session and where A. was sued and compelled to pay rent accruing during B.'s possession: --Held, by the Queen's Bench Division (O'Brien, Holmes, and Gibson, JJ.), in an action by A. against B, upon the agreement, to recover the rent so paid, that the agreenient amounted to an assignment, and was not executory merely; and that, as an assignment, it was void under the Act 23 & 24 Vict., c. 154, s. 10, and that therefore A, was not entitled to recover. Also, per Holmes and Gibson JJ., that if the agreement were executory B.'s liability would only arise on the perfection of an assignment. The decision of the Queen's Bench Division affirmed by the Court of Appeal.-Manning v. Saul (App.), 26 L. R. 640.

Criminal Law-[And see ASSAULT - CONSPIRACY-ERROR-JUSTICE OF THE PEACE-LARCENY-NEWSPAPER.]

Cruelty to animals; dishorning cattle: justification; 12 & 13 Vic., c. 92, s. 2.-R. v. M'Donagh (P. S.) 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 374. [Decision affirmed on case stated.]

A trespasser entered the close of another and cut growing grass, and three days subsequently returned and carried it away for his own use For those acts he was indicted for larceny at common law, tried, and convicted. Upon a case reserved at the trial:-Held (Palles, C. B., dissentienti) that the conviction was good. R. v. Fownley L. R. 1 C. C. 315) and R. v. Petch (14 C. C. C. 116) distinguished.—Reg. v. Foley (C. C. R.), 17 C. C. C. 142, 26 L. R. 299.

Custody of Child-[See INFANT.]

D

Damages—[And see CAMPBELL'S ACT-CARRIERS-NEGLIGENCE.] While giving evidence at a police-court in London, a witness named D. stated that H., an Irish member of Parliament, was not an "Invincible.' This was correctly reported in the Evening Frish Times, of which, as well as of the Irish Times (a Dublin daily morning paper), A. was proprietor. But in several London daily papers, and in the next issue of the Irish Times, D. was represented as having said that H. was an "Invincible" (this being, admittedly, the name by which members of a criminal association were known). In an action for this libel by H. against A., his manager, and editor, in which the defendants paid £50 into court with an apology, the jury found that the libel was inserted by gross negligence, and that the apology was not full. They were unable to agree upon the question whether the libel was inserted with actual malice, and the court was of opinion that a finding in the affirmative would have been against the weight of evidence. The jury found a verdict for £1,000, which the Judge at the trial considered excessive:-Held, by the Exehequer Division and by the Court of Appeal that there was no reasonable proportion between the damages and the circumstances of the case, and that the verdict should be set aside on the ground of excessive damages:-Harris v. Arnott (App.), 26 L. R. 69.

A verdict for damages will not be set aside and a new trial granted on the ground that the damages are excessive, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was no reasonable proportion between the damages and the facts of the case. The jury, in an action for damages for breaking and entering certain premises, may give exemplary, as distinguished from compensating damages, if they believe, on the evidence, that the defendant entered the premises in a mode which he at the time knew was illegal. The court will be reluctant to set aside a verdict in an action of tort on the ground that the damages are excessive, where there is evidence of malice, and the nature of the case is such that malice is a legitimate consideration for the jury in assessment of damages:-Semble, where the jury find that the defendant acted with malice, the verdict awarding damages will not be set aside on the ground of being excessive.-Reeves v. Penrose (Ex.), 26 L. R. 141.

Debts, Attachment of-[See ATTACHMENT Of Debts).
Debtors Act, 1872-[See COUNTY COURT-Costs].

Decree-[See COUNTY COURT).

Declaration of Title –[See LANDLORD AND TENANT].
Detinue-[See CARRIERS].

Discovery-[See COSTS-INTERROGATORIES].

Dismissal for want of Prosecution-An order having been made under Gen. Ord. XXXV., Rule 4, dismissing an action for want of prosecution unless notice of trial should be served within ten days, and notice of trial not being served within the limited time:Held (following Whistler v. Hancock, 3 Q. B. Div. 83, and Wallis v. Hepburn, ibid. 84), that the court had no power to make an order giving liberty to serve notice of trial after the expiration of the limited time.-Feehan v. Mandeville (Ex.) 26 L. R. 391.

Distress-[And see MASTER and Servant-Poor Law].

A distress is rendered unlawful by the omission to state in the notice of distraint the name of the person to whom the rent is payable, as authorizing the distress. A receiver appointed by deed, executed by mortgagees under the statutory powers contained in the statute 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, signed in his own same, as receiver, a warrant of distraint. The distress effected under the authority of such warrant was held to be unlawful by reason of the omission to state the name of the mortgagor in the statutory notice. - Croghan v. Maffett (Ex.), 26 L. R.

€64.

E

Efectment-[See ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF LAND-COUNTY COURT-COSTS-LANDLORD AND TENANT].

Embarrassing Pleadings-In an action for moneys insured upon the life of M the Insurance Company pleaded in defence the perpetration, and attempted perpetration, by M. of a series of insurance frauds (by insuring uninsurable lives) upon the defendant company and other companies, and also set out in detail a conspiracy by M, in conjunction with A., to effect large insurances on M.'s life, and, in pursuance of said conspiracy a simulation of death by M. by leaving clothes on the sea-shore and disappearing; and further, that the proof of death given was not sufficient, inasmuch as it was a proof of the facts of the conspiracy only:-Held, by the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, that these pleas should be struck out, and that the defence should merely have traversed the death of the insured and the allegation that proof of the death was produced.-Provincial Bank of Ireland v. Brocklebank (App.) 26 L. R. 578.

Employer-[See MASTER AND SERVANT-LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER-NEGLIGENCE].

Entries-[See EVIDENCE].

Equitable Execution—[See ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS).

