phylactic for these sudden seizures? Do they come on without a premonitory sign?" I answer at once and deliberately Yes! to the first, and No! to the second interrogation. Under Nature's laws there is no such a thing as sudden death without a warning. Mr. Justice Talfourd had had his warn ing before the delivery of his charge at Stafford. So had Horace Twiss, who died sitting at a board of his co-directors; as had also the stalwart and witty author of "Vanity Fair," when he woke in the night, was heard to make some bustle in his bedroom, and was found dead in the morning. Nor had the awfully sudden death of Bransby Cooper in the hall of the Athenæum been without warning. They all had the premonitory warnings, not immediately before their fate, but long before, and more than once, no doubt, which probably were ignored, or not under: stood-perhaps pooh-poohed by "our medical attendant." All the premonitory signs you inquire for are correlative with the state of the venous cerebellum, where stagnation of blood in the larger circulation in the brain, but principally in the veins occasions immediate loss of muscular power, impairment of sight and hearing, a great confusion and noise in the ears, generally on one side only, a perpetual dazzle or quivering in the eyesight, followed soon by oppression in breathing, a tumultuous action of the heart, at first to be followed by a great rapidity of its motions, subsiding after, in a few or more hours, into an almost imperceptible action till death supervenes. Such premonitory symptoms indicate immediate danger, but one or two of them may have occurred at irregular (and sometimes regular) periods in the life of the sufferer without exciting anxiety, or were suffered to subside of their own accord, to return again at some future period. It would be interesting to know whether such has been the case with the lamented Justice Hayes. Where a large arterial rupture takes place in the brain, the death may be so instantaneous, from the sudden interruption of its circulation, as to leave no time for any premonitory sign; but persons liable to such foudroyantes seizures, as the French call them, depend on it have had their warning at times, when the same remedial agent would prevent the attack as it does effectually in the case of venous congestion in the cerebellum, the more frequent cause of paralysis. And what is the remedy? The removal of blood by cupping in moderate quantity, but Police-court having lately been compromised, Mr. Tyrwhitt, in dealing with one of these cases, declared that something was due to the law and to the public interest. He very much doubted whether a public prosecutor was not required in some of the cases which had thus been withdrawn from justice. The county lunatic asylum of Devon having been long crowded to excess, to the exclusion of patients of Plymouth and other boroughs, the Home Secretary has been consulted on the subject. The Solicitor-General has advised the Home Office that the visiting justices of the county asylum cannot legally spend the county money in enlarging the asylum with a view to accomodating borough patients. It will consequently become absolutely necessary that new asylums be provided in several boroughs of the county. A WOMAN NOMINATED AS TOWN COUNCILLOR. -To fill the vacancy in the Totnes Town Council there are three nominations-Mr. T. E. Owen, caused by the death of the late Mr. P. Condy, surgeon (Conservative); Mr. J. S. Rose, draper (Liberal); and Mrs. Thomas, baker and confectioner (Liberal). The town clerk, however, has declined to insert the name of the latter in his official list, as the Act of Parliament is clear on cannot hold the office of town councillor the point, that although women can vote, they A POSSIBLE MISTAKE.-A man named Nathaniel Cox was committed for trial by Mr. Selfe on Monday on a charge of indecent assault. There would be nothing to attract attention in this unpleasant fact had not the prisoner been charged with a similar offence some four years ago. On that occasion the only evidence against him was the unsupported testimony of a constable named Teaham. The case broke down, and Teaham was in consequence dismissed from the police force by Sir Richard Mayne. He had been fifteen years in the army, and both there and in the police bore a good character. It is said that since his dismissal he has suffered much from poverty. The question now suggested is, does not the present case against Cox tend to show that Teaham may, after all, have been wrongfully dismissed?-Echo. BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN. | Currie said the only desire the committee had was that the board should affirm the principle of giving a task of needlework to these women, and then refer the matter back to them for a further report as to the detailed mode of carrying it out. In the course of a long discussion it was explained that the committee did not propose to employ the women on needlework for persons outside the Workhouse, and thus enter into competition with traders, but simply to engage them upon the work of making clothing, and repairing, &c., as might be required in the house. On the motion of the Rev. J. F. Kitto, it was resolved that it was desirable to require a task of needlework or other employment from such women in receipt of outdoor relief as from their circumstances may seem able to perform it, and that it should be referred back to the committee to report on the best mode of carrying this into effect. CRIME IN THE ARMY.-The report on military The average number of effectives in the army prisons by Capt. Du Cane, from which we extracted recently, also contains the following: was 186,508, and the number of convictions increased to 25,612, or 13:73 per cent. The decreased to 36, or 0-01 per cent. number of corporal punishments, however, The number of soldiers sent to military prisons at home was 5470 in 1864, 6390 in 1865, 6520 in 1866, 6674 in 1867, 7553 in 1868; these numbers being 697 per cent. of the force in 1864, 7.98 per cent. in 1865, 8:18 per cent. in 1866, 8'01 per cent. in 1867, 8-88 per cent. in 1868. The daily average number in confinement in military prisons at home was 1.27 per cent. of the force in 1864, 1.29 per cent. in 1865, 1.25 per cent. in 1866, 1.29 per cent. in 1867, and 1241 or 147 per cent. in 1868. The report states that drunkenness forms a considerable item in the list of crimes causing the increase of prisoners; this offence is now to be punished, as in civil life, by fine. Prominent among military offences stands that of desertion, for which 1776 of the 7553 sentences were passed in 1868. Capt. Du Cane represents that as one considerable cause of desertion is the desire to get bounty by reenlisting, a remedy might be found in the abolition of the bounty system, or in payment by instalments as the man becomes efficient, or on inquiry relieved of men of hopelessly bad character, who, into his antecedents. The army might thus be never by general bleeding. But cupping is out of dren. Col. Grant, R.E., explained the operation passing much of their time in prison, are useless fashion now, and any loss of blood is deprecated by the new generation of physicians. Hence the list of sudden deaths, so called, of apoplexy and paralysis is increasing fast, as the RegistrarGeneral has been telling us for the last twenty years, and of those prominent members in society of whom we hear, through the journals, that they have been struck with either palsy or apoplexy, how many survive their attack for the want of the proper treatment?