The trustees of a will sold two bonds of the nominal value of £500 and £700 respectively, which, as was held at the trial of the action, had been already appropriated to the trust in which the plaintiffs were interested. The proceeds of the sale were invested upon mortgage of freehold buildings, which had since deteriorated in value and become an insufficient security. The bonds had since the sale increased in value, and the plaintiff sought to make the trustees liable for the loss incurred by the conversion.

The trustees claimed the benefit of section 5 of the Trustee Act, 1888, contending that the mortgage should be deemed an authorised investment to the extent of its value.

Warmington, Q.C., and Farwell for the plaintiffs.
Neville, Q.C., aud Bunting for the trustees.

KEKEWICH, J., held that the trustees having acted wrongly in having without necessity converted the appropriated trust fund, the investment of that fund upon the mortgage was also improper. The impropriety of investment referred to in section 5 (1) of the Trustee Act, 1888, is impropriety only in respect of the amount advanced, and the benefit of the section does not extend to cases of trust investments which are otherwise improper. The trustees were directed to make good the loss resulting from the conversiou.

DUNCAN V. DIXON.

-

Feb. 28.-Infant Contract Marriage settlement Voidable contract-Infants Relief Act, 1874, s. 1. Two preliminary points of law were argued in this case, which was an action to set aside a marriage settlement entered into by the plaintiff, who was aged eighteen at the time of her marriage and the date of the settlement. The points were: (1) Whether the settlement was. as against the plaintiff, void abinitio; (2) whether the settlement was voidable at her instance.

The arguments proceeded on the footing that prior to the Infauts' Relief Act, 1874, contracts by an infaut operating to his prejudice were void; contracts for his benefit were valid; and contracts which fell under neither category were voidable,

The Iufauts Relief Act, 1874, s. 1, provided; "All contracts, whether by specialty or simple contract, entered into by infants for the repayment of money lent or to be lent, or for goods supplied or to be supplied (other than coutracts for necessaries), and all accounts stated with infants shall be absolutely void; provided always that this enactment shall not invalidate any contract into which an infant may, by any existing or future statute, or by the rules of common law or equity, enter, except such as now by law are voidable."

Warmington, Q.C., and T. Ribton for the plaiutiff. S. Hall, Q.C., aud E, Ford for the defendant. KEKEWICH, J., held that, on the true construction of the section, all contracts not within the categories specified by the section remained unaffected by the enactment, and that the settlement in this instance was not void, but voidable.

THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION WITH REFERENCE TO MORTGAGES.

Under the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 57), s. 8, after 12 years have passed without payment or acknowledgment, the remedy of the mortgagee against the land is barred. The question then arises whether the personal remedies of the mortgagee against the mortgagor or any other persons who may bave entered into covenants are barred also. We propose to state briefly the points which have been decided by the cases, and to indicate what is still left open for decision. After the 12 years the remedy of the mortgagee on the mortgagor's covenant for payment, con

tained in the mortgage deed, is barred: (Sutton v. Sutton, 48 L. T. Rep. N. S. 95; 22 Cb. 511; Fearnside v. Flint, 48 L. T. Rep. N. S. 154; 22 Ch. Div. 579), But a distinct covenant by a surety, contained in a separate bond for payment of part of the money is not barred until 20 years, as sect. 8 of the above statute does not apply: (Re Powers; Lindsell v. Phillips, 53 L. T. Rep. N. S. 647; 30 Ch. Div. 291). Where the same deed contained a mortgage by E. F. and a joint and several covenant by E. F. and M. F. (as surety for E. F.) for payment of the principal sum advanced and interest, the court was divided as to whether sect. 8 of the Act of 1874 applied to the covenant of the surety, and so whether 12 years would bar the claim as against the surety: (Re Prisby; Allison v. Frisby, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 632; 43 Ch. Div. 106) Mr. Justice Kay aud (on appeal) Lord Justice Bowen thought it did not, while Lord Justice Cotton thought it did. Lord Justice Fry expressed no opinion on the subject. Tuere was no occasion to come to an actual decision of the point, because the mortgagor bad made a payment within the 12 years; and it was held both by Mr. Justice Kay, and by the juges unanimously in the Court of Appeal, that this prevented sect. 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, from running in favour of the surety. Lord Justice Cotton pointed out that sect. 14 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (which in certain cases prevents a payment by one co-debtor preserving the liability of others), had no application. "Sect. 14 only applies to the particular statutes referred to in that section. The Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, is not one of those statutes." It is decided, therefore, that a payment by the mortgagor prevents the statute of 1874 from running against the surety. Mr. Justice Kay, however, threw out a suggestion (Nee 60 L. T. Rep. N. S. 922; 43 Ch. Div. 106) that, as the Act 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, was mentioned in the 14th section of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, the mortgagees might be barred as against the surety in 20 years, notwithstanding an interim payment by the mortgagor, 20 years being the period of limitation in 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27.-Law Times.

