7, Flket Street, 
 London, 1879. 
 
 WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 MESSRS. BUTTEinVOllTH, 
 
 rata ^IJublisIjcrs to tf)C ^iircn's most liicdlrnt Jtlajcstt). 
 
 — ♦ — 
 
 Denison and Scott's House of Lords Appeal Practice. 16s. cl. 
 
 "^^^ ' ._ . -_ 3s, cloth. 
 
 '^^^ 3s. cloth. 
 
 Mic- ,ly. 2nd 
 
 J. 
 
 Oke' 
 
 Oke' 
 1 
 
 Oke' 
 Oke' 
 Oke' 
 Fish 
 
 P 
 
 IjOCC 
 
 p- 
 Han 
 Dav: 
 Dav; 
 
 III 
 <; 
 
 Dav; 
 
 Dre\ 
 
 Ij 
 
 Moz! 
 
 •A 
 
 Folk 
 •j; 
 
 Coot 
 iu 
 
 Cha( 
 
 l!i 
 
 Burn 
 Pow. 
 
 It 
 
 Thoi 
 
 IU 
 
 Adai 
 Crur 
 
 It 
 
 Colli _ 
 
 HUkIc ('<jiii|iaiii('N. I'oHi Kvo. I*.*. <;l(>lli. ■ " - •• ' 
 
 De Colyar's Law of Guarantees and Principal 
 ^'■^?*»" i^*'^ °^ Bankers and Bankini?. 3rd 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY 
 
 U. A. FihiiF.ii, i-i)m'(t< 
 
 Post 8vo. 
 
 Post 8vo. 
 
 60s. cl. 
 Js. cloth. 
 is. cloth. 
 3on Pro- 
 
 l on Ap- 
 
 }. 8s. 6d. 
 
 876. It 
 
 b's County 
 
 Edition. 
 
 hancery 
 
 ol. 8vo. 
 
 jral 8vo. 
 
 ' Justice 
 2(i.«. cloth. 
 
 Roy. 8vo. 
 
 vidence. 
 I Official 
 r Letters 
 
 Lveragre. 
 , -x- of Joint 
 and Surety. 
 Edition, by 
 
 »«• For complete Catalogue, sec end of this Book.
 
 
 Sir T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. 8th Edition. 
 
 hvu. -11. -U. clotll. 
 
 Bund's Law of Salmon Fisheries, 1876. Post 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 Kelly's Conveyancing- Draftsman. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. 
 Redman's Law of Arbitrations and Awards. 8vo. 12s. cloth. 
 Hunt's Law of Frauds and Bills of Sale. Post 8vo. 9s. cloth. 
 Seaborne's Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Real Pro- 
 
 jMity. -.'lid IMltiiili. l'i.>t svo. ilntli. \ln tlu irrsa. 
 
 Fawcett's Law of Landlord and Tenant. 8vo. 14s. cloth. 
 Saunders's Law applicable to Nef?lig-ence. Post 8vo. 9s. cl. 
 
 Shelford's Law and Practice of Joint Stock Companies. 
 
 Uiul Kilition. liy I). I'm .Mi;s mill 1-". h. l.AiiiAM. .svo. 'Jl,<. clKtli. 
 
 Shelford's Law of Railways. 4th edit. By W. C. Glen, Esq. 
 
 In-.'vuls. lioviil .svo. c;i,v. di>th. 
 
 Clark's Dig-est of House of Lords Cases from 1814 to the 
 
 jin MUt Tiiiii.'. Kuyal bvii. ;J1.«. M. dutli. 
 
 Ingi-am's Law of Compensation for Lands and Houses. 
 
 211(1 l-Ajiti(lM. \\\ Kl.MKS. I'ost Mvo. vis. cloth. 
 
 Coombs' Solicitors' Bookkeeping-. 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Coote's Admiralty Practice. 2nd Edition, with Forms and 
 T.il.k-s ol ( o.'it.-^. ,svo. lHv. i-li.lh. 
 
 Bainbridg-e's Mines and Minerals. 4th Edition. 45s. cloth. 
 
 Scriven's Law of Copyholds. 5th Edition, by Stalman. 
 
 Al.iult,'.il ill 1 vol. l{..y;il ,sv.i. ;iili. i-lolli. 
 
 Trower's Church, Parsonage and Schools Building Laws, 
 
 (.-(PiitimuMl to 1.S71. l'o.-.t .Svij. '.P.v. <-luth. 
 
 Rouse's Practical Conveyancer. 3rd ed. 2 vols. 8vo. 30s. cl. 
 Sir R. Phillimore's International Law. 4 vols. 8vo. £6 : 3s. 
 
 .■luth. 
 
 Latham's Law^ of Window Lights. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. 
 Hunt's Law of Boundaries and Fences and Rights of Waters. 
 
 •-'11.1 Ktlitj.iii. Vis. <l..lli. 
 
 Rouse's Copyhold Enfranchisement Manual. 3rd Edition. 
 
 I'.'mn. liN. M. doth. 
 
 Dixon's Law of Partnership. Svo. 22s. cloth. 
 Barry's Practice of Conveyancing. Svo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 Woolrych on the Law of Sewers, with the Drainage Acts. 
 
 .-inl I:<liti<Pii. .svo. 12,i. dotli. 
 
 Tudor's Leading Cases on Real Property, Conveyancing, 
 
 Wills ami lii-.-d.i. ;ii(l Kditiun. l;..yiil svo. ri..tli. lu th^ l-rr^t. 
 
 Tudor's Charitable Trusts. 2nd edit. Post Svo. 18s. cloth. 
 Phillips's Law of Lunatics, Idiots, &c. Post Svo. 18s. cloth. 
 Powell's Law of Inland Carriers. 2nd edit. Svo. 148. cloth. 
 
 Shelford's Succession, Probate and Legacy Duties. 2nd ed. 
 
 1-.'IHM. liu. doth. 
 
 Christie's Crabb's Conveyancing:. 5th Edition, by Shelford. 
 
 '1 vols. Itoyul svo. 3/. lioiirils. 
 
 Wigram's Extrinsic Evidence in the Interpretation of Wills. 
 
 •Itli K.litiMii. sv... Us. d.ith. 
 
 Grant's Law of Corporations in General, as well Aggregate 
 
 ua Sok'. lioyuj Svo. i;ii». boiu-ds. 
 
 ",* For complete Catalogue, see end of this Book.
 
 A SUMMARY 
 
 LAW or TORTS; 
 
 OB, 
 
 WPiOXliS INDEPEXDEXT OF CONTRACT. 
 
 ^cf0nD (!:i)ition, 
 
 BY 
 
 ARTHUR UNDER II ILL, M.A., 
 
 or LIXCOLJJ'S IXS, BARBISTE1!-AT-I..VW ; 
 ASSISTED BY 
 
 CLAUDE C. M. PLUMPTRE, 
 
 OF THE MrODI.R TEMPI.K, DAUniSTKl!-AT-I.A W. 
 
 {Middle Temple Common Law Scholar, Hilary Term, 1S77.) 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 BUTTERWORTIIS, 7, FLEET STREET, 
 11,111) publisl)crs to tl)c (Queen's most excellent /fclajcstii. 
 
 DUBIJX: noDfJKS, FOSTKIl & CO. 
 
 EDIXHrii(;U: T. & T. CI^VIJK; hell & UliADFVTE. 
 
 CALCUTTA : TILVCKER, SPINK ic CO. 1JOM13AY : THACKEll, M.XDCO & CO. 
 
 MELBOUKXE: GEOHUE UOBEETSOX. 
 
 187«.
 
 T 
 
 : t- ^ tr 1 s- 
 
 LONTJON : 
 PEISTED BY C. F. BOWOBTn, BEEAil'S BTTILDDrGS, CIIANCEEY LAXE.
 
 PEEFACE 
 
 TO TIIE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The fact that a thousand copies, constituting tho 
 First Edition, of this "Work have been sold in less 
 than five years, renders it no longer necessary to 
 justify its existence. 
 
 In this Edition the First Chapter has been com- 
 pletely re-wi'itten, and new Chapters upon Injunc- 
 tions, NegKgence, and Fraud have been added. 
 Nearly sixty pages of new matter have been inter- 
 polated by these means, and by additions to previously 
 existing chapters, and the whole has been carefully 
 con-ected and revised. 
 
 !Many of my friends and clients have expressed 
 sm*prise that an Equity and Conveyancing Counsel 
 shoidd have ^vl'itten a treatise on the Law of Torts. 
 The answer is, that every lawj'cr, whatever his 
 speciahty may be, ought to know the pviiiciplvs of 
 every branch of the law ; and, in my student daj's, 
 my endeavours to fathom the principles of the Law 
 of Torts were surroimded \\\i\\ so much unnecessary 
 difficulty, owing to the absence of any text book 
 a2
 
 iv rREFACi: to the second edition. 
 
 separating principle from il/tisiratiou, tliat I became 
 eon^'mccd that a new crop of students would welcome 
 even such a guide as I was capable of furnishing. 
 The result has proved that I was not mistaken. 
 
 It only remains to render most grateful thanks 
 to my friend and former pupil, Mr. Claude C. M. 
 I'lumptre, of the Common Law Bar, who has kindly 
 taken upon himself the sole burden of revising (and 
 in some measure re%^Titing) the whole of that 
 portion of the Work which relates to particular 
 Torts, with the exception of the Chapters on Nuis- 
 ances, Trespasses, and Infringements of Trade Marks, 
 Patent-right, and Copj-right. B3' his labours miue 
 liave been greatly diminished, and the utility of the 
 Work materially increased. 
 
 ABTIIUE rXDEEHILL. 
 
 23, SocniAjtPTON Buildings, Chakceey La>"i:, 
 J>d>/ 19 t/i, 1S78.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface iii 
 
 Table of Cases cited ix 
 
 PART I. 
 OF TORTS IX GEXEKAL. 
 
 CIIAPTEIl I. 
 Of WiioxGS PURELY Ex Delicto . . . . 3 
 
 CIIAriER 11. 
 Of Quasi Torts 21 
 
 CILVrTER III. 
 
 Of the Liability of a Master for his Servants' 
 Torts 2'J
 
 VI CONTEXTS. 
 
 Pt. I. Of Torts ts Gexer.'U. — continued. 
 CILiPTER IV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Of the Limitation of Actions Ex Delicto . .51 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Of the Meastjee of Damages rx Actions of Toet . 55 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Of Injunctions to Restrain the Contixcance of 
 Torts Tl 
 
 PAET II. 
 OF RULES RELATING TO PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Of Defamation 83 
 
 CHAl'TER II. 
 Of ^Ialicioits Prosecution 99
 
 CONTENTS. Ml 
 
 J^T. II. <^i' Rules uel-vtixg to Particulab Toms—couid. 
 CILVPTEIl III. 
 
 )>A(iE 
 
 Of False liirnisoxMENT a.\u ^L^LICIous Aiikest . lou 
 
 CLLVPTEU 1\. 
 Of Assault and Battery 118 
 
 CILVITER V. 
 Of bodily Ixjuries caused by Nuis-vxces . . lii.j 
 
 ( 'IIArTER VI. 
 Of Negligen'ce \'->'j 
 
 CHAPTER Vn. 
 Of Adultery axd Seductiox 149 
 
 CHAPTER Vm. 
 Of Trespass to L.vxd xyu Dispossessiox . . lOii 
 
 CILVl'TER IX. 
 Of Private Xuisa^'ces affectlxg Re.vlty . . IT.J
 
 Viii CONTEXTS. 
 
 Tt. II. Of Rules rel:\.tixg to Paeticulah Torts— co7itd. 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Of Frai-d axd Deceit 201 
 
 CILIPTER XI. 
 Of Tkesfass to ^vxd Co>'A'ersiox of Chattels . 209 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Of Ixfedcgemexts of Trade !NL\nKS a^'d Patext 
 A>-D CorYiaoiiT 222
 
 TAliLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 
 
 
 PAOK 
 
 Abbot V. McFic 
 
 
 
 .. 140 
 
 Afton V. Bluudoll . . 
 
 
 
 .. 192 
 
 Aldrttl r. Constable 
 
 
 
 .. 210 
 
 ^\.llcu r. Ilowartl . . 
 
 
 
 .. 38 
 
 c. New Gas Conipau 
 
 y 
 
 
 .. 43 
 
 All.sopp r. AUsopp . . 
 
 
 
 .. yo 
 
 Altou V. Midland Railwaij 
 
 • Company 
 
 
 . . 25 
 
 .Vmcrican Clotli Company 
 
 r. American Leather Cloth 
 
 Company 223 
 
 .•Vucastor c. llilliuj; 
 
 
 , , 
 
 .. 61 
 
 Audersou r. liiidcliffo 
 
 
 
 .. 1G4 
 
 .Vuffus c. Dalton 
 
 
 
 .. 186 
 
 ^Vixcdeckuc r. Kclk 
 
 
 
 .. 188 
 
 Armorj r. Dclainuic 
 
 
 
 69, 214 
 
 Ashby c. White 
 
 
 
 . . 0, 8 
 
 Asher /•. ■\\niitlook . . 
 
 
 104, 
 
 167, 168 
 
 Asliwix r. Stauwix . . 
 
 
 
 .. 47 
 
 Atkinson r. Gateshead W 
 
 ater Company 
 
 
 . . 20 
 
 Attoi-uey-Geueral r. May 
 
 jr, lie. of Birmiugham 
 
 
 .. 77 
 
 Ayualey v. Glover . . 
 
 
 ■73, 
 
 187, 18S 
 
 s. 
 
 Back V. Stacy 
 
 Backhouse v. Bononii . . . . . . . . 10 — 
 
 Bailey f. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln Railway Co. 
 
 f. Walford 
 
 Baldwin c. Casella . . 
 
 Balmc r. Hutton 
 
 Bamford r. Tumley 
 
 Barely r. ^Mathews and Wife 
 
 Barnes v. Ward 
 
 Barrj' v. Croskey 
 
 Bartonshill Coal Company e-. Reid 
 
 Barwick c. Enjjrlish Joint Stock Bank . . 
 
 Baseley v. Clarksuu 
 
 a 5 
 
 186 
 o.i, 181 
 
 29, 3.> 
 .. 203 
 .. 142 
 .. 21.-! 
 .. 177 
 .. 102 
 
 131 
 . 26 
 
 30, 44 
 . 204 
 
 14 
 
 125
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Battishill r. Reid 
 
 Baxter r. Taylor 
 
 Baylifis v. Fisher 
 
 r. Lawrence 
 
 Beard r. Eperton 
 
 Beaver c. Mayor, &c. of Manchester 
 
 Beckford v. Hood 
 
 Beckwith r. Philby 
 
 r. Shorcdike 
 
 Bcddiufrfield v. Onslow 
 Bwlfonl r. M'Kowl 
 
 Bell V. Stone 
 
 r. Walker 
 
 Benjamin v. Storr . . 
 
 Bennett r. Alcott 
 
 Binks V. S. Y. and R. D. R. Co. . . 
 Bird V. Jones 
 
 r. Randall 
 
 Bishop of London's case . . 
 Bishop r. Trustees of Bedford Charity 
 Blake r. Lanyon 
 Bloodworth r. Gray 
 
 Blyth r. Topham 
 
 Blythe r. Binnin<,'ham Water Company 
 
 Bojrue r. Houlston . . 
 
 Bolingbroke v. Swindon Local Board 
 
 Bolch V. Smith 
 
 Bonomi r. Backhouse 
 
 Booth I'. Mister 
 
 Boidton r. Watt 
 
 Bower r. Cook 
 
 Boyle r. Tamlin 
 
 Bradley r. Copley . . 
 
 Bradshawr. Lancashire and Torkshii-e Railway Company 
 
 Braham f. Bustard 
 
 Bramley v. Chesterton 
 
 Brassington r. Lewellyn 
 
 Brewer r. Dew 
 
 r. Sparrow 
 
 Britten t'. South Western Railway Company 
 Broad r. Ham 
 Brook V. Ashton 
 
 f. CdjK-land 
 
 Brown v. Boorman 
 
 V. Dawson 
 
 f. Robins 
 
 Bulleu t'. Langdon , 
 Burgess v. Burgess. 
 
 V. Gray 
 
 V. Great Western Railway Company 
 
 PAGE 
 . 177 
 
 . 200 
 . 67 
 . 87 
 . 231 
 . 162 
 . 20 
 . 106 
 . 11 
 . 200 
 3, 157 
 . 84 
 . 240 
 9 
 . 154 
 . 127 
 . 105 
 . 153 
 . 211 
 . 125 
 . 152 
 . 91 
 . 131 
 . 136 
 . 236 
 . 42 
 . 132 
 . 181 
 . 41 
 . 234 
 . 166 
 . 159 
 . 213 
 , 146 
 . 226 
 . 63 
 . 169 
 . 67 
 . 220 
 . 57 
 . 102 
 . 231 
 . 143 
 . 24 
 . 164 
 'A, 185 
 198 
 227 
 "38 
 134
 
 TMtLE OF CASES CITKI). 
 
 XI 
 
 
 PAOB 
 
 BiUToiijrhs «'• Bayuc 
 
 209 
 
 Bury c. Bcdfoixl 
 
 -i-n 
 
 ButcluT r. Butthor 
 
 ICJ 
 
 Butt r. Iinpcriiil Gas Compauy . . 
 
 7 
 
 Bynic f. Boadlo 
 
 110 
 
 c. 
 
 Calcraft v. Harborougli 
 Calder <•. Halkett . . 
 Campbell c. Scott . . 
 Cau I'. Lambert 
 Cauhain v. Fi.sk 
 Carlyou r. Laveiiug 
 Carpeuter r. Smith . . 
 Carr v. Clark 
 
 r. Hood 
 
 Carslake r. ITaplcdium 
 
 Car}' r. Kearslev 
 
 Cave r. Mountain . . 
 
 Chandler v. llobinsou 
 
 Cliapman r. Pickersj^l 
 
 Chaseniore r. Richards 
 
 Chester v. Holyhead Railway Compauy 
 
 Chincry r. Viall 
 
 Christie r. Cowell . . 
 
 Christn])herson c. Bare 
 
 Cliurchill r. Signers 
 
 Cibber v. Slopcr 
 
 City CommLssioncrs of Sewers r. Glas: 
 
 Clark V. Freeniau 
 
 CLirke i-. Clark 
 
 Clay r. Roberts 
 
 Clements r. Chivis 
 
 Cliff f. Midhmd Railway Company 
 
 Cobbctt V. Gray 
 
 Cockroft c. Smith 
 
 Cocks «'. Cliandler 
 
 Coprgs V. Bernard 
 
 Collins r. Evans 
 
 V. Mi<llaiul Level Commissii 
 
 Compton V. RichaixLs 
 Cook f. Wildes 
 Cooper V. Bcalo 
 
 V. Booth 
 
 ■ V. Hubbock 
 
 r. Marsliall 
 
 V. Willomat 
 
 
 
 l.jl 
 
 
 
 112 
 
 
 
 210 
 
 
 
 197 
 
 
 
 189 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 232 
 
 
 
 I'A 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 
 
 . 23S 
 
 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 . 185 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 . ID] 
 
 , 192 
 . i:i2 
 . 09 
 . 91 
 
 
 . lU 
 
 ), 120 
 . 99 
 . 152 
 . 198 
 
 
 75, 85 
 
 
 78, 150 
 
 
 
 . 85 
 
 
 
 . 85 
 
 
 
 . 139 
 
 
 
 . 119 
 
 
 
 . 121 
 
 
 
 . 22G 
 
 
 
 . 27 
 
 
 
 . 202 
 
 
 
 . C2 
 
 
 
 . 189 
 
 
 
 . 9G 
 
 
 
 . 121 
 
 
 
 . 104 
 
 
 
 . 188 
 
 
 
 . 199 
 
 
 .' 21( 
 
 ), 213
 
 Til TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Couch r. Stool 19,20 
 
 Ck)utt.s V. Gorham . . \^^ 
 
 Covell «•. Lamin? J^" 
 
 Cowai-d c. Baddeley '■j^ 
 
 Cowlcs r. Potts 97 
 
 Cox r. Biirbidge 1-*1 
 
 r. Glue 16^ 
 
 f.Lee 8^ 
 
 f. Mousley . . . . • • • • • • • • • • ^"* 
 
 Coxhead r. Richards . . . . • • • • • • . . 97 
 
 Crane r. Price 230,231 
 
 Crcspigrnv r. TVellesley . . . . ■ • • • • • . . 9-lr 
 
 CrcRswell r. Hedges 165 
 
 Croft r. Alison 31 
 
 Crossley r. Lightowler 191,192 
 
 Cnimp !•. Lambert . . . . . . • ■ • • • • • • l^*' 
 
 Cubitt r. Porter 166 
 
 Curriers' Company r. Corbet . . . . • • • • . . < 4 
 Cuthbertson v. Parson 42 
 
 D. 
 
 D'Almainc r. Booscy 
 
 Dalton r. South Eastern Railway Company . . 
 
