of caused that portion of the machine which gave rise to it to be fenced or guarded cannot be put forward as evidence of negligence. Where this is the sole evidence of alleged negligence, the case should be withdrawn from the jury.-Beever v. Hanson, Dale & Co. (Q B.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 500.

Newspaper- [See DAMAGES-LIBEL]

A. was summoned before Justices for having, within the meaning of the 19th section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 187 (50 & 51 Vict., c. 20), used intimidation" towards B., in consequence of B. having done an act which he had a legal right to do. Evidence was given before the Justices of the purchase at A.'s office of three issues of a newspaper called The Celt, dated 26 h October, 2nd November, and 9th November, 1889, containing the alleged intimidatory matter, and all these issues were produced. The issue of the 2nd November, a copy of which was purchased from A. himself, contained a statement that A. was the printer and publisher of same at said office A certified copy of the return of the proprietor's name, address, and residence, as required by the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict., c. 60), which purported to be made and signed by A., was also given in evide ce, and after his signature the words "printer and publisher" appeared. The district was proved to be proclaimed un ier the first mentioned Act. The Justices held that A. was the printer and publisher of the issues in question, basing their decision, as to this point, on the said return, and that the publications were calculated to intimidate, but dismissed the summons without prejudice on the ground that such publication could not be construed as words" within the Act, and that there was no evidence of A.'s personal intention to intimidate, stating that they did so in deference to a decision made by the County Court Judge of their district:-Held by the Court (on a case stated by the Justices), that intimidation within the Act may be by words published, and that personal intent may be inferred from the words themselves; but that the determination of the Justices that A. was "printer and publisher" was wrong, as being based on the return, and that upon this ground the Justices should have dismissed the simmons:-Held, by the Court (O Brien, J, diss.), that the Court, under the circumstances, should not, in their discretion, send the case back for re-hearing, but should affirm the dismiss. Per O'Brien, J.. that the case should be sent back for re-hearing. Semble, per Holmes, J., that Justices are not bound to submit draft case to parties before signature. Whelan, Appellant; Fisher, Respondent (Q.B.), 26 L. R. 310.

Nisi Prius-[See JUDGMENT MORTGAGE].

Notice [See FAIR RENT - JUSTICE OF THE PEACE-LANDLORD AND TENANT-REMITTAL TO COUNTY COURT -SERVICE].

Notice to Quit-[And see LANDLORD AND TENANT].

By an agreement, dated the 31st January, 1889, the plaintiff let to the defendant a farm at Annaghmore. in the county of Wexford, containing 106 acres as a dairy farm, mainly for the purpose of grazing, for one year certain from the 25th March 1889, to the 25th March, 1890, for the sum of £97, with a clause providing that unless either party should give to the other three months' notice prior to the 25th March, 1890, notice in writing of his intention to determine the tenancy, the said tenancy should be continued from year to year, from the said last mentioned 25th March. subject to be determined by notice from either party three months prior to any 25th March and with a further provi o that if such notice be given prior to the 25th March, 1890, the clause therein before contained continuing the tenancy was to be null and void. On the 13th December, 1889, the plaintiff served notice on the defendant to determine the tenancy on the 25th March, 1890 and requiring the defendant to give up quiet possession of the premises. The defendant refused to give up possession on the 25th March, 1890, and the plaintiff brought an action to recover possession. At the trial the notice was admitted in evidence, though unstamped, subject to the defendant s objection:- Held (reversing the decision of the Queen's Bench Division), that the notice served was not a notice to quit within the Notices to Quit (Ireland) Act, 1×76, but was one to prevent a tenancy from year to year arising; and that the tenancy did not require a notice to quit duly stamped to determ ne it.-Charles v. Hill (App.), 25 L. R. 603.

Parishioners-[See CONSPIRACY].

