The Weekly Reporter

off the debt against the calls.-AURIFEROUS PROPERTIES, RE, Ch.D. Wright, J.

36. Winding up-Voluntary liquidation-Register of shareholders-Application to inspect-Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 32.-Section 32 of the Companies Act, 1862, which gives a right to inspect the register of shareholders of a company, is no longer applicable where the company is being wound up, whether the winding up be compulsory, or under supervision, or merely voluntary.-KENT COALFIELDS SYNDICATE, RE, C.A., 453.

See also County Court, 6; Inland Revenue, 13; Landlord and Tenant, 13; Practice, 7; Tradename, 3.

COMPENSATION.-See Corporation, 5; Landlord and Tenant, 2, 16; Lands Clauses Act, 1, 2.

CONSPIRACY:

Legal injury-Combination to induce a person not to employ another-Conspiracy to do an act not amounting to an actionable wrong-Employer and workmen.-A conspiracy to do certain acts (not being criminally punishable) gives a right of action only where the acts agreed to be done, and in fact done, would, had they been without preconcert, have involved a civil injury to the plaintiff, for which he would have had a right of action.

Kearney v. Lloyd, [1890] 26 L. R. Ir. 268, ap proved and followed.-HUTTLEY v. SIMMONS, Q.B.D. See also Criminal Law, 5; Trade Union.

CONTRACT:

1. Building-Contract abandoned by builder— Completion by building owner- -Right to sue on a quantum meruit-Evidence from which new contract may be inferred.-A builder who contracts to erect certain buildings for a lump sum, and who, after performing part of the contract, abandons it, thus necessitating the completion of the buildings by the building owner, cannot sue the latter on a quantum meruit for the work done unless there is some evidence from which the inference can be drawn that there was a fresh contract to pay on that basis.

Munro v. Butt, 8 E. & Bl. 738, 7 W. R. C. L. Dig. 19, followed.-SUMPTER v. HEDGES, C.A., 454.

2. Building agreement-Default of builder-Reentry of landowner-Damages.-A builder having made default under a building agreement, the landowner exercised the right reserved to him in such a case by the agreement to re-enter and take possession of the land and premises, with all the buildings, plant, and materials thereon.

Held, that an action would lie at the suit of the landowner against the builder to recover damages for the builder's breach of the agreement.-MARSHALL v. MACKINTOSH, Q.B.D., 580.

3. Employment-Breach of-Music-hall artiste"Perform every evening"-Sunday-" Not perform at any club "—" Perform," meaning of.—The plaintiff K., a music-hall artiste, entered into contracts with each of the three defendant companies by which she agreed to perform for ten weeks certain, commencing at a certain date, every evening at the time notified by the management, in "her usual entertainment as mimic" in two of the contracts,

as singer and mimic" in the other, at a salary of £8 per week in respect of each hall, subject to the following conditions (inter alia)-viz.," that the said artiste shall not perform before nor during this engagement at any theatre, music-hall, club, concert, or place of entertainment within one mile of the said music-halls respectively." At the end

of the contract was this clause: "In the event of the above-named artiste not observing these conditions in every respect, the company shall have the option of cancelling this agreement." During the fulfilment of the engagement she went to a smoking concert at a certain club one Sunday evening within a mile of these music-halls by invitation. Nobody except members and their guests were admitted to this club, and no admission money was paid. At this concert she sang a song and danced for a few minutes. The following night she performed at the halls, but at one of them the manager asked if she had sung at the club, and she replied she had done so. He told her it was against the rules, and that she must not do it again. The following night a letter was handed her cancelling the three engagements, and signed by the manager of the halls. These actions were then brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for wrongful dismissal and for breach of contract.

Held, that the word " 'engagement” did not include Sundays, that day in such contracts being a dies non. That the performance was not within the meaning of the word perform as contemplated by the parties, for the plaintiff did not use her powers of mimicry. That, although singing was included in one contract, singing before a private audience such as the present case was not a performance.-KELLY v. LONDON PAVILION, Q.B.Ď.

Parol evidence.

4. Evidence Admissibility Parol evidence cannot be said to be improperly admitted as contradicting or varying a written agreement, when it relates to the circumstances under which the plaintiff's name was appended to a document which was no part of the agreement, but which was placed before him for signature by the defendant after the agreement was concluded.-AUSTRALASIA (BANK) v. PALMER, P.C.