-A. B. G., M.D., F.R.S. MAGISTRATE AND PARISH NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. TURNPIKES-REMOVAL OF ROAD SCRAPINGS. Within 25ft. from the middle of a turnpike was a bank of soil covered with turf, from 1ft. to 18in. higher than the adjoining water table of the road. B. broke up a portion of this bank and removed the soil. He contended that the bank was made by scrapings of the road which had accumulated there, and, therefore, that he had not broken up the soil within sect. 118 of the General Turnpike Act (8 Geo. 4, c. 126) was proved that even if so formed originally, for many years it had been covered with turf. It was held to have been rightly converted: (Smith v. Mackie, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 392. Q. B.) BIGAMY KNOWLEdge of first WIFE BEING ALIVE. In 1863 the plaintiff married B., lived with her a week, and left her. It was not proved that he had since seen her. In 1867 he married C., B. being then alive. The judge was held to have rightly instructed the jury that they must be satisfied the prisoner knew that his first wife was alive at the time of his second marriage, but that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that he had such knowledge: (Reg. v. Jones, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 396. Cr. Cas. Res.) IMPLEMENTS OF HOUSEBREAKING-POSSESSION. Where several persons are found together by night for a common purpose of housebreaking, but one only is in possession of housebreaking implements, all may be found guilty of the misdemeanour of being in possession of such implements without lawful excuse under 24 & 25 Viet c. 96, s. 58: (Reg. v. Thompson, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 397. Cr. Cas. Res.) Several prosecutions in the Marlborough-street Warwick Board of Guardians have recently disThe cussed the system of boarding out pauper chilof the system at Bath, where, as in Scotland and elsewhere, it had, he said, been attended with he had received from the Poor Law Board, who most satisfactory results. He read a letter which stated that their opposition to the scheme mainly unable to exercise the necessary control and arose from the belief that the guardians would be supervision of boarded-out children, the chief object of whose foster parents would be to make a profit out of the sums allowed for their maintenance. Another objection which occurred to the board was the difficulty of ensuring that some regular education for the children was given, as in the schools attached to the union. On the other hand, the Poor Law Board alluded to the apparent success of the system in Scotland, and added that they were fully sensible of the many arguments which could be urged in favour of the plan, and that provided they could be satisfied and control would be established by the guardians, that a thorough system of efficient supervision and the most rigid inquiry instituted at short intervals into the treatment and education of the children, the board had come to the conclusion not to discourage guardians from giving the plan a fair trial. Mr. A. W. Peel, poor law inspector, who attended the meeting, pointed out that the proposal was a violation of the fundamental principle of the poor law, which was that the pauper should not be placed in a better position than that of the honest and independent labourer. He also argued that the plan would greatly encourage desertion, which was already much on the increase all over the country. After a long discussion, in which Lord Leigh and a number of magistrates supported the system, the guardians resolved to adopt the plan, and to pay 3s. 6d. per week for the maintenance of each child, 6s. 6d. per quarter for mending and restoring clothes, and give a proper outfit on leaving the workhouse. Schooling, medical attendance, and medicine to be provided in addition. LABOUR TESTS FOR FEMALE PAUPERS.-A special committee of the Poplar guardians presented at their last meeting a report upon the proposed establishment of a task of needlework for able-bodied females in receipt of out-door relief. From this document it appeared that between the ages of 20 and 60, 468 widows, having 1207 children under the age of 16 were in receipt of out-door relief. The committee recommended that some plan, on the basis of giving each woman three days' work in every week, at the direction of the various relief committees, should be adopted, and that the committee should be empowered to prepare a working plan on this basis. Mr. E. H. The profession. He maintains that it is not beyond as soldiers, and nothing but a disgrace to the the bounds of a reasonable hope, that a time dismiss men of marked bad character. is coming when it may be possible to refuse or advantages a soldier enjoys in pay or its equivalent, with the training he receives, and the which such training may procure for him, are high prospect of employment on honourable discharge enough to constitute it a real misfortune for men of the class to which the soldier belongs to be deprived of them. It is believed that this feeling is gradually being realised by the soldier, and that in many districts it is understood that a man who enlists is well started in life. The more a soldier is made to see that the army may be a stepping. stone to future remunerative employment, the more likely it is that dismissal will be a sufficient punishment. The governor at Aldershot reports that a prisoner being checked at drill by one of strike the warder dumb;" the prisoner himself the warders, wished that "God Almighty would his speech for seven days. He was very much was struck dumb on the spot, and did not recover frightened, and on recovering speech, made great promises of amendment; but his good resolutions vanished, and he was soon in prison again. The report presents the usual tables, one of which shows that the increase in the number of prisoners in 1868 was chiefly in men who had served between 7 and 14 years in the army. 2070 of the prisoners had served not more than two years, 1870 between two and seven years, 3244 between 7 and 14, 327 between 14 and 21, and 42 above 21 prisoners while in confinement amounted to years. The stoppages of pay and beer money of of maintenance of the prisoners was 27,7501. The 30,3231.; the total pay of prison officers and charge average length of sentences was 59 days. REAL PROPERTY LAWYER AND CONVEYANCER NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. LEASE-COVENANT.