as trustee foresaid, without payment of any expenses by either party. The minute of reference of 18th December 1857 was entered into by Mr Mackay, as procurator for the trustee, without any special authority from Mr M'Intosh of Holm. It concluded in these words-And in case either of the parties shall refuse or delay to enter into the said submission, and to name an arbiter, it is hereby agreed that an application may be made to the Sheriff to appoint a fit and proper person to determine the question of damages now withdrawn from the present action.' It was under this provision that the arbiter was appointed, who fixed the amount of damages at L.600.

The Lord Ordinary (Kinloch) repelled the reasons of reduction in so far as they related to the revivals of the action or the authority to enter into the minute of reference. The pursuer reclaimed, and counsel were heard.

The Court adhered, with additional expenses.

HUTTON v. MACFARLANE.-Nov. 10.

Superior and Vassal-Mines and Minerals.

The lands of Braes and others, to which the present action relates, originally belonged to the Earl of Linlithgow, and were given off in feu by him to James Forrester and spouse in 1630. The defender now stands by progress in right of these original disponees, while the pursuer stands in right of the superior. In the feu-contract and relative charter of 1630 the superior excepts from the feu-right, and reserves to himself and his successors, the coal, metals, and minerals in the lands conveyed. The vassal had granted to him the right of working the limestone in the lands. The grant of this special right corroborates the general reservation in the superior's favour. The reservation is engrossed in the infeftment following on the feu-charter. In the more modern titles by progress, being charters of confirmation and precepts of clare constat, reaching back for upwards of forty years, the reservation does not appear; and the lands being now in non-entry, the question has arisen, whether the pursuer as superior is entitled, in the renewal of the investiture, to insert an express reservation in his own favour of the coals, metals, and minerals in the lands; in other words, a repetition of the reservation contained in the original charter of 1630. The Lord Ordinary (Kinloch) held that the superior is entitled to insert the reservation. The defender reclaimed; and the Court adhered with expenses.

Susp., NEWLANDS v. BROCK.-Nov. 10.

Bill of Exchange-Value.

On 21st May 1862, John Newlands, wright, Anderston, Glasgow, accepted a bill for L.95, drawn upon him by, and payable to, Hugh Brock, spirit merchant there. On 3d September 1862, a charge was given upon the bill for L.95, and the present suspension was presented on the ground that it was not granted for value. The charger states that the value consisted of a balance of the price of certain shares sold by him to the suspender, which at the date of the bill amounted to L.73, 12s., the bill, quoad ultra, being an accommodation bill, and he now restricts his charge to that amount. The suspender produced a transfer of the shares bearing that the price had been paid. The Lord Ordinary

(Kinloch), before further answer, had ordered the charger to lodge a statement of his accounts, showing how he brought out the balance. The charger reclaimed, maintaining that this was not a case in which the Lord Ordinary was entitled to depart from the general rule, that want of value can only be proved by the writ or oath of the charger.

The Court recalled the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, and found that the suspender could only prove that the bill had been granted without value by the charger's writ or oath.

Adv., LINN v. SHIELDS.-Nov. 12.

Sale-Price.

This was an advocation from the Sheriff of Linlithgow, at the instance of James Linn, jun., dealer, residing at Newbridge, Kirkliston, against John Shields, farmer, Byers, Bathgate. The advocator, who is a dealer in corn, straw, and hay, came to Shield's farm at Byers on 27th February 1862; and, after having been shown twelve stacks in the yard, agreed to buy the stacks at the price of L.11 per stack, to be thrashed, and the corn and straw to be delivered at Byers as the advocator required them. Nothing was stipulated as to the time or mode of payment. In March 1862 three of the stacks were thrashed and the produce delivered to the advocator. The price of these stacks not having been paid, and various attempts at an arrangement having failed, the defender declared the contract at an end. The advocator then raised this action at Linlithgow, to compel delivery of the remaining nine stacks, with alternative conclusions for damages. The Sheriff (Cay) after a proof decerned the advocator to deliver the remaining nine stacks on payment by him of the stipulated price of L.11 per stack. Both parties appealed by advocation against this judgment. The Court, after hearing counsel, adhered to the Sheriff's judgment.

Adv., FAIRRIE'S TRUSTEES v. M'INTYRE.-Nov. 12.

Legacy-Servant.

This was an advocation from the Sheriff of Renfrewshire. The late Thomas Fairrie, merchant in Greenock, by his settlement declared 'to each of my domestic servants, male and female, in my service at the time of my death, including Dugald Maclean, I bequeath L.25 each.' A claim under this provision was made against Mr Fairrie's trustees by Jean M'Intyre, residing at 24, Ann Street, Greenock, who had taken charge of a flat of rooms in the town of Greenock, where Mr Thomas Fairrie was in use to dine, and where prayer-meetings were held by missionaries in his employment. Mr Fairrie did not sleep in these premises, and the clerks of the firm of James Fairrie & Co., of which he was the leading partner, dined in them as well as himself. The Sheriff (Fraser) held that the claimant was entitled to the character of a domestic servant,' and decerned in her favour for the legacy of L.25 accordingly.

Without calling on the counsel for the respondent, the Court adhered to the Sheriff's judgment.

The Lord Justice-Clerk remarked, that where in rooms used for the purpose of taking meals a man had an attendant, that person was entitled VOL. VII. NO. LXXXIV.-DECEMBER 1863.

4 H

to be considered as a domestic servant, though the master did not sleep in the rooms.

INSPECTOR OF GORBALS v. INSPECTOR OF GOVAN AND INSPECTOR OF

BONHILL.-Nov. 13.

Poor-Settlement.