5. Licence Revocation - Breach of contract by licensor Licensee's right of action-Posting adver tisements on hoarding. — Plaintiff and defendant agreed orally that defendant should let his wall to plaintiff, for bill-posting, at £2 10s. a year, plaintif to erect a hoarding, on which the bills were to be posted. Plaintiff erected the hoarding, postel bills and made several payments. Defendant gave notice to plaintiff that the hoarding must be removed, and nearly a month later defendant took it down.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract,

Held, that, although the permission to post bills was a licence, and therefore, not being by deed. was revocable, the action was maintainable for breach of contract, and therefore plaintiff was wrongly nonsuited.

Wood v. Leadbitter, [1845] 13 M. & W. 838, distinguished.-KERRISON . SMITH, Q.B.D.

6. Master and servant-Wine merchants' traveler -Negative stipulation against doing other business — Injunction. The defendant, under the articles of agreement regulating his employment as traveller for the plaintiffs, a firm of wine merchants, had bound himself to devote the whole of his attention and time during the usual business hours to the business of the plaintiffs, and not directly or indirectly to employ himself in any other business or transact any business with any other person than the plaintiffs for a period of ten years There was no provision enabling the defendant to determine his employment, but he assumed to do so by writing a letter giving notice of his intention to leave, and entered the service di

a rival firm. The plaintiffs moved for an injunction to restrain him from thus engaging himself in any other business than that of the plaintiffs' under his contract with them.

Held, that the negative stipulations in the contract were unreasonable, and ought not to be enforced.-EHRMANN v. BARTHOLOMEW, Ch.D. Romer, J., 509.

7. Restraint of trade- Covenant 66 Neighbourhood"-Injuncton.-By an agreement dated the 18th of September, 1893, the defendant sold his retail milk business and goodwill to the defendant Stride, and covenanted "not to employ any one or retail milk on his own account in the neighbourhood of Southampton or Norham." On a breach of this covenant the county court judge granted an injunction in the terms of the covenant. The defendant appealed on the grounds that the covenant was wider than was necessary to protect the plaintiff, and therefore void, and that the injunction was bad, not being sufficiently definite in showing exactly where the defendant could not trade.

Held, that the covenant was not too wide to protect the plaintiff, and that the injunction following the terms of the covenant was not too indefinite as the parties must know its meaning, and that the word neighbourhood " immediate neighbourhood.-STRIDE v. MARTIN, Q.B.D.

meant

8. Sale by private treaty-Tender-"Highest net tender."-The liquidator of the H. Co. (in liquidation) offered for sale certain royalties on coal measures, and undertook to accept the " 'highest net tender" he received. The S. Co., by their agents, offered such a sum as would "exceed by £200 the amount offered by the other intending purchaser."

Held, that such an offer did not amount to a tender at all, and was therefore not binding on the liquidator.--SOUTH HETTON COAL Co. v. HASWELL, C.A., 355.

See also Account; Company, 16-20, 23; Gaming, 4-6; Intant, 1, 2; Insurance, 14; Master and Servant, 2; Vendor and Purchaser, 5, 6, 10, 12. CONVEYANCING ACTS.-See Inland Revenue, 21; Landlord and Tenant, 3, 9; Married Woman, 6; Mortgage, 2, 5; Vendor and Purchaser, 2, 8. COPYHOLD :

Tenant for life and remainderman-Custom of the manor-Leases for lives-No right of renewalArbitrary fines on renewal.-A tenant for life of a manor is entitled to use and enjoy his life estate according to the custom of the manor, and although he is seised of a limited interest only, yet as lord of the manor he may grant such estate as is authorized by the custom of the manor, notwithstanding that the interest so granted may continue longer than his own. Accordingly, where it is the custom of the manor for the lord to grant the copyhold lands of the manor on leases for lives, for the fines on renewal to be arbitrary, and for the tenants to have no right of renewal, a tenant for life unimpeachable for waste who is lord of the manor can grant valid leases for lives to the tenants, and is entitled as against the remaindermen to the whole of the moneys received by him in respect of the fines on renewal paid to him by the tenants during the continuance of his life estate.-MEDOWS, RE, NORIE v. BENNETT, Ch.D. Kekewich, J., 297.

1. Catalogue-List of articles for sale-Injunction.

-A chemist and druggist carrying on business in a provincial town prepared and registered a catalogue of articles, medicines, and drugs sold by him, arranged under various headings and sub-headings, which contained under the heading "Drugs and Chemicals, including Veterinary Medicines and Photographic Chemicals," an alphabetical list, fifteen pages long, of such articles with their prices, and under the heading "Patent Medicines and Proprietary Preparations. Any preparation not in stock will be procured with as little delay as possible," an alphabetical list, twelve pages long, of such remedies with their prices. A limited company carrying on several businesses in the same town added a drug and dispensing department, and inserted in their catalogue copies of the abovementioned headings and lists from the chemist's catalogue, omitting two preparations only. They also copied from his catalogue several other entries. The copying was admitted.

