A3 \5 Cornell University Law Library The Moak Collection PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of Cornell University And Presented February 14. «893 IN nenoRY of JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN FIRST DEAN OF THE SCHOOL By his Wife and Daugliter A. m. BOARDMAN and ELLEN D. WILLIAMS KH 79.5.W33" ""'"""" "*""" * ''iSSSfiiMmiiSR,?!!!'.?'' '^^^^ decided in th 3 1924 024 528 089 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024528089 A DIGEST OF EEPOETED CASES DECIDED IN THE SUPEEME COUET OF NEW SOUTH WALES FROM 1860 TO 1884. DIGEST OP REPORTED CASES DECIDED IN THE ^tt^jr^mc QLonxi of gt\j) §onik Mnks PROM 1860 TO 1884 INCLUSIVE. WITH REFEEENCES TO THE PRINCIPAL COLONIAL STATUTES BY John Leo Watkins, Richard Edward O'Connor, Augustus Nash, & Rorert Jardine Browning, ESQUIRES, BAKEISTEBS-AT-LAW. SYDNEY: CHARLES F. MAXWELL, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER, WBNTWORTH COURT, ELIZABETH STREET; AND AT 81 CHANCERY LANE, MELBOURNE. WM. MAXWELL & SON, 8 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, LONDON. 1885, _u_ C6 MEIiBOUBNE : M'CAREOIt, BISB AND CO., FRIKTESS, 37 FLINDBES LAKB WEST. R > . 3 . « "I^bS " M I O „ « Stelot->| Sllai's cd (d cd cd Rl I — I auoouu TO HIS HONOUR Sir JAMES MAETIN, Knt., Chief Justice OF %hz §va^xzmt (Kowrt of j;cto §ontk Mdts, THIS WORK IS BY PERMISSION MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY The Authors. PREFACE. We are glad to be in a position to present to the profession a Digest of the Cases contained in the authorised Law Reports of New South Wales. The work has been one of great labour, necessarily occupying a long time in its completion. We confess that the difficulties and delays in arranging for the first time in a methodical and logical manner so large a mass of decisions have greatly exceeded our calculations. We have been the first workers in the field covered by this Digest, for, with the exception of the " Criminal and Magistrates Digest," which was arranged on a plan difiierent from that which we have adopted here, no attempt has been previously made to group together the cases decided in our Supreme Court. As to the utility to the profession of a Digest there can be no question : it is a key which unlocks to the practitioner a vast amount of legal learning, and which will double the practical value of the reports of cases. In the general plan of arrangement we have followed that of the late Mr. Fisher, collecting the decisions under as few heads as possible, each head representing a distinct branch of the Common or Statute Law, and then grouping the cases under sub-headings in as near an approximation to their logical order as we could reach. In selecting the cases to be arranged, we have chiefly taken the authorised reports. The Supreme Court Reports (S.C.R.) extend from 1862 to 1874. For the cases decided during 1875 and 1876 we have relied mainly upon the reports in the Sydney Morning Herald, to the proprietors of which journal we beg to tender our acknowledgments. The decisions in 1877 will be found in the volume of Knox's Reports, and in 1878 and 1879 in the two volumes of the New Series of the Supreme Court Reports; and those from 1880 to 1885 in the present New South Wales Law Reports, the fifth volume of which, not having been completed when we went to press, has been included in an Appendix. We have to thank several members of the Bar of New South Wales for their kindness in various ways in assisting us to make this Digest less incom- plete than it otherwise would have been. Sydney, December, 1885. TABLE OF OASES. A. Aaron v. Gilmore Abbott, 7m j-e, ^ yarte Sidney Ex parte and O'Connor, Re, Ex parte Dale V. Thompson Abercrombie, Ex parte Adam v. Lucas ... ... Adams, Ex parte Ah Tchm, Ex parte Airey jj. M'Mahon Albion, Myrtle & George, In re ... Alcorn v. Commissioner for Railways Alexander w. Bensusan V. Mayor of Sydney Allen J). Foskett V. Whyte ... Alliance Bank v. Irving Allison V. Kellick ... Anderson, Ex parte. .. ... ... V. Fairfax ... V. Johnson Andrews, Ex parte Inre "Anglo-Indian," The Anthony r. Thompson Apollo Caudle Coy. ■!;. PoweU Armstrong v. Fuller ... V. O'Brien (in note to Dines v. Rossitur) Arnold i;. Johnson y. Johnson Artlett, Ex parte Arnot V. Chapman Inre Ash ». Jones Aahev, Ex parte Ashworth D. Fairfax Ex parte, E. v. Gell ... Aspinall «. Wolfskehl Atkinson «. Barling ... Attorney -General v. Bank of New South Wales V. Bertrand B.Brown j;. Buckland ... J). Chisholm ■ «. Eagar W.Elliott Holt • V. ■ V. ■ V. ■ ■ V. Josephsou . . . ■V. M'Lean V. Macpherson... 8 S.C.R. 83 COLUMN. ... 283 7 S.C.R. 134 ... 98 S.M.H. 25th Sept. 1875 ... 614 3N.S.W. L.R. 83 ... ... 30 7 S.C.R. 357 ... 114 11 S.C.R. 329 ... 297 1 S.C.R. N.S. 161 ... ... 269 Knox 459 ... 512 3S.C.R. 226 ... 565 2 N.S. W. L.R. 132 ... ... 306 3 S.C.R. 138 ... 758 1 N.S. W. L.R. 196 ... ... 78 5 S.C.R. 314 ... 106 1 S.C.R. App. 26 ... ... 607, 635 S.M.H. 7th Dec. 1876 ... 838 2S.C.R. 215 ... 305 4 S.C.R. Eq. 17 ... ... 361, 692 1 S.C.R. Eq. 24 ... 585 IN.S.W. L.R. 338 ... ... 622 4N.S.W. L.R. 183,.. ... 282 Knox 1 ... 93, 369 10 S.C.R. 172 ...388 (Add.)', 816 1 S.C.R. (App.) 72 ... ... 463 8S.C.R. 102 ... 761 2 S.C.R. 343 ... 662 4N.S.W. L.R. 160 ... ... 263 5 S.C.R. 269 ... 546 3S.C.R. 31 374 (Add.) 1 S.C.R. N.S. 47 ... ... 306, 543 S.M.H. 23rd Sept. 1876 ... 543,560 7 S.C.R. 47 ... 621 5N.S.W.L.R. Eq. 66 883 5N.S.W. LR. Div.l9 ... 884 Knox 235 ... 105, 677 4 S.C.R. 71 ... 292 6 S.C.R. 35 ... 274, 790 6 S.C.R. 239 ... 595, 602 8S.CR. Eq. 29 2S.C.R. N.S.-39 ... ... 689 ... 253, 255 4 S.C.R. 245 ... 782 See E. V. Bertrand 2S.C.R. App. 30 ... ... 223 6 S.C.R. 146 ... 430 IN.S.W. L.R. 6 ... 856 (Add.) 3 S.C.R. 234 ... 81 (Add.), 226, 803 6 S.C.R. Eq. 85 ... ... 812 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 21 ... 689 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 37 ... 246 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 44 ... 246 4 S.C.R. 135 ... 255 14 S.C.R. 72; L.R. 3 App. Cas. 336 ... 311 See E. V. Macpheraou ... 100, 184 TABLE OP CASES. Attorney-General v. Mears V. Robinson Atwell D. Lucas Australian Insurance Co. v. Jackson A. J. S. Bank v. Forrester B.Mortimer ». Oriental Bank ... Ex parte, In re Ousby A.S.N. Co. V. Morse V. Thurston CoDnuK. 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 22, 26 607,655,840 2 S.C.E. N.S. 87 360,383 3S.C.B. 23 258,495 3 N.S.W. L.R. 193 729 33L.T. 286(P.C.) 490,778 10 S.C.R. 143 662 6 S.C.R. 248 388 5 S.C.R. 129 46 3 N.S.W. L.R. 54 469 8 Moo. P.O. N.S. 482; L.R.4 P.C.222 760 2 S.C.R. N.S. 259 766 Backhouse, Exparte Bacon «. B«bora Badger, The A.H Baglin, Re, Ex parte Fullf ord Bailey, Exparte Baillie, Exparte Baker ». Nixon Baroford j;. Clarke Bank of Australasia V. Harris Bank of N.S.W. ■!). Bossence Ex parte. In re Coulter V. N. British and Mercantile Ins. Co. 1). Palmer V.Taylor... V.Tucker D.Tyson Bank of Victoria V. Gillis , Barbeyron v. Dibbs Barbour v. Crump V. Jones Barclay V. Bank of N.S.W D. Manby «. Why Te Hong Bardwell w. Galvin Barker w. Caird Barlow v. Woolcott Barnett v. City Mutual Insurance Co. ... Barnet and Levy, In re u. /« j-e (No. 2) Barraclough v. Orient Steam Navigation Co. Barton v. Eeilly V. Muir Barry V. Thurlow .'. Bathurst Municipality V. Ashworth V. Macpherson ... Bayliss v. Dixon V. Everett Beal V. Hall Beauchamp v. Waller Beckett, j& pow-te Bedford v. Alloway Bed well. In re Beer v. Pattrick Beere v. Czerwonka Bell U.Miller Bellifanti, Exparte Bennett, /re re V. Flood Bergin, Exparte Berry V. Graham V. Elyard 618 566 ... 772 600 555, 741 292, 297, 666, 827 13, 783 3S.C.R. 85 ... 12 S.C.R. 134 11 S.C.R. 156 3N.S.W.L.R. 135 11 S.C.R. 149 5 S.C.R. 17 ... 7 S.C.R. 15 ... 8.M.H. 24th June 1876 ... 277 1 S.C.R. (App.) 12, 19; I 442,448, 15 Moo. P. C. 97 ( 449, 788 3 N.S.W. L.R. 91 64 6S.C.R. Ill 428 2 N.S.W. L.R. 239; 3 N.S.W. L.R. 60 478,479,485 2 N.S.W. L.R. 125 ... 528, 582, 739 2 N.S.W. L.R. 118 714 2 S.C.R. 252 352 11 S.C.R. Eq. 1 590 2 S.C.R. N.S. 81 422 1 S.C.R. N.S. 249 268 2N.S.W. L.R. 29 257 1 N.S. W. L.R. 345 633 2S.C.R.N.S. 1;5L.R. App C. 374 2 S.C.R. N.S. 66 1 S.C.R. 346, 352 . 3N.S.W. L.R.119 6 S.C.R. 91 8.M.H. 29th Aug. 1876 ... 8 S.C.R., 360 3 N.S.W. L.R. 285. 1 S.C.R. N.S. 52 S'.ilf-.ff. Sth June 1878 4 N.S.W. L.R. 75 1 S.C.R. N.S. 125 . ■ US.C.R.Eq. 90;L.R.6P.C 2 S.C.R. Eq. 99 6 S.C.R. 6 ... L.R. 4 App. Cas. 256 4N.S.W. L.R. 62 2 N.S.W. L.R. 26 9 S.C.R. 285.. 40,678 ... 716 130,136,351 ... 331 ... 541,634 ... 86 ... 49 ... 484 ... 470 ... 432 ... 768 520 5 S.C.R. 1 . 11 S.C.R. 1 ... 10 S.C.R. Eq. 9 ■" Knox 186 1 N.S.W\ L.R. 157 ■■■ 2 N.S.W. L.R. 355 " Knox 331 6 S.C.R. 88 ..'. 14S.C.R. 33... 3 S.C.R. 158 ... 3 S.C.R. 173 ... 3 Moo. P.C. N.S. 207 3 S.C.R. Eq. 67 ... ... 229, 804 ... 143,695 ... 617 ... 609 ... 21 ... 241 ... 556 ... 426 ... 506,509 ... 116,794 ... 135 ... 499 354,499,667 ... 487 ... 307 ... 96 ... 270 435 594,716,720 ... 693, 825 TABLE OF CASES. Berry ». Stirling Bingham, /» re 's Trusts Bingle V. Ship Queen of England .. Bird w. Eisenstaedter Black V. Bayley V. Illawarra Steam Navigation Co. Blackburn «. Flavelle Blackman v. Mylecharane Blackwood v. Dobbin ... (In the goods of ) V. L. C. Bank ... Blake's Will Bland, ^a; parte ..., Blatchford «. The Queen Blaxland v. Australasian Steam Navigation Co. Blewitt's Will Bligh u. Wood Boggs V. Hickie Bolding, Ex parte ... ... Bone w. Clancy ... Booth, Exparte ... Bornulph, Exparte Bosley «. Bank of Australasia ... 'Boniie, Ex parte V.Lucas j;. Wright Bowen «. Morrison .. . ... Bowes V. Park ... ... Bowman, ^as parte ... ... ... Inre ... ... (an infant), Be ... ... (a person), i?e Re Boyer w. D'Aram ... Boyle, Exparte ... ... ... Boyne, .Ke parte Bradley, Exparte ... Brasyer D. Maclean .. . ... Bray I). Tayler Breden u. Breden ... Brenan «. Russell Briggs, .Ke ;)arte Brimson «. Suttor Brisbane Oyster Co. v. Emerson ... Brockstayne v. Smith Brodziak, Ee ... Brooks «. Richardson V. Selwyn Broomfield v. Walker Brough, Exparte ... Broughton v. Barker ... ■;;. Rodd Exparte , V, Vincent Brown «. Brown ... II. Dibbs ... ... ... ■ Ex parte ■ V. Fletcher ... - V. Grogan ... - V. Lethbridge ■V. Mackenzie Column 5S.C.R. Eq. 73 ... ... 84 1S.C.R. 278 ... 460 6S.C.R. Eq. 97 ... ... 806 1 S.C.R. Eq. 47 ... ... 776 12 S.C.R. 249 ... 121 8 S.C.R. 382 ... 133 IN.S.W. L.R. 130, 25S ! ... 764 1 N.S.W. L.R. 58; L.R. 6 App. Cas. 628 ... ... 233 4 S.C.R. 43, 233 ... 133, 250, 251 1 S.C.R. N.S. 75 ... ... 231 2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 83 ... 322 9 S.C.R. Eq. 37, 101; 10 t 255,349, S.C.R. Eq. 56, 103:^ °.'Jt'°jyj L.R. 5 P.C. 92 ' osu,BaB, ■■■\ 742, 812 1 S.C.R. N.S. 253 ... ... 363, 808 Knox 521 ... 25 6 S.C.R. 21 ... 572, 653 Knox 434 ... 774 7S.C.R. Eq. 93 ... 851 1 S.C.R. 81 ... 298 2 S.C.R. 211 310, 554, 753 3 S.C.R. 370 ... 296, 511 2N.S.W.L.R. 176... 307,622,801 1 S.C.R. 22 ... 550,669,723,726 1 S.C.R. 326 ... 565 IN.S.W. L.R. 287... ...38,44,347 1 S.C.R. 177 ... 724, 725 3 N.S.W. L.R. 217 ... ... 568, 569 3N.S.W.L.R.145;4N.S.W. ' L.R. Eq. 9 ... 568, 699 8.M.H. 17 Dec. 1875 ... 646 3 N.S.W. L.R. 86 ... ... 569 6 S.C.R. 15 ... 165 6 S.C.R. 399 ... 539 6 S.C.R. Eq. 84 ... 692 7 S.C.R. Bq. 34 ... 540 8 S.C.R. Eq. 1 ... 540 2 S.C.R. Eq. 74 ... 416 7 S.C.R. 147 ... 339 1 S.C.R. App. 22 ... ... 80 4 S.C.R. 304 ... 296 12 S.C.R. 206; L.R. 6 ■P.C. 398, 756,757 Knox 201 ...V.308 IN.S.W. L.R.Div. 9 ... 98, 397 1 S.C.R. 300 628,630,665 3 S.C.R. 299 ... 346, 477 3 N.S.W. L.R, 1 ... ... 46, 754 Knox 80 354,369,498 3N.S.W. L.R. 275... ... 656, 704 2N.S.W. L.R. 305... ... 738 5S.C.R. Eq. 3 ... 646,707 3N.S.W. L.R. 256... ... 615 9 S.C.R. 189 ... 386 12 S.C.R. 368 ... 514 1 S.C.R. Eq. 78 ... ... 442 3 S.C.R. Eq. 52; 4S.C.R. (586,691, Bq.54;6S.C.R. Eq. 102 \ 693 Knox 189 293, 549,66£ 4N.S.W. L.R. 59 ... ... 136 5 S.C.R. 216 ... 846 12 S.C.R. 339 ... 130 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 65 ... 644 2 S.C.R. 83 (note) ... ... 309 8 S.C.R. 332 ... 323 Knox 320 ... 515 5 N.S.W. L.R. 393 ... ... 905 5N.S.W. L.R. 180... ... 900 S.M.H. 28th June 1876 ... 326, 533 10 S.C.R. 302 68 (Add.), 437 TABLE OF CASES. Browu and Meaker, In re V. Miller : V. Minrai Colliery Co. V. Patterson (No. 1) V. (No. 2) ■«. Rattray j;. Tindall V. Waratah Coal Co. Browne v. Bank of Australasia Brunker v. Breokenridge . . . Bryant, Ex parte Bubb K. Moore Buchanan v. Buchanan V. Fairfax Buckland, In re Bucklen 1). Kay Buckley v. Grace V. Millar Ex parte Bucknell v. Bucknell , Ex parte... V. Mann . . . V. Vickery Buekstone v. Bennett Budd, Ex parte Bullen V. a'Beckett ... Burne and Kavanagh, In re Burnell, Ex parte ... Burns v. Long Burrell v. Hanlon Burt i;. Goyder Burton v. Ainsworth V. Cook Busby, Ex parte, In re Dillon V. Joseph Bush V. Burns Butchart v. Dodds Butcher v. Borough of Woolahra . Butterworth's Estate, He ... Byrne, Ex parte V. Sempill Byrnes v. Williams - V. Macarthur - V. Williams . . . 1 S.C.R. N.S. 59 .. 2 S.C.B. 76 4 S.C.R. 36 3N.S.W. L.R. 368... 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 1 (a) 8 S.C.R. 323 1 S.C.R. App. 39 ... 5 S.C.R. 238 2N.S.W. L.R. 325... 6 S.C.E. 163 1 S.C.R. 121 10 S.C.R. 379 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 7 1 S.C.R. 133 5 S.C.R. 244 4 S.C.R. 326 2S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 12 8 S.C.R. Eq. 4 8 S.C.R. Eq. 74 ... 8 S.C.R. Eq. 123 ... 9 S.C.R. 72 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 20 6 S.C.R. 96 2 S.C.R. 1 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 17 13 S.C.R. Eq. 34 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 81 Knox 481 7 S.C.R. 9 COLDMH. ... 11, 17 102,304,670 ... 377 ... 237 ... 418 ... 323, 682 ... 403 ... 113 ... 280 ... 59, 682 ... 409 ... 531 ... 397 ... 283 ... 429 ... 53 ... 692 ... 319 ... 319 ... 324, 717 ... 513 ... 394 ... 297, 372 ... 331 ... 720 ... 587 ... 912 ... 35, 668 ... 99 "Byron," The IM.P.C.N.S. 223 355(Add.),732,743 Knox 254 13 3 S.C.R. 148 733 5 S.C.R. Eq. 64 589 5N.S.W. L.R. 238... 881,884,908 10 S.C.R. 109 (note) 137 (Add.) 7 S.C.R. 410 53 5N.S.W. L.R. 197 891 1 S.C.R. N.S. 52 360 7 S.C.R. 200 519,523 12 S.C.R. 186 107 12 S.C.R. 371 629,837 S.M.H. 13th Dec. 1876 ... 608 5 N.S. W. L.R. 305 882, 907 9 S.C.R. 176 134,598 1 S.C.R. 147 459 2 S.C.R. (App.) 26; 1 Moo. P.C. N.S. 154 ...104,111 2 N.S.W. L.R. 57 524 1 S.C.R. 9 719 2N.S.W.L.R. Ad. 1 ... 775 Cafe V. Morrison Cahill, Re ... Callaghan v. Myers V. Cameron n. Hay Campbell v. Commercial Bank V. V. Dent Ex parte «. Heugh — V. Josephson V. The Queen V. Whyte Canning «. Brown Came V. O'Leary Carnell D. M'Lennan Carr i;. Houison Knox 161 2 S.C.R. N.S. 297 ... lS.C.R.Eq. 26 2 S.C.R. N.S. 234 ... 1 N.S.W. L.R. 351 ... 1S.C.R. (App.)7 ... Knox 14, 240 2N.S.W.L.R. 375,389, 3S.C.R. 58 1 N.S.W. L.R. 77 ... 7 S.C.R. 217 lS.C.R.Eq. 35 4 S.C.R. 142 2 S.C.R. 94 6S.C.R. 169 8 S.C.R. 146 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq.61 10 S.C.R. Eq. 107 ... ... 665 ... 229, 350 ... 812 ... 320 ... 320 ... 630, 719 584,630,771 397 584,721 ... 224 ... 422 ... 332 ... 576, 741 ... 248 58,406,682 342,348,783 ... 410 ... 826 ...313,538 TABLE OF CASES. Carroll 1). Forrester... ... ... In re ... Cairuthers, Exparte Carter v. Cox V. Kenyon V. Sinclair Carvell (In. the goods of ) Casey i;. Wentworth Cassidy, .Ec parte Castle, /)i re ... ... ... • Exparte ... Castles, Exparte ... Cavenough v. Buckridge ... ... Chadwick j;. Smith ... "ChaUenge," The Challoner w. M'Phail Chambers, Exparte... Chapman «. Appleton Chappel II. Samper Charles, .Ke parte ... V. Kendall... Charlton, Exparte 1 Cheeke 17. Commissioner for Railways ... V. Cheeseborough i>. Thomson Chippell {sub nom. Chippett) v. Thomson Chisholm «. Comino ... ... «. Maoaulay ... V. Richardson V. Waif ord ... . . Christian «. Miller ... ... — ^— Inre Church and Hill, Jji re Churchill r). WUliams ... ... City Bank y. A. J. S. Bank - — -y. Allen ■ D.Kelly w. Read ... V. Australian Paper Co. "City of Brisbane, "The Clancy i). Davis Clark «. Hart V. Smithers ... Clarke, Exparte ... 1;. Fraser ... Clifton ?;. Clifton CJiaton, Ex parte Clissold , .Kc parte jj.M'Mahon Clode u. Galley Cobcroft V. National Insurance Co. of S.A. (No. 1) V. (No. 2) V. Smart ... ... .. Cockcroft «. Hancy Cohen V. Lloyd — — — i;. Slade Collier «. Hoskins , Exparte CoUman ■!?. Druitt ... Commercial Bank v. Balgarnie ... V. Bennett r. Gibbons -; V.Strauss Commissioner for Stamps, Ex parte Conlon iJ. M'Guigan Cona, Ex parte Conway, Ex parte Cook, Municipality of, v. St. Paul's College xui Column. 11S.C.R.72 684,828 1 S.C.R. 306 97,341,400,829 Knox 295 25 IN.S.W. L.R. 95 141 2 S.C.R. 222 835 3 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 6, 15 ... 402 3 S.C.R. 354 356 Knox 16 35, 346 10 S.C.R. 180 411 6 S.C.R. 195 29 6 S.C.R. 161 27 3 N.S.W. L.R. 201 728 8 S.C.R. 90 525 9 S.C.R. 196 244,246,335 12 S.C.R. 127 777 Knox 157 269 2 S.C.R. 206 565 IN.S.W. L.R. 343 669 11 S.C.R. 138 566 5 S.C.R. 108 513,618 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 1 ... 852 8 S.C.R. 158 ... 295, 310 (Add.) 8 S.C.R. Ill 76 9 S.C.R. 31 77 5 S.C.R. 366 529 7 S.C.R. 349 125,546 8 S.C.R. 219 271 5 N.S.W. L.R. 440 898 7 S.C.R. 312 229,242, 253 733 fif.ilf.ff. 24th June 1876 ... 493 1N,S.W. L.R. 1 856 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 17 ... 229, 804 3 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 13 ... 414 14 S.C.R. 45 ... „. ... 431 Knox 521 263 9 SCR. 259 43 1 N.S.W. L.R. 179 373 2 S.C.R. 46 632 IN.S.W. L.R. 159 53 10S.C.R.235 94 5 N.S.W. L.R. Adm. 21 ... 917 3 N.S.W. L.R. 299 625, 790 5S.C.R.252 400 1 S.C.R. App. 33 403 7 S.C.R. 146 505,550,553,656 5 N.S.W. L.R. 187 900 1 S.C.R. Eq. 22 689 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 19, 21 ... 397 1 S.C.R. N.S. 67 24 5 N.S.W. L.R. 176 914, 918 5 N.S.W. L.R. 61 885 1 S.C.R. Eq. 42, 55 335, 689 9 S.C.R. 351 489 11 S.C.R. 40 489 8 S.C.R. 344 114 9 S.C.R. (App.) 1 225 5 N.S.W. L.R. 83 868, 892 12 S.C.R. 88 ... 66 (Add.), 439, 629 3 N.S.W. L.R. 15 233 Knox 513 817 2 N.S. W. L.R. Eq. 74 5 (Add. ), 81 1 3S-C.R. 27 496 9 S.C.R. 238 (No. 1) ... 72 9 S.C.R. 347 (No. 2) ... 72 4S.C.R. 223 36 Knox 524 50 8 S.C.R. 97 ... 136 (Add.), 784, 785 5 N.S.W. L.R. 205 904, 907 4 S.C.R. 354 508 7 S.C.R. 209 303,635 5 S.C.R. 322 595 TABLE OF CASES. Cook V. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co, «. Sydney and County Bank Cooper®. Dick V. Downward V. Smyth Exparte Cory, Exparte Cotton's Will (Giblin v. O'Connor) Coucher «. Corporation of Newcastle Coulter, In re, Exparte Bank of New South Wales Cowl D. Macdonald Cowling ?;. Douglas Cox, Ex parte Be Crane w. Crane Crew •». Fitzgerald Crick J). Murray Crispin I!. Crispin Critchley's Estate, /jire Croaker I). Crozier Crook I). Smart Crozier, Exparte Cudmore t). Wilson CuUan u. Pearce Cummings v. Clifford - V. Cooke... V. Russell Cunliffe, Exparte ... Cunningham v. Fitzgerald . V. Yeomans Currau v. Ferrier .. Cuthbert f . Hogg ... 5N.S.W. L.R. 35 ... 3N.S.W. L.B. 273.. IS.C.R. 127 9S.C,R.59 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 39 IN.S.W. L.R. 143 ... 3S.C.R.304 2S.C.R. 123 8 S.C.R. 309 6S.C.R. Ill IS.C.R. 341 lS.C.R.Eq. 18 1 S.C.R. Eq. 76 8.M.H. 14th June 1876 2 S.C.R. N.S. 82 ... 1S.C.R.N.S. Div. 10 9 S.C.R. Eq. 90; 10 S.C. Eq. 4 3N.S.W. L.R. 20 ... 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 13 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 18 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 68 n. 2 S.C.R. N.S. 35 ... 10S.C.R.Eq. 124;11S.C Eq. 121 6 S.C.R. 244 2 N.S.W. L.R.228... 3 S.C.R. 200 3 S.C.R. 185 7 S.C.R. 17 6 S.C.R. 368 10 S.C.R. 250 3S.C.R. 72 7 S.C. 149 4N.S.W. L.R. 280 ... 1 S.C.R. 19 R. Column. . 894 . 557 . 328,525 . 765 . 418 . 195 . 96 . 321 . 608 . 428 . 304 . 529 . 529 . 548 . 422 396 843 243 396 397 ... 410 R. ... 695, 809 ... 655 ... 241 ... 749 677,682,749 ... 378, 466 ... 129 ... 607 ... 118 799 '.'.'. 526, 801 ... 129 D. Dale, Ex parte Dalton, Ih parte Dangar J). Champion Daniell I). Wallace "Daphne," The Davidson, jEJb parte In re Ex parte. Re Little Davies i;. Barlow V. Borough of Windsor V. Harris (No. 1) V. (No. 2) Exparte Davis V. Harley V. Borough of Paddington 1). Montefiore V. White «. Young Davison®. Dignam Dawson v. Bank of N.Z. (No. 1) .. V. (No. 2) , . Day V. Day \ V. Murray J Dean v. Byrnes Deards ®. Cornel De Clouet, In re, Exparte Hurst.. De Comas v. Frost De Lissa ®. Asher Dempsey v. Anderson Dini, Ex parte 3N.S.W. L.R. 83 30 S.M.H. 27th May 9th June 1876 ... 550 (Add.), 778 9 S.C.R. 64 (note) 765 2 N.S. W. L.R. Eq. 20 ... 805 10 S.C.R. 37 777 10 S.C.R. 279 366 2 S.C.R. N.S. 303 470 2 N.S.W. L.R. 276 28,421 2 N.S.W. L.R. 66 .306, 648 4 N.S. W. L.R. 335 688 4N.S.W. L.R. 315 135 5 N.S.W. L.R. 55 912 S.ilf.fi". 16th March 1876 ... 599 5 N.S.W. L.R. 213 908 8 S.C.R. 119 613 12 S.C.R. 26 92,332 5 N.S.W. L.R. 96 890 8 S.C.R. 259 769 7 S.C.R. 115 67,801,828 5 N.S.W. L.R. 154 867 5 N.S.W. L.R. 386 868 J 8 S.C.R. 264 ; L.R. 3 P.C. ( 751;8Moo.P.C.N.S.152 518,537 2 S.C.R. Eq. 15; 3 S.C.R. App. 18 ... 530,698,711,719, S.^t^.^ff. 6th June 1876 ... 234 9 S.C.R. 177 596,598,601 3 Moo. P.C. N.S. 158 ... 707 S.M.H. 17th March 1875 ... 90, 332 S.ilf.ff. 23rd June 1876 ... 762 6S.C.R. Eq. 48 812 T^ABLE OF CASES. Desmond, Ex part& Deviro. Curley Bevlin ?;. Lynch Dibbs V. Brown ^ V. Dibbs, Mb parte Shepherd ^ V. Dibbs V. Colonial Sugar Co. V. In re, Ex parte Sheppard V. Newcastle Coal Co. Dick, Ex parte Dickson, ^x parte ... 1>. Eyles ... Dickson's Will Dight K. Gordon Dillon, Be V. Wood Dimond, Ex parte ... Dines v. Rossitur ... W.Gordon V. WoU e Dixon V. Williams ... , Ex parte Dobinson v. Dobinson Doe d. Clark v. Smithers d. Wilson V. Terry Dolby V. Bank of N.S.W. Dooley, Ex parte Douglas, Ex parte . . . V. Robertson Doust, Re Dowling V. Jones . . . ■ V. ■ V. ■ Downing v. Howe Doyle ■!;. Jacobs Drew, Expartt Drinkwater w. Arthur ... Drury v. Australasian Steam Navigation Co. " Duckenfield," The Dudley, Exparte Du Faur v. Nicholls Duggan, Exparte ... . Duguid, Exparte ... Dunn, Exparte V. Lowe Dunne, Exparte ... Duxberry, .Kc parie Dwyer v. Herman ... ... ■!). O'Neil COLUMS. 5 S.C.R. 387 412,603,505,506 3 N.S.W. L.R. 322... ... 270 IS.C.R. 53 ... 57 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 65 ... 644 1 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 1 395 (Add.) 2 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 4 ... 395 10 S.O.R.81,323; 11 S.C.R. f 115,663, 198 \ 770 2 N.S. W. L.R. 10 ... 286,432,477 1 S.C.R. 248 ... 120, 677, 681 8 S.C.R. 388 ... 655 3N.S.W. L.R. 358... 655, 729, 791 1 N.S.W. L.R. 203 ... ... 308 2S.C.R. Eq. 93 ... 6 (Add.), 361 3 S.C.R. Eq. 62 ... ...138,696 1 S.C.R. N.S. 132 ... .. 360 2N.S.W. L.R. 298... ... 415, 567 2N.S.W. L.R. 207... ... 724, 726 3 S.C.R. 29 ... 374 S.M.H. 6th Sept. 1876 ... 240 5 Moo. P.O. N.S. 382 ... 375 13 S.C.R. Eq. 7 138(Add.),696,810 1 N.S.W. L.R. 189 ... ... 793 1 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 15 ... 394 1 S.C.R. App. 33 ... ... 403 2 S.C.R. App. 1 ... ... 223 3 S.C.R. 297 ... 130 5 S.C.R. 343 ... 97, 666 1 S.C.R. App. 25 ... ... 763 3 N.S.W. L.R. 57 ... ... 745 2 N.S.W. L.R. 299 ... ... 737 1N.S.W. L.R. 134... ... 62 1 N.S.W. L.R. 347 ... ... 63 2 N.S.W. L.R. 54 ... ... 718 2N.S.W. L.R. 359 ... ... 63 2 S.C.R. N.S. 75 ... ... 236 11 S.C.R. 77 ... 266, 794 9 S.C.R. 169 ... 598 10 S.C.R. 193 228 (Add.) Knox 434 ... 774 3 N.S.W. L.R. Adm. 1 ... 775 IS.C.R. 63 ... 723, 726 S.M.H. 9 Sept. 1876 ... 295 4N.S.W. L.R. 332... ... 840 2 N.S.W. L.R. 200... ... 795 Knox 293 ... 303 S.M.H. 1st Sept. 1876 ... 310 13S.C.R. 210 784, 786, 788 2 S.C.R. 230 ... 510, 562 2 N.S.W. L.R. 280... 29,634,707 2 S.C.R. 275 ... 575 E. Eady's Arbitration, Mount Kembla Coal and Oil Co. Ee Eales D. Osborne ... ... ... Ebsworth w. Hiekey (!) ". (2) Echo and Herald, Be Eckman v. Mackay Eckford t). Soholey Eddy V. Bank of New South Wales Edwards v. Lennan Eldred j;. Black EUard, In re Elliott i). Baker , Exparte Ellis V. Bank of Australasia V. Brownrigg 3N.S.W. L.R. 92; ... ... 15, 668 2 S.C.R. 103 ... 69 3 8.C.R. (App.) 1 ... ...70(Add.) 1 S.C.R. 329 ... 11 IS.C.R. 336 ... 12 4 N.S.W. L.R. 237 .. ... 95 3N.S.W. L.R. 355... ... 727 10 S.C.R. 79 ... 286 Knox 299 ... 38 6S.C.R. Eq. 18 ... 713 1 N.S.W. L.R. 45 ... ... 379 1 S.C.R. (App.) 69 ... ... 463 1 N.S.W. L.R. 296... ... 382, 532 2N.S.W. L.R. 97 ... 342,553,615, 636,794 3 N.S.W. L.B. 96 ... ... 280 2 S.C.R. 177 ... 510 TABLE OF CASES. COIiUMK. EUia V. Meyerfleld Elkington, y» re Elwin 1). Monash Emery «. Barclay Empson, Ex parte Eno V. Davies E. S. and A. C. Bank v. Barker ■ V. Gunn 'EiYSiDS, Ex parte — V. Stephen Evening News, In re Everett v. Bayliss ... V. ... Everingham, Ex parte Fairfax v. lUawarra Steam Navigation Co. Fallon 17. Moore Falk D. Rowley ... Fall's Will Fanning v. Simmons Farrelly, Ex parte ■!;. Farrelly Farnsworth, In re, Ex parte Hasking ... Fattorini «. Fattorini (No. 1) -— V. (No. 2) V. (No. 3) - (No. 4) Fergusson, lie Fesq V. Morgan Fisher, Ex parte V. Gaffney . V. Thornton. Fiteh V. Liverpool Fire Co. Fitzgerald I). Fitzgerald Pitzpatrick «. Barker — Ex parte, In re Williamson , Ex parte 1;. Macguigan Flack, Exparte Fleetwood u Benjamin Flood V. Longford ■!;. Monash Floyd i;. Stewart 'Eo\ey, Ex parte Fordyce v. Wormall Forlonge, Ex parte Foster, Exparte ■ V. Hayes Forsyth, Exparte V. Wright Foss' Will Fotheringham i;. O'Brien Fox, Exparte «. M'Gregor Frazer «. Evans V. 2). Kearney ... — v. Young Freeman v. Withers Friend v. Lnke - — - — ■«. Metcalfe D. Smith Frost 1J. Healy V. In re, Ex parte ^erayiW. Knox 366 ... 003 8.M.H. 15th June 1876 ... 595,599 2 S.C.B. N.S. Bq. 57 ... 820 8S.C.R. 374 ... 234 3N.S.W. L.R. 206 ... . , . 728 4 N.S.W. L.B. Eq. 37 143{Add.), 695, 697 1 N.S.W. L.R. 192 ... ... 706 10 S.C.R. 244 ... 48, 92 1 S.C.R. N.S. 152 ... 134(Add.),548 3 N.S.W. L.R. 154 ... ... 307, 380 1 N.S.W. L.R. 211... 95 2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 66 ... 591 3 N.S.W. L.R. 174... ... 629 9 S.C.R. 250 ... 409, 412 11 S.C.R. 103 ... 752 11 S.C.R. 314 ... 240 S.M.H. 17th June 1876 21 12 S.C.R. Eq. 89 ... ... 859 5 S.C.R. 224 ... 133,497 7 S.C.R. 227 ... 293 5 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 7 ... 890 Knox 151 ... 600 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 28 ... 398 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 30 ... 398 2 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 1 ... 399 1 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 10 ... 395 3N.S.W. L.R. 43 ... 574,575,843 4 N.S.W. L.R. 93 ... ... 360 2 S.C.R. N.S. 32 ... ... 506 5 N.S.W. L.R. 276... ... 878 2 S.C.R. 131 ... 424, 788 2 S.C.R. 161 ... 716 1 S.C.R. 89, 269 ... ... 481, 628 6 S.C.R. 155 ; 5 Moo. P.C. N.S. 180; L.R.,2P.C. 83 403 12 S.C.R. Eq. 83 ... ... 405, 825 3N.S.W. L.R. 149... ... 462, 470 S.M.H. 15th Dec. 1860 ... 839 1 S.C.R, 224 ... 50, 59 1 N.S.W. L.JR. 27 ... ... 615 9 S.C.R. 162 ... 64 — Knox 449... ... 236 12 S.C.R. Eq. 65 ... 238,350,582 IN.S.W. L.R. 51 ... , 820 S.Af.^.6thMar.lS75; Wilk. (4thEd.) 745 ... 8 5 N.S.W. L.R. 461... ... 870 2S.C.R. N.S. 28 ... ... 295 11 S.C.R. 195 ... 375, 549 7 S.C.R. 4 ... 565 11S.C.B. 49 ... 500 5N.S.W. L.R. 251... ... 923 7 S.C.R. Eq. 68 ... 850 4S.C.R. 351 ... 629 2 S.C.R, N.S. 47 ... ... 166, 508 3 N.S.W. L.R. 281 ... .. 705 6 S.C.R. 325 259,347,750 7 S.C.R. 166... ;.. ... 131 11 S.C.R. Eq. 35 ... ... 143, 695 9 S.C.R. 1 ... 56 Knox 6 ... 686 6 S.C.R. 263 ... 837 12 S.C.R. 169 ... 487 5 N.S.W. L.R. 59 ... ... 904 4 S.C.R. Eq. 6, 81 ... ... 846 5 S.C.R. Eq. 1 ... 692 10S.C.R. 187 ... 468 TABLE OP CASES. Fuller V. Goodwin V. Weston Fullford, Ex parte Futter V. Toohey 4 S.C.R. 66 9S.C.E. 268 3 N.S.W. L.R. 135 ... 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 20 Column ... 741 ... 137 ... 600 ... 229, 804 G. Gallimore v. Moore , Galloway «. Mobba Gannon, .Ba; parte V. M'Bumey Gardiner, Ess parte, Ji. v. Solomon Gardner's Will Garrett I). Bird V. Lackey Qee, Ex parte Qiibhes, Ex parte Gibbons v. Gibbons {See Roberts v. Gibbons) Gibbs «. Bank of N.S.W Giblin, .Ec parte V. O'Connor (Cotton's Will) Gibson, .Ek parte V. M'George Gilchrist's Will GiUes, Exparte ... .. Gipps «. M'Elhone Glasscock v. Foreman Glasson i;. Egan Glover J). Bell Godfrey, .Kk parte «. Poole Godwin i;. Cashion Goebel, .Kb parte Golding t;. Humble Goodcbap t;. Nixon ... Goode 1). Onslow Goodin, Exparte Goodlett u. Fowler 1). Lackey ... Goodwin i>. Baylias .. . Gordon i;. Bowman ... ... V. Gibbons In re V. Townsend Gore «. A.S.N. Company Exparte Gorman u. Jones Gorton, Exparte Gourlay D. Lindsay .. Gow, Ex parte. In re Mossman ... Graham v. Berry V. Commissioner for Railways ?j. Fennell ... — V. — V. Murnin . Grainger v. Vindin . Green v. Burrows . Ex parte V. Green Greville v. Bird Ex parte . Griffiths, Exparte . Grimley v. Flood Grogan v. Slapp Groim V. Gronn Grover, Ex parte . Guest, Exparte Guinness v. Joshua . 6 S.C.R. 388 IIS.C.R. Eq. 36 ... S.M.ff. 9th Sept. 1876 10 S.C.R. 157 8 S.C.R. 30 6 S.C.R. Bq. 82 11 S.C.R. 97 3N.S.W. L.R.237 ... 6 S.C.R. 355 1 S.C.R. N.S. 265 ... L.R. 6 App. Cas. 471 4N.S.W. L.R. 266... 5 S.C.R. 260 2 S.C.R. 123 2N.S.W. L.R. 203 ... 5 S.C.R. 44 6S.C.R. Eq. 74 1 S.C.R. N.S. 189 ... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 18 ... 3 S.C.R. Eq. 64 6 S.C.R. 85 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 52 2 S.C.R. N.S. 301 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 1 1 S.C.R. N.S. 8, 34, 165 2 S.C.R. 82 4 S.C.R. 310 2 S.C.R. 182 2 N.S.W. L.R. 278 ... 10 S.C.R. 386 S.M.H. 21st Sept. 1876 3N.S.W. L.R. 225... 13 S.C.R. 27 5 S.C.R. 28 12 S.C.R. 40 10 S.C.R. 321 11S.C.R. 215 12S.C.R. 14 9 S.C.R. 305 5S.C.R. Eq. 92 S.M.H. 27th May 1881 2 S.C.R. N.S. 278 ... 3 N.S.W. L.R. 137 ... 3 Moore P.C. N.S. 207 3S.C.R. 13 1 S.C.R. 243 2 S.C.R. 154 1 S.C.R. 195 4 S.C.R. 32 1 S.C.R. N.S. 186 ... 5 S.C.R. 110, 112 ... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 93 .. 2 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 2 6 S.C.R. 253 8 S.C.R. 27 1 S.C.R. N.S. 101 . 9 S.C.R. 265 3 S.C.R. 231 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 8 1 S.C.R. 168 Knox, 284 1 S.C.R. N.S. 129 ... 8 S.C.R. 34 79,342,345 ... 5, 405 ... 597 ... 800 .. 98, 827 ... 848 ... 705 ... 747 ... 286, 477 726 ... 855 ... 271 ... 443 ... 321 ... 548, 723 ... 836 ... 814 ... 424 ... 278 ... 812 ... 525, 687 ... 853 ... 25 921 20,65,290, 331, 682 ... 309 ... 650 ... 664 ... 142 ... 792 ... 651 ... 746 ... 843 ... 49 ... 85 ... 422 ... 318 ... 771 ... 527 ... 690 .., 562 ... 406, 493 ... 600 594,716,720 ... 665 ... 407 ... 304 . . 646 ... 103 ... 401 ... 8, 503 163,377,538 394 ... 301, 498 ... 16 ... 410 ... 102 ... 521 ... 397 ... 290 ... 373 ... 97 ... 677 TABLE OF CASES. H. Hackett ». Bennett Haddon V. Aitken Hale W.Taylor Halket «. Halket Hall i;. Ivory... Halter u. Moore Hamey v. Nelson Hamilton Municipality v. Agricultural Co. Ex parte - V. Ritchie... Hammond v. Gourlay (No. 1) V. (No. 2) Hanlon «. Manson Hannan i;. Whitworth Hansons. A. S. N. Co. V. Newcastle S. N. Co. Harbottle t). Hargraves Harding v. Holloway Hargan v. Kennedy Hargraves v. Cohen Harkness v. Sempill Harnett j;. Green Hartmann, .Ea; ^arfe Harris, .Kk par-ie •!). Harris ■". Ogg V. Smart W.Solomon Harrison, Ex parte V. Harrison Harvey v. E wan ,Exparte Hasking, Ex parte. In re Farnsworth Haslingden v. Bate , In re, Ex parte Manby HaasaXV, Ex parte Haughey v. Deane Hawkins, .ffa; parte Hawksley , Ex parte Hay w. Cameron Hayes, Ex parte V. Liverpool Insurance Co. V. Pacific Insurance Co. ... Healy f. Cornish Heaton w. Richards Heggarty ,& parte .. . Hellyer w. Druitt Hely V. Scott Henderson w. O'Dowd Henry v. Sydney Corporation Herald a,nd Echo, He Herbert w. Blunt Herring, i^B parte Hewitt V. Farrell Heyde v. Swan w. Wittkowski Hibburd v. Warden Tlickey, Ex parte V. Queensland Sheep Co.... V. Tooth (No. 1) 11 12S.C.E. 327 8S.C.R. 75 2 S.C.R. 149 1 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 12 Knox 401 3 S.C.R. 65 1 S.C.R. N.S. 178 ... 