the contents escaped. He attempted to bribe the postboy that was to drive the jars to the railway station to upset the coach, and he induced the local postmaster to open the letter that contained the report of the experts, Dr. Taylor and Mr. Rees, and to acquaint him with its terms. He sent presents of game to the coroner. These artifices produced the result that was to be expected, and the sporting surgeon of Rugeley was fully committed for trial for the murder of John Parsons Cook. Rugeley, and, indeed, Staffordshire, had no doubt as to his guilt, and it was obvious that, if he was tried in his own county, the result of the trial would be a foregone conclusion. So the Legislature intervened to protect this blackleg from his neighbours, and an Act of Parliament was passed, which is sometimes described as Palmer's Act (19 Vict. c. 16), and which provides for the removal of a criminal prosecution to the Central Criminal Court when, for some cause personal to the prisoner, a fair trial cannot be had in the appropriate venue. The cause célèbre of Regina v. Palmer was heard at the Old Bailey in the beginning of May, 1856, before three Judges-Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Mr. Justice Cresswell, and Mr. Baron AlderIt lasted for twelve days, and resulted in the jury unanimously finding the prisoner 'guilty as libelled.' The Attorney General (Sir A. E. Cockburn), Mr. Edwin James, and Mr. Huddleston appeared for the Crown. Mr. Serjeant Shee-vice Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, who was prevented by illness from conducting the defence-Mr. Grove, Q.C., whose scientific knowledge was considered valuable, and the unfortunate Kenealey appeared for the prisoner. The points of legal and medical interest connected with this trial are almost innumerable. We shall deal with a few of them and leave our readers to grapple with the rest. (1) Regina v. Palmer dissipated the delusion that poisoning by strychnia can be effected with impunity. When Dr. Taylor and his brother expert reported that they found no strychnia iu the stomach of Cook, it was hastily assumed that this deadly alkaloid could not be detected, and a half-witted farmer in the Midlands, named Dove, poisoned his wife with it on the strength of this assumption. But the trial conclusively

son.

established (a) that the failure of the experts for the prosecution to detect strychnia was due to the conditions under which their experiments were conducted; (b) that strychnia does not defy chemical analysis; and (c) that even if post-mortem appearances prove deceptive, the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia are unique and cannot be confounded by the practised eye with those of general convulsions, epilepsy, or tetanus, whether traumatic or idiopathic. (2) In the course of his powerful speech for the defence, Mr. Serjeant Shee said that he believed in his soul' that the prisoner was innocent; and Sir Alexander Cockburn in his reply was, with less excuse, betrayed into hinting that he held a contrary opinion. Lord Campbell directed the jury to disregard both of these observations entirely, and to confine their attention to the evidence. The feather thus plucked from the wings of counsel has never been replaced, and it is not now the practice, even in criminal cases, for an advocate to tell the jury his personal opinion as to the merits of the issues before them. (3) Regina v. Palmer, following Regina v. Macnaghten, 10 Cl. & Fin. 211-212, is an authority for the proposition that an expert will not be permitted to state that upon the facts proved at the trial he is of a certain opinion. But he may be asked what inference he as an expert would draw from certain facts or symptoms, assuming them to be proved. (4) In the course of Palmer's trial Mr. Grove was proceeding to cross-examine a medical student who had assisted at the post-mortem, upon the appearances caused by strychnine poisoning, when one of the judges stopped him, saying, 'When you have here all the medical men in England, you had better not put such questions to an undergraduate of London University.' This is the nearest approach that we are aware of in any medico-legal case to the assertion by a judge of his undoubted right to reject the evidence of any expert who appears from his own statements incompetent to give an opinion upon the matter in question. Upon the histrionic features of this remarkable trial we shall not dwell. Sir James Stephen and, longo intervallo, Mr. Harris have made them familiar to all English lawyers. But a bibliographical note

Re Omer Lamontagne, Quebec,-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 18, H. A. Bedard, Quebec, curator.

Re F. X. Létourneau & Co., Quebec.-First and final dividend, (4c.), payable Aug. 11, D. Arcand, Quebec, curator.

Re Napoléon Morin, Chicoutimi.-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 18, H. A. Bedard, Quebec,

curator.

Re Adjutor Morissette, Quebec.-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 18, H. A. Bedard, Quebec,

curator.

Separation as to property.

Dividends.

Re Desaulniers, freres & Cie., Montreal.-First dividend, payable Sept. 1, David Seath, Montreal,

curator.

Re Pierre Fleury, jr.-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 31, Millier & Griffith, Sherbrooke, joint curator.

Re Remi Fortin,-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 31, Millier & Griffith, Sherbrooke, joint curator. Re P. Patenaude.-First and final dividend, payable Sept. 5, G. H. St. Pierre, Coaticook, curator.

Re Marshall Wallace Ralston, manufacturer, Montreal.-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 25, N. P.

31.

Quebec Official Gazette, Aug. 8.

Judicial Abandonment.

Quebec Official Gazette, Aug. 22.

Judicial Abandonment.

Curators Appointed.

Re H. Levius, Waterville.-Royer & Burrage, Sherbrooke, joint curator, Aug. 4.

Re J. B. Quévillon.-Millier & Griffith, Sherbrooke, joint curator, Aug. 4,

Dividends.

Aug. 12.

Curators Appointed.

Re George Bertrand, Montreal.-A. L. Kent and J. M. Marcotte, Montreal, joint curator, Aug. 14. Re Wm. Francis Bower, Malbaie.-J. T. Tuzo, Percé, curator, Aug. 10.

Re Dame Sarah Ann Cartwright, trading at Mont

Re Aimé Dion, Ste. Earbe.-Dividend on part of privileged claims only, payable Aug. 15, L. Marchand, Valleyfield, curator.