P

Parliament-G. was arrested during the qualifying year, and lodged in the police office on the charge of being drunk and disorderly in a public street. On the day of his arrest, and after a custody of some hours, he was admitted to bail. He appeared before the magistrates at the Petty Sessions Court on the next day, was convicted and fined 5s. and costs, which he therenpon paid: -Held, that G.'s detention in the police office did not operate as a break in his inhabitant occupancy of his dwelling-house, and that he was entitled to the franchise.-Criglington v. Gallagher (App.), 26 L. R. 134.

The power to constitute additional and occasional polling places and districts in Ireland conferred upon the justices in quarter sessions subject to approval of the Privy Council, by the Ballot Act, 1872. is unaffected by the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1885, and still exists. Maxim "Unius expressio alterius exclusio" inapplicable. - In re North Antrim Polling Districts (P. C. ), 21 Ir. L. T. Rep. 108.

A sailor engaged in the cross-channel or coasting trade who has entered into an agreement under the Merchant Shipping Act, under which he agreed to serve for a period of six months during the qualifying period. and who at any time during the said six months could be compelled to serve on board his ship, is compulsorily absent from his dwelling-house for the time during which he is engaged in his duty; and if so engaged in his duty at intervals during the qualifying period is thereby disqualified for the inhabitant occupier franchise. Dissentiente, Fitzgibbon, L.J. Per Fitzgibbon, L.J.: If the sailor does not acquire a

residence on board the ship during the qualifying year he is still an occupier of his dwelling-house, and therefore is not disqualified.— Hassan v. Chambers (24 L. R. Ir. 139): R. v. Mitchell (10 East. 511); Donoghue v. Brook (1 Fox's Reg. Cas. 100): and Beal v. The Town Clerk of Exeter (20 Q. B Div. 300, discussed.-Duffy v. Chambers; Ferguson v. Black (App), 26 L. R. 100.

The occupier of premises is not disqualified by the non-payment of arrears of rates due in respect of the premises, the recovery of which has become barred by statute, as against him, previously to the 31st December in the qualifying year.-M'Grath v. Buchanan (App.), 26 L. R. 124.

Tenants holding separate farms and being separately rated are entitled to claim the franchise as separate occupiers, though they all reside together and work the farms jointly.-Boylands v. Lloyd and Black (App), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 110.

A. was an occupier of premises B. previously to the 20th July, 1888, and up to the 6th May, 1889, cn which date he became an occupier, in immediate succession, of premises C., and so continued during the remainder of the qualifying year. He was rated for the premises B. in the rate for the year 1888, the rate having been made for that year in March, 1888, and duly paid by him. Pr mises C. consisted of a new house, which was not included in the rate for the year 1889, made on the 4th March in that year, not having been then valued for the purpose of being rated: -Held, that A. was entitled to the franchise. Devine's Case (Lawson's Notes, ed. 1887, p. 12) distinguished.- Criylington v. Anderson (App.), 26 L. R. 131.

The inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house, which the official valuer having found to be of no value, was so entered in the valuation-book, and in respect of which accordingly no rate was struck:-Held (dubitante Porter, M. R.), not entitled to the franchise. Bell v. Black (22 L. R. Ir. 591) and Crigington v. Anderson (26 L. R. Ir. 131) distinguished. Owens v. Hanrahan (App.), 26 L. R. 418.

A claimant who, during the qualifying period, leaves the qualifying premises in search of employment, having at his departure the intention of returning, who is not shown to have been restrained during his absence from returning, and who leaves his family in occupation of the qualifying premises, is not disqualified — Casey v. Riddall (App.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 111.

A lodger's claim to be admitted to the parliamentary franchise must (of be can write) be signed or marked by his own hand; and in such a case his name being subscribed to the claim by another person, at the request and in presence of the claimant. is insufficient.-Hanbidge v. Bereridge (Conlan's Case) (App.), 26 L. R. 423.

The clear yearly value or market value of lodgings is to be ascertained by what they will really bring—that is, as much as the lessor can obtain by open competition.—M'Crea v. Buchanan (App.), 26 L. R. 129.