2S.C.R. N.S. 158 ... 3 S.C.R. 311 4 S.C.R. 164 Wilk. (4th Ed.) 810 3 N.S.W. L.R. 89 ... S.M.H. 7th June 1876 1 N.S.W. L.R. 43 1 N.S.W. L.R. 142 2 N.S.W. L.R. 291 5 N.S.W. L.R. Div 5 N.S.W. L.R. 447 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. 453... 5 S.C.R. 104 9S.C.R. Eq. 1 5 S.C.R. 151 (in notes) 12 S.C.R. 310 ... , 1S.C.R. N.S. 151 3N.S.W. L.R. 432 4 N.S.W. L.R. 292 8.M.H.UthT)ec. 1875; Wilk (4th Ed.) 163 6S.C.R. 140 1 N.S.W. L.R. 247 5 N.S.W. L.R. 114 9S.C.R. 83 2S.C.R. N.S. 207 1 S.C.R. 256 2 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 1 2 N.S.W. L.R. 267 6 S.C.R. 144 Knox 151 1 S.C.R. (App.)41 Knox 416 10 S.C.R. 292 10 S.C.R. 264 5 S.C.R. 152... 8 S.C.R. 342... 3 S.C.R. 126 (note) . 8 S.C.R. 79 ... 1 S.C.R. N.S. 182 . 1 S.C.R. N.S. 139 . 3 S.C.R. Eq. 28 2 N.S.W. L.R. 73 3 S.C.R. 212... 6S.C.R. Eq. 43 7 S.C.R. Eq. 7; 10 S.C.R Eq. 15 7 S.C.R. Eq. 26 11 S.C.R. 272 7 S.C.R. 48 3 N.S.W. L.R. 264... 4 N.S.W. L.R. 237 ... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 273... 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 12 12 S.C.R. Eq. 94 ... 5N.S.W. L.R. 146... 5 N.S.W. L.R. 74 ... 5 S.C.R. 192 4 S.C.R. 23 ... 4 S.C.R. 161 2 S.C.R. 98 Column. ... 523 ... 559 ... 416 ... 312, 394 ... 751 ...305,703 ... 358, 520 ... 619 ... 734 512,515,617 ... 621 ... 32 ... 764 ..633, 671 (Add.) 66 . 546, 558 ,. 883 . 898 . 903 .. 639 ,. 417, 791 46 (Add.) ,. 635, 665 . 440 .. 536 537 9 527 .'.'. 788, 845 ... 920 ... 845 ... 441 ... 564 ... 393 ... 142 ... 301 ... 600 ... 462 ... 32, 97 ... 528, 739 ... 103,560 ... 506, 507 ... 596, 603 ... 140 ... 666 480 775 714 33,108 504,506(Add.),832 .. 26 f 3, 393, 1 691, 694 .. 691 .. 824 .. 713 .. 612 .. 95 .. 142 ,.. 814 .. 272 ... 881 ... 920 ... 818, 824 ... 296 ... 11 ... 112 TABLE OF CASES. Hiokey v. Tooth (No. 2) ... Hillas V. Magoveran Himmelhoch, Mx parte Hinkle v. Schonbein Hinton w. Miller jBe, Ex parte Royle V. Setchell Hoare V. Hatfield V. Eavenagh V. Oriental Bank Eo&ung v. Simpson Eogan V. Hogan 1). Curtis Holland «). Hardy Holcombe v. Borough of Newcastle HoUoway j;. Routledge Holmes V. Taggart Hoppe 1). Single Hordern v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. Horwitz V. Horwitz Hosking V. Terry Hoskins ?;. Davies Hough K. Whitty Hovell, Exparte Howe «. Harrisky Howell u. Prince Hudson, ^a; ^arte Hughes «. Hughes V. Mayor of Sydney Humphery «. Gordon V. Howes V. Liverpool Insurance Co. V. Lloyd 1). Lobb «. M'Minn V. M'MuUen «. Nowland V, Roberts 1). Rutter Hungerford v. Davenport ... Hunter V. M 'Donald Hurst, Sx parte, In re DeClouet.. Hutchinson v. Burnell Hyman 1). Benson 4S.C.R. 194 2 S.C.R. Eq. 32, 60... 1 S.C.R. N.S. 247 ... 4S.C.R. 306 8.M.H. 15th Sept. 1876 5N.S.W. L.R. 468... 8 S.C.R. 152 1 S.C.R. N.S. 54 ... 13S.C.R. 98 L.R. 2App. C. 589 ... 2N.S.W. L.R. 133... 7S.C.R. Eq. 81 7 S.C.R. Eq. 89 8S.C.R. Eq. 96 6S.C.R. 276 3N.S.W. L.R. 450... 5 N.S.W. L.R. 87 .. 1 S.C.R. 15 IS.C.R. Eq. 27 2 S.C.R. 88 5 N.S.W. L.R. 309 ... 4N.S.W. L.R. Div. 1 5N.S.W. L.R.Div. ] 2 S.C.R. App. 10 ... 11 S.C.R. 305 5 N.S. W. L.R. 269 .., 8 S.C.R. 163 5N.S.W. L.R. 223... 8 S.C.R. 316 11 S.C.R. 142 1 S.C.R. 208 10 S.C.R. 310 1 S.C.R. N.S. 17 ... S.M.H. 15th Sept. 1876 13 S.C.R. 367 3S.C.E. 374 13 S.C.R. Eq. 1 8 S.C.R. 231 7 S.C.R. 84, 129 ... 1 S.C.R. App. 1 5 S.C.R. 376 6 S.C.R. 214 10 S.C.R. 74 IN.S.W. L.R. 105... 7 S.C.R. 36 9 S.C.R. 177 7 S.C.R. 64 Knox 4 XIX COITJMN. ... 113 .., 356 ... 549 ... 335, 401 ... 439 ... 902 ... 55 ... 379 ... 58, 117 ... 431 ... 629, 646 ... 391 ... 696 110,555,703 ... 374 ... 264 ... 923 ... 19 ... 413 ... 45, 686 ... 895 ... 395 ... 890 ... 697 91,549,570 ... 879 ... 96 ... 901 ... 315 ... 446 ...557,684 ... 606 ... 428, 472 ... 466, 679 ... 483 ... 350, 464 ... 434 ... 454 ... 452, 716 ... 628 ... 67 68 (Add.), 445 ... 819 ... 721 44 359 596,598,601 ... 799 ... 56 Ibbotson V. Bryant ... Ickerson v. Hayes . . . Hlidge V. Leary Inch, Exparte Inwood, Exparte ... Iron V. Humphery ... Irving V. Prazer Irwin, Exparte Isbester v. Thompson Ison, Exparte Ivell, Ex parte 3 S.C.R. 134 (note) 424 5 S.C.R. 158 56,60 Knox 139 535 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 58 ... 540 S'.ilf.if. 15th June 1881 ... 739 9 S.C.R. 314 465,530 7 S.C.R. 263 752 10 S.C.R. 49 567,667 2 S.C.R. N.S. 222 680 2S.C.R. N.S. 204 300 2 S.C.R. 91 669,725 Jackson v. Australian Insurance Co. V. Croft .. Ex parte .. V. Jackson .. 13 S.C.R. 196; 33 L.T. 286 490, 629, 778 2 S.C.R. N.S. 295 9 2N.S.W.L.R. 198 186 7 S.C.R. Eq. 28 321,849 TABLE OF GASES. Jacob «. Bolding James, In re «. Watts Jaques v. Doyle Jenkins v. Anderson Ex parte V. Harris V. Jenkins ... Jewell, Ex parte Joachim (John) v. O'Shanassy (William) I). O'Shanassy. (Annie) v. O'Shanassy .. Jobbins 17. Styles " John Bullock" The Johnson v. Blachford Ex parte V. Poole (No. 1) V. (No. 2) .. V. Rigney ... V. Underwood Johnston v. Riley ... Joint Stock Bank v. Mortimer Jones v. Barton ■^ V. Corker ... ... •". Ex parte - V. Gorman - V. Jones - V. McEvoy - V. Municipal Council of Sydney - V. Scanlon - V. Walker 11 S.C.R. 174 lOS.C.R. 336 8 S.C.R. 81 2N.S.W. L.B. 113 ... S.M.H. 23rd June 1876 10 S.C.R. l.'?8,231 4 S.C.R. 129 3N.S.W. L.R. 35 6 S.C.R. 373... .. , •■ 13 S.C.R. 174; L.R. 1 App Cas. 82 Knox 98 Knox 118 1 S.C.R. Eq. 21 9 S.C.R. 300 1 S.C.R. N.S. 277 S.M.H. 23rd Sept. 1876 .. Knox 196 Knox 394 S.M.H. 11th Dec. 1875 .. 5 N.S.W. L.R. 88 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 1 COLnMN. ... 663 ... 141 ... 688 ... 821 ... 330, 762 ... 16, 771 ... 325, 846 ... 358, 538 ... 301 228 235 239 30 776 14 411 497 354, 498 17 Joplin V. O'Brien Josephson, Ex parte 6 S.C.R. 248... 4 N.S.W. L.R. 271 8 S.C.R. 236 12 S.C.R. 284 Knox 263 3S.C.R. 32 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 9 8 S.C.R. 15 1 N.S.W. L.R. 315 2N.S.W. L.R. 222 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 15 3 S.C.R. Eq. 34; L.R. 1 P.C. 50; 6 S.C.R. Eq. 3 ... 4N.S.W. L.R. 14 6 S.C.R. 126 322(Add.), 462 (Add.), 825 705 121, 682 309 184 633 396 302 606, 719 606 852 590 359 13 Kearney i;. Bryan Kearns, Exparte Keefe 1). Halbish Keep «. Benjamin Kellett, Exparte Kelly V. Besson •«. Bradridge ... Keogh, Ex parte V. Glass 1). Loring 17. Styles '. Kerr «. Dickinson ... ... V. Stiles Keyes, In re Killeen, Exparte Kinchler I). Cowper King u. Bulli Coal Co v. M'lvor Kingston w. Gale Kirby w. Kirby Kirchuer's Tr astees, In re Kirwan (an infant), ife Kirwin u. Pearson Kittler w. Murphy Knox u. Brotherton V. M'Donald Kock ». Kemp Korfif V. Australian Steam Navigation Co. 10 S.C.R. 167 ... 131 Knox 13 ... 668 1 N.S.W. L.R. 350 ... ... 305 4 S.C.R. 321 ... 20 1 S.C.R. N.S. 148 ... ... 341, 411 2 S.C.R. 164 ... 358, 672 2 S.C.R. 162 ... 672 3 S.C.R. 103 ... 18 2 S.C.R. 210 ... 667 2 S.C.R. Eq. 79 ... 350,416 2 S.C.R. 156 ... 408 2 S.C.R. 167 ... 408 7 S.C.R. Eq. 12 ... 6, 804 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 76 ... 908 5N.S.W. L.R. 359... ... 906 9 S.C.R. 291 .. 215, 830 2 S.C.R. 142 ... 510, 553 Knox 389 ... 773 4 N.S.W. L.R. 43 ... ... 230, 351 4 S.C.R. 211 ... 519 5 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 18 ... 891 5 S.C.R. 346 .. 28, 626 8 S.C.R. Eq. 21 ... 414 3 N.S.W. L.R. 162... ... 122 11 S.C.R. 68 ... 128 S.M.H. 10th Sept. 1875 ... 524 10 S.C.R. Eq. 110 ... 10, 491, 694 6 S.C.R. 107 ... 679 3 S.C.R. 297 (note)... ... 131 TABLE OF CASES. Kosten v. Haigh Krefft, Ex parte V. HUl Kyle, In re ... 3 S.C.R. 366... S.M.H. 6th Deo. 1876 13 S.C.R. 280,303 ... Column. ... 325, 326 ... 548 496, 559, 633, IN.S.W. L.R. 254... 671, 729 360 Laidley D. M'Millan Laing D. Baiii Lakemaji V. Edmundson Lakeman, ife, .Ec ^arte Whitcombe LambeU'sWm Lane w. Mayor of Goulbum V. Taylor Lang t;. Fairfax V. Purves Langdon ». Reuss Langham D. Beaublanc Larkin D. Graham ... ... Lawrence, .Ecparie Lawry, Exparte Lea V. Graham Lee V. Castner V. Close «. Stephenson Lenane v. Bank of New South Wales .> Lenehan, Ex parte, In re St. Peter's (Municipality) Leslie «. MacNichol Levy «J. Hart ... u. Mollison ... ... V. Smith V. V. Lewis V. Mason V. M'Cafferty Liddell v. Harpur ... Little, Ex parte V. Sandeman Lloyd V. Blumenthal Inre ... V. Vickery ... Lobb V. A.S.N. Co. Lockhart v. Dymock V. Lynch ... Lof tus, Inre Logan, Ex parte Logan's Will Long V. Drinan Longworth v. Campbell Lords). Clyne V. Lee V. Mayor of Sydney Lett V. CoUins Lowe V. Josephson ... Lucas V. Bourke V. Lackey V. Lynch v. Anderson ... Lyons v. Bank of N.S.W. V. Baker V. Cohen V. Curry V. Hardy V. Henderson V. Moore ©.Samuel 9S.C.B. 119 S.M.H. 9th March 1876 Knox 28, 264 Knox 284 4N.S.W. L.R. 150. 3 N.S.W. L.R. 142 9 S.C.R. Eq. 94 10 S.C.R. 108 5 S.C.R. 84 ... 4 S.C.R. 268... 1 S.C.R. (app.) 4; 15 Moo P. C 389 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 28 3 N.S.W. L.R. 366 ... 4N.S.W. L.R. 65 ... 1 S.C.R. 296 7 S.C.R. 183 1 S.C.R. 288 3 N.S.W. L.R. 460... 10 S.C.R. 86 2 N.S.W. L.R. 32 ... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 285... S.M.H. 8th March 1876 2 N.S.W. L.R. 250... 7 S.C.R. 142 3S.C.R. 81 3 S.C.R. 285 4 S.C.R. 329 5 S.C.R. 400 2 N.S.W. L.R. 184... 1 S.C.R. N.S. 265 ... 13 S.C.R. 129 12S.C.R. 323 IN.S.W. L.R. 263 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 99 2 S.C.R. N.S. 114 ... 12S.C.R. Eq. 4 ... 7 S.C.R. 278 (No. 1) 10 S.C.R. l(No. 2)... Knox 181 6 S.C.R. Eq. 40 (in note) 1 S.C.R. 1 7 S.C.R. 11 2S.C.R. Eq. 98 ... Knox 152 3N.S.W. L.R. 329... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 36 ..: 2 S.C.R. 304 9 S.C.R. 94 8 S.C.R. 104 6 S.C.R. 132 3N.S.W. L.R. 215... 3N.S.W. L.R. 247... 4 N.S.W. L.R. 28 ... S.M.H. 23rd June 1876 3 N.S.W. L.R. 385 .. ' 5 N.S.W. L.R. 282.. Knox 92 5 N.S.W. L.R. 282.. 2 N.S.W. L.R. 369.. 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 23 3N.S.W. L.R. 379.. Knox 177 61 46, 533 ... 534 ... 719 ... 241 ... 601, 604 591, 803, 858 ... 137 644, 660, 798 285 82 588 786 494 73, 504 296 48 350 520 247, 350 40 599 264 ... 492 ... 492 ... 426 ... 451 ... 140 ... 298 ... 308, 634 238, 337, 350 ... 184 ... 132 ... 893 ... 461 ... 418, 591 ... 88 ... 89 . Ill, 635 . 804 . 124, 665 . 362, 807 . 801 . 632 . 243, 351 . 412, 677 . 496 . 386 . 750 . 568 . 748 . 143 . 330, 762 68 (Add.). 458 ... 887 68 (Add.), 457 ... 887 458, 634, 670 ... 441, 447 ... 230 ... 457 TABLE OF CASES. M. Macansh v. Bowman M 'Arthur «. Regan M'Bean J). Grieve J). Taylor M'CarroU w. M'Cullock M'Carthy, ^s yarie M'Caughey I). O'Brien M'Crea w. B«per (No. 1) V. (No. 2) Macdonald v. Murray M 'Donald w. Kiama (Municipality) Ex parte U.Watson 1). Gagan M'Elhone u. Young M'Evoy, ^ parte Ex parte ... Ex parte M'Garrigle, ik re V. Miller M 'Geary i;. Brodziak 'HL'Govfa.n., Ex parte M'Grath, /nre " Macgregor," The (No. 1) (No. 2) M'Gregor, ^a; parie M'Guiness v. Bank of New South Wales M'llveen, in re M'Innes, Ex parte M'Intosh, ^parie 7)8 re Barnes M 'Isaacs i;. Robertson M 'Kay, i?a; ^arte M'Kenna w. Lowe Mackenzie ?). Barker V. City Bank V. Dunn Ex parte ' ■ V. Gough V. Healey V. HoUinshead ■ V. Union Insurance Coy. — — V. Williams M'Laren, Ex parte ... M'Lauchlan i'. Standard Ins. Co. of N.Z. M'Laughlin V. Moore Maclean v. Dight M'Lean v. Cooper V. Ramsay ... M'Mahon v. Commissioner for Railways M'Millan i;. Whitfield M 'Mullen «. Walker Macnamara's Costs (No. 1) (No. 2) M'Neill ?7. Sandeman M'Nickle v. Bank of New South Wales .. M'Phail w. Darby M'Pherson v. Borough of Bathurst M'Shane, Ex parte M'WUliamt). M'William Madden, Ex parte ... Madock v. Bamett . . Main, Ex parte Maine v. Townsend .. Mair, Ex parte Major V. Bullock COIiUHH. 10 S.C.R. 370 660, 670 (Add.), 787 6 S.C.R. Eq. 49, 110 138, 413, 693 2S.C.R. N.S. 153 239 4 S.C.R. 361 270 9 S.C.R. 333 268 S.M.H. 14th June 1876 ... 303, 667 4N.S.W. L.R. 39 244 2 N.S.W. L.R. 232 237 3 N.S.W. L.R. 111 237, 351 5 S.C.R. 55 247.253 2 S.C.R. 67 115,682 1 N.S.W. L.R. 252 166 11 S.C.R. 4 317, 324 5 N.S.W. L.R. 78 907, 922 Knox 493 64 7 S.C.R. 145 293 8 S.C.R. 16 294 2 S.C.R. N.S. 67 293, 549 1 S.C.R. N.S. 263 432 1 S.C.R. N.S. 5 678 3 N.S.W. L.R. 124 535 8 S.C.R. 115, 373 468,527 3 S.C.R. 174 443 14 S.C.R. 103 779 14 S.C.R. 107 776 2 N.S.W. L.R. 45 295 IN.S.W. L.R. 97 36,493 10 S.C.R. 192 (in notes) 468 (Add.) 4 N.S.W. L.R. 143 620 9 S.C.R. 28 566 4 S.C.R. 191 27 10 S.C.R. 146 736 3 S.C.R. 51 285 5 S.C.R. 236 366 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 10 ... 810 2 S.C.R. 56 435,463 14 S.C.R. 1 35,456 7S.C.R. Eq. 88 99 6 S.C.R. 306 547 12 S.C.R. Eq. Ill 447 10 S.C.R. 59 350,455 11 S.C.R. Eq. 83 447,455 I N.S.W. L.R. 103 556 II S.C.R. 178, 193 68 (Add.), 438,718 4 S.C.R. 312 31 Knox 224 479 5N.S.W. L.R. Eq. Ill ... 893 5 S.C.R. 95 352, 755 1 S.C.R. 186 517, 686 2 S.C.R. N.S. 183 65 4 N.S.W. L.R. 170 626 2 S.C.R. 356 298 1 S.C.R. Eq. 15 35 5 N.S.W. L.R. 342 872 5 N.S.W. L.R. 434 912 12 S.C.R. 51 91,346,570 2N.S.W. L.R. 7 44,279 2 S.C.R. N.S. 225 819 ^^°i^^cf*y6^-^-n«°^''^« 1 S.C.R. N.S. 10 ... 139,515,550, 667, 669 9S.C.R. Eq. 96 357,694 11 S.C.R. Eq. 81 851 Ailf.Tr. 29th Nov. 1876 ... 514 S.M.H. 24th March 1877 ... 859 2 S.C.R. 108 241,409 4N.S.W. L.R. 1 546 2 S.C.R. N.S. 216 411, 670 1 N.S.W. L.R. 139 138 TABLE OP CASES. Malcolm u. Harris Manby, ^ ^arte, /m re Haslingden Manning w. National Insurance Co Mansfield i;. Mayor of Sydney Manson J). Levy ... Marchanti;. Eayner Marsh 1). Patten Martal u. M'Nevin Martin u. Baker Ex parti Marx, .Ec parte "Mary CampbeU," The Mase V. Australasian Steam Navigation Co Mate u. Kidd <;. Nugent (No. 1) V. (No. 2) Matthews f. Howell «. Ogg Maver V. Mears Meaker and Brown, jBe Mealy ■!). Shea Meek, Ex parte ... '. "Melanie," The Melbourne Bank ?>. Brewer Melbourne and Newcastle Minmi Colliery v. M'Lean 'M.oIXy, Ex parte Merritt f). Smith Meyer, Exparte v Meymott v. Piddington Minmi Colliery Co. 1^. M'Lean Millar iJ. Roddam Miller D. Gulliver V. Hennessy ... V. Keogh Minehan v. Clarke Mitchell, In re ... V. Lethbridge V. Simons Moflfatt ^. White Moffit, Exparte Moloney v. Exjgers ... ... Monie, Exparte Mongan «. Readford Monson, Exparte ... Montefiore t). Hazeland V. O'Connor V. Smith Moon, Exparte ... ... Ex parte, In re OUive In re, Ex parte OWiye ... Moore v. Bernholdt V. Curtis ... V. Criehton Ex parte, R. Ex parte V. Haynes Fitzgerald V. Hyland V. Petersen V. Rutherford V. Suttor Morehead i;. M 'Isaacs Morisset ?;. Lawson Morning Star Mining Co., In re ... Morris v. Bank of New South Wales 1;. Ebsworth , Ex parte i;. Flower Morrison u. Grovenor 7 S.C.R. Eq. 66 Knox 416 1 S.C.R. N.S. 81 6 S.C.R. 17 ... 8 S.C.R. 39 ... 9 S.C.R. Eq. 4 7S.C.R.Eq. 18, 90;8 227 7 S.C.R. Eq. 62 Knox 418 1 N.S.W. L.R. 345 7 S.C.R. 344... 10 S.C.R. 261 8 S.C.R. 84 ... 2 S.C.R. 270... 3 S.C.R. 196... 7 S.C.R. 312... 8 S.C.R. 246 ... 10 S.C.R. 331 3 S.C.R. 1 ... 1 S.C.R. N.S. 260 1 S.C.R. N.S. 59 8 S.C.R. 223 ... 8 S.C.R. 53 ... 12 S.C.R. 97 1 S.C.R. N.S. 103 (note) 3 S.C.R. Eq. 105 12 S.C.R. 184 10 S.C.R. 230 Knox 319 Knox 306 3 S.C.R. Eq. 105 8 S.C.R. 319... 1 N.S.W. L.R. 176 4 S.C.R. 319... 5 S.C.R. 210... 9 S.C.R. 227... 2 S.C.R. N.S. 214 1 S.C.R. N.S. 62 1 S.C.R. Eq. 70 1 S.C.R. 141 ... 10 S.C.R. 270 3 N.S.W. L.R. 351 4 N.S.W. L.R. 138 5 N.S.W. L.R. 383 5 S.C.R. 256... 8.M.H. 16th & 19th 1 S.C.R. N.S. 227 ... S.M.H. 17th March 1876 8 S.C.R. 50 ... 9 S.C.R. 184... 9 S.C.R. 185... 3 N.S.W. L.R. 9 1 S.C.R. Eq. 1, 57 13 S.C.R. 105 7 S.C.R. 223 ... 7 S.C.R. 244... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 327 2 N.S.W. L.R. 350 1 S.C.R. Eq. 1, 57 2 S.C.R. N.S. Ill 1 S.C.R. N.S. 263 4 N.S.W. L.R. 283 5 S.C.R. 295 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 73 2S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 14 1 S.C.R. 65 1 S.C.R. (App.) 57 ... 10 S.C.R. 248 2 S.C.R. 196; 3 S.C.R. App 10 5N.S.W, L.R. 195 XXUI Column. . 361, 692 . 32,97 . 491 , 605 427 . 370 S.C.R. , 138, 323, 324 ... 327 ... 235 ... 550 . 553, 669, 670 ... 761 133(Add.),684,828 574, 589 575, 589 ..228,239,717,733 ... 229 ... 302 ... 26, 797 ... 11 ... 11, 17 ... 325, 350 ... 792 ... 777 ... 256, 410 ... 417 615,780,794 ... 97 ... 470 ... 496 ... 417 ... 701 110, 670, 686 ... 28 ...462, 684 ... 136 ... 603 ... 535 ... 639, 649 ... 27 220, 341, 785 ... 728 ... 562 ... 899 560, 667, 670 Dec. 1876 65 61 642 598 595, 599, 604 ... 595, 604 ... 232, 351 2 370, 641, 660 ... 601 ... 513 ... 286, 347 ... 134 2 ... 57 ... 631 ... 574. 683 ... 645, 688 ... 887 90, 498, 571 432, 677, 679 ... 259, 712 13 449, 679 871 TABLE OF CASES. Morrison v. Lloyd Morse v. Australasian Steam Navigation Co. ... Mort i\ Hughes V. Wright Moscrop r. Jacobs Moss V. Barnett • ■ ■ • Mossman r. Australasian Steam Navigation Co. Ex parte He Mount Kemble Coal Co., if e Mow Sang V. Chisholm - Mulcahyw. Muloahy MulhoUand «. Beyers , Ex parte , Ex parWSeisaa MuUins, Exparte Murnin r. United Assurance Co. Murphy i: Coman Murphy (In the goods of) Murray r. Harris V. Thompson ... r. Weaver Muston I). Blake Mutton, Exparte Column. 6S.C.R. 25 . 266 9S.C.K7,81;8Moo.P.C.N.S 482; L.R. 4P.C. 222 718, ' 720, 759 3S.C.R. 17 104, 491 7 S.C.R. Eq. 73; 8 S.C.R. Eq. 58 577 Knox 324 307, 634, 668 1 S.C.R. 313... 83, 363, 425, 808 12 S.C.R. 62 531, 710 6 S.C.R. 245 596 3N.S.W. L.R. 137... 600 3N.S.W. L.R. 92 ... 15, 668 4N.S.W. L.R. 70 ... 349 1 S.C.R. N.S. (Div.)12 396 1 N.S.W. L.R. 205 ... 18 11 S.C.R. 310 567 9 S.C.R. 161 598 S.M.H. 24th June 1875 528. 830 6 S.C.R. 262 663 2 N.S.W. L.R. 179... 304 6S.C.R. Eq. 63 ... 312, 356 1 N.S.W. L.R. 270 ... 273 6 S.C.R. 89 678 1 S.C.R. 166 303 11 S.C.R. 92 753 1 S.C.R. 10 407 N. Nash V. Bank of N.S. W Nash's Will Napier's Estate Nathan i;. Field Neaves ti. Hughes Nelson, Ex parte. In re MulhoUand , Ex parte Nerney i;. The Queen Neville, Exparte New V. M 'Master Newcastle Coal Co. v. Arnold Newcomen t). Corrigan Newman v. Bank of New South Wales V. Benjamin (reported as N. v. Fleetwood) i;. Jones ... Newton v. lies ■«. Webster N. Zealand Ins. Co. -v. S. Aust. Ins. Co. Nicholson I). A.J.S. Bank 1;. Swan Co. Nicole V. London and Provl. Ins. Nipper v. Watson V. Hixon Nixon V. Nixon V. Savings Bank ISohle, Ex parte Norie v. Woolcott Norman v. Peck "Northampton," The Norton t!. Hosking ■V.Hughes Numba (Municipality of) v. Lackey 3 S.C.R. 13 8 S.C.R. Eq. 31 7 S.C.R. Eq. 25 3 S.C.R. 95 10 S.C.R. 177 9 S.C.R. 161 10 S.C.R. 182 Knox 287 12 S.C.R. 362 2 S.C.R. 323 2 S.C.R. Eq. 26 1 N.S.W. L.R. 358 .. 12 S.C.R. 289 9 S.C.R. 166 2 N.S.W. L.R. 287 .. 7 S.C.R. 276 6 S.C.R. 12 1 S.C.R. N.S. 214 .. 10 S.C.R. 327 7 S.C.R. Eq. 4 7 S.C.R. Eq. 24 5 N.S.W. L.R. 333 .. 3 N.S.W. L.R. 168.. 5 N.S.W. L.R. 118.. 2 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 3 2 S.C.R. 288 3 N.S.W. L.R. 52 .. 9 S.C.R. Eq. 21 3 N.S.W. L.R. 42 .. 4 N.S.W. L.R. Adm. 6 S.C.R. 37 2 S.C.R. Eq. 65; 5 Eq. 23 1 N.S.W. L.R. 299 .. ... 665 ... 698 ... 690 ... 425 ... 523 ... 598 ... 134 ... 383, 654 ... 302 ... 672 383, 416, 652 ... 631, 702 ... 45 ... 64 325, 402, 660 ... 325, 350 ... 661 ... 485, 631 ..: 404, 683 ... 138, 690 ... 694 ... 896 ... 382, 779 ... 917 ... 394 ... 415, 754 ... 400 123, 693, 825 ... 359 ... 776 , 329, 848 S.C.R. . 538, 802 382 O'Brien, Ex parte . V. Goodsell . V. Joplin . 8 S.C.R. 305 1 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 6 4 N.S.W. L.R. 14 .. .. 467, 833 .. 701 .. 555 TABLE OF CASES. O'Brien, Re ... V. Watson "Ocean Queen," The O'Connell v. Larkins O'Connor, ^K parte V. Thorn O'Dea,, Ex parte R. V. Smith O'Dwyer, Ex parte ... O'Perrell ?). Attorney-General Ogilvie, Ex parte D. Harkin Ohlensohlager v. Commissioner for Railways O'Keefe i;. Gogerty Oliver D. Sheppard Ollive V. Borough of Waterloo In re. Ex parte Moon Ex parte. In re Moon Oriental Bank ti. Hart V. Hewitt V. Horsiugton I). The Queen ' Orr V. The Queen Osborne v. Bales Ex parte V. Rudd ... Osborne's Trusts O'Shanassy «. Joachim O'SuUivan v. Aarons O'Toole, Ex parte ... Ousby, In re. Ex parte Australian Joint-Stock Bank Owston ?). Bank of New South Wales 2 N.S.W. L.R. 301 COLUMH. . 738 12S.C.R. 294 . 371, 675 12S.0.R. 303 . 350, 683 12S.C.R. 334 . 378 1 N.S.W. L.R. 99 . 763 3 N.S.W. L.R. 84 . 913 8S.C.R. 142 . 502 4N.SW. L.R. 309 . 240, 526 6S.C.R. 259 . 602 2 S.C.R. N.S. 26 . 238 5 S.C.R. Eq. 101 . 356 4 S.C.R. 51 . 251 1 S.C.R. N.S. 223 . 246 5N.S.W. L.R. 436 . 915 10 S.C.R. 15 . 629 Knox 515 . 308 3 N.S.W. L.R. 26 . 133 9 S.C.R. 184 . 595, 604 9 S.C.R. 185 . 595, 604 6 S.C.R. 78 . 71 1 S.C.R. 220 . 33, 706 1 S.C.R. 217 48 6 S.C.R. 122, 273 , 75, 688 8 S.C.R. 171 76 8 S.C.R. 71 ... 6 (Add.), 383, 653 IS.C.R. Eq. 82 ... ^ 3S.C.R. App. 1 ... 2S.C.R. Eq. 37 69, 70, 2 S.C.R. App. 22 ... ■ 417 2 Moore P.C. N.S. 125 2 Moore P.C. N.S. 100 ) 8.M.H. 6th July 1876 512 3 S.C.R. 291 , 798 2S.C.R. Eq. 89 814 L.R. 1 App. Cas. 82 228 5 S.C.R. 336, 353 107, 666 6 S.C.R. 161 (note) 27 3N.S.W. L.R. 54 469 Knox 36, 90; L.R. 4, App. Cas. 270 541, 704, 718 Paddington (Borough of) v. Municipal Council of Sydney Page V. Buchanan ... Palmer v. Whitfield ... ... Falser, Ex parte Parbury v. Purdy ... Park V. O'Donnell Parker v. Bowman ... Parley. Leistikow Parnell'sWm Parr v. Ash ... Paulu. Martindale Pawle V. Read (No. 1) V. (No. 2) Paynter, Ex parte ... Peabody v. Barron Peacock I). Hanson Pearson i;. Stevens ... Peltier?;. Darwent Pennington, Kx parte (No. 1) (No. 2) -(No. 3) V. Manby V. Pitt Penny v. Slough V. Russell (No. 1) V. (No. 2) 2 N.S.W. L.R. 235 2 S.C.R. N.S. 102 5 S.C.R. 219 7 S.C.R. 21 2 S.C.R. N.S. 71 S. M. H. ■3rd March 1876 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. 109 6 S.C.R. 101 4N.S.W.L.R. 84 2S.C.R. Eq. 87 fi^.Jf.ff. 2nd July 1876 ... 2 S.C.R. 64 8 S.C.R. 191 9 S.C.R. 103 2 S.C.R. 189 5N.S.W. L.R. 72 3 S.C.R. 191 522, 3 N.S.W. L.R. 23 9 S.C.R. 133 624, 13 S.C.R. 305 Knox 317 Knox 376 1 S.C.R. 349, 352 S.M.H. 18th March, 14th and 15th Dec. 1876 ... 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 14 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 41 5N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 80 619 104, 122 336 309 301 675, 764 887 365 116 814 68 301, 498 708 709 10, 788 871 676, 707 237 635, 771 734 737 737 351, 500 807 32, 695 909 TABLE OF CASES. Perrott, /» re Perry ■!). Hoskings V. Muir V. Towns Peters 17. Thornton Petersen 7). Prowse Phillips V. Commissioner for Railways ... ■«. M'Lachlan V. Walmsley Phillpots «. Tyrrell Pickhills J). Matthews Pierce v. Bruce Pitt D. Cobcroft Ex parte V. Jones Piatt V. Attorney-General (A. -G. v. Maclean) Pokorney, Ee Pollard, Ex parte Poole V. Biokards Potter, Ex parte V. Linden Power, Ex parte Prince v. Duncan ■ V. Kennedy . . . ■ V. Nowlan (No. 1) • V. (No. 2) • V. Oriental Bank V. The Queen Pring V. Marina Pritohard, Ex parte.. . Proudf oot V. Drake Purcell V. Baphael Purves V. Attorney-General Pyne, Ex parte CoLa.Mii. 3S.C.R. 372 220 4S.C.R. 124 284 2S.C.R. Eq. 1, 16 442,463 1 S.C.R. 73 433, 647, 679 7S.C.R. 298 680 2 S.C.R. N.S. 191 231 S.M.H. 1st & 5th Sept. 1876 745 5 N.S.W. L.R. 168 914 4 S.C.R. 202 338 13 S.C.R. 229 278, 347 2N.S.W. L.R. 79 264 3 S.C.R. 36 8 2 S.C.R. 314 328 8 S.C.R. 88 510, 546, 550 5 N.S.W. L.R. 1 909 L.R. 3 App. Cases 33 ... 311 4 N.S. W. L.R. 154 423 2 S.C.R. 192 291,669 Knox 501 302,743,851 2 N.S.W. L.R. 181 299, 306 1 S.C.R. 61 401,509,553 6 S.C.R. 351 558 4 N.S.W. L.R. 58 ... 656, 729, 791 10 S.C.R. 253; 43 L.J. P.C. 14 260 2 S.C.R. 174 19 5 S.C.R. 304 85 5 S.C.R. 310 85 L.R. 3 App. Cases323, 325... 38, 43 -S.Jlf.^. 14th Sept. 1876 ... 37 L.R. 5P.C. 1 262 5 S.C.R. 390 315 S.M.H. 8th Ua.Tch 18% ... 613 3 N.S.W. L.R. 381 463, 685 7 S.C.R. 138 713 1 S.C.R. Eq. 23, 105 ... 721 2S.C.R. Eq. 7 138,721 1 S.C.R. N.S. 14, 275 ... 560, 671 R. Radley i;. Moffat ... Ramsay v. Mayne . . . Bamsden, Ex parte . . . Banclaud v. Cox, Ex pari Rand v. Williams ... Randwick (Borough of) v. Rapley v. Martin Rattray v. Blanchard V. '■e Walmsley . ivi. of Sydney" ■ , Be Rawnsley v. Hay (Municipality) Rayuer u. Lyster TieaA, Ex parte and White, Ex parte... Readf ord. Ex parte Reay, Ex parte Redman v. Allen Reed v. Hales Regina v. Adams «. Ah Foo — V. — V. Ah On ... — V. Ahrenfeldt — V. Alcorn — V. Allen 1 S.C.R. 17, 112 129, 648 4 S.C.R. (App.) 24 364 8 S.C.R. 226 167,656 5 S.C.R. 347 378,436 Knox 350 411 2 N.S.W. L.R. 236 619 4 S.C.R. 173 836 3S.C.R. Eq. 1 689 3S.C.R. Eq. 32 699 3S.C.R. Eq. 81 699 6 S.C.R. Eq. 94 ... 645 (Add.) 6 S.C.R. Eq. 100 696 2 N.S.W. L.R. 303 738 1 N.S.W. L.R. 346 667 4S.C.R. 366 522,791 1875 Browning's Municipali- ties Act p. 168 595 Knox 26 816 Knox 152 25 .S.il/.ff. 11th March 1876 ... 602 5N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 120 ... 924 11 S.C.R. 317 541 2 S.C.R. 183 377 8 S.C.R. 343 339 1 S.C.R. N.S. 72 ... . 212 S.Jf.i?. 4th Deo. 1875 ... 210 8 S.C.R. 242 153 2 S.C.R. N.S. 271 159 11 S.C.R. 73 160 TABLE OP CASES. Regiua v. Allison ... V. Anderson... ' V. Antill V. Aria V. Arkon V. Armstrong V. Arnold — — V. Baker V. Beime V. Bertrand ... V. Bingham V. Bishop of Newcastle V. Black V. Black Bob V. Black Peter V. Boon V. Bourne ... V. Boyd, Ex parte Saville. V. Bradbury V. Brady V. Britcher ... V. Burford ... u. Burns V. Butler V. Buzzart ... V. Byrne V. Callaghan V. Carlssen ... V. Carr V. Carter V. Cecil V. Cheshire V. Chong V. Christian V. Chubb V. Clarkson ... V. Cleary V. Cobby t. Cohen V. Colan V. CoUett V. Colwell V. Combo V. Connell ... • V. Corcoran ... • V. Cousins V. Cox V. Crawshaw ' ... • V. Creed V. Critchell V. Croft V. Crookwell V. CumPatt V. Curtis • V. Daley V. Dalrymple V. Darling - V. Davis and Harris - V. Davis ■ V. Dawson ■ V. Dibbs ■ ■!>. Dickson - V, ... - V. Dillon - 0. Donohoe ■ V. Douglass COLUMll. Knox 202 ... 177 1 S.C.R. N.S. 153 ... ... 175 2S.C.R. 50 ... 202 4N.S.W. L.R. 341... ... 160 5 S.C.R. 118 ... 176 5 S.C.R. 36 ... 503 4N.S.W. L.R. 347 ... ... 161 1 S.C.R. 51 ... 203 S. M. H. 1st July 1876 ... 200 4M00.P.C.N.S. 460;L.R. 1 203, 205, 1 P.C. 520; 36 L.J. V219, 220, P.C. 51 ) 829 8.M.H. 17th March 1866 ... 218 2N.S.W. L.R. 90 ... ... 201 1 S.C.R. 262 ... 81 2S.C.R. N.S. 108 ... ... 175 1 S.C.R. N.S. 68 ... ... 181 7 S.C.R. ,120 ... 188 2 S.C.R. 207 ... 181 S.M.H. 10th June 1876 ... 182 1 S.C.R. N.S. 176 ... ...175,209 7 S.C.R. 198 ... 596, 603 Knox 162 ... 99, 476 S.U.H. 9th Dec. 1876 ... 191 5 S.C.R. 121 ... 154, 475 5 S.C.R. 115 ... 163, 365 1 S.C.R. 317 ... 191 Knox 183 ... 212 2 S.C.R. N.S. 289 ... ... 159 5N.S.W. L.R. 419... ... 877 6 S.C.R. 302 ... 348 10 S.C.R. 319 ... 182 S.M.H. 18th March 1876 ... 199 9 S.C.R. 55 ... 195 2 S.C.R. 216 ... 153 4 S.C.R. 323 ... 287 3 S.C.R. 129 ... 167, 188 11 S.C.R. 123 ... 170 8 S.C.R. 294 ... 179 2 S.C.R. 282 ... 203 2 S.C.R. N.S. 101 ... 220(Add.),510 9 S.C.R. 75 ... 184 4N.S.AV. L.R. 355... 206 (Add.), 341 3 S.C.R. 348 ... 192 1 S.C.R. N.S. 1 ... ... 162 S.M.H. 17th June 1876 ... 165, 217 7 S.C.R. 404 ... 409 Knox 91 ... 189 6 S.C.R. 139, 314 ... 163, 213, 365 4 S.C.R. 83 ... 214 4 S.C.R. 1 597,601,602,617 3 S.C.R. 189 ... 218 1 S.C.R. N.S. 257 ... ... 216 2N.S.W. L.R. 84 ... ... 148 3 S.C.R. 209 ... 171, 174 2 S.C.R. N.S. 148 ... ... 199 5 S.C.R. 119 ... 181 1 S.C.R. 239 ... 173 5 S.C.R. 340 ... 197 2 S.C.R. N.S. 151 ... ... 172 5 S.C.R. 266 ... 161 5N.S.W. L.R. 405... ... 875 1 S.C.R. 233 ... 214 1 N.S.W. L.R. 110, 208 ... 153, 149 5 S.C.R. 33 ... 157,347 1 N.S.W. L.R. 17 ... ... 100 4 S.C.R. 298 ... 177, 217 8 S.C.R. 7 356 (Add.), 784 1 S.C.R. N.S. 159 ... ... 169 1 S.C.R. 236 ... 164 4 S.C.R. 157 ... 201 TABLE OF CASES. Regina v. Doyle (No. 1 ) — V. (No. 2) V. — — (No. 3) V. Dries V. Drowit .. V. Duncan .. V. Dwyer V. Ebsworth ■ V. Eckford .. V. Eokhouse.. V. Evans V. Fell V. Finlayson V. Finn V. J? mil V. Fitzgerald, Ex parte V. Flood V. Fogg V. (the younger) V. Frew V. Furnell ... — - V. Gale V. Garbutt ... — - V. Gardner r. Garner V. Garsed V. Gell, Ex parte Asliw V. Gilkison ... V. Goodison r. Goonal Jack V. Griffin Moore orth — V. „. Haggard ... r. Hammond V. Hargraves V. Harris V. Harrison . . , V. Hart V. Hartley ... V. Hartman . . t. Harvey .. V. Hay don .. V. V. Hill and Tighe '. — V. HUl — V. Hippolite — I'. Hodge — V. Hodges ... ■;;. Home V. Hughes (No. 1) r. — (No. 2) ~ — V. Irvine -. — V. Isaacs V. Israel V. Jagelman... V. Jenkins ... ■;;. Johnson ... V. Jones V. Jordan V. Jourdam . . . V. Kennedy ... V. V. Keogh V. Kermond . . . ■ V. King . V. Kingsbury V. Knight ... V. Knowling V. Korner ... V. Launt - V. liaw ■ V. Leard - V. Lewis COLDMN. 13S.C.R. 259 ... 158 13S.C.R. 261 ... 159 2N.S.W. L.R. 107 ... ... 155 lOS.C.R. 290 ... 206, 341 IS.C.R. (App.)43 ... ... 166, 788 Knox 170 ... 202 lOS.C.R. 12 ... 194 1 S.C.R. App. 24 ... ... 156 lOS.C.R. 70 ... 158 8.M.H. 4th March 1876 ... 162, 706 1 S.C.R. App. 48 ... ... 219, 862 2S.C.R. N.S. 109 ... ... 179 3 S.C.R. 301 ... 170 1 S.C.R. N.S. 259 ... ... 216 7 S.C.R. 223 ... 601 8 S.C.R. 299 ... 174 3 S.C.R. 33 ... 178 3 S.C.R. 215 ... 201 7 S.C.R. Ill ... 165 IS.C.R. 27 ... 218 8 S.C.R. 28 ... 471 2 S.C.R. 35 ... 515 S.M.H.IixA'Dec. 1876 ... 186 IS.C.R. 137 ... 154 5 S.C.R. 78 (note) ... ... 473 6 S.C.R. 239 ... 595, 602 1 S.C.R. N.S. 157 ... ... 200 lOS.C.R. 53 ... 172 S.M.H. 10th June 1876 ... 216 lOS.C.R. 91 183,207,217 IS.C.R. N.S. 87 ... ... 150 Knox 12 ... 199 1 S.C.R. N.S. 42 ... ... 191, 833 1 S.C.R. 45 ... 169 5 S.C.R. 66 ... 471, 472 9 S.C.R. 58 ... 149 5 S.C.R. 78 (note) . . .202,424,469,473 lOS.C.R. 306 ... 205, 211 2N.S.W. L.R. 87 ... ... 195, 516 8 S.C.R. 340 ... 196 S.M.H. 10th June 1876 ... 216 11 S.C.R. 51 ... 208 IN.S.W. L.R. 201... ... 150 2 N.S.W. L.R. 194, 195 ... 175, 346 1 S.C.R. N.S. 171 ... ... 180 4 S.C.R. 83 (in notes) ... 214 4 S.C.R. App. 26 ... ... 861 2 N.S.W. L.R. 187 ... ... 172, 788 5 S.C.R. 13 ... 471 5 S.C.R. 71 ... 472 5 N.S.W. L.R. 216... ... 876 5 N.S.W. L.R. 369... ... 875 8 S.C.R. 138 ... 169 lOS.C.R. 63 ... 210 Knox 295 ... 186 6 S.C.R. 201 ... 168 Knox 170 187, 206, 340 S.M.H. 17th June 1876 ... 198 Knox 465 ... 180 3 S.C.R. 154 ... 179 lOS.C.R. 57 ... 188 1 S.C.R. N.S. 136 ... ... 190 lOS.C.R. 277 ... 198 lOS.C.R. 308 ... 212 9 S.C.R. 278 ... 147 1 S.C.R. App. 51 ... ... 472 Knox 329 ... 156 9 S.C.R. 344 ... 207, 338 4 S.C.R. 84 ... 207 9 S.C.R. 310 ... 180, 347 9 S.C.R. 131 ... 200 Knox 8 ... 340 TABLE OF CASES. Begina u. Li Chi V. Livingstone V. Loftus -■ V. Lotze V. M'Cabe V. M'Coy 0. M'Donald V. M'Kenzie ■!). M'Lellan V. Macpherson (Atty.-Gen. v. Macpherson) V. Maoquarie V. Mahomet . . . V. Harrington V. Matthews V. Meehan ... V. Mercer V. Merewether V. Merryweather V. Miller V. Mitchell ... V. Moon V. Moranda ... V. Morrison ... V. Morrow ... V. Muldoon ... V. Murphy ... V. .. V. Muston .. V. Narden .. V. Newman .. 0. Nicholson V. North V. O'Brien .. u. and Smith V. O'Cock V. O'Hearn V. Ordidge V. Packer V. Paddy ■u. Painter V. Parker V. Patterson V. Peters V. Phegan V. Phillips V. Prince V. Ramsay and Johnson V. Bawson V. Reynolds V. Rigbey V. Roberts V. Rogerson «. RoUinson V. Rosenski V. Ross V. Rothe V. Russell V. Ryan V. Sam Poo ... V. Sara V. Saunders V. Saville, Ex parte Sidney V. Scott V. Shadforth V, Shanlank V. Sharp V. Sheppard and- Stephens COIiTJMN. 2N.S.W. L.R. 189 ...163,214,377,538 S.ilf.//. 12th June 1875 ... 155 IS.C.R. 1 183 4S.C.R. 86 154 IN.S.W. L.R. 21 168 5 N.S.W. L.R. 429 877 1 S.C.R. N.S. 173 ... 191 5 N.S.W. L.R. 219 874 S'.JSf.iir. 4th Dec. 1875 204 7S.C.R.230;9S.C.R.(App.) 18;L.R.3P.C.268;6Moo. P.C. N.S. 49 100, 184 13 S.C.R. 264 185 2N.S.W. L.R. 89 150 IS.C.R. App. 11 ... 216, 2 S.C.R. 227 , 338, 502 182 8 S.C.R. 289 208 9 S.C.R. 57 199 IS.C.R. 260 83, 560 1 S.C.R. N.S. 174 477 7 S.C.R. 185 157, 347 9 S.C.R. 282 189 4 S.C.R. 19 595, 597 3 S.C.R. 152 173 IS.C.R. 322 151 11 S.C.R. 63 152 9 S.C.R. 116 194 7 S.C.R. 24; 5 M.P.C. I 200, 206, N.S. 47 f 219, 220 9S.aR. 280 . 187 12 S.C.R. 357 . 155 12 S.C.R. 160 . 150 IS.C.R. 344 . 174 7 S.C.R. 155 , 197 4 S.C.R. 14, 182 ... 134, , 600, 602 1S.C.R. N.S. 146 . 202 S.M.H. 4th Dec. 1875 . 193, 512 2 S.C.R. N.S. 281 , 181 S-.J/.S^. 16th Sept. 1876 ... 164 11 S.C.R. 264 184, 186 12 S.C.R. 352 213 3 S.C.R. 40 149, 217 S.M.H. 2nd Dec. 1876 340 9 S.C.R. 277 198 2 S.C.R. 217 177 8 S.C.R. 298 202 3 N.S.W. L.R. 455 340 3 S.C.R. 127 164 8S.C.R. 54 213 11 S.C.R. 52 262 2 S.C.R. N.S. 92 210 IN.S.W. L.R. 128 187 1 N.S.W. L.R. 129 191 2 S.C.R. 176 171 11 S.C.R. 326 423 9 S.C.R. 234 149, 210 1 N.S.W. L.R. 361 . 219 2 S.C.R. 27 178, 211 1 S.C.R. App. 43 196 12 S.C.R. 164 186 1 S.C.R. N.S. 73 171 8 S.C.R. 22 168 5 S.C.R. 25 211 S.M.H. 1st July 1876 173 4 S.C.R. 200 176 1 N.S.W. L.R. 324 . 148 8 S.C.R. 19 98 2 S.C.R. N.S. 290 . 204 5 S.C.R. 337 , 201 8 S.C.R. 301 . 193 2 S.C.R. 150 208, 338, 475 8 S.C.R. 86 209 TABLE OF CASES. Regina ?j. Shield V. Sloeman V. Smith V. Ex parte, O'Dea . . V. V. V. ■0. Solomon, Ex parte Gardiner V. Spring and Mason V. Stanley V. Storn V. Strike V. Sullivan V. Summerell V. Sweeney ... ^v. Swift V. Talbot V. Taylor ■V. Thorland u. Tupholme ■o. Thompson o. Todkill ■ V. Valentine ■ V. Waina • V. Webster -and Wells V. West u. Whitehouse V. White ■u. Wilford ... V. Willcox ... V. Williams . . . V. ... V. Willis V. Wilson V. Wright ... Reynolds v. Ferrier . . . Richards v. Whitford Richardson v. Allen Ex parte Rioketson v. Barbour V. Ex parte . . . .Rigney v. Dangar . . . Riordan v. Hellyer . . . Ritchie v. Price Roberts v. Gibbons . . . Robertson v. Bloxsome V. Day ... V. Dumaresq V. V. Healy Robey v. Adelaide Insurance Co. V. Oriental Bank Robinson v. Borough of Ashfield . Ee Rochester v. Sullivan Rodd ?;. Hiokey 5S.C.R. 213 IN.S.W. L.R. 24 ... 3 S.C.R. 350 (in notes) 6S.C.R. 259 11S.C.R. 69 1 S.C.R. N.S. 71 ... S.M.B. 4th Deo. 1875 S.M.H. 17th Sept. 1876 8 S.C.R. 30 1 S.C.R. App. 32 ... 8 S.C.R. 70 5 S.C.R. 26 1 S.C.R. 228 8S.C.R. 131 8 S.C.R. 214 8 S.C.R. 128 Knox 325 1 S.C.R. 231 9 S.C.R. 324 5N.S.W. L.R. 412... 3 S.C.R. 341 Blnox 454 2 S.C.R. 345 10 S.C.R. 113 2N.S.W. L.R. 403... 1 N.S.W. L.R. 325 ... IN.S.W. L.R. 327... 1 N.S.W. L.R. 331 ... 2 S.C.R. 69 1 N.S.W. L.R. 329 ... 2 S.C.R. 118 13S.C:R. 322, 339 ... S.M.H. 9th Dec. 1876 3S.C.R. 156 IN.S.W. L.R. 170... 1 S.C.R. N.S. 44 ... 4 S.C.R. 59 5 S.C.R. 15 12 S.C.R. 258 157, 337, 347 ... 197 ... 193 ... 602 ... 204, 339 ... 164 ... 198 ... 23, 831 ... 98, 827 ... 209 ... 74 ... 147 ... 190 ... 204 ... 209, 212 ... 839 ... 193 ... 166, 216 ... 476 ... 876 383, 512, 653 ... 214, 218 206 (Add.), 341 (Add.) 195, 199, 665 ... 196, 211 ... 195 ... 167 ... 207, 213 ... 214 ... 165 ... 22, 831 ... 149, 215 ... 151 ... 147 ... 152, 369 ... 189 ... 188, 338 ... 173 ...170, 174, 216, 227 ... 188 ... 676 ... 249 ... 250 2 S.C.R. N.S. 110 2 S.C.R. 278 3 S.C.R. 110 3 S.C.R. 294 9 S.C.R. Eq. 50; 10 S.C.R. Eq. 1 363,694,808,809 12 S.C.R. Eq. 99 398 Knox 72 257 Knox 453 633 1 S.C.R. N.S. 193 ... 253, 631, 665 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 2 ... 243 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 18 ... 879 12S.C.R. Eq. 1 813 2 S.C.R. 9 140 2S.C.R. Eq. 46 ... 9,336,413 3S.C.R. Eq. 14 845 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 67; 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 45; L.R. 6 App. Cas. 471 ... 855 4 S.C.R. 260 335 1 S.C.R. N.S. '106; L.R. 5 App. Cas. 63 244 2 Moo. P. C. N.S. 66 ... 225 4 S.C.R. (App.) 8 265 5 S.C.R. 290 386 1 S.C.R. N.S. 236 486 2 S.C.R. N.S. 56 39,267 2 S.C.R. N.S. 169 609 5 N.S.W. S.R. Eq. 77 ... 898 Knox 406 358 3S.C.R. Eq. 6 690 TABLE OP CASES. Roouey, Ex parte Rose ». Woodland Ross, Exparte V. Miller V. Orient Steam Navigation Co. Rosaiter v. Dawson V. M'Guigan Rothery v. Lomax Rouse u. Nixon Rowan, Exparte Rowley, ^a; parte Royle, Ex parte. Re Hinton Rudd r. Willans Ruddell I). M'CuUoch Rue V. Harris Rundle v. Short Rusden v. Bagnall ... ?). Elliot Ex parte ...' Russell i;. Dalton Ex parte V. Robinson... V. Bruyeres Rutherford's Will Rutter V. Eather Ryan, Exparte ... V. Lloyd ■«. Newman ... 11 S.C.R. 381 6 S.C.R. Eq. 50 1 S.C.R. N.S. 32 2 S.C.R. 329... 5 N.S.W. L.R. 30 1 S.C.R. 55 ... 1 S.C.R. 154... 59, 2 S.C.R. N.S. 95, 174 4 S.C.R. 345... Knox 321 4 N.S.W. L.R. 321 ... 5N.S.W. L.R. 468... 4 S.C.R. 165 5 N.S.W. L.R. 355... 3 N.S.W. L.R. 148... 4 N.S.W. L.R. 47 ... 5 S.C.R. 40 2 S.C.R. 325 7 S.C.R. 247 4 N.S.W. L.R. 261... 2N.S.W. L.R. 82 ... 4 S.C.R. 37 4S.C.R. Eq. 1 3 N.S.W. L.R. 176... 13 S.C.R. 147 3 S.C.R. 221 2N.S.W. L.Ev. 137... 3 N.S.W. L.R. 309... Column. ... 528 ... 357 ... 412 ... 488, 686 ... 916 383, 670, 675, 705, 729 670, 681, 787 ... 254 ... 588 ... 400 ... 650, 771 ... 596, 902 ... 27 ... 908 ... 568 ... 699 16, 252, 798 ... 687 ... 16 ... 344 ... 601 ... 275, 794 ... 650 ... 785 ... 681 ... 503 ... 406, 754 ... 281 S. S. (falsely called R.) D. R Sabine, Ee Saddington v. Byrne ... V. Farmer ... ... V. Hackett ... St. Lucia Tin Mining Co. St. Peters' (Municipality), In re. Ex parte Lenehan Salmon, Exparte ... Sandeman v. Bedwell V. V. Cohen... V. Hinton V. Lee V. Robinson ... V. Watson V. Wilson Sandersons. Smith... SavUle, Ex parte R. v. Boyd Sawtell ti. Regan ... Sawyer ?;. Golding Sayers, In re Saywell v, Hardie SeahUl v. Wren Schneider, .E'a; parte (No. 1) — (No. 2) Scholes V. Tysoe Schultz i;. Roberts Scottish Australian Mining Co. v. Garrett Seaman 17. Hargraves Seamer v. Manning ... Seivl V. Brown Sempill, Ex parte, In re Frost 7n j-e M'llveen In re Wilkinson V. Anderson V. Campbell V. — ' V. 4 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 5 .. 396 4N.S.W. L.R. 53 . 420 4 S.C.R. 27 . 388 7 S.C.R. 192 . 823 1 N.S.W. L.R. 155 . 738 13 S.C.R. Eq. 31 . 430 Ailf.ff. 8th March 1876 .. . 599 5 S.C.R. 397 . 726 2 S.C.R. N.S. 145 . 681 1 N.S.W. L.R. 10 . 466, 679 Knox 371, 496 ... 119 , 440, 466 1 N.S.W. L.R. 50 . 141 2 S.C.R. N.S. 200 . 442, 448 Knox 382 . 440 1 N.S.W. L.R. 113 . 350, 442 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 1 . 820 3 N.S.W. L.R. 31 . 558 7 S.C.R. 198 . 596, 683 3 N.S.W. L.R. 362 . 817 S.M.H. 10th Jtme 1875 .. . 532 2 S.C.R. 54 . 428 1 N.S.W. L.R. 266 . 587 6S.C.R. Eq. 38 . 804 11 S.C.R. 100 . 550, 561 11 S.C.R. 101 . 561 6 S.C.R. 208 . 52 1 S.C.R. Eq. 34 . 664, 689 14 S.C.R. 114 . 838 1 S.C.R. 78 . 310, 334 Knox 305 . 56 5N.S.W. L.R. 289 . 871 10 S.C.R. 187 . 468 10 S.C.R. 192 (in notes) . 468 5'. ilf.i/. 10th March 1875 .. . 468 4 S.C.R. (App.)20 . 451 3S.C.R. Eq. 91 . 450 6 S.C.R. Eq. 1 . 695 6S.C.R. Eq. 81 . 690 9S.C.R. Eq. 13 465, 691 TABLE OP CASES. Sempill V. Cumming V. Jarvis Lee Logan — V. M'CuUoch V, Oriental Bank ■ V. Patterson V. Rashleigh V. Vindin Serisieri). MuUer ... Sevili). Heath Sheather v. Clarence River Steam Navigation Co. Shelley ^;. Moore Shepherd, ISx parte, Dibbs V. Dibbs In re Dibbs . . . V. Goodey V. Shepherd V. St. Baker Sheppard i;. Dunn Sherwin v. Commissioner for Railways . . . Shoveller, Exparte ... V. Siddons v. New South Wales Shale Co, Sidney, Mx parte. In re Abbott ... R. V. Saville ... Sigerson, Exparte (No. 1) (No. 2) Simmons v. Starkey V. Taylor ... Simons' Wm Simpson, Ex parte V. Rodd Sims «. Sims (No. 1) V. (No. 2) V. (No. 3) 0. (No. 4) V. (No. 5) Sinclair v. Borough of Paddington V. Dixon Slapp V. Webb Sloane «. Hayes Sly «. Smith Small 1J. Madgwick Smart v. Corporation of Sydney ... Exparte V. TaweU Smidmore v. Australian Gas Co. Smith Exparte V. (jarry J). M'Quiggan V. Kearney (No. 1) V. ■ (No. 2) V. (No. 3) V. (No. 4) -V. Ogg V. Passmore V. Renwick Solomon «;. Gleadall... V. Johnston... Somers v. Fairfax . . . Sparks ^). Vickery ... Exparte Spears v. Smith Spence, Exparte Spratt, Exparte Spyer, In re (No. 1)... 128 ... . Eq. 68 Eq. 90 80 ... 391 (note) Eq. 8 306. 9 S.C.R. 6 S.C.R. 4 S.C.R. 7 S.C.R. 7 S.C.R. 10 S.C.R. 164 7 S.C.R. 68 8 S.C.R. 1 ... 4 S.C.R. 184... 7 S.C.R. 361 ... 3N.S.W. L.R. Knox 200 ... Knox 359 .., Knox 455 2 N.S.W. L.R. 4N.S.W. L.R. 357. 1 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 1 2 N.S.W. L.R. 10 ... 5S.C.R. Eq. 84 2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 4 2N.S.W. L.R. 129... Knox 486 2N.S.W. L.R. 209 ... Knox 174 3 S.C.R. 99 12 S.C.R. 364 7 S.C.R. 134 8 S.C.R. 19 ... 1 S.C.R. 30 2 S.C.R. 353 8 S.C.R. 186 11 S.C.R. 68 4S.C.R. Eq. 16 ... 8 S.C.R. 125 12 S.C.R. 286 6 S.C.R. 1 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 1 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 5 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 22 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 25 1 S.C.R. N.S. Div. 26 3 N.S.W. L.R. 324... 8 S.C.R. 58 1 S.C.R. App. 54 ... 5 N.S.W. L.R. 377 ... 1 S.C.R. 126 1 S.C.R. N.S. 251 ... 6 S.C.R. 380 6S.C.R. 188 2 S.C.R. 263 2 N.S.W. L.R. 219 ... 2 S.C.R. N.S. 286 ... 2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 1 2 S.C.R. 268 2S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 31 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 65 2N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 28 2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 49 3 S.C.R. 6 4 N.S.W. L.R. 274... 3 N.S.W. L.R. 398... 7 S.C.R. 257 6 S.C.R. 255 2 S.C.R. N.S. 140 ... 10 S.C.R. Eq. 115 ... 2 S.C.R. N.S. 218, 275 1 S.C.R. N.S. 120 ... 11 S.C.R. 48 2S.C.R. 254 6 S.C.R. 116 (note)... COLUMN. ... 297, 635 ... 444, 733 ... 443 ... 452 ... 454 ... 29 ...420,434 ... 427 ... 662 ... 420, 453 ... 858 ... 667 ... 659 ... 774 ... 585 ... 585 395 (Add.) 286, 432, 477 846 (Add.) ... 857 ... 142, 664 ... 283, 299 79, 650, 683 ... 31, 469 ... 425 ... 137 ... 98 ... 98 338, 348, 399, 509, 550 ... 505 ... 314 ... 128 ... 323 ... 300 ... 31 498, 499, 515 ... 395,397 ... 396 ... 398 ... 398 ... 396 ... 344 ... 54 ... 522 ... 897 ... 678 ... 664, 668 ... 605 ... 738 ... 106 ... 273, 684 ... 435 ... 414 ... 274 ... 346 ... 336 ... 336 ... 844 ...644, 660, 683, 828 ... 387, 388 ... 822 ... 61 ... 128 ... 275 ... 4, 580 98, 166, 423 ... 774 ... 298 ... 503, 726 ... 429 TABLE OP CASES. Spyer, /n j-e (No. 2) (No. 3) Stamps (Commissioner for), Ex parte Stenhouse v. Hardie Stephen u. Doyle V. Stallworthy Stevenson, ^K jjarie Stewart D. Caples Ex parte Stockdale 1). Hamilton Strachan «. M'Leod Street, Ex parte Stuart V. Barayene Sullivan V. Willson Ex parte Sullivan's Will Summerbell, Ex parte Swan «. Thackeray Sydney Municipal Council v. Evers ■;;. M'Beath V. M'Leay V. Toogood 6 S.C.R. 7 S.C.R, 8 S.C.R, 5 S.C.R, 3N.S.W, 2 N.S.W, 1 N.S.W 9 S.C.R. 12 S.C.R, 4 S.C.R. 5 S.C.R. 6 S.C.R. 5 N.S.W, 2 S.C.R. 2 N.S.W. L.R. 3 S.C.R. 3 N.S.W. 5 S.C.R. 10 S.C.R, 7 S.C.R 2 N.S.W. 2 N.S.W. 1 N.S.W, 3 S.C.R. . 136 (Add.), Eq. i" '..'. , Eq. 55 116.. 1 .. 97 .. 359.. L.R L.R L.R. 49 232 201 313 180 261 ■. L.R. 191 N.S. 198 ,L.R.315;4N.S.W 365 180 , L.R. 361 Eq. 20 145 Eq. 1 L.R. 151 L.R. 142 L.R. 291 89 ... 656, 127, 126, Column. 429 464 784, 785 636 459 805 25 137 793 672, 735 736 673, 736 866 377, 727 588, 631 521, 682 729, 791 860 778 349, 699 612, 683 612, 683 616 616 Talbett w. Chrystall Talbott u. Cunningham Tate i>. Goodlet Taylor v. Bank of New South Wales Exparte Teas u. Kennedy •«. Teas Terry u. Tindale ...^ Thackeray, Exparte Thomas, Ex paj-te Thomson v. Commissioner for Railways Thompson «. De Lissa V. Exparte V. Hood V. Thompson Thorn J). Berryman Thome «. Hood Thorold t>. Miller Threlkeld, In re. Ex parte Union Bank Throsby v. Keighran Throsby's Trusts Thurlow u. Scotland Thurston u. Hatley Tinsley t). Cook Tobin u. City Bank TomlinaoTi, Ex parte Tonkin, Exparte ... ... Toohey «. Commissioner for Railways Tooth u. Macleay Tomaghi «. Bacon Towns V. Australasian Steam Navigation Co. ... Tranter, Exparte ... Treeve «. Glass Trice v. Clarence and Richmond River S.N. Co. Trimble «. Hill Trotter I). Bepnett Trudgeon's Will Tuck 1). Brown ... ... ... Tucker i;. Duncan V. Godfrey V. Graham ... TuUyi;. Dibbs 1 S.C.R. 86 ... 3 S.C.R. Eq. 8, 64 3 S.C.R. 12 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 25 7 S.C.R. 407 1 S.C.R. N.S. 58 ... 2N.S.W. L.R. 55 ... 14 S.C.B. 61 3 N.S.W. L.R. 444 ... 13 S.C.R. 1,250 ... 2 N.S.W. L.R. 39 ... 2 S.C.R. 292; 3 S.C.R. 12 ... 626, 665 2 N.S.W. L.R. 165... 68 (Add.,) 493 2 S.C.R. 358... 526 5 N.S.W. L.R. 202 ...881,882,907,922 ...287,300,671,801 693, 824 664 ... 912 ... 618 ... 24 ... 632 ... 395, 665 ... 518 82 (Add.), 552 239 2S.C.R. 242. 3S.C.R. 124 4N.S.W. L.R. 339... 3 S.C.R. 223 6 S.C.R. 119; 7 S.C.R. 123 Knox 141 7 S.C.R. Eq. 10 ... 5 S.C.R. 316 10 S.C.R. 173 2N.S.W. L.R. 363... 1 S.C.R. N.S. 267 .. 1 S.C.R. N.S. 235 .. Knox 362 4N,S.W. L.R. 102.. 2S.C.R. Eq. 17 .. 12 S.C.R. 144 11 S.C.R. 296 7 S.C.R. 213 7 S.C.R. 399 5N.S.W. L.R. 137.. 51, 686 687 299 664 421, 428 ... 587 ... 813 ... 267 ... 274 ... 306, 767 38, 259, 278 ... 24 ... 256 ... 636, 796 347, 699, 824 ... 566 ... 760 179, 553, 670 ... 113 ... 903 Knox 405, 472 ; L.E. 5 App. 342 3 N.S.W. L.R. 3 N.S.W. L.R. 3 N.S.W. L.R. 5 S.C.R. 198 ... 1 S.C.R. 292... 8 S.C.R. 341... 2 S.C.R. 350... 161,.. Eq. 22 339... 305, 375, 376 342 318 702 260 102 140 49 xxxiv TABLE OF CASES. Tupholme v. The Queen (reported as R. v. Tupholme) Turner J). Lance ». Nicholson... 1). Walsh V. Wright Twaddell ?). Driver Tyson i;. M'Evoy U. Underwood ?;. Underwood Union Bank, Ms parte. In re Threlkeld . Unwin, /» re Usher's Will Vann v. Bubb Vickery w. Marr ... Vidler ^>. Sallaway Vindin v. Borough of West Maitland Virgoe «. Cook ... Vivers 5). Tuck Von Meyer v. Taylor Wagga Wagga Bridge Co. v. HoUoway ... Wakeford v. Commissioner for Railways Wakely i;. Lackey Waldie v. Mackenzie Waldron, Ex parte Walker ?;. Buchanan D. Cargill Wallack 1J. A'Teak Wallis ?;. Wallis Walmsley Ex parte, Ranclaud v. Cox . . . ■!;. Mackenzie Walsh D. Kinnear ... 'sWill Want w. Bennett V. Milne, Ex parte Forsyth Waratah Municipality v. Waratah Coal Co. Warby and Rose, Be Ward, ^ parte Warner I). Fischer ... Waterhouse, .Ks parte Waterloo (Municipality of) v. Hinchcliffe Waterson I!. Barclay Watkin V. Crisford Watkins t). Lestrange Watson V. Noake, O'Brien v. Watson . . . Inre WaAt, Ex parte W. ■ V. Union Insurance Co. Waugh V. Watson . . . Weatherup v. Decaux Webb, Ex parte V, Humphrey 1;. Wilton Webster v. Power . . . Welch, Ex parte Wentworth v. Gumer COIUMS. 3S.C.R. 341...- ... 383, 512, 653 2S.C.R. 159 140 IS.C.R. 171n. (a) ... 291, 549, 827 1 N.S.W. L.R. 83; L.R. ^App. Cas. 636 258, 837 2S.C.R. Eq. 9 700 Knox 459 17, 383 3S.C.R. 359 15, 717 1 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 16 ... 313, 856 6S.C.R. 119; 7S.C.R. 123 421, 428 lOS.C.R. 183 . 467, 833 4S.C.R. Eq. 86 858 11 S.C.R. 268 330 4S.C.R. Eq. 66 315, 636 5 S.C.R. 202 316, , 384, 636 IS.C.R. 246 48, 632 7 S.C.R. 215 684 3 N.S.W. L.R. 102 . 767 4 S.C.R. (App.)14; 1 Moo. P.C.N.S. 516 123, 649 12 S.C.R. 252 131, 353 10 S.C.R. 338 . 368 2 N.S.W. L.R. 258 , 268 IN.S.W. L.R. 274 . 381 1 N.S.W. L.R. 31 . 544 9 S.C.R. 329... , 515 3 S.C.R. 126 . 140 5 N.S.W. L.R. 243 . 920 3 S.C.R. 20 51 5 N.S.W. L.R. Div. 19 .. . 891 5 S.C.R. 347 . 378, 436 7 S.C.R. 58 . 437 8.M.H. 23rd Sept. 1876 .. . 122 4 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 1 . 320 2 S.C.R. N.S. 186; 311 .. . 701, 716 11 S.C.R. 49 . 500 2S.C.R. N.S. 167 . 619 4 S.C.R. 302 . 12 S.M.H. 16th Dec. 1876 .. . 568 13 S.C.R. 346 . 354 2 S.C.R. N.S. 194 . 779 5 S.C.R. 273... 316,384 I, 611, 677 3 S.C.R. 14 . 387 4N.S.W. L.R. 132 . 712 2S.C.R. Eq. 85 . 401 12 S.C.R. 334 . 378 IN.S.W. L.R. 13 . 596 IS.C.R. (App.)28 . 74 1 S.C.R. N.S. 24 . 614, 840 5N.S.W. L.R. 48 . 895 2N.S.W. L.R. 1 . 279 4 N.S.W. L.R. 254 . 685 2 S.C.R. N.S. 180 . 852 S.M.H. 27th March 1876 .. . 508 6 S.C.R. 361 .436,477 6 S.C.R. 374 ,. 477 5Moo. P.C.N.S. 92 .. 573 1 N.S.W. L.R. 254 ,. 503, 610 IS.C.R. Eq. 43 . 699 2 S.C.R. Eq. 105; 3 S.C.B Eq. 22 ''. 808 TABLE OF CASES. Westgarth t). Murnin Whelaja, Ex parte Whicker iJ. Hume ... Whitcombe, Ex parte, In Re Lakeman . White V. Bank of New South Wales V.Davis ... V. M'Donald Whitehead's Will Whiting V. Bennett, Ex parte Whiting w. Throsby Whyte V. Brown V. Cargill V. Bank of New South Wales Wichern v. Davidson WUkie ?;. Fattorini Wilkins i;. Oriental Bank Willans, Ex parte ... Williams w. Burley ... i". Byrnes Williams, Ex parte Williamson, ^e, Ex parte Fitzpatrick Willis, Ex parte ... Willshire i). Hood Wilson 17. Joshua V. M'Bean V. O'Connel V. Smith Wise V. Heggarty Wolfe u. Blick Wolf skehl u. Mitchell Woods' Estate V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. Woodford, ^a; parte Woodward, Ex parte V. York Woolf t;. Towns Woolfe i;. Burke WooUard, Ex parte WooUey, Ex parte ... "Wotonga,"The Wright V. Commissioner for E.ailways V. Kelly Wyld i;. Caldwell COLUMW. r2S.C.R. 1 276,794 11 S.C.R. 88 ... 668 (Add.), 817 L.R. 7 H.L. 124; 28 L.J. Bq. 396 788 3 N.S. W. L.R. 142 601, 604 I S.C.R. 159 305 5 N.S.W. L.R. 96 II S.C.R. 332 345,532 3 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 21 ... 322 1 S.C.R. N.S. 162 295 11 S.C.R. 134 378 3S.C.R. Eq. 21 99 2 S.C.R. 171 19 2 S.C.R. 17 36, 347 11 S.C.R. 129 329, 567 1 S.C.R. Eq. 32 416, 688 5 N.S.W. L.R. 208 908 8 S.C.R. 355 97 5 S.C.R. 206 59 2 S.C.R. (App.)26;3S.C.R. (App.) 14; 1 Moo. P.O. N.S. 154 ... 6,111,133,385 S.M.ff. 25th March 1876 ... 510, 561 462, 470 842 259 49 139, 410 66 30 648 121, 305 3 N.S.W. L.R. 149 . 12 S.C.R. 312 4 N.S.W. L.R. 313 . 6 S.C.R. 319... 7 S.C.R. 103... 4 S.C.R. 264... 1 N.S.W. L.R. 310 . 2S.C.R. Eq. 95 4 S.C.R. 61 8 S.C.R. 221; 8 S.C.R.Eq.22 319, 324 Wyse V. Heggarty .. 9 S.C.R. 269 1 S.C.R. N.S. 91 ... 4 S.C.R. 265 12 S.C.R. 139 (in notes) 12 S.C.R. 347 1 S.C.R. N.S. 242 ... 4 S.C.R. 29 2N.S.W. L.R. 51 ... 9 S.C.R. 305 2 N.S.W. L.R. Adm. 5 12 S.C.R. 5 5 N.S.W. L.R. 297... 8S.C.R. Eq. 36 9 S.C.R. Eq. 62 2 S.C.R. Bq. 95 3 S.C.R. 175... 5 S.C.R. Eq. 84 362 ... 661 ... 763 566 (Add.) ... 402, 540 ... 376 ... 130 ... 516 ... 527 ... 776 ... 80, 731 ... 872 46, 420, 446 392 648 ...296,298,646,648 690 Y. Yates V. Dubbo (Municipality) Yeo V. Rotton Yeomans, Ex parte York i;. Nicholson ... Younger, A; parte 3 N.S.W. L.R. 315 . 4 S.C.R. Eq. 110 8 S.C.R. 93 ... 7 S.C.R. 99 ... 1 S.C.R. App. 30 . 343, 610, 668 ... 809 ... 294 ... 332, 522 ... 507, 509 Z. Zeplin V. North-German Insurance Co. V. Zimmler v. Manning 1 N.S.W. L.R. 204 . 1 N.S.W. L.R. 321 . 2 S.C.R. 235 3 S.C.R. 319... ... 141 ... 545 ... 681, 797 ... 67, 668 ADDENDA AOT) COEEIGENDA. COL. 5. After "Galloway v. Mohhs, 11 S.C.R., Eq. 36," add " Gollman v. Druitt, 2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 74, col. 811." 6. After "Kerr v. Dickinson, 7 S.C.R. Eq. 12," acZci "Dickson's Will, 2S.C.R. Eq. 93, col. 361." 6. Under head of "Advertisement," add "Reward advertised hy Oovernment,] — Orr v. The Queen, 8 S.C.R. 71, col. 653." 10. Under " Appkentices Acts," add "5 W. IV. No. 3; 14 Vict. No. 29; 15 Vict. No. 2." 23. Under "Assessment op Runs Act," after "See Money Counts" add " under Pkactice and Pleading, col. 676." 46. Line 3, to "A. J. S. BanJc v. Oriental Sank, 5 S.C.R. 129," add "Hargan v. Kennedy, (innotis)." 66. Under Registration, after "Hammond -7. Oourlay, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 142," add " Descrip- tion— Hesidence.]— Cohen V. Slade, 12 S.C.R. 88, col. 438." 68. Line 8, after "Parr v. Ash, S.M.ff. 2nd July 1816," add "Collusive Bill of Sale.]— Bumphery V. Roberts, 6 S.C.R. 214, col. 445." " Unregistered Bill of Sale — Actiial Possession good against Official Assignee.] — Brown V. M'Kenzie, 10 S.C.R. 302, col. 437." "Mights of Holder against Official Assignee.] — Mackenziey. Williams, 11 S.C.R. 178, col. 438." "Fraudulent Preference.] — Lyons v. Cohen, Knox 92, col. 457." "Priority over Ji. fa.]— Thompson v. De Lissa, 2 N.S.W. L.R. 165, col. 493." "Sale to Sureties of Cash Ci-edii.] — Lyons v. Bank of New South Wales, 3 N.S.W. L.R. 385, col. 458." 70. Line 6, after "2 Moore B.C. N.S. 125," add "3 S.C.R. (App.) 1." 80. After "Cemeteries," add "Census Act, 44 Vict. No. 2." 80. After "Certificate," a(?(^ "Certiorari — See Writ, col. 861." 81. Under "Church — Clergy and School Lands Act, &c.," add "Attorney-General v. Eagar, 3 S.C.R. 234, col. 225." 82. Under " Church," after cases add " Church Discipline — Prohibition to Bishop for inhibiting Priest.]— Ex parte Thackeray, 13 S.C.R. 1, 250; see Mandamus and Prohibition, col. 552." 100. To " E. V. Macpherson" add references " 6 Moo. P.C. N.S. 49; 9 S.C.R. App. 18." 111. Line 31, at commencement add " Williams v. Byrnes." Lines 31, 32, for "See also 2 S.C.R. 183 and 2 S.C.R. Eq. 37," read "9 Jur. N.S. 363." 133. After "Blackv. Bayley, 8 S.CR. 382," add "Morse v. A. S. N. Co., 9 S.C.R. 81, col. 720." 134. Mtev " Ex parte Nelson, 10 S.C.R. 182," add " Ex parte Evans, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 152, col. 548." 136. After " Broughtonw. Vincent, 4 N.S.W. LR. 59," add " Costs of Appeal from Assessment of Stamp Duty.]— Ex parte Commissioner for Stamps, 8 S.C.R. 97, col. 785." ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. xxxix COL. 137. After " Lane v. Mayor ofOoulbum, 10 S.C.R. 108," add " Burt v. Ooyder {in notis)." 138. After "Dightv. Gordon, 3 S.C.R. Eq. 62," add "Dixon v. Williams, 13 S.C.R. Eq. 7 col. 696." ^ 143. After "Barry v. Thurlow, 2 S.C.R. Eq. 99," add " Eno v. Davies, i N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 37, col. 695." 180. After " R. v. HippolUe, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 171," a(Z(i "And see Evidence." 206. After " E. v. Dries, 10 S.C.R. 290," add " R. v. TodMi, 2 S.C.R. 345, Jm/ra, col. 341 (Add.)" " Wife of Aboriginal.]— S. v. Cobby, 4 N.S.W. L.R. 355, col. 341." 220. After " In re Perrott, 3 S.C.R. 372," add " Bail on Committal— In Capital Cases.]— R. v. Clarkson, 2 S.C.R. N.S. 101, col. 510." 222. Line 2 from bottom, add "Amended by 45 Vict. No. 26." 228. Lines 4 and 5 for " Drinhwater v. Arthur, 10 S.C.R. 193," read " ChisholmY. Macaulay, 7 S.C.R. 312." 228. After the preceding addendum, add "Conditional Purchase by Infant — Abandonment.] — A father applied, under the 13th section of the Crown Lands Alienation Act of 1861, for the conditional purchase of forty acres of Crown lands selected by him in the name of his son, an infant of three-and-a-half years of age, and the son was declared the conditional purchaser: — Held (Stephen C.J. dissentietite), that such selection and purchase were valid. The question what constitutes ' bond fide residence ' and ' occupation of conditionally purchased lands,' under the 18th section of the A.ct, considered. Also, the question what constitutes ' abandonment' of such lands, and how the satisfaction of the Governor and Executive Council as to such abandonment is to be proved, and what course the Government should pursue under the 20th section of the Act in declaring them forfeited, considered. Drinhwater v. Arthur, 10 S.C.R. 193." 229. Line 4, for " 2 S.C.R. N.S..Eq. 13," read " 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 17." Line 5, add " But see sec. 9 of 39 Vict. No. 13." 239. Line 9 from bottom, for " 159 " read " 153." 243. After " Ricketson v. Barbour," add "Affirmed on appeal, 5 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 18; post, col. 879." 250. For " Blackham v. Mylecharane," read " Blackman v. Mylecharane." 278. The end of column. The reference of Tobin v. City Bank is 1 S.C.R., N.S. 267. 310. After *' Dunn v. Lowe, S.M.H. 1st September 1876," add "Judge cannot give Costs where no Jurisdiction.] — Ex parte Charlton, & S.C.R. 158, col. 295." 322. Line 8 at end, add "3." After "Blackwood [in the Goods of)," for "2 N.S.W. L.K. 83," read "2 N.S.W. L.R. Eq. 83." 323. Line 2, for " 8 S.C.R. Eq. 227 " read "8 S.C.R. 227." 328. Line 2, for " 1 S.C.R. 12 " read " 1 S.C.R. 127." 332. After "CampbdlY. Ileagh, 7 S.C.R. 217," add " Release from Sequestration.]— Johnston V. Riley, 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 1." 340. Line 3, for " Cuddy," read "Paddy." 340. "R. V. Peters," add reference "3 N.S.W. L.R. 455." 341. Line 5, add " Wife of One of Two Prisoners.]— A. and B. were indicted for robbery, and severed in their challenges:— Held, that on the trial of A., who was first tried alone, the wife of B. was a competent witness. R. v. Todkill, 2 S.C.R. 345." 341. Line 21, for " Coby," read " Cobby." 355. Under "Executive Councillors," add " Bullen v. a'Beckett, 1 Moo. P.C. N.S. 123, cols. 732, 743." 356. After "In the Goods of Murphy, 6 S.C.R. Eq. 63," add "Duties of Administrator as to Real Estate— Stamp Duty Account.]— R. v. Dickson, 8 S.C.R. 7, col. 784." 360. Attorney-General v. Reddy, reference, for " 82 " read " 87." 374. After " Dines v. Rossitur, 3 S.C.R. 29," add " Armstrong v. O'Brien {in Aotis)." 377. After " R. v. Li Chi, 2 N.S.W. L.R. 189," add " And see Vagrant." 388. Under "Habeas Cobpus," add "Ex parte Andrews, 10 S.C.R. 172, col. 816." 395. After line 5, add " Practice— Filing AJidavit.— Petition not Accepted— Rides 1 n, 5 S.C.R. 216," add "Breach of Trust by Widow— Appropriation by Second Husband— Devastavit.]— W . S., by his will, declared "My will and meanmg is that my wife shall, during the term of her natural life, be and remam m possession of all my household goods, &c. ; and that the remaining personal property— such as money— shall be for her use and benefit, and for the purpose of maintammg my eight chUdren so far as the same will go." He also devised his real property upon certain trusts to his wife, whom he appointed his executrix and trustee and guardian of his children. His widow entered on the trusts, and afterwards intermarried with T B G without settlement. A sum of money, the produce of W. S.'s estate, and which since his death, stood in the bank in the name of his widow, was, after her second marriage, drawn out by her and handed to her husband, who applied it to his own use withSut giving any security for its repayment The children had always been properly maintained by Mrs. G. since the testator's death :— Held, that the said sum was part of the testator's personal assets, and subject to the trusts of his will, and that T B G and wife— the former having constructive notice ot these trusts- had in respect thereof committed a devastavit and breach of trust respectively ; and T B 6 was decreed to refund the money, allowance being made for any outlay by him out of that particular fund in the improvement of the trust property. SMpherd V. Goodey, 5 S.C.R. Eq. 84." 856. Line 6, add " AttomeyOeneraly. Chisholm, ib. p. 6." LIST OF ABBEEVIATIONS. S.C.R Supreme Court Reports. /•^^ /^^^^ S.C.R. N.S. ... Supreme Court Reports— New Series. 2 ^^^ N.S.W. L.R. ... New South Wales Law Reports. >5~3^^^ Knox Knox's Supreme Court Cases. / /'"''l L.R. Law Reports. L.J Law Journal Reports. L.T Law Times. Moo. P.C.C. ... Moore's Privy Council Cases. S.M.H, Sydney Morning Herald, S.C Same Case. Wilk. ... ... Wilkinson's Australian Magistrate. (Add.) Addenda and Corrigenda. 2)iQe8t OP REPORTED CASES, SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES, FROM 1862-1883 INCLUSIVE. With Refekences to the Pkincipal Colonial Stattjies. ABATEMENT OF SUIT— See Practice. ABDUCTION— See Cbiminal Law. ABORIGINALS. Statute.]— SI Yict. No. 16. ABSENT DEFENDANTS— 5'ee Garnishee. ACCIDENT— 5ee Neglibence. Statute.]— U Vict. No. 32. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION— iSfee Prac- tice AND Pleading. ACCOUNT. Trustee — Release — UndiieinfliKiice.] — A. B., a few months after coming of age, signed a settlement of account with C. D., the sur- viving executor, and guardian trustee ap- pointed by her father's will, and gave him a. release. Held, imder circumstances involving suspicion that A. B. was subjected to undue influence and ignorant of her rights, that the settlement of accounts and release were void. The result of this decision involving an account against the executors of the father of A. B., and no representative of the deceased executor being before the Court, the cause at the hearing was ordered to stand over, and leave was given to amend the bill by adding proper parties with apt words to charge them. The bill was amended accordingly, making B. F. the represen- tative of the deceased executor, a party, and praying an account; all the defendants were served with the amended bill, but no answers were required, and a replication was filed. On the cause again coming on — Held, notwith- standing the replication, that the evidence recently taken in the suit could be used against all the defendants except E. F.; and E. F. con- senting to an account, a decree was made accord- ingly. The English Rules of 1845, whereby only one replication is to be filed in the suit, are not in force in this colony. Moore v. Curtis; Moore v. Hyland, \ S.C.R., Eq. 1, 57. Deduction of Costs.] — By a marriage settle- ment, made in 1851, and a subsequent post-nup- tial settlement, of both 'of which D. and Du M. were made trustees, J. B., the wife, had an absolute power of appointment over the whole property, by writing or will, with a trust, in default of appointment, for her children. In 1862-3 sundry dealings with the trust pro- perty took place, with J. B.'s consent, a portion being applied in payment of the debts of R. B., her husband, who was seriously embarrassed. In 1865, R. B.'s embarrassments increasing, J, B., being in great distress of mind, applied to her trustees for more money. On their refusal, she sent for H., her husband's solicitor, not hitherto acting in such capacity for her ; who (after applying to D. to advance money to J. B., and being refused), on per- usal of the settlements, advanced her between £400 and £500, receiving from her a promissory note, and an order on her trustees, in ACCOUNT. effect an execution of the power of appoint- ment, for £700, the difference being the amount of H.'s costs, due some time befoi'e from R. B., for which H. stipulated in making the advance. Three further loans, amounting to £1600, were made in a similar manner by H. to J. B. within the ensuing five months, large sums being deducted for interest and com- mission. In March, 1866, J. B. assigned by deed her whole trust property, valued at £4200, to H., H. executing a deed declaring a trust of the residue as J. B. should appoint, after deducting £1600 and costs already due or to grow due from J. B. or R. B., or to be in- curred in the contemplated suit, or in recovery of the trust property. H. and J. B. (by H.'s son, her next friend, who so acted on the refusal of friends to whom J. B. had applied) filed a bill on 20th April, 1866, against D., Du M., and R. B., for a transfer of the trust pro- perty and on account. In January, 1867, a decree was made, ordering an inquiry as to transactions between H. and J. R In June, 1867, while the inquiry was pending, J. B. died. The declaration of trust was not pro- duced in evidence by H. till after her death. On the inquiry H. proved the payment of the advances, but produced no vouchers beyond J. B.'s acknowledgments. J. B. did not dispute the payments, but was unable to prove the exact amounts. In December, 1869, Har- grave, J., made a decree on further directions dismissing the biU, with costs. On appeal :— Held, by Stephen, C.J., and Faucett, J., that H. was entitled to a decree for an account; by Hargrave, J., that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, without preju- dice to any future proceedings by H. ; Stephen, C.J., being of opinion that H. was entitled to be repaid his actual advances, with eight per cent, interest, the conveyance and trust deed standing as security to him to that extent, and beyond that (after deducting such costs as H. should reasonably incur or have incurred in the execution or for the purposes of the trust), for the benefit of J. B.'s personal representative; Faucett, J., thinking the trustees were not justified in opposing the bill after the produc- tion of the declaration of trust, and that H. ought> pay all the costs in the Master's office up to the time of such production. Hdlyer v. JOruitt (No. 2), 10 S.C.R., Eq. 15. Second Mortgage — Notice — Confusion. ] — L. mortgaged stations and specific sheep, their increase and progeny, to S., with covenant by L. to maintain the said sheep in due proportions of sexes and ages, and keep them on the said stations. L. afterwards mortgaged the same stations and stock, amongst others, to M. and y. — the mortgage deed expressly excepting S.'s security. L. afterwards obtained a loan from v., who took a mortgage over the pro- perty mortgaged to M. and Y., with express notice of such mortgage, but not of the mortgage to S., V. paying off M. and Y.'s mortgage, and becoming sole mortgagee. On bUl by S. against L. and V., for delivery of possession and account, V. not disputing S.'s right to the stations included in his mortgage : — Held, that the fact that L. had not separated and kept distinct the sheep included in S.'s security could not be taken advantage of by V. (though the bill set up no case of confu- sion). Decree for account of sheep since date of taking possession by V., plaintiff consenting to take account as from such date. — Held, also, that recital in mortgage to M. and Y. was notice to V. of S.'s mortgage. Sparks v. Vkhery, 10 S.C.R., Eq. 115. Agent under Power of Attorney. '[—'&\!i\. by G. against J. M. and A. M. (wife of J. M.), praying — (1), an account of moneys alleged to have been advanced by G. to A. M. (while managing her husband's business under a power of attorney executed by him), and alleged to be secured by promissory notes signed with A. M.'s mark; (2), that certain real property — conveyed by J. M. to G. (before the making of such promissory notes, but after some of the advances alleged to be the consideration therefor), to such uses as A. M. should by deed or will appoint, in default of appointment to the use of G. and his heirs in trust for A. M.'s separate estate for her life, and after her death to the use of her heirs and assigns — might be declared charged with the amount to be found due on the said promissory notes ; (3), that A. M. might be decreed to execute a legal mortgage of such real property to secure such amount with interest. —Dismissed with costs by Hargrave, P. J., on denial by A. M. in her answer and in evidence, of advance of moneys by G,, and on evidence generally. 