BRETT'S NEW COMMENTARIES.-A new and important work is announced as nearly ready. It is by Mr. Thomas Brett, LL.B., well known as joint author of "Clerke and Brett's Conveyancing Acts," whose "Leading Cases in Equity," very favourably noticed at the time of its publication, has been highly successful. Mr. Brett has this time uudertaken a very much larger work. His new book is in two volumes, and bears the title of "Brett's Commentaries on the Present Laws of England." The publishers are Messrs. Clowes & Son.

WHEREAS application has been made to the Court by the said Owner for an Order, pursuant to Section 14th, Subsection 1, of the "Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," that the amount of the advances sanctioned in this Matter in respect of Sales to the Tenants of the feesimple of the Lands of Knockdromaclogh (Parishes of Clondulane and Castlelyons), situate in the Barony of Condons and Clongibbons, and County of Cork, or part thereof, less the amount of such of the guarantee deposits as are not being lodged in cash, be paid into the Bank of Ireland to the account of the Irish Land Commission, and credit of this Ma ter, and that the claims of all persons (except the tenants or persons claiming under them) who are interested in the lands sold, whether as incumbrancers or otherwise, shall attach to the purchase-money of such lands in like manner as immediately before the sales they attached to the lands, and shall cease to be of any validity against the lands.

And whereas the said Owner claims to be seized of the said lands for the term of his natural life, subject only as is mentioned in the Originating Statement in this Matter, filed the 9th day of July, 1889. Let all parties Take Notice that the said Application will come before me to report upon on Tuesday, the 25th day of March, 1890, at my Chamber. 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, at Eleven o'clock, and will come on for heariug before Mr. Commissioner MACCARTHY, at his Court, Upper Merrion-street, aforesaid, on Tuesday, the 1st day of April, 1890, at Eleven o'clock in the forenoon, when a Final Order will be made, and all persons are at liberty to inspect the said Originating Statement at my Office, and any person, for any valid reason, objecting to such Order being made may enter an appearance in the Matter, and file an Affidavit of Cause against the said Order being made, and appear on the hearing of such application.

And Further Take Notice, that immediately on the making of such Order the Court will proceed to vest the several holdings in the purchasing tenants thereof, and to charge the said holdings with the annuities in respect of the said advances.

Dated this 3rd day of March, 1890.

HENRY C. LYNCH, Chief Clerk. N.B.-No application to the Court by letter or memorial can be entertained.

40

ORPENS & SWEENY, Solicitors for the Owner, 33 Anglesea-street, Dublin.

WHEREAS application has been made to the Court by the said Owners for an Order, [pursuant to Section 14, Subsection 1, of the "Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887." that the amount of the advances sanctioned in this Matter, in respect of Sales to the tenants of the lands set forth in the schedule hereto (or part thereof), less the amount of such of the guarantee deposits, as are not being lodged in cash, be paid into the Bank of Ireland to the account of the Irish Land Commission and credit of this Matter, and that the claims of all persons (except the tenants or persons claiming under them) who are interested in the lands sold, whether as incumbrancers or otherwise, shall attach to the purchase-money of such lands in like manner as immediately before the sales they attached to the lands, and shall cease to be of any validity against the lands.