Error [And see JUDGMENT-LIBEL-REMITTAL TO INFERIOR COURT).
The trial of O., who was charged with the commission of a murder in the
county of Limerick, was, by an order of the Queen's Bench Division,
obtained by the Attorney-General under the Criminal Law and Pro-
cedure Act, 1887, transferred to the county of the city of Waterford,
and a similar order directed that the case should be tried by a special
jury The jury having disagreed at Waterford, the case was ad-
journed to the next assizes. By an Order in Council under the
Winter Assizes Act, the case was transferred to Nenagh, the assize
town of the Northern Riding of the county of Tipperary, where (.
was convicted. The county of Limerick, the county of the city of
Waterford, and the county of Tipperary are within the ambit of the
Munster Winter Assize County:-Held, that the trial legally took
place at Nenagh before a special jury. The record of the trial averred
as follows:-" And thereupon, on the 6th day of December, 1889, at a
Session of Oyer and Terminer and General Goal Delivery, held at
Nenagh, in the county of Tipperary, . being the Munster Winter
Assize County, duly ordered and appointed by order of the Lords
Justices and Privy Council in Ireland, dated the 13th November,
1889, before the Honourable James Murphy, duly appointed one of
the Justices of all assizes, juries, recognizances, and certificates,
before whatsoever Justices arraigned, also to hear, examine,
discuss and determine all and singular treasons, murders,
homicides, burnings. felonies, crimes, contempts, and evil doings
for the several counties comprised within the jurisdiction and deň-
nition of the said Munster Winter Assize County":-Held, that the
averment was sufficient. The record further averred as follows:-"And
thereupon at the said sessions
comes the said O. in his proper

person, upon being arraigned according to law "-Held, that the aver-
ment was sufficient. The record further averred as follows:-" And
thereupon a special jury of the said Munster Winter Assize County.
duly summoned in pursuance of said order, is duly sworn and empan-
nelled in manner required by law":- Held, that the averment was suffi-
cient. The record further averred as follows:-" And afterwards
the said jurors now here come to the bar, and upon their oath say
that the said O. is guilty of the premises in the said indictment specified
and charged ":-Held, that the averment was sufficient. It is not
necessary that the record should state the names of the jurors, or that
the number of the jury amounted to twelve, if it appears either expressly
or by manifest implication that the jury consisted of twelve. Where
there is an averment in the record of a proper and legal adjournment
of the sessions from day to day, it is not necessary that the record
should state the day or days upon which the trial took place. An appeal
lies to the Court of Appeal from the judgment of the Crown side of
the Queen's Bench Division upon a writ of error; and the proceeding
is by way of appeal, and not by writ of error. Semble, per Palles, C.B.:
Since the Judicature Act the Queen's Bench Division has not juris-
diction to hear or determine a writ of error from a judgment of the
High Court, pronounced by a judge of that court sitting at assizes
under a commission of gaol delivery. Semble, per FitzGibbon, L.J.:
There can be no writ of error or appeal to the Court of Appeal in
criminal matters, except on the old writ addressed to the Court in which
the error is alleged to have taken place, and returnable from the
Courts of Oyer and Terminer, among other courts, into the Queen's
Bench Division, to be there examined and afterwards made the subject
of appeal from that division. When it becomes necessary to bring up a
prisoner to be present at the argument of an appeal from the decision
of the Queen's Bench Division on a writ of error, application for a writ
of habeas corpus should be made to the Divisional Court.-O'Brien v.
Reg. (App.), 26 L.R., 495.

Estoppel-[See LANDLORD AND TENANT].

Evidence [And see CAMPBELL'S ACT-EMBARRASSING PLEADINGS JUSTICE OF THE Peace-Negligence-NewspaPKE].

A rate-collector's bond, executed by himself and sureties, was, upon the conditions inter alia that the collector should collect the whole of the rates lawfully recoverable and pay the amount of the rates so collected to the treasurer whenever the same exceeded £50, and also that he should deliver to the person or persons authorised to require the same true and perfect accounts in writing under his hand of all moneys received by him as collector, and when required to do so should de

liver up his books and pay to the treasurer such money as, upon the balance of any account or accounts, should appear to be in his hands. The rate-collector having made default and absconded, an action was brought on the bond against him and the sureties, suggesting as a breach that he had collected £223, but had not paid over the same to to the treasurer. One of the sureties took defence, denying that the amount sued for had been collected, and the only evidence of receipt by the collector of the moneys claimed were the entries made by him in the accounts kept by him as rate collector:-Held (diss. O'Brien, J.). that these entries were admissible in evidence against the sureties.-Guardians of the Abbeyleix Union v. Sutcliffe (Q.B.) 26 L. R. 332.

Excessive Damages-[See DAMAGES].

Execution-[See COUNTY COURT-JUDGMENT MORTGAGE-LANDLORD AND TENANT-SHERIFF).

Extension of Time - [See DISMISSAL for Want of PROSECUTION].

F

Fair Rent-[And see RECEIVER-LandLORD AND TENANT.]

A judicial rent, fixed after the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, upon an originating notice served prior to the passing of the Act, runs from the gale-day next after the service of the originating notice.— Sutton v. Walsh (Q. B.), 26 L. R. 629.

False Imprisonment - [See LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER).

Fieri Facias-[See SHERIFF).

Fishery Acts-[And see BY-LAW.]

A riparian owner (unless the "several fishery" in his waters has been vested in other persons, by grant or otherwise) is proprietor of a "several fishery" in the waters adjoining his land, usque al medium filium aquæ.-Board of Conservators of Waterford Fishery District v. Connolly (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 7.

Forcible Entry [See DAMAGES].

Fraud -[See EMBARRASSING PLEADINGS]. Fright-[See NEGLIGENCE].

Infant-When an illegitimate child, after the death of the mother, has legally, that is, without force or stratagem, been brought into the custody of the father, a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted on the application of a brother of the mother, although the mother in her lifetime gave the child into the custody of the applicant, and the child had remained in the custody of the applicant for some time after the mother's death. In re Crowe, 17 Ir. L. T. Rep. 72, approved.— In re Kerr, otherwise M'Ilwraith (App.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 3. Injunction - [See LANDLORD and Tenant].