 Dand v. Sexton 
 
 Danprerfield r. Jones 
 
 Daniel r. Metropolitan Railway Company 
 
 Dansey v. Richardson 
 
 Davis V. Eley 
 
 f. London and North "Western Railway Company 
 
 f. Jfarshall . . 
 
 f. Russell . . 
 
 r. Snead 
 
 r. Solomon . . 
 
 «•. Williams. . 
 
 Dawkins v. Lord Paulet . . 
 
 r. Lord Rokesby 
 
 Dean v. Peel 
 
 Deprg f. 31. R. Co 
 
 Delaney r. Fox 
 
 Dent V. Auction Mart Company . . 
 
 Dere r. Guest 
 
 Derrj- r. Ilandley . . 
 
 Dickenson r. Grand Junction Canal Company . . 
 
 r. North Eastern Railway Company . . 
 
 Dickson f. Hilliard . , 
 Digby f. Thompson 
 Dixon r. Bell 
 Dobell f. Stevens . . 
 
 , , 
 
 238 
 
 GO, 
 
 146 
 
 
 209 
 
 
 231 
 
 
 136 
 
 
 162 
 
 
 113 
 
 
 64 
 
 
 189 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 90 
 
 1.55, 
 
 199 
 
 95, 
 
 , 109 
 
 
 96 
 
 
 154 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 168 
 
 72, 
 
 , 186 
 
 
 78 
 
 
 93 
 
 
 191 
 
 
 145 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 84 
 
 59, 
 
 , 135 
 
 . . 
 
 202
 
 TA15LE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Xlll 
 
 
 
 
 
 lAOK 
 
 Dobson I'. liliukmorc 
 
 
 
 
 . 200 
 
 DockwTiiy f. Dickenson . . 
 
 
 
 
 . 68 
 
 Doe d. Carter v. Bernard . . 
 
 
 
 
 . 1G8 
 
 d. Johnston v. Baytup 
 
 
 
 
 . 168 
 
 d. Kui^'lit f. Jfen-j-wcather 
 
 
 
 
 . 168 
 
 d. North V. "W'elihor , . 
 
 
 
 
 . 169 
 
 d. Oliver c. Powell . . 
 
 
 
 
 . 168 
 
 Donaldson r. Beckett 
 
 
 
 
 . ia.', 
 
 Doswall c. Inii>ey . . 
 
 
 
 
 . 109 
 
 Dunn r. Biniiin^rhani Canal Company . 
 
 
 
 
 . 184 
 
 Durrell c. I'ritchard 
 
 
 
 
 . 78 
 
 DjTicr v. Leach 
 
 
 
 
 . 48 
 
 E. 
 
 Eagrer v. Grimwood 
 Eardlcy r. Earl Granville . . 
 Eaton V. Johns 
 Edgehiiry r. Stephens 
 Edwards r. Clay 
 
 «'. Crock . . 
 
 Elliott V. Kemp 
 
 f. North Eastern Railway Company 
 
 Elliottson c. Fieldham 
 
 Ellis V. Loftns Iron Company 
 
 r. Sheffield Gas Company . . 
 
 r. Great Western Railway Company 
 
 Elsam r. Fawcett . . 
 Embrcy r. Owen . . 
 Evans v. Eilmonds . . 
 
 r. Evans 
 
 r. "Walton . . 
 
 Every v. Smith 
 
 158 
 160 
 
 85 
 231 
 
 r)3 
 151 
 214 
 
 77 
 180 
 210 
 
 39 
 139 
 151 
 191 
 202 
 150 
 153 
 165 
 
 Faldo V. Ridpo 
 
 
 .. 161 
 
 Falvcy v. Stanford . . 
 
 
 . . 57 
 
 Farley r. Danks 
 
 
 . . 99 
 
 Fcltham v. En^'land 
 
 
 .. 45 
 
 Fcnn V. Bittleston . . 
 
 
 .. 213 
 
 Fenwick r. East London Railway Company . 
 
 
 . . 72 
 
 Fetter r. Beale 
 
 
 . . 64 
 
 Fitzjohn c. MacKinder 
 
 
 . 100, 101 
 
 Fletcher r. Rvlands 
 
 
 .. 160 
 
 Flijrht V. Thomas 
 
 
 .. 180 
 
 Fordliam v. L., B. ic S. C. R. Co. 
 
 
 .. 138
 
 XIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Foster V. Foster 
 Fouldes f. Willoujrhby 
 Foxilger r. Newcoinbe 
 Fox f. Broderick . . 
 Frauce r. Gaudet . . 
 Francis r. Cockerell 
 Franklin r. South Eastern 
 Frcwcn r. Phillips . . 
 Frj-cr r. Kinnerslcy 
 
 Railway Company 
 
 60, 145, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 151 
 209 
 91 
 86 
 58 
 42 
 146 
 189 
 97 
 
 G. 
 
 Liinpns 
 
 Galway r. Marshall 
 
 Gardiner v. Slade . . 
 
 Gathercole ;•. Miall. . 
 
 Gayford c. Moffat . . 
 
 Gee V. Pritchard 
 
 General Omnibus Company 
 
 George and Richard, The . . 
 
 Gibbs t: Cole 
 
 Gilpin r. Fowler 
 
 Gladman r. Jolmstou 
 
 Glave V. Harding . . 
 
 Glover v. South Western Railway Company 
 
 GofF V. Great Northern Railway Company 
 
 Goldsmid v. Tunbridge AVells Company. 
 
 Goodtitle r. Alder . . 
 
 Gordon r. Cheltenham Railway Company 
 
 Gorris r. Scott 
 
 Gott r. Gandy 
 
 Gourley r. PUmsoll. . 
 
 Gi-ainger r. Hill 
 
 Gray r. Gray 
 
 Great Western Railway Company r. Bennett 
 
 r. Fawcett 
 
 Greatrex «■. Ha\"\vard 
 Green r. Brittoii 
 Grcenslade v. Halliday 
 Grecnsland r. Chaplin 
 Gregoiy v. Pii)fr 
 
 V. Willi.'sms 
 
 Greville r. Chapman 
 Griffin c. Coleman . . 
 Griffiths v. Gidlow . . 
 
 r. Teetjen 
 
 Gwinnell v. Earner . . 
 
 106, 10 
 
 92 
 
 97 
 
 98 
 
 194 
 
 75 
 
 31 
 
 19 
 
 •233 
 
 97 
 
 143 
 
 189 
 
 60 
 
 35 
 
 (0, 77 
 
 164 
 
 79 
 
 21 
 
 129 
 
 84 
 
 105 
 
 84 
 
 184 
 
 132 
 
 194 
 
 88 
 
 200 
 
 140 
 
 2, 159 
 
 61 
 
 85 
 
 •, 122 
 
 49 
 
 155 
 
 130
 
 •lAlil.r, OF CASES CITKD. 
 
 XV 
 
 H. 
 
 Haddcsdon r. (Jn'ssil 
 Hadley v. Baxciulale 
 
 c. Taylor . . 
 
 Hnll «•. J(jhuMon 
 
 Hambletou r. Vere . . 
 
 Hamcr r. Kuowlos . . 
 
 Hatiiiiiai'k c. Wliitc 
 
 iraiamuucl c. St. I'aucra.s Vestry 
 
 Haukiusun r. BilJiy 
 
 Hannam r. Jftx-kctt 
 
 Hardcastlc r. S. W. anil Y. D. Railway Corapauy 
 
 Hanliiig- r. Kiug 
 
 Hardy c. Rylo 
 
 Harris r. Butkr 
 
 Harrison r. Bush 
 
 V. Taylor . . 
 
 Hart r. Humpack . . 
 
 Harwood i\ Great Northei-u Railway Comijauy 
 
 Hedfres r. Taprp 
 
 Henderson c. Broomhead 
 
 r. Hanisuu 
 
 Hesley c. Chapman 
 Heydon and Smith's case 
 Hide r. Thomborough 
 Hig'gins c. Andrews 
 Hilberr>- v. Hatton . . 
 Hill V. Evans 
 Hinton r. Heather . . 
 Hisoox r. Greenwood 
 Hodffsou f. Scarlett 
 Hoprj^ f. Ward 
 Hole v. Barlow 
 Holkcr r. Porrit 
 Holmes f. Goring . . 
 
 r. Mather . . 
 
 r. Worthingtou 
 
 Holt r. Scholefield . . 
 
 Hooper f. Gniscott . . 
 
 Hopper r. Reeve 
 
 Houlden r. Smith . . 
 
 Hoiiusel r. Smith . . 
 
 Huckle f. Money . . 
 
 Hughes /•. McFic . . 
 
 Hull c. Pickersgill . . 
 
 Humphreys r. Brogden 
 
 Himtley r. Sim]>sou 
 
 Hiurdman ;■. North Eastern Railway Company 
 
 
 rA(iK 
 
 .. 210 
 
 
 70 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 1S4 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 .S5 
 
 
 101 
 
 
 127 
 
 
 124 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 154 
 
 8G, 95 
 
 •224, 226 
 
 .. 95 
 
 
 230 
 
 
 155 
 
 "j( 
 
 , 109 
 
 
 95 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 68 
 
 
 186 
 
 
 217 
 
 
 211 
 
 
 230 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 212 
 
 
 96 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 179 
 
 
 193 
 
 
 195 
 
 
 136 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 91 
 
 
 H7 
 
 
 120 
 
 
 HI 
 
 r'7 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 55 
 
 
 140 
 
 
 36 
 
 1.S0 
 
 , 181 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 14
 
 XTl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 laEson V. Stewart . . 
 Inohbald v. Eobinson 
 
 r. Bariington 
 
 Indemiaur r. Dames 
 Irwin f. Brandwood 
 Iveson r. Moore 
 
 PAGE 
 
 .. 84 
 .. 176 
 .. 176 
 16, 133 
 .. 91 
 
 Jacobs r. Senard 
 Jamond v. Knight . . 
 Job v. Potton 
 Joel V. Monnson 
 John r. Bacon 
 Johnson v. Emerson 
 
 r. Stear 
 
 Johnstone v. Sutton 
 Jones r. Boyce 
 
 V. Chapman . . 
 
 V. Heme 
 
 V. Stevens 
 
 Jupe r. Pratt 
 
 165, 216 
 
 189 
 
 165 
 
 41 
 
 136 
 
 99 
 
 69 
 
 d, 101 
 
 58 
 
 163 
 
 90 
 
 65 
 
 234 
 
 99, 
 
 K 
 
 Keats V. Cadogan 
 Keene v. Ee^-nolds 
 Kelly r. Sherlock 
 
 r. Tiuling 
 
 Kemp r. Ne\'ine 
 Kendillou r. Maltby 
 Kidgell r. iloore 
 King r. Rose 
 Kirk V. Gregory 
 Knight r. Gcx 
 Knott f. Morgan 
 
 .. 129 
 
 . . 161 
 
 56, 65 
 
 95, 98 
 
 109 
 
 192 
 
 200 
 
 211 
 
 210 
 
 38 
 
 227 
 
 Lacy f. Rhys 
 
 Lafoiid r. Ruddock . . 
 
 Lamine r. Dorrell . . 
 
 LancHKliire "Waggon Company v. Fitzhugh 
 
 Lancaster Canal Company v. Pamaby . . 
 
 Laiigridge r. Levy . . 
 
 Latham r. Latliam and Gcthin . . 
 
 .. 241 
 . . 54 
 .. 220 
 .. 215 
 131, 132 
 26, 201, 202 
 .. 150
 
 TAHLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XV 11 
 
 Lniiffhor c. Poiutcr. . 
 
 Ltiu^'hton c. Hislioj) of Stnldr 
 
 Lawless c. Aii>rlo-Eg-}i)tiiiu Cuttou Company 
 
 Lawrfucc r. Oboe . . 
 
 Lay r. M. Railway Company 
 
 Leake c. Lovetlay . . 
 
 Leary v. I'atrick 
 
 Leather Cloth Company c. Americ;i 
 
 Lee V. Riley . . 
 
 Lepjf c. Tucker 
 
 Lewis r. Levy 
 
 r. Marling . . 
 
 Ley r. Peter 
 
 Limpus r. General Omnibus Company 
 
 Louj^meicl r. Holiday 
 
 Lovell c. Howell 
 
 Low c. "Wood 
 
 Lnmley r. (lay 
 
 Lynch v. Iviiij,'ht 
 
 1". Nurdin 
 
 Lyons e. Martin 
 
 an Leather Cloth Company 
 
 87, 88 
 
 •AOK 
 
 37 
 
 95 
 
 95 
 
 159 
 
 141 
 
 214 
 
 114 
 
 227 
 
 159 
 
 281 
 
 96 
 
 231 
 
 170 
 
 31 
 
 26 
 
 44 
 
 23G 
 
 152 
 
 87 
 
 140 
 
 42 
 
 M. 
 
 Mackay r. Commercial Bank of New Bioiuswick 
 
 Mackey f. Ford 
 
 Macpherson r. Daniels 
 
 MajLTor r. Chadwick 
 
 Mauby V. "Witt 
 
 Manjjran r. Attertou 
 
 Manley r. Field 
 
 Marsh v. Keating . . 
 
 r. Loader . . 
 
 Marshall v. York, i:c. Railway Company 
 Martin v. Great Northern Railway Company 
 
 f . Strachau . . 
 
 Martindale v. Smitli 
 Mason V. Ciesar 
 
 ■ V. "Williams . . 
 
 Masper and wife i\ Brown 
 
 Maxwell r. Hogg . . 
 
 May I'. Burdett 
 
 MaVall r. Ili^'by . . 
 
 Mayliow v. Herrieks 
 
 M 'Andrew r. Bassett 
 
 M'Gregor r. Thwaites 
 
 M-Leod r. AVliateley 
 
 M'Manus c. Cricket 
 
 Mears v. Loudon and South Western Railway Company 
 
 . 205 
 . 96 
 S4, 92 
 . 194 
 . 97 
 . 141 
 . 154 
 . 220 
 . 106 
 . 26 
 . 134 
 . 1G7 
 . 214 
 . 199 
 . 205 
 124 
 237 
 141 
 240 
 210 
 220 
 1)4, 96 
 97 
 42 
 21.>
 
 XVlll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Mellors r. Shaw 
 
 Merest r. Harvey . . 
 
 Metropolitan Assurauce Company v. Peteh 
 
 Saloon Omnibus Comijauy r. HaAV 
 
 Railway Company 
 
 Miller r. Hope and Shaw . . 
 Milligan r. Wedge . . 
 Milling-ton v. Fox . . 
 Mitchell r. Crasweller 
 Moore v. Robinson 
 Morgan r. Lingen . . 
 
 r. Yale of Neath Compa 
 
 r. Hughes 
 
 Morris r. Morris 
 
 Mortimer r. Craddock 
 
 Mullett r. Mason 
 
 Mumford v. O., W. and W. Rail 
 
 3Iurcliie r. Black 
 
 Murray r. Cuiiie 
 
 V. Hall 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Co. 
 
 kins 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 47 
 . 67 
 . 200 
 . 85 
 . 147 
 . 109 
 . 38 
 . 224 
 31, 42 
 213 
 85 
 43, 44 
 111 
 151 
 69 
 62 
 200 
 180 
 42 
 165 
 
 Nelson v. The Liverpool Brewery Company 
 
 Nichols V. Marsland 
 
 Norris r. Baker 
 
 North-Eastem Railway Company v. Elliott 
 
 Northampton i\ Ward 
 
 Notley r. Buck 
 
 Novello V. Sudlow . . 
 
 Nuttal v. BraceweU 
 
 .. 130 
 13, 160 
 199 
 185 
 164 
 220 
 22 
 193 
 
 0. 
 
 Olliett r. Bessey 
 
 Onslow and 'WhaUey's case, Queen r. Castro 
 
 Ormcnd r. Holland 
 
 Osbom V. GUlet 
 
 Oughton r. Seppings 
 
 Overton v. Freeman 
 
 Oxley f. Watts 
 
 .. 112 
 .. 113 
 .. 47 
 146, 156 
 .. 220 
 .. 42 
 .. 216 
 
 Page r. Edulgee 
 Palmer v. Paul 
 Paris f. Levy 
 Parkins v. Scott 
 
 214 
 77 
 98 
 92
 
 TAi;i,E OK CASES CITED. 
 
 XIX 
 
 Partridjfo v. Sfott . . 
 
 PasU'v »■. Frifinnn . . 
 
 PuUut Bottle Company r. yi>euct.r 
 
 Patrick v. Colerick . . 
 
 PattiKou r. Jonca . . 
 
 Payne c. Rivau 
 
 Peake r. UliUuira 
 
 Pearrtou v. Cox 
 
 ('. Spouccr . . 
 
 Peek c. Guruey 
 
 Penn c. Jack 
 
 Percival v. riiii)p.s . . 
 
 Perryinan v. LLstcr . . 
 
 Phillips c. Jansen . . 
 
 Pickcriugr r. iJowsou 
 
 Pillott V. "Wilkinson 
 
 Piuniugiou c. Gallard 
 
 Pippin V. Sheppard. . 
 
 Pope r. Curl . . 
 
 Popplewcll c. Hodkinsou 
 
 Potter V. Faulkner . . 
 
 Potts f . Smith 
 
 Ponlton V. London and South Western Railw 
 
 Pretty v. Birkmore . . 
 
 Prince Albert r. Strange 
 
 Princess Royal, The 
 
 Procter v. Hodgson 
 
 Pryce v. Belcher 
 
 Tym c. Great Northern Railway Company 
 
 ay 
 
 Company 
 
 11 
 
 PAOB 
 
 185 
 •JOl 
 •J31 
 IGl 
 
 97 
 100 
 
 91 
 
 37 
 19.') 
 206 
 233 
 
 70 
 101 
 
 92 
 •J07 
 217 
 195 
 
 26 
 
 70 
 184 
 
 .)0 
 188 
 
 33 
 129 
 240 
 
 23 
 
 194 
 
 5 
 
 146 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quannan v. Burnett 
 
 33 
 
 R. 
 
 R. r. Burdett 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 80 
 
 — V. Huggins 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 141 
 
 — V. Revel 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 113 
 
 — r. Rosswell 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 199 
 
 — f. ^\^leeler 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 229 
 
 Rapson r. Cubitt . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 37 
 
 Rawlings v. Tilt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 119 
 
 Raynor r. Mitchell . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 31 
 
 Read f. Coker 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 119 
 
 t'. Edwards . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 212 
 
 r. Great Eastern RaL 
 
 way C 
 
 oinpau 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 . 146
 
 XX 
 
 TA15LE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Eeade v. Conquest . . 
 
 V. Lacy 
 
 Eeddie r. Scoolt 
 Reon r. Smith 
 Eeyse v. Powell 
 Rhodes r. Smethurst 
 Rich r. Basterfield . . 
 Richards v. Rose 
 Richardson r. Mellish 
 
 r. Great Eastern Railway Company 
 
 V. Metrojjolitan Railway Company 
 
 V. North Eastern Railway Company 
 
 Rigby V. Hewitt 
 Rist V. Taux 
 Roberts v. Roberts . , 
 V. Rose 
 
 V. Smith 
 
 Robson r. Wliitting-ham . . 
 Rosswell V. Pi-yor . . 
 Rom-ke r. White ]Moss Company 
 Rowbotham v. Wilson 
 Rowcliffe V. Edwards 
 Russell V. Cowley . . 
 
 r. Home 
 
 Rylands r. Fletcher 
 Ryan v. Clark 
 
 ISO 
 
 PAGE 
 
 239 
 239 
 156 
 109 
 164 
 
 54 
 130 
 186 
 
 63 
 136 
 138 
 136 
 140 
 154 
 
 89 
 199 
 
 47 
 186 
 130 
 
 40 
 185 
 
 90 
 230 
 120 
 
 13 
 164 
 
 Saloman v. Vintners' Company 
 Sattherthwaite r. Dewhurst 
 Saunders i\ Edwards 
 
 V. MerryT\-eather 
 
 Savory r. Price 
 Sayre v. Moore 
 Scatterf,'ood v. SUvester 
 Schneider r. Heath 
 Scott .'. Dock Comjjany 
 
 V. Shepherd . . 
 
 V. Stamford . . 
 
 V. Stansfiold . . 
 
 Searle v. Prentice . . 
 Senior v. Ward 
 Seymour r. Greenwood 
 Sharp r. Hancock . . 
 
 r. Powell 
 
 Shcaban v. Aheam.. 
 