5 ADVANCEMENT— ADVERTISEMENT. On appeal:— Held, by Stephen, C.J. (Cheeke, J., concurring), that the evidence was satisfac- tory in support of the bill, and that plaintiff was entitled to a decree, with all costs, for an account and for payment of the amount to be found due out of the rents and profits of A. il.'s life estate (only); A. M. to execute a mortgage. Hargrave, P. J. , holding to the decision appealed against, but expressing his willingness to suspend judgment on the appeal for six mouths, with liberty to plaintiff to bring an action at law against defendants, or either of them, on all or any of the promissory notes ; A. M. to be restrained from pleading coverture ; in default of plaintiff's bringing any action, de- fendants to have liberty to proceed in detinue for the deeds of the real property, or otherwise, against plaintiff. Oalloway v. Mohbs, 11 S.C.R., Eq. 36. ACCOUNTS — See Executors and Adminis- TEATORS. ACTS SHORTENING ACTS. 16 Vict. No. 1. 22 Vict. No. 12. 24 Vict. No. 17. AD EUNDEM DEGREES ACT— 44 Vict. No. 22. ADMINISTRATION— See Executors and Adsiinistkators — Ecclesiastical I.AW — Will. ADMIRALTY— See Shipping. ADULTERATION ACTS. Of Bread.]— 6 WUl. IV. No. 1, Of Malt Liquora-^-li Vict. No. 4. •0/SpJn«s.— 19 Vict. No. 19. Of Food, etc.]— 42 Vict. No. 14. ADVANCEMENT. To Daughter.] — The wife of the defendant had purchased certain Crown lands in the name of her daughter, one of the plaintiffs, to whom a grant of the same was afterwards issued. The daughter subsequently transferred the land in fee to the defendant, her stepfather. After the daughter's marriage, she and her husband filed a bill, praying that the defendant might be declared a trustee for them of the land, and be ordered to transfer it or to pay the consideration mentioned in the transfer. — Under the circum- stances of the case, bill dismissed with costs, it not appearing that the purchase had been made with the daughter's moneys, or intended as an advancement for her. Kerr v. Dickinson, 7 S.C.R., Eq. 12. ADVERTISEMENT. Advertisement not a. contract within the Statute of Frauds ; common law liability of advertiser. Williams v. Byrnes, 3 S.C.R., App. 17. See Contract. AFFIDAVITS— /See Arrest- Practice, &c. AGENT— -See Principal and Agent. AGREEMENT. Topay Debt of Third Parly.]— SeeGxjAUANTiiE. Specific Performance.] — See Contract. Validity and Legality.] — See Contract, Of Guaraniie.]—See Guarantee. Letting Homes or Lands.] — See Landlord AND Tenajst. For Carrying Goods.] — .See Carrier. Of Personal Service.]— See Master and Ser- vant. Under Seal.]— See Covenant. Oh Sale of Goods.] — See Sale. ANIMALS. 8 On Sale of Lands.} — See Vendor and PURCHASEE. Stamping.] — See Stamp Act. AIR— See Easement. ALDERMAN— See Municipalities. ALIEN — See Practice (Jury). ALIMONY— See Husband and Wipe. AMENDMENT— /See Practice and Pleading. ANIMALS. I. Scab Act of 1863 (27 Vict. No. 3). II. Cattle Diseases Act (24 Vict. No. 11). III. Cruelty to Animals Act (14 Vict. No. 40). IV. Dog Acts (6 W. IV. No. 4; 39 Viet. No. 6). V. Cattle Driving Act (16 Vict. No. 23)— 5'ee Municipalities (By-laws). For List of Statutes.] — See Diseases. L Scab Act of 1863. Sec. 27 & 28— Permit and Certificate.]— The'TJtii section of the Scab in Sheep Act of 1863 provides that nosheepshall bebrought across the boundary from any adjoining colony until the owner shall have obtained from some inspector a certificate, &c. The 28th section enacts that as soon as any sheep shall have passed any such boundary the owner shall obtain from the inspector " in addition to the certificate aforesaid a permit in writing, &c.'' A. had brought sheep across the boundary from Victoria without having obtained a certificate under the 27th section, and had been prosecuted and fined therefor. He was now proceeded againet for not having obtained the permit after passing the boundary in accor- dance with the 28th section: — Held (Faucett, J., dissentiente) on motion for prohibition, that the provisions of the 28th section were ap- plicable to sheep illegally brought over the border without a certificate, as well as to those in respect of which a certificate had been obtained. The defendant having by his own fault failed to obtain a certificate was not thereby relieved from the necessity of obtaining the permit. Me parte Oreen, 5 S.C.R. 112. II. Cattle Diseases Act. lUegal Seizure.] — An inspector of cattle appointed under the provisions of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act (24 Vict. No. 11) has no power, under the fourth section of the Act, to seize hoi'ned cattle introduced into the colony, even though they may have been introduced contrary to the proclamations or regulations established in pursuance of the Act. Pierce v. Bruce, 3 S.C.R. 36. III. Cruelty to Animals Act. Animal dying of Stai-vation after Sale — Liability of Seller.] — The defendant was convicted under the Cruelty to Animals Act (14 Vict. No. 40) of ill-using a calf by neglecting to provide it with proper sustenance. It appeared that the calf had been sent by steamer to the defendant, and was landed on a wharf, where it remained seventeen days without food, and died of star- vation. The defence was that the defendant had, immediately after its being landed, sold the calf to a butcher : — Held, on motion for a prohibition, that as the property in the calf had passed from the defendant, he was not bound to feed it, and therefore not liable under the Act. Per Martin, C. J., that even if the property had not passed by the sale, the de- fendant would not be Kable under the Act, if he really believed that the property had passed, and thought that the caU was on the wharf at the purchaser's risk. Ex parte Foley (8. M. H., 6th March, 1875), Wilk. (4th Ed.) 745. IV. Dog Acts. Liahility of Keeper of Dog— Scienter.] — In an action for damages for the worrying of plaintiffs sheep by dogs kept on the defendant's premises, ANNUITY— ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 10 it was proved that the defendant was not the owner of the dogs, but that one belonged to his brother, and had been lent to him as a watch- dog, and the other was the property of one of the defendant's men. The District Court Judge held that the case was governed by the 10th section of the Act 6 Will. IV. No. 4, and the 9th section of the Act 39 Vict. No. 6, and that the defendant was liable : — Held, on appeal, that the judge was right. Jackson v. Croft, 2 S.C.R. N.S. 295. Penalty and Damages — Amendment. "l — Sec. 4 of the Dog Registration Act (6 WUl. IV. No. 4) provides that the owner or keeper of a dog which attacks persons or property in a street is to be fined . . . "not less than £1, over and above the amount of damage sustained." Held, that this section gives no power to justices to award damages. The meaning of it is that the penalty is to be independent of any proceeding for damages that may exist. Where justices awarded damages, together with a fine, the conviction was held to be bad. The court, however, amended the conviction by striking out the adjudication of damages. Ex parte Hartmann (S.M.H,, 11th December, 1875), Wilk. (4th Ed.) 163. capacity of one of settlor's executors. The cestui que trust was xmder age at date of suit. Knox V. M'Donald, 10 S.C.R., Eq. 110. ANNUITY. Power of Sale of Infants' Estate — Evidence of Marriage and Descent.'] — In suit for arrears of annuity payable out of rents of infants' estate, the Court has power to decree sale for such payment and for costs, there being no other funds. In questions of pedigree, declaration by members of the family admissible only ante litem motam. Purchaser entitled to have such muniments as are necessary to protect his title against all the world. Evidence of birth and marriage. Sior- dan V. Hdlyer, 2 S.C.R., Eq. 46. Arrears — Interest — Costs.'] — In suit by execu- tor of trustee of marriage settlement against executors of settlor ; arrears of annuity coven- anted to be paid by settlor, decreed not to bear interest ; a sum payable on settlor's death to bear interest at five per cent. — an arrangement that such sum should remain out at call on such interest having shortly after settlor's death been joined in by plaintiff, then acting in ANSWER— 5'ee Practice and Pleading (Equity). APPEAL. To Privy Council.] — See Privy Council. To Full Court.] — iSee Practice — New Trial. Equity Appeals.] — See Practice (Equity). District Court Appeals.] — Sec District Court. Mining Appeals.] — See Mines and Minerals. Rating Appeals.] — See Municipalities. From Justices generally.] — See Justices op the Peace — Criminal Law. In Insolvency.'] — See Insolvency. In Criminal Cases.] — See Criminal Law. APPEARANCE— 5'e« Practice. APPRENTICES' ACTS. 9 Geo. IV. No. 8. 8 Vict No. 2. And see Schools. The 4th and 5th sections of 8 Vict. No. 2 dealing with the punishment of apprentices offending by absenting themselves, apply to all cases of apprenticeship valid by any law, as well as to those entered into under 8 Vict. No. 2. Ex parte Paynter, 2 S.C.R. 189. ARBITRATION AND AWARD. Statute.]— SI Vict. No. 15. I. Agreement to Refer. II. Illegal Reference. 1-1 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 12 III. Setting aside Awaed— Practice. IV. Under Crown Lands Occttpation Act (25 Viot. No. 2). V. Proceedings and Actions on Award. VI. Costs. I, Agreement to Refer. Wlien Court can Interfere — Snhmission.'] — An agreement to refer a matter to arbitration cannot be treated as a submission, and it is necessary to make the submission a rule of court, before the Court can interfere. Mickey v. 'JTie Queensland Sheep Investment Co., 4 S.C.R. 161. " Usual Arbitration Clause."] — Where in a building contract the words "usual arbitration clause)" are used, the Court will not decide that any particular method of arbitration was con- templated. Marei- v. Mears, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 260. II. Illegal RErERENCE. Se/erence of Criminal Information — Award bad in part.] — It is illegal to refer an information for false pretences to arbitration. Where a criminal information and an action were both referred, and the umpire made distinct findings as to the costs of the two proceedings, it was held that the findings were separable and the award was good as to the costs of the action, though bad as to the costs of the information. Where an action and all matters in difference are referred, the arbitrators have power over the costs of the action. He Meaker and Brown, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 59. III. Setting aside Award. Insolvency pending Arbitration.] — A. having sued B. for breach of contract, the action was referred to arbitration. Pending the arbitration, A. assigned his estate for the benefit of his creditors. The award having been made in favour of A. :— Held, on motion to set it aside, that the award was correct in form. Ebsworth V. Hickey (No. 1), S.C.R. 329. Executed by two out of three Arbitrators- Withdrawal of dissentient Arbitrator.]— iAaXtava in difierence were referred to three arbitrators. The award was to be made by the three. or any two of them. They disagreed, and one of the arbitrators said that if the award proposed by the other two were insisted on he should withdraw from the arbitration. The other two on a subsequent day then met and instructed their solicitor to prepare the award, which, when it was prepared, was placed by the two arbitrators before the dissentient arbitrator, but he refused to sign it ; and it was then executed by the other two: — Held, on motion for attachment for non-fulfilment of the award, that the award was good, and that the rule must be made absolute. The conduct of the dissentient arbitrator amounted to a with- drawal from the reference. Ebsworth v. Hickey (No. 2), 1 S.C.R. 336. Omission to decide.] — A submission to arbitra- tion stated that it was agreed that certain disputes between A. and B. should be referred to certain arbitrators therein named, and it was amongst other things agreed that the costs of preparing and executing the reference, and a duplicate thereof, should be in the discretion of the said arbitrators. The award adjudged that B. should pay the sum of fifteen guineas, being the costs of the arbitrators in making their award, and that he should bear all his own costs and expenses in relation thereto:— Held, that the award was bad on the ground that the arbitrators had omitted to decide the matter sxibmitted to them, as they had not determined by whom and to whom the costs of preparing and executing the reference and a duplicate thereof should be paid. Se Warby and Hose, 4 S.C.R. 302. Award incomplete — Sale of Cattle — Short De- livery.] — L. contracted with J. for the sale and purchase of "2000 head of cattle, more or less, bred on the Mole Station, branded EL. Price to be 25s. a head ; £500 cash at the time of delivery, and purchaser's promissory note for the balance at twelve months from the day of final delivery." L. delivered 1054 cattle, which comprised the whole herd bred on the Mole Station which could be found, and demanded payment. J. refused payment, and claimed damages for short delivery. The matter was referred to an arbitrator, under a reference of all matters in dispute relating to the matters at issue between the parties under the contract. 13 ARBITEATION AND AWARD. U The arbitrator awarded that J. should, within three days, pay the sum of £250 in cash, and hand to L. his promissory note for £1152 18s. The award added, " The above payments by cash and note shall be accepted by L. in full satisfaction of all claims by him against J." : — Held (Stephen, C.J., dissentiente), that the award was bad, for not deciding how much compensation J. was entitled to for short delivery, and must be set aside. Ec parte Josephsm, 6 S.C.R. 126. Unstamped award— Judgment set aside.]— Aa award made in pursuance of an order of reference at a trial is liable to duty as an instrument under the Stamp Act of 1865 (29 Vict. No. 6), and caimot be used till so stamped : therefore, when judgment had been entered up on an unstamped award so made, the Court set aside the judg- ment. Baker v. Nixon, 7 S.C.R. 15. Appointment of Umpire — 31 Vict. No. 15, sec. 6.] — ^A reference by consent to two arbitrators empowered them to call in either one of two named persons as umjHre. The arbitrators, being unable to obtain the services of either, appointed another person against the express wish of one of the parties, and he as umpire made the award: — Held, that such ap- pointment was ultra vires and inoperative. Award set aside. Ex parte Morris, 10 S.C.R. 248. Umpire silting with Arbitrators — Award — Fi. /a.] — A submission to arbitration directed that the costs of the submission, reference, and award should be in the discretion of the arbi- trators "who may award by whom, to whom, and in what manner the same shall be paid." An award was made which was silent as to costs : — Held, on motion for a fi. fa. and an attachment for disobedience of the award, that the omission of the costs invalidated the award. Re Warby and Rose (ante) followed. He Burne and Kavanagh, Knox, 254. But the Court (following Morgan v. Smith), upon an undertaking by the applicant to pay all the costs of the submission, reference, and award, made the rule absolute for a fi.fa., and ordered the respondent to comply with the terms of the award, It is not competent to the Court, upon a motion for an attach- ment, to remit the award to the arbitrators under the power given by 31 Vict. No. 15, s. 16. lb. By the submission the disputes were referred to two arbitrators, " or in case the arbitrators cannot agree in their award" then to an umpire. The award stated that the arbitrators had agreed to their award, "after full consideration of the matter in reference, in the presence of and with the assistance of" the umpire : — Held (per Martin, C.J., and Faucett, J. ; Hargrave, J., disseuUentfii, that these facts did not invali- date the award. lb. The differences and disputes referred by the submission were stated to be "respecting the said partnership and the accounts thereof, and as to what amount A. B. is entitled to be paid for his interest in the partnership assets, and for money claimed to be due to him upon hig withdrawal from the said partnership." The parties covenanted "to do and execute all such acts and deeds, matters, and things, and to pay all such moneys," as the arbitrators by their award should direct and appoint. The award ordered the respondent (inter alia) to give a bill of sale over his stock-in-trade as a pawnbroker to secure the performance of the award : — Held, that the ordering of such a security was not beyond the powers of the arbitrators : — Held also (per Martin, C.J., and Faucett, J.) that, though it is necessary in order to found a motion for an attachment that there should be an express order to pay the money, the same rule does not hold upon an application for a fi.fa. under the Act 5 Vict. No. 9, s. 43, but it may issue upon the decision of the arbitrators, that a sum is due. lb. Award by Umpire and one Arbitrator — Majority.] — By a submission to arbitration certain disputes were referred to " two arbitra- tors, or to two arbitrators and their umpire," and it was agreed that the arbitrators, or, in case of difference, the arbitrators and their umpire, should decide all matters between the parties, arising out of the premises. The arbitrators, differed, and the umpire and one arbitrator made an award, the other arbitrator refusing to join:— Held, that an award by a majority was a good award. Johnson v. Blachford, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 277. 15 ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 16 "Entering on a Reference" — MiscondtMt of Umpire — Practice.^ — A railway company took land under their private Act. Sect. 30 of this Act provided that before any umpire " shall enterinto the consideration of any matters referred to him," he shall make a certain declaration. The value of the laud was referred to arbitrators, who disagreed. It was then referred to an umpire, who went to the land, accompanied by a land agent, read the evidence taken before the arbi- trators and their notes thereon, and stated that he had made up his mind ; all this the day before he made the declaration : — Held, that he had "entered" upon the reference, and that, because the making of the declaration before so doing was a condition precedent, the award was bad. (Per Faucett, J. That independently of the Act, the misconduct of the umpire, not being waived, was sufficient to invalidate the award.) A rule nisi to set aside an award may be moved for on the last day of term. He Mount Kembla Coal and Oil Co.;Eady's Arbitra- tion, 3 N.S.W. L.R. 92. IV. Under Ceown Lands Occupation Act OF 1861. Time for malcing award.'] — In an arbitra- tion directed under the Crown Lands Occupa- tion Act, the later of the two arbitrators was appointed on the 1st December, 1863; on the 28th December the two arbitrators ex|;ended their time thirty days, and on the 26th January, 1864, they appointed an umpire. On the 28th February the two arbitrators finally differed ; on the 20th Apiril the umpire extended his time thirty days, and on the 7th May he made his award: — Held, not too late, he having (under the sixth and eighth clauses of sect. 23 of the Act) sixty days, with a power of extension to ninety days, for that purpose, from the time when he was enabled to enter on his duties by the retirement of the arbitrators from theirs, and not from the date of his formal appointment. Tyson v. M'Evoy, 3 S.C.R. 359. Trespass — Award.y-Tv^T^aas for breaking and entering a certain station of the plaintiff, called A. Plea that a promise had been entered into on behalf of Crown that in con- sideration of certain rent to be paid by the de- fendant, a lease of the said land should be granted to him. Averment of entry by the defendant under the said promise : — Held, on demurrer, bad as not showing that the laud was Crown land within the Crown Lands Occupation Act of 1861, and that no actual lease of it was in force. Plea on equitable grounds, after alleging that before, &c., there had been a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant as to the boundaries of their respective runs, A. and B., set forth an arbitration and award in pursuance of the provisions of the Crown Lands Occupation Act of 1861. It then averred that by the award it was directed that a certain line should be struck and measured, and that the defendant was entitled to a lease of the country to the east, and the plaintiff to a lease of the country to the west of the said line. Averment, that the land trespassed upon lay to the east of said line : — Held, on demurrer, bad. Busdm v. ;, 5 S.C.R. 40. Uncertainty. 1 — In an award made by an umpire under the Crown Lands Occupation Act 1861 the boundary in dispute was described by reference to the features of the country, and more especially by reference to a chart not annexed to the award: — Held, that such descrip- tion was too uncertain. Award referred back to umpire under sec. 16 of the Arbitration Act. Ex parte Smden, 7 S.C.R. 247. Mistake not apparent on face of Award.] — The rule that an award will not be set aside merely because the arbitrator has made a mistake not apparent on the face of the award applies to awards made by an umpire appointed compulsorily by the Minister for Lands under sec. 23 of the Crown Lands Occupation Act of 1 86 1 . Ex parte Jenkins, 10 S.C.R. 231. V. Proceedings and Actions on Award. Payment.]— The Court will order an amount found to be due by an award to be paid, although the award adjudging the amount does not direct it to be paid. Ex parte OreviUe, 8 S.C.R. 27. Award directing payment by Government — vltra vires.]— It was resolved by the Legislative Assembly that an address should be presented 17 ARCHITECT. 18 to the Governor praying that His Excellency would be pleased to cause to he placed on the Estimates for 1874 a sum of money, to be ascertained by arbitration, to compensate the plaintiff for damage sustained by him. The Governor accordingly directed a reference, and the arbitrators awarded, "that there be paid by the Government to the said James Twaddell (the plaintiff) the sum of £4600 for damages sustained by him." The plaintiff now brought an action of debt upon the award against the Government : — Held, on demurrer, that the award was vltra vires, and that the plaintiff's declaration could not be supported. Twaddell v. Driver, Knox 459. VI. Costs. Award silent as to costs— Pmoer of Court to send bach award.] — In cases where an action has been referred to arbitration and the award is silent as to costs, an appli- cation that the Prothonotary should be ordered to tax the costs in favour of one of the parties, or that the order of the Court referring the matter to arbitration should be amended, by making the costs abide the event of the arbitration, cannot be granted by the Court. Sec. 16 of the Arbitration Act only empowers the Court to remit a matter for the reconsider- ation of the arbitrators when the application made is to set aside the award. Johnson v. Mgney, S.M.H. 11 Dec. 1875. Of Award had in part.] — Where a criminal information and an action were both referred, and the umpire made distinct findings as to the costs of the two proceedings, it was held that the findings were separable and the award was good as to the costs of the action, though bad as to the costs of the information. Be Meaker and Brown, 1 S.C.B. N.S. 59. Of action.] — ^Where an action and all matters in difference are referred, the arbitrators have power over the costs of the action. lb. Reference silent as to Costs — Cause and all Matters of Difference i-ef erred.] — An action and " all matters in dispute'' were referred at the trial to two of the jury as arbitrators. They found a verdict for the defendant, and, so far as they had the power, awarded the defendant the costs. Afterwards the defendant's costs of of the reference and award were taxed and allowed by the prothonotary. The plaintiff appealed to a Judge in Chambers, who dis- allowed the costs. On motion to rescind the Judge's order, it was conceded that if the costs had been mentioned at the time of the reference, they would have been included in the reference. The Court therefore amended the reference nunc pro tunc, so as to give the arbitrators power to award the costs. MulhoUand v. Beyers, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 205. ARCHITECT. Certificate — Privity of Contract.] — A mere nonfeasance, although with a bad motive, is not actionable where there is no privity be- tween the person omitting to do the act and the person injured by the act not being done. The declaration stated that an agreement was entered into between one L. and the plaintiff, for the performance of certain work by the latter for L., for certain payments ; and that it was provided by the agreement that the pay- ments were to be made upon certificates to be given by the defendants, and that the defend- ants undertook to act as architects under the agreement, and to inspect and examine the work, and to certify to the performance of the same. It then alleged that in pursuance of such undertaking and employment the defend- ants did examine and inspect the work as the same proceeded, and did, in part performance of their undertaking, from time to time, certify that the said work had been duly performed, upon which certificates money had been paid by L. to the plaintiff. Averment of fulfilment of all conditions precedent to entitle the plaintiff to receive a certificate from the defendants, and that it was their duty to give the same : Breach, that the defendants fraudulently, mali- ciously, and without any good, reasonable, pro- bable, or sufficient cause, refused to give the same, in violation of their duty :— Held, on de- murrer, that the action was not maintainable. Kelly v. Bradridge, 3 S.C.R. 103. And see cases under Contract. 19 AKREST. 20 ARREST. 8tatntes.]—S Vict. No. 15; 10 Vict. No. 7; 13 Vict. No. 12; 37 Vict._No. 11. I. On Mesne Pbocess. II. In Criminal Cases. III. In Other Cases. 1. 0/ defendant in defamation.] — See Defamation. 2. In Insolvency. y-See Insolvency. 3. On Final Process.]— See Execu- tion — Sheriff — District Courts (Execution). 4. O/jScamen.]— See Shipping. IV. Malicious and Wrongful — See Mali- cious Prosecution. I. On Mesne Process. Prwcipefor a Capias informal.] — Prsecipe for a capias not disclosing the name or residence of the defendant, and returnable forthwith : — Held, to be irregular. Holloway v. Eoutledge, 1 S.C.R. 15. The defendant having been arrested and having given a bail bond : — Held, no waiver ; and the bail bond was ordered to be can- celled, lb. Affidavit to hold to Bail.] — An affidavit to hold to bail stating that the defendants are justly and truly indebted to the plaintiff for goods sold, is bad. Whyte v. Cargill, 2 S.C.R. 171. An affidavit to hold to bail claiming one entire sum, the amount being alleged to be due in respect of several causes of action, of which two were stated m the following words : — "For interest upon, and for the forbearance at interest by me to the defen- dant at his request, of moneys owing from the said defendant to me ; also for money found to be due from the said defendant to me, on the balance of an account current, from 18th February, 1856, to 20th August, instant, "is bad as to both these causes of action, and the defendant is entitled to his discharge. Prince V. Kennedy, 2 S.C.R. 174. An affidavit to hold to bail stated that the defendant was a storekeeper carrying on business in Brisbane, in Queensland; that he had been in Sydney for ten days, and had stated to the plaintiff's attorney, that he was going to Brisbane the next day : — Held, insufficient. The affidavit must either state, in the words of the statute (3 Vict. No. 15, s. 2) that the action will probably be defeated, or must state circumstances from which that result can reasonably and naturally, and not merely by conjecture, be deduced. Keep v. Benjamin, i S.C.R. 321. Affidavit— Suppression of Facts.] — The plain- tiff obtained an order for the defendant's arrest on an affidavit setting forth the cause of action (which was for an instalment of £25 due upon ". promissory note) and stating that the defendant had sworn upon a trial in the District Court on the previous day, that it was his intention to leave Sydney in the course of the next ensuing week, for Queensland. The affidavit also mentioned that the action in the District Court was brought for the former instalment of the same note, but it did not state that the verdict passed for the defendant. It appeared that the defendant was a resident of Queensland, but it was not stated that he was in the habit of coming to Sydney two or three times in the year on business. , These facts appearing from affidavit filed by the defendant, Hargrave, J,, set aside the order to hold to bail, and all proceedings under it with costs. On appeal to the full Court : — Held (per Hargrave, J., and Manning, J., Martin, C.J., dissenliente), that Hargrave, J., was right. Per Hargrave, J. Because there was a sup- pression of material facts in the plaintiff's affidavit. Per Manning, J. Because there was no probability of the action being defeated. Per Martin, C.J. The Court will not interfere to set aside a writ of capias, unless it appears clearly either that the plaintiff had no cause of action, or that the defendant was not about to leave the colony. Oodvnn v. Cashion, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 34. Summons signed by Chief ClerJc.] — Defendant in an action was arrested under a ca. re., and held to bail. He afterwards obtained a summons, issued out of the Supreme Court, and signed " J. A. Read, Chief Clerk," calling on the plain- tiffs to appear before a judge in Chambers to 21 ARREST. 