Interest-An action was brought by a Banking Company against the defendant, as executor, to recover principal and interest on his testator's overdraft of his current account. For several years the testa tor dealt

with the Bank, and was in the habit of overdrawing his account. The testator's account, as furnished to him from time to time during his lifetime, charged him with compound interest on his overdrafts, with half-yearly rests in March and September. He died on the 3rd December, 1880. At his death the period for capitalising the interest current from the last statement of accounts had not arrived: - Held (diss. Harrison, J.), that the bank were entitled to six years' simple interest on the amount due at the customer's death until paid. Graves v. Davies (17 Ir. Ch. R., 227) considered. - Provincial Bank of Ireland v. O'Reilly (Q B.), 26 L. R 313.

Interment-[See BURIAL].

Interpleader-[See COUNTY COURT).

Interrogatories-Where a person interrogated refuses to answer an interrogatory on the ground that his answer might tend to criminate himself, if the court can clearly and affirmatively arrive at the conclusion that there is no reasonable ground for believing that it would have that effect, it has jurisdiction to compel an answer. But, if a corpus delicti, or an act which there is reasonable ground for believing amounts to a corpus delicti, is shown to exist, the court should have very clear evidence that danger to the deponent cannot reasonably be apprehended before it declines to allow the privilege claimed. Decision of the Queen's Bench Division reversed. Reg. v. Boyes (1 B & S. 311) and Ex parte Reynolds (20 Ch. Div. 294) distinguished-Bradley v. Clayton & Co. (App.), 26 L. R. 410.

Intimidation-[See NEWSPAPER].
Irish Church Act, 1869-[See BURIAL].

J

G

Game-Rabbits constitute game, for trespass in pursuit of which the landlord, in the case of a judicial tenancy subject to the statutory conditions, reserving the game to him, under the Land Law Act, 1881, as well as in the case of a tenancy created by deed with a similar reservation, is qualified, by 27 & 28 Vic., c. 67, as though he were in occupation, to prosecute a person other than the occupier, under 27 Geo. III., c. 35, s. 10, notwithstanding such rights in respect of game as, inter fering with reservations of game, are conferred on occupiers by the Ground Game Act, 1880.-Hope and others v. Callaghan (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 5.

Improvements~[And see LANDLORD AND TENANT.]

A tenant evicted for non-payment of rent does not lose his right to com pensation for improvements by reason of the power of sale conferred by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881. A landlord, in order to avail himself of the provisions of sect. 4, sub-sect. 4, of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, must establish that he has brought the case within the sub-section by having given an operative permission to the tenant to dispose of his interest in his improvements. Query, per O'Brien, C.J., whether participation by the outgoing tenant in a conspiracy to boycott the land, and thereby deprive the landlord of the benefit of the improvements, would not be ground for depriving the tenant of compensation for them -Kelly, Tenant; Lord Massereene, Landlord (App.), 26 L. R. 199.

Incrimination-[See INTERROGATORIES].

Incumbent -[See CONSPIRACY].

Judgment—[And see JUDGMENT MORTGAGE-LIBEL-SECURITY FOR COSTS-SERVICE.]

The court has a discretionary jurisdiction to amend a writ of summons by striking out an unliquidated claim, and to give leave to enter final judgment under O. XIII., r. 1, for the balance, on the one motion. Where a substantial demand is sought to be struck out, the court wil not grant the amendment if the plaintiff refuses to abandon the demand.-Smith-Barry v. Mulcahy (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 76.

Marking judgment: verdict two years old; subsequently acquired property. Anon. (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 52.

Judgment Mortgage―The registration of a judgment as a mortgage, under the Judgment Mortgage Act, is not a violation of a stay of execution on the judgment. In any event, an objection that such a mortgage is invalid because registered pending the stay is not admissible at Nisi Prius.-Barnett v. Bradley (App.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 39, 26 L. R.

212.

Judgments Extension Act-[See SECURITY FOR COSTS].
Jury- [See Error-Presentment).

Justice of the Peace-[And see ASSAULT-BY-LAW-CONSPIRACY —
COUNTY CESS-FISHERY ACTS-Game-NewSPAPER.]

The provisions of the 73rd section of the County Officers and Courts Act, 1877, should be strictly observed by justices on the hearing of appeals from Petty Sessions. On the hearing of an appeal from a conviction and sentence of imprisonment at Petty Sessions, one of the magistrates who had adjudicated in the court below, took his seat on the bench, and remained there until the appeal was decided, and was consulted by the County Court Judge as to the number of magistrates who took part in the decision appealed from, and their unanimity, but he did not otherwise take part in the hearing of the appeal:-Held, sufficient to invalidate the proceedings, and to entitle the prisoner to be discharged on habeas corpus.— Ex parte Clarke (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 20, 26 L. R. 1. The phrase "notice to the opposite party "in the Petty Sessions Act (24 & 25 Vic., c. 93), section 21, sub-section 5, does not necessitate personal service upon the party who appeared at Petty Sessions (O'Brien, J., diss.) Per Holmes and Gibson, JJ.: Service on any person who at the time of service is authorised as agent to accept service, is sufficient. Per Murphy, J.: Service at the house of the opposite party is sufficient, and, semble, by posting a letter to his address. Per O'Brien, J.: The expression "party" in subsection 5, section 24, of the Petty Sessions Act does not, by construction, include an agent of such party.-The Queen (Campbell) v. The Justices of Donegal (Q.8.), 24 Ir. L. T. Kep. 47. Ouster of jurisdiction; question of title; reasonable supposition of right: trespass on foreshore; place, within 14 & 15 Vic., c. 92, s. 8.-The Queen (Sweeny) v. Justices of Cork (Q.B.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 586.