 Shepherd v. Midland Railway Company 
 
 Simmon r. Milligan 
 
 186 
 154 
 98 
 168 
 233 
 237 
 221 
 208 
 11, 146 
 15, 16, 121 
 .. 238 
 96, 110 
 24 
 48
 
 TADLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXI 
 
 PAOK 
 
 Simpson r. Ilolliday . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 
 
 r. Siivaj^e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 
 
 Sinisoii r. Louiloii Gonoral Oiiiuibus Company . . . . 137 
 
 SiujftT Macliine Ci)iiii)any c. Wilson .. .. 221, 22.'), 22G 
 
 Sinjfloton r. JOa.stcni L'oimties Railway Company . . . . 140 
 
 Six Caq)cntei-s' case . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 
 
 Skc'tton c. London and North "\Vc.'<tem Railway Company . . 139 
 
 Slater r. Swann ." . ..'.,211 
 
 Smith r. Fletcher IGO 
 
 r. Great Eastern Rjiilway Company . . . . 137 
 
 • f. Hu-j'hcs ' 206 
 
 f. Lloyd 171 
 
 f. Miller 213 
 
 f. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 
 
 f. Thackorah 181 
 
 Solton f. De Held 176 
 
 Somer\-ille v. Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . 95 
 
 Soiitheote r. Stanley . . . . . . . . . . 133 
 
 Southee r. Denning' . . . . . . . . 92 
 
 Southoy r. Sherwood . . . . . . . . 236 
 
 Spark )'. Heslop . . . . . . 69 
 
 Speill V. Maulc 87, 95 
 
 Spiei-s e-. Browne . . . . . . . . . . 23S 
 
 Spokes V. Banbury Local Buaitl . . . . . . . . 77 
 
 Spooner c. Brewster .. .. .. .. .. ..210 
 
 St. Helens' Company r. Tippings . . . . . . 177, 178 
 
 Stapley c. London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Co. . . 139 
 Stcadmau r. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 
 
 Steyens r. Jeacock.s . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
 
 Stoekdale r. Hansard . . . . . . . . 96 
 
 r. Onwhyu 236 
 
 Storey r. A.shton . . . . . . . . 42 
 
 Stniight r. Bum 188 
 
 Street c. Gngwell 177 
 
 Strtfyan r. Knowles . . . . . . . . . . 1 84 
 
 Stubley r. London and North "West cm Railway Company . . 139 
 Styles r. Cardiff Steam Company . . . . . . 142 
 
 Sutlitt' V. Bootho 193 
 
 Sutton r. Mocxly 210 
 
 Swaiuson c. North Ea.stcm Railway Company . . 46 
 
 Swauborough r. Coycntrj- . . . . . . . . 1 89 
 
 Swcetland c. Webber . . . . . . . . 167 
 
 Swift r. Jewsbury . . . . . . . . . . 20.'» 
 
 Sykes v. Syke.-i ' 227 
 
 Tancred v. Allgood 
 Tappling' r. Jones . 
 
 214 
 
 188
 
 XXll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Taylor v. Ashton . . 
 
 V. Hawkins 
 
 r. "UTiitchcad 
 
 r. Williams . . 
 
 Terry v. Ashton 
 
 r. Hutchinson 
 
 Thom r. Bigland 
 Thomas v. Powell . . 
 Thompson v. Barnard 
 
 r. Shaekell 
 
 Thorpe r. Smallwood 
 Tichbom v. Mostj-n 
 Timothy v. Simpson 
 
 Tindal r. BeU 
 
 Tinsley f. Lacy 
 
 Tippings r. St. Helens' Company 
 
 Todd r. Flight 
 
 Tolht V. Sheustone . . 
 
 Toomey v. London and Brighton Railway Company 
 
 Tuben-ille r. Savage 
 
 Tuff r. TVoi-man 
 
 Tullidge V. Wade 
 
 Tuuney r. M. EaUway Company 
 Tunnichffe r. Teed 
 Turner v. Doe 
 
 r. Great Eastern Railway Company 
 
 r. Hunt 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 202 
 
 
 97 
 
 
 162 
 
 
 101 
 
 
 128 
 
 155 
 
 157 
 
 
 203 
 
 
 67 
 
 
 91 
 
 
 97 
 
 
 214 
 
 
 113 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 63 
 
 
 239 
 
 72 
 
 175 
 
 127 
 
 , 136 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 146 
 
 
 119 
 
 .' 138 
 
 , 139 
 
 65, 124 
 
 , 157 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 123 
 
 
 171 
 
 
 46 
 
 
 211 
 
 u. 
 
 L'nderhill v. Ellicombe 
 United Merthyr Company, Re 
 
 20 
 
 58 
 
 Vaughan r. Menloye 
 
 V. Watt . . 
 
 Vaughton v. Bradshaw 
 Venablcs r. Smith . . 
 Verry r. Watkyns . . 
 Vicars r. Wilcox , . 
 
 135 
 217 
 123 
 
 38 
 158 
 
 88 
 
 W. 
 
 Wakelcy v. Cooke . . 
 Wakeman v. Robinson 
 
 85 
 
 11
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xxm 
 
 
 PAOK 
 
 Walker v. Brewster 
 
 .. 170 
 
 "R*. ■»«* 1«». 
 
 .. 84 
 .. 17G 
 
 Walter «•. Selfe 
 
 Walton f. Watorluiuse 
 
 .. 103 
 
 Wail)urt()n c. Great Western Railway Company 
 
 Wiinl «•. EjTo 
 
 f. Ilobbs 
 
 .. -'11 
 . . 20G 
 
 r. Weeks 
 
 . . 9.J 
 
 Warwick c. Foulkcs 
 
 . . G'j 
 
 Waxoii r. Warlter . . 
 
 . . 90 
 
 Watkins r. Hall 
 
 . 81, S7, 92 
 
 Watling c. Oastler . . 
 
 .. 1.3G 
 
 Weaver *'. Wartl . , 
 
 .. IJI 
 
 Webb r. Paternoster 
 
 .. I'Jl) 
 
 Welch r. Knott 
 
 .. 2'25 
 
 Welfare f. Loudou, Brighton and South Coast Rail. 
 
 Co. 12, 136 
 
 Wellock r. Constantiue 
 
 . . 23 
 
 Wells r. Abrahams . . 
 
 22 
 
 r. Head 
 
 '. '.'. 212 
 
 West r. SmaUwood . . 
 
 .. 112 
 
 Weston f. Beeman . . 
 
 . . 100 
 
 Wliatman v. Pearson 
 
 . . 42 
 
 Wliecler r. Wliitiuj,' 
 
 .. 122 
 
 White V. Bass 
 
 .. ISO 
 
 
 9 
 
 r. Franco 
 
 '. '.'. 133 
 
 Q ♦♦; ^^/\ 
 
 23 
 
 Whitehouso r. iVllows 
 
 '. . '. ')4 
 
 Whiteley r. Pepper 
 
 Wipgett r. Fox 
 
 Wild f. Pickford 
 
 .. 31 
 
 42 
 
 .. 213 
 
 Wilkinson r. Hajrarth 
 
 .. 1G5 
 
 Williams r. Clough 
 
 . . 4S 
 
 Williamson r. Freer 
 
 .. 97 
 
 Wilson V. Barker . . 
 
 . . 30 
 
 
 42 
 
 
 <)S 
 
 
 30 
 
 Winerato r. Waite . . 
 
 .! Ill 
 
 Winter r. Brockwell 
 
 . . 1 on 
 
 .. XT Ann 
 
 i.ji 
 
 Winterbottom r. Lord Derby 
 
 . . 7, s 
 
 Withei-s r. North Kent Railway Company 
 
 1.;.', 13G 
 
 Wootl V. Boosoy 
 
 .. 230 
 
 r. Ward 
 
 .. 101 
 
 Woodennan r. Baldock 
 
 . . 214 
 
 Worth c. Gilling . . 
 
 .. 112 
 
 Wren r. Weild 
 
 .S7 
 
 Wrigrht r. Howard . . 
 V. Peai"sun . . 
 
 .. 101 
 .. 143
 
 XXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Wright r. Tallis 236 
 
 r. Woodirate . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 
 
 Wyatt r. TMiite" 103 
 
 Yates r. Jack 186 
 
 Youno- r. Spencer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 
 
 ^ V. Femie 231
 
 PAET I. 
 
 RULES IIELATINT; TO TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 u.
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Oi' "Wii'iNris rruELY Ex Dkmcto. 
 
 The Object of Law. *'The maxims of law," says 
 Jiu^tiiiiaii, ''arc tliesc : to live honestly, to hurt no 
 man, and to give every one his due." The practical 
 object of jurisprudence must necessarily be to enforce 
 the observance of these maxims, which is done by 
 punishing the dishonest, causing wi-ongdoers to 
 make reparation, and ensuring to every member of 
 the community the full enjoyment of his rights and 
 possessions. 
 
 Public and Private Wrongs. Infractions of 
 law are, for tlie purposes of justice, divided into two 
 great classes : \'iz., public and private wrongs. The 
 fonner consist of such offences as, aiming at the root 
 of society and order, are considered to be ^vTongs to 
 the community at largo ; and as no redress can bo 
 given to the community, except by the prevention of 
 such acts for the future, they are visited with some 
 deterrent and exemplary punishment. 
 
 Private -wTongs, or ci^•il injimes, on tlie otiier hand, 
 
 are such ^iolations or dei)rivations of the legal rights 
 
 of another, as are accompanied by either actual or 
 
 presumptive damage. These being merely injuries 
 
 b2
 
 4 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 to private individuals, admit of redress. The law 
 therefore affords a remedy, by forcing the -wrongdoer 
 to make reparation. 
 
 Division of Private Wrongs. But as -wTongs 
 are divided into criminal and ci\'il, so the latter are 
 subdivided into the two classes of wrongs cr coi/fracfii, 
 and WTongs ex delicto; the former being such as arise 
 out of the violation of private contracts ; the latter, 
 commonly called torts, such as spring from infractions 
 of the great social obligation, by which each member 
 of the state is bound to do hurt to no man. 
 
 It is of the latter class that I am about to treat in 
 this work. 
 
 Definition of a Tort. A tort is described in 
 the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, as "a wrong 
 independent of contract;" but, although this is no 
 doubt a very correct and all-embracing definition for 
 the purposes of judicially determining what is and 
 what is not a tori, it does not, I think, convey any 
 very clear idea of the natm-e of it. I shall not, 
 however, attempt to define what a tort is, but shall 
 content myself with the -less scientific but more intel- 
 ligible method of describing it as follows : — 
 
 Rule 1. — A person commits a tort, and 
 renders himself liable to an action for da- 
 mages, who commits some act not authorized 
 by law, or who omits to do something which 
 he ought to do by law, and by such act or
 
 OK wu(>N(;s rruELY i;x delicto. 5 
 
 omission citlicr iul'iiii^^cs sonic iibsolute liirlit, 
 to tlie uninti'iTU])ti'(l enjoyment of Avlildi 
 another is entitled, or eau.ses to siicli other 
 some substantial loss of money, health, or 
 material comfort, be\'on(l tliat suffered by tlie 
 rest of the pul)lic. 
 
 It will be perceived that two distinct factors go to 
 make a tort, viz. (1) a wrongful act or omission (see 
 Pn/ce V. Bchhcr, 4 C. B. 806) ; and (2) either a oou- 
 sequent invasion of another's right (see Aslthn v. 
 W/iifc, 1 Sill. L. C. 2.S4), or the consequent infliction 
 upon him of some loss (see Icenon. v. Jloon; 1 L'L 
 11(1 >/m. 480). Neither of these two factors will, by 
 itself, be sufficient to sustain an action for damages, 
 although, as we shall see hereafter, tlie first may, 
 imder certain circumstances, be alone sufficient to 
 sustain an action for an injunction. An invasion of 
 a right, or the infliction of damage, miconnocted with 
 a wrongful act, is technically called a (iamiiiim ahsqiic 
 injuria^ and it is a maxim that ex damno absque injuria 
 noil oritur actio. Instances of this are given below, 
 from which it will be seen that the greatest losses 
 may be occasioned, the greatest discomfoi-t caused, 
 nay, in some instances, the greatest mihappiness may 
 be inflicted, provided that the doer is careful only to 
 do such acts, or to make such omissions, as the law 
 authorizes him to do or make. 
 
 On the other hand, although a daminuii absque 
 injuria is no ground for an action for damages, the 
 convei'se by no means holds good ; for, as will Ik? 
 seen from the inile, the mere unlawful iufriugement
 
 6 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 of a riglit is of itself a cause of action, without the 
 infliction of any appreciable damage whatever, and 
 it has been consequently said that ex injuria sine 
 damno oritur actio (a). 
 
 The interruption, however temporary and however 
 slight, of another's absolute right, is considered by 
 law as a proper subject for reparation, and substantial 
 damages have more than once been awarded where 
 the surroundings of the plaintiff have been very con- 
 siderably improved and his comforts very consider- 
 ably heightened for the period during which the 
 defendant has prevented him from exercising the 
 right in c[uestion. But where no absolute right has 
 been invaded, then some substantial loss of money, 
 comfort, or health inflicted upon the plaintiff beyond 
 that suffered by the rest of the pubKc, by the un- 
 lawful act or omission, must be proved. The reason 
 of this is very clear and very reasonable. In the case 
 of the infiingement of a right, there is a grievance 
 peculiar to the jmrty injured, as distinguished fi'om 
 the public generally; but where no right is infringed, 
 but merely an unlawful act or omission committed 
 or made, there the grievance is properly one affecting 
 the public and not any private individual in par- 
 
 (a) ThLs maxim can ob\dously only be accurate by using the 
 ■word injuria in the sense of a priiv/te injury, for a mere public 
 wrong will not alone sustain an action. If, however, we use it 
 in this sense in the maxim ex damno sine injuria non oritur actio, it 
 becomes obvious that it is too narrow, because a loss caused 
 connected with a public -wrong is sufficient. I have therefore in 
 this work used the word injuria in the sense of a wTongf ul act 
 or omission, independently of the question whether such act or 
 omission was ^^^•ougful only rjua some individual or qua the iJublic 
 generallj', and I have used the word damnum as signifying a 
 private grievance.
 
 OF WRONGS rUUELY EX DELICTO. 7 
 
 ticiilar; and if every member of the public were 
 allowed to bring actions in respect of it, there would 
 be no limit to the number of actions wliioli miglit bo 
 brought ( Wiiitcrljutfoiii v. Lord Derh;/, L. 11., 2 Ex. 
 31G). The remedy of the public is by indictment, if 
 the unlawful act amounts to so serious a dereliction 
 of duty as to constitute an injury to the public. But 
 if in addition to the injury to the public, a special, 
 peculiar, and substantial damage is occasioned to an 
 indi\idual, then it is only just that he should liave 
 some private redress. Let us now glance at ?omo 
 illustrations of the foregoing rule : — 
 
 (1) If one trespasses upon another's land, that is^ 
 the invasion of an absolute riglit ; but if the trespass/ 
 was committed in self-defence, in order to escapel 
 from some pressing danger, no action will lie in re-i 
 spect of it, because the law authomos the commis- 
 sion of a trespass for such a purpose ; and, therefore, 
 although there was a damnum — namely, a ])rivate 
 grievance, there was no injitria or wrongfid act, and 
 the trespass was consequently a damnum ah.^qnc in/unVi 
 (37 Hen. 6, 37, pi. 2G). 
 
 (2) Again, if I o^vn a shop Avliich greatly depends 
 for its custom upon its attractive appearance, and a 
 company erect a gasometer hiding it from the public, 
 no action is maintainable by me ; because, although 
 my trade may be iniincd by the obstruction, yet the 
 gas company are only doing an act authorized by law, 
 namely, building upon their own land (lluff v. Im- 
 perial Gas Co., L. IL, 2 C/i. App. 108). 
 
 (3) A legally qualified voter duly tenders his voto 
 to the returning ofRcer, who ^\Tongly refuses to re-
 
 8 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 crister it. The candidate for whom the vote was ten- 
 dered gains the seat, and no loss whatever, either in 
 money, comfort, or health, is suffered by the rejected 
 voter ; yet his absolute right to vote at the election 
 is infi'inged, and that by an imlawful act of the re- 
 tiu-ning officer, and hence we have here an uy'uria 
 and a damnum sufficient to support an action [Anhhij 
 V. Wiite, 1 Sm. L. C. 251). 
 
 (4) A man erected an obstruction in a public way. 
 The plaintiff' was delayed on several occasions in 
 passing along it, being obliged, in common with 
 every one else who attempted to use the road, either 
 to pursue his journey by a less direct road, or else to 
 remove the obstruction. It was held, however, that 
 he could not maintain an action, because although 
 there had been an unlawful act on the part of the 
 defendant, yet there was no invasion of an absolute 
 right, and no substantial damage peculiar to the 
 plaintiff beyond that suffered by the rest of the 
 j)ublie [Winterhottom v. Lord Derby, L. E., 2 Hx. 
 316). 
 
 (5) The defendants left an unfenced hole upon 
 premises of theirs adjoining a highway. The plaintiff, 
 in passing along the highway at night, fell into the 
 hole, and was injured. Here the plaintiff clearly 
 suffered a special and substantial damage beyond 
 that suffered by the rest of the public, and accord- 
 ingly he recovered damages {Iladleij v. Taylor, L. i?., 
 1 C.P. 53). 
 
 (6) To give one more example similar to the last. 
 The plaintiff kept a coffee-house in a narrow street. 
 The defendants were auctioneers, carrying on an ex-
 
 OF WKONGS I'UUELY KX DEI. It TO. "J 
 
 tonsivo business in the same noipliboiirliooJ, having 
 an outlet at the rear of their premises next adjoiuiiijjj 
 the phiintiffs house, wliere thoy were constantly 
 loading and unlr)ading goods into and from their 
 vans. The vans intereepted the light from the plain- 
 tiff's eotfee-housG to such an extent, that ho was 
 obliged to bum gas nearly all day, and access to his 
 shop was obstructed, and the smell from the horses' 
 manure made the house imcomfortable. Here there 
 was a state of facts constituting a [)ublic nuisance, 
 but there was also a direct and substantial private 
 and particular damage to the plaintiif, beyond that 
 suffered by the rest of the public, so as to entitle him 
 to maintain an action {Bciyai/iin v. Sforr, L.li., C.P. 
 400; and see also JF/tife v. llindlci/ Load Boards L. It.y 
 10 Q. li. 219). 
 
 Of Injuriae, or Wrongful Acts. In the 
 words of I'ratt, C J., "torts are iulinilely various, for 
 there is not anything in nature that may not be con- 
 verted into an instrument of mischief" (see Cliopman 
 v. Pirki'rst/i//, 2 in/s. 14G). It is, therefore, hopeless to 
 attempt any definition of what constitutes a wrongful 
 act or iiij'iiria, upon wliich an action for tort may be 
 founded ; but, broadly speaking, the following rule 
 may, perhaps, give the student some standard by 
 which to measure particular cases : — 
 
 Rule 2. — A man is guilty of an iiijuiiu 
 wlio, "without authority or excuse, either — 
 (a) Wittiiio-ly or unwittingly does any act, 
 
 It
 
 10 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 or makes any wi'ittcn or verbal state- 
 ment, wliicli infringes npon any 
 absolute right of another person ; 
 
 (b) Wittingly or imwittingly does any act 
 
 which is f(jrl3iclden by law ; 
 
 (c) Omits to do something which a reason- 
 
 able man would do, or does some- 
 thin g: which a reasonable man would 
 not do ; 
 
 (d) Makes any false statement, either 
 
 Avritten or verbal, to another, "^^dtli 
 intent to deceive 5 
 
 (e) Omits to make any statement with in- 
 
 tent to deceive in cases in which 
 there is a legal duty upon him to 
 make such statement. 
 Roughly speaking, therefore, injurice proceed either 
 from misdeeds, neglects or frauds. 
 
 Involuntary Injuriae. AVhere the act or omis- 
 sion not authorized by law is committed iuvoluntarily, 
 no action lies. 
 
 Rule 3. — Xo person is legally responsible 
 for any act or (miission n(^t attriljutable to 
 active or passive volition on his 2)art. 
 
 I do not mean to say that a man who sins from 
 ignorance, and not from malice, is thereby excused.
 
 OF WRONGS PURELY KX DKI.KTO. H 
 
 Far from it, for l»y reasonable iinjuiry lio might set 
 himself right; and, indeed, on grounds of public 
 jtolioy alone, a]»ai*t from motajihysical eonsiderations, 
 it is obvious that it would be highly inconvenient and 
 dangerous to admit any such doctrine. The above 
 rule, differently put, means, in the language of an 
 ancient justice, that "no man shall be excused of a 
 trespass, tuiless it be jiidged utterly without his 
 fault." 
 
 (1) A horse driven by tlie defendant was alaraied 
 by the noise caused by a butcher's cart driven fiu-iously 
 along the street,and, becoming ungovernable, ran away 
 and injured the plaintiff's horse. It Avas, however, 
 held, that as the act was involuntary on the defen- 
 dant's part, he was not liable ( Wahonan v. liohiit-soii, 
 1 BiiKj. 213; and see Bcclirith v. SJiordihv, 4 Jittrr. 
 2092; and Scott v. London Ihrh Co., 34 L. J., Ex. 220). 
 
 (2) Under the Metropolis Ijocal ^lanagement Act 
 (L'^ «t 10 Vict. c. 120), a duty is imposed upon the 
 vestry, of properly cleansing the sewers vested in 
 them. Under the premises of the plamtifF was an 
 old drain, which was one of the sewers vested in the 
 vestry. This (bain having become choked, the soil 
 therefrom iiowed into the cellars of the plaintiff and 
 did damage. 
 