22 show cause why the ca. re. should not be set aside, and the defendant discharged from custody. The judge made an order in the terms of the summons: — Held, on motion to rescind the order, that the Chief Clerk had no power to issue the summons, and that by 3 Vict. No. 15, sec. 5, the plaintiffs should have been ordered to show cause by a rule or order of a judge. The order was set aside. FalTcv. Rwdey, S.M.U., 17th June, 1876. Application to pay Money out to the Plaintiff.] — Defendant being arrested under a capias, de- posited with the sheriff in lieu of bail the amount endorsed on the writ, with £S 8s. to answer costs. No bail was put in for him. Plaintiff filed no declaration, and the defendant signed judgment of non pi-os. On motion by the plaintiff that the amount deposited in lieu of bail (and which had been paid by the sheriff into court) should be paid out to him, on the ground that the defendant had not deposited with the sheriff £10 for costs, as required by the Mesne Process Act (3 Vict. No. 15), sec. 3: — Held, that in the absence of any rules of the Supreme Court, made under sec. 3 of the Mesne Process Act, the practice as to paying the money out of court was governed by the Imperial Statute 43 George III., c. 46; and that but for the judg- ment signed against him, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the money paid out to him ; but that before such order could be made the judgment must be set aside Ordered, that the judgment be set aside on payment by the plain- tiff to the defendant of the costs of entering up judgment. On that being done, it was ordered that the defendant should pay into court an additional sum of £10, or give bail. If neither be done by the defendant, the money should be paid out to the plaintiff. Bayliss v. Dixon, 4 N.S.W. L.R. 62. II. In Criminal Cases. Arrest by Constable for Misdemeanour — War- rant.] — Where a constable apprehends a person for a misdemeanour he must have the warrant in his possession, and, on demand, must show it to the person arrested. At the trial of the defen- dant, who was named Whitehouse, on a charge of having assaulted a constable named D. in the discharge of his duty, the facts proved were that D. had a warrant against the defendant aiid others, charging him by the name of Whitehead with a misdemeanour. D. left the warrant with another constable, and went away about 300 feet to a yard, where he saw the defendant, and told him he had a warrant against him for the mis- demeanour in question. The time was day-time, and D. was in uniform, and acting within his own district. The defendant asked D. to read the warrant or show it to him. D. said there was no occasion to do so, and proceeded to arrest the defendant, who then com- mitted the alleged assault with which he was charged: — Held, that the facts proved were not sufficient to support a conviction. The warrant could not be considered as being con- structively in the possession of D. Held, also, that the warrant being only an authority to arrest Whitehead did not justify the arrest of the defendant, if. v. Whitehouse, 2 S.C.R. 118. Arrest witliout wan-ant.] — The defendant was convicted of assaulting senior-sergeant S. while in the execution of his duty. It was proved that the defendant made use of obscene language in a public place within hearing of constable B. , who arrested him. The defendant thereupon assaulted B., took his baton from him, knocked him down and threw the baton away, leaving B. disabled. B. went immediately to the police station and informed his superior officer of what had taken place ; and S. promptly went to the place where the assault had been made on B. , and there found the defendant. One G. O., who was present, charged the defendant with assaulting him, whereupon S., who had no warrant for the apprehension of the defendant, said, touching him on the shoulder, " I arrest you for disarming constable B. of his baton while in the execution of his duty, and for assaulting G. 0." The defendant then com- mitted the assault on S., with which he was charged : — Held (per Martin, C. J., and Faucett, J., Manning, J., dvhitante), that the conviction was bad, and should be quashed. The arrest of the defendant by S. without a warrant was on a charge of an assault which S. had not witnessed, but had only heard of from B.; and it was, therefore, illegal. It is immaterial whether S. believed that the defendant had stolen B's. baton, as that was not the charge on which S. arrested him. The arrest by 23 ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR. 24 S. could not be considered as a re-arrest on the original charge of using obscene language, if, V. SmUh, 8.M.H., 17th September, 1876. ARSON. — See Criminal Law. ART XJNIONS ACT— 14 Vict. No. 13. ASSAULT.— See Arrest (in Criminal Cases) — Criminal Law— Trespass. ASSESSMENT OF RUNS ACT (1858)— 22 Vict. No. 17. Lord V. Lee 2 S.C.R. SOi-See Money Counts. ASSIGNMENT. For Benefit of Creditors.] — See Insolvency. Fraudulent.] — See Insolvency. Of Seal Property.] — See Crown Lands — Vendor and Pitrchaser. 0/ Personal Property.] — See Bill or Sale. Of Leases and Terms.] — See Landlord and Tenant. 0/ Mortgages.] — See Mortgage, ASSURANCE.— See Insurance. ATTACHMENT.— 5ee Contempt of Court. ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR. I. Articled Clerks and Admission op Attorneys, &c. II. Mutual Rights and Liabilities of Attorney and Client. (a) Retainer and Employment. (6) Bill of Costs, Delivery and Taxation — Action for Recovery of Costs. (c) Attorney's Lien for Costs. III. Attorneys and their Agents. IV. Proceedings under the Attorneys' Act (11 Vict. No. 33). V. Solicitor defending in person. VI. Contempt of Court by, see Contempt. VII. Costs as between Party and Party, see Costs. I. Articled Clerks and Admission of Attorneys, &c. Validity of Rules made by Majority of the ] — The Court (Hargrave, J., dissen- tiente) made an order that the applicant (an articled clerk who had completed his term of service imder the old rules) should be admitted to examination, although six months' notice of the books on which the examiners intended to conduct their examination had not been given in accordance with Rule 17 of the 18th of December, 1877, but refused to dispense with payment of the fee of £10 imposed by Rule 22. (Per Martin, C.J., and Manning, J. ; Hargrave, J., dissentiente) — The rules of the 18th of De- cember, 1877, are valid though signed by three judges only. Exparte Taylor, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 58. Articled Cleric — ^jjfe.] — A clerk was articled in his seventeenth year. The Court refused to admit him to examination until he had served five years from the age of seventeen. Bho parte Clinton, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 67. ^ee« on Examination.] — An articled clerk if only required to pay the fee of £10 on admis- sion to the final examination once. Ex parte Tomlinson, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 235. Admission — Proceedings for Contempt pend- ing.] — It appeared that the applicant dov 25 ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR. 26 admission, a solicitor for the Supreme Court of Queensland, was in contempt by reason of the non-payment of a fine of £20 imposed by that Court. The Court refused to entertain affidavits filed by the applicant and dealing with the matter of the contempt, and refused the admission. Afterwards, upon its appearing that the contempt had been purged by the payment of the fine, the Court admitted the applicant. Ex parte Godfrey, 2 S.C.R. N.S. 301. Examination — Articles not expired.] — The Court directed the examination of an articled clerk whose articles would expire after the day of examination but before the day fixed for the admission of attorneys. Ex parte Eeadford, Knox 152. Articled Clerh not Introduced.] — Where, in consequence of a mistake, an articled clerk was not introduced to the judges before he was articled, in compliance with the 10th standing Rule, the Court permitted the introduction to be made nunc pro tunc. Ex parte Camithers, Knox 295. Articled Clerk — Assignment of Articles.] — Where it appeared that the attorney to whom the applicant had been articled was dead, and that his executrix had refused to take out probate, the Court made an order for the assignment of the articles. Ex 'parte Bland, Knox 521. Admission of Attorneys of other Colonies — Equal Standard of Examination — Rule 3.] — A solicitor of the Supreme Court of South Australia passed an examination upon his admission in that colony of a substantially equal standard, but did not matriculate or pass an equivalent examination at a University. At the time that he was admitted in South Australia, the latter qualification was not required in this colony : — Held, that he was entitled to be admitted. — Semble (per Manning, J.), that a solicitor admitted in another colony since 1877 would not be qualified for admission in this colony, unless he had passed the matriculation, or some other equivalent examination at a University. Ex parte Stevenson, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 49. II. Mutual Rights of Attorney and Client. (a) Retainer and Employment. Writ of Fi. Fa. — Client Responsible — Ratifica- tion.] — Where a writ of fi. fa. is sued out by an attorney, and directed to a special bailiff under 7 Vict. No. 13, s. 2, the client is responsible for acts done by the bailifi', in respect, or by colour of the process ; and he is equally liable if the attorney is employed by some one on his behalf without his knowledge, and he afterwards ratifies the employment. Matthews v. Ogg, 3 S.C.R. 1. Purchase by Solicitor from Client — Reference to Master.] — In a suit by a solicitor and his client (a married woman) against the trustees of her marriage settlements, seeking a conveyance and transfer to the solicitor of trust property appointed and assigned to him for his own absolute use and benefit by the married woman, for valuable consideration, a, decree was made, containing a reference to the Master, to inquire and report whether the consideration money mentioned in the deed of appointment had been paid, and when and how and on what account, and under what circumstances each and every of such sums constituting such consideration had been paid or advanced. Hellyer v. Druitt (No. 1), 6 S.C.R., Eq. 43. Liability after Dismissal for act of Town Agent.] — Action by client against attorney for offering an improper obstacle to an order of a judge for a change of attorneys in an action in which the plaintiff had employed the defendant as his attor- ney. The plaintiff retained the defendant to defend an action, and during the pendency of the action it appeared advisable on the plaintiff's behalf to change his attorney. On a summons to change the attorney coming, on before Mil- ford, J., the managing clerk of the de- fendant's town agent took an objection, upon which the judge dismissed the summons: — Held, that the defendant was bound by the action of his town agent's managing clerk. But held. That a nonsuit must be entered, as the relation between the plaintiff and defendant had ceased, on the defendant's dismissal, to be that of client and solicitor, and that the defendant was not liable except in costs for taking any objection 27 ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR. 28 to a judicial proceeding to which he was a party. Rudd v. WUlang, 4 S.C.R. 165. (6) SiU of Costs — Delivery and Taxation — Action for Recovery of Costs. Grimhial Matters.] — An attorney cannot recover in respect of services rendered as an attorney in a criminal matter at a police court without delivering a Ml of costs pursuant to 11 Vict. No. 33. Moffatt, one eePKACTiCE. Taxation of Counsel's Fees.] — See Costs. Statutes— 1\ Vict. No. 57. 25 Vict. No. 9. 39 Vict. No. 32. 46 Vict. No. 2. BBTTING—See Gaming. Statutes — Betting Houses (Thbrry's) Act, 39 Vict. No. 28. Betting Houses Amendment Act, 43 Vict. No. 30. BIGAMY— iS^ce Criminal Law. BILLIARDS, &c. Billiard and Bagatelle Licensing Act, 45 Vict. No. 24. 47 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 48 BILLS OP EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. I. Pakties. II. Form. III. Consideration for Making, Indorsing, AND Accepting. (a) Accommodation Bills and Notes. (b) Contemporaneous Agreements. (c) Fraud and Illegality, &c. IV. Transfer and iNDORSEirExi. V. Renewal. VI. Dishonour. VII. Actions and Specific Defences. VIII. Bills Payable at Bank — See Bankers. IX. Cheques and Bank Notes — See Bankers. X. Pleading — See Practice and Pleading. XI. Sureties — See Principal and Surety. Statutes— 20 Vict. No. 30. 22 Vict. No. 3. I. Parties. Limited Liability Company — Personal Lia- bility of Directors on negotiable Instruments.'] ■ — By the "Trading Companies Act" of the Colony of Victoria, s. 45, it is provided that "a promissory note or bill of exchange shall be deemed to have been made, accepted, or indorsed on behalf of any company under this Act, if made or indorsed in the name of the company, by any person acting under the authority of the com- pany, or if made, accepted, or indorsed by or on behalf or on account of the company, by any person acting under the authority of the com- pany." The defendants were three of the direc- tors of "The Wentworth Boiling Down and Meat Curing Company, Limited," incorporated under this Act with perpetual succession and a common seal, the liability of the members being limited to the amount unpaid on their shares. By one of the company's regulations, it was provided "that the business of the company shall be managed by the dii-ectors, who may pay expenses, &c., and draw, endorse, or accept any bill or bills of exchange, &c., in the name and on behaU of the com- pany, and may use and aflSx the seal of the company to any instrument requiring the same." The defendants accepted a bill of exchange directed to "Messrs. Directors of the Wentworth Boiling Down and Meat Curing Company, Limited," by affixing the company's seal, and writing across the body of the instru- ment their names as follows : — " Accepted, pay- able at the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney,Wentworth,W.G., E.P., J.M. directors, &c.'' . — Held, that the defendants were person- ally liable on the bDl. E. S. and A. Chartered Bank v. Ounn, 10 S.C.R. 244. II. Form. Mere Agreement — Irregular ^o^e.]— An in- strument in the following terms : — " 7th March, 1862. On demand, I promise to pay J.T.M., or his order, the sum of £800, received this day from the Oriental Bank Corporation, for the special purpose of purchasing gold, and which sum is to be accounted for on or before the 10th inst. (Signed) A. H. Payable at the Ori- ental Bank Corporation, Burrangong," is not a promissory note. A declaration by an indorsee of such instrument was held bad on demurrer. Oriental Bank v. Horsington, 1 S.C.R. 217. Day of Payment uncertain.] — An instrument in the followmg terms :— " 22nd October, 1860. I, John Sallaway, promise to pay George Vidler, or bearer, the sum of £27, for value received on or before September, 1861. (Signed)— Jolm Sallaway. Witness— J. Stone." His mark:— Held, (Milford, J. dissentiente) not to be a promissory note, because the day of payment was uncertain. Vidler v. Sallaway, 1 S.C.R. 246. Alteration.'] — The defendant accepted a bill of exchange, which was subsequently altered, with- out his authority, by the addition of words and numbers inserted in the body of the bill, m- creasing the amount for which it was originally drawn : — HAd, that his carelessness, in omitting to perceive blank spaces in the body of the bill which rendered the fraudulent alterations pos- sible, did not render him liable on the bill in the hands of an indorsee. Lea v. Ch-aliam, 1 S.C.R. 288. 49 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 50 Not a Promissory Note or Cheque.'] — An in- •stmment in the following terms : — "Newcastle, 16th March, 1861. The Bank of Australasia, pay 311 amount claimed by G. TuUy & Co. for rent of goods disputed paid by me to Mr. Hood under protest, thirty pounds sterling," is not a promissory note or a cheque. Tully v. Dibbs, 2 S.C.R. 350. Address of Drawee.] — An instrument in the following words: — "At sight pay W. B. or bearer, the sum of £42 10s. for value received. (Signed) — T. E. Payable at the residence of T. H. L., Church-street, Mudgee" :— Held to be a bUl of exchange, and not a cheque or pro- missory note. Oordon v. Bmoman, 5 S.C.R. 28. Order drawn hy station managei Owner not liahle.] — Declaration against M. J. and J. M. J., "trading under the name, style, or firm of Joshua Brothers ■" stated that the defendants by cheque or order for payment of money, directed to the Bank of Australasia, Sydney, required the said bank to pay No. 49, or bearer £5 3s. ; and the plaintiffs became the bearers of the same. Averment of presentment, dishonour, and notice : — Plea, that the said cheque or order was and is in the figures following, and not otherwise, that is to say: — "No. 7117, Sydney, 13 September, 1866. The Bank of Australasia. Pay No. 49, or bearer, five pounds and three shillings sterling, on account of Beemery stations. CecU Guinness." — Held, on demurrer, a good plea. The owner of a station who authorises the manager to sign drafts on account of the station is not liable on those drafts. He is liable for the consideration. He is not liable on the instrument, but the manager who draws them is himself liable. Wilson v. Joshua, 6 S.C.R. 319. Bonded Certificates.] — Bonded certificates of dutiable goods cannot be deemed negotiable instruments (even although in fact a custom exists so to consider and deal with them) so as to pass absolutely the property in such goods by delivery to a bond fide transferee, without regard to the title of the parties who make the transfer. Barlow v. Woolcott, 8 S.C.R. 360. Alteration — Assent he/ore and after maiitrity.] — The defendants sent a note drawn at four months to B. to be indorsed and returned for their accommodation. B. altered the due date from four to two months, and discounted it without the knowledge or consent of the defendants. The note at the expiration of four months was presented by the plaintiffs and dishonoured. The defendants did not at first contest their liability on the note and paid f oO on account, besides entering into negotiations with the plaintiffs to substitute other notes. At the trial the jury found that the defendants had assented to the alteration of the note both before and after maturity : — Held, that there was evidence from which the jury might find that the defendants had assented before maturity. Qumre: Whether assent after maturity would make the note good. Commercial Bank v. Strauss, Knox 524. III. Consideration for Making, Indorsing AND Accepting. (a.) Accommodation Sills and Notes. Agreement not to Indorse — To a declaration on two promissory notes made by defendant in favour of M., and indorsed by M. to N., who indorsed them to plaintiff. Defendant pleaded : — First, that they were accommodation notes made by the defendant in favour of M., and were indorsed by M. to N. under an agreement between all the parties that they shovild not be indorsed after they were due; and that N. gave no value, and indorsed them after they were due to the plaintiff. The second plea was similar to the first, but contained an averment that the plaintiff had notice of the premises. The fourth plea stated that the notes were given for N.'s accommodation, to enable N. to get them discounted, and on a special agree- ment that N. should not endorse them after they became due ; that there was no consider- ation for the making or indorsement by M., and that they were indorsed to the plaintiff after maturity, with notice: — Held, that they were all good pleas. Fitzpatrick v. Macguigan, 1 S.C.R. 224. To Order — No Indorsement — Action in Name of Payee.] — To an action brought in the name of A., the drawer and payee of a bill of exchange, payable to order, against the ac- ceptor, the defendant pleaded first that A. 51 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 52 was not the holder, and secondly, that it was an accommodation acceptance. The replica- tion to these pleas, on equitable grounds, stated that the bill was, pursuant to an agreement between A. and one S., drawn by A. upon the defendant, to secure to S. the payment of the purchase money of a station, before then con- veyed by S., in consideration of such purchase money, to A. ; and that the defendant, with notice of the premises, agreed to and did accept the said bill, and the same was thereupon delivered by A. to S., as such secui'ity, of which delivery for such security the defendant had notice. Aver- ment, that at the time of the delivery of the bm by A. to S. it was not indorsed by A. , and that S. afterwards requested A. to indorse to perfect such security ; and that A. at the instance of, and in collusion with, the defendant, and with the intent to prevent S. from realising his security and recovering on the bill, refused to indorse the same, and that A. had never in- dorsed the bill as to which defendant had notice. Averment, that this action was broxight by S. in the name of A., for and on behalf of S., and that A. has not, and never had any interest in the result of this action ; and the same is commenced and is carried on for the sole use and benefit, and at the sole expense and cost of S. :— Held, on demurrer, that the replication was bad, and that on these pleadings A. had no legal claim on the bill against the defendant, although the transferee for value, S. , could not recover in his own name on the bill, in a court of law, without endorsement. Q'hompson v. Thompson, 2 S.C.R. 242. Subsequent Acceptance.] — The plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, gave A. credit for three mouths, for goods which A. had pur- chased for him. Afterwards the defendant accepted a bill of exchange at three months for the amount of the purchase money. In an action on the bill it was found that the defendant originally promised to pay for the goods in case of A.'s default:— Held, that the subsequent ac- ceptance of the bill was not for the plaintiffs accommodation, but was supported by a good legal consideration.— Held, further, that as A. obtained three days' credit beyond the time originally stipulated for, the acceirtance could be supported on that ground also. Waltack v. A' Teak, 3 S.C.R. 20. Intermediate Indorsement — No Consideration.] — Declaration by J. S., stating that H. made his promissory note for £100 payable to J. S. or order, eighteen months after date, and the said J. S. indorsed to the defendant, who indorsed to the plaintiff. Dishonour and notice. Plea, that J. S., the payee and indorser, and the plaintiff are one and the same person. Replication, that the plaintiff, by consent of the defendant, in- dorsed the note to defendant without any value or consideration, in order that the same might be made negotiable, and negotiated by the plain, tiff only ; and that the same was indorsed by de- fendant to the plaintiff thereupon, for the purpose of the defendant thereby becoming surety as such indorser for the payment of the said note by the maker to the plaintiff; and the defendant indorsed the same to. the plaintiff for the pur- pose aforesaid, and as such surety as afore- said, and for the accommodation of the said maker, and there was never any value or con- sideration for the indorsement or payment of the said note by the plaintiff to the defendant: — Held, on demurrer, good. Britton v. Webb, 2 B. & C. 483, considered ; Scholes v. Tysoe, 6 S.C.R. 208. No Consideration — Pleading.] — In an action brought upon a promissory note, the defendant pleaded on equitable grounds that the note was a, joint and several note of R. R. and G. P. R., who were partners, and was given to the plamtiffs for the purpose of being drawn against to raise funds for the partner- ship. Averment, that "neither before nor at the time of the making of the said promissory note, or of the delivery thereof to the plaintiffs, was any smn of money paid to the said R. R. and G. F. R., or either of them, or to anyone on their behalf by way of consideration; and the said promissory note was only a security for any sum or sums which might be so as afore- said drawn." Averment, that the partnership was subsequently dissolved and security taksn from R. R. alone in substitution of the fonner security, and that the plamtiffs undertook to cancel the note. At the trial I't was proved that large advances had been made before the giving of the note, upon the express undertak- ing that the note should be given as security, and that large advances were made on the day the note was given. The other averments in 53 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 54 the plea were proved. The judge, notwith- standing, told the jury that the allegation in the plea that the note was given without con- sideration was made out : — Held, no mis-direc- tion. Held also, that even without that allega- tion the plea disclosed a good equitable defence, so that the ruling of the judge was immaterial. City Banh v. Read, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 159. (i) Contemporaneous Agreement, Collateral Mortgage.'] — Action on bill of ex- change by drawer and payee against acceptor. Plea, contemporaneous agreement that the bill should not be payable until the expiration of a time not yet elapsed. Replication setting out agreement which was a mortgage for £150, the amount of the bill of exchange : — Held, on de- murrer, that there would be a good defence if the necessary facts appeared on the record to show that the loan was the sole consideration for the bUl, and that there was only one trans- action between the parties. It is clear that there were two contracts, though perhaps only one transaction. Demurrer overruled, with leave to defendant to amend. Costs of amend- ment to be costs in the cause. Buchlen v. Kay, 4 S.C.R. 326. Varying the Contract.] — Action by payee against one of the makers of a joint and several promissory note, payable on demand, and made by the defendant and one L. First plea, that there was no demand : — Held, bad on demurrer. Every promissory note payable on demand is due immediately, and may be sued on without demand. Burton v. Ainsioortli, 7 S.C.R. 410. Second plea, that the note was made on a parol agreement that it should be deposited with the plaintiff as a security against any loss which might arise in a certain event; that the deposit was made on such agreement, and that there had been no loss whatever : — Held, bad on demurrer, as the agreement relied on varied the contract evidenced by the note. lb. Parol Agreement — Promissory note hy way of Guarantee.] — Declaration by the payee against the maker of a promissory note. Plea, that G. and defendant had been carrying on business, as partners, and that G. had sold his share in the business and his interest in all debts then due to G. in respect of the business to the plaintiff, and that the defendant promised the plaintiff that he would collect the said debts so due to G. and the defendant without any reward from the plaintiff to the defendant, and that when required by the plaintiff he M-ould account to him for the share of G. so acquired by the plaintiff in the moneys so collected by him. Averment, that the defendant made and delivered the note- to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted the same as a guarantee for the due performance by the defendant of his promise aforesaid to the plaintiff, according to the terms thereof, and upon the condition that the plaintiff should not- demand payment of the same, if the defendant should, when required by the plaintiff so to do, duly accoimt to the plaintiff for the share of G., acquired by the plaintiff in the moneys so^ collected by him as aforesaid. Averment, that the defendant had not been required by the plaintiff, so to account for the share of G. , so as aforesaid acquired by the plaintiff, in the moneys collected by hun, but on the contrary had been ready and willing so to account to the plaintiff when required by him, and that save as aforesaid there was no consideration for the note : — Held, on demurrer, a good plea, as there was no consideration whatever for the= note. Sinclair v. Dixon, 8 S.C.R. 58. The second plea alleged that the plaintiff fraudulently represented that she would hold the promissory note as a guarantee only, whereas the plaintiff always meant to keep it in violation of her undertaking and representation i. — Held, a good plea. Tb. The fourth plea, on equitable grounds, alleged that the plaintiff represented as aforesaid, and also represented that she wovild not demand pay- ment if the defendant should account, whereas, the plaintiff is suing in fraud of the representa- tion : — Held, a good plea. lb. Parol agreement — Varying Terms of Note.] — Action by the payees against the maker of a promissory note. Plea, that before the making of the note, the defendant had a building contract, for which he was to receive 80 per- cent, upon the work done as the same pro- ceeded, and the remaining 20 per cent, was to remain unpaid until the completion of the building ; that the defendant being indebted to the plaintiffs, it was agreed between them,. 