Upon the information in writing of a peace officer, a Justice of the county Cork issued a warrant, under which B. was arrested and brought before

a Petty Sessions Court in the county of Cork, to show cause why he should not give securities of the peace and for good behaviour. The complainant was examined viva voce out of his information. This was the only evidence given in support of the complaint. The complainant in his evidence deposed to acts of boycotting by B. in the county Cork, and also (subject to B.'s objection to the admissibility of such evidence) to similar acts in the county of Waterford. The complainant stated in cross-examination that he did not apprehend a breach of the peace. The magistrates found that B. had attended fairs in the county Cork, at which he transacted no lawful business, and associated with persons under police supervision; that he attended fairs in the county Waterford under similar circumstances; and that at a meeting in the county Cork B. advised boycotting. They accordingly made an order that B. should give security to keep the peace and be of good behaviour to all Her Majesty's subjects for twelve months:-Held on a case stated:1. That he questions arising as to the validity of the magistrates' order formed the proper subject-matter of a case stated under 20 & 21 Vict, c. 43. 2 That the evidence of B.'s acts in the county Waterford had been properly admitted. 3. That there was sufficier t legal evidence to sustain the order made by the magistrates. 4. That it was not neces sary that B. should have been called on to give security and have efused. 5. That the order was properly framed as one requiring security both to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour.-Reg. (Lanyon) v. Barry (Ex.), 26 L. R. 40.

L

Landlord and Tenant-[And see ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF LAND-COVENANT AGAINST ALIENATION-DISTRESS-FAIR RENTGAME-IMPROVEMENTS-LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF-MASTER and SekVANT-NOTICE TO QUIT-PASTORAL HOLDING-RATfs - ReceiverSHERIFF-TEMPORARY CONVENIENCE.]

In an action of ejectment for overholding, the court has power, at any time before possession is taken, to stay the proceedings on such terms and conditions as they may think fit, pending an application by the defendant to the Land Commission to fix a judicial rent, whether the originating notice has been served before or after the notice to quit expired.-Montgomery v. O'Hara (App.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 2.

Where notice to have a fair rent fixed, recorded under the Land Law Act, 1881, s. 60, was heard before the Sub-Commission, January, 1883, and by the Appeal Court in June, 1884:-Held, that for the purposes of sec. 29 of the Land Law Act. 1887, the rent was "fixed" by the order of the Sub-Commissioners, dated January, 1883, and that the tenant was, therefore, entitled to the abatement appropriated to that year (1883, under the Gazette notice under that section -Law v. Sinnamon (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 9.

A tenant who had held under lease which reserved a rent payable by halfyearly gales (1st May and 1st November), and who since expiration of lease in 1864 continued on a tenant at a revised rent, got a judicial rent fixed under the Land Law Act, 1881. His rent was usually paid yearly, and up to November of each year. Having been sued for a year and a half's rent up to May, 1888, and claiming to deduct the abatement provided by the Gazette notice under the Land Act, 1887, s. 29, from the entire year's gale due up to November, 1887 :-Held, that, notwithstanding the fact that for convenierce rent had been paid and received yearly, the tenancy was still one with two half-yearly gales, and that the tenant was only entitled to abatement for the half year due 1st November, 1887.-Baron Trevor v. Gelston (Ciṛ. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 10. The Land Commission Court will not declare a sale by a tenant void on account of the failure of the tenant to give notice thereof to the land lord, unless the Court is of opinion that "the just interests of the landlord so require, as for instance, if he had intended to exercise his right of pre-emption, and such right had been interfered with. '-Poole v. Prendergast (L. C.), 24 ir L. T. Rep. 12.

It is within the discretion of the Land Commission Court to give a grant of limited administration for the purposes of the Land Acts, where a will is in exi-tence in which executors are named, but of which probate has not been taken out.-Heatherton v. White (L. S. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 13.

Where a leasehold, of which the term is yet unexpired, has been subdivided and converted into separate holdings by the act of the parties, the tenants are entitled to apply to have fair ren's fixed on their respective holdings as tenants from year to year. The court may amend an originating notice in which the tenure is wrongly stated, where the error was made in good faith, and was caused by the course of dealing between the parties - Boyland and Food v. Wright (L. S.-C), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 14.

Holdings near Ballymoney which, under the Land Law Act, 1881, would have been held to be "town parks," now treated as agricultural holdings on which a fair rent should be fixed, by vtrtue of the Land Law Act, 1887, s. 9, because they were taken and had been used as agricultural holdings, and used in conjunction with other agricultural holdings occupied by the tenant under the same landlo: d.-Thompson v. Lord Antrim (L. S. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 13.

A lease, dated November 18, 1826, was assigned in 1828, without the lessor's consent. The rent was received by the lessor from the assignee direct since 1858, and the receipts were since given to the tenant in his own name:- Held to be such a consent to the assignment by the lessor as (under 51 & 52 Vic., c. 13, s. 1) entitled the present occupant to have a fair rent fixed, notwithstanding that the provisions of 7 Geo, IV.. c. 29, had not, prior to 1832, been complied with.-Stewart v. Wray (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 16.

Demesne lands not excluded from the operation of the 58th section of the Land Act of 1870, as amended by Sir (olman O'Loghlen's Act. A stamped six months' notice for the last gale day of the calendar year necessary to determine a yearly tenancy of demesne lands created before the 15th August, 1876, in the absence of special agreement in writing.-Wilkinson v. Sullivan (Cơ. Ct.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 16.

Where a tenant held under a lease for sixty-one years from November, 1864, and covenanted therein to reclaim and thorough-drain every year la. Ir. 20p. of the land demised, and also to thorough-drain one acre of the arable portion of the land yearly, and expend a sum of £300 on buildings; and it was proved that the rent reserved by the lease was the full letting value of the holding as it then stood:-Held, that the tenant was not, by the granting of the lease, compensated for improvements executed in pursuance of the covenants, and that in fixing the fair rent he should be allowed for his drains and reclamation, and no rent put on the buildings erected by him in pursuance of the covenant in the lease.-Campbell v. Houston (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 25.

A lessee who might "at the expiration of his lease be entitled to be deemed the tenant of a present o dinary tenancy from year to year" is not the same as "a lessee who would be entitled."- Barton v. Atkinson (L. 8.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 26.

The posting of a registered letter addressed to "the representatives of (naming the tenant) deceased" is a sufficient compliance with the 7th section of the Land Law Act, 1887, where no legal representation has been taken out to a deceased tenant.-Finegan v. Shirley (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 26.

