C. P. took possession of a portion of James H. Morgan's estate, but disposed of it as if it belonged to her testatrix, Mary Morgan. In December, 1867, administration of the unadministered goods of James H. Morgan was granted to Thomas Sleeman, and in September, 1868, a suit was instituted in the Court of Chancery for the administration of the estate of James H. Morgan. For the purposes of this suit it was necessary that a representative should be appointed of the estate of Mary Williams. May 3. property. Mary Sleeman, the niece and sole executrix of the ALLEN, APP.; GEDDES, TOWN-CLERK OF WARRINGTON, RESP. will of Mary Morgan, took probate of it, intermarried in the year Parliament-Borough Vote--Notice of Objection-Several Lists-1857 with William Williams, and died in September, 1863. She Description of List-6 Vict. c. 18, s. 17, sched. B., No. 11. The borough of Warrington consists of three townships (one being Warrington), each having a separate overseer and a separate list of voters, the register being composed of the three lists. A notice of objection was signed "S. D., on the list of voters for Golborne Street, in the borough of Warrington." On the argument of the case, it was contended that the notice was bad for not shewing upon the list of which of the three townships the Dr. Spinks, Q.C., now moved the Court to allow a citation to objector's name appeared. The case was sent back to the re-issue calling upon William Williams to take administration of vising barrister for the purpose of stating distinctly in which the goods of his wife, or shew cause why it should not be township Golborne Street was situate, and whether the descrip- granted to James Sleeman. He referred to In the Goods of Mary tion given would be commonly understood to refer to that town-Keane (1 Hagg. Ecc. 692); In the Goods of George Johnson (2 Sw. & ship. The case was returned with the following amendment:Tr. 595). There was only one Golborne Street in the borough of Warrington, and that was in the township of Warrington, and the description of the abode given would be commonly understood in the borough as designating the list for the township of Warrington." THE COURT held that the amendment, though somewhat ambiguous, shewed that the notice could not mislead, and was a substantial compliance with the Act. Decision affirmed. Holker, Q.C., and T. I. Barstow, for the appellant. case, that some method should be devised to litigate the question, LORD PENZANCE:-It seems to follow, from the necessity of the whether and to what extent the estate of Mary Williams is indebted to that of James H. Morgan, and for that purpose a cant has no direct interest, but he has an indirect one, and representative of Mary Morgan must be appointed. The appli therefore he may have the citation against William Williams for which he asks. When the citation is returned, it will be for consideration whether the grant made to him shall be limited, and if so, to what extent. Solicitors: Thomas White & Sons. Ex. April 29. PAICE V. WALKER AND ANOTHER. Principal and Agent-Agent signing Contract. Action for not delivering wheat according to a contract made in the following form:-"Sold A. J. Paice, Esq., London, about 200 quarters wheat (as agents for John Schmidt & Co., of Danzig) . . . . (Signed) Walkers & Strange." The cause was tried before Kelly, C.B., at Guildhall, on the 11th of December, 1869, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 461., leave being reserved to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that they only acted as agents in making the contract, and that they were not personally liable. A rule having been obtained accordingly, Murphy (Pollock, Q.C., with him) shewed cause. Dowdeswell, Q.C. (Day with him), supported the rule, and contended, that as defendants appeared in the body of the contract to be acting as agents, they were not contracting parties, and could not be sued. THE COURT (Kelly, C.B., Martin, Pigott, Cleasby, BB.) discharged the rule, adopting the rule laid down in 2 Sm. L.C., 344, and holding that a person signing a contract with his own name, without any addition or qualification, is a contracting party, unless it appears upon the face of the contract, expressly, or by necessary implication, that he is only acting as agent, and also holding that the words "as agents, &c.," in the body of the contract, did not amount to such a statement. Attorneys for plaintiff: Hillearys & Tunstall. P. & M. IN THE GOODS