 In an action against the vestry, the jiuy fomid {infer 
 alia) that the obstruction was unknown to the de- 
 fendants, and could not by the exercise of reasonable 
 care have been known to them. Held, that upon this 
 finding the defendants were entitled to the vei-dict 
 [Hammond V. Vcsfr// of St. Fancva-s L. 11, 9 C. P. 31 G). 
 
 (3) On the defendant's land were artificial pools,
 
 12 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 containing large quantities of water. These pools 
 had been fonned by damming up, with artificial em- 
 bankments, a natural stream which rose above the 
 defendant's land and flowed through it, and which 
 was allowed to escape from the pools successively by 
 weirs into its original course. An extraordinary rain- 
 fall caused the stream and the water in the pools to 
 swell, so that the artificial embankment was carried 
 away by the pressure, and the water in the pools 
 being suddenly loosed, rushed down the course of the 
 stream and injured the plaintiff's adjoining property. 
 The plaintiff having brought an action against the 
 defendant for damages, the jury found that there 
 was no negligence in the construction or mainte- 
 nance of the works, that the rainfall was most exces- 
 sive, and amounted to a vis major, or visitation of 
 God. Under these circumstances, it was held, that 
 no action was maintainable, because, as Bramwell, B., 
 said, "the defendant had done nothing -^Tong; he had 
 infiinged no right. It was not the defendant who 
 let loose the water and sent it to destroy the bridges. 
 He did, indeed, store it, and stored it in such quan- 
 tities that if it were let loose it would do, as it did, 
 mischief. But suppose a stranger let it loose, would 
 the defendant be liable ? If so, then if a mischievous 
 boy bored a hole in a cistern in any London house, 
 and the water did mischief to a neighbour, the oc- 
 cupier would be liable ; but that cannot be. Then 
 why is the defendant liable, if some agent over which 
 he has no control lets the water out ? The defendant 
 merely brought the water to a place, whence another 
 agent let it loose, hut the act is that of an agent he
 
 OK WRONGS PURELY KX DKMCTl). I'-i 
 
 cfiniiof confroV^ {yjchoU y.^Iiirjiliiiii!^ L. 11., In Kr. 
 255 ; afTimied, L^ R, 2 Ex. Die. 1). 
 
 (4) Tlio above caso nitist Lo oarefiilly distiuf^uisliod 
 from tho Avoll-knowii lcaclin<? ease of lii/hnulu v, 
 FHvlnr {L. Ji., 'i ir. L. 330), tho facts of which were 
 as follows: — Tho plaiiitilT was tlic lessee of mines. 
 Tho defendant was the ON\nior of a mill, standing on 
 land adjoining that under wliich the mines were 
 Avorked. Tho defendant desired to construct a re- 
 servoir, and cmpIoi/eU competent persons to construct 
 it, so tliat there was no question of negligence. The 
 plaintiff had worked his mines up to a spot where 
 tliere were certain old passages of disused mines ; 
 tliese passages were connected with vertical shafts, 
 communicating \vith the land above, which liad also 
 lieen out of use for years, and were apparently filled 
 with marl and earth of the siuTOundiug land. Sliortl}' 
 after the water had been uitroduced into the reser- 
 voir, it broke through some of tho vertical shafts, 
 llowed thence through the old passages, and finally 
 llooded the plaintiff's mine. It was contended on 
 behalf of the defendant that tliere was no negligence 
 on his part, and that if he were lieM liable, it woidd 
 make every man responsible for every mischief he 
 occasioned, however invohuitarily, or even uncon- 
 sciously, whereas he contended that knowledge of 
 possible mischief was of the very essence of the 
 liability inciured by occasioning it. The IFouse of 
 Lords, however, held tho defendant to be liable, on 
 the ground that "a person who, for his own piu-poscs, 
 brings on his land, and collects and keeps there, 
 anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must
 
 14 TORTS IX GENERAL. 
 
 keep it at Lis peril, and if lie does not do so is prima 
 facie responsible for all the damage wliicli is the 
 natural consequence of its escape." It therefore 
 appears that the act which was not authorized by 
 law was the alloicing the uriter to esccqye, and whether 
 this was the residt of negligence, or whether it was 
 the result of a latent and undiscovered defect in the 
 engineering works, was quite immaterial. The escape 
 of the water was caused by something of which the 
 defendant was ignorant, not by something altogether 
 beyond his control or volition, like a visitation of 
 providence. The distinction between Ei/IaiKh v. 
 Fletcher and JVichols v. Marsland is no doubt subtle, 
 and somewhat difficidt for the lay mind to grasp at 
 first sight, but a little consideration will, I think, 
 show that it entirely depends upon the rule of which 
 I have made the two cases examples (see also 
 Rurdman v. N. E. JR. Co., L. R., 3 C. P. Die. 
 168). 
 
 (5) Again, where the defendant by mistake mowed 
 the plaintiff's grass, he was held to be a trespasser, 
 although he had committed the trespass quite unin- 
 tentionally, and in ignorance that he was not upon 
 his own land {Base/c// v. Clarkson, 3 Lev. 37). 
 
 Sub-rule. — The law 2)rcsumes that an act or omissioii) 
 done or neglected tinder the influence of preaaing danger, i- 
 ican done or neglected invohtntarilg. \ 
 
 Tliis doctrine would seem to be founded upon the 
 maxim that self-preservation is the first law of nature, 
 and that where it is a question whether one of two 
 men shall suffer, each is justified in doing the best
 
 OK WRONGS riREI.Y KX nKI.KTO. 1') 
 
 that lio can for liiiuself. Iiuleud, so f;ir has tliis 
 doctrino been carried, that it is said, tliat if two 
 shipwrecked persons are attfnii>(ing to save tlicni- 
 selves Ly means of a plank which is not suiliciently 
 large to sustain them Loth, one of them isjustified in 
 l»us]iing the other off. This however is an example 
 rather appertaining to criminal than civil law. 
 
 (I) A person wrongfully tlirew a sqiiih on to a 
 stall, the keeper of which, in self-defence, threw it 
 off agahi; it then aliglited on another stall, was again 
 tlirown away, and, finally exploding, Llindcd the 
 plaintiff. The liability of the persons who tlirew it 
 away from tlieir stalls in self-defence was not the 
 question before the court, but a dictiuu of Chief 
 Justice De Grey is a good illustration of the sub-rule 
 lie said, "It has been urged, that the intervention 
 of a free agent will make a difference ; but I do not 
 consider "Willis and li3'al (the persons who merely 
 tlirew away the squil> from their respective stalls) 
 as free agents in the present case, but acting under 
 a compidsive necessity for their own safety and self- 
 l)reservation " {Scoff v. Shrphcnl, 2 IF. Bl. 894). 
 The first example of the first rule {.suprri) is another 
 example of the above sub-mile. 
 
 Unintentional Injuries. Although, as we 
 have seen, no act or omission can bo said to bo 
 wTOngful uidess it is within the power of the ju-rson 
 doing or omitting to abstain from doing or omitting 
 to do it, and although, therefore, everj' WTongful act 
 must in a certain sense be either actively or passively
 
 16 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 intentional, yet it is no defence to an action tliat the 
 "UTongdoer did not intend to cause any damage. 
 
 EuLE 4. — Every person is presumed to) 
 intend the probable consequence of every V 
 voluntary act or omission of his, not autho- 1 
 rized by law. 
 
 Of course an intention to inflict an injury makes 
 a tort very niucli more serious from a moral point of 
 view, and, as we shall see hereafter, is an impoitant 
 factor in assessing the amount of damages to he 
 awarded to the injm-ed party; but neveitheless actual 
 intention is not a necessary ingredient, being always 
 irrebutably presumed. 
 
 (1) In the above-mentioned case of Scott v. SI/cp-j 
 herd, the person who first started the squib was held \ 
 hable for the loss of the plaintiff's eye, although it 
 was proximately caused by the last person who re- 
 moved it from his stall. 
 
 (2) A person has an unguarded shaft or pit on^ 
 his premises. If another, lawfully coming on to the ' 
 premises on business, falls down the shaft, and isv 
 injured, he may bring his action, although there was ■ 
 no intention to cause him or anyone else any hurtj 
 {Indennaur v. I)amc><, L. E., 2 C. P. 311). 
 
 Remoteness of Damage. The rule, however, 
 is subject to the following qualification : — 
 
 Sub-rule. — No action lies where the injuria and 
 daiiniuiii are not umally found in sequence, unless it he 
 shoicn that the defendant linen; or had reasonable means
 
 OK \VK()N(iS I'lUKI-Y KX DKJ.KTO. 17 
 
 of /ciioin'jii/, (lidt loiisciiutuvrx, not iisKdIlij rcsit/diiff 
 from (//(' iirf, irrrc, hi/ rvdHon of HOine cristimj catufc, 
 lihi'lif to intcrrcnc so <t.'i to nimr (toi/iatjc to d thinl 
 person. 
 
 (1) The clefeiulaiit, in ltre:ic]i of tlio Police Act 
 (2 »1^- '3 Vict. c. 47, s. 04), washed a van in a puLlii! 
 street, ami allowed the waste water to nin down the 
 gutter towards a grating leading to the sewer, about 
 twenty-five yards off. In consequence of the ex- 
 treme severity of the weather the grating was 
 obstnicted by ice, and the water flowed over a por- 
 tion of the causeway, which was ill-paved and un- 
 even, and there froze. Tlioro was no e\'idenco that 
 the defendant know of the grating being obstructed. 
 The plaintiff's horse, while being led past the spot, 
 slipped upon the ice and broke its leg. In giving 
 judgment in an action brought in respect of tliis 
 damage. Chief Justice Bovill said : " Xo doubt one 
 who commits a wrongful act is responsible for the 
 ordinary consequences which are likely to result 
 therefrom ;" but " where there is no reason to expect 
 it, and no knowledge in the person doing the wrong- 
 ful act that such a state of things exists as to render 
 the damage probable, if injury does result to a third 
 person it is generally considered that the WTongful 
 act is not the proximate cause of the injury, so as to 
 render the WTongdoer liable to an action. If the 
 drain had not been stopped, and the road had been 
 in a proper state of repair, the water woiUd have 
 passed away without doing any miscliief to anyone. 
 Can it then be said to have been the ordinary' and 
 probable consequence of the defendant's act that the
 
 18 TORTS IX GENERAL. 
 
 water should have frozen over so large a poi-tion of 
 the street so as to occasion a dangerous nuisance ? 
 I think not. There was no distinct evidence to show 
 the cause of the stoppage of the sink or drain, or that 
 the defendant knew it was stopped. He had a right, 
 then, to expect that the water would flow down the 
 gutter to the sewer in the ordinary course, and, but 
 for the stoppage (for which the defendant is not 
 responsible), no damage would have been done." 
 And accordingly judgment was given in favour of 
 the defendant {SJtarj) v. PoicclJ, L. R., 7 C. P. 
 258). 
 
 (2) But where water, which had trickled down 
 from a waste-pipe at a railway station on to the 
 platform, had become frozen, and the plaintiff, a 
 passenger, stepped upon it and fell and was injured, 
 the court held the defendants liable, on the ground, 
 probably, that the non-removal of a daufjerous nuisance 
 lilvO ice from their premises was the proximate cause 
 of the injury {ShephenlY. Mid. R. Co., cited htj plaint iff 
 arguendo, Shaip v. Powell, supra). 
 
 (3) Again, a brig, by the negligence of those on 
 board her, came into collision with a barque. In the 
 collision the main rigging of the barque was carried 
 away, and shortly afterwards her fore and main 
 masts went by the board. Towards evening of the 
 same day the wind increased in violence, and eventu- 
 ally the barque was driven on shore and some of the 
 crew were drowned. It was held, that as the loss of 
 the masts was the proximate cause of the wreck, and 
 as the loss of the masts was the immediate result of 
 the collision, the loss of life was the result of the
 
 OF WKOXGS rUUKLY KX DKLKTO. 19 
 
 collision {The Gconjc ami liic/itinf, L. IL, 3 J. A- /•'. 
 ■iGG). 
 
 Statutory Rights and Duties. lirLi: ;j. — 
 WIk'Ii a statute <^-iv('s a ri^^lit, or creates a 
 duty, in favour of an individual or class of 
 individuals, tlicu unless it enforces tlic diit\' 
 Ijy a penalty recoveraljleby ihoparf// ar/fjri'en't/, 
 (as distiny-uished from a connnon infonner,) 
 any infringement of sucli rii^lit, or breach of 
 such duty, will, if cou] )!('(! witli damag-c, l)e 
 a tort remediable in tlic ordinarx' \vi\\. 
 
 (1) An illustration of this nde is given by tlic 
 rase of Coiic/i v. Sfcr/ (-'3 E. Sf B. 402), the facts of 
 \vliich were slioi-tly as follows : — By tli<.' statute 
 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, s. IS, "every sliip navigating 
 between the Ignited Kingdom and any place out of 
 the same, shall have, and keeji on board, a suliicient 
 supply of medicines and medicaments suitable to 
 accidents and diseases arising on sea voyages." To 
 enforce perfomianco of this section a penalty' is im- 
 posed upon those disobeying it. 
 
 The plaintiff, having sufFered damage in conse- 
 quence of the defaidt of the defendant in not obeying 
 this section, brought an action. 
 
 It was held, that the action would lie ; because tlie 
 statute had created a duty, and although it liad 
 given a remedy for the public A\Tong committod by 
 its violation, viz., the penalty, yet it had not given 
 any remedy to a privat(> person sufFcrmg spet-ial
 
 20 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 damage ; and " the right to maintain an action for 
 special damage residting from a breach of public 
 duty is not taken away, by reason of a penalty, 
 recoverable by a common informer, being annexed 
 as a punishment for the non-performance of a public 
 duty, although it is competent for the plaintiff to sue 
 for the penalty if first in the field " {Bedford \. Hood, 
 7 I. R. 627). In such cases, the penalty is cmnu- 
 lative upon the ordinary remedy by action ; the one 
 being a punishment for the breach of a public duty, 
 the other a recompense for a private ^^Tong {Ad. 38). 
 (2) "Water companies are, by Act of Parliament, 
 obliged to keep their pipes to which fire plugs are 
 attached constantly charged with water at a certain 
 pressure, and are to allow all persons, at all times, to 
 use the same for extinguishing fbe, without compen- 
 sation ; and for neglect of this duty a penalty is 
 imposed, recoverable by a common informer. On a 
 demurrer to a declaration by which the plaintiff 
 claimed damages against a water company for not 
 keeping their pipes charged as required, whereby his 
 premises were burnt down, it was held that the action 
 would lie {AfJtinsoii v. GntesJicad IVatci'/rorks Co., 
 L. B., 6 Ex. 404). 
 
 Statutory Remedy. Sub-iTde 1. — But ichcre 
 the statute crcat'uKj a new duty, or ohtUjntion, prockles 
 a mode of obtaining compensation for prirate special 
 damage hy means of a ^;c»f/% recoverahle hij the party 
 aggrieved, there is no other remedy, — as the remedy is 
 then prescribed by the act (per Campbell, C. J., CoucJi 
 v. Steel, sup.; UndcrhiU v. Ellicombe, M'Cl. Sf Y. 455).
 
 OF WKONGS ITKKI.Y V.X DKI.KTO. 21 
 
 Where no Right created. .Sub-rule 2. — ^ 
 Iflicrc a (luti/ IS crcdtrd hi/ ii sfiifiifi' for tlw purpour nf 
 pi'cinifiiif/ a ini-sr/iir/ of a p(irfi'cii/ar kind, a person irho, 
 hij reason of fiiiof/ior^s uvyUrt of the Htatutonj dtitij, 
 suffers (I foss of a different fiind is not entitled to main- 
 tain an aetion for damaijes in rexpeef of siiefi tos.s (Gorris 
 V. Seott, L. i?., 9 Ex. 125). 
 
 (1) Thus, in the above case, the defendant, a ship- 
 owner, undertook to carry the plaintiff's sheep from 
 a foreign port to England. On tlie voyage, some of 
 the shoop were Avaslied overboard, by reason of the 
 defendant's neglect to take a precaution enjoined by 
 an order of tlio I'riv}' Couiioil, whicli was made under 
 the authority of the Contagious 1 )iseases (Animals) 
 Act, 18G9. It was however held, that the object of 
 the statute and order being to prevent the sj^read of 
 contagious disease among animals, and not to protect 
 them against the perils of the sea, the plaintiffs could 
 not recover. 
 
 (2) And so, where certain regulations were estab- 
 lished by statute for the management of the pilchard 
 fisher}', and enforced by the imposition of penalties ; 
 it was held, that a fishenuan who had lost his proper 
 tiUTi and station, according to the regulations, through 
 the breach of them by another fisherman, coiUd not 
 maintain an action for damages against him, for the 
 loss of a valuable captm-e of fish, wliifh tlie latter 
 had taken, tlirough being in such wrong place; as 
 the object of the statute was to regidate the fisher}', 
 and not to give any individual fishermaTi a riglit to 
 any particular place {Sterens v. Peaeoehx, 11 Q.li.lAl). 
 
 (•i) But where, by 4 & 5 Vict. c. 40, s. 17, a penalty
 
 22 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 is imposed upon unauthorized persons unlawfully 
 importing books, reprinted abroad, upon wbich copy- 
 right subsists, the remedy by action is not taken away 
 from the authors ; for there is a right created in their 
 favour, and, therefore, the penalty is cumulative 
 {Novello V. SucUon; 12 C. B. 188). 
 
 Felonies. Eule 6. — AVliere an injm^y\ 
 amounts to an infringement of tlie civil rights 
 of an individual, and at the same time to a 
 felonious wrong, the civil remedy by action 
 is suspended until the party inflicting the 
 injury has been prosecuted (Cockburn, C. J., 
 Wells V. Abrahams, L. E., 7 Q. B. 557). 
 
 But although this is the rule, it is extremely doubt- 
 ful how it can be enforced. It is certainly no ground 
 for the judge at the trial to direct a nonsuit ( WcU>i v. 
 Abrahams, sup.), and it is excessively doubtful whether 
 it could be raised by plea, because " the effect of that 
 woidd be to allow a party to set up his own crimi- 
 nality. But it may well be, that if an action were 
 brought against a person who was either in the coiu-se 
 of being prosecuted for felony, or was liable to be 
 prosecuted for felony, the summary jmisdiction of 
 the court might be invoked, to stay the proceedings 
 which would involve an undue use, probably an abuse, 
 of the process of this coui"t ; in which case the court 
 is always willing to interfere to prevent such abuse"
 
 OF WRONGS I'lUKI.Y KX DF.I.KTo. 23 
 
 (iKT (ockljuru, (J. J., iliiil). And in tlio saino case, 
 lUiukbiini, J., saiil, "I do not seo how a plaintiff can 
 be prevented from trying his action, unless the court, 
 acting under its summary jurisdiction, interfere." . . . 
 " Fnjm the time these cases were decided, there is no 
 reported instance of the court ha^'ing interfered to 
 stop an action until we corao to Gii/isnii v. irootf/ii/ 
 (2 C. ^- r. 41). That case went to this extent, that 
 where a horse had been stolen l)y A., and B. after- 
 wards had the horse, the ownier could not afterwards 
 bring an action to recover it from 1>., uidess h^ ha<l 
 prosecuted A. But in Wltit<- v. Sptifif/itc (13 J/, .s- //'. 
 {)03) that was expressly overnded. The last case is 
 JJ^r/lod- V. Coiixfantim' (32 L. J., C. P. 280)." . . . 
 "That case, I think, cannot be treated as an authority" 
 . . . "to say that because it was for the interest of the 
 public, the action should be stayed until the iudict- 
 ment was tried, and for this purpose to nonsuit the 
 plaintiif, or to direct the jury to find a verdict for the 
 defendant upon issues not proved, seems to me to bo 
 erroneous." 
 
 The principle to be gathered from this case, there- 
 fore, would seem to be, that although the rule ex- 
 ists, it is rarely, if ever, enforced; and that the only 
 way of enforcing it, is by the summary jiuisdiction 
 of the court, interfering not at the instance of the 
 defendant, but for the puiiioses of public justice, and 
 to prevent abuse of its process. 
 
 It woidd seem that the rule does not apply io an 
 action in mn (see the '^Priiiceas lioi/((/,'^ L. 11., 3 
 A. V.V E. 41).
 
 24 TORTS IX GENERAL. 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 Of Quasi Torts. 
 
 Arising ex Contractu. Althougli a tort has been 
 defined, as a wrong independent of contract, there 
 is nevertheless a class of wrongs, which lie on the 
 borderland, as it were, between contract and tort, 
 and for which an action ex contractu, or ex delicto, 
 may generally be brought at the pleasure of the 
 party injured. 
 
 Rule 7. — AVlienever there is a contract, 
 and something' to be done in the coiu'se of 
 the employment, which is the subject of that 
 contract, if there be a breach of duty in the 
 course of that employment, the plaintiff may 
 recover either in tort, or in contract [Brown 
 V. Boorman, 11 CI. 6^^ F. 44). 
 
 (1.) Negligence of Professional Men. Thus 
 if an apothecary carelessly or unskilfully administer 
 improper medicnies to a patient, whereby such pa- 
 tient is injiu'ed, he may sue him either for the breacli 
 of his implied contract to use reasonable skill and 
 care, or for tortious negligence, followed by the 
 actual damage {Scarl x. Frciitice, 8 Fast, 847}.
 