And whereas the said Owners claim to be seized of said lands in fee, under grant dated the 23rd day of May, 1853, subject only as is mentioned in the Originating Statement in this Matter, filed the 11th day of January, 1889.

Let all parties Take Notice that the said application will come before me to report upon on Monday, the 24th day of March, 1890, at my Chamber, 24 Upper Merrion-street, Dublin, at Twelve o'clock, and will come on for hearing before Mr. Commissioner LYNCH, at his Court, Upper Merrion-street, aforesaid, on Monday. the 31st day of March, 1890, at Eleven o'clock in the forenoon, when a Final Order will be made, and all persons are at liberty to inspect the said Originating Statement at my Office, and any person for any valid reason objecting to such Order being made, may enter an appearance in the Matter, and file an Affidavit of Cause against the said Order being made, and appear upon the hearing of such application.

And Further Take Notice, that immediately on the making of such Order the Court will proceed to vest the several holdings in the purchasing tenants thereof, and to charge the said holdings with the annuities in respect of the said advances.

Dated this 28th day of February, 1890.

G. O. FARRELL, Assistant Chief Clerk. CROOKSHANK & LEECH, Solicitors for Owners, 55 Upper Sackville-street, Dublin.

N. B.-No application to the Court by letter or memorial can be entertained.

IRISH COUNTY COURT PRACTICE.-XII.

THE NEW COUNTY COURT ORDERS, 1890. THE new County Court Orders and Rules, which have for many months past been in the hands of a committee of judges, have at length made their appearance in print, in a neat blue-covered book, 187 pages in length. This volume, besides the Orders and Rules, contains a large number of forms and Schedules of Fees. The bulk of the Rules are similar to the existing Rules of December, 1877, which are practically embodied in their entirety, with some not very important alterations, additions, and omissions. They therefore supersede the earlier rules, from and after the 15th day of March, 1890, "except in proceedings under the Probate Acts, the Landed Property (Ir.) Improvement Act, 1860, the Landlord and Tenant (Ir.) Act, 1870, and the Acts amending the same, other than the Land Law (Ir.) Act, 1887, as to which all existing rules applicable to same shall continue to apply." They are made under the power for that purpose given by s. 79 of the County Courts (Ir.) Act of 1877, which also gives a power to amend the existing rules, orders, and forms.

We shall first glance at the more important alterations and amendments made in these existing rules, then at the various rules consolidated, and those which now appear for the first time. The first thing to be noticed is that the various rules instead of being numbered consecutively throughout from rule 1 to rule 239, are separately numbered under each order (as in the Orders and Rules of the High Court), the first rule of each order being numbered rule 1; thus, e.g., the old Or. II., r. 15, is now Or. II., r. 6.

The definitions or "Interpretation " clauses remain unchanged, save that "Person" is defined as extending to and including "any body politic or corporate," and the wider term "action" is added in the definition of "party;" thus, "with notice of or in any action, suit, or matter." As regards the definition of "sworn," it is to be noticed-in connection with the judgment of Gibson, J., in O'Brien's case—that it includes "declared and affirmed" and "attested," and would therefore embrace the Quaker and Presbyterian forms of asseveration. The definition of "clear days" excludes the first and last day, and yet throughout the rules the expression "within. clear days" frequently occurs. This is somewhat ambiguous. Under Or. XXXVI., r. 16 (old r. 228), when the days are not specified as "clear days" the first day is excluded and the last is included: Liffin v. Pitchen, 1 Dowl. N. S. 767. "Judge," apparently by an oversight, is not defined as including "deputy Judge." Here we may remark, incidentally, that in England a County Court Judge has the right to appoint his own deputy, any barrister of 7 years' standing being qualified. He may

also act as Judge of Assize, as there are no Civil Bill appeals. The definition of "Matter" is somewhat peculiar in England the term applies to every proceeding commenced otherwise than by plaint; in Ireland it is restricted to proceedings commenced by petition.