55 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. that the plaintiffs should receive and pay all moneys coming from the said contract on iicconnt of the defendant, and that the balance due to them, if any, should be paid out of the reserved percentage when it became due, and not otherwise ; and thereupon it was further agreed, upon the considerations aforesaid, that ihe defendant should make the said note, and the plaintiffs should accept the same, as repre- .senting the debt of the defendant to them, and .as security for whatever other balance should Jiave to be paid out of the said reserved per- centage ; but that the note should be held by ■the plaintiffs, and payment should not be demanded until the said percentage should be due and payable to the defendant, when the said note should be given up to the defendant on payment of the sum so as aforesaid to be paid out of the said percentage. Averment, that the said percentage never has become due and payable, and that save as aforesaid, there never was any consideration for the making of -the note : — Held, on demurrer, a bad plea. The parol agreement pleaded would have the effect -of varying the terras of the note ; and it did not show a want or failure of consideration. Hinton v. Setchell, 8 S.C.R. 152. Stoppage in Transitu — Consideration.] — Plea (on equitable grounds) to an action by in- dorsee against maker of a promissory note, "that the note was made, and the indorsement ■obtained, by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff, in consideration of the plaintiffs agreement and promise to deliver to a carrier, and to allow the carrier to deliver to the defendant, certain goods then purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff; but that the plaintiff, although he delivered the goods to the carrier, did not allow the carrier to deliver them to the defendant, but stopped them in transitu, retook possession of them, and after- wards sold them, whereby the consideration for -the note wholly failed, and except as aforesaid, there was never any consideration given for it : — Held, on demurrer, bad, as showing neither an original want nor a subsequent failure of consideration, but the contrary. The agree- ment stated was a sufficient consideration for -the making and delivery of the note, and the sale of the goods and their delivery to the carrier prevented the failure of that consideration. — Held, also, that the defendant could protect himself under the circumstances, by asserting his counter claim against the plaintiff in an action of trespass or trover, or for damages in respect of the wrongful sale. Frazar v. Young, 9 S.C.R. 1. Agreement to Renew — Warranty of Goods for which Note was given.] — Plea, to an action on a promissory note, that it was agreed, contem- poraneously with the making of the note, that when the note became due it should not be paid, biit should be renewed for three months by a, promissory note for a smaller amount, and that the note was overdue when indorsed to the plaintiff : — Held, a bad plea. Hyman v. Benson, Knox 4. Plea, that B. by warranting certain mill-board sold it to the defendant, and that the note was given in part payment of the price, but the mill-board was wholly worthless and unmer- chantable, and that the note was overdue when indorsed to the plaintiff: — Held, a good plea. 76. And see Ickerson v. Hayes, 5 S.C.R. 158 post (IV.) Agreement to stay Proceedings.] — To n. de- claration on a promissory note by payee against maker, the defendant pleaded on equitable grounds that the plaintiff agreed with him to stay all proceedings in the action, and instructed his attorney to that effect, on the defendant agreeing to pay all the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the action up to the time of the agreement, together with the amount due to the plaintiff, in full, immediately on the sale of a steamer belonging to the defendant, and that the defendant was always ready and wUluig to carry out his agreement: — Held, on demurrer, a bad plea. Seamer v. Manning, Knox 305. Executed Con-nderation.] — The plaintiff, being a member of a Church Building Committee of which the defendants were also members, lent £300 to meet a debt which had been incurred for building expenses. According to some of the witnesses, his offer was to lend it upon security. Some days afterwards the promissory note sued upon was made by the defendants in plaintiffs favour. The jury found a verdict for the plain- tiff : — Held, that, under the circumstances, the 57 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 58 loan and the giving of the note might be con- sidered as one transaction, and that the note ,was not made without consideration. Moore V. Petersen, 2 S.C.R. N.S. 111. (c.) Fraud and Illegality. Equitable Plea of Fraud — Bill given for more than Due.] — In an action by the payee of u. promissory note for £51 14s. 8d. against the maker, defendant pleaded on equitable gi'ounds that the said note ' ' was given by the defendant to the plaintiff through fraud of the plaintiff, and by mistake of the defendant in settlement of a balance of accounts (amounting to the sum mentioned in tlie said note) falsely and fraudu- lently stated by the plaintiff, and erroneously supposed by the defendant to be existing be- tween them ; whereas, in truth and in fact, the balance of accounts existing between them was, and is no more than £24 10s. 4d. : — Held to be a bad plea. A Court of Equity would not, on the facts pleaded, afford unconditional relief or grant a perpetual injunction. Devlin v. Lynch, 1 S.C.R. 53. Breach of Contract by Third Party — False Representations.'] — H. and Co., by their bill of exchange directed to the defendant, required him to pay to their order £100. The bill was accepted, and H. and Co. endorsed it to the plaintiffs. The defendant pleaded that H. and Co. were the London agents for the Sir John Lawrence, on board of which the defendant by his agent had promised to ship, and arranged for space for, certain live stock, purchased by the defendant, and intended to be forwarded by the said vessel from London to Sydney, which promise and arrangement for space in the said ship was, long before the sailing of the said ship, revoked and cancelled by reason of the non-delivery of the said stock to the defendant by the vendor of the same ; and H. and Co., well knowing the premises, falsely and fraudu- lently represented to the defendant that they were liable to the owners of the said ship for a, sum of £400 in the nature of freight for the space of the said stock, so arranged for as afore- said ; and the defendant was induced to pay to H. and Co. a sura of £300, and to accept the said bUl for £100, by the said fraud of the said H. and Co. ; and the said bill was overdue when indorsed to the plaintiffs, who always held the same without value or consideration : — Held, on demurrer (Hargrave, J., dissentients), a bad plea; as there was no positive statement that the contract to ship was rescinded by both parties to it. Hoarev. Kavenarjh, 13 S.C.R. 98. Fraud.] — Action on anoverdue bill of exchange against the acceptor. Plea of no consideration : — Held, a good plea. A second plea alleged that the bill represented the difference between the debt of P. to the plaintiff, and the composition agreed to be paid by P. to the plaintiff in common with his other creditors, and that it was given in pursuance of an arrangement unknown to the other creditors. It also stated an agreement, when the bill was given, that the plaintiff should look to P., and not to the defendant : — Held, that, irrespective of the last allegation, the plea was good on the ground that every secret bargain is void as a fraud on the creditors. Campbell v. Whyte, 2 S.C.R. 94. Dtiress.] — Action by uidorsee of a promissory note made by the defendants in favour of W., or order, and indorsed by W. to the plaintiff. Plea, that after the granting of a rule jiisi for the com- pulsory sequestration of W.'s estate, certain profits became due and payable from the defen- dants to the insolvent estate of W., for and in respect of the carriage of goods in a vessel of W.'s for the defendants ; that the defendants paid the said freight to the official assignee of W.'s estate, and that W. refused to deliver the goods to the defendants, unless they should pay him the freight ; and that, by reason of such re- fusal, W. deprived himself of the use of the vessel for a certain period, and that afterwards W. refused to deliver the goods to the defendants, unless they gave him their promissory note for the amount of freight and damages cavised by the detention of the vessel. The plea then alleged that m order to obtain possession of the goods, the defendants gave W. the promissory note sued on ; and that there was never, except as aforesaid, any value or consideration for the making of the note, and that the plaintiff took the note with notice of the premises : — Held, on demurrer, a good answer, as the promissory note had been given for a claim by W., which was utterly unfounded, although made bond fide. W.'s demand was illegal, and the note, in conse- quence of duress of the goods, was given ixnder 59 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 60 compulsion. BrunkevY. Bi-eckeiiridge, 6 S.C.R. 163. IV. Teansfer and Ixdorsemext. Pleadiiiij.J—A declaration stated that A. and B., by their promissory note now overdue, pro- mised to pay plaintiff or order £75, and "the said plaintiff then indorsed the said note to the defendant, who then indorsed the same to the plaintiffs." Dishonour and notice : — Held, bad in arrest of judgment. Practice as to filiag a sug- gestion under sec. 116 of the " Common Law Procedure Act." JSossiter v. M'Guigan, 1 S.C.B. 154. Indorsement — No transfer.] — The indorsement of a promissory note by one to whom it has not been transferred will not make the indorser liable on his indorsement. Williams v. Burley, 5 S.C.R. 206. Accommodation Note— Indorsement after Due.] — To a declaration on two promissorynotes made by defendant in favour of M., and indorsed by M. to N., who indorsed them to plaintiff. Defen- dant pleaded: — First, that they were accommo- dation notes made by the defendant in favour of M. , and were indorsed by M. to N. under an agree- ment between all the parties that they should not be indorsed after they were due ; and that N. gave no value, and indorsed them after they were due to the plaintiff. The second plea was similar to the first, but contained an averment that the plaintiff had notice of the premises. The fourth plea stated that the notes were given for N. 's accommodation, to enable N. to get them discounted, and on a special agreement that N. should not indorse them after they became due; that there was no consideration for the making or indorsement by M., and that they were indorsed to the pla,intiff after maturity, with notice: — Held, that they were all good pleas, as the indorsement relied on was to the plaintiff by one of the parties to a specific agreement, in breach of that agreement; and the plaintiff, whether he gave value or not, could not get a better title than his indorser. Fitzpatrich v. Macguigan, 1 S.C.R. 224, Indorsement after Maturity.]— la. an action by the indorsee of a promissory note against the maker, the first plea alleged that the note was made and given to S. in payment of the price of certain ale and stout under an agreement by S. to sell to the defendant twenty hogsheads of " Muir's new brew" ale, and three hogsheads of stout, both guaranteed to be in good condi- tion ; that S. did not deliver any such ale or stout, but wholly neglected in any respect to perform his agreement ; and that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff after maturity. The second plea varied from the first, only in the allegation that the indorsement by S. to the plaintiff was without value. At the trial the allegations of the pleas were proved ; it ap- pearing that the ale delivered after the pro- missory note was given was unsound, and not of the stated description, whereupon the defendant wrote to S. offering to send it to any place S. might name. The jury having found for the defendant on the first issue : — Held (Hargrave, J. dissentienie), that the finding of the jury could not be disturbed, because, the note having been indorsed after maturity, the plaintiff stood in the shoes of S., his indorser, between whom and the defendant the absence of consideration or its failure was fatal to the instrument, the plaintiff at the trial having given no evidence of value given by him: — Held, also (Hargrave, J., dissentienie), that the circumstance raised such a degree of suspicion of fraud, affecting him and his title, as to render it incumbent in him to give that evidence, and that the defendant was entitled to the verdict on the second plea. On motion by the plaintiff for judgment non obstante veredicto: — Held (Hargrave, J., dissenVmttt), that the first plea was not bad, at least after verdict, for omitting to allege that the contract was rescinded, or that an offer was made on the breach to return the articles. Except in the case of accommodation bills or notes, he who takes a negotiable instrument after its maturity does so at his peril, and obtains by indorsement no better title or right than his immediate indorser had. Ickerson v. Hayes, 5 S.C.R. 158. Liability of Indorser.]— T. made a promissory note with the payee's name in blank. He then procured B. and the defendant to indorse the instrument thus incomplete for his accommoda- tion, as co-sureties, the defendant being the last indorser of the two. The plaintiff having been asked by T. to cash the note, refused unless 61 BILLS OF EXCHxVNGE AND PKOMISSOEY NOTES. 62 some other name was substituted for' that of B. ; and T. thereupon took it away and brought it back to the plaintiff with B. 's name struck out, and the name of S. added, S.'s name following that of the defendant. The plaintiff then discounted the note, filling in his own name as payee. The defendant did not consent to or know of the erasure of B.'s name : — Held, that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff on his indorsement ; the defendant's rights against B. not being affected. Solomon v. Oleadall, 7 S.C.B. 257. Liability of Indorser — Order of Indorse- ment.] — M. signed his name on the back of •a promissory note before its indorsement by the payee, leaving space for such indorse- ment above his own signature. He did so at the request of the maker, and with the intent of becoming his surety. Afterwards the payee having given the maker value for the note, indorsed it without recourse, signing his name above M.'s, and in this state the note was negotiated without coming back into M.'s hands : — Held, that M. was liable on his in- ■ dorsement. If the indorsement on a promissory note appear in the regular order, the indorsee is not bound to inquire at what times they were respectively made. Semble, if a party by indorsing before the payee, authorises the apparent indorsement of the latter to himself, the mere fact of the priority in time of the second indorsement does not affect the right of the subsequent indorsees to recover. Laidley v. M'Millan, 9 S.C.R. 119. Evidence of Indorsement] — Under certain circumstances an open indorsement of a bill of exchange may be treated as one sans recours. Montefiorev. O'Connor, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 227. V. Renewal. Agreement to Renew— Refusal of Indorsee.] — The plaintiffs sued for damages for the refusal of the defendant to allow the plaintiffs, according to agreement, to renew, at maturity, a certain promissory note made by them. The defendant pleaded that at the time when the note fell due the Australian Joint-Stock Bank was the holder for value of the note, and was not acting as the defendant's agent, and that the alleged breach of the defendant's agreement was the refusal of the bank to renew the note : — Held, that the plea was good. Doioling v. Jones (No. 1), 1 N.S.W. L.R. 134. The defendant also pleaded, in addition to the facts stated in the former plea, that the plaintiffs did not at any time before the note became due request the defendant to take it up when it should become due, or tender or offer to give a note in renewal of the original note ; and that, after the note became due, the defendant, at the request of the plaintiffs, took it up, and the plaintiffs gave and the defendant accepted a renewal, and the plaintiffs were not compelled to pay, and did not pay the original note:^Held, that this plea was also good. lb. Agreement to Reneio — Note Dishonoured in consequence of Inability of Maker to find Payee — Necessity for Tender.] — A count stated that it was agreed, upon a sale by the defendant to the plaintiffs of some sheep, that they should be paid for by the plaintiffs' promissory note at six months, and that the plaintiffs should have the option of renewing the note for four months by paying bank interest ; that the plaintiffs gave the promissory note payable at six months, and the defendant discounted it at the Australian Joint Stock Bank at W., but gave no notice to the bank of the agreement respecting the renewal of the note ; that the plamtiffs, a reasonable time before the maturity of the note, desired to renew it, and made application at the then usual place of abode of the defendant, for the purpose of giving the defendant notice of their desire, and for the purpose of tendering a new note to the defendant in renewal of the original note and of paying the interest; that the defendant was then absent from his said residence, whereupon the plaintiffs left a written notice at his said residence of their desire, and made due and dUigent inquiry and search for the defendant, but were unable to find him, or except as aforesaid to serve him with such notice, or tender the renewal on interest ; that thence, and until the maturity of the note the defendant still remained absent from his residence, and the plaintiffs were unable to find him: that upon the maturity of the note the bank presented it for payment, wherexipon the plaintiffs gave notice to the bank of the agree- 63 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 64 ment, and tendered to the bank a renewal and interest, which the bank refused to accept:— Averment, that by reason of the premises the plaintiffe were prevented by the defendant from exercising their option of renewing the said note, and were compelled to dishonour the said note upon maturity :— Held, on demurrer, that the count was good. Ooioling v. Jones (No. 2), 1 N.S.W. L.R. 347. Agreement to lienexo if Etqiiired — Notice — Tender of Note in BenevmL] — Breach of agree- ment to renew plaintiffs' pro-note. The plain- tiffs purchased sheep of the defendant, paying for them by a note at six months, which the defendant discounted ; but it was agreed that the note should, if the plaintiffs required, be renewed at maturity. The defendant, as the plaintiffs knew, travelled a good deal about the country, but he had houses at Wagga and Gren- fell, at which he resided from time to time. Three days before the maturity of the note, plaintiffs telegraphed to defendant at Wagga that they desired a renewal; telegrams were afterwards sent to Grenfell. These notices did not, however, reach the defendant until after dishonour of the note, although he was seen at Wagga the day before the dishonour. The judge, at the trial, left it to the jury, whether the plaintiffs had used due diligence ; no evi- dence was given of any substantial pecuniary loss resulting from the dishonoiir. The jury found for the plaintiffs with damages £20 for the plaintiffs' expenses, £10 for their attorney's expenses, and £150 for general damages :— Held, that the verdict of the jury was justified by the evidence. It was not necessary for the plain- tiffs to have tendered a note in renewal ; it was sufficient for them to have intimated their desire to have the note renewed. The verdict of the jury amounted to a finding that the intimation was given in a reasonable time : — Held, eilso, that the measure of general damages was en- tirely for the jury, but that they were in error in allowing the item of £10 for attorney's expenses. 'Bowling v. Jones (No. 4), 2 N.S.W. L.R. 359. letters were kept till called for. Notice of dis- honour of a promissory note indorsed by de- fendant was sent on the day it came from the bank, to an innkeeper at D., with instructions, to serve it at once. He did not call at the post- office for two or three days, when he received the notice, and served it the same day as re- ceived : — Held, that imder the circumstances, the notice was reasonable. Quaere — What will amount to waiver of due notice of dishonour t M'Elhone v. Young, Knox 493. Woii'tr.]— Notice of dishonour of a promis- sory note may be given to the indorser on the same day as the note becomes due. Bank of N.S. W. V. Bossence, 3 N.S.W. L.R. 91. VI. Dlshonour. Notice— Interference toith Course of Post.] — The defendant lived thirty miles from a post town D; where there was no delivery, but VII. Actions and Special Defences. Defence of Victorian Contract and Insolvemy in Victoria. ] — To an action by indorsee against acceptor of a bill of exchange, the plea was that the bill was drawn and accepted in the colony of Victoria, where both the drawer and the defen- dant resided ; that after the acceptance the de- . fondant's estate was sequestrated in the In- solvent Court of the said colony, and stUl re- mained under such sequestration, that the effect of such proceedings was to divest the plaintiff of all his real and personal estate, and to vest the same m an official assignee appointed by the said court for the purpose of the insolvency; that by the law of Victoria no action could be brought against the defendant, pending the sequestration of his estate, for the recovery of a pi-evious debt, but in lieu thereof, such debts became payable by the said official assignee, and were to be satisfied out of the said estate by a rateable distribution thereof amongst the defen- dant's creditors, and that the debt arising on this bill of exchange had been proved by the drawer against the said estate for the purpose of recover- ing a dividend thereon : — Held, on demm-rer, a bad plea. Fleetwood v. Benjamin, 9 S.C.R. 162. In an action against the acceptor of a bill whose estate is under sequestration in another colony, if it appear that the debt has been proved, and a dividend obtained out of the sequestrated estate before indorsement to the plaintiff, no more will be recoverable than the balance. Newman v. Benjamin (reported as Newman v. Fleetivood), 9 S.C.R. 166. 65 BILLS OF SALE. 66 No Action after Proof in Insolvency). — To a declaration on a promissory note made by the defendants, H. and S., in favour of the plaintiffs, and for interest, defendant H. pleaded his insol- vency after the cause of action accrued, and that the plaintiffs proved for the amount of the note: —Held, good pleas. Montefiore v. Hazeland, S.M.H., 16th and 19th December, 1876. Action for Instalment of a Promissory Note — Judgment in District Court in actionfor previous Iiistalment.'] — In an action for an instalment (£25) of a promissory note for £500, made by the defendant jointly with one H., the defen- dant pleaded by way of estoppel, that, in an action in the District Court for another instal- ment of the same note, the defendant succeeded on an issue of drunkenness: — Held, that the plea was bad. Oodvnn v. Cashion, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 165. Agreement not to sue — Suspension of Right of Action,'] — To a declaration on a promissory note the defendant pleaded that before the note became due it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that, in consideration that the defendant would join with the plaintiff and B. in making a joint and several promissory note for £540 to R., the plaintiff would not sue upon the note in his favour so long as the defendant remained liable on the note for £540 to R. Averment, that that note was still in force: — Held, on demurrer, a bad plea; as the agreement amounted to a suspension of a right of action. M'Lean v. Ramsay, 2 S.C R. N.S. 183. BILL OF LADING— .?« Shipping. Statute.]— 2Q Vict. No. 13. BILLS OF SALE. I. CONSTEUCTION. II. Registration. III. Seizure anb Sale. 5tai!«i!c.]— 19 Vict. No. 2. I. Construction. Verbal Defeasance.] — A bill of sale absolute in its terms was made subject to a verbal defeas- ance: — Held, that under the second section of the Secret Bills of Sale Act (19 Vict. No. 2), such defeasance should have been written on the paper or parchment on which the bill of sale was written, before the time when the latter or a copy thereof was filed ; and the bill of sale alone having been filed it was considered void as against a judgment creditor of the grantor. Wilson v. O'Oonnel, 4 S.C.R. 264. II. Registration. Omission of Names in Copy — Defect supplied by Affidavit.] — A bill of sale was registered, the body of the document being correctly copied, but the copy omitting the names of the settlor and the attesting witness. The affidavit of the attesting witness supplied the particulars deficient : — Held, that the registration was valid. Hammond v. Gourlay, 1 N.S.W. L.R 142. III. Seizure and Sale. Seizure under Two Bills of Bale.] — G. gave a bill of sale over certain goods to the defendant. The plaintiff, in ignorance of this mortgage, purchased these goods from G. , took possession of them, and having sold a portion, removed the residue, together with other goods subse- quently acquired, to another place of business. The plaintiff then assigned the whole property to L. The defendant, being unable to enforce his own mortgage personally, employed an agent to do so, and the latter placed the matter in the hands of a solicitor. Under the instruc- tions of the latter (he throughout equally re- presenting L. ) the plaintiff's house was entered, and all the goods, indiscriminately, which were included in both securities, were seized and sold ; the sale being certainly effected, if not announced to be, for both the defendant and L. It was proved that the bailiff seized all the goods at the same time, under each bill of sale, and that the proceeds, after deducting the expenses and the amount due to L. , were remitted to and received by the defendant. In an action of trespass for this illegal entry upon the house, and trover for this seizure 67 BOND. and sale, the defendant pleaded not guilty and 1 returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and found not possessed : — Held, that the defendant was specially that the chattels at the time of the liable for such entry, and for the intrusion execution of the bill of sale to the defendant by his agent up to the day of sale. Held, also (Wise, J., disaentiente) that under these circumstances the defendant must be presumed to have seized, and to be responsible for those goods only which were included in the mort- gage to himself ; and as the jury had given damages as for the seizure and conversion by the defendant of all L.'s goods, a new trial was granted. Zimmler v. Manning, 3 S.C.R. 319. Demand of Larger Sum than that Owing — Bond fide Pm-chase.] — AVhere a bill of sale contained a power of sale upon default in the payment, on demand, of the amount payable thereunder, a demand of a larger sum than the amount justly payable does not vitiate the sale ; nor is a bond Jide purchaser for value bound to inquire into any irregularities in the sale. Humphei-y v. Roberts, 5 S.C.R. 376. Seasonable Time — Waiver.'] — Trespass for seizing and selling the plaintiff's goods. Plea : Justifying under a bill of sale, by which the goods were assigned to the defendants as security for the payment of a specified sum of money and interest, and of all further sums which should be advanced; the plaintiff to enjoy until default. The defendants were authorised to enter immediately, and sell in case of non-payment after demand in writing by or on behalf of the defendants. It appeared that there had been such a demand, but that on the demand being delivered to the plaintiff, he de- nied owing anything, contending that the de- fendants had. received, or ought to have received a larger sum, the amount of the sale of some bricks : — Held, that under the circumstances the plaintiff had waived his right to be allowed time for procuring the money by denying the existence of any debt. Davison v. Dignam, 7 S.C.R. 115. Bill of Sale — By one of two Joint Owners.] To a declaration for trespass to chattels, and trover for the same, the defendant pleaded not guilty and not possessed. It appeared at the trial that one of the plaintiffs gave the defendant a bill of sale of the chattels, under which the defendant seized and sold them. The jury were the joint property of the plaintiff. The Pull Court made absolute a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. Parr v. Ash, S.M.H., 2nd July, 1876. Statute.]- No. 29. BIRDS. -Birds Protection Act, 45 Vict. BOND. Indemnity against Proceedings in Law or Equity.] — On the purchase of an estate against which an adverse claim had been asserted, a bond of indemnity was entered into by H. 0., the vendor, in a penalty of £4000, equal to twice the amount of the purchase money, conditioned to be void if H.O. should deliver possession of the land to the purchaser within twelve months from the date of the bond, and there should not be at the end of that time any suit or other pro- ceeding at law or in equity pending against him or those claiming under him, or J. E., the pur- chaser, whereby the title of J. E. or those claim- ing under him might be prejudicially affected. Or if H. 0., his heirs, executors, or assigns on the day a year from the date of the bond should pay J. E.J his heirs, executors, or administrators the sum of £2000 (the purchase money) with interest. There was a memorandum at the foot of the bond signed by J. E., which was as fol- lows:—" If the sum of £2000 and interest be re- ceived by me under the above bond, I undertake to convey all my interest in the land as H. O. shall direct, without any incumbrance oc- casioned by me. " A conveyance was executed, and the purchase money paid, the purchaser being put in possession. Afterwards, and pre- vious to the expiration of the year from the date of the bond, proceedings were taken in equity, by a party having such adverse claim, to recover the land so sold and conveyed. These proceed- ings were pending at the expiration of the year from the date of the bond, but no step was taken on that day by H. 0. to repay the purchase money, whereupon the bond became absolute. 