 OF QIASI TOUTS. 25 
 
 (2.) Waste. So whoro a person Imvlng an ostnto 
 for life or years commits ■waste, it is botli a breaoh 
 of the implied contract to deliver up the premises in 
 as good a condition as when ho entered upon them, 
 and also an injury to the reversion, which is a 
 violation of tlie reversioner's right, an<l tlierefore a 
 tort. 
 
 Privity necessary. Pnit as a tort founded 
 upon contract can only properly arise out of an in- 
 fringement of some duty created by the contract it is 
 a well-established rule, that — 
 
 Rule 8. — ^Vlicnevcr a wion^- is founded 
 upon 11 contract, no one not a privy to the 
 contract can sue in respect of such wrong 
 {Tollll V. S'/icnstone, o 21. .S' ir. 2SJ)). 
 
 Thus a master cannot sue a railway company for 
 loss of services, caused by his servant bring injiuvd 
 by the company's negligence when being carried b}' 
 them; for the injiuy in such a case arises out of the 
 contract between the company and tlie servant, to 
 which the master is no party {Alton v. MUL Rij. Co., 
 34 L. J., C. P. 292). 
 
 When Privity unnecessary . Sub-rule. — But 
 n-Jtorc their /.s- a dint i net tort to the pltiintijf' altofjetlier 
 .separate and apart from the hrcaeh of contract to a 
 third part//, altJiough connected tcith if, the phiintijf' 
 may maintain an action. 
 
 u. c
 
 26 TOUTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 (1) Thus in cases of fraud (as is hereafter men- 
 tioned) a man is responsible for the consequences 
 of a breach of a warranty made by him to another, 
 upon the faith of which a third person acts ; provided 
 that such false representation was made with the 
 direct intent that it should be acted upon by such 
 third person {Ban-// v. Croshr//, 2 JoJins. ^ H. 21). 
 
 (2) And so where a father bought a gun for the 
 use of himself and his son, and the defendant sold 
 it to him for that 2)i!>'posc, fraudulently representing 
 it as sound, and it exploded and injured the son, it 
 was held that he could maintain an action of tort, 
 although not privy to the warranty [La ncj ridge v. 
 Levij, 4: M. 8f jr. 33S). 
 
 (3) So if a surgeon treat a child unskilfully, he 
 will be liable to the child, even though the parent 
 contracted with the surgeon [Pippin v. Sheppard, 
 11 Price, 400). 
 
 (4) So "a stage-coach proprietor who may have 
 contracted with a master to carry his servant, if he 
 is guilty of neglect, and the servant sustain personal 
 injury, is liable to him ; for it is a misfeasance to- 
 wards him if, after taking liim as a passenger, the 
 proprietor drives without due care" {Longmeid v. 
 Ilollidaij, 6 Ex. 767,' per Parke, B.). 
 
 (5) And so where a servant travelling with his 
 master, who took his ticket and paid for it, lost his 
 portmanteau through the railway company's negli- 
 gence, he was held entitled to sue the company 
 {3I((rsMlY. York, 8fc. P. Co., 21 L. J., C. P. 34).
 
 OF QUASI TORTS. 27 
 
 Misfeasance. Thero is a class of contracts which 
 aro j)articularly nearly allied to torts. Such are, 
 gratuitously uuilortakon duties. Sucli duties are no! 
 coutracts in ouo souse, namely, that beiug wthout 
 consideration the contractor is not liable for their 
 nonfeasance, /. o. for omitting to perform them. But 
 on the other hand, if ho once commences to perform 
 them, the contract then becomes choato as it were, 
 by viiiue of the following rule — 
 
 Ri'Li: 1). — Tlio coiilideiicc induccHl by 
 uiulertaking- any sendee for anotlier, is a 
 sufficient legal consideration to create a duty 
 in its performance {Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Sm. 
 L. Ca. 177, ijt/t cil). 
 
 Thus in the above case, the defendant gi-atuitousl}- 
 promised the plaintiff to remove several liogsheads 
 of brandy from one cellai' to another, and in doing 
 so one of tho casks got staved tlu-ougli his gross 
 negligence. Upon these facts, it was dt'cided that 
 the defendant was liable ; for althougli his contract 
 could not have been enforced against him, j'et having 
 once entered upon the performance of it, he thence 
 became liable for all misfeasance. 
 
 Bailments. >Such is a brief account of tlie law 
 upon tliis head : 
 
 In some works, injuries to goods wliilst in the 
 keeping of carriers and innkeepers are described as 
 c2
 
 28 TORTS IX GENERAL. 
 
 torts ; in others as breaclies of contract ; but how- 
 ever actions in respect of them may be framed, they 
 are in substance ex contractu, being for non-perform- 
 ance of the contract of bailment, and not for a tort 
 independent of contract [Rose. 539; 2 BJ. Com. 451; 
 Lcgge v. Tucker, 26 L. J., Ex. 71). I shall therefore 
 not treat of them in this work.
 
 ( ^^J> ) 
 
 CHAPTER. III. 
 
 Of the LiAiiii.iTY OF Masters for the Torts (jf 
 THEIR Servants. 
 
 General Liability. It is a well-known legal 
 maxim, that qui fnvit jwr (ilium yfacif per .sc, whence 
 the following rule is easily deduced — 
 
 Rule 10. — A person wliu j)uts anollicr in 
 liis place, to do a class of acts in his absence, 
 is answerable f«n' the wron<^' of the person so 
 intrusted, either in the manner of doin^ such 
 an act, or in doing such an act under cln-uni- 
 stances in which it ou^ht not to have been 
 done; })rovided that what is done is not done 
 from any caprice <jf the servant, but in the 
 course of the emjdo^nncnt [Bdj/lcu v. M<in- 
 cheshr, l^hrjj'. \ Lin<<dn. 11. ('<>., L. /.'., 7 
 C. 1\ 410)." 
 
 (1) Thus if a servant drive his master's oaniago 
 over a bystander; or if a gajuokeeper employed to 
 kill game, fire at a hare and kill a bystander; or if 
 a workman employed in building, negligently drop a 
 stone from the scall'old, and so hmi a bystander; 
 the person injured may claim reparation from the 
 master; because the master is ])ounil to guarantee 
 the public against all damage lu'ising from the
 
 30 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 ■wrongful or careless acts of Mmself, or of his ser- 
 vants when acting within the scope of their employ- 
 ment (Bartomhill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. 
 Ca. 266). 
 
 Acts done outside the Employment. Sub- 
 rule 1. — A master is not responsible for the wrongful { 
 act of his servant, unless the act was an act done hy the 
 servant in the course of Ids employment. 
 
 (1) It was the course of employment of the cannan 
 of the defendant, who was a brewer, with the defen- 
 dant's horse and cart to deliver beer to the customers, 
 and on his return collect empty casks, for each of 
 which he received a penny. The carman having, 
 without the defendant's permission, taken out the 
 horse and cart /or a purjmse entirely of his o/rn, on his 
 way back collected some empty casks, and while 
 thus retm-ning the plaintiff's cab was injm-ed by the 
 carman's negligent diiving. Under these cii-cum- 
 stances, it was held that the defendant was not 
 liable, and Lindley, J., said, "The question is, 
 whether under these circumstances, the servant was 
 acting in the course of his employment. In my 
 judgment he was not. It is certain that the servant 
 did not go out in the course of the employment. 
 Does it alter the case, that whilst coming- back, he 
 picks up the casks of a customer? I think it does 
 not. He was returning on a purpose of his own, 
 and he did not convert his own private occupation 
 into the employment of his master simply by pick- 
 ing up the casks of a customer. The conclusion, 
 therefore, to which I come is, that the servant was 
 not engaged in his master's business in any sense,
 
 lIAinillY OK M\Mi:ilS FOR TOUTS OF SKRVANTS. 31 
 
 uiul therefore our judgment must be for the defen- 
 dant" {Raynn- v. Mitchell, 25 W. R. 032). 
 
 (2) So, wliero ti master intrusted his servant with 
 his carriage for a given purpose, and the servant 
 drove it for another purpose of liis own in a dilferent 
 direction, and in doing so di'ove over the phiintiff, 
 the master was liekl not to ho responsible, on the 
 ground that the servant was not acting within the 
 scope of his emphn-ment; for he had stai-ted upon 
 a new and entirely independent journey which had 
 nothing to do with his employment {Stutrij v, 
 Axhton, L. R., 4 Q. B. 47G). But if the servant 
 when going on his master's business had merely taken 
 a somewhat longer road, such a deviation would not 
 be considered as taking him out of his master's em- 
 plojTnent {Mih-JuUx. CramccWr, 22 L. J., C. P. 100 ; 
 and see IHuMn/ v. Pepper, L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 276). 
 
 (3) So, where a servant A\'antonly, and not in the 
 execution of his master's orders, struck the plaintiff's 
 horses, and so produced an accident, the master was 
 held not to be liable {Croft v. Alkou, 4 11. «.V A. 090). 
 
 Wilful act. Sub-inile 2. — A master /s respomihie 
 for the matnier in irhirh his serrant does an act for the 
 master^ heuejit, irhich act is icithin the scope of his 
 probable aathoriti/, even though such niaiiner iras con- 
 tra ri/ to the master's orders; but a master is not respon- 
 sible for an act of his serrant uhieh is in itself and not 
 mereli/ in the manner of doing it, illegal. 
 
 (1) In Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (11 
 W. R. 149 ; 7 L. T., X. S. 2j[^j, the driver of an 
 omnibus plying between l'.'''aua K., wliilst plying 
 between those places, wilfully, and contiury to express
 
 32 TORTS IN GENERAL 
 
 orders from his master, pulled across the road, in 
 order to obstruct the progress of the plaintiff's omni- 
 bus. In an action of negligence, it was held that if 
 the act of driving across to obstruct the plaintiffs' 
 omnibus, although a reckless driving, was neverthe- 
 less an act done in the course of the driver's service, 
 and to do that which he thought best for the interest 
 of his master, the master was responsible ; that his 
 liability depended upon the conduct of the servant in 
 the course of his employment, and that the orders 
 given to him not to obstruct were immaterial. And 
 Willes, J., said, "It is perfectly well known that 
 there is substantially no remedy whatever against 
 the driver of an omnibus, and therefore it is neces- 
 sary that for what he does in the com-se of his 
 master's service the master should answer. There 
 should be some person who is capable of paying 
 damages, and who may be sued by people who are 
 injured by improper driving. It appears to me that 
 this was a case of improper driving, and not a case 
 in which the servant did anything altogether incon- 
 sistent with the discharge of his duty towards his 
 master and out of the course of his employment, 
 a fact upon which it appears to me that the case 
 turns. This omnibus of the defendants was di'iven 
 before the omnibus of the plaintiffs. Now, of course, 
 one may say that it is no part of the duty of a ser- 
 vant to obstruct another omnibus; and in this case 
 the servant had distinct orders not to obstruct the 
 other omnibus. I beg to say that in my opinion 
 those instructions were perfectly immaterial. If they 
 were disregarded, the law casts upon the master the 
 liability for the acts of his servants in the course of
 
 LIAI'.ll.IlV OF .M.VSIKRS FOR TOUTS OF SKKVANTS. 33 
 
 his oraplojTiient ; uiitl tlio law is not so futile as to 
 allow the master, l)y giving secret instructions to his 
 servant, to set aside his own liahility. I hold it to 
 be perfectly immaterial that the master directed the 
 servant not to do the act which he did. As well 
 might it be said that if a master employing a servant 
 told him that he should never break the law, ho may 
 thus absolve himself from all liability for any act of 
 his servant, though in the course of his employment. 
 .... Tlie ]iroj)er question for the jury to determine 
 is, whether what was done was in the course of the 
 employment, and for the benefit of the master." 
 Llaekbuni, J., also, quoting and approving the charge 
 o| the learned judge who tried the case, said, "If the 
 jury came to the conclusion that he did it, not to 
 further his master's interest, not in the course of his 
 (Muployment as an omnibus driver, but from private 
 spite, wth an object to injure his enemy — who may 
 be supposed to be the rival omnibus — that would bo 
 out of the course of his employment. That saves all 
 possible objections." 
 
 (2) The case of Pou/foii v. London and Sont/i- 
 Wrsfn-n R. Co. {L. li., 2 Q. B. 534) seems, at first 
 sight, to be inconsistent with the above case. There, 
 a station-master having deniaiidrd payment for the 
 carriage of a horse conveyed by the defendants, 
 an'csted the plaintiff, and detained him in custody 
 until it was ascertained by telegraph that all was 
 right. The railway company had no power what- 
 ever to arrest a person for noni^yment of carriage, 
 and therefore the station-master, in arresting the 
 plaintiff, did an act that was wholly illegal, not in 
 c 5
 
 34 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 the mode of doing it, but in the doing of it at all. 
 Under these circumstances, the court held that the 
 railway company were not responsible for the act of 
 their station-master; and Blackburn, J., said: "In 
 Limjms v. General Omnibus Co., where the question 
 was, whether or not the direction of my brother 
 Martin was erroneous, there was a difference of 
 opinion. The late Mr. Justice Wightman thought 
 it was; that the learned judge had gone too far to 
 make the company liable : the other judges thought 
 that there had been no misdirection, and that the act 
 done by the di'iver was within the scope of his autho- 
 rity, though no doubt it was a wrongful and im- 
 proper act, and, therefore, that his masters were 
 responsible for it. In the present case, an act was 
 done by the station-master completely out of the 
 scope of his authority, which there can be no possible 
 groimd for supposing the railway company autho- 
 rized him to do, and a thing which could never be 
 right on the part of the company to do. Having no 
 power themselves, they cannot give the station- 
 master any power to do the act." And Mellor, J., 
 said : " If the station-master had made a mistake in 
 committing an act which he was authorized to do, 
 I think in that case the company would be liable, 
 because it would be sujoposed to be done by their 
 authority. ^Vhere the station-master acts in a manner 
 in which the company themselves would not be 
 authorized to act, and under a mistake or misappre- 
 hension of what the law is, then I think the rule is 
 very different, and I think that is the distinction on 
 which the whole matter turns."
 
 I.IAIlir.riY OK MASTKKS I'Oll luKTS OF SKKVANTS. Ij.J 
 
 (;i) In Uojr V. arnit Xorthmt R. Co. {H K. .y E. 
 072), on the other hand, the act was the arresting a 
 man for the benefit of the company where there was 
 anthority to an'est a passenger for nonpajTiient of 
 liis fare ; and the court accordingly lield, that the 
 policemen who were employed, and the station- 
 master, must be assumed to be authorized to take 
 people into custody whom they believed to be com- 
 mitting the act, and that if there was a mistake, it 
 was a mistake within the scope of their authorit}'. 
 
 (4) So, again, in Bdijhn v. MduvheHier^ Shcjficlil (oul 
 Lincoln R. Co. {L. R., 7 C. P. 415), the plaintiff, a 
 passenger on the defendants' line, sustained injuries 
 in consequence of being pulled violently out of a 
 railway carriage by one of the defendants' porters, 
 who acted imder the erroneous impression that the 
 plaintiff was in the ^vl•ong carnage. The defendants' 
 bye-laws did not expressly authorize the company's 
 servants to remove any person being in a -vn-ong car- 
 riage, or travelling therein without ha^ing first paid 
 his fare and taken a ticket, and they even contained 
 certain ])rovisions which implied that the passengers 
 should be treated with consideration ; but neverthe- 
 less, the coui-t considered that it was within the pro- 
 bable scope of a porter's authority to gently remove 
 any person in a wrong can-iage, and as the porter 
 had exercised his probable authority violently, they 
 held that the company was responsible (see also 
 SeijmoHr v. Onrnicooil, ][. ^V N. '359). 
 
 Doctrine of Ratification. The preceding re- 
 marks have reference only to cases in which the
 
 36 TORTS IN GENEEAL. 
 
 injury has been occasioned either by the negligence 
 of the servant in the course of his emplojTuent, or by 
 his wilful act, done under such circumstances as 
 make it probable that he was authorized to commit 
 it, upon proper occasion, but had used such autho- 
 rity injudiciously or carelessly. But there is a third 
 class which differs from both of these, viz. where a 
 servant commits a tort whilst not acting in pursuance 
 of his master's employment, but which the master 
 subsequently adopts. 
 
 Rule 11. — A tortious act done for another, 
 by a person not assuming to act for himself, 
 but for such other person, though without 
 any precedent authority whatever, becomes 
 the act of the principal if subsequently rati- 
 fied by him, and whether it be for his detri- 
 ment or his advantage, to the same extent as 
 y i ^ the same act done by his previous authority 
 ( Wilson V. Tumman, 6 31. 6f Gr. 2-12). 
 
 This rule is generally expressed by the maxim, ^ 
 " Omnis ratihahitio retrotmliifur, et mandato priori (equi-LOi'^'^ 
 paratur,'" and is equally applicable to torts and to \, , * 
 contracts. It should be observed that the act must T .1., 
 have been done for the use or for the benefit of the '^. t 
 principal (4 Inst. 317; Wiho)i y. Barker, 4 B. 8f Ad. ^ 
 (Jl4 ; and judgment, Dallas, C. J., Hull v. Pickorsgi]!, 
 1 B. 8f B. 286). 
 
 Meaning of " Servant." The term "servant" 
 does not exclusively apply to menials. 
 
 "5!.
 
 I.IAllII.ITY OK MASTKRS KOU TOUTS OK SKUVANTS. 37 
 
 llvLK 12. — Wlicii ii mail Is liircHl l)y tin; 
 master, cltluM- ixTsonalK , <»r l)y tlioso ■svlio 
 aro intrusted I>\' the master \\illi llic liiriiii;- 
 of servants, to do tlie l)iisines.s rec^uired of 
 liim, tlie master will be resjxnisiblc for any 
 torts committed by him Avithin the scope of 
 such ^)ns'u\vss (^fjf (/((///<■/■ V. Po/)i/rr, •"> //. A" C. 
 0-17); Ijut a contractor, sub-contractor, or 
 otiier ])erson exercising an independent em- 
 ])loyment, is not a servant within the mean- 
 ing- of tlic rule {llapson v. Ciihift^ 9 M. \ W. 
 710; Pearson v. Co.r, L. R. 2 C. P. D. :iG9). 
 
 (1) The first part of this rule applies not only to 
 domestic servants but to clerks, managers, agents, 
 and in short all wliom the master appoints to do 
 any work, and over whom he retains any control or 
 right of control, even though they bo not in the 
 immediate employ, or imder the immediate superin- 
 tendence of the master. Thus " if a man is owner 
 of a ship, he himself appoints the sailing nuister, and 
 desires him to appoint and select the crew ; the crew 
 thus become appointed by the owner, ami are his 
 servants for the management of liis sliip; and if any 
 damage happen through their default, it is the same 
 as if it happened through the immediate default of 
 the o-svmer himself " (Zr//?r///rr v. Poiniir, .n/7>., per 
 Littledale, J.). 
 
 (2) A contractor employed by navigation commis- 
 sioners, in the co\irse of executing the works Hooded 
 the plaintiff's land by improperly, and without
 
 38 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 authority, introducing water into a drain insuffi- 
 ciently made by himself. Here the contractor, and 
 not the commissioners, was held liable {Allen v. 
 Howard, 7 Q. B. 960). 
 
 (3) So where a company contracted with A. to 
 construct a railway, and A. sub- contracted with B. 
 to construct a bridge on it, and B. employed C. to 
 erect a scaffold ujider a special contract between 
 hj-rn and C; a passenger injured by the negligent 
 construction of the scaffold could only sue C, and 
 not A., B., or the company [Knight v. Ge.v, 6 Ex. 721). 
 
 (4) So where a butcher bought a bullock, and 
 hired a licensed drover to drive it to liis shop; and 
 the di'over instead of so doing employed a boy for 
 the pm'pose; it was held that the butcher was not 
 liable for the injmious consequences caused by the 
 boy's negligence, as the relation of master and ser- 
 vant did not exist between them {JliU'ujan v. Wedge, 
 12 A. ^' E. 737). 
 
 (5) So if the owner of a carriage hire horses from 
 a job master, who at the same time provides a chiver, 
 the job master is liable for accidents caused by the 
 driver's negligence, for he is his servant, and not 
 that of the owner of the carriage [Quarnuui v. Bur- 
 nett, 6 M. 8f W. 499 ; and qua the public a similar 
 principle applies to cab proprietors and cab di'ivers 
 (Venables v. Sniit//, L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 279). 
 
 Liability of Employer for Contractor's 
 Torts. Sub-rule 1. — A person cmjjloi/ing a contractor 
 idll he liable for the contractor's nrongful acts, if 
 either (a) tJie employer retains his control over the con-
 
 MAllILIl Y OK MAMKJls Folt lOUIS OF si:il\ VMS. li'J 
 
 tractor, mid pir.'iuunlli/ interfrrvs and ma/.cs hiuiHelt' 
 a parti/ to the act ichich occaaionx the itaniatfr ; or 
 (b) ic/ierc the thiiuj contracted to be done ix itself an- 
 lairfal; or (c) a-here a legal duti/ ix incumbent upon the 
 employer, and the contractor either omit a or imjter/ecfl;/ 
 j>erjbrm.s ftueh duty. 
 
