Page images
PDF
EPUB

Page 747, line 18 from bottom. Adı, “ The interest is not limited to six years.

The Kong Magnus, (1891) P. 223." 748, line 16.

Add, Where the County Court has jurisdiction under 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 51, the Admiralty Division seems in its discretion to disallow costs in the absence of special circumstances. The Asia, (1891) P. 121; The Zeta, Id. 216. See 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, 8. 9. But this principle is not followed in the Q. B. Division. Rockett v. Clippingdale, W. N. 1891, p. 96, C. A. As to jurisdiction of the

County Courts, see The County of Durham, (1891) P. 1.
762, line 4 from bottom. Add, “Nor the guard of a goods train. Hunt

v. Gt. N. Ry. Co., (1891) 1 Q. B. 601.”
764, lines 11, 16, and 17. For “ (4),read (5).”
772, line 9 from bottom.

Perry v. Eamesis reported “(1891) 1 Ch. 658." Add, “Sect. 2,
post, p. 783, does not affect the right to light. S. C.”
806, line 5. Fishburn v. Hollingshead" is reported “(1891) 2 Ch. 371.".
817, line 13 from bottom. For lóg. 3" read "68. 4."
820, last line.

Adl, Where K., the proprietor of the copyright, gave C. a licence to make certain copies, and then assigned the copyright to L., who had no notice of the licence to C., and C. afterwards made the copies, C. was held liable to L. in penalties under sect. 6. L. Printing, dc.

Alliance v. Cox, W. N. 1891, p. 100, E. S., Williams, J.” 826, line 8 from bottom. Fishburn v. Hollingshead" is reported “ (1891)

2 Ch. 371." Add, As to the effect of the proviso_in sect. 6, ante,

p. 825, see Moul v. Groenings, 64 L. T., N. S. 569, Q. B., E. S. 1891." 829, line 20 from bottom.

· Thompson v. Montgomery” was affirmed in D.P., "(1891) A. C.217.830, line 16. Add, A watermark in paper may, it seems, be a brand'

within sect. 64 (1,c). Pirie (Alexander) & Sons v. Goodall, W. N. 1891,

p. 99, E. S., Williams, J.” 830, line 15 from bottom.

Add, Richards v. Butcher, W. N. 1891, p. 91, C. A.847, line 10 from bottom.

Add, If, however, the validity of the patent be in dispute, the certificate is unnecessary, as the County Court has no jurisdiction, the patent being a franchise within the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 56. R. v. Halifax County Court, Judge of, (1891) 1 Q. B. 793 ; affirmed in C. A., W. N. 1891, p.

111." 849, last line.

' Angus v. Cliffordwas reversed in C. A., and is reported • 60 L. J., Ch. 443.” 863, line 26. Add, Jenoure v. Delmege, (1891) A. C. 73.866, line 16.

Add, Accord. Speight v. Gosney, 60 L. J., Q. B. D. 231, C. A.” 867, lines 20, 21. Bonnard v. Perryman" is reported “(1891) 2 Ch.

269." Add, Salomons v. Knight, Id. 294, C. A.872, line 15. Add, Hunt v. Gt. N. Ry. Co., (1891) 2 Q. B. 189, C. A.”

99

[ocr errors]

Page 873, line 9. Add, Stuart v. Bell, W. N. 1891, p. 92, C. A."

874, last line. For “ 91," read 90."
881, line 15 from bottom.

Add, See also Kensington, fe. Electric Lighting Co. v. Lane Fox

Electrical Co., W. N. 1891, p. 85, E. S., Stirling, J.” 892, line 6 from bottom.

For “ Marlborough,” read “ Marlbridge." 901, line 20 from bottom.

For Marlborough,” read “ Marlbridge." 917, line 18.

Add, A conviction under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, s. 1, for an aggravated

assault is a bar to an action." » 932, line 28.

Add, "See further Fareham Local Board v. Smith, W. N. 1891, p. 76, E. S., Chitty, J.” 938, line 7 from bottom.

Add, * The right of a landlord to re-enter and take possession of premises on the determination of a tenancy is not affected by a justice's warrant for delivery of possession having been obtained under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 74, and the 21 days thereby limited not having expired.

Jones v. Foley, (1891) 1 Q. B. 730."
964, line 15. Barker v. Furlongis reported “ (1891) 2 Ch. 172."
973, line 3. " Barker v. Furlongis reported “(1891) 2 Ch. 172.
975, line 4 from bottom.

Rogers v. Lambertis reported “ (1891) 1 Q. B. 318, C. A."
976, line 7. Add, Barker v. Furlong, (1891) 2 Ch. 172."
1023, line 1. Add, Crump v. Temple, cited post, p. 1073.".
1023, line 2.

Add, “Reasonable compensation in money does not include a surveyor's fee for the examination of the premises, for sect. 14 (1) does not extend the landlord's rights. Skinners' Co. v. K’night, 63 L. T., N. S. 698, M. Sitt. 1890, Q. B. D. As to the case of an underlessee of part of the premises comprised in the lease, on the forfeiture of which the action is brought, see Creswell v. Davidson, 56 L. T., N. S. 811;

E. S. 1887, Kay, J.; Burt v. Gray, (1891) 2 Q. B. 98.” 1023, line 8 from bottom.

Add, As to relief for breach of covenant against assignment, see Barrow v. Isaacs, (1891) 1 Q. B. 417, C. A. As to protection to purchaser against prior breach of covenant to insure, by production of

receipt for rent, see 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, 8. 8.” 1026, line 7.

Add, “See further, Shepherd v. Berger, (1891) 1 Q. B. 597, C. A.” 1063, line 10 from bottom. For or," read on."

Add,

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »