certain written interrogatories; that the plaintiffs and defendants were to be at liberty to put further questions; that the costs incidental to the commission were to be costs in the cause; and that the Commissioners had employed attorneys to put questions on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants. The complaint now was that the Master had not allowed certain expenses incurred in such employment.

Sir G. Honyman shewed cause. - It is clear from Cornet v. Dempsey (1), Stewart v. Steele (2), and other cases, that there is no positive rule of law obliging the Master to allow these costs. The Master has exercised his discretion; there is nothing in the affidavits to shew he is wrong; and the Court will not interfere.

Cohen, in support of the rule.-The defendant has a right to these costs. Before arbitrators, counsel and attorney would be allowed; here the plaintiffs and defendants are to be at liberty to put further questions, and all costs incidental thereto. are to be costs in the cause. This was a difficult question as to a death-blow to a ship causing a particular loss. The practice is to appoint merchants as Commissioners, who cannot be expected to know how to interrogate, and who, therefore, have a right to appoint proper professional persons. Bell v. Aitken (3) shews that even if the Master has exercised his discretion, the Court will interfere.

BOVILL, C.J.-This application is made on two grounds. The first is, that the defendant is entitled as of right to have these costs allowed, but I repudiate the notion that there is any such rule. There is no such rule, but the allowance is a matter of discretion. Then, secondly, it is Isaid that the Master has not exercised his discretion, or exercised it wrongly. But the Master has exercised it, and it must be shewn clearly that he is wrong before the Court will interfere. There may be many cases in which it may be desirable for Commissioners to have assistance, but the occasion for such assistance and the amount of it must be a matter of discretion for the

(1) 1 Dowl. N.S. 422.

(2) 4 Com B. Rep. N.S. 460.

(3) 37 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) C.P. 168.

Master, and here some has been allowed; shewing he has allowed what he thought necessary. If the Master had not used a discretion, the case might be different; but he has, and the facts before us are not sufficient to induce us to give (as a matter of discretion) a decision contrary to that of the Master.

BYLES, J., KEATING, J. and BRETT, J. concurred. Dismissed with costs.

Attorneys-Thomas & Hollams, for plaintiff; Field, Roscoe & Co., agents for Bateson & Co., Liverpool, for defendant.

1868. Dec. 1.

THE BOARD OF WORKS FOR
THE WANDSWORTH DIS-

TRICT, appellants, v. HALL,
respondent.

Metropolis Management Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102. s. 75.) — General Line of Buildings-Ascertained by the Architect after Building erected-Jurisdiction of Magistrate.

A person who erects a building within the limits of the Metropolis Management Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102.) without the consent in writing of the Metropolitan Board of Works is bound to erect it within the general line of buildings in the place where it is so erected; and if the Magistrate finds that the building is beyond such general line he has authority to make an order under section 75. of that act for its demolition, though the decision of such general line by the superintending architect to the said board was not given until after the building complained of had been erected.

[For the report of the above case, see 38 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. p. 69.]

1868. CRANE, Dec. 1. S

appellant, v. POWELL, respondent.

Master and Servant-30 & 31 Vict. c. 141.-4 Geo. 4. c. 34. s. 3.-Contract of Service in writing-Contract where the Service has not been commenced-Information claiming fulfilment of Contract.

P, a builder, being in want of workmen at Sheffield, wrote for some to the secretary of the Free Labour Registration Society. He received from the secretary, in reply, a letter, inclosing a blank form, which shewed when filled up the nature and duration of the employment and the wages for the same, and which was headed "To be filled up by employers requiring hands from the Free Labour Registration Society." P. filled up this form, and signed it under the words Signature of the employer," and inserted his address at Sheffield after the words "Address of employer." This form, when so filled up and signed, was received by the secretary of the society and shewn to C, a workman, who, together with others, then signed a document, headed "Free Labour Society," in which it was stated that, “having accepted employment in Sheffield," "we," being the persons who had so signed it, "agree to the deduction from our wages" of a cer

tain "fee to the said society for obtaining us the employment," and also "not to quit the service of our employer" without just cause :—Held, that there was upon the face of this document a sufficient connexion between it and the form signed by P. to enable the two to be taken together so as to form a written contract, signed by both parties, within the 4 Geo. 4. c. 34. s. 3, and therefore to be a contract within the jurisdiction of the Justices to make an order under the Master and Servant Act, 1867, for its fulfilment by C, although the service under it had not been actually commenced.

Quære-whether the effect of the Master and Servant Act, 1867, is that, to be within such jurisdiction, the contract must be in writing, as required by 4 Geo. 4. c. 34. 8. 3, when the service has not been commenced.

It is no objection to an information and complaint laid under the Master and Servant Act, 1867, that the complainant claimed therein the fulfilment of the contract of service instead of claiming only compensation for its breach, or claiming in the alternative such compensation or fulfilment.

[For the report of the above case, see 38 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. p. 43.]