OF M. WILLIAMS. April 26. Administration-Proceedings in Chancery-Applicant having no direct Interest-Citation-Practice. James H. Morgan died on the 13th of April, 1851, a bachelor and intestate, leaving Mary Morgan, his sister, and Thomas Sleeman, Elizabeth Briggs, Mary Sleeman, and James Sleeman, the children of another sister, the only persons entitled in distribution to his property. Mary Morgan, in May, 1851, took out administration to him, but died in January, 1852, without having divided her brother's Two Wills, one limited to Property in England, the other to Property in Tasmania-Separate Executors-Probate Practice, William Harris died at Leamington Priors, Warwickshire, on the 7th of August, 1869. He executed two wills, dated the 24th pressed his desire and intention to be to dispose only thereby of of May, 1867, and the 16th of July, 1867. In the first he exhis property in Tasmania. He appointed three persons resident in Hobart Town executors, and directed them to transfer the residue of his property in Tasmania to the executors of his English will, to be by them invested. The property disposed of in this will was property in Tasmania only. The second will commenced thus: "This is the last will and testament of," &c., so far as regards my property in England, I having by a separate and distinct will disposed of my property in the colony of Tasmania, and which will I ratify and confirm by this will; and affected by this will." By this will the deceased disposed of his proI desire that the same may not be annulled, interfered with, or perty in England, and appointed different executors from those in the first will. This last will was proved in the District Registry at Birmingham on the 15th of October, 1869, and on the other wil it was refused, on the ground that a man can only have one being presented for probate in the proper office at Hobart Town, will, and that, therefore, the two papers must be taken together, for so only did they constitute the deceased's will. 66 Pritchard now moved that the Court would revoke the probate already issued of the will dated the 16th of July, 1867, and decree probate of both papers as together constituting the will of the deceased. If the Court follows the decision in the case of In the motion; but there is a case not reported, In the Goods of Bislet Goods of Coode (Law Rep. 1 P. & M. 449), it will reject the Willson (November, 1866), in which the Court made an order similar to the one now asked for. THE COURT, having referred to the papers connected with the grant made in the case of Bishop Willson, directed the probate of the will dated the 16th of July to be revoked, and decreed probate of the two papers dated the 24th of May and the 16th of July as together constituting the will of the deceased. Attorneys: Church, Jones, & Clarke, E TABLE OF CASES. T HAMILTON (LORD CHARLES), APP.; HAMILTON (Duke of), RESP. (Scotch Entail-Defectively fenced) LISTER V. PERRYMAN Reasonable and Probable Cause) Equity. ALLEN. TAYLOR (Practice-Affidavit) to prove) V.-C. J. 129 V.-C. J. 128 BAYSPOOLE v. COLLINS (Settlement-13 Eliz. c. 5-Consideration) · HAWKINS v. ALLEN (Charitable Donation-Declaration of Trust— Statute of Mortmain) V.-C. M. 126 LIVERPOOL TRAMWAYS COMPANY v. LIVERPOOL OMNIBUS COMPANY (Injunction—Carriages specially adapted to run on Tramways -Liverpool Tramways Act) V.-C. M. 126 M. R. 125 M. R. 125 MASSEY, Ex parte. In re BARNED'S BANKING COMPANY (Windingup-Claim by Creditor-Money paid into Bank for Specific Purpose) MAWSON v. FLETCHER (Vendor and Purchaser-Conditions of Sale-Rescission of Contract-Compensation - Objection to Title) MUNNS v. ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY (Railway Company -Unpaid Landowner-Enforcement of Lien) L. J. Giffard 125 OXFORD AND CANTERBURY HALLS COMPANY, In re (CompanyWinding-up-Proof by Mortgagees after Sale of Mortgaged Property) L. J. Giffard 124 PERRY v. ORIENTAL HOTELS COMPANY (Winding-up-Equitable Mortgagee-Receiver) L. J. Giffard SPITALFIELDS PAROCHIAL CHARITY SCHOOL AND THE BOARD OF WORKS, In re (Costs-Jurisdiction of Court over Costs not specified in the Act) V.-C. S. WEBB v. HUGHES (Contract-Specific Performance-Time the Essence of the Contract) V.