Where an application is made for shares in a joint stock Company the directors are bound to allot them within a reasonable time, otherwise the allottee may refuse to accept them, and recover back the deposit, whether or not he has withdrawn his application. Shares applied for on the 8th June were allotted on the 23rd November.-Held, not an allotment within a reasonable time. The Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Company, Limited, v. Montefiore. The Same v. Goldsmid. Montefiore v. The Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Company, Limited, 161 LAND TAX. JUDGMENT. Action for Maliciously and without Reasonable or Probable Cause signing Judgment, and taking the Plaintiff in Execution for a Sum above 201, when a less Sum was due. A declaration stated that A. issued against B. a writ of summons, specially indorsed for 281.: that B. paid A. 107. on account: that A. afterwards maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause signed judgment for default of appearance, for 281., and arrested the defendant under a ca. sa. for that amount, and compelled him, in order to obtain his discharge, to pay 351. On demurrer to the declaration :- Held, that the action was not maintainable, inasmuch as the judgment operated as an estoppel, and precluded the plaintiff from averring that 287. was not due. The proper course would have been to apply to the Court or a Judge to reduce the judgment to the amount actually due. Huffer v. Allen and Another, 634 LANDLORD AND TENANT. See LESSOR AND LESSEE. LAND TAX. Chargeable on Asylum for Support, Maintenance and Education of The 38 Geo. 3, c. 5, s. 25, which exempts from land tax "any hospital" in respect of its scite, applies only to hospitals in existence at the time that Act passed. Semble, that the word "hospital," in that Act is used in a popular sense only, and that any institution LESSOR AND LESSEE. LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH. 745 which, though not in a strictly legal, might in a popular sense be called a hospital, might claim exemption. Commissioners appointed by the Crown to administer funds subscribed by the public for the relief of the widows and orphans of soldiers, sailors and marines, who died in battle, purchased land charged with land tax, and built upon it and endowed an asylum for the support, maintenance and education of 300 daughters of such soldiers, sailors and marines.-Held, that the land having been charged with land tax, would still be chargeable in the hands of the Crown, even if directly purchased for the Crown. the lease, the lessee continued in possession and paid rent, and upon the death of the tenant for life he paid the same rent to the remainderman, who was not aware of the covenant in the lease.— Held, in the Exchequer Chamber (affirming the judgment of the Court below), that there was no evidence for the jury that the tenancy continued upon the terms of the lease so as to bind the remainderman by the covenant. Oakley v. Monck, 251 LEVANT AND COUCHANT. Meaning of Expression. But, semble, that even if this Held, in the Exchequer Chamber asylum had been in existence at the (affirming the judgment of the Court time the 38 Geo. 3, c. 5, passed, it of Exchequer), that in a claim of would not have been exempt as common of pasture for cattle levant and couchant upon land appurtenant Crown land. thereto, the expression "levant and Semble also, that the asylum was not a "hospital" in the popular sense, which is rather an institution for the relief of the sick or aged than for the maintenance and education of children. Lord Colchester and Others v. Kewney, LESSOR AND LESSEE. 445 Terms of Tenancy where Lessor remains in Possession after Expiration of Lease. Where a lessee, after the expiration of his lease, remains in possession and pays rent it is a question for the jury upon what terms his tenancy continues. A tenant for life granted a lease containing a covenant that he would, at the expiration of the term, pay and allow the lessee, a nurseryman, for all fruit trees and shrubs then on the premises, which had been planted by him. At the expiration of couchant" means such a number of cattle as the land might maintain by its produce beyond the amount of food obtained by them from the common, and that it is not necessary that they should be actually fed, either wholly or in part, from the produce of the land. Carr v. Lambert, Woodhall and Others, 257 LIBEL. See BANKRUPTCY, (11). LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH. Bye-law, that before beginning to lay Foundation of new Building one month's notice shall be left with the Clerk of the Board, accompanied with Sections and Plans. A Local Board of Health has no power, under the 34th section of "The Local Government Act, 1858," | (1). Exposure of dangerous Machine to make a bye-law, that before beginning to dig or lay the foundation of any new building a written notice thereof of one month at the least shall be left with the clerk at one of the monthly meetings of the Board, accompanied with plans and sections; and whosoever shall neglect or refuse to give such notice shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 57. If a person gives a Local Board notice of his intention to build, and leaves with them plans and sections, he may at once commence the building, subject to the right of its being altered or pulled down if not in conformity with the bye-laws of the Board. Hattersley and Others v. Burr, 523 in Market Place, without the Handle being fastened, or its being thrown out of Gear, or in the care of any Person. The defendant exposed in a market place a machine for crushing oil cake, without the handle being fastened, or its being thrown out of gear, or in the care of any person. The plaintiff, a boy four years old, on returning from school under the care of his brother who was seven years old, stopped with other boys at the machine, and whilst one of them was turning the handle put his fingers in the cogs of the wheels, on being told by his brother to do so, and three of his fingers were crushed.