 (1) Thus where the defendant employed a con- 
 tractor to make a di-ain, and the contractor's man 
 left some of the soil iu the highway, in consequence 
 of whicli an accident happened to the plaintiff, and 
 afterwards the defendant, on complaint being made, 
 promised to remove the rubbish, and paid for carting 
 part of it away, and it did not appear that the con- 
 tractor had underf alien, to remove it ; it was held that 
 the defendant Avas Hable {Buryexs v. Gray, 1 C. B. 
 o78). 
 
 (2) A company, unauthorized to interfere with the 
 streets of Sheffield, directed theu- contractor to open 
 trenches therein ; the contractor's servants in doing 
 so left a heap of stones, over which the plaintiff fell 
 and was injured. Here the defendant company was 
 lield liable, as the interference with the streets was 
 in itself an injuria or wrongfid act (A7//.s- v. Sheffield 
 das Conxamrrx' Co., 23 L. J., Q. Ji. 4'J). 
 
 {'i) So jvliere the defendants were authorized by 
 an act of parliament to construct an opening bridge 
 over a navigable river, a duty was cast upon them to 
 construct it properl}' and efficiently; and where the 
 plaintiff suffered loss througli a defect in the con- 
 struction and working of the liridge, it was licld that 
 the defendants were liable, and could not excuse 
 themselves by throwing the blame on their contractor.
 
 40 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Temporary Employment by Another. 
 
 Sub-rule 2. — Wlio'c a master tonporarUy /ends Iris 
 servant to another, under u-hose immediate control he is 
 for the time being, and whose icork he is doing, the 
 master will not he resjMnsihIe for his servant's torts com- 
 mitted during such temporary employment by another. 
 
 (1) Thus in Rourke v. Wltite Moss Coal Co. {L. B., 
 2 C. P. D. 205), the defendants had contracted with 
 W. to sink a shaft for them at so much a yard, W. 
 to provide all necessary labour, the defendants pro- 
 viding steam power and machinery, and two en- 
 gineers, to be under the control of W. The plaintiff, 
 one of W.'s workmen, was injured by the negligence 
 of L., one of the defendants' engineers ; but it was 
 held that the company were not liable for this injury, 
 on the ground, that although L. was their general 
 servant, yet at the time of the injmy he was not 
 actually employed in doing their work, and was 
 under the immediate control of "W., to whom he had 
 been lent by them, and whose servant, therefore, he 
 must be considered to have been. 
 
 Unauthorized Delegation by a Servant. 
 Rule 13. — A master is not, in general, liable 
 for tlie tortious acts of persons to wliom liis 
 servant has, without authority, delegated his 
 duties, and between whom and the master the 
 relation of master and servant does not exist 
 [suhmittedy 
 
 (1) Thus it is apprehended that if a master wrote 
 to his groom and ordered him to take the carriage to
 
 I.I.Vlill.lTY f>F MASTERS FOR TORIS OF SKKVAMS. •! 1 
 
 such a pliU'c, tmd the gnx^u, iiistcjul of taking the 
 carriage liimself, employed A. to do it for him with- 
 out having ever liad any autliorify from tlie master 
 to intrust A. with the carriage, and A. so carelessly 
 drove the carriage as to injure B., no action would 
 lie against the master, f<n' the master never hired the 
 groom for the piu'pose of emjtlo^'iug othere to do his 
 work, and therefore, in intrusting the carnage to A., 
 he would be acting Ijc^'ond the scope of his employ- 
 ment, and beyond his probable authority. 
 
 (2) But if, on the other hand, the groom had 
 taken A. with him, and had handed the reins to 
 him, it is submitted that the master would be liable, 
 because the handing of the reins to another whilst he 
 was in the act of performing his duty would be a 
 default in the performance of that duty, and not a 
 complete retirement from its performance (see per 
 Lord Abinger, Boot he v. Mi-sfcr^ 7 C. c^ P. <»•!, and 
 Jo<l V. :\IornHOu, G C. Sf P. '>()3). 
 
 Such is a brief outline of the \iv\ relating to the 
 responsibility of masters to third parties for the torts 
 of their servants; but the learning on the subject is 
 of so technical a character, and the distinctions as to 
 when a servant is, and when not, acting "snthin the 
 scope of his emplo;y'ment, or even whether he be a 
 servant at all, are so very refined, and the authorities 
 are so conflicting, that a legal training is often neces- 
 sary in order that the difference may be ilistinguished. 
 I shall therefore content myself with the foregoing
 
 42 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 general rules (which are believed to be acciu-ate so 
 far as they go), leaving to other and larger works on 
 the law of master and servant the task of quoting 
 the numerous cases on the subject and commenting 
 upon the very subtle distinctions between them. I 
 would particularly recommend the chapter on the 
 master's liability contained in Mr. Manley Smith's 
 excellent and exhaustive treatise on Masters and 
 Servants, as a very complete exposition of the law 
 on this subject, and would also call the student's 
 attention to the repoiis of the following cases, 
 namely: — Storey v. As//foii, L. E., 4 Q. B. 476; 
 WJiatmau v. Pearson, L. E., 3 C. P. 422 (very con- 
 flicting) ; Lord BoUnghroke v. Local Board of Stcindon, 
 L. R., 9 C. P. 575; Murray v. Currie, L. M., 6 
 a P. 24; McManus v. Cricket, 1 East, 106; Gregory 
 V. Pijier, 9 B. ^ a 591; Mitchell v. Crasn-eller, 13 
 C. B. 237; Francis v. CocheriU, L. R., 5 Q. B. 184; 
 Lyons v. Marten,^) A. 8f E. 512; Overton v. Freeman, 
 lie. B. 867; Cidhhertson v. Parsons, 21 L. J., C. P. 
 165; Welfare v. L. B. Sf S. C. R. Co, L. R., 4: Q. B. 
 693; and Wilson v. Merry, L. R., 1 H. L. 326. 
 
 Liability of Master for Injuries caused 
 by Servant to Fellow-servant. Kule 14. — 
 A master is not liable to his servant for 
 damage resulting from the negligence of his 
 fellow-servant in the course of their common 
 employment, unless the servant causing the
 
 l.IAHIl.n Y OF MASIKUS FdK TOUTS OF SKKN ANTS. 4-J 
 
 injury was iiKmnipotcnt to discliar^^c liis 
 duty, or tlu' servant injured was not at tlio 
 time acting;' in his master's cniplnNnicnt. 
 
 (1) Tluis where a workman at the top of a build- 
 ing carelessly let fall a heavy substance upon a 
 fellow workman at the bottom, the master was held 
 not to bo responsible, without proof of the ineom- 
 jietency of the workman causing the injury to dis- 
 charge the duty in which he had been employed 
 i^Wiiiyeft V. Fox, 20 L. J., Eu: 118). 
 
 (2) So in Hall v. Johmon (34 L. J., Ec 222), 
 the plaintifT was a miner in defendants' employ, as 
 was also an underlooker whose duty it was to see 
 that as the mine was excavated the roof shoidd be 
 propped up. This he neglected to do, whereby a 
 stone fell and injui-ed the plaintilf ; but it was held 
 that this attached no liability to the defendants, as no 
 proof was given that they did not use due care in 
 selecting the underlooker for his post. 
 
 Meaning of Common Employment. Sub- 
 rule: — It is not niLX-sMiri/ to tin- (iiqtltcdtiuit of the 
 (ihove rule, that the serrant caimiiKj, and the .serranf 
 sudainiiHj, the injui'i/, nhould hath he enyaged in pre- 
 ii-sclt/ the same, or even .similar aetn, .so lony (Oi the 
 risk of injur// from the one is so much a natural 
 and necessary eonsequence of the employment uhich the 
 other accepts, that it must be included in the mAv< 
 uhich hare to be considered in his uages {Moryan v. 
 Vale of Neath R. Co., L. IL, 1 Q. Ji. 1 1!> ; Alln, v. 
 New Gas Co., L. R., 1 Ex. J). 251).
 
 44 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 (i) Thus the driver and guard of a stage-coach; 
 the steersman and rowers of a boat; the man who 
 draws the red-hot iron from the forge, and the man 
 who hammers it into shape ; the person who lets 
 down into or draws up from a pit, or the miners 
 working therein, and the miuers themselves; all 
 these are fellow labourers within the meaning of the 
 doctrine {BartonsJtiU Coal Co. v. Rcid, 4 Jur., N. 
 S. 767). The real test seems to be, whether they 
 are engaged in the same pursuit. 
 
 (2) In Morrjan v. Vale of Math B. Co. {L.E., 1 Q. 
 B. 149), the plaintiff was in the employ of a railway 
 company as a carpenter, to do any carpenters' work 
 for the general purposes of the company. He was 
 standing on a scaffolding at work on a shed close 
 to the line of railway, and some porters in the service 
 of the company carelessly shifted an engine on a 
 turntable, so that it struck a ladder supporting the 
 scaffold, by which means the plaintiff was thrown 
 to the ground and injiu'ed. It was held, however, 
 that he could not recover against the company, on 
 the ground, that whenever an employment in the 
 service of a railway company is such as necessarily 
 to bring the person accepting it into contact with the 
 traffic of the line, risk of injiuy from the carelessness 
 of those managing that traffic is one of the risks 
 necessarily and naturally incident to that employ- 
 ment (and see Loi-eUy.HouelI,L.R., 1 C. P. D. 161). 
 
 (3) And again, in Tunncy v. Mid. B. Co. {L. B., 
 1 C. P. 291), the plaintiff was employed by a railway 
 company as a laboui-er, to assist in loading what is 
 called "a pick-up train," with materials left by
 
 LlAllII.Il Y OK MASTKItS FOll TOIIT-^ OK SEKVANTS. i') 
 
 platelayers and otluTs upon tin- lino. One of tlio 
 tenns of his engap^eraent was that ho should bo car- 
 ried hytlio tniin from I'inninglniin (wliorc lie resided 
 and wlitnce the train started) to the spot at wliieh his 
 work for the day was to be done, and bo brought 
 back to ]>inningh.'ini at the end of each day. As 
 he was retuniing to IMnninghani after his day's 
 work was done, the train in which the plaintiff 
 was, through the negligence of the guard who had 
 charge of it, came into collision ^\^th another train, 
 and the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff accord- 
 ingly sued the company, but tho court held, that 
 inasmuch as the plaintiff' was being carried, not as a 
 passenger, but in tho course of his contract of service, 
 there was nothing to take the case out of the ordinary 
 rule, which exempts a master from responsibility for 
 an injuiy to a servant tlirough the negligence of a 
 fellow-servant when botli are acting in pursuance of 
 a common emplojnnent. 
 
 (4) So, again, in Fi/f/mm v. En(jlan<l {L. li., 2 
 Q. Ji. 33), the defendant was a maker of locomotive 
 engines, and tho plaintiff was in his employ. An 
 engine was being hoisted, for the purpose of being 
 earned away, by a travelling crane moving on a 
 tramway resting on beams of wood, supported by 
 piers of brickwork. Tho piers had been recently 
 repau-ed, and the brickwork was fresh. The defend- 
 ant retained the general control of the establishment, 
 but was not present; his foreman or manager diiveted 
 the crane to be moved, having, just before, ordered 
 the plaintiff to get on tho engine to clean it. The 
 plaintiff having got on to the engine, the piere gave
 
 46 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 way, tlie engine fell, and the plaintiff was injured. 
 Here it was held that the fact that the servant who 
 was guilty of negligence was a servant of superior 
 authority, whose lawful directions the other was 
 bound to obey, was immaterial; and that as there 
 was no evidence of personal negligence on the part of 
 the defendant, and nothing to show that he had em- 
 ployed unskilful or incompetent persons to build the 
 piers, he was not liable to the plaintiff. 
 
 (5) So where two railway companies, A. and B., 
 have a joint staff of signalmen, and one of them gets 
 injured through the negligence of the private engine 
 driver of company A., such company will not be 
 liable ; because, although the injm-ed man is the ser- 
 vant of A. and B., and the engine-driver is the ser- 
 vant of A. only, yet they were engaged in a common 
 pursuit so far as company A. were concerned, although 
 the signalman was also engaged in a fm-ther and 
 additional pm"suit on behalf of B. (see Swainson v. 
 N. E. R. Co., 2j W. R. 676). But where one of 
 two companies has the user of the other's station, but 
 not the control of it's servants employed on such 
 station, one of whom is injured by the negligence of 
 a servant of the company having sucli right of user, 
 the rule does not apply ( Warhnion v. G. W. R. Co., 
 L. R., 2 Ex. 30; and see Turners. G. E. R. Co., 
 33 L. T. 431). 
 
 Negligence of Master. Rule 15. — A 
 
 master is bound to take reasonable precau- 
 tions to insiu'e lils servant's safety; and if, 
 through the absence of sucli reasonable pre-
 
 i.iviiM h'y ok mvsii;k>< vnn roins ok skkvanin. 47 
 
 cautions, or llirou/^li tlir hrcai-li of .soiuc dutv 
 incuinluMit on tlio inastor, or tlirouji:!! tlic 
 personal iic«^li<'on('e of tlic master, tho ser- 
 vant is injured, tlie master will he responsihlc 
 {Onwm'l \. Uolhai'l E. II. ^- K. lOJ; .Is// /.•/./• 
 V. Stanivij\ ;J() L. 7., Q. B. IK\). 
 
 (1) Thus in Mrllovs v. l^hair (30 X. ,/., Q. Jl. H'-i']), 
 the defendants were owners of a coal mine, and th" 
 plaintiff was employed by them as a collier in the 
 mine, and in tlie course of his ompknnncut it was 
 necessary for him to descend and ascend tlirough a 
 shaft constructed Ly them ; by the defendants' 
 negligence the shaft was constructed luisafely, and 
 was, by reason of not being sufficiently lined or 
 cased, in an unsafe condition. By reason of this, 
 and also by reason of no sufficient or proper appa- 
 ratus having been provided by the defendants to 
 protect tlicir miners from the unsafe state of the 
 shaft, a stone fell from the side of the shaft on to the 
 plaintiff's head, and ho was dangerously wounded. 
 One of the defendants was manager of the mine, and 
 it was worked under his personal superintendence, 
 and the plaintiff was not aware of the state of the 
 shaft. On this state of facts the defendants were 
 held liable. 
 
 (2) So where a builder knowingly erects a scaffold- 
 ing of unsound wood, and one of his workmen is 
 injured in consequence, he will bo liable (see liobrrfs 
 V. Smith, 2 H. ^' N. 213). 
 
 (J3) So where a master ordered a servant to take 
 a bag of com up a ladder wliidi the master knew,
 
 48 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 and the servant did not know, to be unsafe, and tlie 
 ladder broke, and the servant was injured, the master 
 was held Hahle {Willicum v. Cloiujh, S H. ^ N. 258). 
 
 Servant's knowledge of Danger. Sub- 
 rule. — Where a serrant is injured hy an instrument 
 icMch he is himself using in the course of his employ- 
 ment, and of the nature of u-hieh he is as much aurire 
 as his master, he cannot, at all events f the evidence is 
 consistent with his own ne(jli(jcnce in the use of it being 
 the real cause, recover against the master,' unless there is 
 evidence that the injur// arose through the personal negli- 
 gence of the master, notuitlistanding that such instru- 
 ment icas not the safest for ejecting the object in vieiv. 
 
 (1) Therefore where a labourer was killed through 
 the fall of a weight, which he was raising by means 
 of an engine to which he attached it by fastening 
 on it a clip, and the clip had slipped off it, it was 
 held that there was no case to go to the jury in an 
 action by his representative against the master, 
 although it appeared that another and safer mode 
 of raising the weight was usual, and had been 
 discarded by the master's orders {JDgner v. Leach, 26 
 L. J,, Ex. 221; and see also Senior v. Ward, 1 E. 8^ 
 E. 385). 
 
 (2) A hoarding had been erected by the defendant, 
 a builder, which projected too far into the street, 
 but sufficient room was left for carts to pass ; a heavy 
 machine was placed inside the hoarding and close 
 to it. A cart in passing struck against the hoarding, 
 and knocked do^^^l the machine against the plaintiff, 
 a workman in the defendant's employ. The plaintiff
 
 LIAIIII ITY OF MASTERS FOR TORTS OF SKllVANTS. 49 
 
 had i)revioiisly maJo sumo complaint of tlio jiositiou 
 of tho machine to his master, but voluntarily con- 
 tinued 1<) -work tlioup^h tho maehino wiis not moved. 
 It was hero held that there was no evidence to go to 
 the jury of the master's liability {Assop v. Yatex^ 
 2 II. cV N. 7G8 ; Gnfm-^ v. Gidloir, 3 II. Sf N. G4H) ; 
 but seo Ilo/ni'i v. irorf/iinfffoii^ 2 F. i<f F. 033, where 
 Mr. Justice AVilles seems to have tliouglit that ac- 
 quiescence by the workman in the reasonable expec- 
 tation of tho knoiMi defect being made good did not 
 excuse tho master. But tliis was a nisi prius case, 
 and never came before the court in banco. 
 
 Volunteers. Rule 10, — If u stranger in- 
 vited by ii scTvant to assist liini in lii-s W(»i-k, 
 or who volinitccTs to assist liini in his work, 
 is, wliile <zivin<x siicli assistance, injured ])y 
 tlie nej^ligenee of anotlier servant of tlie same 
 master, lie is considered to Itc a servant pro 
 tempore J and no action will lie a^^ainst the 
 nuistcr, unless ju^ were <;uilty of personal 
 ne^li^ence or breach of duty, or unless the 
 servants were not competent persons. 
 
 The reason of this rule is obnous, for tho volunteer, 
 by aiding the servant, is sim^dy of his owti acconl 
 placing himself in tho position of a servant, and that 
 without the consent or request of the master. Tho 
 latter cannot therefore be faii'ly called ui)on to recom- 
 pense him for the result of his ofhciousncss. 
 
 u. 1)
 
 50 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Thus wliere the servants of a railway company 
 were turning a truck on a turntable, and a person 
 not in the employ of the company volunteered to 
 assist them, and, whilst so engaged, other servants 
 of the company negligently propelled a locomotive 
 against, and so kiUed the volunteer, and the servants 
 of the company were of competent skill, and the 
 company did not authorize the negligence, it was 
 held that the company were not liable {Degg v. 
 M. R. Co., IH.SfN. 773; Potter v. Faulkner, 1 B. 
 8f S. 800). 
 
 Exception. Where a person aids the servants of 
 another, with such other's consent or acquiescence, 
 not as a mere volunteer but for the purpose of ex- 
 pediting some business of his own, he is not con- 
 sidered to be in the position of a servant 2)>'o tempore. 
 
 Thus where the plaintiff sent a heifer by the de- 
 fendants' railway to P., and on its arrival, there 
 being only two porters to shunt the truck, the 
 plaintiff, in order to save delay, assisted in shunting 
 the truck, and was injured by the negligence of one of 
 the defendants' engine-drivers, and there was evidence 
 tha,t the station-master assented to his aiding in the 
 shunting, it was held that he was entitled to recover 
 damages {Wriglif v. L. ^ W. IF. R. Co., L. R., 1 
 Q. B. D. 252).
 
 ( ^1 ) 
 
 CnAPTER IV. 
 Of thk Limitation of Actions ex Delicto, 
 
 Reasons for Limitation. I have so far treated 
 of the wrongs independent, or qua.si independent, of 
 contract, of -winch the law takes cognizance ; and I 
 have shown how the law gives a renifdy whenever 
 it holds any act to be wrongful, in accordance vnih 
 the maxim " iihi Jhs Un n'inrdium csf.^^ 
 
 But altliougli there is always a remedy, yet for the 
 sake of the peaco of the kingdom a man is not 
 allowed to enforce his remedy at his own leisure, and 
 after a long interval, in the course of which evidence 
 may have been entirely swept away, which if pro- 
 duced might prove the defendant's innocence. 
 
 For this and other reasons, various statutes have 
 been from time to time passed, wliich confine the 
 right of action ^\'ithin certain periods after its com- 
 mencement — periods which, as they differ in different 
 actions, will he more particidarly mentioned in the 
 course of the second part of this work. At this 
 stage, I propose to examine only such ndes as api'ly 
 to the limitation of all actions of tort. 
 
 1)2
 
 52 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Commencement of Period. Rule 17. — 
 AVlien a statute limits the period within which 
 an action is to be brought for an act done or 
 omitted, if the cause of action is a single act, 
 or one which amounts to a tresj^ass, the action 
 must be brought mthin the prescribed period 
 after the actual doing of the thing com^^lained 
 of. But if the cause of action is not the doing 
 of the thing, but the resulting of damage only, 
 the period of limitation is to be computed from 
 the time when the party sustained the injmy 
 {BacltliouBe v. Bonomi, 9 H. L. C. 503). 
 
