ERRATUM IN 3 P. & D. 528.

Lord DENMAN C. J., in Baylis v. Laurence, is erroneously reported as having said that "the question of intention, in a case of libel, never can be one for the jury,"-whereas his lordship, in substance, stated the contrary.

ERRATA IN THIS VOLUME.

Page 37, line 17 from top, for "in," read "or."

42, line 1 from top, for "demurrer," read "plea."

119, line 4 from top, dele "of."

119, line 13 from top, dele" as in."

125, line 3 of argument, for "costs attendant," read "costs were attendant." 150, for "Rule absolute," read " Judgment for the defendants."

191, in the marginal note to Reg. v. Lydeard St. Lawrence, for "made as a ground," read "stated as a ground."

208, line 18 from top, for “tenant,” read “ tenement."

211, column 2, lines 18 and 19 from top, for "eum altitudinum," read
eam altitudinem ;" and line 23, for "eum," read "eam.”
245, in the marginal note to Reg. v. Clint, for "as the ground of a material
variance," read "on the ground," &c.

400, line 13 from the top, dele “ also."

442, in the marginal note to Reg. v. Holdsworth, after "Held," dele" that." 533, line 2 from the bottom, for "could not the other claim," read “could he not claim for the other;" and in last line, dele “not."

537, in the marginal note to Reg. v. Chancellor of Oxford, after "party,” read "not a member of the university."