In this case the Court held, that where James M'Gill, a colourman, had lived and worked in the parish of Govan for five years with the exception of five or six weeks in the middle of that period, during which he went from place to place looking for employment, his absence for these weeks did not interrupt his individual residence in Govan. Their Lordships, therefore, affirming the judgment of the Lord Ordinary, held the parish of Govan liable for the pauper's support in a question with Bonhill, his birth parish, and Gorbals, the parish in which he first applied for

relief.

Adv., BUIE v. STIVEN (INSPECTOR OF POOR OF THE PARISH OF ELGIN).
-Nov. 20.
Advocation-Value.

On the 8th October 1860, Stiven (the respondent) raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Elgin against George Buie, innkeeper and plumber there, for payment of L.6, 9s. 6d., being the amount of advances made by the Parochial Board for the support of his grandmother, Widow Catherine Millar, and for relief of her future aliment. The record having been closed on the summons, and a minute of defence, the Sheriff-substitute (Cameron) on 10th November 1860 assoilzied the defender. On appeal the Sheriff Principal (Bell) on 15th April 1861 recalled this interlocutor, and appointed a condescendence and defences to be lodged. Whilst the record was being made up, the defender began to aliment his grandmother, and the pursuer stated in his revised condescendence that he had no claim on the defender, except for the period prior to the date when he was relieved of the pauper's maintenance. The sum to which the claim was thus limited amounted to less than L.13. The Sheriffsubstitute having heard parties on the closed record, again, on 29th November 1861, assoilzied the defender. On appeal, the Sheriff, on 28th May 1862, recalled this interlocutor and allowed parties a proof. Pending this appeal the pauper died, in the end of 1861. A proof having been led, the Sheriff-substitute assoilzied the defender; but, on appeal, the Sheriff recalled this interlocutor, and appointed the pursuer to lodge a minute restricting the conclusions of the action, in terms of his condescendence. This having been done, the Sheriff then decerned against the defender, in terms of the conclusions as restricted, the amount so decerned for being under L.13. The defender having advocated, the pursuer objected to the competency of the advocation in respect of the provisions of the statute 16 & 17 Vict., c. 80, s. 22, by which review is excluded in any cause not exceeding the value of L.25,' the value of the cause being, he contended (as fixed by the majority of the whole Court in Mitchell v. Murray in 1855), to be estimated as at the date of the decree in the inferior Court, and not as at the institution of the action. The Court by a majority sustained the competency of the advocation.

English Cases.

BANKER. In 1847, the customer of a bank gave a mortgage to the bankers to secure, with interest at L.5 per cent., money due and to become due to them upon a running account, on which it had been usual to make annual rests, and charge compound interest on the balances. In 1855, the customer assigned his property to trustees for benefit of creditors. It was held, the bankers had no right to make rests after the relation of banker and customer had ceased, and that the mortgage was a security only for the balance due at the date of the assignment, with simple interest from that time at L.5 per cent. per annum. By an assignment for benefit of creditors, full powers of borrowing money at interest from bankers and others were conferred upon the trustees of the deed. Two of the trustees carried on business as bankers, in partnership with other persons, and the third was a clerk in the bank. An account was opened by the trustees with the bank, and advances were made upon this account, in respect of which the banking firm claimed to make annual rests, and to charge interest on the balances, according to their usual practice as bankers; but it was held that, having regard to the fiduciary position of the trustee partners, only simple interest could be allowed (The M. R.).—(Crosskill v. Bower, and Bower v. Turner, 32 L. J., Ch. 540.)

COPYRIGHT.-Certain novels, the copyright in which belonged to T., were dramatized, and the dramas, containing some of the most important scenes and incidents of the novels, copied verbatim, were printed and published by L. On an application by T. for an injunction to restrain the sale of the dramas, it was held, that printing and selling the dramas was an infringement of T.'s copyright. Wood, V. Č.—If a plaintiff shows that his copyright has been infringed, the Court will grant an injunction without proof of actual damage.-(Whittingham v. Wooler explained. Tinsley v. Lacy, 32 L. J., Ch. 535.)

LEASE.-P. demised a house and shop to the agents of a company; the lease contained a covenant not to use any part of the premises for the purpose of sales by auction. The agents of the company sublet to S., who made no inquiry as to the terms of the original lease. S. being about to hold sales by auction upon the premises, P. filed a bill to restrain him from so doing; and it was held, that S. having neglected to inquire into the provisions of the original lease, he did so at his own risk, and could not be treated as taking without notice. Wood, V. C., said the question before him was, whether a person could take an under-lease of a house, enter into possession, and neglect the covenants in the original lease, because he had asked no questions, and therefore had no notice of them. If that were permitted, the tenant of a house in some fashionable square might under-let, and the under-lessee might open it as a publichouse, or carry on any noxious trade there. On principle, he could not hold that a person was entitled to enter into possession of a house or lands without asking questions..... If a person took a sub-lease without making any inquiries as to the title of the lessor, he must take the consequences of his carelessness.(Parker v. Whyte, 32 L. J., Ch. 520.)

POWER OF APPOINTMENT.-Stock was settled to the separate use of a married woman for life, and after her decease as she should appoint by will, and in default of appointment for her next-of-kin. The married woman died in her husband's lifetime, having exercised her power; and a suit being instituted in chambers to administer her estate, her separate creditors took out a summons, and sought to prove under the decree; and it was held, the married woman did not, by exercising her power of appointment, constitute the property appointed separate estate (Kindersley, V. C.).—(Vaughan v. Vanderstegen adhered to. Blachford v. Woolley, 32 L. J., Ch. 534.)

GENERAL INDEX.

Cowan on the Land Rights of Scot- Why Jury Trial in Civil Causes has
land, 295.