-A covenant not to use a house as "a beer-house, inn, or public-house for the sale of spirituous liqnors " is not infringed by the sale of beer by retail, not to be consumed on the premises: (London and NorthWestern Railway Company v. Garnett, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 352. V.C. J.) ASSIGNMENT BY A MARRIED WOMAN OF HER REVERSIONARY INTEREST-MARITAL INFLUENCE. sideration of the premises, the said A. B. doth -A married woman may, by fraud, preclude hereby surrender and yield up unto the said C. D. herself not only from her equity to a settlement, and his heirs, the said workshop and premises but also from any right to a reversionary interest adjoining the dwelling house demised by the said falling due after the death of her husband. lease, with the appurtenances thereto belonging, Under the will of L., a lady became absolutely And all the estate, term, and interest of the said A. B. therein or thereto. To hold the same entitled to a sum of money, subject to a prior premises to the intent that the residue of the said life interest therein. She married, and soon term of years in the same may be extinafter marriage she, under threats from her hus-guished in the reversion and inheritance of and in band, who was in embarrassed circumstances, the said workshop and premises. And this inexecuted a very informal document written out denture also witnesseth that in consideration of by herself, purporting, in contemplation of her the premises the said C. D. doth hereby release marriage, to give up to him all her interest, and and discharge the said A. B., his executors, adrequesting the trustees of the will to pay it over ministrators, and assigns, from the payment of to him. This instrument was dated two days parcel of the annual rent reserved by the before the marriage; it was signed by the lady alone, using her maiden name; it was unattested, and no notice of it was ever given to the trustees. The husband soon after contracted to sell the reversion to C., who was a clerk to the husband's solicitor; the purchase was not completed, and a suit, held by the court to be conclusive, was instituted by the husband against C. to compel performance; C. appeared by another clerk of the husband's solicitor; the cause was heard as a short cause, the alleged assignment was admitted by both parties, and there was no evidence. A decree was made by consent, declaring that the husband was entitled to his wife's late interest. Nothing more was done in the suit, and the contract for the sale was abandoned. A month later, the husband, on the strength of this declaration, put up the interest for sale by auction, when it was bought by the Law Reversionary Interest Society, who had no notice of the fraud; but before completion they obtained from the lady, who was then living apart from her husband, and consequently not liable to his influence, a letter stating that before her marriage she had assigned her interest to her husband. The purchase was completed, and the price paid to the husband. He afterwards deserted his wife, and had not been heard of for several years. On the death of the tenant for life, the trustees paid the fund into court, and the society petitioned for payment to themselves. The Master of the Rolls refused payment to them, holding that it was their duty to have inquired into the circumstances under which the decree had been obtained; and further, that, in signing the documents mentioned, the lady had been under her husband's influence; therefore, he retained the fund in court, but ordered payment of the dividends to her. But, upon appeal, their Lordships reversed this decision, considering that the lady had been guilty of fraud, and could not receive benefit from it, and ordered payment to the society: (Re Lush's Trusts, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 376. L.JJ.) WILLS-INCORPORATION.-A testator left a will, revoking all former wills, by which he directed certain articles to be distributed by the executors according to written instructions affixed to his will. No such instructions were found affixed to the will, but a paper was found duly executed according to the Wills Act, which had been referred to in a former will, and which contained instructions to his executor: The court refused to incorporate it with the existing will, on the ground that it did not correspond to the description therein, and also refused to admit it to probate independently as it had been revoked by the last will: (Re Gill, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 399. Prob.) This indenture, made, &c., between A. B., of &c. [lessee] of the one part, and C. D., of &c. [lessor], of the other part. Whereas the said A. B., at the request of the said C. D., has agreed, in consideration of the release hereinafter contained, to surrender to him the workshop and premises adjoining the dwelling house expressed by an indenture dated, &c., to be demised to him, with certain other hereditaments therein described, for all the residue now unexpired of the said term of years. Now this indenture witnesseth that in pursuance of the said agreement, and in con (a) BY THOMAS WILKINSON, Esq., Liverpool. £ said lease, and from all claims, demands, and remedies on account of the same. And doth declare and agree that the annual rent of £ and no more shall henceforth be payable quarterly on the days therein mentioned in respect of the premises retained by the said A. B. for the residue of the said term. And it is further agreed by the said parties hereto that the said lease shall be read and construed as if the annual rent of £ only had been thereby reserved, and not and as if the said workshop and premises had not been included in the said demise, and save as aforesaid the said lease is hereby confirmed in all other respects. In witness, &c. [debtor], do hereby severally undertake to accept We, the undersigned, creditors of A. B., of, &c. amount of our respective debts, and in full disa composition of in the pound upon the charge thereof. And upon such payment being made we severally undertake to execute to the person making such payment an assignment of our respective debts, or, if required, a complete release and discharge to the estate of the said A. B. in respect thereof, such assignment or release to be prepared at the expense of the person requiring the same. , I the said public-house and premises, and the said fixtures, fittings, furniture, and effects, such mortgage to contain all such powers of sale and other powers as you shall require to be inserted therein for securing to you the possession of the said premises, and a transfer of the licences as well as the repayment of the said sum of £ and interest as aforesaid, and that in the mean time I will stand and be possessed of the said premises as a trustee for you. And I agree that so long as any money shall be owing to you in respect of the said loan of £ and interest, it shall be lawful for you or your agent at any time hereafter whether default shall or shall not have been made in pay. ment of the same, or any part thereof, to enter upon the said public-house and premises, and to seize and take possession of the said fixtures, fittings, furniture, and effects without any further consent on my part, and thereupon or at any time afterwards when you shall think fit to sell the same or any part thereof in any manner you think proper without responsibility for any loss occa sioned thereby, and to give valid receipts for the purchase moneys thereof and thereout after reimbursing yourself the cost and expenses incurred in obtaining and keeping possession, and in effecting such sale to pay to yourself the said sum of £ and the interest thereon, or so much thereof as shall then remain owing, and pay the surplus (if any) unto me my executors, administrators, or assigns. And I undertake that during the continuance of this security I will duly pay the rent reserved by, and observe and keep the stipulations in the said agreement of tenancy contained, and on my part to be observed and performed and produce and deliver to you upon request the receipt for each quarter's payment of rent hereafter to accrue due of the said premises, and that I will not remove, or take away, or suffer to be removed or taken away, any part of the said fixtures, fittings, furniture, and effects without your consent in writing first obtained (a) Dated the day of 18 C. D. [promissor.] (To be continued.) JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' LAW JOURNAL. NOTES ON NEW DECISIONS. RAILWAY-ENTERING ON LAND BEFORE COMPENSATION MADE.-A railway company desiring to take possession of land before an agree ment for compensation made under sect. 85 of the Lands Clauses Act, proceeded under sect. 59 to the nomination of a surveyor to determine compensation. One of the justices nominating was a shareholder in the company, but this was not known to the company at the time they entered on the land. This was held not to be a "wilful" entry within the meaning of the words "wilfully enter upon and take possession of any lands" under the said 89th section: (Steele N. S. 387. Q. B.) v. The Midland Railway Company, 21 L. T. Rep. In consideration of your paying to me the sum of £ principal money and interest due to my client, Mr. C. D., of, &c. [mortgagee], on mortroad, gage of hereditaments in hereby undertake to get the transfer of such mortgage to him (which has been through inadvertence insufficiently stamped) duly stamped, and to pay sioners of Inland Revenue, and to deliver such any penalty that may be required by the Commistransfer so properly stamped to you, free of all expense; or, in default thereof, within COMBINATION OF ASSURANCE POLICY-HOLfrom this date I will return you the said £ DERS.-Last week a meeting of policy-holders in in exchange for the deeds this day delivered to various insurance companies was held at the you. Dated the day of 18 weeks Y. Z. [solicitor]. 174. Undertaking to deposit an agreement for tenancy and to execute mortgage. To A. B., of &c. [promisee]. London Tavern; Mr. Lagrange in the chair. The gentlemen present represented personally and by proxies an aggregate amount of upwards of a cussion as to the position in which policy-holders quarter of a million (250,000l.). After some dishad been placed, as evidenced in recent proceedings, the following resolution was adopted In consideration of your lending to me the sum "That the recent disclosures as to the risks of of £ towards enabling me to purchase the good-holders of policies of insurance and annuitants, will in trade, fixtures, fittings, and effects, in and from the mismanagement of the affairs of insurance attached to the licensed public-house and pre- companies, and the amalgamation of offices with mises known as, situate in street, into out the consent of policy-holders or annuitants, which I am now about to remove (the receipt of and the ruin which is almost a necessary conse and agree to deposit in your hands as soon as I business with some persons to make upon cond which sum I hereby acknowledge), I undertake quence of attacks, which it has now become a receive the same an agreement between myself panies, render it advisable for policy-holders and and E. F., of, &c. [landlord], for my occupation of annuitants to form an association to watch over the said public-house and premises as tenant from their interests, and for their mutual protection in year to year. And I authorise you at any time in the event of the mismanagement, failure, or amalmy name to apply for and do all acts necessary for gamation of any of the companies in which they obtaining possession of such agreement at my insure, and to devise and suggest to the Legisla expense; and I hereby authorise and request the ture such alteration in the law affecting insurance said E. F. to deliver the said agreement to you companies and their investments, and the power of without any further authority from me; and I policy-holders to investigate their accounts as may agree that you shall hold the same agreement, and enable those parties to watch over the stability of I hereby charge the premises comprised therein, the offices, and that a committee be formed to and the licences, fixtures, fittings, furniture, and draw up the basis of a scheme for such an associa effects belonging to me, and now or hereafter to tion." Messrs. James Wyld, J. D. Bell, and W be fixed to, placed upon or in the said public- Eley were then appointed as the committee, and it house and premises, as a security for the repay- was further resolved that a public meeting of ment to you, on the day of 18 of the policy-holders should be called by advertisement said £ with interest thereon from this date, after for the purpose of considering the scheme. the rate of £ per cent. per annum. And I further undertake and agree that I will, at my own expense upon your request, obtain the consent of the said E. F., and execute and deliver to you an assignment by way of mortgage of my interest in LIABILITY FOR FORFEITED SHARES.