-C. M. 127 ALLEN v. WALKER (Trespass-Assault-Action by Husband against Lessee of his Wife-Separate Estate-Equitable Plea-Practice in Equity in restraining an Action of Assault). Ex. 132 ATHENS AND PIRÆUS RAILWAY COMPANY v. HUDSWELL (Security for Costs-English Joint Stock Company for constructing a Railway Abroad) C. P. 131 CASTLE AND OTHERS v. PLAYFORD (Vendor and Purchaser-Agreement that Purchaser shall bear Risks and Damages of the Sea -Receipt of Bill of Lading-Delivery of Cargo-Condition Precedent) DOULTON (J. & H.) AND THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS, Ex. 133 LEE AND ANOTHER v. SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY (Marine Insurance-Insurance on Freight-Expenses of Transit by Railway) MORTIMER. PAULL AND PAULL (Testamentary Suit-Appointment of Executor not disputed - Administrator pendente LitePractice) P & M. 134 REGINA v. GUTHRIE (Indictment-Charge of Two distinct Misdemeanours in one Court-Conviction of One of the MisdeC. C. 134 -Practice) REGINA v. HULME (Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (26 & 27 Vict. c. 29) Information of Perjury-Certificate of Commissioners to Witness-Staying Proceedings) Q. B. 130 REGINA v. INHABITANTS OF CHART AND LONGBRIDGE (Bridge-Repair by Hundred-Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 50), 8. 5- Construction "Highways County Bridges""Hundred Bridges") meanours REGINA v. KINGLAKE (Practice · Misdemeanour Judgment in absence of Defendant) SINCLAIR v. GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (Practice-In- During the sittings of the Courts, THE WEEKLY NOTES will be published on Saturday, and will generally comprise Notes of the Decisions up to and including those of the previous Wednesday. All Cases of permanent interest noted herein will be reported in full in THE LAW REPORTS. House of Lords. April 29. LORD CHARLES HAMILTON, APP.; DUKE OF HAMILTON, RESP. Scotch Entail-Defectively fenced. In this case the Court of Session, by a unanimous judgment, decided that the irritant and resolutive clauses of the Hamilton entail were not applicable to the prohibition against altering the order of succession, and therefore, that under the 43rd section of the Rutherford Act the entail was invalid, even in a question inter hæredes. The decision appealed from was affirmed by the House, with costs; the effect being that the Duke is now at liberty to dispose of the vast estates of this illustrious family; and that the subsequent heirs of entail have no right to object. The Dean of Faculty (Gordon, Q.C.), and Mellish, Q.C., for the appellant. Sir Roundell Palmer, Q.C., and Anderson, Q.C., for the respondent. Solicitors for the appellants: Connell & Hope. Will-Debts from what Fund payable. This was an appeal against a decree of Vice-Chancellor Malins. William Maxwell was possessed of a Scotch estate called Glenlee. In February, 1859 (being then at Liverpool), he and his wife (who had a claim on the estate) joined in executing a trust disposition of Glenlee according to the Scotch form, such being by the law of Scotland a revocable instrument. In May, 1862, he executed, in London, a will in the English form, reciting this trust disposition, and declaring that the devises and bequests in his will should not affect his Scotch estate, or put anyone entitled under both instruments to election. He then made some special directions as to his residuary real and personal estate, and gave it, subject to these directions, to his trustees, to sell and pay and discharge thereout all his just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and the legacies bequeathed by his will. In October, 1862, he took up a sum of 14,143/., and executed at Glenlee a heritable bond and disposition in the Scotch form, by which he charged the estate at Glenlee with the payment of that sum. He died in July, 1866, domiciled in England. The bill was filed to have it determined out of what fund this sum of 14,143. was payable. Vice-Chancellor Malins held that it was payable out of the deceased's residuary estate in exoneration of the Glenlee estate (Law Rep. 4 Eq. 407.) Karslake, Q.C., and Neish, for the younger children, the appellants. Anderson, Q.C., and Appach-Haddan, Osborne, Q. C., and Stallard, and Dickinson, Q.C., and Wickens, for other parties. THE LORDS, without calling on the respondents, affirmed the decree of the Court below. Solicitors for all parties: Duncan & Murton. charge of stealing a rifle. Lister pleaded reasonable and probable cause, and gave evidence that Hinton, his (Lister's) coachman had told him that the rifle had been in the stable, that Perryman had there seen and admired it, that it was soon after stolen, and that Robinson (the coachman of a neighbour) said he