On a motion for an injunction to restrain the company from infringing the chemist's copyright in his catalogue it was cortended that mere dry lists of articles for sale with their prices could not be the subjects of copyright.

Held, that the lists were subjects of copyright, and an injunction was granted accordingly.COLLIS v. CATER, Ch.D. North, J.

2. Infringement-Action on the case-Action of detinue-Action of trover-Injunction-Delivery up and damages-Copyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 45), ss. 15, 23.—In addition to the remedy of a special action on the case under section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1842, the registered proprietor of a copyright can also sue the offender in an action of detinue or an action of trover under section 23 of that Act, and he may join all these remedies in one action, which may be brought in the Chancery Division.-MUDDOCK v. BLACKWOOD, Ch.D. Kekewich, J., 166.

CORONER:

Public hospital-Honorary medical officer of Postmortem examination and attendance at inquest by order of coroner-Right of medical officer to recover fees-Coroners Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 71), s. 22. -A hospital chiefly intended for children, was founded to meet the requirements of a large population in a particular district and was free for the admission of poor patients from that district. It had a committee of management, governors– who were the subscribers-medical men, committees, and all the apparatus of an ordinary hospital. The plaintiff was honorary medical officer of the hospital, receiving no remuneration for his services, and as such medical officer he attended a patient who died in the hospital, and by order of the coroner he made a post-mortem examination of the deceased and attended at the inquest to give evidence. In an action by the plaintiff to recover his fees from the coroner,

Held, that the hospital was a "public hospital," and that the plaintiff, though he received no remuneration for his services, was the medical officer "whose duty it was to attend the deceased person as a medical officer of the institution," within the proviso in section 22 of the Coroners Act, 1887, and that he was therefore not entitled to recover his fees from the coroner under that section.-HORNER v. LEWIS, Q.B.D.

CORPORATION::

1. Forfeited recognizance-Fines and Amercements -Construction of charter to corporation.--By a charter of Henry IV. the Crown granted to the

corporation of Nottingham "all fines for trespasses and other offences whatsoever, and also fines for licence to agree, and all amercements, ransoms and forfeited issues, forfeitures year day waste and estrepement."

By a charter of Henry VI. the Crown granted to the corporation "all issues fines and amercements from whatsoever pledges and mainpernors persons dwelling in the borough.

Held, that under neither of these charters did a forfeited recognizance to appear to answer a charge of felony or misdemeanour pass to the corporation. -NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION, RE, Q.B.D.

2. Municipal corporation-Application of borough fund-Costs of chief constable in opposing renewal of licence-Borough Funds Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 91), 8. 2-Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), 88. 140-143, 191; Schedule V., Part II., clause 5 (d).-The borough fund cannot be applied by a municipal corporation in paying the costs incurred by the chief constable as a litigant party in opposing at licensing or quarter sessions the renewal of_publicans' licences. ATTORNEYGENERAL v. TÝNEMOUTH (MAYOR), C.A., 518.

3. Municipal corporation-Borough Funds Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 91)-Bill in Parliament opposed-Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 41).--A municipal corporation is not entitled to oppose a Bill promoted by a gas company in Parliament without first complying with the requirements of section 4 of the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872, when the Bill leaves untouched the power of the corporation to have fixed by arbitration under section 24 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871, the price of the gas used by the corporation.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of Brecon, 10 Ch. D. 204, 27 W. R. Dig. 137, discussed.-ATTORNEYGENERAL v. SWANSEA (MAYOR), Ch.D. North, J., 534.

4. Municipal corporation-Borough having population under 10,000-Separate court of quarter sessions -Liability for costs-Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (43 & 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 169-Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 38.-In the case of boroughs having a separate court of quarter sessions and containing a population of less than 10,000 the Local Government Act, 1888, has not transferred the obligation of paying the salaries of the recorders and clerks of the peace of such courts of quarter sessions from the borough to the county council.

Ex parte County Council of Kent and Council of Sandwich, [1891] 1 Q. B. 389, not followed.—THETFORD CORPORATION v. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL, Q.B.D.