-Lord Justice Giffard on appeal-Re Blakely Ordnance Company (Limited); Creyke's case-has decided (a.) See note (a) to precedent 62, sup. L throwing the sheep out. Plaintiff had attended the market for fifty years, and all pens which were vacant could be taken advantage of by the first comer. Plaintiff tried to prevent the defenfendant throwing out his sheep, and then the latter called his dog into the pen, and the animal scattered the sheep so that he could not collect them again until eleven o'clock. The consequence was that he lost the early morning market. When the defendant had gained possession of the pens he placed a number of his own sheep into them. After the principal dealers were gone the plaintiff was offered 8 d. per pound for nine sheep, or 59s. 6d. a piece by Mr. Day. He did not sell till the 17th June, when mutton had fallen a penny per pound. He would have to pay 7d. a week for the keep of the sheep, but they were placed in his own field. that the forfeiture of shares still leaves the shareholder liable as a contributor in the winding-up in the "B list," after the A list is exhausted, if the winding-up order has been made within a year of the forfeiture. The ruling of the Lord Justice is in effect that forfeiture only operates like a transfer the forfeiting like the transferring shareholder continues liable if the existing members of the company are unable to satisfy its claims, and there are debts still due which were contracted before the forfeiture or transfer. "You must see whether there was any other person liable in respect of the share, and you must exhaust his liability first, and when that had been done you were entitled to go against the past member who had ceased to be a member within a year before the winding-up. The third clause of sect. 38 of the Act simply meant that the existing members must be exhausted before you went Cross-examined.-Summoned the defendant beagainst the past members of the company. It fore the magistrates for an assault, and that was mattered not at all whether the share had settled on his paying the costs. His sheep were been extinguished or simply transferred; forfei-Tipperary sheep, and good average ones. He sued ture and transfer in this respect had the same now for 19 guineas, in order that the costs should effect." not be great. Was certain the market price was lower on the 17th than the 10th of June. Mr. Sharp, on behalf of the defendant, had offered 51. to settle the matter, but he said he would take 101. without prejudice, though his loss was more than 201. COUNTY COURTS. It appeared that the Great Northern and Midland Railways have both running powers over the Metropolitan Railway to the City, but these two former companies have no agreement for the use in common of their carriages by passengers on the Metropolitan line. In September last the 'defendant took a ticket at Kentish Town, a station belonging to the Midland Railway, for Moorgate-street. On arriving at Farringdon station by a Midland train it became necessary for him to change carriages. He alighted, and asked for the platform for the City, from which he entered a Great Northern carriage which was then going to Moorgate-street, instead of going into a Midland carriage. On arriving at Moorgatestreet he produced the Midland ticket, which was refused by the collector for the Great Northern, and the sum of 3d., being the fare from Farringdon-street, demanded. This the defendant refused to pay, insisting upon his right to travel by any carriage on the Metropolitan line. To recover this sum the Great Northern Railway Company sued him; and when the case was called WILLIAM WATKINS AND GABRIEL WATKINS v. MATTHEW YOUNG. Norris (instructed by Messrs. Brittan and Sons) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Moseley appeared for the defendant. The action was brought to recover 19l. 198., on account of the loss which the plaintiffs suffered through the conduct of defendant in driving a number of sheep out of pens, in the Bristol Cattle Market, on the morning of the 10th June. Mr. William Watkins, one of the plaintiffs said he carried on business in partnership with his son, as cattle dealers, and at half-past five in the morning on the 10th June, he went to the market with eighty-six sheep for which he paid a toll of 9s. He and his drover drove the sheep into nine pens, and was in the act of fastening the sheep, when the defendant came up and leaped into the pens, and commenced Mr. T. Lane, butcher, of Redcliff-hill, said on the 10th June he bought sheep in the market at 31. kins. Afterwards, on the 17th, he saw the plaina head, and they were equal to those of Mr. Wattiff's sheep, and then he would have offered 53s. cach, though on the 10th he would have given 60s. Mr. T. Day, butcher, of High-street, saw some sheep of Mr. Watkins's on the 10th June, at eleven o'clock in the morning, and offered him the 59s. 6d. each. Could not say how much mutton had decreased between the 10th and 17th, but it was not so much as a penny a pound to the best of his recollection. Sometimes meat sold at as high a price at eleven o'clock as earlier in the morning. Mr. Richard Stock, butcher, said he offered the plaintiff 598. each for his sheep at eight o'clock in the morning of the 10th, and on the 17th he offered 53s. 6d. Mr. A. Davis, butcher, of Kingswood, said on the 10th June he offered 57s. apiece for 40 of Mr. Watkins's sheep, and on the 17th he offered 53s. George Jones, a drover, saw the plaintiff with his sheep in the cattle market on the 10th June, and observed him tussling with the defendant. Two dogs drove the sheep all over the market. These were all the witnesses examined for the plaintiff, His HONOUR said with regard to the price of sheep on the 17th June, even supposing the defendant were responsible for the consequences resulting from an illegal act on his part in turning the sheep out of their pens, he would be only liable for the difference in the market price between the early and the latter part of the same day. Mosely, on the part of the defendant, contended that at the time the defendant was bringing in his sheep the defendant had rightful possession of the pens; and at least one of his servants was there. He also urged that the action should have been brought against Mr. Sinnott, the lessee of the market, and not against the present defendant, that the price obtained for sheep on the 10th June was as high in the after part of the day as in the early morning. Mr. J. Hennessy, cattle dealer, was called, and he proved that the custom of the market was for the first person who brought stock to take any empty pen; but the lessee had allotted particular pens to particular dealers in order to prevent confusion. Mr. Aplin (clerk to Mr. Sinnott), said the large and respectable salesmen entered their sheep into the market, and paid for the toll after their business was over, and were not required to pay the toll previous to driving their stock into the pens. Mr. Young was one of these large salesmen. Norris said this would tend to create a monopoly, as, if the lessee liked, he could allow one salesman to have the whole of the market. HIS HONOUR said that might be, and if he chose to forego the toll from others it was his own business, and the public could not complain. He might give trust for the toll fee if he chose. Mr. Young, the defendant, was then examined, and he said he had a number of sheep at the market on the day in question. He was putting his sheep in the pens, and had sufficient to put into all the pens in that part of the market when defendant's men cut the cords of some of the pens. The dogs who scattered the sheep of the plaintiff were his (defendant's) men's. Cross-examined.