had seet the rifle in a barn belonging to Perryman's father, that Perryman, hearing of this statement of Robinson, had volunteered to take them to the barn, and that, when there, he had shewn them a gun which Robinson, however, said was not the gun he had before seen. Lister gave Perryman into custody, but whether it was entirely on this information of his own coachman, or partly on that and partly on an actual questioning of Robinson, was left doubtful at the trial. The Lord Chief Baron and the jury thought that Lister had not seen Robinson before the arrest of Perrymac and put that as a ground of want of reasonable and probabl cause. The jury gave a verdict for Perryman. On a motion for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection and of the verdict being against the evidence, the point on the former ground was that the Lord Chief Baron had thought that defence of reasonable and probable cause was not made out. Lister acted on hearsay evidence alone, and therefore that the The Judges of Exchequer were divided on the question. In the Exchequer Chamber the judges were unanimously of opini that the Lord Chief Baron was right. Mellish, Q.C., and J. C. Mathew, for Lister. THE LORDS thought that, though the first part of Hinter's statement was hearsay, the second part, as to what passed in the barn when he was present, was not, and that consequently there had been a misdirection, and the rule for a new trial ought to be absolute. Ordered accordingly. Attorney for appellant: W. Gardiner. Attorney for respondent: E. C. Seaman. L. J. GIFFARD. May 1 In re LONDON, HAMBURG, AND CONTINENTAL EXCHANGE BANK ZULUETA'S CLAIM. Company- Ultrà Vires Transaction-Buying-up Shares in : Company-Notice. This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the R (Law Rep. 9 Eq. 270). The question related to a sum of money credited in the bod of the bank to Mr. Henry, the broker of the company, as the pr of 113 shares purchased by him by the desire of the directors & behalf of the bank, and transferred to a trustee for the bars The Master of the Rolls held, that assuming that the direct were acting ultrà vires in investing the money of the bank buying up its own shares, the transaction was completed b crediting Henry with the purchase-money, and that the only remedy of the shareholders was against the directors personally. The official liquidator appealed from this decision. Roxburgh, Q.C., and Hastings, for the Appellant. Jessel, Q.C., and Haynes, for Messrs. Zulueta, the assignees of Henry's debt. THE LORD JUSTICE GIFFARD said that there could be no doubt that, on the construction of the articles of association, the act of the directors was ultrà vires, and that it must have been known to be so by Henry. The purchase-money was not actually paid to him, but only carried to his credit, and he was of opinion that he could not now recover it against the bank. He was, moreover, of opinion that if the money had been actually paid to him it might have been recovered in another form of proceeding either from him or from the directors. The order of the Master of the Rolls must be discharged. 1 Solicitors: Deane & Chubb; Bothamleys & Freeman. L. J. GIFFARD. Amphlett, Q.C., and Cates, for the plaintiff. THE LORD JUSTICE discharged the injunction, and made an order for a receiver, with a direction for the company to give him immediate possession. Solicitors: W. Elgood; Porter & Twynam. M.R. In re BARNED'S BANKING COMPANY. Ex parte MASSEY. May 6. Winding-up-Claim by Creditor-Money paid into Bank for Specific Purpose. This was an application on behalf of William Massey that he might be entitled as against the estate of Barned's Banking Company, which was in liquidation, to the whole amount of his claim in priority to the general creditors. The applicant, on the 15th of January, 1866, drew upon F. Fox a bill of exchange for 1851., which Fox accepted, payable at Prescott & Co.'s bank. Fox being unable to meet the bill, the applicant's firm agreed to take it up, and accordingly, on the 17th of April, 1866, they paid the sum of 1857, in cash into Barned's Banking Company at Liverpool, for whom Prescott & Co. were the London agents, for the express purpose of meeting the bill when due, and at the same time furnished to the banking company written particulars of the bill to be met. The applicant's firm had no account with Barned's Banking Company. Barned's Banking Company did not, on the 17th of April, advise Prescott & Co. of the payment, and on the 18th of April they stopped payment. The bill became due on the 18th of April, and on being presented it was dishonoured. The applicant had been admitted to prove under the windingup of the banking company for the amount of his debt, and had received a dividend. He now claimed to be entitled to the balance of the whole amount on the ground that the money was paid into the banking company for a specific purpose. Roxburgh, Q.C., and Badcock, for the applicant, relied on Farley v. Turner (26 L. J. (N.S.) Ch. 710). Sir R. Baggallay, Q.C., and Kekewich, for the official liquidator, were not called on. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the case was distinguishable from Farley v. Turner, and that the applicant could only rank as a general creditor. The summons was dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the applicant: Vizard, Crowder, & Co. M. R. In re UNITED SERVICE COMPANY. DE CRESPIGNY'S EXECUTORS CASE. May 9. Company Contributory Transfer Transfer not passed by Directors Transfer entered by Liquidator under Voluntary Winding-up. On the 3rd of June, 1868, Sir C. De Crespigny, for valuable consideration, executed a transfer of 100 shares in the abovenamed company, of which he was the registered holder, to G. E. Hudson, the manager of the company. The directors, who had by the articles of association a discretionary power of refusing to register transfers, held meetings on the 6th and 12th of June, at which they approved of several transfers of shares to Hudson, but there was no evidence that the transfer of Sir C. De Crespigny's shares was submitted to them at either of these meetings. On the 19th of June and the 6th of July resolutions were passed and confirmed by the shareholders for the voluntary winding-up of the company and the appointment of a liquidator. On the Crespigny's shares, together with a great number of other trans29th of July the liquidator registered the transfer of Sir C. De 21st of November, 1868, an order was made to continue the winding-up under supervision, and on the following day an order was made for the compulsory winding up of the company. Sir C. De Crespigny died in August, 1868. fers of shares to Hudson which he found in the office. On the This was an application by the official liquidator to place the executors of Sir C. De Crespigny on the list of contributories in respect of the 100 shares, on the ground that the transfer had not been completed by registration before the winding-up. Roxburgh, Q.C., and Hastings, for the liquidator. Higgins, for the respondents, contended, that but for the unnecessary delay of the directors the transfer would have been registered before the winding-up, and that having been registered by the liquidator it was valid. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that there had been no unnecessary delay on the part of the directors in not registering the transfer, and that the registration by the liquidator was invalid, as he did not appear to have exercised any judgment in the matter, and consequently that the executors must be made contributories. Solicitors for the liquidator: Deane & Chubb. ing valuable limestone and freestone quarries. The 6th condition of sale provided, that if any objection or requisition should be delivered and persisted in, the vendors should be at liberty to rescind the contract; and the 14th condition provided, that if any error or mistake should appear to have been made in the description of the property, or of the vendors' interest therein, such error or mistake should not vacate the sale, but a compensation or equivalent should be given or taken by the vendor or purchaser as the case might require. The abstract of title shewed that part of the property had been conveyed to the defendants' predecessor in title, subject to the right of the lord of the manor to work mines and minerals under it, and the plaintiff thereupon claimed compensation in respect of the mines and minerals. The defendants refused to give compensation, and upon the requisition being persisted in, gave notice to rescind the contract. The plaintiff then instituted this suit for specific performance, with an abatement from the purchase-money. The defendants by their answer stated, that by the custom of the manor the lord was not entitled to quarries of limestone and freestone, and that there were no other minerals under the part of the property in question. Southgate, Q.C., and Dryden for the plaintiff, contended, that the defendants' own title deeds shewed that they had no right to the limestone and freestone; that the plaintiff's objection was not an objection to title, upon which the defendants could rescind the contract, but that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under the 14th condition. Jessel, Q.C., and Jackson, for the defendants, contended, that it was not a case for compensation, but an objection to title, and that they were entitled to rescind the contract. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS held that the plaintiff's objection was an objection to the defendants' title to the quarries, and that the defendants were entitled to rescind the contract under the 6th condition, and dismissed the bill with costs. Solicitors for the plaintiff: Gray, Johnston, & Mounsey. W. W. Karslake, for the Commissioners of the Board of Works, objected to pay the costs of the petitioners. The jurisdiction of the Court was bounded by the Act, and that confined it to the costs of purchases under the Act. Greene, Q.C., and J. T. Humphry for the rector of St. Stephen's, who claimed an interest in the fund. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that Vice-Chancellor Parker had already decided this question. Because the Act gave the Court jurisdiction in certain cases, that circumstance could not be he to take away its ordinary jurisdiction as to costs. The commis sioners must pay the costs of the petitioners, not to include the costs of any adverse litigation. Solicitors for the petitioners: Tanqueray-Willaume & Co. Solicitor for the Rector of St. Stephen's: Whittington. Solicitors for the Commissioners: The Solicitors for the Board Works. V.-C. M. Osborne, Q.C., and Chapman Barber, for the plaintiffs, the tr trustees. Cotton, Q.C., Nalder, and Townsend, for some of the next kin of Miss Delancey contended that the gift, being a gift money to be laid out in land, and having been made with twelve months before the decease of the donor, was void und the Statute of Mortmain. Wickens, for the Attorney-General. the intention of Miss Delancey was that the money should b Costs―Jurisdiction of Court over Costs not specified in the Act. By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 87, the Commissioners of the Board of Works were empowered to take certain lands and hereditaments specified in a schedule to the Act, including the site of the parochial schools of the parish of Christ Church, Spitalfields. By the 49th section of the Act it was provided, where the property of persons under disability was taken the purchase-money should be paid into the Bank, and that it should be lawful for the Court to order the expenses of all purchases to be paid by the said commissioners. By 9 & 10 Vict. c. 34, which authorised the commissioners to construct a new street from Shoreditch to Spitalfields, it was provided that the property comprised in the schedule to 3 & 4 Vict. c. 87, should be available for the new street, and that the commissioners should have all the powers given by that Act. The commissioners accordingly purchased from the trustees the site of the schools in question, in order to make the new street, V.-C. M. LIVERPOOL TRAMWAYS COMPANY v. LIVERPOOL May! and paid 15667., being the purchase-money, into Court under the OMNIBUS COMPANY. Act. By an order dated the 24th of April, 1852, Vice-Chancellor Parker, on the petition by the trustees, ordered the costs of the Injunction-Carriages specially adapted to run on Tramway-purchase to be paid out of the purchase-money, and the residue of the fund to be invested in consols, and that the commissioners should pay the petitioners the costs of the investment, and of obtaining the order, and of all proceedings relating thereto, except such costs, if any, as were occasioned by litigation between adverse claimants. Liverpool Tramways Act. This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the defend c company from running on the tramways constructed by t plaintiffs in the town of Liverpool any carriages or omnibus licensed to carry passengers for hire, and having wheels adapt for running upon such tramways, during the period of eighte months from the 1st of November, 1869, the day of the openi of the tramways, and from in any manner infringing the right exclusive user of the tramways granted to the plaintiffs' compary by the "Liverpool Tramways Act, 1868." The Act, in giving powers to the plaintiffs for laying down and |