1869. Feb. 11.

}

SPEDDING v. NEVELL.

Warranty and Misrepresentation of Authority to make Contract-Damages.

The plaintiff was the holder of a nearly expired lease of certain premises for twentyone years. The defendant, professing to act as the agent of the landlord, agreed with the plaintiff that the landlord should renew the lease. The plaintiff then assigned to B. the residue of the lease and all interest under this agreement. The landlord refused to grant the new lease because the defendant acted without authority, and B. had to leave. The plaintiff brought a suit in Chancery for specific performance, in which the landlord and the defendant swore there was no authority, and the bill was dismissed. B. then brought an action against the plaintiff, and recovered damages and costs, and the plaintiff afterwards brought the present action:-Held, first, that in the absence of its appearing that the defendant had not persisted in his representation and told the plaintiff not to bring the suit, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs of the Chancery suit; secondly, that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum arrived at by capitalizing the difference between the rent the plaintiff was to have paid and the actual annual value of the premises, as and for the value of the term; but, thirdly, that as in the particular case a re-sale was not in the contemplation of the parties, the plaintiff could not recover the damages and costs in B.'s action.

The declaration in this action contained three counts: first, for the defendant's breach of an agreement contained in a letter set

forth in the following case; second, for his falsely and fraudulently representing that he had authority to enter into such agreement; and third, for his breach of a warranty that he had such authority.

To this declaration there were various pleas, and there were also cross demurrers.

At the trial, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff for 7007. subject to a CASE to be stated by the arbitrator.

CASE.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Harriet Spedding, on the 16th of November, 1863, was in occupation of a house, shop, and premises, No. 23, Ebury Street, Pimlico, Mr. James Nevell, the defendant's brother, being the freeholder; the plaintiff was equitably entitled to or interested in the said premises for the residue of a term of twenty-one years, created by a lease granted by the said James Nevell to William Fuller, dated the 30th of May, 1846, and expiring on the 25th of March, 1867.

On the 18th of February, 1867, the plaintiff became assignee by a legal assignment of the residue of the said term then unexpired.

The defendant had for several years previous to and during the year 1863 acted as the agent of his brother James Nevell in the receipt of the rents of the said house, shop and premises, and of other property of his said brother.

The plaintiff being desirous to obtain a renewal of the lease of the said premises applied to the defendant to obtain such renewal from his said brother; and afterwards, on the 16th of November, 1863, the defendant, assuming to have his brother's authority, agreed on his behalf so to do,

"5, Eccleston Street and 88, Ebury Street, Belgravia, London, Nov. 16, 1863. "Madam,-I undertake on behalf of my brother, Mr. James Nevell, to renew to you the lease of house No. 23, Ebury Street, Pimlico, at the expiration of the term of twenty-one years from such period, at the rental of 70l. per annum, being an increase of 51. per year, upon the following conditions, viz., that you modernize the house by putting in a new shop-front at your sole cost and expense; the terms of the present lease to be the terms of the renewed one, with this exception, that the words 'or wine, spirit and beer merchant' be added to the list of restrictive trades mentioned therein, to any of which it will be contrary to your agreement to let the shop or house during any part of your tenancy.—I am, Madam, yours truly,

"Thomas Nevell.

"Mrs. Harriet Spedding,

10, Walton Place, S.W." The defendant had no authority from his said brother, express or implied, to make any such agreement.

The plaintiff, shortly after the making of the said agreement of the 16th of November, performed the said agreement by putting in a new shop-front, at an expense of 50l., and she also expended a further sum of 107. in permanently improving the said house, shop and premises.

On the 28th of June, 1865, the following agreement was made between the plaintiff of the one part and George Budd of the other part: "Memorandum of an agreement made this 28th day of June, 1865, between Mrs. Harriet Spedding, of Walton Place, Brompton, widow, of the one part, and Mr. George Budd, of Hugh Street, Pimlico, messenger at a government office, of the other part.

"The said Harriet Spedding agrees to sell to the said George Budd all her, the said Harriet Spedding's, interest in all the term now to come and unexpired in a certain lease of the house and premises situate and being No. 23, Ebury Street, in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, dated May 30, 1846, and made between James Nevell and William Fuller, and which will expire on the 25th day of March, 1867; and also all her, the said Harriet Spedding's, interest in a lease proposed and promised to be