On an application to have a judicial rent determined, it appeared that the applicant was assignee of a lease dated 18th December, 1877, of lands valued at £203 10s. per annum which contained a covenant against assignment without previous written consent of lessons. An as ignment was executed between the lessee and assignee dated 17th October, 1885, in consideration of £800, and expressed to be "with the consent in writing of (the le sors) given in consideration of the sad John Moore undertaking to strictly observe, perform, and be bound by all the covenants, conditions, and provisos in the said lease mentioned, and to pay the rent reserved by the said lease regularly upon the days and times specified, and testified by the said (lessors) subs ribing their names at foot of these presents" At foot was following endorsement signed by lessors: "We, the undersigned, being the lessors of the lease herein expressed to be assigned, do hereby consent to the above-mentioned assignment on the conditions mentioned therein: "-Held, that the terms of the assignment and endorsement did not constitute a new contract between the assignee and lessors, by which the assignee undertook to pay the rent reserved for the term, apart from his obligation to do so as assignee of the lease; and a judicial rent was determined accordingly.-Moore v. Irvine (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 27.

On a holding admittedly forming part of an estate where tenant-right existed, and where admittedly the custom had hitherto alwa, s been on the expiration of leases not to put rent on any improvements effected at the tenant's expense, even when that expense had been originally incu red pursuant to a covenant in an expired lease, the landlord was held not entitled to rent on such improvement.-Ball v. Marquis of Downshire (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 28.

Notwithstanding that the lessee was not in the actual occupation of the entire holding, by reason of a letting made by the landlord prior to the execution of the lease: - Held, that the lessee was entitled to have a fair rent fixed; distinguishing Flannery v. Nolan (20 L. R. I. 537).— M'Master v. Betty and Jackson (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 36.

A tenant of a present yearly tenancy served an unstamped notice to quit, which, while it was running, he expressed his intention to withdraw. The landlord declined to permit him to withdraw it after the notice to quit had expired; the tenant continued in possession and served an originating notice to fix a fair rent under the Land Law Act, 1881. Subsequently to the service of the originating notice, the landlord su d for rent in respect of the holding for a period subsequent to the expiration of the notice to quit, and recovered such rent:-Held, that the notice to quit served by the tenant did not require a stamp, under the 57th and 58th sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870; and that sub-section 5, of section 13, of the Land Law Act 1881, does not apply to a notice to quit served by a tenant. Per Litton, J.-When the originating notice was served, the tenant had not the status of a present tenant under the Land Law Act, 1881; and the payment and acceptance by the landlord of rent subsequently accrued did not revive the tenancy so as to confer upon the tenant the status he had lost. Per Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald-From the payment and acceptance of rent, a waiver of the notice to quit was to be inferred, so that, as between the landlord and the tenant, the old tenancy must be considered as never having determined; such waiver must necessarily relate back to the expiration of the notice to quit, and consequently it was immaterial that the payment of the rent had been made subsequently to the date of the originating notice. -M'Donnell v. Blake (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 48.

A, holding under lease for three lives which expired in March, 1881, continued in occupation, and in September, 1882, entered into agreement for a new lease for 35 years from March, 1881. The lease was not executed till 2nd April, 1884, when two and a-half years' rent was paid by A in respect of his prior occupation. A served his originating notice under the Act of 1857: - Held (1), that as the making of the lease of April. 1884, was not deferred with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act of 1881, A was not entitled to have a fair rent fixed under the Act of 1887: (2) that A could not maintain an originating notice under the Act of 1881, inasmuch as no tenancy existed in the holding on the 22nd August. 1881, his occupation being in lieu of his right to emblements under 23 & 24 Vic., c. 150, sec. 34.—M Cullah v. Batt (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 52.

Lease dated 28th September, 1870, to hold for 31 years from the 25th of the preceding March:-Held, not to be a lease for a term certain of not less than 31 years, within section 4, sub-section 3, of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870. Tenant under such lease deemed entitled, to have his improvements taken into consideration when having a judicial rent determined under the Land Law Act, 1881.-Kepple v. Pike (L, C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 54

Where the main feature in the subject of a demise is a mill and water power in connection therewith, it cannot be treated as an agricultural

holding within the meaning of either the Land Law Act, 1831, or the Land Law Ac, 1887, so as to entitle the court to fix a fair rent on it.-Johnston v. Representatives of Chambers (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep.

51.

Where a tenancy was held under a still subsisting lease which contained covenants by the lessee to expend a sum of £300 in effecting improvements; and improvements were effected: -Held, that the improvements could not be regarded as the property of the landlord for the purpose of having rent now assessed on them as against the tenant, who came in under section 1 of the Land Law Act, 1887, to have a fair rent fixed on the holding.-Mullin y. Lavins (16 Ir. L. T. Rep. 13) commented on and distinguished. Section 1 of the Land Law Act, 1887, does not involve the cancellation of a lease, but only the modiication of the rent reserved by it.-Hunter v. Trustees of Sir Edward Cvey (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 55.

A tenant under a tenancy from year to year, created by a tenant for life having no leasing power, served his originating notice to fix a fair rent in 1886 against the tenant for life, who, however, died in 1887, before the hearing of the application. The tenant remained in possession and paid rent to the remainder-man, and an order was made continuing the proceedings as against the remainder-man. It was not disputed that he was tenant from year to year to the remainder-man :-Held, following Massy v. Norse (2) L. R. 1. 57), that the existing yearly tenancy was created subsequent to the death of the tenant for life in March, 1887; that the tenancy was therefore a future tenancy; and that the originating notice must be dismissed: -Held, on the evidence, that the holding was not a home farm.-Sparrow v. Hepenstall (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 65.

Originating notice to determine judicial rent, amended by substituting the name of the purchaser of the interest of the party who himself had been tenant at the date of service of the notice. Mullins v. Morgan (M'Dev., 519) distinguished.-Fulton v. Ker (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep.

67.