 The meaning of this rule is, that where the tort 
 is the wTongful infiingement of a right, then as that 
 constitutes 2^cr se a tort, so the period of limitation 
 commences to run immediately from the date of the 
 infi'ingement. But on the other hand, where the 
 tort consists in the violation of a duty coupled with 
 actual resulting damage, then as the breach of duty 
 is not of itself a tort, so the period of limitation does 
 not commence to nm until it becomes a tort by 
 reason of the actual damage resulting from it. 
 
 (1) Thus where A. owned houses built upon land 
 contiguous to land of B., C, and D. ; and E., being the 
 O'WTier of the mines under the land of all these per- 
 sons, so worked the mines that the lands of B. sank, 
 and after more than six years' interval (the period 
 of limitation in actions on the case), their sinking 
 caused an injury to A.'s houses : Held, that A.'s
 
 1.IMH VTU)N OF ACTIONS KX DEI.UTO. 53 
 
 right of action wiis not LarivJ, iis the tort to him 
 ■was the damage caused by the working of the mines, 
 and not the working itself [Jiarklioiiac v. Jionoini, .snj).). 
 (2) In an action for ^\Tongfld conversion of goods, 
 (which is an injury to a right) the facts were as fol- 
 lows : — A.'s furniture was seized under an execution 
 by the sheriff, and eventually it was bought by A.'s 
 friends, and left in his possession. A. enjoyed the 
 use of it for more than six years and died. Upon 
 A.'s death it was claimed by these friends, and ad- 
 versely by the widow on the ground that the Statute 
 of Limitations barred them from claiming it after 
 they had allowed A. to keep it for six yeai's : it was, 
 however, held that the statute did not begin to run 
 until the friends had claimed the furniture, for the 
 tort was the ^^Tongful conversion of the goods, which 
 had only taken place when the widow refused to give 
 them up {EdicanU's v. C%, 28 Bear. 145). 
 
 Disability. Rule 18. — Contra nun valeii- 
 tcm agero nulla currit priv.scriptiu. 
 
 ( W/tcrc a person is under ilisabilif//, iJic statute 
 (Iocs not run.) 
 
 Thus where persons who would otherwise have 
 the right to sue, are under certain disabilities, (as, 
 for instance, coverture (in case of a woman), idiocy, 
 or insanity,) the period of limitation does not com- 
 mence to run until such disabilities have ceased (see 
 21 Jac. 1, c. 10, s. 7; '^ ^ A Will. 4, c. 27, %. 10).
 
 54 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Exception. — No actions of ejectment sliall be 
 brought, and no distress or entry be made to recover 
 land or rent, but within forty years next after the 
 right of action shall have accrued, notmthstanding 
 that the person entitled to sue may be under some 
 disabdity (3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 27, s. 17) ; and after the 
 1st January, 1879, the time will be further reduced 
 to thirty years (37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 5). 
 
 Disability subsequent to commencement 
 of period no Bar. Sub-rule. — Whenever the stdtiite 
 has once hegini to run it continues to do so [Rhodes 
 V. Sniethurst, 4: M. ^ W. 42; Lafond v. Ruddocl; 
 13 C. B. 819). 
 
 Therefore where the plaintiff is under no disability 
 at the time the right of action accrued to him, but 
 subsequently becomes under disability, and continues 
 so until the expiration of the period of limitation, his 
 right of action is barred ; for the statute having once 
 begun to run continues to do so. 
 
 Continuing Torts. Rule 19. — Wlicre the 
 tort is continuing', tlio right of action is also 
 continuing- {WJiitehoiise v. Felloives, 30 L. J.^ 
 a P. 305). 
 
 Thus where an action is brought against a per- 
 son for false imprisonment, every continuance of the 
 imprisonment de die in diem is a new imprisonment, 
 and therefore the period of limitation commences to 
 run from the last and not the first day of the im- 
 prisonment {Eardy v. Ryle, 9 R 8f C. 608).
 
 ( ^5 ) 
 
 CTIAPTEll V. 
 
 Of thk Measuke of Damages in Actions of Tort. 
 
 The principles which govern the measure of damages 
 in actions of tort are very loose, and, indeed, as 
 Mr. Mayne, in his excellent treatise, lias puintod out, 
 there are many cases of tort in wliich no measure 
 can be given. It will ho at once appai-ent, liowover, 
 that, putting aside cu'cumstanccs of aggravation or 
 mitigation, the compensation to be awarded in respect 
 of an injuiy to property is capable of being far more 
 accm'ately calculated than in respect of injmy to 
 person or reputation ; and, therefore, to some extent 
 the principles of law arc diiferent in these two classes 
 of cases, as ^vill be seen from the follo^\ing rules. 
 
 Damages for Personal Injury. Rule 20. 
 — Thrro is IK) fixed rule for cstimatiiif^ 
 daiiia^vs in cases of injury to the person, 
 reputation, or feelings, but the damages must 
 be excessive and outrageous to wan-ant a new 
 trial {IlncJde v. Moncij^ 2 Wils. 20o; Corker ij 
 V. Ulckmi, Ir. IL, 10 C. L. 17-3). 
 
 (1) Fiihc ImprUonmnii. — Thus wliere some work- 
 ing men were unlawfully imprisoned for sLx hours 
 only, being in the meantime well fed and cared 
 for, and the jury nevertheless awarded 300/. to each
 
 56 TOKTS IN GENER.UL. 
 
 of them, the court refused to set the verdict aside, 
 on the ground that it seemed to them probable that 
 the jury considered the importance of the right of 
 personal liberty rather than the position of the 
 plaintiffs. 
 
 (2) Seduction. And so in actions for seduction, 
 " although in point of form the action only purports 
 to give a recompense for loss of service, we cannot 
 shut our eyes to the fact that it is an action brought 
 by a parent for an injury to her child, and the jury 
 may take into their consideration all that she can feel 
 from the nature of the loss. They may look upon 
 her as a parent losing the comfort as well as the ser- 
 vice of her daughter, in whose virtue she can feel no 
 consolation ; and as the parent of other children whose 
 morals may be corrupted by her example" (per Ld. 
 Eldon, Bedford v. M'KoicI, 3 £sp. 120). 
 
 (3) Assault. So in actions for assault and bat- 
 tery, the court will seldom interfere ; and the jury 
 may take the circumstances into consideration, and 
 aggravate or mitigate the damages accordingly. 
 
 Thus, to beat a man publicly is a greater insult and 
 injury than to do so in private, and is accordingly 
 ground for aggravation of damages {TulUdge v. Wade^ 
 8 Wils. 18). 
 
 (4) Defamation. So for defamation, the damages 
 are almost wholly in the discretion of the jury {Kelhj 
 v. Sherlock, L. i?., 1 Q. B. 686), and the court will 
 seldom interfere with their verdict. 
 
 Exceptions. — The court will interfere with the ver-
 
 MEASIUE OF DAMAGES IN AfTIONS OF TOUT. 57 
 
 diet, if it ai>j»e;ir tluit tin* jury assi-ssod tho (liiniugos 
 under a mistake or ill-fet'liiig, or if tliey give tlie 
 lilaiutiff more than he is entitled to, according to liis 
 own sliowing, or where the smaUness of the amount 
 shows that the jiuy have made a compromise, and, 
 instead of deciding the issues, have agreed to find for 
 the plaintiff for nominal damages only {ILunhlcton v. 
 Vvrc, 2 Winx. Saioid. 170 ; Brit fan v. S. W. R. Co., 
 27 L. /., Ex. 355 ; Falmj v. Stanford, L. It, 10 Q. B. 
 54). 
 
 Damages for Injuries to Property. It is 
 extremely ^lillicult to lay down any rules witli regard 
 even to this Lranoh of the subject, wlierc it might he 
 considered that some principles of estimation would 
 apply, for tho jiu'y ai'e allowed a much greater lati- 
 tude than in questions of contract. However it may 
 be laid down as generally true that — 
 
 Rule 21. — The damages in respect ol in- 
 juries to pro})erty are to be estimated u])<>ii 
 the basis <>f bciiio- c'omi)ensatory for tlie 
 deterioration in value caused by the ^^Tono■ful 
 act of the defendant, and for all natural and 
 necessary expenses incurred by reason of 
 sucli act. 
 
 (1) Injurt/ to ITorsc. Thus in tho case of in- 
 
 jiu-y to a horse through tho defendant's negligence ; 
 
 it has been held, that tho measure of damages is the 
 
 keep of the horse at the farrier's, the amount of tho 
 
 D 5
 
 '58 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 farrier's bill, and tlie difierence between the prior 
 and subsequent value of tbe borse {Jones v. Boijce, 1 
 Stark. 493 ; and see Wilson v. Newport Dock Co., L. JR,., 
 1 Ex. 187). 
 
 (2) Conversion. So in tbe conversion of cbat- 
 tels, tbe full market value of tbe cbattel at tbe date 
 of tbe conversion is, in the absence of sjwcial damage, 
 tbe true measure. Tbus, wbere tbe plaintiff pur- 
 cbased cbampagne, lying at tbe defendant's wbarf, 
 at fourteen shillings per dozen, and resold it at 
 twenty-four shillings to tbe captain of a ship about 
 to leave England, and the defendants wrongfully re- 
 fused to deliver up tbe wine, and converted it to their 
 own use, it was held, in an action of trover, that 
 although tbe defendants bad no knowledge of tbe 
 sale, or of the purposes for which the plaintiff re- 
 quired delivery of the cbampagne, yet the plaintiff 
 was entitled as damages to tbe price at which be bad 
 sold it {France v. Gandef, L. JR., 6 Q. B. 199). 
 
 (3) Trespass. So wbere coal has been taken by 
 working into the mine of an adjoining ovmer, tbe 
 trespasser will be treated tis tbe purchaser at the pit's 
 mouth, and must pay tbe market value of the coal at 
 the pit's mouth, less the actual disbursements (not 
 including any profit or trade allowances) for severing 
 and bringing it to bank, so as to place tbe owner in 
 tbe same position as if be bad himself severed and 
 raised the coal {In re United Merthyr Coll. Co., L. B., 
 15 Eq. 46). 
 
 (4) Infringement of Patent. And so the patentee
 
 MEAsrUK ol' DAMAGKS IN ACTIONS OF TOUT. 59 
 
 of an invention npplicablo to part of a machine, wlio 
 is himself a manufacturer, but who has been in the 
 habit of licensing the use of his invention by other 
 manufacturers on payment of a fixed royalty for 
 each machine, can only claim from an infringer of 
 his patent the ordinary royalty, and cannot claim in 
 addition a manufacturing profit {Pctui v. JacJ:, L. 7i., 
 5 Eq. 81). 
 
 Consequential Damages. Ri:li: 2'2. — 
 Wlicrc any .special daiiia^-cs have naturally, 
 and in sequence, resulted from tlio tort, tliey 
 may be recovered. 
 
 The difficidty in cases under this ride, is to deter- 
 mine what damages are the nafiiral result, and what 
 are too remote. 
 
 (1) Lous of Business. If, through the wilful or 
 negligent conduct of another, one should receive 
 corporal iujmy, whereby he is pai-tially or totally 
 prevented from attending to his business, the pecu- 
 niary loss suffered in consequence may bo recovered. 
 The most usual instances of this are to be found in 
 actions against railway companies. 
 
 (2) Medical Expenses. So, the medical expenses 
 incurred may bo recovered if they form a legal 
 debt owing from the plaiutiif to the physician, 
 but not otherwise {Dixon v. Uei/^ 1 Stark. 28U ; and 
 see Spark v. Ueshp, 28 L. J., Q. B. 197). 
 
 (3) Loss of Properfi/. The plaintiff was travelling
 
 BO TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 with other passengers in the carriage of a railway com- 
 pany, and on the tickets being collected, there was found 
 to be a ticket short, and the plaintiff was wrongly 
 charged by the collector with being the defaulter, 
 and on his refusing to pay, was removed by the 
 officers of the company, without imnecessary violence ; 
 it was held, in an action for assault, that the loss of a 
 pair of race-glasses, which the plaintiff had left behind 
 him in the carriage when he was removed, and which 
 were not proved to have come into the possession of 
 any of the company's servants, was not such a natural 
 consequence of the assault as to be recoverable {Glover 
 V. X. 8f S. W. R. Co., L. R., 3 Q. B. 25; and see 
 also as to remoteness Sanders v. Stuart, L. R., 1 
 a p. D. 326). 
 
 (4) Lord CaniphelVs Act. The damages awarded 
 under Lord Campbell's Act to the relatives of per- 
 sons killed through the default of the defendant 
 should be calculated in reference to a reasonable ex- 
 pectation of pecuniary benefit, as of right or other- 
 wise, from the continuance of the life of the deceased 
 {FranMhi v. ^S'. E. R. Co., 3 //. 8^^ N. 211). 
 
 The jury cannot, in such cases, take into consi- 
 deration the grief, mourning and funeral expenses 
 to which the siu'vivors were put. And this seems 
 reasonable, for in the ordinary course of nature the 
 deceased would have died sooner or later, and the 
 grief, mourning and funeral expenses would have 
 had to be borne then, if not at the time they were 
 borne {Blake v. Mid. R. Co., 21 L. J., Q. B. 233 ; 
 JDalton V. S. E. R. Co., 27 L. J., C. P. 227).
 
 MEASLKK OF DAMAGES IN ACIIONS OF IDUT. (tl 
 
 (o) IiiJHrij io Tniilc. So, ill ostiiuatingtliccliini.'if^os 
 in an action for lihollin}^ a tmclosnian, tho jury 
 shoukl take into consideration tho prospective injury 
 ■which will prohaT)ly happen to his trade in conse- 
 quence of tlio defamation {(lrv<jorij v. Williaim, 1 C. 
 cV K. 5(iS). 
 
 (G) lliriiKj Siifj.sfihifi'. In cases of A\Tongfid con- 
 version, if tlie owner of the chattel has Leen obliged 
 to hire another in its place, the expense to which ho 
 has been put is recoverable {A<f. 403). 
 
 (7) Trr.yxiw. AVhere the defendant was in charge 
 of the plaintiff's house, and having one day lost 
 the key, he elfcctcd an entrance through a window 
 by means of a ladder, and showed some strangers 
 tlirough the house, it was held to be a trespass, for ho 
 was only authorized to enter in tlie ordinary way; and 
 therefore, when some short time afterwards the house 
 was entered through the same ^\indow by thieves 
 following his example, and many things stolen, it 
 was held to be the consequence of tho defendant's 
 wTongfid entry, and that he was liable for the loss 
 of the things stolen {Aiira.sfcr v. MilUntj, 2 I). ^- R. 
 714). The writer, however, entertains much doubt 
 whether this case would be followed in the present 
 day, as the alleged damage cannot (with great sub- 
 mission to the learned judges who decided the 
 case) be said to have been the natural residt of the 
 trespass. 
 
 (8) Infection. A cattle-dealer sold to the plaint iif 
 a cow, fraudidently representing that it was free
 
 62 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 from infectious disease when lie knew that it was 
 not, and the plaintiff having placed the cow with five 
 others, they caught the disease and died ; it was held 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as damages 
 the value of all the cows, as their death was the natural 
 consequence of his acting on the faith of the defen- 
 dant's representation {Mullet v. Mason, L. R., 1 C. P. 
 559). 
 
 (9) In Collins v. The Middle Lecel Commissioners 
 {L. B., 5 C. P. 279) the facts were as foUows : By a 
 drainage act the Commissioners were to construct a cut 
 with proper walls, gates and sluices to keep out the 
 waters of a tidal river, and also a culvert under the 
 cut to carry the drainage from the lands on the east 
 to the west of the cut, and to keej) the same at all times 
 open. In consequence of the negligent construction 
 of the gates and sluices, the waters of the river flowed 
 into the cut, and bursting its western bank flooded 
 the adjoining lands. The plaintiff and other owners 
 of lands on the east side of the cut closed the lower 
 end of the culvert, which prevented the waters over- 
 flowing their lands to any considerable extent ; but 
 the occupiers of the lands on the west side, believing 
 that the stoppage of the culvert would be injm-ious 
 to their lands, re-opened it, and so let the waters 
 through on to the plaintiff's lands to a much greater 
 extent. It was held, that the Commissioners were 
 liable for the whole of the damage, as the natural 
 result of their negligence. 
 
 (10) Uaviitg been obliged to pay Damages to a 
 Third Parti/. So, where a landlord, upon his tenant
 
 MKASIUE OF DAMAfJES IN AITIONS OF lOKT. ij'A 
 
 giving notico to quit, eutcred into a contract with 
 a now tenant. lJi»on tho expiration of the notice, 
 the first tenant refused to quit, and the new tenant 
 not being able to enter in consequence brought an 
 action against tho landlord for breach of contract. 
 It was held, that th<> landlord might recover in an 
 action against tho tenant the costs and damages to 
 which he had been put in the action against him ; 
 for they were the uatiu-al and ordinary result of the 
 defendant's wrong {Brd/nfr// v. C/icifcrto)), 2 C. Ji., 
 X. S. (iOo; and see Ti»'/"/ v. Jir//, 11 Jf. ^- ]r. 
 228). 
 
 Certain prospective Damages recoverable. 
 
 Sub-nde. — TZ/c junj .should talr info their con-siilrrn- 
 t ion, in an-sefifiint/ tho datnayrx, the prohahh' future injur ij 
 that irill result to the plaintiff from the act of the de- 
 fendant; for the daniayes irhen ijicen are taken to in- 
 elude all the hurtful eonsequeneex arininy out of the 
 tcron(jful aet, unknown as uell as knoirn (Ad. 58G — 091 ; 
 and see Lamb v. Walker, L. li., 3 Q. li. D. ;i8!)). 
 
 Best, C. J. (in liiehard-son v. Mellish, 2 Biny. 240), 
 .says, " "When the cause of action is complete, when 
 the whole thing has but one neck, and that neck ha.s 
 been cut off by one act of the defendant, it would 
 be mischievous to say — it woidd be increasing liti- 
 gation to say — 'you shall not have all you arr 
 entitled to in yoiu' first action, but you shall br 
 driven to a second, third, or foui-th for tho n-covcry 
 of yoiu- damages.' '' A corollary to this sub-inile is 
 that several actions cannot be brought in respect of 
 the same injury. Thei*efore where a bodily iujiuy
 
 64 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 at first aj)peared slight, and small damages were 
 awarded ; but subsequently it became a very serious 
 injury: it was beld that another action would not lie, 
 for the action having been once brought, all damages 
 arising out of the wrong were satisfied by the award 
 in the action {Fetter v. Beale, 1 Ld. Raym. 339 — 
 692). 
 
 Continuing Torts. Exception . — But if the^ tort 
 be a continuing tort-, the principle does not apply ; 
 for here a fresh cause of action arises dc die in diem. 
 Thus in a continuing trespass, or nuisance, if the 
 defendant does not cease to commit the trespass, or 
 nuisance, after the first action, he may be sued until 
 he does. 
 
 Aggravation and Mitigation. Rule 23. 
 — The jury may look into all the circum- 
 stances, and at the conduct of both parties, 
 and see where the blame is, and what ought 
 to be the compensation according to the way 
 the parties have conducted themselves (Davis 
 V. N. W. 7?. Co., 7 W. E. 105). 
 
 (1) Seduction under Guine of Courts/zip. In seduc- 
 tion, if the defendant have committed the offence' 
 under the guise of honourable courtship, that is 
 ground for aggravating the damages; not, how- 
 ever, on account of the breach of contract, for that 
 is a separate offence, and against a different person.
 
 MEASllU: OF DAM.VGKS IN AC'lIONS Ul' TOUT. V)0 
 
 " Tho juiy (lid rip:lit in a case wlioro it was provod 
 that tlio sediuer had niade his advautvs iiiKlor tho guiso 
 of matrimony, in giving liberal damages ; and if tho 
 party seduced brings an action for breach of jtromiso 
 of marriage, so much the better. If nuich greater 
 damages had been given, we shoiUd not have been 
 dissatisfied tliercwitli, iho pLiintilT having received 
 tliis insidt ui liis own house, wliero he liad civilly 
 treated the defendant, and peraiitted him to pay 
 his adtb'esses to his daugliter" (Wilmot, C. J., in 
 Tnllhhje v. Wade, :} Wils. 18). 
 
 (2) On the other hand, the previous loose or im- 
 moral character of the party seduced, is ground for 
 mitigation. The using of immodest language for 
 instance, or submitting herself to tho defendant under 
 circumstances of extreme indelicacy {Ail. 000). 
 
 (3) Pleii of Truth in Drfumdtion. In actions for 
 defamation, a plea of truth is matter of aggravation 
 ludess proved, and may be taken into consideration 
 by the jiu-y in estimating tho damages [Wnncick v. 
 FoHlkc!^, 12 M. ^- W. 508). 
 
 (4) Plaintiff'^ s Bad ClifwaHir in Drfamntion. Evi- 
 dence of the plaintiff's (jcncval bad chnracivr has 
 been allowed in mitigation of damages in cases 
 of slander {Jones v. Sfcrrns, 11 J'r. 2()0) ; but it is 
 considered very doubtful wliether this case woidd be 
 followed at the present day. 
 