5. Municipal corporation-Street vested in corporation-Compensation-Sydney Corporation Act, 1879 (43 Vict. No. 3)-51 Vict. No. 37.-Under the Sydney Corporation Act, 1879, all public ways in the city of Sydney were vested in the council. local Act (51 Vict. No. 37) enabled the Secretary for Public Works to form a tramway. In the course of construction it became necessary to take a small portion of a street in the city of Sydney, and the municipal authority claimed compensation under the Act, which entitles the owner of property taken to compensation.

Held, that the vesting of a street or public way vested no property in the municipal authority beyond 41 rface of the street and such portion ely necessarily incidental to the management of the street, and

did not vest the soil or land in them as owners; and, consequently, that the surface of the street was not subject-matter for compensation.-SYDNEY (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL) v. YOUNG, P.C., 561.

6. Newspaper-Libel-Action against editorLiability of proprietors-Indemnity-Ultra vires.The editor of a journal owned by and published for the benefit of the members of a nursing association (incorporated by Royal Charter) inserted in the journal, on the express instructions of the executive committee of the proprietors, paragraphs which were alleged to be libels on one of the members of the association. An action for libel having been brought by the member against the editor alone, the executive committee resolved to defend such action and to indemnify the editor against costs and damages.

Held (reversing the decision of North, J.), that such a defence of the action was not a misapplication of the funds of the association; and a motion for an interim injunction by one of the members of the association to restrain such application of the funds was accordingly dismissed.-BREAY #. ROYAL BRITISH NURSES' ASSOCIATION, C.A., 86. See also Election Law, 1, 2.

COUNTY COURT:

1. Appeal-Action where the debt or damage claimed does not exceed £20-Injunction-County Courts Ad, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s.120.- In an action for trespass brought in a county court, where the damage claimed did not exceed £20, the plaintiff recovered 6d. damages and was granted an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing the trespass.

Held, that an appeal lay from the injunction.— BRUNE v. JAMES, Q.B.D., 257.

2. Appeal -Point not raised at trial — County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 120, and following sections.-Under the provisions of section 120 and the following sections of the County Courts Act, 1888, the omission of the judge to direct the jury as to the law is a point of law, which must be raised and submitted to the judge at the trial in order to entitle the party complaining thereof to appeal.-CLIFFORD . THAMES IRONWORKS Co., Q.B.D., 222.

3. Costs-Action founded on tort-BailmentAgistment-Injury to animal-Negligence-County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict: c. 43), s. 116.-The plaintiff delivered a horse to the defendants to be agisted in consideration of a daily payment, sad the defendants negligently turned the horse into s field in which there was a barbed wire fence covered with long grass, whereby the horse was injured. In an action to recover damages for the injuries to the horse, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £30.

Held, as the negligence relied upon was a breach of the common law duty arising out of the bailment, that the action was founded on tort within the meaning of section 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and the plaintiff was entitled to costs upon the High Court scale.-TURNER v. STALLIBRASS, C.A., 81.

4. Costs-Remitted action Judgment in Higi Court for part of claim-County Courts Ad, 188 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 65.—In an action brought in the High Court an order was made under order 14 that the plaintiff be at liberty to sign judgment for £27, part of the amount claimed, with costs. that the defendant be at liberty to defend as to s sum of £2 18s. 5d., the residue of the amount claimed, and that the action be tried in the county

court under section 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888.

At the trial in the county court the plaintiff recovered £2 0s. 6d., with costs.

Held, that the plaintiff was only entitled to taxation of his costs on the lower scale in use in county courts where the sum recovered exceeds £2 but does not exceed £10-not on the higher scale, where the sum recovered exceeds £20 but does not exceed £50.-BAILEY v. WATSON, Q.B.D.

5. Costs Security for costs-Jurisdiction mitted action-Bankruptcy of plaintiff Joinder of trustee-County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 88. 65, 94.-Where an action of contract, brought in the High Court, is ordered to be tried in a county court, under section 65 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and before the plaintiff has lodged the original writ and the order with the registrar of the county court, he becomes bankrupt, and a trustee is appointed, and an order is made joining the trustee as plaintiff in the action, the judge of the county court has no jurisdiction to order the trustee to give security for the costs of the action under section 94.-HEMMING v. DAVIES, Q.B.D.

6. Jurisdiction - Company Winding up-Committal order-Prohibition-Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), 8. 1 (6).-A writ of prohibition does not lie in respect of a committal order made by a county court judge in the course of proceedings to wind up a company.-NEW PAR CONSOLS, RE, C.A., 369.

