performance of a covenant by Howe not to practice as a solicitor in Great Britain, although the circle within which the restriction was to operate was very large, the period was limited to twenty years. In that case, the defendants had sold their business of solicitors to the plaintiff, with a stipulation, that, after a certain period, neither of the defendants" should practise as solicitors or attornies in any part of Great Britain for the space of twenty years, without the consent of Whittaker" (the plaintiff). Howe, one of the defendants, committed a breach of this agreement, by taking chambers near the original place of business that he had occupied, and making demonstrations of commencing practice; and Lord Langdale held the restraint, upon the authorities, not unreasonable, and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from practising in any part of Great Britain. (Gooseman v. Dann, 10 Sim. 317). And where, before the Orders of 26th October, 1842, the clerk in court of the defendant was served, without order, with an injunction, it was held that that was not good service, because the clerk in court was only the agent of the party to receive notice of the proceedings in the cause; but an injunction is extraneous to the cause, and not a proceeding in it. But, if the plaintiff cannot succeed in serving it on the defendant, and the defendant's solicitor refuses to accept service, service will be ordered on the solicitor. (Kirkman v. Honnor, 6 Beav. 400). The point decided in The Earl of Chesterfield v. Bond (2 Beav. 263) has been further settled by two later cases, Reece v. Humble (10 Sim. 117) and Lord Harborough v. Wartnaby, (1 Phil. 364). The rule now is, that all motions of course may be made out of term as well as in term, on any day, whether a seal day or not. C. S. D. Emperial Parliament. HOUSE OF COMMONS. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.-Mr. Hume moved the order of the day for going into committee on this bill. Sir G. Grey said, that, since the second reading of the bill, he had received several communications on the subject, which, though favourable to its principle, shewed an anxious wish to Government itself. As the Government were prepared to act have a measure of a more general character introduced by the on this general wish of the public, and as Parliament had already admitted its principle, which was that of the accountability of trustees of charitable trusts to Parliament, he did hope that his hon. friend would consent to postpone the bill to next session. As it is a breach of a trust in a trustee to exercise any of the legal powers which he may have as such trustee, except for the legitimate purposes of the trust, a trustee attempting so to do may be restrained. Thus, where the indorsee of a bill indorsed to him, without Mr. Hume said, that his object was, in one respect, gained, consideration, for the purpose of recovering upon it by the admission of the principle of accountability of trustees against the acceptor, for the benefit of the drawer, at- of charitable trusts to Parliament. He had received several tempted to bring an action upon it against the drawer, communications on the subject of the bill, all admitting the a demurrer to a bill for an injunction against his pro-much further it might be carried. Under these circumstances, good which it was calculated to do, but all pointing out how ceeding in the action was overruled. (Balls v. Strutt, and as the Government had taken the matter into its own 1 Hare, 140). hands, and was prepared to bring in a much more comprehensive measure, he was willing to postpone it in the first instance to Wednesday next. The committee on the bill was postponed for a week. order of the day for going into committee on this bill, Injunctions against Waste by Mortgagor in Possession. It is well settled, that a mortgagee is entitled to an injunction to restrain the mortgagor in possession from cutting timber, provided it is made to appear, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the land is an insufficient or scanty Sir F. Thesiger said, he believed that his hon. friend who security without the timber. (Hippesley v. Spencer, 5 had the charge of this bill had never yet stated to the House Madd. 422). But it is obvious, that, in the absence of the objects and various provisions of it, nor had anything authority, there might be as much doubt as to what is, passed upon it in another place beyond a few pleasantries in point of law, a scanty security, as upon any other ques- which were bandied about by two noble and learned lords, as tion of mixed fact and law. In a recent case, however, to the hopes of the one and the profits of the other. The bill a sort of rule was laid down as to what is meant by a involved a principle which deserved the serious attention of the sufficient security. It is not sufficient if the property is House, and he trusted that the House would indulge him for a just equal to the mortgage debt and all expenses; but few moments, whilst he explained the view which he took of the proper question to be tried is, whether the property should adopt under the circumstances. The House was, perthis bill, and the course he would suggest that his hon. friend is sufficient in this sense, that the security is worth so much more than the money advanced, that the act of haps, aware of the state of the law upon this subject. Where a person received any injury arising out of the carelessness or cutting timber is not to be considered as substantially negligence of another, he was entitled to maintain an action to impairing the value, which was the basis of the contract recover damages; and if the person producing the injury was between the parties at the time it was entered into. a servant, the action might be brought against the master. (King v. Smith, 2 Hare, 239). The affidavit in support But, if death ensued from an accident, all persons were exof such a motion should state enough of the facts shew-empted from civil responsibility. Most unquestionably the ing the value of the security to enable the court to judge for itself. Practical Points. If a motion for an injunction is ordered to stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff to bring an action, and the plaintiff does not proceed to bring any action, the defendant will be entitled to have the motion dismissed with costs. (Perry v. Truefitt, 6 Beav. 418). Generally, an injunction ought to be served on the defendant personally, or on some person who, by an order of the court, has been substituted for him. distinction appeared to be very inconsistent and unreasonable, and he should be prepared to introduce a measure which would have the effect of relieving the law from the anomaly that exdied with the person; but statutes had been passed by which isted in that respect. By the common law, a personal action the executors and administrators of a deceased party were entitled to maintain an action for any damages which had arisen to his personal property, and in some instances to his real property. Now, he had no objection to continue and enlarge that principle, and to apply it to this particular act, and to say, that the executors or administrators of a person who had received an injury which had occasioned death should be entitled to |