Law Statutes of the Session, Articles on, 58, 215. Leading Cases, Notes of. Equity, 147, 289. Common Law, 156, 291. Liabilities, in this Country, of Foreign Sovereigns, Article on, 182. List of New Publications, 171, 311. Lord Chancellor Cottenham, Memoir of, 280. May's Practice in Parliament, Review of, 40. New Books, Short Notes of, 168, 303. Parliament, May's Practice in, Review of, 40. Privy Council, Judicial Committee of, Bill for the better Administration of Public Trusteeships, Article on, 173. Reform, Common Law, Article on, 121. Registration of Assurances Bill, Article on, 1. Rules, the New County Court, Article on, 141. Scotch Bar and House of Peers, Article on, 188. Short Notes of New Books, 168. Statutes, New Law, of the Session, Articles on, 58, 215. Trusteeships, Public, Article on, 173. Trusts, Charitable, Bill, Article on, 96. University Commission, The Royal, Article on, 79. LONDON: PRINTED BY C. ROWORTH AND SONS, BELL YARD, (1) Digest of Cases. COMMON LAW. Comprising the Common Law Cases (not previously inserted) in the following 13 Queen's Bench Reports, part 1. 15 Queen's Bench Reports, part 1. 8 Common Bench, part 3. Reports 2 Crown Cases, parts 1 and 2. 5 Exchequer Reports, parts 1 and 2. 20 Law Journal (N. S ), parts 5, 6 and 7. ACTION FOR RAILWAY CALLS.-In an action for railway calls the plaintiff proved that it was the course of business for C., a clerk, to fill up printed notices of the calls and direct them to the shareholders, and then to put the notices into a basket; and it was the practice for another clerk to post the letters which were in the basket, which he had done on this occasion. C. was dead, but a list of shareholders containing the name of the defendant was produced in his handwriting, and indorsed by him "Letters sent out." C. had received instructions to make out such list, and had been seen filling up and directing the notices with such a list before him: Held, that the list so indorsed was admissible as evidence that notice of the call had been sent to the defendant, notwithstanding it was not distinctly shown when the indorsement was made. Eastern Union Railway Company v. Symonds, 5 Exch. 237. AMENDMENT.-An affidavit for a distringas to outlawry, stating that the answers to the attempts made to serve the defendant with the writ of summons at his last known residence here, where the defendant is abroad; that all reasonable means and diligence have been ineffectually used to serve the defendant personally, and that the deponent believes the defendant keeps out of the way to avoid service, is sufficient; a less degree of particularity being required on such an application than on moving for a distringas to compel appearance. In proceeding to outlawry by writ of summons and distringas, the first exigi facias is properly tested on the day on which the distringas is returned. A judge's order for a distringas was made and dated on the 12th of October, upon a defective affidavit; the affidavit was amended and resworn on the 13th, and the order was then delivered out as of the 12th. Upon a motion to rescind the order, and subse VOL. XV. NO. XXVIII. B quent proceedings thereon, the court allowed the date to be altered to the 13th, upon payment by the plaintiff of the costs of the amendment, and of the application to rescind the order. Dick v. Beavan, 8 C. B. 621. ANNUITY.-Apportionment.-By the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 11, King William the Fourth was empowered, by indenture, to grant to the Queen an annuity of 100,000l., to commence from the death of the King, and to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. By indenture, dated the 6th of April, 1832, in pursuance of this act, the King granted to trustees, in trust for her Majesty, the annuity of 100,000l., and directed that it should be paid at the receipt of the Exchequer, and that the auditor of the Exchequer should issue debentures for paying the same, and that the Commissioners of the Treasury should cause the said sum of 100,000l. to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, By the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 15, the office of auditor of the Exchequer is abolished, and in all cases of grants by Parliament charged on the Consolidated Fund, instead of debentures being issued by the auditor, the Commissioners of the Treasury are required to issue warrants for the payment of the monies granted: Held, that a mandamus would lie to the Lords of the Treasury to issue such a warrant. The annuity to the Queen was, by the act of parliament and the indenture granting it, to commence and take effect immediately after the decease of his majesty, and to continue from thenceforth for and during the natural life of her majesty, and to be paid and payable at the four most usual days of payment, viz., the 31st of March, the 30th of June, the 30th of September, and the 31st of December, by even and equal portions, the first payment to be made on such of the said days as should first and next happen after the decease of his majesty. King William the Fourth died on the 25th of June, 1837, and upon the 30th of the same month a full quarter's annuity was paid to the Queen Dowager. The Queen Dowager died on the 2nd of December, 1849: Held, that no apportionment of the quarter's annuity which would have been due on the 31st of December could be made in her favour: Held, also, that the fact of a whole quarter's annuity having been paid on the 30th of June, 1837, would not have prevented a mandamus being issued to compel payment of a proportionate part of the last quarter up to the day of her death, if the annuity had been apportionable. The same act of parliament and indenture settled upon the Queen Dowager Marlborough House during her life, and limited an interest therein to her executors for a year after her death, and the indenture (to which the Queen was a party) expressed that the annuity was in lieu of dower: Held, that these circumstances did not show that the annuity was apportionable. Reg. v. Lords of the Treasury (In re Queen Dowager's Annuity), 20 Law J. (N. S.) Q. B. 305. APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL IN CAUSE WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM AN ATTORNEY.-There is no rule of law requiring that counsel appearing in Court for a party who pleads in person, should be instructed by an attorney. Therefore, |