The rules of Or. I. (Parties) remain unchanged, save that rr. 8, 9 are extended to cover " any Act extending or amending" sec. of 37 & 38 Vic., c. 66. In the old rules these words were omitted apparently by an oversight. The new rules, therefore, include sec. 53 of 40 & 41 Vic., c. 56 (Carleton, p. 1072). The rules are silent as to persons under disabilities, and as to partners. Or. III., r. 2 (old r. 18), provides that the Civil Bill shall also state "the name of the lands and the county and division in which same or a part thereof shall be situate '-a useful provision. The Civil Bill under r. 4 (old r. 20), must state "the date of assignment; this is not in the correlative English rule. The word "legal" should have been inserted before "chose in action." Under r. 6 (old r. 22) the Judge may, if he shall consider it to have been unnecessary, dispense with the plaintiff's serving full particulars of his demand. Rule 9 (old r. 25) has been considerably amended and extended. The annual "value or rent (as the case may be)" must not exceed £30. The production of a map at the hearing is rendered compulsory instead of it being optional with the Judge to require it. The map, together with a copy of the Civil Bill decree or dismiss, and affirmance or reversal on appeal, shall be lodged by the successful party with the Clerk of the Peace to be filed by him. Or. IV., r. 1 (old r. 26), has been amended in some unimportant verbal respects. The second paragraph reads thus: "If the defendant intends to rely upon any claim"-this is probably a misprint for "counterclaim as in the old rule, or does "claim" equal "counterclaim"? The English rule has "rely upon any grounds of defence upon any counterclaim." Rule 6 (old r. 31) is extended to apply to any action (other than an action to recover land), brought under the title jurisdiction. The summons prescribed by Or. V., r. 1 (old r. 35), is to be served upon the assignor or the person claiming under him. In Or. VI. the first rule of 10th September, 1881 (15 Ir. L. T. 494), and that of 11th May, 1882, are embodied, with a couple of trifling verbal alterations. The second rule of 10th September, 1881, is not included, probably owing to the fact that its requiring "delivery" of the letter rendered it of little Rule 7 (old r. 41) has also been a little altered, and the grammar has been improved (?) by the introduction of the word "brought" before "under sec. 1 of the 37," &c. Rules 8, 9 (old rr. 42, 43), provide that the affidavit of service shall be filed with the Clerk of the Peace. Under Or. IX., r. & (old r. 64), the

use.

or

minute of orders need no longer be countersigned by the Judge. Rule 7 (old r. 65) is extended to all other Acts whereby any duty is imposed upon the Clerk of the Peace, and the qualification respecting duties of a judicial character is removed. In Or. XIII., r. 1 (old r. 70), the words used are "pay or tender," "payment or tender not having been made or being insufficient." | O. XIV. (old Or. XII.) is, following the English Order, extended to matters. The old r. 86 is struck out entirely, although it has been retained in the English Rules of 1886-Or. L., r. 6-this gives the Judge a discretion in respect of costs in such a case as in the Superior Courts. The rule was hardly necessary in Ireland, having regard to the powers bestowed by s. 113 of 14 & 15 Vic., c. 57, and s. 90 of 23 & 24 Vie., c. 154. Or. XVIII., on Accounts, embodies old rr. 100_124, with little alteration, the Registrar being given a like power with the Clerk of the Peace throughout, as in the English rules. He has all the powers of the Chief Clerk in the Chancery Division. The accounts may be taken where the Judge shall direct. Old Or. XVII., r. 128, is omitted, as being irreconcilable with the provisions of 45 & 46 Vic., c. 29, s. 5, which provides that appeal shall be by notice served within four clear days after the close of the sitting of the Court. The rules substituted by the Order of May 11th, 1882, for the old rules 135 and 136—and which added “or Judge by whom such appeal shall be heard" after "Chancellor". -are embodied as rr. 7 and 8 of Or. XX. In Or. XXII., r. 5 (old r. 141), a duplicate of the original decree or dismiss is sufficient. Under Or. XXIII., r. 1 (old r. 142), the Clerk of the Peace shall certify on the decree the amount of rent so ascertained and the date up to which the same is due. The curious misprint in old r. 143, "decree to possession," is corrected. Old r. 147 is amended by the words "not included in the Civil Bill ejectment or" after "rent." Money lodged under Or. XXIX., r. 5 (old r. 171), is, as in England, to be lodged to the credit of the County Court account; so, too, in old r. 196 (new Or. XXXIII., r. 3). The old r. 185 is now omitted, as it practically repealed the Partition Act (31 & 32 Vic., c. 40, s. 9) as to parties in partition suits: see Lees v. Coulton, L. R 20 Eq. 20; Mildmay v. Quick, ib., 537; Rawlinson v. Millar, 1 Ch. D 52. By an oversight, however, the old form 69, following the old rule, has been retained unaltered (new form 71). In Or. XXXI., r. 2 (old r. 187), the last phrase runs "authorised for that purpose in writing be partitioned or sold as," &c. The surveyor's report in partition suits is to be accompanied by a map, showing the boundaries of the lands proposed to be partitioned. Or. XXXIV. (old Or. XXVII.) is amended by adding or recognisance" after" bond," wherever it occurs. Under these rules the duty of the Registrar is confined to an inquiry as to the sureties. Under Or. XXXV., r. 1 (old r. 209), costs in lunacy matters are to be taxed as in equity proceedings. The taxation of costs under old r. 211 (new r. 3) is now subject to revision by the Judge. In England this rule is peremptory in all cases. New r. 5 provides that where a party seeks to have the taxa