7. Practice-Action by solicitor on bill of costsNo signed bill-Statutory defence-Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), 8. 37-County Court Rules, 1889, ord. 10, rr. 10, 18.-The defence to an action brought by a solicitor to recover a bill of costs, that the solicitor had not delivered a signed bill of costs one month before action brought, as required by section 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, is a statutory defence within the meaning of ord. 10, rr. 10 and 18, of the County Court Rules, 1889; and when the action is brought in a county court notice of such defence ought to be given in pursuance of those rules.-LEWIS v. BURRELL, Q.B.D.

8. Practice-Pleading-Statute of Frauds-Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 4-County Court Rules, 1889-95, ord. 10, r. 18 (a).-If the defendant in an action on a contract for the sale of goods of the value of £10 intends to raise the defence of the Statute of Frauds he must give notice of that intention under ord. 10, r. 18 (a), of the County Court Rules.-BRUTTON v. BRANSON, Q.B.D.

9. Practice Stamp on document-Appeal-Application of High Court rule-County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 164-R. S. C., 1883, ord. 39, 7. 8.-The ruling of a county court judge at the trial of an action, that a document offered in evidence is properly stamped, is not subject to appeal in the High Court.-MANDER v. RIDGWAY, Q.B.D., 366.

See also Admiralty, 1-3; Company, 23A; Debtors Act; Practice, 5, 11.

RIMINAL LAW:

1. Cruelty to children-Proof of age of child— Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 41).-On the trial of an indictment for unlawfully and wilfully neglecting children under the age of sixteen, contrary to the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, the children were not produced before the court, and the only evidence as to their ages was that of two persons who

said that they had seen the children and stated what they believed were their respective ages, all of them being under sixteen, and that of the mistress of a school who said that the elder children attended a public elementary school, and she believed they were within the statutory age limit.

Held, that there was evidence proper to be left to the jury that the children were under sixteen.— REG. v. Cox, C.C.R.

2. Evidence--Admissibility-Confession - Inducement to confess-Duty of prosecuting counsel and solicitor-Bail-Justices.- A confession made in consequence of an inducement held out by a person in authority is not admissible evidence. A statement made by an accused person after he has been told that it will be better for him to speak the truth, cannot be admitted as evidence against him.

Semble, it is the duty of prosecuting counsel and solicitors having the charge of prosecutions to satisfy themselves before putting in evidence a confession, that it was not made under such circumstances as to be inadmissible.

Semble, bail is not to be withheld unless it is otherwise impossible to ensure the prisoner's attendance at the trial.-REG. v. ROSE, Q.B.D.

3. Evidence-Admissibility of-Statement made by accused in answer to question by constable-Admissibility of question and answer— -Voluntary statement. -A statement made by an accused person in answer to a question put by a constable is admissible in evidence against the accused as a voluntary statement, provided that such statement has not been brought about by any inducement or threat.

The defendant was charged with cruelty to his horse by causing the same to be worked while in an unfit state, and in support of the charge the inspector proposed to give evidence of a question put by him to the defendant, asking him if it were true that his carman told the police that he (the defendant) had sent the horse out knowing it was lame, and the defendant's answer thereto. The justices having refused to admit the evidence on the ground that the statement, being in answer to a question put by an inspector, was not a voluntary statement, and was inadmissible.

Held, that the defendant's statement in answer to the question, not having been brought about by any inducement of advantage or by any threat, was a voluntary statement, and ought to have been admitted.-ROGERS v. HAWKEN, Q.B.D.

4. False pretences-Obtaining credit by fraudObtaining food at a restaurant without having money to pay-Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 13. The prisoner was convicted on an indictment containing two counts, the first charging him with obtaining food and wine by means of a false pretence that he was then able to pay, and possessed sufficient money to pay, for what he ordered; the second charging him, under section 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869, with obtaining credit by means of fraud. It was proved that the prisoner entered a restaurant and ordered food and wine, which he consumed, and that he had no money or other means of paying for the articles so ordered and consumed by him. No statement was made by him and no inquiry was made of him at the time of his ordering the articles as to his ability to pay for them.

Held, that the count for obtaining the articles by false pretences could not be supported, but that he was rightly convicted of obtaining credit by fraud.-REG. v. JONES, C.C.R., 191,

5. Intimidation Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), ss. 7, 16– Seamen-Seafaring men not actually employed on board ship.-Persons who follow the sea as a calling, but are not seamen " within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts, are not within the exemption in favour of " " contained in section 16 of the Conspiracy and Property Protection Act, 1875, and may properly be convicted of an offence under section 7 of that Act.-REG. v. LYNCH, C.C.R., 205.

seamen

6. Larceny by bailee-Habeas corpus-Extradition -Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), s. 3.— On an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the evidence showed that a loan was raised on a bond by a person authorized so to raise the loan, and that there was a fraudulent appropriation by him of the money so raised.