A person whose qualification for the borough franchise consists of the occupation of premises in succession is entitled to be placed on the Town Clerk's List No. 17 of persons entitled to vote. Where an objection is made to him by a private objector the onus of establishing a prima facie case against him lies upon the objector; and the appearance of his name upon the current register in respect of a different qualification, together with its appearance upon List No. 17 and upon the list of claimants, is not a prima facie proof of the ground of objection.— Lyons v. Chambers (App.), 26 L. R. 116.

Pastoral Holding-By lease, dated the 6th December, 1878, T. P. demised to F. F. 51a. Ir. of the lands of M. for ten years, from the 1st November, 1878, "for grazing and meadowing purposes only." at the rent of £77 1s. 3d. The lease contained covenant not to plough or dig up any portion of the lands, it being the true intent and meaning of the lease that the same should be used for grazing and meadowing only; and also a covenant by the landlord to pay all taxes and herd al c ttle. F. F. died, having by will left all his property to B. F. (the plaintiff). By a reversionary lease, dated the 14th December, 1883, T. P. let to the defendant portion of the lands from the 7th December, 1888 (after the expiry of the former lease), as tenant from year to year, and the defendant got into possession. On the 12th March, 1888, the plaintiff served notice to fix a fair rent of the farm on a receiver appointed by the Land Judge over the landlord's interest; and, by consent between the plaintiff and receiver, it was agreed that the fair rent should be fixed at £85, and by an order of the Receiver Judge the consent was confirmed. In an ejectment by P. F. to recover possession, the defendant proposed to give parol evidence to show the purposes of the letting. This evidence was rejected, and the jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was entered accordingly:-Held reversing the decision of the Queen's Bench Division), that parol evidence dehors the lease was admissible to show what were the purposes of the letting.-Fulham v. Garry (App.), 26 L. R. 698.

Payment into Court-[See COSTS].

Pecuniary Loss-[See CAMPBELL'S ACT].
Pension - [See ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS].

Place of Trial On an application by a plaintiff to have the place of trial re changed to the original venue laid by him, on the ground that the case was adjourned pro defectu juratorum, and that the delay would prejudice his interests, the court will refuse the application on the ground that a tals was not prayed for by the plaintiff at the trial, unless such refusal can be shown to be productive of peculiar hardship to the plaintiff.—Bell v. Alexander (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 77.

Pleading-[See EMBARRASSING PLEADINGS-LANDLORD and Tenant].
Policy of Insurance-[See EMBARRASSING Pleadings].

Poor Law-Poor-law guardians, being also the authority of a rural sanitary

dist ict, for some years erroneously applied the income arising from waterworks to the general purposes of poor-law relief and their accounts during this period were certified as correc by the Local Government Board auditor:-Held that, upon a sub-equent audit, these accounts might be reopened and corrected, and that a valid rate might be struck to meet the consequent debit cert fied in the poor-law accounts at the last-mentioned audit.-Reg. (Porter) v. Guardians of Omagh Union; Same v. Pelly (Q. B.), 26 L. R 619.

The goods of a person not primarily liable are not distrainable for arrears of poor's rate more than 2 years due.-Smith Barry and others v. The Guardians of Mill-street Union (Co. Ct.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 80.

Poor Rate -[See POOR LAW].

Practice-[See specific headings].

Presentment-[And see CORONER.]

"Varnish, turpentine, dryers, trade implements, stock of glass and a smith's bellows" destroyed, held not to be subject of claim for malicious injury under 6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 116, s. 135.-In re M'Court's Presentment (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 10.

Where a Grand Jury neither "approves nor rejects" a presentment passed at the Presentment Sessions, it cannot vary name of contractor and amount of the price, but must act under provisions of 20 & 21 Vic, c. 15, section 1.- In re Greacen's and M'Cabe's Presentments (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 11.

Printing contracts for the purpose of the Franchise and Registration Acts must be made in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by the Grand Jury Act, 6 & 7 Wm IV., c. 116. In the matter of Carew's Presentment (Cir. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 22.