tion reviewed by the Judge he must serve on the Clerk of the Peace notice of the items to which he objects this is similar to English County Court Order L., r. 4, and to Irish Order XI., r. 31 (April, 1878). It is to be remarked that the new Irish rule does not require the grounds or reasons for the objections to be specified, which in England is necessary. Or. XXXVI., r. 6 (old r. 217), is extended to "notice given" as well as "act done." In r. 7 (old r. 220) “Registrar " is added to Judge or Clerk of the Peace. Under this rule the Judge or Registrar may order once for all in what papers any advertisements in an action are to be inserted. Rule 19 (old r. 235) is now qualified by the words "unless the Judge shall otherwise order" prefixed to it. Rule 22 (old r. 238) is made applicable to every proceeding under the equitable jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Court, save a lunacy proceeding, and a proviso is added that it shall not be necessary to renew any decree or order of whatsoever nature made in any suit or matter in equity. The old rules as to affidavits (229-232) have been considerably added to and are grouped together (as in the English Orders) in a separate Order, XXXVII. The new rules of this Order provide as follows: Rule 3 treats of how the affidavit is to be intituled in the matter in which it is sworn, and a note to state the person on whose behalf it is filed. This is taken from Irish Or. XI., r. 14 (April, 1878), and English County Court Order XIX, rr. 3, 4: the English High Court Or. XXXVIII., rr. 2, 10, and LXVI., r. 7k, are to the same effect. It is to be presumed that this note at foot should be on every copy of the affidavit, and that if the parties are numerous it is sufficient to state the full name of the first only of such plaintiffs or defendants. Rule 5 provides that the rules as to filing shall not hinder the Judge in an urgent case from making an order upon the undertaking of the applicant to file any affidavit sworn before the making of such order. Rule 6 enacts that affidavits sworn before the party's solicitor, or his agent, correspondent, partner, or clerk, or who is himself the party, shall not be filed. Rule 7 relates to the swearing of affidavits by illiterate and blind deponents, and is similar to 143 G. O., 1854. Where the statement that the affidavit was read over to the deponent, and he appeared to understand, is omitted, the affidavit will be taken off the file (Re Longstaffe, 54 L. J. Ch. 516, 52 L. T. 681) unless the Judge is satisfied that it was read to him and that he did understand it as a

matter of fact. This is probably added in consequence of the decision in Fernyhough v. Naylor, 23 W. R. 228. These three rules-5, 6, 7—correspond to English Or, XIX., rr. 6, 7, 9. We may notice that in England the provisions of r. 8 (old r. 232) are extended to all documents, not confined to affidavits.

BOYCOTTS.

The most recent contribution to the literature of boycotts and strikes is the case of Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass., 212, 9 Am. St. Rep., 689. It grew out of the troubles between the manufacturers of boots and shoes and members of a voluntary association called the "Lasters' Protective Union." Trouble having arisen