L., landlord of G., obtained a civil bill decree in ejectment for overholding against G. Before the decree was actually pronounced, G. served an originating notice, and applied to have a stay, which was refused. G appealed to the Judge of Assize. Before the Assizes, a Sub-Commission fixed a judicial rent, and L appealed from the order of the SubCommission. The Judge of Assize affirmed the decree in ejectment, and refused to stay execution. L unsuccessfully attempted to execute the decree. Negotiations were then commenced for a settlement, pending which G commenced an action in the Superior Courts, and issued a writ for a declaration of title and for an injunction toestrain L from executing the decree. Afterwards, when the negotiations broke off, G served the writ, and applied for an interlocutory injunc tion pending the hearing of the action: - Held, that the injunction should be refused, and that the conduct of G, the plaintiff, disentitled him to the relief sought. Semble, the court has no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction. The principles on which interlocutory injunctions are granted discussed.-Gorman v. La Touche (App.), 24 lr. L. T. Kep. 70.

Where the known agent of a landlord signed a written demand of possession and also authorised in writing a bailiff to serve the same and take possession of the lands and premises thereunder on behalf of the landlord and said notice was personally served on the caretaker: - Held, that same was a sufficient demand of possession and compliance with section 86 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict., c. 154.) — Viscount Massereene v. Bellew (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 74.

A tenant who made application before the gale day next following the passing of the Land Law Act, 1887, to have a judicial rent fixed on his holding, may not deduct from the amount of judicial rent payable by him the amount of an abatement allowed out of that gale by the landlord, such allowance not being a payment within the meaning of section 5.-M Cartan'v. Murray (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 79.

The defendant was tenant of two farms, one of which exceeded the valuation of £50 a year, held under a Chancery letting for seven years. The second farm was below the annual value of £50. The plaintiffs having obtained judgment against the defendant, and issued a whit of fi. fa. and the defendant having applied for a stay of execution as regards his interest in the second farm.-Held. that the motion must be refused, as the "aggregate" of the "holdings" of the defendant amounted to more than £50 a year, and he was consequently excluded from the benefit of the Land Law Act, 1887, section 30, by the effect of sub section 3.-Bank of Ireland v. Watkins (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep

81.

Where an agreement for sale provides that the sale shall be carried into effect by vesting order, the Commission have jurisdiction, under the 37th section of the Landed Estates Court Act (incorporated by the 10th section of the Purchase of Land Act, 1855), to enforce, vary, or rescind the agreement: and in all cases where an application for an advance has been sanctioned the Commission have jurisdiction, under the 22nd section of the Land Law Act, 1887, to make a decree for specific performance.-Lord Waterford's Estate (22 I. L. T. R. 18, 27) discussed. In exercising the jurisdiction under the 37th section of the Landed Estates Court Act, the Commission follow the former practice of the Landed Estates Court, and, if necessary, proceedings will be stayed in order to enable a suit to be bronght in the Chancery Division. Proceedings will always be stayed where a person interested requires a question of law to be heard and determined by the Judicial Commissioner sitting with the Purchase Commissioners, under the 17th section of the Purchase of Land Act, 1885. Additional lands, under the Purchase of Land Act, 1889, must be separately described in the agreement fo sale.—In re Duke of Abercorn's Estate: Houston, tenant (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 85.

Tenants created since the passing of the Purchase of Land Act, 1885, are not excluded from the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts. But the Commission must be satisfied (1) as to the validity and bona fides of the

contracts of tenancy, as well as of the agreements for purchase, (2) that the tenant is in occupation of the holding under the contract of tenancy, and (3) that the security is sufficient.-In re Marquise de la Bedoyère's Estate (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 87.

Civil bill decree in ejectment; payment by instalments; appeal; simple affirmance with variation in amount; Land Law Act, 1881, ss. 5, 13. -Heaney v. Lord Lurgan (Ex.), 24 ¡r. L. T. Rep. 91.

In an action for rent, a tenant may not deduct from rent payable to a remainderman the difference between the judicial rent and the o.d rent which the tenant, subsequently to service of the originating notice, had paid to a previous limited owner.--Burrell v. Farmer (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 92.

Application to set aside agreement fixing fair rent; coercion; agent of landlord acting as witness-Driscoll v. Riordan (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 93.

Where leases have been made by tenant for life for his own life and for the term of 35 years respectively,-Held, that the respective leasees were entitled to have judicial rents determined.—Bryan and Losby v. Finch (L. S.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 94.

Executors named in will, but since deceased; will lost; consent of nextof-kin out of the jurisdiction dispensed with; grant, for purposes of Land Acts, of limited administration to eldest son of testator in occupation.-Representatives of Fee v. Earl of Annesley (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 104.

Declaration in lease or agreement that the letting "was made to meet the temporary convenience of the landlord" will not operate as an estoppel, in a case where the tenant challenges the truth and bona fides of such a recital; and parol evidence as to circumstances attendant on the execution of the instrument will then be admitted. — Goudy v. Matthe es (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 105.

The final clause of section 1 of the Land Law Act, 1887, does not apply to a case where the lease has already expired, prior to the service of notice of intention to resume possession; and when the Court is satisfied that the intention is bona fide an order for resumption can be made.Mehaffy v. Pollock (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 106.

In cases where, during the currency of lease, a lessee is declared a present tenant, under section 1 of the Land Law Act, 1887, the landlord's right to resume possession is suspended for 15 years under the final clause of that section, and such period of suspension begins to run from date of such adjudication, and not from the commencement of the statutory term. In order to exempt a holding as constituting a home farm, from the operation of the Act, as to fixing a fair rent, it must be proved to have been of that character at or prior to the time of the original letting; it is not sufficient to prove it was such at the date of passing of the Land Law Act, 1881. Amendment of a notice will not be mɩde by the court when the effect would be to give applicant a locus standi inconsistent with the Acts and the rules.-Bailey v. Smiley (L. C.), 24 ir. L. T. Rep. 107.

The fact that the tenant purchased the holding and entered into possession on the day on which he served his originating notice to have a fair rent fixed, is not in itself any ground why evidence should not be gone into and an alteration made by the court on the former rent.-Craig v. Wray (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 114.

When a holding is brought within the definition of the expression "town parks" in section 58 of the Land Law Act, 1881, the onus lies on the tenant of showing that it has been let and used as an ordinary agricultural farm, so as to bring it within the provisions of the 9th section of the Land Law Act, 1857.-M`Geown v. Knaggs (L. 8.-C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 114.