An application for compensation for killing or destruction of sheep was made to the Grand Jury under 6 & 7 Wm. IV., c 115, s 135. The evidence showed that the applicant was the object of malicious ill-feeling, and that the sheep had mysteriously disappeared off his lands under circumstances affording an inference of foul play, but there was no ev dence of actual killing, and the bodies of the sheep were not found: Held, sufficient evidence to justify a presentment.-In re Naughton's Presentment (Cir. C.), 24. Ir. L. T. Rep. 112. Compensation for maiming; injury causing disablement: 6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 116, s. 106-In re Curran's Presentment (Cir. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 329.

Malicious injury; giving in examination on oath: time; prevention by illness; 6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 116, ss. 135, 137.—In re Walpole's Presentment (Cir. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 329.

Maintenance of county infirmary; no duly appointed surgeon in charge; 6 & 7 Wm. IV, c. 116, s. 85.-In re Galway County Infirmary Presentment (Cir. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 360.

Juries Act, 1871; expenses incurred by sheriff in carrying Act into execution. In re Bailie's Presentment (Ciz. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 361. Expenses of conveyance of prisoners: liability of municipal corporation.In re Presentment of Inspector-General of Royal Irish Constabulary (Cir. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 373. Corper.sation for maiming; maiming, what constitutes; presentment for, when mandatory; compensation. how to be estimated: 6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 116, s. 106.-In re Nolan's Presentment (Cir. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J.

623.

Industrial schools; loan for building; Grand Jury: security: publication of notice: 48 & 49 Vic., c 19, s. 6 In re Presentment for Meath Industrial Schools (Cir. C. R.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 624.

Principal and Agent -[See AGENT].

Principal and Surety—[See EVIDENCE-MONEY PAID].

Printer-[See NEWSPAPER-Presentment].

Privilege-[See INTERROGATORIES-LIBEL].

Promissory Note-[See MONEY PAID].

Publisher-[See NEWSPAPER).

R

Railway Company-[See CAMPBELL'S ACT-CARRIERS-NEGLIGENCE -VENDOR AND PURCHASER].

Rates-[And see EVIDENCE -PARLIAMENT-POOR LAW].

Weekly tenants occupying premises in the municipal borough of Dublin are not entitled to be placed on the burgess roll unless they claim to be rated, and pay or tender the full amount of the last-made rate then payable in respect of the premises.-Reg. (Parker) v. Power (Q. B.), 26 L. R. 380.

Ratification-[See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF].

Receiver-[And see ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS-DISTRESS.]

Where a petition for sale was presented in the Land Judges' Court and a receiver appointed, the receiver by order was directed to en'er into and take up the occupation of the tenant's holding, who, however, was allowed to remain in possession of the dwelling house and curtilage.

The receiver, pursuant to an order of the court, served an originat ng notice to fix a fair rent in the name and on behalf of the tenant:- Held, by Litton, J., that the tenant, having been removed from the occupa tion of the holding by the receiver acting under order of the court, was not in bona fide occupation within the meaning of the 1st section of the Act of 1887, and a fair rent could not be fix d while the occupation of the receiver continued:-Held, by Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald, that the occupation of the receiver was the occupation of the tenant, who was accordingly entitled to fix a fair rent as in bona fide occupation of the holding.-Moire v. Blacker (L. C.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 77.

A petition for the sale of the lessee's interest in a holding having been presented in the Chancery Division, Land Judges, a receiver was appointed, who in pursuance of an order of the Land Judge, took up possession of the holding from the lessee. The receiver, pursuant to a subsequent order of the Land Judge served an originating novice to fix a fair rent on behalf of the lessee:-Held, reversing the order of the Land Commission, that the lessee was bona fide in occupation of the holding for every legal purpos, and that a fair rent could be fixed.-Moir, Tenant; Blacker, Landlord (App.), 26 L. R. 375, 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 455.

Registration of Judgment –[See JUDGMENT Mortgage-Libel]. Registration of Newspaper-See NEWSPAPER).

Remittal to Inferior Court-[And see COSTS.]