Held, that (following the decision of Reg. v. De Banks, 50 L. T. Rep. 427) that amounted to evidence of larceny by a bailee under section 3 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and the rule was accordingly discharged.-REG. v. GOVERNOR OF HOLLOWAY, GEORGE, EX PARTE, Q.B.D.

7. Malicious damage to property Assertion of supposed right Unnecessary violence - Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), s. 51.—On an indictment under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, for malicious damage to property, it was proved that the defendants wilfully damaged the property in question, in exercise of a supposed right to remove the property from the land on which it stood, and that in so doing they interfered with the property more than was necessary for the assertion of the right.

Held, that they were guilty of malicious damage. -REG. v. CLEMENS, C. C. R., 416.

8. Malicious damage to property-Diluting milk --Fraudulent motive-Absence of malice-Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), 8. 52.-K., the servant of a milk salesman, was employed by the latter to carry milk round and Ideliver it to customers. He fraudulently added water to it with the intent of adding to the bulk and putting money into his own pocket by selling and not accounting for the surplus; he, however, had no malice towards, or intention to injure, the owner of the milk.

Held, that he had wilfully committed damage to property within the meaning of section 52 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97).

It is not necessary in committing the damage within the meaning of that section that there should be malice towards or intention to damage the owner of the property. It is sufficient if the act be done wilfully, and with the knowledge that it will cause damage.

Hall v. Richardson, 54 J. P. 345, overruled.— ROPER v. KNOTT, Q.B.D., 636.

9. Malicious damage to property-Trespass on grass field-Actual damage-Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), s. 52.-The appellant, a trespasser, walked across a grass field of the respondent's. The grass was long, and the damage done by the appellant was of the value of sixpence.

Held, that he was liable to be summarily convicted under section 52 of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861, which makes it an offence to "wilfully or maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil to or upon any real or personal pro

perty whatsoever ment is herein before provided.' GAYFORD v. CHOULER, Q.B.D.

10. Master and servant—Sale of goods—False trade description-Criminal liability of master for acts of servant-Absence of mens rea-Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 28), ss. 1, 2, 5.—A salesman and an assistant employed by the appellant in his business of a provision dealer sold as a Scotch ham (stating it on the invoice to be such) a ham which was in fact an American ham. The sale was effected in the absence and without the knowledge of the appellant, who had directed the persons employed in his business not to sell hams under any specific name of place or origin.

Held, that the appellant was properly convicted of selling goods to which a false trade description was applied.-COPPEN v. MOORE (No. 2), Q.B.D.,

620.

11. Misdemeanour-Committal for rape Indictment for misdemeanour-Commencement of prosecution for misdemeanour—Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 69), 8. 5.-A prisoner was committed by a magistrate for trial on a charge of rape alleged to have been committed on a day less than three months before the date of the committal. At the assizes, more than three months after the commission of the alleged offence, an indictment was sent up to and found by the grand jury for a misdemeanour only, under section 5, subsection 1, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. The prisoner was convicted.

Held, that the prosecution before the magistrate for rape was also a prosecution for the misdemeanour, and that the prisoner was not entitled to be acquitted by reason of the proviso contained in section 5, that " no prosecution shall be commenced for an offence under sub-section 1 of this section more than three months after the commission of the offence.-REG. v. WEST, C. C. R., 316. See also Justices, 1.

CROWN::

Prerogative of-Action against Lords of Admiralty -Trespass-Right of subject to maintain-Action, form of Amendment.-The head of a Government department is not liable for the neglect or torts of any subordinate official, unless it can be shown that the act complained of was substantially the act of the head himself, in which case he would be liable as an individual, despite of his being an officer of State.

The court holding that the above action, which was for trespasses to land, was against the defendants, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and the Director-General of Naval Works, in their official capacity and not as individuals, and the plaintiffs having asked leave to amend, if necessary, by also suing the defendants individually, and by adding as parties the persons by whose hands the alleged trespasses had been actually committed,

Held, that leave to amend ought not to be given, for what the plaintiffs were seeking to do was to change one action into another of a substantially different character; and that the action must be dismissed.-RALEIGH v. GOSCHEN, Ch. D. Romer, J.,

90.

Buku

The Weekly Reporter, Volume 46