Purchase of Land Acts; construction; tenants substituted for evicted tenants; right to purchase holdings; discretion.-24 Ir. L. T. & S. J.

330.

Ejectment for non-payment of rent; Rules, Sept. 1887, sched.; holding not within Land Law Acts. 1881, 1887.—Anon. (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J., 373.

Judicial rent, determination of; labourers' or servants' holdings; Land Law Act, 1881, s. 58 (5).—Coleman v. M‘Carthy (L. S.-C.) 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J., 560.

Land Purchase Acts: reducing instalments payable; extension of period of repayment; unfavourable agricultural season; duress; jurisdiction In re Neville's Estate (L. C.), In re Collin's Estate (L. Č.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J., 586,

Two denominations of land (A. and B.) were held by the defendant as tenant to the plaintiff, under a bulk fair rest, fixed by the Irish Land Commission. In 1888 the plaintiff obtained a civil-bill decree for possession of A.; and, on the 27th May, 1888, served a notice in lieu of execution, under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, sect, 7. On the 4th June, 1889, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Courts to recover possession of A. and B. for non-payment of rent. The defendant had not been put out of the occupation of A., and at the trial admitted that he held both A. and B. as tenant to the plaintiff, and had paid no rent since 1884. A verdict having been entered for the defendant at the trial:-Held, by Palles, C.B., and Andrews, J. (diss. Murphy, J.), that the plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict for possession of A.; but, upon amendment of the pleadings, was entitled to a verdict for possession of B., paying the costs of the motion to enter such verdict for him, to be set off against the rent due; each party to abide their own costs of the trial. Held, by Murphy, J.. that the plaintiff was entitled to a direction at the trial for both denominations.—Clanricarde (Marquis of) v. Clarke (Ex.), 26 L. R. 260,

Lands Clauses Act-[See COMPULSORY PURCHASE].

Larceny-[See CRIMINAL LAW).

Lease-[See COMPULSORY PURCHASE-COVENANT AGAINST ALIENATIONLANDLORD AND TENANT -PASTORAL HOLDING-RECEIVER].

Liability of Employer-[And see MASTER AND SERVANT-NEGLIGENCE.] Where the servant of a public company who was directed to exclude the public from an enclosed portion of a street, then being repaired by the Company under the provisions of a local Act of Parliament (which empowered the Company to exclude the public, and subjected any person obstructing the Company's servants to a fine), forcibly prevented one of the public from driving into and through such enclosure, and such person was arrested in consequence by a police constable: -Held, that, even if such arrest was caused by the direct accusation or charge of the servant, the Company were not responsible for such arrest, as being a matter not within the scope of the servant's employment -Barry v. Dublin United Tramways Co. (Q. B.), 26 L. R. 150.

Libel-[And see DAMAGES.]

A judgment had been recovered in England against the plaintiff, as executor of his father, and a certificate thereof had been registered in Ireland, under the Judgments Extension Act, 1868. For the purpose of registering it under 7 & 8 Vic., c. 90, a memorandum pursuant thereto, certified by the proper officer, was presented to the Registrar of Judgments, purporting to specify the prescribed particulars; but, while inserting the plaintiff's name and the amount of the judgment against him, the memorandum omitted to state that the judgment had been obtained against him in his character as executor. The judgment was, thereupon, registered erroneously as if it had been rendered against him in his personal capacity. The defendants were proprietors of a trade newspaper, entitled Stubbs' Weekly Gazette. In a column headed" Bonds and Judgments" the particulars so recorded in the registered memorandum, having been transcribed from the Register, were published verbatim, without actual malice, and in ignorance of the inaccuracy of such particulars. The plaintiff brought an action for libel, alleging by innuendo that the statement implied that the judgment was an existing liability against the plaintiff's estate and effects, that the judgment ereditors were creditors of the plaintiff, and that he was unable to discharge his obligations; and the jury, finding that the publication was libellous, awarded damages accordingly: Held (Barry, L.J., dub.), that the defendants were entitled to have a verdict entered for them, on the ground that, the Registrar of Judgments being by the statute made public for the purposes of the public generally, as distinct from the object of giving effect to the right of judgment creditors, the publication, for the benefit of the public, was on a privileged occasion, whether or not registration was necessary to protect the judgment creditor's right, and that such privilege was unaffectd by the error as it was transcribed from the Register without notice, regligence, or express malice. Fleming v. Newton, 1 H. L. C. 363, applied. Observations of Palles, C. B., in the Court below (24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 123), on M'Nally v. Oldham, 16 Ir. C. L. Rep. 298, and Williams v. Smith, 22 Q. B. D. 134, approved by O'Brien, C.J.-Lord Annally v. The Trade Auxiliary Company (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 57; (App.) 24 ib. 57, 26 L. R. 394. The plaintiff in an action of libel having deposed, on his examination before the "Parnell Commission," that the defendant was a "land-grabber," the defendant published letters denying the plaintiff's statement and accusing him of perjury. In an action of libel brought by the plaintiff, to recover damages for this accusation, the defendant pleaded a defence of fair comment, and did not justify. At the trial, evidence having been given, on behalf of the defendant, not that the plaintiff had committed perjury, but, that what the plaintiff stated was in fact untrue:-Held, that such evidence was admissible under the defence of fair comment, while, in the absence of a plea of justification, evidence that the plaintiff had committed wilful perjury would not have been admissible.Joyce v. Monaghan (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 100.

Licensing Laws-Sunday closing of public houses; bona fide traveller, what constitutes.-R. v. Gage and others (Co. Ct.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 556; R. v. Farrell and others (Co. Ct.), ib. 534. [See com., by the present writer, 25 ib. 311.-E.N.B.]

Lien-[See CARRIERS].

Limitations, Statute of-An acknowledgment of a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations, and given by the debtor to a person who was neither agent of, nor in privity with, the creditor, is insufficient as a promise to pay the debt so as to enable the creditor to sue the debtor. Tanner v. Smart (6 B. & C. 608) followed.-Rogers v. Quinn (Ex.), 26 L. R. 136.