A notice of motion, under sect. 6 of the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act, 1870, by inadvertence proposed to remit tue action to a division other than that in which the defendant, as appeared from the affidavit in s pport of the motion, was residing:-Held, that the court had power to amend the notice of motion, and to remit the case to the appropriate division.-Sayers v. Quinn (Ex.), 26 L. R. 582. [See s. c., 23 Ir. L. T. Rep. 79.]

A notice of motion to remit, which by mistake applies to have the action remitted to the civil bill division of the county in which the defendant does not reside, may be amended. The affidavit of the defendant, in order to confer jurisdict on to remit, need not state the civil bill division of the defendant's residence; it will be sufficient for the court if that be shown satisfactorily by any means-such as by affidavit of any person who knows the district. – M Keefry v. Mullan (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 8.

Principles on which the court will proceed, on an appeal involving interference with the discretionary power of the court below to remit an action to an inferior court, considered.-Neenan v. O'Keeffe (App.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep 81.

Action of tort; error in notice of motion; jurisdiction to amend; C. L. P. A. Act, 1870, z. 6.—Cobain v. Moore (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. Kep. 97. Renewing Decree - [See COUNTY COURT).

Rent-[See ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF LAND-COMPULSORY PURCHASE - DISTRESS-SHERIFF - LANDLORD AND TENANT-LIMITA TIONS, STATUTE OF].

S

Salary-[See ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS-CORONER].
Sale-[See CARRIERS-VENDOR AND PURCHASER].
Sanitary Authority - [See POOR LAW].

Security for Costs-Since the fusion and amalgamation of the Common Pleas Division with the Queen's Bench Division, a plaintiff resident in England, when suing in the Queen's Bench Division, on foot of an English judgment, under the Judgments Extension Act, may be ordered to give security for costs.-Sayer v. Sheehan (Q. B.), 26 L. R. 417.

Seduction-Where a girl under age was seduced by her master whilst his hired servant, and rendering no service to her parents, and afterwards, having quitted his service, gave birth to a child in her parents' home:Held, that her father could not maintain an action for seduction, although the girl intended to return home at the termination of her service.-Gladney v. Murphy (Q.B.), 26 L. R. 651. [See s. c. 25 Ir. L. T. Rep. 9].

Service-[And see COUNTY COURT-JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.] Dropping a notice of motion, under O. XXIX., r. 4, in the letter-box of the defendant s solicitor's office, after knocking and receiving no answer, is not good service-De Freyne v. MacDermott Roe (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 8.

Where the original writ of summons was served on the defendant by the process-server, by mistake, in place of a copy thereof.-Held, that the officer of the court was at liberty, in marking judgment, to dispense with the production of the original writ.—Adams v. Flynn (Ex.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 36.

Where repeated attempts had been made to effect personal service of a writ of summons on a defendant out of the jurisdiction, the court allowed substitution of service by registered let er addressed to the resi-tence of the defendant, containing copies of the writ and of the order. Lord Seaton v. Clarke and others (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 82, 26 L. R. 297.

Sheriff-[And see COUNTY COURT].

In an action against a sheriff for negligence in and about the execution of a writ of possession of certain lands within his bailiwick, namely, forty acres, Irish plantation measure, with the houses and buildings thereon, the defendant pleaded that from the date of the delivery of the writ into his hands until the date of the commencement of the action, the premises were in the possession of one M. J. H., the wife of the defendant in the action in which the writ was issued, and that during this period the said M. J. H. was affected with a dangerous and serious illness, and could not by reason thereof have been removed from the possession of the said premises at any time between the said dates without immediate danger to her life, in consequence whereof the defendant was prevented from executing the said writ, and delivering the possession of the said premises to the plaintiff; and save as aforesaid, the defendant made no default or delay in executing the said writ:- Held, on demurrer, that the plea was bad, as during the period covered by it the said M J. H could only have been in physical occupation of a portion of the dwelling-house, and it, therefore, afforded no answer as to the lands and the remainder of the dwelling-house. - Ulster Bank v. Woolsey (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 65.