-His men had secured sixtyfour pens for him. He considered that having his initials on a pen gave him a right to it. His HONOUR said he was of opinion that it did not give him a right. Cross-examination continued.-Did not tell the plaintiff that on the morning of the 10th June he was so drunk that he did not know what he did. Sharp said he offered the plaintiff 51. to settle the matter, but he did that on his own responsibility, and Mr. Young knew nothing of the matter. Norris having replied on the evidence. His HONOUR proceeded to give judgment, and he said that he was of opinion the occupation of a pen must be a substantial one, either by sheep or men; and, therefore, the pens which were not actually taken possession of when the plaintiff drove his sheep there, he had a perfect right to occupy. Judgment for the plaintiff for 91. 2s. CARDIFF COUNTY COURT. (Before J. M. HERBERT, Esq., Judge.) THOMAS v. PERRIN. Now Important judgment as to high bailiff's fees. His HONOUR.-This was an action by the high bailiff of this couri, against an execution-creditor for his costs of possession in levying under a warrant from the Newport court on the goods of a judgment-debtor, who was adjudicated bankrupt on his own petition, on the last of the five days of possession, and therefore before a sale could be effected. Mr. W. Lloyd, of Newport, appeared for the defendant, and submitted that the high bailiff could not recover, inasmuch as the possession money was dependent on the value of the goods seized, and payable out of the proceeds of the sale, and therefore not payable at all, when ruptcy. the execution was rendered abortive by the bankIn support of his objection, he called three solicitors, who agreed in stating that the sheriff was never paid for poundage in a similar case. The sheriff, as is well known, is entitled not only to his poundage, but to certain fees allowed by the judges in the table of fees made pursuant to the 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 55. it has been decided that the sheriff is not entitled to his poundage, where, after seizure, but before sale, the judgment and subsequent poundage are set aside for irregularity. The case I refer to is Miles v. Harris, 12 C. B., N. S., 550. The judgment of the court is made to depend on the construction of the words of the statute of Elizabeth, which gives the right to poundage. Erle, C. J. says: "The question is whether the sheriff is entitled to poundage under the statute which enacts that it shall not be lawful for any sheriff, &c., to have, receive, or take of any person, &c., for the serving and executing of any estreat or execution, or other consideration or recompense as in the present Act is, and shall be limited and appointed, which shall be lawful to be had, received, and taken; that is to say, 12d. of and for every 20s. when the sum exceedeth not 1007., and 6d. of and for every 20s. being over and above that sum of 1001.; that he or they shall so levy or extend or deliver in execution, or take the body in execution for, by virtue and force of any such estreat or execution whatever. The question is, whether a seizure of goods under the fi. fa. is a levy within that statute. I am of opinion that the sheriff has not levied so as to be entitled to poundage under that statute until the goods seized have been turned into money. Here, without any default on the part either of the sheriff or the plaintiff, after the sheriff had commenced to levy by seizing the goods, his hand stayed, and he was prevented from turning them into money, Inasmuch, therefore, as no money was made by him under the execution, I think he was not entitled to claim poundage." And the rest of the court concurred. Mr. Justice Willes says, "I think the distinction is thiswhen the execution has been regularly conducted, and the sheriff has levied the money under it, he is entitled to his poundage, though the judgment may afterwards be set aside for irregularity; for then he has done all that he was required by the writ and warrant to do. So, when the sheriff is ready to perfect the levy by sale, and the parties compromise, and the sheriff in consequence withdraws; for in that case the plaintiff has had all the benefit of the sheriff's services, and the sheriff has done all he could do, and was ready to do the rest, in obedience to the precept; and according to all ordinary principles he ought to be paid. But when, as here, the execution is stayed before actual levy, through no voluntary act of the plaintiff's it seems to me that the sheriff has not levied this money within the terms of the statute, and consequently is not entitled to poundage.' This case appears to me to show conclusively that the sheriff in a case like the one before me, would not be entitled to his poundage. But it should be observed that the judgment rests on the very terms of the statute, and also that in this same case the defendant paid into court the sum of 11. 11s., being the amount payable to the sheriff according to the table of fees, viz., 1. ls. for executing this warrant, and 10s. for two days' possession. This case, therefore, not only does not press against the high bailiff's claim unless that claim rests on the same footing as sheriff's, but it affords some ground for believing that the high bailiff is entitled to be paid for the keeping of possession under the cir was the cases cumstances that similar expenses were there MERTHYR COUNTY COURT. (Before T. FALCONER, Esq., Judge.) money must be paid into court, as the wife, as BEDDOES V. BOWDEN (in ejectment). BOWDEN V. BEDDOES (in equity). An application in equity for injunction to restrain Rosser for the plaintiffs in equity. Beddoes for the defendants in equity. His HONOUR gave judgment in this case at last defendants. A trustee as tenant of the legal 66 66 The lim The rules Bowden and his wife, named in the will as "Mary Williams," who, under the rule I have cited, was to take personally, if the prior donee of the gift, Anne Williams, died without issue, living at the time of her death. The gift over is not to a class unascertained, or not ascertainable before the death of the testator, but to particular persons, one of whom is the said Mary Williams, now Bowden, who was in existence when the will was made. I shall declare the plaintiffs in the suit in equity-namely, Bowden and wife, to be entitled to a moiety of the property in dispute. This declaration of interests clearly satisfies the intention of the testator. A similar inference