Page 294, line 20.

Add, "An appeal lies on the question whether there were special grounds empowering the judge to certify; but not, if they exist, as to the manner in which he has exercised his discretion. Paine v. Chisholm, (1891) 1 Q. B. 531, C. A."

306, line 11.

Add, "See also Coombs v. Wilkes, W. N. 1891, p. 120, T. S., Romer, J."

306, line 11 from bottom.

Add, "Bellamy v. Debenham was affirmed in the C. A. on other grounds, and is reported (1891) 1 Ch. 412."

311, line 8. For "ratification," read "rectification."

311, lines 22, 23.

"James v. Smith" is reported "(1891) 1 Ch. 384."

312, line 7.

Add, "In re Briggs and Spicer, (1891) 2 Ch. 127.

314, line 4.

Add, "Bellamy v. Debenham, (1891) 1 Ch. 412, C. A.” 320, line 14.

Add, "In re Arbib and Class's Contract, (1891) 1 Ch. 601, C. A.”

321, line 22.

Add, "See further as to right to recover deposit on the ground of want of title, Want v. Stallibrass, L. R., 8 Ex. 175; Saxby v. Thomas, W. N. 1891, p. 4, M. Sit., Romer, J."

328, line 9 from bottom.

For "Bky. R., 1883, r. 232," read "Bky. R., 1886, r. 320 (r. 69, Nov. 1890), cited post, p. 1138."

350, line 21 from bottom.

Add, "The decision in Vagliano v. Bank of England was reversed in D. P., (1891) A. C. 107.”

385, line 3. For "96," read "97."

400, lines 13, 14. For "negotiability," read " transferability."

400, line 16.

415, line 14.

"National Bank v. Silke" is reported "(1891) 1 Q. B. 435."

Add, "See further, Phelps v. Hill, (1891) 1 Q. B. 605, C. A.”

422, line 3. For "So," read "But."

440, line 24 from bottom.

"South Staffordshire_Tramways Co. v. Sickness, &c. Assur. Co." is reported "(1891) 1 Q. B. 402."

440, line 22 from bottom.

Add, "The decision of the Q. B. D. on this point was reversed, (1891) 1 Q. B. 402, the C. A. holding that there was a separate accident in respect of each person injured."

Page 450, line 10 from bottom.

Add, "The main principle to be deduced from the cases is that the cesser clause is inapplicable to the particular breach complained of if, by construing it otherwise, the shipowner would be left unprotected in respect of that particular breach, unless the cesser clause is expressed in terms that prohibit such a conclusion. Clink v. Radford, (1891) 1 Q. B. 625, 627, C. A."

451, line 6 from bottom.

Add, “But freight agreed to be paid in advance 'if required,' is not recoverable, unless demanded, before the loss of the ship. Smith v. Pyman, (1891) 1 Q. B. 742, C. A."

456, line 21. For "Lærtes," read "Laërtes."

,, 456, line 22 from bottom.

Add, "An exception against loss by 'pirates, robbers, or thieves of whatever kind, whether on board or not, or by land or sea,' does not include thefts by stevedore's men employed in the service of the ship. Steinman v. Angier Line, (1891) 1 Q. B. 619, C. A."

458, line 12. Add, "See also Phelps v. Hill, (1891) 1 Q. B. 605, C. A.”

459, line 13.

"Serraino v. Campbell" is reported in C. A. "(1891) 1 Q. B. 283."

465, line 12 from bottom.

Add, "Bolton v. Buckenham, (1891) 1 Q. B. 278, C. A.;
Salmon, (1891) 2 Ch. 48."

Bolton v.

,, 467, line 8.

For "1883, s. 18 (11)," read " 1890, s. 3 (15), post, p. 1145."

498, line 19 from bottom.

Add, "Unless there was a contract to employ the agent, in which case he would be entitled to recover damages. Turner v. Goldsmith, (1891) 1 Q. B. 544, C. A."

499, line 1. Add, "See further Learoyd v. Brook, post, p. 500, Add.”

,, 499, line 18 from bottom.

Add, "An apprentice may be bound to a corporation. Burnley, &c. Society v. Casson, (1891) 1 Q. B. 75."

500, line 13.

Add, "It is a defence to an action against the master for not teaching an apprentice A. that the latter refuses to be taught; Raymond v. Minton, L. R., 1 Ex. 244; or that he is a habitual thief. Learoyd v. Brook, (1891) 1 Q. B. 431. In such case no part of the premium paid is recoverable. S. C."

538, line 19 from bottom.

Add, "See also Hammond v. Schofield, (1891) 1 Q. B. 453."

573, line 5 from bottom.

Add, "A promissory note, stamped as a receipt only, is inadmissible to prove the loan of money. Ashling v. Boon, (1891) 1 Ch. 568."

576, line 4 from bottom.

Add, "Williamson v. Hine, (1891) 1 Ch. 390."

Page 583, line 4. Add, “The decision in Vagliano v. Bank of England was reversed in D. P., (1891) A. C. 107."

592, line 18 from bottom.

Add, "So an assignment of debts may be absolute, although a trust is thereby created as to the proceeds of such debts in favour of the assignor. Comfort v. Betts, (1891) 1 Q. B. 737, C. A.”

627, line 15. Add, "Medawar v. Grand Hotel Co., (1891) 2 Q. B. 11, C. A.” 628, line 17.

Add, "Where the guest has contributed to the loss by his negligence, sect. 1(1) does not apply. Medawar v. Grand Hotel Co., (1891) 2 Q. B. 11, C. A.”

631, line 4. Add, "See further N. British Ry. Co. v. Wood, July 2nd, 1891, D. P., ex relatione amici."

638, line 19 from bottom. Add, "See further Jones v. Merionethshire, &c.
Building Soc., W. N. 1891, p. 108, T. S., Williams, J."

641, line 20. Add, "Mills v. Dunham, (1891) 1 Ch. 576, C. A."
642, line 6.

Add, "And an infant is not bound by his acceptance of a bill of exchange, even though given for the price of necessaries. Ex pte. Margrett, (1891) 1 Q. B. 418, C. A."

642, line 3 from bottom.

Add, "So education for the purpose of learning a business may be a necessary, and if so, the infant may bind himself to pay a reasonable premium therefor. Walter v. Everard, W. N. 1891, p. 82, C. A.”

648, line 20. Add, " Moore v. Knight, (1891) 1 Ch. 551.”

652, line 14. For "5 M. & W." read "11 M. & W."
653, line 20.

Add, "Payment of a statute-barred
the interest thereon out of the statute.

debt will not necessarily take Collyer v. Willock, 4 Bing. 313."

670, line 25. For "Sect. 18 (15)," read "Bky. Act, 1890, s. 3 (19)."

,, 697, line 19.

697, line 22.

For "147," read "151."

Add, "But in the case of such a covenant the lessor must be requested for his consent prior to the assignment, or the assignment will be a breach. Barrow v. Isaacs, (1891) 1 Q. B. 417, C. A."

697, line 24.

Add, "A corporation is not such a tenant. Harrison v. Barrow-inFurness, Corporation of, 64 L. T., N. S. 834, H. S. 1891, Romer, J."

703, line 25. Add, "Joyner v. Weeks, (1891) 2 Q. B. 31, C. A."

729, line 19 from bottom. Add, "The decision in Howitt v. Nottingham, &c. Tramways Co. was approved and followed in Alldred v. W. Metropolitan Trams Co., W. N. 1891, p. 127, C. A."

733, line 10. Add, "Harrison v. Southwark and Vauxhall Water Co., (1891) 2 Ch. 409."