Where a tenant's interest in his holding is sold under section 1 of the Land 1aw (Ireland) Act, 1881, in pursuance of a writ of fieri facias, the landlord is entitled to be paid, out of the proceeds of the sale, all arrears of rent due to him in priority to the demand of the execution creditor.Waldron v. Sutcliffe (App.), 26 L. R. 444, 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 591.

Solicitor-[And see COSTS].

Audience of; amendment of writ.—Anon. (Q. B.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. 7, 37. Persons unqualified as; right of audience; trespass in pursuit of game; landlord's agent.-Latouche v.. (P. S.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J., 37, 61. Persons unqualified as; right of audience; summons for possession of premises landlord's agent.-M‘Avoy v. Bell (P. S.), 24 İr. L. T. & S. J., 206; Ford v Curran (P. S.), ib. 272.

Unqualified conveyances; solicitor's clerk; penalty. - Wakely v. Creedon (Co. Ct.), 24 Ir. L. T. & S. J., 523.

T

Taxation of Costs-[See COSTS]. Temporary Convenience-B. was a tenant under a lease containing a proviso enabling the landlord to resume, for building purposes, portion (amounting to about one-half) of the holding. He served an originating notice to fix a fair rent:-Held, affirming the decision of the Land Commission, that the originating notice should be dismissed, on the ground that a substantial portion of the holding was let for the temporary convenience of the landlord.-Butterly, Tenant; Carroll, Landlord (App.), 26 L. R. 93.

Tenancy for a Year Certain―[See NOTICE TO QUIT).

Tenancy from Week to Week-[See RATES].
Time-[See DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION-PRESENTMENT).
Trespass - [See DAMAGES - GAME].

Vendor and Purchaser-A vendor, in pursuance of a verbal agreement entered into in Cork, shipped goods to the value of £131 by rail from Thurles to Cork, and sent to the purchaser, by the same day's post, a delivery order in the vendor's own name, but endorsed to the purchaser, who, on receipt thereof, sent the vendor £100 in part payment. The purchaser did not call for the goods for some days, and meantime, the railway company, in error, delivered them to a third person: - Held, that posse-sion of the property passed from the vendor to the purchaser o i its be ng put on the rail at Thurles, and that the contract was completed on the arrival of the goods in Cork, and that, therefore, the vendor was entitled to payment of the balance, £31, due to him by the purchaser. A point on the Stamp Act should not be raised for the first time on a new trial motion.-24 Ir. L. T. Rep. 98.

Vote-[See MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE-RATES-PARLIAMENT].

W

Warrant of Attorney-[See JUDGMENT MORTGAGE].

Weekly Tenant-[See RATES].

Winter Assizes-[See ERROR].

Writ of Summons-[See SERVICE-SOLICITOK].

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

COURT OF APPEAL.

Reported by WILLIAM ORR, Barrister-at-Law. (Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., FITZGIBBON, Barry, and NAISH, L.JJ.)

MONTGOMERY v. O'HARA.

Jan. 15, 16, 1889.-Ejectment for overholding-Stay of proceedings - Present tenancy · Determination of tenancy—Application to have judicial rent fixed-44 & 45 Vic., c. 49, s. 8, sub-s. 1; s. 13, sub-s. 3.

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.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, reported in 23 Ir. L. T. Rep. 5.