69 BOND. 70 A short time afterwards H. O. offered to repay the £2000 (the purchase money) and interest, and to take a re-conveyanoe of the land, and re- quested that the bond might be cancelled. J. E. declined to receive the purchase money, or to re- convey the laud ; he declined also to deliver up the bond, claiming to retain it as an indemnity against his being evicted from his purchase. A decree was made in the suit instituted by the original claimant whereby she was declared entitled to an equitable mortgage on the land for an amount considerably exceeding the purchase money paid by J. E. to H. O. It was alleged that the land had greatly in- creased iu value since the original purchase : — Held, by the judicial committee of the Privy Council (aflSrming the judgment of the Courts below) that the condition of the bond not having been fulfilled, the bond had become absolute ; and that the land having become liable to the claim established against it, J. E., the purchaser, had a right, besides the land, to retain the bond as an indemnity against such claim. Qumre, whether such bond could be enforced beyond the extent of the purchase money and interest. Oshome v. Sales, 2 Moore P.C.C., N.S. 100, and 2 S.C.R. App. 22. [Note. — Pending the appeal in the previous case, the respondent brought a common law action on the bond against the appellants. Verdict for the respondent for more than the penal amount of the bond. A rule nisi for a new trial was refused [Males v. Osborne, 2 S.C.R. 103). The appellant had meanwhile filed a bill in Equity for an injunction to restrain the respondent from issuing execution for more than £2000 and interest. The injunction was refused {Osborne v. Hales, 1 S.C.R. Eq. 82), and an appeal to the Full Court was dismissed (Osborne v. Males, 2 S.C.R. Eq. 37.) From the order of the Full Court the appellants appealed to the Privy Council, who, dismissing the appeal, held as follows :] A bond of indemnity given to protect a pur- chaser of land against adverse claims threatened at the time of the purchase : — Held to be valid to the full amount of the penal sum named in it, notwithstanding that such penal sum greatly exceeded the original purchase-money: there being no equity in the circumstances of the case to justify an interference with the legal right, and the purchaser having, in discharge of the claim and expenses incident thereto, expended a larger sum than the full amount of the penal sum named in the bond. Semble, a Court of Equity will not deal with a legal right upon the assertion of a merely doubtful equity. Osborne V. Males, 2 Moore P.C.C. N.S. 125. Iiidenrnitij by Holder of Unindorsed Draft against Claims by Payee— Claim by Drawer — Position of ffoWcr.]— Declaration on a bond of indemnity alleged that R., being indebted to A. in a, certain sum of money, paid the plaintiffs such amount, and obtained from the plaintiffs a draft on their agent at Y. to pay that sum to the order of A., and that afterwards the draft came into the hands of the defendants, the same not being indorsed by A., and the defendants pre- sented it in that condition to the agent at Y. for payment, and the agent refused payment on ac- count of such want of indorsement, whereupon the defendants requested the plaintiffs to pay the said sum, upon the defendants entering into a bond for the purpose of indemnifying the plain- tiffs against all claims which might or could be made on foot of the said draft in consequence of such want of indorsement. And the plaintiffs ac- cordingly paid the said sum to the defendants, who thereupon executed a bond to the plaLutifis, whereby — after reciting the making of the draft, and that A. had given the defendants authority to receive the sum due on the draft, and that A. was absent and unable to endorse the draft, and that the plaintiffs had at the request . of the defendants, agreed to pay defendants the amount due on the draft on receiving the indemnity thereby effected — the condition of the bond was declared to be that if the defendants, &c., did and should, &c. well and sufficiently save, defend, keep harm- less and indemnified the plaintiffs, etc., from and against all payments made by inadvert- ence, and from and against all accounts, suits, actions, costs, charges, damages, ex- penses, claims, and demands, both at law and in equity, which should be made, &c., in respect of the said draft, or the money payable in respect thereof, then the bond should be void. The breach alleged was that defen- dants had not well and sufficiently saved harmless, &.C., the plaintiffs, from and against all payments made as aforesaid, and from and against all accounts, &c., as aforesaid, in respect 71 BOND. 72 of the said drafts and the money payable in respect thereof, but on the contrary, A. re- quired from R. payment of his debt, and R. thereupon demanded from the plaintiffs the return of the sum so paid by him to them for the draft, and the plaintiffs were then compelled to and did pay R. the said sum. Averment, that the defendants had notice of the premises, and, although requested, refused to pay the amount : — Held, on demurrer, bad. The drafts having come lawfully into the hands of the defendants, the drawer, R. , could have no right to get them back or to require the bank to return him the money he had paid for them. It had never been contemplated in the arrangement between the parties that the bank should be indemnified against the claim of R. , the drawer. Oriental Bankv. Hart, 6 S.C.R. 78. Security known to be Valueless— Equitable i>«/e?!ce.]— Action by a banking company against one of the joint and several obligors of a bond given as a continuing security for the payment of the liabilities of one of them, S. C. B., on a cash account opened by him with the bank : — Plea on equitable grounds, that after the execu- tion of the bond, it was arranged between the plaintiffs and S. C. B., the defendant, and E. F. T., another of the obligors; that if the de- fendant would procure an order from E. F. T. authorising the defendant to deliver certain deeds in his possession of certain property of the said E. F. T. to the order of the said S. C. B. ; and would procure an order from the said S. C. B. to the defendant, authorizing him to lodge such deeds with the plaintiffs, and would cause the said deeds to be delivered to the plaintiffs, as security to them for any liability of the said S. C. B. under the bond ; they, the plaintiffs, would thenceforth hold the defendant relieved from any further liability in respect of the bond and would not advance any further sums to S. C. B., or allow him to become liable to them upon the credit or security of the defendant. Averment, that in pursuance of such arrangement the defendant procured the said orders, and de- posited the deeds with the consent of E. P. T. and S. C. B. as such further security ; and the plaintiffs accepted and received the said deeds as such security; that the moneys sued for were advanced to the said S. C. B. after such deposit, and without the consent of the defendant, and after a period when the said S. C. B. was in credit with the bank, on the cash account which had been secured by the bond. Replication, on equitable grounds, that at the time of the agreement the deeds were held by the defendant as a trustee for E. F. T., the defendant having no beneficial interest in them, as he well knew ; and imme- diately after they were lodged, the plaintiffs for the first time ascertained that the said deeds could not be, and were not any security to them for the liabilities of S. C. B. , or of any value to them whatever, as the defendant, before and at the time of the agreement well knew; whereupon the plaintiffs, before they had received any benefit under the agreement, repudiated and abandoned the same, giving notice thereof to the defendant : — Held, on demurrer, (Stephen, C.J. dissentiente) that the replication was a sufficient answer to the plea. Commercial Bank v. Benmti (No.l) 9 S.C.R. 238. Condition Precedent — Pleading.] — In the con- dition of a bond given to a banking company, as security for liabilities on a cash account, it was (inter alia) provided that the principal debtor or his sureties, should, upon demand in writing, pay all sums due by him, according to an account current to be made up from the books of the bank, and signed by the manager : — Held, that the making up and signing of the account was not a condition precedent to the right to sue for breach of that portion of the condition. Commercial Bank v. Bennett (No. 2), 9 S.C.R. 347. BONDED WAREHOUSES. Statutes.]— BoTHBisD Warehouses— 20 Vict. No. 21. Bonded Distilleeies and Sugar Houses — 26 Vict. No. 18. And see Distillation. BOROUGH— &e MuNiciPALiTiEa BOTTOMRY— 5ee Shipping. 73 BUILDING ACT. 74 BOOKS (SALE 0¥) — See Hawkers and Pbdlabs — Newspapeks, BRANDS. Stoteto.] —Brands Registration Acts • 30 Vict. No. 12; 37 Vict. No. 17. BREAD — See Adulteration — Brewers. And see Malt Liquors. BRIBERY— fee Criminal Law. BRIDGE— -See Toll. BROKER — See Principal and Agent. BUILDING ACT (Sydney), 8 Will. IV. No. 6. [Repealed by the Sydney Improvement Act, 42 Vict. No. 25.] Jurisdiction of Justices — 8 Witt. IV. No. 6, SB. 53 and5i; 9 Vict. No. 1, s. 3.] — The jurisdic- tion conferred by ss. 53 and 54 of the Sydney BuUding Act (8 Will. IV. No. 6) on the Court of Quarter Sessions for the District of Sydney, has not been transferred by 9 Vict. No. 5, s. 3, to any J.P. for Sydney. The latter Act only renders such oflFences against the former Act as are punishable by penalty cognizable by a Justice. (Both Acts are Repealed by the Sydney Corpora- tion Act (42 Vict. No. 25). Ex parte Lawrence. 1 S.C.R. 296. 8 Will IV. No. 6, ss. 55, 56, 57—14 Vict. No. 41, s. 149 — Powers of City Burveyoi — Juris- diction of Justices.^ — The applicant for a prohi- bition was convicted on complaint of the city surveyor of an infringement of sec. 56 of the Building Act 8 Will. IV. No. 6, and was ordered to pay the corporation fees of £7 10s., costs, and a penalty of £20 : — Held, that the city surveyor, appointed under the Act of Council 20 Vict. No. 36, has the powers of the surveyors authorised to be appointed by sec. 55 of the Builditig Act. But held, also, that the fines payable under sec. 57 to the surveyor for negligence in not calling him in, and the penalty of £20 imposed by the same section for breach of sec. 56, are only re- coverable by action, and are not recoverable summarily. Sec. 149 of the Corporation Act, 14 Vict. No. 41, does not apply to the Building Act. The prohibition was granted. (Corpora- tion dissolved by 17 Vict. No. 33.) Ex parte Watt, 1 S.C.R. App. 28. Jurisdiction of Court of Quarter Sessions — 8 Will. IV. No. 6, s. 53.]— A Court of Quarter Sessions has jurisdiction to try a defendant for a breach of sec. 53 of the Sydney Building Act, 8 WUl. IV. No. 6. And a mandamus will lie against the chairman to compel him to try the defendant. Ex parte Lawrence, 1 S.C.R. 296, followed. R. v. Stanley, 8 S.C.R. 70. BUILDING SOCIETY— 5'ee Friendly Societies. BURIAL— See Municipalities (By-laws.) Statutes.]— -'BvniALS Prohibition (Sydney) — 30 Vict. No. 3. Burials (Randwick and Camper- down) — 31 Vict. No. 2. BY-LAW. Municipal.] — See Municipalities. Bailivay.] — See Railway— Carriers. CALLS— See Company. I. II. Ill, CARRIERS. Liability of Common Carrier. Liability under Special Contract. Carriers Act, 42 Vict. No. 21. IV. Lien for Freight. T5 CAHEIERS. 76 I. Liability or Common Cabkiee. Crown can he Common Carrier.] — The Crown can become a common carrier. The first count of a petition of right was against the Crown as a common carrier, for not safely carrying goods of great value. The second count alleged that in consideration that the suppliants would de- liver to the Crown certain goods, to be by the Crown safely carried, &c. , the Crown promised the suppliants to safely carry, &c., and then stated that the suppliants delivered the goods to the Crown, and the Crown received them on the terms aforesaid. Averment of the fulfil- ment of all conditions precedent. Breach, that the Crown did not safely carry the goods. Plea, that the goods were forcibly taken from her Majesty's custody by robbers : — Held, on demurrer, a good plea to the second, but not to the first coimt : — Held, also, that the second count disclosed a sufficient considera- tion. Oriental Bank v. The Queen (No. 1). 6 S.C.R. 122. II. Liability under Special Contract. Exempting Clatise — Liability oj Crown as Com- mon Carriers — Escort — Special Contract.'] — In 1856 the Government issued a, notice in the Oazette, announcing tliat gold would be conveyed "under the charge of an armed escort," and that persons having gold to transmit will there- fore have an opportunity of forwarding it with the security of the protection which the Govern- ment will be able to afibrd ; but it is to be understood that " in the event of a loss notwith- standing that protection, the Government will not be responsible for it." In 1857 additional regulations, with reference to the transmission of gold, &o., by escort, were similarly pub- lished, with this addition — " It must be under- stood that under no circumstances will the Go- vernment be responsible for loss." In 1862, the above regulations being still in force, gold was delivered by the agent of the suppliants to the Government gold receiver at Forbes, and accepted by him, for transmission to Sydney by the next Government escort, for reward to the Government. The escort was robbed, and the gold lost, and the suppliants therevipon brought an action against the Government as common carriers : — Held, under the circum- stances, that the suppliants could not recover, as the Government carried the gold, not as com- mon carriers, but under a special contract re- lieving the defendant from responsibility for loss however occasioned, even although there may have been gross negligence. Oriental Bank V. The Queen (No. 2), 8 S.C.R. 171. Exempting Clause — Negligence.] — In an action against the Commissioner for Railways, for in- juring horses sent by rail, to be safely carried to Sydney, the declaration set out a condition in the contract, that persons sending horses must in every case "take the risk of accident, as the Commissioner will not hold himself re- sponsible for damagehowever caused." It then averred that the injury in question was "not in any way caused by accident within the mean- inng of the condition." Breach, that the de- fendant did not safely carry the said horses, and did not use due care in relation to the con- veyance of the same, by reason whereof, and by and through the gross and wilful negligence, misfeasance, and improper conduct, of the de- fendant, in propelling and placing another train of the defendant across and upon that part of the line of the railway over which, and at the time when, the train in which the plaintiffs horses were being carried would, as the defend- ant well knew, necessarily and according to the regulations and time-table of the railway, have to pass ; and otherwise by the gross negligence, misfeasance, and improper conduct, of the de- fendant, the train in which the plaintiff's horses were being carried by the defendant, was with great force and violence brought into collision with the other train, whereby, &c. : — Held, on demurrer, good. Cheeke v. Commissioner of Railways (No. 1), 8 S.C.R. 111. Exempting Clause — At Oiimer's Risk — Misfeas- ance — Negligence.] — ^By clause 34 of the Railway Regulations it is provided, that " the owners of horses or other live stock carried by the railway wUl have to take all risks of conveyance. The Commissioner will not be responsible for any injury or damage, however caused, occurring to horses or other live stock upon the railway, in the carriages, or at any of the stations." A printed copy of these regulations was posted up at every station. The plaintiff's servant on making application to the railway official at Campbelltown, for the conveyance by rail to 77 CARRIERS. 78 Sydney of two horses of the plaintiff, signed the following entry in a book at the station :— "Contract for conveyance of live stock. The Commissioner is requested to convey by railway from Campbelltown to Sydney, two horses ' at owner's risk ' under and subject to the provisions of the Railway Act 22 "Vict. No. 19, and the By-laws and Regulations made thereunder," and thereupon received from the ofiBoial a ticket containing the following terms :— "Prom Camp- belltown to Sydney, two horses, 17 shillings. Parties forwarding horses must, in every case, take the risk of accident, as the Commissioner will not hold himself responsible for damage however caused." The entry and ticket were marked with the same number. During the transit the horses were seriously injured by a collision which, the jury found, was caused by the gross negligence of the Commissioner's servants : — Held, that the Commissioner was not a common carrier in the conveyance of these horses, that the contract was a special one, and was constituted by the signed entry (not by the ticket, which was merely a memorandum or guide for the railway officials) and that as the entry incorporated, by reference, the railway regulations, the Commissioner was not responsi- ble for the injury to the horses occasioned by the collision. (Hargrave J., dissentiente, holding that the ticket constituted the contract, and that its terms qualified those of the entry, and left the Commissioner responsible for injuries caused by the gross negligence of his servants.) Per Stephen, C.J., the Railway By-laws are distinct from the Regulations. The former are for the purpose of enforcing the latter. Nothing is enacted with respect to the publication of the latter, but the former must be printed or painted and exhibited at every station, .and are^ then binding upon all. The 34th clause is merely a regulation, and has no operation or effect as law under the 118th section of the Railway Act. But by the reference in the entry to the Regula- tions, that clause becomes incorporated with the contract, and binding on the party signing it. OheeTce v. Commissioners for Railways (No. 2), 9 S.C.R. 31. Oovertmu/ni, Railways — Special Conditions — Carriage partly by Sea partly by Land.] — Goods above the value of £5 were delivered to the defendant at Singleton to be carried to Sydney. The receipt for the goods stated that they were to be conveyed subject to the by-laws. One of the by-laws provided that the defen- dant should not be liable for the loss of goods, over £5 in value, unless they were described and declared, and a special rate paid by way of insurance. The goods were lost on the transit by steamer between New- castle and Sydney : — Held, that the contract for carriage from Singleton to Sydney was entire, and was subject to the by-laws, so far as applicable, during both the sea and the land carriage, although the Commissioner's power to make by-laws extended only to the railway lines; and that the plaintiff not having declared the goods or paid the extra rate, could not recover. Alcorn v. Commissioner for Railways, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 196. III. Liability under Carriers Act, 41 Vict. No. 21. Negligence — Sees. 1, 6, and 7 — Railway By-law V. — "Notice, Condition, or Declaration" — Rail- ways Act 22 Viet. No. 19, s. 115.] — Declaration that the defendant was a common carrier, and received the plaintiff and his travelling-bag to be securely carried, but did not so carry them. The guard took the bag from the plaintiff as the train was on the point of departure, saying, "You must not take that into the carriage. It must go into the luggage van." The plaintiff replied : "Take it; you must be re- sponsible for it ; it is worth £200 :" — Held, per Manning and Windeyer JJ. (Martin C.J. dissenting) that the value had been sufficiently declared within the meaning of s. 7 of the Carriers Act, 41 Vict. No. 21 — But, held per Maiming J., and Windeyer J. (Martin C.J., dissenting) that the defendant could not avail himself of the defence of sec. 1 of the Act, unless it were specially pleaded ; and that the plaintiff could recover for jewellery lost through the defendant's negligence. — Held, also, per totam curiam, that By-law V., which provides that "the Commissioner will not be responsible for any luggage unless it be specially booked and paid for, and the name of the owner and its destination be distinctly marked thereon'' is a "notice, condition, or declaration" within sec. 6 of the Act, and must be reasonable to be binding. Held, also (per Manning J. and 79 CAKTERS. 80 Windeyer J,), that the By-law was unreason- able and vltra vires under sec. 6 of the Act, and sec. 115 of the Railways Act, as applied to luggage accompanying the passenger. Sher- win V. Commissioner of Railways, 2 N.S.W. L.R. 209. IV. Lien tor Fkeight. Eiideiice of Abandonment of Lien — Evidence in Rejoinder.] — The plaintiff ordered goods from his agent to be forwarded to him at B. The agent directed the goods as requested, and instructed a certain carrying agent to forward them. The carrying agent agreed with a carrier to take the goods if he could find a mate going that road, and a way-bill signed by the carrier undertaking to deliver at B. was forwarded to the plaintiff. The carrier not being able to find a mate, agreed with the carrying agent to take the goods to W. The carrier having delivered the goods at W. the plaintiff refused to pay the freight. In an action for the conversion of the goods, plea setting up a lien for carriage : — Held, that even although the carrying agent was not authorised to make a second contract so as to bind the plaintiff, yet the carrier was still bound to take the goods under the new contract, they being tendered to him by the agent to be carried, and that therefore he had a lien for the carriage. Oallimore v. Moore, 6 S.C.R. 388. The question being whether, when a case containing the goods had been placed upon the plaintiff's dray, the defendant intended to part with the possession : — Held, that the defendant in his examination-in-chief could not be asked, what was his intention in giving up the case, or whether, in putting the case on the dray, he expected to be paid the carriage for it, as the intention of the defendant in parting with the goods could only be proved by circumstances. (Stephen, C.J., dubitante). lb. The plaintiff was called in reply to contradict certain evidence of the defendant, and, being asked in cross-examination, denied that he had, when leaving the court, told his son to be sure and say what he had told him : — Held, that the defendant might call evidence in rejoinder to prove such conversation. lb. CARTERS ACT (Syditey) 18 Vict. No. 28. Conviction for driving light Cart at a pace faster than a walk — Vehieh not plying for Aire.]— The defendant was convicted under sec. 36 of the Sydney Carters Act, 18 Vict. No. 28, for driv- ing a light cart at a pace faster than a walk. The vehicle was not plying for hire :— Held, on motion for a prohibition, that sec. 1 of the Carters Act repeals the whole of sec. 40 of the Police Act, 4 Will. IV. No. 7, and that sec. 36 applies to light carts. But that no cart is within the latter section unless plying for hire. The prohibition was granted. Ex parte Boyne, 1 S.C.R. App. 22. CASH CREDIT BONDS— See Principal and Surety. CATTLE. Cattle Stealing Act (17 Vict. No. 3)— See Criminal Law. The word "cattle" in s. 19 of 22 Vict. No. 19 (Railways Act) includes "sheep." Wright v. Commissioner for Railways, 12 S.C.R. 5. CEMETERIES— See Burial. CERTIFICATE. For Costs.}— See Costs. Of Architect.}— See Architect— Contract. Certificates and Certified Copies.} — See Evi- dence. CHARITABLE TRUSTS— See Will. CHARTER OF JUSTICE (4 Geo. IV. c. 96), Olivet's Statutes II., i\m—And see Con- stitution. CHARTERPARTY— See Shipping. 81 CHURCH. 82 CHEQUES— Sec Banks and Bankers— Bills OF Exchange. CHILDREN — See Infants — Husband and Wife. CHURCH. Church Act, 7 Will. IV. No. 3. Church of England Acts, 8 Will. IV. No. 5; 21 Vict. No. 4. Church of Scotland Acts, 8 Will. IV. No. 1; 4 Vict. No. 18. Churches of Wesleyans, 2 Vict. No. 7. Clergy and Schools Land Act, 5 Will. IV. No. 11.] 'ReT^aXed hy Church and ScJiools Land Act, 44 Vict. No. 19. Quo Warranto — Amendment of Hide.] — On application for a quo warranto, calling on the Bishop of Newcastle to show by what authority he exercised the office of trustee of Christchurch Cathedral, the affidavits did not show whether the cathedral was existing at the time 7 W. IV. No. 3 was passed, or what specific defect in the defendant's title the relator relied upon : — Held, for these reasons, that the rule must be discharged. On the motion to make the rule absolute, the rule was allowed to be amended by addkig the private name of the defendant. B. V. The Bishop of Newcastle, 1 S.C.R. 262. Scots' Presbyterian — Trustees of Land granted by Crown — Eight of Synod over Minister.] — By deed of grant from the Crown in 1826, land was given by the Government to trustees in trust for "the congregation of Scots' Presbyterians in Sydney,"therethen being only one congregation, viz., that for the benefit of which the land was granted. Afterwards other churches and con- gregations were formed, which combined first into a presbytery, and then into a synod. By 8 Will. IV. No. 7, and 4 Vict. No. 18, certain powers were given to the Synod of Australia, by virtue of which the minister, L. the appellant, who was also a trustee, was in 1842 deposed, and the church declared to be vacant. The appellant refused to recognize the jurisdic- tion and authority of the Synod, and, with the concurrence of the other trustees of the church, continued to officiate as minister. In 1855 a bill was filed by certain members of the Synod on behalf of themselves and the congregation of the church, praying the appointment of new trustees, and an injunction against the minister to restrain his performing his duties as minister, and that he might be ordered to deliver up the church to the new trustees. The Court below, on the grounds that the trust was a general trust for the Presbyterians in Sydney, and that the Synod had jurisdiction over the minister, granted the relief prayed, but ; — Held, on appeal to the Privy Council (reversing the order of the Supreme Court and dismissing the bill), that the suit was improperly framed, by reason — (1) That the members of the Synod of Australia were strangers to the trust, and had no interest to maintain such a suit. (2) That such a suit could only be brought (i. ) by some person or persons, on behalf of a body having an interest in the subject matter; (ii.) by some public officer intrusted by law with authority to institute a suit ; and that the Synod had no lociis standi, either in respect of interest or of public authority; and (3) That as this sentence of the Synod deposing the appellant had been pro- pounded in 1842, and the suit in question not brought till 1855, and no satisfactory explana- tion given for the delay, the Synod were by their acquiescence precluded by lapse of time from sustaining such suit. Quaere, as to the authority of a Colonial Synod to pronounce a sentence of deprivation, and the extent to which their pro- ceedings would be considered binding as an Ecclesiastical Court of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought in a Civil Court. Lang v. Purves, 1 S.C.R. (App.) 4. 15 Moore, P.C.C. 389. CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ACT (39 Vict. No. 38)— iSee Government. CLERGYMAN— .fee Marriage. 83 COLLIER. 84 CLERKS OP PETTY SESSIONS— See Petty Sessions. COAL DELIVERY ACTS (SYDNEY)— 9 Vict. JSTo. 8; 10 Vict. No. 2. COAL MINES ACT, 1876—39 Vict. No. 31. COIN. Uttering Counterfeit.] — iSee Criminal La\t. COLLIER. Is a servant within the. Master and Servants^ Act (20 Vict. No. 28.] B. v. Merewether, 1 S.C.R 260. COLLISION — See Negligence — Shipping. COLONIAL BRANDY SALE ACT— 30 Vict. No. 15. COLONIAL LAWS VALIDATION ACT— See Constitution. COLONIAL SPIRITS DUTY ACTS— 29 Virt. No. IS; 43 Vict. No. 17. COLONIAL WINE SALE ACTS— 26 Vict. No. 16; 40 Vict. No. 7. COMMISSION. 0/ Agent.]— See Principal and Agent. For Examination of Witness.] — See District COITRT. For Passing Executors' Accounts is not an Asset capable of Assignment.]-~Moss v. Barnett, 1 S.C.R. 313. COMPANY. Statutes.]--^ Vict. No. 21. 6 Vict. No. 2. 11 Vict. No. 56. 37 Vict. No. 19. 40 Vict. No. 3. I. Relation of Company with Members. (a) When Shareholder not entitled to share Surplus. (6) Action for Calls. (c) Transfer of Shares. {d) Winding up. II. Relation op Company with Third Parties. (a) Liability of Promoter. (b) Liability of Manager, (c) Liability of Directors, {d) Liability of Chairman. (e) Power to Borrow. I. Relation op Company with Members. (a) Shareholder not entitled to Surplus. Laches — Release of further Claims — Misjoin- der of Parties.] — The plaintifis were share- holders in a bank, and at a time when the bank was in insolvent circumstances and paying its liabilities by large calls on its solvent share- holders, the plaintiffs, without giving up their shares, were released by the bank from all future calls in consideration of a present pay- ment. The assets of the bank some years after- wards increased in value, and there was a sur- plus divisible among the shareholders, and the plaintiffs, thirteen years after they had received their release, brought a suit to claim their pro- portion of the surplus : — Held, that they were precluded by delay. Held, also, that the re- leases excluded them from participation in the surplus. Held, further, that the suit was objectionable for misjoinder of plaintiffs having opposite and conflicting interests with other shareholders whom they assumed to represent, and also for non- joinder of other directors and shareholders as defendants. Berry v. Stirling, 5 S.C.R. Eq. 73. 85 COMPANY. 86 (6) Action for Galls. Fraud.]~ActioTi on behalf of a company called the New South Wales Cotton Growing Associa- tion against a shareholder, for a call covenanted to be paid under a deed of co-partnership. Plea : That the defendant was induced to join and to sign the co-partnership deed, because of and on the faith of certain false representations made to him by one J. G., an agent of the company ; such agent having been employed to solicit co- operation, and procure subscribers. Averment : That within a, reasonable time after notice of the fraud, and before he had received any benefit under the deed, the defendant repu- diated his liabilities, and abandoned his rights under the deed : — Held, on demurrer, that the unauthorised fraud of such agent is a defence to an action against a subscriber who was de- ceived by the fraud. Prince v. Nowlan (No 1), 5 S.C.R. 304. The demurrer to the plea having been over- ruled, the plaintiff was allowed to reply. Replication: That before the plaintiff or the trustees had any notice of such repudiation, several persons on the faith of defendant's name joined the association, and the trustees bor- rowed money for the purposes of the company : — Held on demurrer, bad, as the defendant was altogether discharged, even as to subsequent shareholders. Prince v. Nowlan (No. 2), 5 S.C.R. 310. Unregistered and Unincorporated Partnership.'] — Shareholders in an association formed for mining purposes, but which was neither regis- tered nor incorporated, covenanted (inter alia) to pay all caUa ; and in default of payment the directors were empowered to sue for and re- cover the amounts of such calls. ' Upon that covenant a shareholder was sued for calls unpaid: — Held (Hargrave J. dissentiente), that the action would not lie ; as by the deed an attempt was made to enable certain of the partners in a company to sue their co-partners at law for money, which, when recovered, would be part- nership property. Hybart v. Parker (4 C.B. N.S. 209) foUowed. Gordon v. Gibbons, 12 S.C.R. 40. Liability of Applicant for Shares.] — In an action for calls due to a mining company it appeared that before the formation of the com- pany the defendant applied for one hundred shares, and forwarded £5 with his application. He attended «, meeting at which the company was declared formed, and took an active part in it. After that he refused to have anything to do with the company, and repudiated his re- sponsibility. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant : — Held, on motion for new trial, that the defendant was not liable. Barker v. Caird, S.M.H., 29th August, 1876. (c) Transfer of Shares. Shares in Incwporated Company — Forfeiture. ] — The first count set out certain provisions of the deed of settlement of the defendant com- pany, which, by the statute incorporating the company, are constituted its by-laws; and among them a clause giving validity to the transfer of shares, if executed in a prescribed form and with the consent of the board. Another by-law declared that, nevertheless, no person shall be deemed a proprietor, or have any interest in the stock of the company, until after he shall have executed that deed. Another by-law provided that the transferee shall execute the deed within six mouths ; or, in default, that the shares shall be forfeited; The count then alleged that certain shares in the defendant company were purchased by one E., with the plaintiflfs money, as the latter's agent and for his benefit, but that E. executed the deed of settlement and the shares stood in his name ; that E. afterwards, with the consent of the directors, transferred those shares in due form to the plaintiff, they not being at the time for any cause forfeited ; and that the plaintiff, within six months after- wards, offered to execute the said deed, but that the defendants would not allow him to do so, or allow him to be entered on the books as owner of the shares, but on the contrary held them forfeited, and sold them. Sixth plea, to so much of the first count as complained of the declaration of forfeiture and sale of the shares, set out in full certain by-laws, one of which enacted that a person transferring shares shall cease to be liable in respect of them, and that the transferee shall succeed to his privileges and liabilities, on completion of the transfer and on execution by such transferee of the deed of settlement. Also another by-law which contained an express proviso, that until such execution the 87 COMPANY. 88 transferor shall be deemed the continuing pro- prietor for all purposes ; and another providing that whenever a proprietor becomes indebted to the company, such debt shall become a first charge on his shares ; that the company may restrain theirtransfer until the paymentof such debt; and that, if he fail within a fixed time to make such payment, the shares shall become forfeited, and the directors may sell them accordingly, or so much as may be necessary, in discharge of the debt. Averment, that before and at the time when, &c., E. was indebted to the company in a considerable sum, which he failed to pay within a, time fixed by the directors, whereupon they sold his shares as authorised by the deed, such sale being necessary for the satisfying of that sum : — Held, on demurrer to the plea, that the directors were entitled to declare any shares forfeited, and to sell them for the cause stated, or for any act or omission of the transferor, even after approval by them of the transfer, so long as the deed of settlement remained unexecuted by the plaintiff; but that, as the substantial charge in the count was the refusal to permit the exe. cution of the transfer, the plea was bad, as being pleaded to a consequential grievance only. Seventh plea, to so much of first count as complained that the defendants did not allow the plaintiff, although offering in due time to do so, to execute the co-partnership deed, set up two by-laws, one of them requiring the deposit with the company of every instrument of transfer, and every other instrument on which the proprie- tor's right may be founded ; and the other by-law requiring that in every case of transfer under a power of attorney, such power shall be pro- duced. Averment, that the only offer to execute the deed was by E. himself, he claiming to act in that behalf as the plaintiffs attorney ; but that E. produced no power authorising him so to act, wherefore the defendants woxild not let him execute the deed as such attorney : — Held, on demurrer, bad. Second count similar to the first, and contain- ing the same introductory matter, but charging as a grievance that it was the defendants' duty to keep the shares open (the transfer to the plaintiff having been approved of) for six months after such approval ; whereas the defendants, before the expiration of that period, and not- withstanding an offer by the plaintiff to exe- cute the co-partnership deed, declared the shares forfeited, and thereupon sold them. Twelfth plea to the second count, after referring to the four by-laws set out in the sixth plea, stated E.'s indebtedness,, and the sale of the shares to satisfy the debt, in the same words as the latter : — Held, on demurrer, good. Third count, that the plaintiff was the lawful holder of twenty shares in the company's stock ; and that the defendants, well knowing the premises, wrongfully and without any excuse, in pretended exercise of powers conferred by the deed of settlement, declared the shares for- feited and thereupon sold them : — Held, on demurer, good. Lobb v. Australasian Steam Navigation Co. (No. 1), 7 S.C.R. 278. Transferor and Transferee — Forfeiture and Sale of Shares — Right of Company to deal with Shares after notice of Ti-ust.] — By the statute incorporating the defendant company, certain provisions of its deed of settlement are consti- tuted its by-laws, and amongst these is one giving validity to the transfer of shares, if in a pre- scribed form and with the consent of the board of directors. But another by-law de- clares that, nevertheless, no person shall be deemed a proprietor, or have any interest in the stock of the company, until after he shall have executed the deed of settlement ; and by another by-law it is provided that the transferee shall execute the deed within six months, or in default that the shares shall be forfeited. By other by-laws it is provided that the transferor shall, until the execution of the deed of settle- ment by the transferee, be deemed the continuing proprietor of the shares for all purposes ; that if a proprietor of shares shall become a debtor to the company, such debt shall be a first and paramount charge upon his shares; that the board of directors may restrain their transfer until payment, and that if he fail within such time to make such payment, the shares shall become forfeited, and may be sold in discharge of the debt; and further that the company shall not be bound to take notice of any trust or equitable interest or demand affecting any shares standing in the name of any person as the ostensible proprietor thereof. Certain shares in the defendants' stock were purchased by one B. with the plaintiffs money, as his agent and for his benefit. E. executed the deed of settlement, and the shares stood in his name, but afterwards 89 COMPANY. 90 with the consent of the directors, he transferred them in due form to the plaintiff. Subsequently, but before the plaintiff offered to execute the deed of settlement, E. became indebted to the defendants in a considerable sum, whereupon they refused to allow the plaintiff to execute the deed, and after such refusal fixed a day for E. to satisfy his debt to them. E. having failed to do so within the time fixed, the defendant sold his shares to satisfy the debt. It was alleged that the defendants had notice that E, was from the beginning only a trustee for the plaintiff with regard to the shares. On demurrer to various pleadings in an action brought by plain- tiff against defendants, for refusing to allow him to execute the deed of settlement, and for declaring the shares forfeited, and selling them: —Held (tit ante 7 S.C.R. 278), that the defendants had a legal right, under the circumstances stated in the pleadings, to resort to the shares in question for the payment of E.'s debt; consequently that they had a right to pre- vent his transferee from executing the deed of settlement. That they were not bound to allow the plaintiff to execute it subject to their lien for E.'s debt, but were entitled to sell the shares upon non-payment of such debt within the time fixed for that purpose, notwith- standing the notice that E. was only a trustee for the plaintiff, such notice not amounting to a direction to defendants not to treat E. as owner of the shares, and not to deal with them as his. Lobb v. Atistralasian Steam Navi- gation Company (No. 2), 10 S.C.R. 1. {d) Witiding Up. Companies Act— Registration.] — The company was formed on the 12th June, 1872, for the pur- poses of gold mining, and was registered under the Acts 24 Vict. No. 21, and 34 Vict. No. 16 (Mining Partnership Acts), but was an unregis- tered company within the meaning of the Com- panies Act. On 25th March, 1875, a, judgment for £98 was recovered against S., who had always been treated and looked upon as the official manager of the company. On that judg- ment an order to wind up the company was obtained on 21st December, 1875. An applica- tion on behalf of the shareholders to set aside the winding up order on the ground that the judgment on which such order was made was a nullity, the company having never been regis- tered, was dismissed with costs. In re Morning Star G. M. Co., 2 S.C.R. N.S. Eq. 14. II. Relation of Company with Third Parties. (a) Liability of Promoters, Employment by Promoters — Estoppel] — By i^ resolution passed at a meeting of the promoters of a projected company, the plaintiff, a solicitor, was retained to draw the deed of settlement and do other work towards its incorporation. The de- fendants were present at the meeting, and were subsequently appointed, together with a part- ner of the plaintiff, directors of the company, the plaintiff beiag appointed its solicitor. The original prospectus contained a provision that all the preliminary expenses should be paid by the proprietors. The plaintiff sent his bill of costs to the manager of the company, and on being refused payment, sued the defendants : — ■ Held (Hargrave, J., dissentiente), that all the promoters who were present at the meeting at which the plaintiff was retained were personally bound by their resolution, and that the plaintiff was not estopped from suing the defendants because he had chosen to consider the company as liable. Per Hargrave, J., that the defend- ants were not liable on the resolution unless they had personally assented to and adopted the work done by the plaintiff. It was the company that was liable. De Lissa v. Asher, 8.M.H. 17th March, 1875. (J) Liability of Manager. No Evidence of Registration — Admissions by the Defendant that he is Manager — Memm-ial no Evidence.] — Before a person styling himself " manager" of a company can be sued or made liable under the Limited Mining Part- nership Act (24 Vict. No. 21) for the debts of such company, the plaintiff must show that the company has been duly registered, and the manager appointed in accordance with the pro- visions of the said Act. Failing such proof, the company is not bound by any admissions of the so-called manager. At the trial a copy of the memorial of the company, lodged in ac- cordance with the 8th section of the Act, in the Supreme Court, was produced ; — Held, that 91 COMPA.NY. 92 such copy of the memorial was evidence neither of the registration of the company, nor of the appointment of the manager. McNeill v. San- deman, 12 S.C.R. 51. Action by Promoter against Legal Manager — 24 Vict. No. 21.] — In an action brought by one of the ' ' promoters'' of a gold-mining company, registered under the Limited Liability of Mining Partnership Act (24 Vict. No. 21), against the "legal manager" of the company, for a sum of money and certain shares to which he claimed to be entitled, " as such promoter," and claiming a writ of mandamus, to compel the company to register him as a, shareholder, in respect of the said shares, in their register of shareholders : — Held, on demurrer, that the declaration was bad, as not showing how, and and in what manner the plaintiff acquired the rights he claimed as "promoter":— Held also, that if it was stipulated in the prospectus, under which the company was formed, that the plaintiff should have the rights claimed, the company when formed would be bound by the stipulation: — Held, also, that such rights would be enforceable against the company sued in the name of their manager in an action like the present, and as incidental thereto a manda- mus might be claimed:— Held, also, that the third section of Act 24 Vict. No. 21 is not con- trolled or restricted by the provision in the fourth section. Hoskins v. Davis, 11 S.C.R. 305- (c) Liability of Director. Personal Liability of Directors on negotiable Instruments.'] — By the Trading Companies Act, s. 45, of the Colony of Victoria, it is provided that "a promissory note or bill of exchange shall be deemed to have been made, accepted or indorsed on behalf of any company under this Act, if made or indorsed in the name of the company, by any person acting under the authority of the company, .or if made, accepted or indorsed by or on behalf or on account of the company, by any person acting under the authority of the company." The defendants were three of the directors of "The Wentworth Boiling Down and Meat Curing Company Limited," incorporated under this Act with perpetual succession and a common seal, the liability of the members being limited to the amount unpaid of their shares. By one of the company's regulations, it was provided "that the business of the company shall be managed by the directors, who may pay expenses, &c.," and draw, endorse or accept, any bill or bills of exchange, &c., in the name and on behalf of the company, and may use and affix the seal of the company to any instrument requiring the same." The defendants accepted a bill of exchange directed to "Messrs. Directors of the Wentworth Boiling Down and Meat Curing Company Limited," by affixing the company's seal, and writing across the body of the instru- ments their names as follows:— "Accepted, payable at the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney, Wentworth, W.G., E.F., J.M., directors, &c." — Held, that the defendants were personally liable on the bill. E. S. and A. Chartered Bank v. Gunn, 10 S.C.R. 244. Estoppel.'] — M. attended a meeting for the forming of the C.H.G.M. Company, when he proposed and seconded resolutions, and was elected a director of the company, and as such his name was afterwards inserted in the deed of settlement. M. never executed that deed, but acted as director, received fees for his attendance, signed cheques to defray the ex- penses, and as chairman of the board he signed the minutes making the first call. Further, on a thousand shares he paid the allotment money, and also paid the first two calls in respect of the said shares. He refused to pay a third call ; and the company, by their manager, sued him therefor, charging him as being the holder of one thousand shares and indebted to the company in respect of the calls thereon, to which he had become liable in terms of the deed of settlement : — Held, (1), That M. was not estopped from alleging and proving that he had not executed the deed of settlement; and (2), that, as he had not executed the deed he was not liable to be sued under its provisions. Davis V. Montefiore, 12 S.CR. 26. (d) Action by Chairman. Foreign Unincorporated Company — Action on Covenant made with Trustees for Company-- Right to Sue.] — By an Act of the Legislature of Victoria it was provided that the full benefit of all contracts made with any person on behalf 93 COMPANY. 94 of a company carrying on business in Victoria should vest in the chairman for the time being; and that all actions, suits, &c., should be brought In his name. The defendant made in Victoria a covenant with certain persons acting on behalf of the company : — Held, that the chairman of the company could maintain an action in New South Wales for a breach of this covenant. Judgment for the plaintiff. Anderson v. Johnson, Knox 1. (e) Power to Borrow. Incorporated Company — Acquiescence oj Sliareholders.] — By the deed of settlement of a paper manufacturing company it was (inter alia) provided that the board of directors should have the entire management of the business of the company, and of the application, invest- ment, and disposal of its funds, and should and might in all matters not specially provided for by the deed, act as to them should appear best calculated to promote the interests of the com- pany ; that the original capital should consist of £25,000, in shares of £5 each ; and that when such amount was fully paid up, new shares to an equal amount might, if deemed advisable, be created at a general meeting of the shareholders ; that all drafts or cheques on any bank should be signed by two directors, and countersigned by the manager; and "that no shareholder should be bound to pay on account of the company or in respect of his shares therein, a greater sum in addition to his original share of the capital than a further sum of equal amount." The dii-ectors opened an account current in the name of the company with a bank, and drew upon the same by cheques in the mode prescribed by the deed ; and ultimately such account was largely over- drawn. The fimds thus borrowed from the bank were employed for the purposes of the company. There never was any creation of new shares. No power to borrow money was expressly given by the deed to the directors ; but it appeared that at two successive general meetings of the shareholders the indebtedness of the company to the bank was brought before their notice, and no dissent was expressed : — Held, that the company was liable, on the ground of the aeqxiiescence of the shareholders in the transaction. Semhle (per Hargrave and Gheeke JJ., Stephen C.J. aliter sentieiite), that the directors had an implied power to borrow the moneys. Oity Bank v. Australian Paper Company, 10 S.C.R. 235. COMPENSATION. For Personal Injuries.J—See Negligence. For Land Resumed by Government.] — See Re- sumption. For Injuries caused by Municipal Works.] — See Municipalities. COMPOSITION. Deed o/.] — See Insolvency. COMPULSORY PILOTAGE— yS-ee Shipping. CONSIDERATION— 5fce Bill op Exchange — Bill of Sale — Contract — Guarantee. CONSPIRACY— 5ee Criminal Law. CONSTITUTION ACTS -See Oliver's Statutes, Vol. I., pp. 331-374. CONTEMPT OF COURT, I. Publication Reflecting on Judge. II. Publication During Pendency of Trial. III. Contempt in Face of Court. IV. Attachment fob Non-payment of Costs. V. Interference with Officers of Court. VI. Disobedience of Order op Court. VII. Contempt by Attorney {otherwise than in face of Court)— See Attorney and Solicitor. 9S CONTEMPT OP COURT. I. Publication Reflecting on Judge. Newspaper Arlick—Pmoer of Court to origi- nate Proceedings— Jurisdiction.]— The Court has power of its own motion to bring before it and punish persons guilty of contempt. To publish of a Judge of a Supreme Court that he "has had another opportunity of show- ing his utter want of judicial impartiality and from the bench has delivered once more a bitter and one-sided advocate's speech," and that "with such a system of judicial advocacy, it is only when the jury are exceptionally intelli- gent, as was the case yesterday, that anything approaching justice can be expected to result from a trial before the judge," is a contempt of court. In re The Ecenivg News, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 211. Publication of Articles disparaging the Judge and the Jury.] — The Court has power of its own motion to institute proceedings for the summary and immediate punishment of any contempt of its authority, whether in reference to a pending cSise or not. The proprietors of a newspaper, defendants in a libel action, on the day following that in which a verdict was given against them, published of the judge who presided at the trial, that the summing up was listened to with amazement and the verdict was received in silence, and that the " defendants had only one appeal to the jury, though the plaintiff had two,'' and that " at the beginning of the case it became evident that the defendants had a battle to fight which could not be terminated in that court," and other observations disparaging the judge. Six days afterwards, the same persons published in another newspaper owned by them, extracts from various newspapers condemnatory of the judge and of the jury. Two days after the publication of these extracts they filed a memor- andum for a rule nisi for a new trial : — Held, to amount to a contempt of court. In re Echo and Sydney Morning Herald, 4 N.S.W. L.R. 237. 11. Publication during Pendency of Trial. Pendency of Criminal Ti-ial.] — A letter pub- lished in a newspaper tending to prejudice the public against a prisoner awaiting his trial is » contempt of court, both in the sender of the letter and th? proprietor of the newspaper. An article written with like tendency in a newspaper after the conviction, but before final judgment, is also a contempt. Per Stephen C. J., a person who is ignorant of the existence of a case pend- ing, which his publication tends to prejudice, cannot be adjudged guilty of contempt. Ex parte Novell, 8 S.C.R. 163. On 13th October T. was committed for trial for forgery. On 1st November he was com- mitted on eight other charges of a simUar kind. On 11th November he was tried on the first charge, convicted, but remanded for sentence. On the 12th, informations were filed against him on the other charges ; and on the 13th, before the case came on for trial, there ap- peared in defendant's newspaper an article called " The T. Forgeries and Swindles.'' The article spoke of the case on which T. had been committed, and it spoke of his having committed other forgeries by way of renewal of the first: — Held, that the defendant was guilty of contempt of court in publishing the article pending the trial, although the article in itself was a fair and a proper one and had done no harm, and although at the time of its publication the defendant was absent and had not authorised it. Ex parte Hovell, 8 S.C.R. 163 confirmed. In re Bennett, 14 S.C.R. 33. in. Contempt in Pace of Court. Refusal by Justices to hear Attorney.] — A justice of the peace, acting judicially in the exercise of his summary jurisdiction, cannot refuse to hear an attorney, who had been retained to conduct a case then before the justice, on the ground that the attorney had on the previous day, and in another case, misconducted himself in court, and insulted the same justice, and refused to apologise. Ex parte Gory, 3 S.C.R. 304. SuspensionofAttoi-ney by Justices for Contempt.] — An attorney having used insulting words to the sitting justices, he was suspended from practice by five justices meeting on a subsequent day to consider his conduct. Of this meeting and its object the attorney had informal notice. The justices, sitting as a Court of Petty Sessions under the Small Debts Act, 10 Vict. No. 10, having refused to hear the attorney during his suspension in a case pending in that court, he applied for a rule in the nature of a mandamus under section 5 of the Act, 11 & 12 Viot. o. 44, 97 CONTEMPT OF COURT. 98 to compel them to do so ; — Held, that the order of suspension was regularly made imder section 45 of the Small Debts Act : — Held, also, that the application was improperly framed under section 5 of the Act 11 & 12 Vict. Ex parte Willans, 8 S.C.K.. 355. Attorneys Act U Vict. (No. 33), sec. 13— liTclevant Matter in Affidavits — Costs.'] — The 13th section of the Attorneys Act is intended to prevent persons from setting themselves up as attorneys, not from drawing agreements inci- dentally in the course of their ordinary business. Irrelevant charges having been made in the applicant's affidavits, the Court, on dismissing an application to punish H. for contempt, made the applicant pay the costs, though there was a prima facie case against H. Ex parte Manby, re Haslingden, Knox 416. On the power of Justices generally to com- mit for contempt of court, see judgment of Wise, J., in In re Carroll, 1 S.C.R. 306. IV. Attachment fob Non-payment of Costs, OE Money dieected to be Paid undee Judge's Oedee. For Non-payment under Judge's Order.] — Rule 168, Hil. T. 1853, making rules for attachment absolute in the first instance in certain cases, does not apply to a rule for an attachment for non-payment of money under a judge's ■ order, which is only a rule nisi. Ex parte Dooley, 5 S.C.K. 343. For Non-payment of Costs.] — An attachment for non-payment of costs will be granted abso- lutely in the first instance. Merritt v. Smith, 10 S.C.R. 230. Inability to pay Costs.] — It is no ground for dissolving an attachment for non-payment of costs under a rule of the court, that the person attached is whoUy unable to pay. (Per Martin C.J., and Faucett J.; Hargrave J. dissentiente). Exparte Guest, 1 S.C.R. N.S. 129. AttacJiment arjainst Insolvent.]— A writ of attachment for contempt for the non-payment of money can be granted against a defendant who has become insolvent, and, assuming inter- rogatories to be exhibited against him, the court may imprison at discretion. Before moving for an alias attachment (the first never having been acted upon because of certain nego- tiations) a fresh demand is not necessary. Where the defendant appeared on the rule nisi and asked for and obtained time to answer : — ■ Held, that he had waived all objections to the want of personal service. Qucere, whether a rule tiisi for an alias writ need be personally served, S. V. Solomon, Exparte Gardiner, 8 S.C.R. 30. Applicatimi to dissolve Attachment — InsoU vency.] — Upon an application to dissolve an attachment for non-payment of costs, and to release the applicant from custody on the ground that he had sequestrated his estate, it appeared that the applicant had been ordered to pay the costs of an unsuccessful motion for a prohibition against a conviction for illegally using certain cattle. It also appeared that he had made away with the whole of his property to P., a man who was workint; on the roads at wages of 8s. a week, and who was supposed to have no other means. The application was refused. Ex parte Sparks, 2 S.C.R. N.S. 275. Divorce.] — A writ of attachment for non-pay- ment of costs cannot be granted in the Divorce Jurisdiction. Breden v. Breden, 1 N.S.W. L.R. D. & M. 9. V. Intereeeencb with Opeicbe of Court. Interference with Bailiff.] — A judgment credi- tor against the administratrix of AV. S. issued execution and appointed C. his special bailiff, who seized 1300 sheep, which J. S. by A., his attorney, claimed. C. sold 800 of the sheep to the judgment creditor, but on attempting to separate the sheep sold was prevented by the shepherd — the overseer of J. S. and A. being^ present— and during the night the sheep were removed :— Held, that a contempt had been committed, and that an attachment should issue ■ against A., the overseer, and the shepherd. Ex parte Sidney, In re Abbott, 7 S.C.R. 134. Subsequently (see preceding case) an attach- ment was moved for against J.S. : — Held, that although no breach of the peace was committed by J.S., as he had contrived, in concert with hia attorney and his overseer and others, by having men in attendance with dogs, to take the sheep from the bailiff, he was guilty of contempt of court, and an attachment should issue against him, R. V. Saville, Ex parte Sidney, 8 S.C.R, 19. 99 CONTEMPT OF HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. 100 ' i)/es«fngre)\]— Interference with the messenger of the Insolvency Court would {semble) be punishable as a contempt even though the goods attached were not part of the insolvent estate. if. V. Bradhiiry, Knox 162. VI. DiSOBEBIENCE OP OrDER OS CoURT. Attachment — Irregularity.'] — A motion for attachment obtained on an irregular affidavit should be dealt with by motion to remove it from the file, not to set it aside. Whyte v. Brown, 3 S.C.B. Eq. 21. Attachment against Witness.] — Attachment ordered to issue against a witness who had re- fused to appear before a commissioner and give evidence, his' travelling expenses having been paid. Machenzie v. Dunn, 7 S.C.R. Eq. 88. Attachment against Married Woman.] — An order to file accounts had been served on ad- ministratrix, a married woman, which she dis- regarded without excuse : — Held, that an attachment must issue against her, notwith- standing her coverture. Ex -parte Budd, 7 S.C.R. 9. Non-productionof Document.] — The defendant, before the commencement of the action, which was for slander in imputing to the plaintiff the commission of acts of adultery with the wife of the defendant's brother, J. D., procured in Melbourne as the agent of J. D. who was petitioner in a divorce suit, a statutory declara- tion from one B.C., deposing to the fact of such adultery, and made an affidavit in the divorce suit stating that he had the declaration in his possession. The action was afterwards com- menced, and an application in the action for inspection was opposed by the defendant on the ground that he had given up the document to J. D., and that J. D. had handed it to his solicitors, who were also the defendant's solicitors in the action. The order for in- spection was granted, and not being com- plied with by the defendant, was afterwards made a rule of court ; and a writ of attachment subsequently issued against the defendant for disobedience of the rule. The document was produced at the trial of the action on a svhpcena daces tecum by one of the solicitors named.: — Held, that the defendant was guilty of contempt in not obeying the order for inspection ; and he was ordered to pay a fine of £50 and all the costs of the proceedings. B. v. Dibbs, 1 N.S.W. L.R. 17. CONTEMPT OP HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. Assaulting u, Member of Parliament in Con- tempt of the House of Assembly.] — An informa- tion charged that " heretofore, to wit, while the Legislative Assembly of the said colony was sitting, one B. L. , a member of the said Assemblyj whose conduct had been and then was under its consideration, after being heard in his place in the said Assembly in reference to such conduct, was, in accordance with the practice of the said Assembly, requested by the Speaker thereof to withdraw therefrom. And that the said B.L., in obedience to the said request, thereupon withdraw from the said Assembly into an ante-chamber adjoining thereto, and that immediately upon his so withdrawing into the said ante-chamber the defendant, a member of the said Assembly, in and upon the said B. L, did make an assault, and him the said B. L. did then beat, wound and illtreat, in contempt of the said Assembly, in violation of its dignity, and to the great obstruction of its business" :— Held, by the Privy Council on appeal (reversing the decision of the Supreme Court, and con- curring with the reasons given by Stephen C. J., who dissented) that the information was good, as the alleged contempt of the Legislative Assembly was charged only as a matter of aggravation, and could be rejected as a surplus- age, and that the information was sustainable for an assault, if. v. Macpherson, L.R. 3 P.O. 268. Rote. — For decision reversed, see R. v, Macpherson, 7 S.C.R. 230. CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT. I. Formation. II. Consideration. III. Statute of Frauds. IV. Construction. (a) Delivery, (i) Conditions precedent. (c) A gainst public policy. 101 CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT. 102 V. Rescission. VI. Actions on. (a) Parlies. (6) Pleading — and see Mosey Counts. (c) Eoidence. VII. Proceedings in Equity. (a) Specific Performance. (b) jlccoMJii— See Account. By Advertisement — See Advertisement. By aud with Agents and Brokers—