— Held, that the defendant was not liable, as there was no negligence on his part; LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, and the injury was caused by the act 1858. (21 & 22 VICT. c. 98.) See LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH. MARINE INSURANCE. See INSURANCE. MASTER AND SERVANT. See APPRENTICE. MEMORANDA, 119, 607, 728. MINE. NEGLIGENCE. See EVIDENCE, (2), I., II. of the plaintiff and the boy who turned the handle. Morgan, an infant, by John Morgan, his next friend, V. Atterton, 688 (2). Injury to a Servant of a Railway Company through the negligence of a Servant of another Company in shunting a Train on a Station used in common by both Companies. The plaintiff, a servant in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company, was at work at a station in Manchester, when an engine driver in the employ of the defendants, the Great Western Railway Company, shunted a train belonging to the defendants from one part of the station to another so negligently that the plaintiff was thereby injured. The station was the property of the London and North Western Railway Company, and was used in common by that Company and the defendants and other Companies. By arrangement between all these Companies the defendants' engine driver ought to have awaited a signal from an officer of the London and North Western Railway Company before he shunted the train.-Held, that the plaintiff and the engine driver were not fellow servants within the rule of law that a master is not in general responsible to his servant for injury occasioned by the negligence of a fellow servant in the course of their common employment. Warburton v. The Great Western Railway Company, 695 (3). Prima facie Evidence for Jury. I. The plaintiff, while making an inquiry at the door of a house in which the defendant had offices, received a push from the defendant's servant, who was watching a packing case propped against the wall of the house, and belonged to the defendant, and the packing case then fell upon and injured the plaintiff. There was no proof why the packing case fell, or who placed it against the wall.-Held, that the fall of the packing case was primâ facie evidence of its being set up improperly, and that there was evidence for the jury of the defendant's negligence: Per Bramwell, B., and Pigott, B. Dissentiente Martin, B. Briggs v. Oliver, Entry upon Land to abate Nuisance caused by Watercourse. A person in abating a nuisance to his property, may justify an interference with the property of the wrongdoer, but only so far as is necessary to abate the nuisance. It is the duty of a person who enters upon the land of another to abate a nuisance to do it in the way least injurious to the owner of the land entered. Where there is an alternative way of abating a nuisance, which involves an interference with the property of an innocent person, or a wrongdoer, the interference must be with the property of the wrongdoer. The plaintiffs, by parol license from L. and the defendant, constructed a watercourse, through which the water flowed from their colliery across the land of L. and of the defendant into a canal. The 403 defendant revoked his license and entered upon the land of L. and obstructed the watercourse, whereby the plaintiffs' mines were flooded. If the obstruction had been made lower down on the defendant's land, there would have been less damage altogether, and none to the plaintiffs but some damage to L. The damage to L. might have been obviated at trifling expense by mechanical arrangements, but L.'s assent to such arrangements was never asked. II. The plaintiff, a boy twelve years of age, had entered a third class railway carriage at night time, and was about to seat himself when he placed his fingers on a part of the door. His father was behind him getting into the carriage when a porter violently closed the door, which crushed the plaintiff's fingers and struck his father on the back.Held, that there was evidence of Penalty under 55 Geo. 3, c. 137, s. 6. on Parish Officer supplying for his own profit Goods for use of Workhouse, and Penalty under 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, s. 77, for supplying Goods to an individual Pauper. The 6th section of the 55 Geo. 3, c. 137 (which imposes a penalty of 1007. on any parish officer who shall supply, for his own profit, any goods, materials, or provisions for the use of any workhouse, or otherwise for the support and maintenance of the poor), is not repealed by the 77th section of the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, which subjects to a penalty of 51. any parish officer who shall supply for his own profit any goods, materials or provisions to an individual pauper. Robinson v. Emerson, 352 PLEADING. PENALTY. See CUSTOMS. PARISH OFFICER. PLEADING. See APPRENTICE. II. To a declaration for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close and pulling down a wall, the defendant pleaded that B. was seised in fee of the land in which &c., in trust to pay the rents and profits to the defen dant's wife for her life; and that whilst the defendant and his wife were in occupation of the land, B., in breach of trust, conveyed the land in fee to the plaintiff, who had notice of the breach of trust, and that afterwards, and whilst the defendant and his wife were in such occupation, the plaintiff wrongfully built the wall which encumbered the land, and prevented the defendant and his wife from enjoying it; wherefore the defendant, in his own right, and by direction of his wife, pulled it down. -Held, that the plea afforded no defence on equitable grounds to the action. Drake v. Pywell, 78 (2). Plea to Claim for Writ of Injunction. A defendant cannot plead to a |