John Roche, Q.C., and R. J. Robertson, for the plaintiffs. The notice to quit determined the tenancy on the 25th of March, 1888. The tenant, not having served his originating notice during the continuance of the tenancy, is too late. He was a mere trespasser at the time he served his notice: Beamish v. Crowley, 15 Ir. L. T. Rep. 118, 8 L. R. Ir. 383. The application, under section 8 of the Land Law Act of 1881, must be made during the continuance of the tenancy Arran v. Wills, 14 L. R. Ir. 359. The 13th section does not help the defendants. Subsection 5 provides for two cases in which the notice to quit shall not operate to determine the tenancy; (1) where no proceedings are taken to enforce it by the landlord-but here the landlord has brought an ejectment; (2) where proceedings to enforce it are restrained by the Court-but the stay can only be put on the application of a person entitled at the time to apply to have a fair rent fixed, and the defendants are not in that position. The provision in sub-section 3 for the issue of an order restraining the landlord from taking proceedings in consequence of the breach by the tenant of a statutory condition bears this out. Laverty v. Moore, 15 Ir. L. T. Rep. 105, does not apply. That case depends on the last clause of section 13, sub-section 1. The proceedings there were commenced before the passing of the Act. Haren v. Archdale, 17 Ir. L. T. Rep. 81, 12 L. R. Ir. 306, 14 ib. 296, is not in point. The question here was not and could not have been before the Court in that case, but Boyd_v, Phelan, 10 L. R. Ir. 330, 17 Ir. L. T. & S. J. 634, is expressly in point. Before a reference could be made to the general jurisdiction of the Court, there would need to be someone before the Court competent to raise the question. There must be some statutory jurisdiction to give effect to a statutory right; the general jurisdiction cannot. The common law enabled a landlord to bring his action of ejectment on the notice to quit, and, apart from the statute, the Court could not stay this action. [LORD ASHBOURNE, C.-Would the Court not have power to put a stay by its inherent jurisdiction? *]

*See Earl of Desart v. Townsend, 22 Ir. L. T. Rep. 60.[E. N. B,, Ed.]

[AP.

We contend that we are entitled to stand on our common law rights, save as they are modified by statute. The action cannot be stayed at common law, but only by statute, and only so far as the statute enacts. It is admitted here that the notice to quit has run out, and that apart from section 13, sub-section 3, the tenancy has absolutely determined.

[NAISH, L.J.-Does not the provision of the 1st subsection, that "any such tenancy so sold shall be and be deemed to be a subsisting tenancy, notwithstanding such proceedings," contemplate the case of a landlord bringing an ejectment when the tenancy is over?] The proceeding here is not the bringing of the action, but the service of a notice to quit. There is a reference back to the time when the notice to quit was served. It is part of the proceedings.

[BARRY, L.J. Do you contend that, suppose the notice to quit took effect on the 11th March, the tenant would be too late on the 12th ?]

No, but he can only take steps so long as he continues

tenant.

[NAISH, L.J.-That is, so long as he has good title. Why then should there be mention of a stay? What is the necessity for it?]

There are cases where persons, who at common law would not be considered tenants, are to be deemed tenants, and it is to meet them that these words are introduced.

[FITZGIBBON, L.J.In what case then, on your assumption, could there be a notice to quit served, and proceedings taken to stay under this section?] In the case of a sale.

[FITZGIBBON, L.J.-Then must a tenant who is served with a notice to quit lose his tenancy unless he can get someone to buy it?]

He can get a stay if he takes steps before the notice to quit is made effective by further proceedings. At what time does this notice take effect? At common law it undoubtedly took effect, when, if not before, it expired.

time

The Macdermot, Q.C., and Drummond, for the defendant. The dividing point is not the period when the notice to quit has expired, but when the habere founded on that notice to quit has been executed. This is shown by the Act itself. The 1st sub-section of the 13th section gives the tenant power to sell his tenancy up to the time of execution. The 5th subsection provides that the tenancy shall not be deemed to be determined by a notice to quit if the landlord has not taken proceedings to enforce it, or if the proceedings to do so have been restrained by the Court; and the 20th section decides that the tenancy shall be deemed to have determined when the landlord has resumed possession of the holding. The tenant has In Haren till possession is taken to move. up v. Archdale (ubi supra), Andrews, J., whose withdrawn judgment was followed by the Court of Appeal, held that the mere service of a notice to quit would not now determine the tenancy, that the landlord must obtain a judgment and recover possession on foot of it. This is the only view of the Act which removes what would otherwise be an anomaly; that, by the 1st sub-section of the 13th section, if the tenant sells his tenancy before the execution of the writ of possession, the tenancy is declared to be subsisting in the purchaser. That was enacted for the security of the purchaser, in order to show clearly that he has the right which the vendor would have had of taking steps to get a fair rent fixed. If he take no steps, the tenancy is deter

any