The owner in fee of lands subject to a yearly tenancy vested in the defendant, devised the lands to G. for life, with remainder to the issue of G., as G. should appoint. G. received rent from the defendant unti. his (G's) death in 1872. G., by his will, appointed the lands to W. in fee, and devised other lands of which he was the absolute owner to M., upon active trusts. From 1872 to 1879 M. received rent from the defendant, his agents giving receipts for such rent as due to the "representatives of G. W. died in 1879, having devised the lands to J. The defendant did not pay rent to any person after that date. In an action by M. and Jas co-plaintiffs, brought in the year 1888, for rent, and in which the defendant did not require any question to be left to the jury, the Court being of opinion that there was evidence from which the jury might have found that the defendant, to the knowledge of M's agents, paid rent to them under the belief that they were acting for the true owner, and that J. within a reasonable time adopted and ratified their acts: Held, that, under those circumstances, the acts of M. and his agents in receiving the rents did not dispossess W. or J, so as to put them to their action under the 2nd, 3rd, or 8th sections of the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 27. The word "representative" when used with reference to the ownership of land, is capable of distinct meanings, and its signification in each ca e must be determined as a question of fact. It may mean heir or devisee, executor, or legatee, deriving under an absolute owner, or, as in the present case, the successor to a person having only a limited estate.-Lyell v. Kennedy (14 App. Cas. 437) applied. —M'Auliffe v. Filzsimons (Ex.) 26 L. R. 29.

Limited Owner-[See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF]. Local Government Board-[See POOR LAW]. Lodger-[See PARLIAMENT].

M

Magistrate-[See JUSTICE OF THE PEACE].

Malice-[See DAMAGES-LIBEL].

Master and Servant –[And see LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER-NEGLIGENCE. H. was land agent, and F. and M. were bailiffs, of B., on whose estate one Kavanagh was in occupation as caretaker of a farm of which he had been tenant, and which had been sold under a fi. fa. H. signed a warrant to distrain Kavanagh's goods for rent, and delivered the warrant to M., with directions to him and F. to make the distress, and for that purpose to bring a sufficient number of men with them. H. obtained counsel's advice, and after having received counsel's opinion, H. telegraphed to M. to levy the distress. After the receipt of H.'s telegram F. and M., with others whom they procured to accompany them, went to the farm. On approaching, they saw several persons driving cattle into the farmyard. The gate was shut, and a crowd of persons were standing in the yard, amongst whom were Kavanagh and one Kinsella. M. said to Kavanagh he had a distress warrant against him, and held up the warrant. Kavanagh asked for it. M. refused, and said he would give him a copy of it. Kavanagh said he would not let the cattle go without it. One of the party aiding the distress then proceeded to climb the gate in order to get into the yard, but was prevented by Kinsella, who made a lunge at him with a pitchfork. F. then drew his revolver, and presenting it at Kinsella threatened to shoot him if he did not desist. Immediately afterwards an affray took place between those in the yard and those making the distress, in the course of which shots were fired, and Kinsella was killed. The party making the distress then seized and drove away the cattle in the yard. The cat le were subsequently impounded and sold. Whilst the cattle were being driven away M. prepared a notice of distraint, and was proceeding to post it on the premises,,when he was prevented by the police who came up. M. then put it on a ditch, and laid a stone on it. In an action. under Lord Campbell's Act, by Kinsella's son against H., F., and M., for damages for causing the death of Kinsella whilst carrying out an unlawful seizure of Kavanagh s cattle, the jury found, in answer to questions left to them, as follows (1) that M. did not fire the shot which killed Kinsella; (2) that the party making the distress (other than F. and M.) were acting on that occasion under the direction of both F. and M.; (3) that the party making the distress were acting in concert to overcome by force any resistance that might be offered to them in seizing the cattle; (4) that H. authorised F. and M. to bring the others with them, and to use all force that might be necessary to take the cattle, and overcome any resistance to the taking of them; (5) that the resistance offered by those in the yard did not justify the shooting by the party making the dist ess; (6) that the shot which killed Kinsella was fired by one of the party engaged in making the distress. They disagreed on other questions left to them, and they assessed the damages at £200. On cause shown against entering the verdict for the defendants: -Held, that the verdict should be set aside, and that a verdiet and judgment be entered for H., and a new trial be directed as to F. and M. Held, also, that there was no evidence that H. authorised M. to make the distress in an illegal manner, and that the illegal manner in which M. effected the distress would not render H. liable in the present action. That causing the death of Kinsella was an act collateral to the distress, and not within H.'s express authority to M. in making the distress, nor necessarily or reasonably incident thereto. That there was no evidence of implied authority, or subsequent ratification, by H. to render him responsible for Kinsella's death.-Kinsella v. Hamilton (Ex.), 26 L. R. 671.

Money Paid-Where at the trial of an action for money paid, the jury found that the plaintiff was surety, and the defendant one of the principals, on a promissory note, and it was also proved that the plaintiff had transferred a mortgage security, which was his property. to the holder of the note, who thereupon released him from liability, and which security was valued by the jury (under the direction of the Judge) at a certain sum; but it did not appear that any cash was paid on foot of the security or otherwise, by or on behalf of the plaintiff :Held, by Harrison, Murphy, and Holmes, JJ. (diss. O Brien, J.), that the plaintiff was entitled to retain the verdict entered for him at the trial for the value of the mortgage. Barclay v. Gooch (2 Esp. 571) dıscussed.-Fahey v. Frawley (Q. B.), 26 L. R. 78.

Mortgage-[See DISTRESS-JUDGMENT MORTGAGE-MONEY PAID].
Motion-[See SERVICE).

Municipal Franchise [See RATES].

N

Negligence-[And see CAMPBELL'S ACT-SHERIFF).

Nervous or mental shock caused by great fright arising from the negligence of the defendants, though not accompanied by any actual physical injury, may be taken into account by the jury as an element in estimating the damages to which a plaintiff is entitled. Victorian Ry. Commissioners v. Coultas, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 322, not followed. Byrne v. Great Southern and Western Ry. (unreported) followed.--Bell v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 82.

In an action under the Employers' Liability Act, the fact that the defendants have subsequently to the occurrence of the accident complained