satisfied John Evans in 1850, through whom Beddoes and his wife claim. Beddoes then produced a deed, dated the 9th May 1842, made between John Evans and Mary Powell, respecting the property in question: it recited that William Evans was possessed of the property mentioned in his will; the death of Thomas Evans, leaving Mary Powell his joint executor under the will of W. Evans, surviving him, &c., and it set out a certain award by which it was declared that Mary Powell was liable to pay during her life to the said John Evans, interest on the sum of 2281., at the rate of 51. per cent. per annum. There is no statement in the deed explaining the occasion or origin of the debt, nor by whom due, nor to whom 2281. was to be paid. It was contended it was a specialty debt, and his Honour citing the case of Isaacson v. Harwood, W. N. 1868, p. 4, said an acknowledgment by deed of a debt due from the estate of Thomas Evans would have made it a specialty debt, but he would not add to the terms of the deed, though evidently imperfect. A rather nice point affecting the law of husband and wife has just been settled in the Liverpool County Court. It arose on the defence of a husband to an action brought by an auctioneer to recover the loss on some goods purchased by the wife at a sale, but not removed or paid for. The husband pleaded in defence that the wife had gone to the sale without permission, and that when he found what she had done, he gave plaintiff notice he should not pay for the goods. Mr. Serjt. Wheeler allowed the plea, and gave judgment for defendant, with costs, remarking that it was the first time he had heard such a defence urged. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. obtained the certificate of the chief registrar of BRISTOL BANKRUPTCY COURT. (Before Mr. Commissioner HILL.) Assignment to creditor-Landlord and tenantEvasion of Bills of Sale Act-Fraud. The bankrupt was an hotel keeper at Bristol, and in the course of the proceedings under an adjudication made against him a point of some novelty arose, which became the subject of a suit in Chancery, and afterwards of a special case, which was referred to the decision of this court. The facts will be found succinctly stated in the subjoined judgment, which was delivered yesterday by the learned commissioner (Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C.):-Mr. John Badcock, of Crediton, having, subsequent to the bankruptcy, distrained for a debt of 2807. on the goods of the bankrupt, at the Swan Hotel, Bristol, which had been, until the adjudication, in the bankrupt's occupation. Mr. Acraman, the official assignee of this court, at the instance of the petitioning creditor, filed a bill in the High Court of Chancery complaining of such distress, and praying (inter alia) for an injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the said goods. By the consent of the parties James, V.C. made an order directing a sale of the goods, and a deposit of the proceeds in the hands of Messrs. Barnard, Thomas, and Co., to abide the judgment of this court on the rights of the parties. The questions raised by the bill and so referred came before the court on a special case (with supplementary evidence), setting forth the title of the defendant in equity to distrain, as contained in each of two mortgage-deeds given by the bankrupt to the defendant, the first bearing date the 17th Aug. 1868, the second the 13th Jan. 1869. These deeds were securities for a debt due to the defendant as it stood at the date of the first deed, and as it should thereafter stand, whether increased or diminished. The reason for the second deed was, as set forth in the special case, merely to avoid doubts and difficulties which might arise between the bankrupt and the owner of the tenement by reason of some change which had occurred in the bankrupt's holding between the dates of the two deeds; and as the instruments are precisely the same, except as to the amount of the debt, which at the date of the second deed was reduced from 3381. 9s. 4d. to 2801., it appears to me that the second deed, in the absence of any provision or indication of intention to the contrary, must be held to be in substitution of the first, and I shall therefore pass over the first deed without further notice of it. The second deed assigns and demises to the defendant the Swan Hotel for all the present and future term of the said bankrupt, except the last three days thereof, with a proviso that upon payment on demand of all moneys thereby secured, the security shall cease and be void. The bankrupt covenants for payment of the debt then due on demand, and a proviso follows to the effect that the security shall extend to all future sums which may be thereafter owing from the bankrupt to Mr. Badcock, which sums the bankrupt also covenants to pay on demand, the instrument concluding with the proviso, "that the hereditaments herein comprised shall henceforth be held of the said John Badcock, his representatives, or assigns, as under a monthly tenancy, at a rent after the rate of 2000l. per annum, payable from day to day, and which rent is to go in reduction of, and with the said tenancy is to cease upon receipt of all moneys recoverable upon this security, full power of entry being reserved to the said John Badcock, his representatives, or assigns, upon any default in payment of the said rent, without any necessity for demanding payment thereof." Now, if this instrument be valid, Mr. Badcock's title is irresistible; but the deed is impeached on the ground of fraud-not moral, but legal fraud. The first allegation is that the mortgage is so framed as to give Mr. Badcock all, or nearly all, the advantages over other creditors which he would have derived from a bill of sale, and, indeed, some advantages which a bill of sale would not concede to him; while at the same time the arrangement provides for that secrecy which it was the object of the Bills of Sales Act, in conformity with the general policy of the law, to prevent. And it is urged by the assignee that the expedients and the very terms of a genuine mortgage-deed have been perverted from their true use CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF DEED- not sanction. The deed contains, it is true, no and meaning, to suit purposes which the law will ARREST BY SHERIFF.-Trespass cannot be main-assignment of the goods, either of such as were in tained against the sheriff or his bailiff for detaining in prison on civil process a man who has A CLERGYMAN SENTENCED FOR SIMONY.