from the said 25th day of March, 1867, for a term of twenty-one years, at the rent of 701., being an advance of 5l. per year, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the existing lease, with this exception, that the words "or wine, spirit and beer merchant" be added to the list of restricted trades mentioned therein, at and for the sum of 150l., payable as follows, viz., the sum of 301. as a deposit and in part payment of the said sum of 150l. to be paid at the signing of this agreement, and the remaining sum of 120. on the 11th of August next, up to which day the said Harriet Spedding agrees to pay all outgoings on the said house and premises. The said George Budd hereby agrees to purchase the said interest of the said Harriet Spedding for the said sum of 150l., and he also agrees to take, by valuation in the usual way, the shop fixtures and stockin-trade of the said Harriet Spedding, the amount of such valuation to be paid by the said George Budd to the said Harriet Spedding, on the said 11th day of August, in the following manner: one third of the amount by a bill at six months, one third by a bill at twelve months, and the remaining third by a bill at eighteen months, all such bills to be drawn by the said Harriet Spedding and accepted by the said George Budd, and, for the further security of the said Harriet Spedding, to be indorsed by Mr. William Goodyear, of the Talbot Inn, Little Chester Street, Belgrave Square, and to bear interest from the said 11th day of August at the rate of 51. per cent. per annum. And inasmuch as the before-mentioned lease for twenty-one years from the 25th day of March is agreed to be granted to the said Harriet Spedding, she, the said Harriet Spedding, will use her best means and endeavours to obtain the said lease to be granted direct to the said George Budd; but on her superior landlord declining so to do will herself take up the lease and assign the same immediately to the said George Budd, his executors or assigns, all expenses of such lease and counterpart to be borne by the said George Budd, the said Harriet Spedding agreeing to pay the cost of the assignment in the event of such assignment becoming necessary. The said George Budd is hereby precluded from inquiring into the title of the said Harriet

Spedding or her superior landlord. And it is agreed between the said parties that the title shall be taken to commence with the said proposed lease to the said Harriet Spedding. And lastly it is agreed between the said parties that in case the said George Budd shall fail to complete the purchase on the day above mentioned the deposit shall be absolutely forfeited to the said Harriet Spedding, and it shall not be necessary previously to tender an assignment. As witness the hands of the said parties the day and year first above written. "Harriet Spedding. George Budd.

66

"Witness-Geo. Berry,

8A, Motcombe Street, S.W."

The said James Nevell refused to perform the said agreement on the 16th of November, 1863; and on or about the 10th of January, 1867, he gave notice by his solicitor that he should require possession of the said premises upon the expiration of the term created by the lease of the 30th of May, 1846.

No lease has been granted in pursuance of the said agreement of the 16th of November, 1863 to the plaintiff or any other person.

The said George Budd was at the time of the expiration of the said lease of the 30th of May, 1846, in the occupation of the premises, and carrying on a trade and business therein. The said James Nevell permitted the said George Budd to continue in such occupation until Christmas, 1867, when the said George Budd ceased to occupy the same. The said James Nevell took possession thereof, and shortly afterwards. granted a lease of the said premises to one Thomas Perry, at a rent of 100l. per annum.

The said James Nevell having so refused to perform the said agreement of the 16th of November, 1863, the plaintiff applied to the said George Budd to become a coplaintiff jointly with her in a suit to be instituted in the High Court of Chancery, against the said James Nevell, for specific performance of the said agreement, and the said George Budd consented to become such co-plaintiff upon the plaintiff indemnifying him against all costs and expenses he might become liable to pay by reason of becoming such co-plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon signed a written indemnity, a copy of which is to be taken as part of this case.

A suit was afterwards instituted in the

High Court of Chancery, in which the now plaintiff and the said George Budd were plaintiffs and the said James Nevell was defendant, the bill praying that the said James Nevell might be decreed to specifically perform the said agreement and grant to the plaintiff a proper lease of the said house and premises for the term of years, and at the yearly rent, and according to the terms mentioned in the said agreement, the now plaintiff in the said bill stating. her readiness and willingness, and thereby offering to perform the agreement on her part, and on the execution and delivery of the said lease to her to execute and deliver to the defendant, the said James Nevell, a counterpart thereof.

The said James Nevell put in an answer to the said bill, alleging, amongst other things, that the now defendant never communicated with him on the subject of a renewal of the said lease, and had no authority to enter into the agreement of the 16th of November, 1863, and the now defendant, Thomas Nevell, was called and examined upon oath as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in the said suit before one of the examiners of the said court: he stated in substance that he never communicated with his said brother on the subject of renewing the lease to the now plaintiff, and that it was very wrong in him to sign the agreement of the 16th of November, 1863; that he had no authority to sign it on behalf of his brother the said James Nevell, and that his said brother knew nothing about it.

The said bill in the suit of Spedding and Budd v. Nevell was, upon the petition of the plaintiffs therein, ordered to be dismissed out of court as against the defendant therein, with costs to be taxed. The now plaintiff thereupon paid to the said James Nevell 287. 13s. 2d, for his taxed costs of the said suit, and the now plaintiff incurred costs of herself and her co-plaintiff in the said suit to the amount of 70%. (This last mentioned sum, if recoverable in this action against the defendant, is to be subject to taxation.)

The said George Budd commenced an action against the now plaintiff for damages for breach of the agreement of the 28th day of June, 1865, and the said action was referred to the arbitration of Alfred Coxon, Esq., barrister at-law, the costs of the said cause to abide the event thereof, and the