Re J. O. Labbé & Co., Quebec.-First and final dividend, (19c), payable Aug. 21, D. Arcand, Quebec,

curator.

Re James Watkins.-First and final dividend, payable Aug. 25, J. E. Girouard, Drummondville, curator. Separation as to property.

Mary Elmire Rita Labbé vs. Louis Achille Berti, stationer, Quebec, July 31.

Marie Lumina Gélinas, vs. Thomas Mercier, trader, Three Rivers, July 3.

Zoé Roy vs. Joseph Savoie, blacksmith, Plessisville, Aug. 1.

Antonia Seindon vs. Louis Collard, joiner, St. Henri, July 30.

Elizabeth Wilson vs. James Dick, carpenter and contractor, Montreal, July 21.

Quebec Official Gazette, Aug. 15.

Judicial Abandonments.

George Bertrand, trader, Montreal, Aug. 6. Dame Sarah Ann Cartwright, marchande publique, Montreal, doing business under the firm of "G. Lepage," Aug. 6.

J. B. Hutchins & Co., dealers in whitewear, Montreal, Aug. 12.

Curators Appointed.

Re John McLean & Co., Montreal, A. F. Riddell, Montreal, curator, Aug. 11.

Re Onésime Pauzé.-Bilodeau & Renaud, Montreal, joint curator, Aug. 10.

Montreal, joint curator, Aug. 14.

Re J. B. Hutchins & Co., Montreal.-J. R. Fair, Montreal, curator, Aug. 19.

Re Auguste S. Langevin, Montreal.-Kent & Turcotte, Montreal, joint curator, Aug. 14.

Re Offéré Leblanc.-Bilodeau & Renaud, Montreal, joint curator, Aug. 14.

Re R. J. McNally & Co., Montreal,-W. A. Caldwell, Montreal, curator, Aug. 19.

Re Joseph Arthur Viau, Hull.-Nérée Tétreau, N. P., Hull, curator, Aug. 11.

Dividends.

Re P. Gallery, Montreal.-First and final dividend, payable Sept. 7, A. W. Stevenson, Montreal, curator. Re Alexander J. Morrison, Montreal.-First and final dividend, payable Sept. 7, W. A. Caldwell, Montreal, curator.

Re James O'Gorman.-First and final dividend, payable Sept. 7, J. R. Fair, Montreal, curator.

Separation as to property.

Delima Forget vs. Daniel Riopel, contractor, Montreal, July 31.

Emma Riopel vs. Fabien Rodolphe Riopel, contractor, Montreal, July 31.

Quebec Official Gazette, Aug. 29.
Curators Appointed.

Re Thomas Ashworth.-John McCrory, Montreal, curator, Aug. 18.

Re Dame Emérance Poirier.-Kent & Turcotte, Montreal, joint curator, Aug. 21.

Re Alexander Fisher, Montreal, plumber.-J. A. Hope, Montreal, curator, Aug. 21.

Re N. G. Lemyre, Maskinongé.-H. A. Bedard, Quebec, curator, Aug. 14.

The Expropriation Act (R. S. C. c.39)-Assignment of rights of land expropriated previous ly acquired by lease-Effect of new leases between same parties-Compensation—Assignment of chose in action against the Crown-Evidence.

An agreement by a proprietor to sell land to the Crown for a public work, followed by immediate possession, and, within a year, by a deed of surrender, is sufficient under the Expropriation Act s. 6, (R.S.C. 39) to vest the title to such land in the Crown, and to defeat a conveyance thereof made subsequent to such agreement and possession, but prior to such surrender.

Under section 11 of the said Act the compensation money for any land acquired or taken for a public work, stands in the stead of such land, and any claim to or incumbrance upon such land is converted into a claim to compensation, and such claim once created continues to exist as something distinct from the land and is not affected by any subsequent transfer or surrender of such land. Partridge v. The Great Western Railway Co. (8 C. P. 97); Dixon v. Baltimore and Potomac Railway Co. (1 Mackey 78) referred

to.

2. Where a chose in action was assigned, inter alia, for the general benefit of creditors, and all the parties interested were before

the Court, and the Crown made no objection, the Court gave effect to such assignment.

Quaere: In the absence of acquiescence in such an assignment, are the assignee's rights thereunder capable of enforcement against the Crown?

3. In a case of expropriation the claimant is not obliged to prove by costly tests or experiments the mineral contents of his land. (Brown v. The Commissioners of Railways, 15 App. Cas. 240 referred to). Where, however, such tests or experiments have not been resorted to, the Court, or jury, must find the facts as best it can from the indications and probabilities disclosed by the evidence. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA. OTTAWA, June 25, 1891. JOSEPH ADHÉMAR MARTIN, es qualité, Suppliant; and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent.

Injury to person on a public work—Negligence of servant of the Crown-Brakesman's duty in putting trespassers off car-Damages. 1. The Crown is liable for an injury to the person received on a public work resulting servant, while acting within the scope of his from negligence of which its officer or duty or employment, is guilty. City of Quebec

v. The Queen (2 Ex. C. R. 252) referred to.

2. One who forces a child to jump off a railway carriage while it is in motion is guilty of negligence.

3. The fact that the child had no right to be upon such carriage is no defence to an action for an injury resulting from such negligence.

MAGISTRATES COURT.

MONTREAL, May 19, 1891. Coram CHAMPAGNE, J. M. C. DAME C. SCHMANTH V. THE SINGER ManufacTURING COMPANY.

Sewing machine-Clause in lease giving right to re-possess.

HELD-1. That the lessee of a sewing machine which has been re-possessed by the lessor has no right of revendication.

2. That in repossessing the machine the lessor was acting within its rights so long as no force or violence was used.