-The Dean of Arches gave judgment on Monday in the suit in which the secretary of the Bishop of Worcester was the promoter, and the Rev. J. J. Merest, the vicar of Upton Snodsbury, the defendant. Sir R. J. Phillimore said the Rev. Mr. O'Donnell was the vicar and patron of the living of Upton Snodsbury, which he sold to the Rev. M. R. Workman. Mr. O'Donnell resigned it, and Mr. Workman presented Mr. Merest. Then came a charge against Mr. Merest that he had attempted to extort money from Mr. Workman, and he had pleaded guilty to the charge at the Worcester Assizes. With regard to the simoniacal proceeding, he regretted to say that all the parties to the transaction were clergymen, and that the evidence led him to the conclusion that corrupt practices had been resorted to. He was of opinion that the promoter of the suit had established both his charges. The defendant must have made a solemn declaration on a most solemn occasion which he knew to be false, and he (the Dean) declared that Mr. Merest was a disabled person, incapable of holding the living. He sentenced Mr. Merest to be deprived of all power of holding ecclesiastical preferment in the province of Canterbury, and condemned him in the costs of the suit. He should also direct that Her Majesty's Proctor should be informed that the first presentation to the living of Upton Snodsbury, now vacant, belonged under the statute to the Crown. BANKRUPTCY LAW. NOTES OF NEW DECISIONS. SALE OF GOODWILL BY ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.-There is no substantial difference between the sale of the goodwill of a business by a trader himself, and a sale of it by his assignees in bankruptcy. A man has no right after the sale of the goodwill of his business by his assignees in bankruptcy to represent himself as carrying on or continuing that identical business: (Hudson v. Osborne, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 386. V.C. J.) the hotel at the date of the execution, or of goods assignee in bankruptcy alleges, the provisions of the deed are so contrived that Mr. Badcock obtains a dominion over the goods even better suited to his sole object of securing them for the payment of his debt than would be afforded him by a bill of sale. A landlord having by law a more summary method of obtaining payment of rent than is afforded to a creditor for any other debt, Mr. Badcock turns himself into the landlord of the hotel, by taking an assignment of the bankrupt's interest in the premises, which was a tenancy from year to year. Having become, by this assignment, Prockter's landlord, he demises the hotel to Prockter, to be held under a monthly tenancy. The rent which Prockter pays to his real landlord, as I shall term him, is 2251. per annum, while the rent to be paid to Mr. Badcock is 2000l. a year, thus subjecting the tenant to the prepos terous rental of 22251. But Mr. Badcock's precautions do not end here. The rent reserved is payable from day to day, and default in such daily payment works a forfeiture of the tenancy. It is evident that such a compact is most injurious to every creditor except Mr. Badcock himself, and must act as a trap to inveigle parties not yet creditors, and who would never become such were they made cognisant of Prockter's engagements to Mr. Badcock, these engagements giving Mr. Badcock a dominion over Prockter's whole property. That the arrangement comprised the whole of the property available to creditors I must decide, notwithstanding the objections to that conclusion maintained on the part of Mr. Badcock in a very ingenious argument. Although the power of distress is by the terms of the deed unlimited, yet, inasmuch as the instrument bears only a 10s. stamp, it was contended that the right to distrain is in effect limited to so much of the goods as do not exceed the value of 4001. This argument is fallacious. Mr. Badcock, as grantee, having possession of the deed, might have affixed to it whatever stamp he thought proper, and might, by paying the penalty provided in the Stamp Acts, do so even at the present moment. The limitation to 4001. alleged on behalf of Mr. Badcock was no part of the contract. It was imposed by Mr. Badcock himself, which would be a sufficient answer, even if he possessed no power of relief from his self-imposed restriction. A second objection is that not only was Prockter the owner of goods in the hotel, but of the trade fixtures over which the deed gave Mr. Badcock no power of distress. But no such power is either requisite or appropriate. By the mortgage the fixtures passed to Mr. Badcock, the mortgagee, for although trade fixtures set up by a tenant do as a general rule belong to him, yet when the mortgagor is himself the owner, he conveys his right to the mortgagee, and consequently during the existence of the mortgage they cease to be his property. Another and shorter answer is that there is no valuation of the fixtures as distinct from other property, so that the court has no means of ascertaining that their value is to any substantial amount. Next, it is said that Prockter retained the goodwill of the concern, which is not the subject-matter of distraint. Still such a reservation will not assist Mr. Badcock's case, because his power to shut up the hotel by seizing the goods and stock necessary to the carrying on of the concern would of itself have destroyed the value of the goodwill. I must, therefore, hold that over all such property as could be made available for the creditors, Mr. Badcock had obtained a dominion which, though differing in species, was at least equal in effect to that which he would have acquired by a bill of sale. Then what was the consideration for this dominion? On the face of the instrument it is an antecedent debt, and nothing more; and if it should be granted that, for the purpose of answering a charge of fraud, extrinsic evidence can in this case be received, yet to what does the evidence offered amount? It appears that some hopes of advances and of forbearance, never fulfilled, were held out, while on the other hand it is admitted in the special case that Mr. Badcock did not enter into any obligation to give time, or to renew bills, or otherwise to assist the bankrupt; but although there was no stipulation for an advance, yet it is argued that, as advances were contemplated, Mercer v. Peterson 37 L. J. 54, 218, Ex., is an authority to show that an absolute stipulation for an advance is not required to support a bill of sale, and consequently not to support such a deed as the present. Mercer v. Peterson was first argued in the Court of Exchequer, and again in the Court of Exchequer Chamber; but a close examination of the judgments delivered in both courts will show that no such construction of what fell from the learned judges can be sustained. In each court the judgment proceeded upon an actual advance made according to agreement, and the contemplation of other advances was, although mentioned, not relied upon. Doubtless if an advance actually amount to support the particular bill of sale, such made pursuant to stipulation be sufficient in instrument will not be avoided by an added expression of hopes and expectations, these being simply immaterial. I may add that, for the |