 (5) PlaintiJ^a irri/afin;/ Conduct in Difaination. 
 In Kelli/ V. ' Shnrlock {£. Jl, 1 Q. B. G86), the 
 action was brought in respect of a series of gross
 
 66 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 and offensive libels contained in tlie defendant's 
 newspaper. It appeared, however, tliat the first libel 
 originated in the plaintiff having preached, and pub- 
 lished in the local papers, two sermons reflecting on 
 the magistrates for having appointed a Eoman 
 Catholic chaplain to the borough gaol, and on the 
 town council for having elected a Jew as their mayor, 
 and the plaintiff had, soon after the libels had com- 
 menced, alluded, in a letter to another paper, to the 
 defendant's paper as "the dregs of provincial joui'- 
 nalism," and he had also delivered from the pulpit, 
 and published, a statement to the effect that some of 
 his opponents had been guilty of subornation of 
 perjmy in relation to a charge of assault of which 
 the plaintiff had been convicted. The jmy ha\dug 
 returned a verdict for a farthing damages, the court 
 refused to interfere with the verdict on the ground of 
 its inadequacy, intimating that although on account 
 of the grossness and repetition of the libels the 
 verdict might well have been for larger damages, yet 
 it was a question for the jmy, taking the plaintiff's 
 own conduct into consideration, what amoimt of 
 damages he was entitled to, and that the com-t ought 
 not to interfere. 
 
 (6) Impn'.sou incut on Fake CJiarge of Felony. In 
 false imprisonment and assault, if the imprisonment 
 has been upon a false charge of felony, where no 
 felony has been committed, or no reasonable ground 
 for suspecting the plaintiff, this will be matter of 
 aggravation [Ad, 585). 
 
 (7) Batteyy in consequence of Insult. But if an
 
 MEASIHE OK DAMA(iES IX ACIIONS OF TOUT. (»7 
 
 assault and battery have taken jilaeo in oonsccjiu-iicc 
 of insulting language on tlio part of the plaintiff, 
 this will be ground for mitigating the damages 
 {Thomm v. Poice//, 7 C. c^ P. S()7). 
 
 (8) Insolent Trisjxi.ss. AV^licro a poi"S()n trespassed 
 upon the plaintiff's land, and defied him, and 
 was otherwise very insolent, and the jury returned 
 a verdict for oOO/. damages, the court refused to 
 interfere, Chief Justice Gibbs saying, "Suppose a 
 gentleman has a paved walk before his window, and 
 a man inti'udos, and walks up and do^\'n before the 
 window, and remains there after he has been told to 
 go away, and looks in while the owner is at dinner, 
 is the trespasser to be permitted to say, ' Here is a 
 halfpenny for you, which is tlio full extent of all the 
 mischief I have done ' Y "Would that be a compen- 
 sation:'" (in Merest v. Ilarn ;/, ■') Tfiniif. 441). 
 
 (9) Wroufjiful tSeiziiir. iVnd so where the de- 
 fendant \\Tongfully seizes anotlier's chattels, and 
 exercises dominion over them ; substantial damages 
 will be awarded for the invasion of the right of 
 ownership {Bai/lia v. Fi-s/trr, 7 Biinj. lo-i). 
 
 (10) CdKfiiiKj Suspicion of Iiisolvittcij. Ai\(\ where 
 the defendant took the plaintiff's goods under a false 
 claim, whereby certain jiersons concluded that the 
 plaintiff was insolvent, and that the goods had been 
 seized under an execution, it was held that exem- 
 plary damages might bo given {lircircr v. Deir, 11 
 M. Sf W. G29). 
 
 (11) lleturn of Goods. But where the defen-
 
 68 . TORTS IX GENERAL. 
 
 dant has returned the goods in the course of the 
 action, and thej have been received unconditionally 
 by the plaintiff, merely nominal damages will be re- 
 coverable ; unless, the goods have been injured, or 
 some special damage has been suffered {Ad. 363). 
 
 Where Plaintiff is only Bailee. Rule 24. 
 — Wliere the plaintiff is merely the possessory, 
 hut not the real o^\aier, he may, as against a 
 tliii-d party, recover the entire value of the 
 prop)erty; l^ut as against the real o^vner, only 
 the value of his limited interest [Hey don and 
 SniiWs case J 13 Co. Q^). 
 
 . And it seems therefore, that a jus terfii is not 
 provable in reduction of damages, unless indeed the 
 actual possession of the whole of the property was 
 not in the plaintiff ; as where the owner of one six- 
 teenth of a ship attempted to get damages for the 
 whole value of it, he was not allowed to do so {DocJc- 
 ■ivray v. Dickenson, Shin. 640). 
 
 Presumption of Damage. Rule 25. — If 
 a person who has wrongfully converted '^xo- 
 perty, refuses to produce it, it shall be pre-
 
 MEASURE OF D.VMAfiKS IN ACTIONS OF TolM. Gl> 
 
 sun 10(1 as a^-aiiist liiiii to bo of tho host 
 doscription [Aniior// v. Dclamiric^ 1 /S'y/i. L. 
 
 Ca. ;n:>). 
 
 (1) Thus in the above case, ^vlloro a jowellor wlio 
 had ■wrongfully convci'tod a jewel wliieh had been 
 shown to him, and had retiunied tho socket only, 
 refused to produce it in order that its value might 
 be ascertained, the jury were directed to assess the 
 damages upon tho presimiptiou that the jewel was 
 of the finest water, and of a size to fit the socket ; for 
 Oiiiiiht j)nr.sii»iiiiitiir roiifnt Kpolidforoin. 
 
 (2) So where a diamond necklace was taken awa}-, 
 and part of it traced to tlie defendant, it was held 
 that tlie jury might infer that tlie whole thing had 
 come into his hands {Mortimer v. Cr<i((iloch\ 12 L. J., 
 C. P. KJG). 
 
 Damages in Actions of Tort founded 
 upon Contract, lin.i; *j(j. — Tlio (lania^^vs in 
 actions of t(jrt foundod upon C(jntract, must 
 be estimated in the same way as tlioy aro 
 estimated in breach of contract; for a man 
 cannot, b}' merely changing the form of his 
 action, put himself in a better position (see 
 C/tinrn/ v. Viall, 5 //. tS* N. 290 ; Jolnmm v. 
 ^tcar,'V.\ L. ./"., O. V. l;;(i).
 
 70 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Therefore since in breaches of contract, the damages 
 are limited to injuries which may reasonably be pre- 
 sumed to have been foreseen by both parties at the 
 time of contracting, a man cannot sue for extra- 
 ordinary, though consequential, damages {Radley v. 
 Baxemlak, 9 Ex. 354).
 
 ( ~1 ) 
 
 CllAPTKi: \L 
 
 Of iN.ItNCTinNS TO I'RKVKXT THE COXTINUANXE OF 
 
 Torts. 
 
 Definition. An injunction is a WTit remedial, 
 issuing'' liy (jrder of the Court of Appeal, or the High 
 Court of Justice, or any division or judge of either 
 of them, restraining the conmiission or continuance 
 of some act of the defendant. 
 
 Interlocutory or perpetual. Injunctions 
 are cither iulorloculory or perpetual. An interlocu- 
 tory injunction is a temporary injunction granted 
 summarily on a motion founded on afPidavit, and 
 before the facts in issue liave been fonually tried and 
 determined. A peqietual injunction is one which is 
 granted after the fa(,'ts in issue have been tried and 
 dctennined, and is given by way of final relief. 
 
 Injuries remediable by Injunction. KuLi: 
 27. — Wlierevcr a Ic^Lial ri^ht iii property 
 exists, a vi(dation of tliat rijilit will l)o pro- 
 hibited in all cases -where the injury is sueli 
 as is not susceptible of liein;:!; adequately 
 compensated b}' damages, or at least not 
 Avitliout the necessity of a nnilti])licity of
 
 72 TORTS l^^ GENERAL. 
 
 actions for that pui'pose. But an injunction 
 will not be granted where the injiuy is 
 trivial in amount, or where the coui't in its 
 discretion considers that damages should 
 alone be given (see 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27). 
 
 (1) Thus where substantial damages would be, or 
 have been, recovered for injury done to land or the 
 herbage thereon by smoke or noxious fumes, an 
 injimction will be granted to prevent the continu- 
 ance of the nuisance, for otherwise the plaintiff 
 would have to bring continual actions {Tipping v. 
 St. Helens' SmeUinrj Co., L. R., 1 Ch. 6G). 
 
 (2) And so where a railway company for the con- 
 struction of theh works erected a mortar mill on 
 part of then* land close to the plaintiff's place of 
 business, so as to cause great injury and annoyance 
 to him. by the noise and vibration, it was held that 
 he was entitled to an injunction to restrain the com- 
 pany from continuing the annoyance {Fenu-ich v. 
 East London R. Co., L. E., 20 Eq. 544). 
 
 (3) So where one has gained a right to the free 
 access of light to his house, and buildings are erected 
 which cause a substantial privation of light sufficient 
 to render the occupation of the house uncomfoitable, 
 or to prevent the plaintiff from carrying on his ac- 
 customed business on the premises, an injunction 
 will be granted // the dcprication of light is such ax 
 Konhl support a claim for substantial damages ; for, as 
 was said by Sir W. Page "Wood, V.-C, in Dent v. 
 Auction Mart Co. {L. E., 2 Eq. ^46), "Having 
 arrived at this conclusion with regard to the remedy
 
 INJINCTIONS TO I'REVENT CONTINUANCE OF TORTS. 7.'{ 
 
 whicli ■vN'ould exist nt law, wo are met witli the 
 further diflioulty, that in equity wo must iKjt always 
 give relief (it was so laid do^^^l by Lord Eldon ami 
 Lord Westbury) whore there would bo relief given 
 at law. I laving eonsidored it in every possible way, 
 I cannot myself arrive at any other conclusion than 
 this, tliat whore substantial damages woidd be given 
 at law, as distinguished from some small sum of 5/., 
 10/., or 20/., this court will interpose, and on this 
 ground, tliat it cannot be eontendod that those who 
 are minded to erect a building that will inflict an 
 injury upon their neighbour, have a right to pur- 
 chase him out, without an act of parliament for that 
 purpose." Sir G. Jessel, M. 11., commenting upon 
 the above passage in Aijit^loij v. Ghrrr {L. JR., 18 Eq. 
 552), says : " It seems to mo that that gives a reason- 
 able rule, whatever the law may have been in former 
 times. As I understand it, the rule now is, — and I 
 shall so decide in future, unless in the meantime the 
 Appeal Court shall decide differently, — that wherever 
 an action can bo maintained at law, and really sub- 
 stantial damages, or perhaps I should say consider- 
 able damagos (for some people may say that 20/. is 
 substantial damages), can be recovered at law, there 
 the injunction ought to foUow in equity, generally, 
 not universally, because I have something to add 
 upon that subject." His lordship then, commenting 
 upon the power given to liim of awarding damages 
 in substitution for an injunction, proceeded as fol- 
 lows : " It must be for the coiui to decide, upon con- 
 sideration, to what cases the enactment (21 & 22 
 Vict. c. 27) should be held to apply. In the case of 
 u. E
 
 /4 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 The Curriers'' Company v. Corhet (2 Br. 8f Sm. 355), 
 we have an instance in which a judge has said that 
 the act ought to apply in some cases. I had one 
 before me, in which, there being comparatively a 
 very trifling injury, although sufficient perhaps to 
 maintain an injunction, comparing that with the 
 injury inflicted upon the defendant, I thought, under 
 the special circumstances, damages should be given 
 instead of an injimction. I am not now going, and 
 I do not suppose that any judge will ever do so, to 
 lay down a rule which, so to say, will tie the hands 
 of the court. The discretion being a reasonable dis- 
 cretion, should, I think, be reasonably exercised, and 
 it must depend upon the special circumstances of 
 each case whether it ought to be exercised. The 
 power has been conferred, no doubt usefully, to 
 avoid the oppression which is sometimes practised in 
 these suits by a plaintiff who is enabled — I do not 
 like to use the word ' extort,' but — to obtain a very 
 large sum of money from a defendant, merely 
 because the plaintiff has a legal riglit to an injunc- 
 tion. I think the enactment was meant, in some 
 sense or another, to prevent that coiu'se being suc- 
 cessfully adopted. But there may be some other 
 special cases to which the act may be safely applied, 
 and I do not intend to lay clown any rule upon the 
 subject. If I had found by the evidence that there 
 was in this case a clear instance of very sKght 
 damage to the plaintiffs — that is, some 20/., or 30/., 
 or 40/., but still very slight — I should be disposed to 
 hold that that was a case in which this court would 
 decHne to interfere by injunction, having regard to
 
 INJINCTIOXS TO PREVENT COXTIMANfE OF KtllTS. 70 
 
 the new iiowcr oonfcn'cd upon mo by Lord Cairns' 
 Act to suLstituto damages for it" (and see also Smith 
 V. Sinitli, L. R., 20 Eq. 505). 
 
 (4) AVhere there is a iiinr firspaxa, tlio court will not 
 interfere, because the proper remedy is by an action 
 for damages, or an action of ejectment; but if in 
 addition to the trespass, the trespasser is actuall}- 
 working the destniction of the estate, as by cutting 
 down the timber or working a mine on it, an in- 
 junction will bo granted (seo DroA\Ty on Injunctions, 
 184 e( siq. ; and Joyce on Injunctions, L'il). 
 
 (5) "Where the sewage of a town was carried from 
 a brook Avhich, passing through a man's land, fed a 
 lake also on such land, and the sewage thus dis- 
 charged had for several years fouled the water of 
 the lake* so that from being pure drinking water it 
 gradually became quite imfit for diinking, an in- 
 junction Avas granted {Gohlsmid v. Tintbridrjc Wtlli. 
 Iniprori'iiiriif Co., L. li., 1 Eij. IGl). 
 
 (V)) Again, deprivation of lateral or subjacent sup- 
 port, in cases where a jury would give considerable 
 damages, is sufficient groimd for an injunction. 
 
 (7) tSo, infringements of trade marks, copATight, 
 and patent right, are pecidiarly remediable by in- 
 junction; for not only are they continuing wrongs 
 to proprietary rights, but damages never could ]»ro- 
 perly compensate the persons whose rights are in- 
 vaded. 
 
 (8) On the other hand, there is no injunction to 
 restrain the pubhcation of a libel {tree v. J*rifr/iardy 
 2 Sw. 402; Clark v. Freeman, 11 B. 112), for it does 
 not concern property, and property is the subject- 
 
 E 2
 
 76 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 matter of the jurisdiction. It is, however, appre- 
 hended that slander of title might be restrained. 
 
 (9) The courts have held, that the writer of private 
 letters has such a qualified property in them as will 
 entitle him to an injunction to restrain their publica- 
 tion by the party written to, or his assignees (Drew. 
 Inj. 208; Pope v. Curl, 2 At. 342). And that the 
 party written to has such a qualified right of pro- 
 perty in them as will entitle him, or his personal 
 representatives, to restrain their publication by a 
 stranger, unless such right is displaced by some per- 
 sonal equity, or by grounds of public policy (Drew. 
 Inj. 309; Gmnard v. Dini'kw, I B. 8f Beat. 207; 
 Perckalw. Phipps, 2 V. ^ B. 19). 
 
 Threatened Injury. Rule 28. — The coui't 
 will not in general interfere until an actual 
 tort lias been committed; but it may, by 
 virtue of its jm-isdiction to restrain acts 
 which when completed will result in a 
 ground of action, interfere before any actual 
 tort has been committed, where it is satisfied 
 that the act complained of Avill inevitably re- 
 sult in a nuisance (Kerr, Inj. 339). 
 
 (1) So where a man threatens, or begins to do, or 
 insists upon his right to do, certain acts, the couit 
 will interfere before any actual damage or infringe- 
 ment of any right has actually taken place, if the 
 cu'cumstances are such as to enable it to form an 
 opinion as to the illegality of the acts complained of,
 
 INJlXrilONS TO rUEVKNT CONTINrANCK OF TORTS. 77 
 
 and the iiTeparaLle injury whicli will ensue {rtilnnr 
 \.P(ii(/, 2 L. J., Ch. lo4; Elliott v. N. E. li. Co., hi 
 II. L. Can. 333). Ijut if the injury is only proble- 
 matical, according us other cii'cumstances may or 
 may not arise, or if there is no pressing need for an 
 injunction, the court will not grant it imtil a tort lias 
 actually been committed (Kerr, Inj. 33!)). 
 
 Public Convenience does not justify the 
 Continuance of a Tort. Iti'LE 29. — It is no 
 ground fur refusing an injunction tliat it will, 
 if granted, do an injury to the public, except 
 where the legislature has crpvcssl/j autliorized 
 the act complained of. 
 
 (1) Thus in the case 'of TIk' Attorunj-GoK nil v. 
 I)in)ii/it//t<iin Corpora f 10)1 (4 A'. ^- J. 528), where the 
 defendants had poui'cd their sewage into a river, and 
 so rendered its water unfit for diiuking and incapable* 
 of supporting fish, it was hold that the legislature not 
 having given them express powers to send their 
 sewage into the river, they coidd not do so on the 
 ground that the popidation of Binningham would 
 be injiu-ed if they were restrained from cai'rymg on 
 their operations (see also Spokes v. T/ir Ihiiilniri/ 
 Board of Health, L. E., 1 Eq. 42 ; and Gohhmid v. 
 Tunhruhje Welk I/»j)rore»ieiit Co., fiiip.). 
 
 Mandatory Injunctions. Iti'Li: 30. — 
 ^Yhere an injunction is asked, iu;t merely
 
 78 TORTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 prohibiting an act, but ordering some act to 
 be done, it in general requires a stronger case 
 to be made out, tlian where a mere prohibi- 
 tion is asked for, especially where the injunc- 
 tion is interlocutory [Deere v. Guest ^ 1 M. ^ 
 C. 516; Durrell v. PritcJiard, L. B., 1 Oh. 250; 
 Clark V. Clark, L. E., I Ch. 16). 
 
 (1) Thus where a man has actually built a house 
 which interferes with his neighbour's ancient hghts, 
 the court will not order him to take it down, except 
 in cases in which extreme, or at all events very 
 serious damage, would ensue if its interference were 
 withheld. 
 
 (2) And so where an injunction was asked, ordering 
 the defendants to pull down, some new buildings, 
 on two grounds, namely, 1st, that a right of way 
 was obstructed by the new buildings; and, 2ndly, 
 that the new buildings obstructed the Hght and ah : 
 it was held that no injunction ought to be granted, 
 because, as was said by the Lord Justice Tm^ner, " as 
 to none of these grounds does it seem to me that 
 there is any such extreme or serious damage as 
 could justify the mandatory injunction which is 
 asked. As to the fii'st ground, the right of way is 
 not wholly stopped. The question is one merely of 
 the comparative convenience of the right of way 
 as it formerly existed, and as it now exists. As to 
 the second ground, I think that the duninution of 
 light and air to the plaintiff's houses is not such 
 as would warrant us in granting the roHef which 
 is asked " {Durrell v. Pritcliard, siq).).
 
 INJUNCTIONS TO PREVENT CONTINUANCE OF TORTS. 79 
 
 Delay. iii'Li: ol. — A piTstju wlio has not 
 shown duo dili<j;'cnc'0 in applying to tho (.-(jurt 
 for relief, will in general be debarred from 
 obtainin*;- an interh)Ciitory injinu-tion; but 
 he will ni)t be thereby debarred from ob- 
 taining an injunction at the hearing of th(^, 
 caiLse, miless his delav has Ix^en of such lonir 
 dm'ation as wholly tt) have dejn'ived him of 
 the right which he originally had (per l^ord 
 Langdale in Gordon v. Chcitaihaia R. Co.^ o Ji. 
 233).
 
 PART 11. 
 
 KILKS KKLATI.Mi TO I'AIITK ILAII TOUTS. 
 
 K !J
 
 ( 83 ) 
 
 CnAPTER I. 
 
 Of Defamation. 
 
 Oral or Written. Defamation may bo cither 
 oral or written. In the fonuer case it is called 
 slander, — in the latter, libel. 
 
 Definitions. Libel, in its legal sense, may be 
 defined as a false and malicious defamation of cha- 
 racter expressed in •writing, print, picture, or the 
 like, tending to injure the reputation of another, and 
 whereby that other is exposed to public ridicule, 
 hatred, or contempt (Broom, 731). 
 
 The definition of slander is similar to tliat of libel, 
 with the exception that the defamatory matter must 
 be spoken and not Avritten. 
 
 RuLi: 1. — In order to sustain an action for 
 dcfanuition, ono of tlic two following state of 
 facts must exist, namely : — 
 
 (a) A false and disparaging statement ex- 
 
 pressed In writing, or i)rint, ])ul»- 
 lislicd maliciously by the defendant 
 of tlie }daintiff ; 
 
 (b) A false and disparaging verl)al stati^- 
 
 ment spoken and jjubllslnd maji-
 
 84 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 ciously by the defendant of the 
 plaintiff, whereby (except in cer- 
 tain cases hereinafter mentioned) 
 actual damage has been caused to 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 I. — Falsity. The words must be false, for truth 
 is a good plea to an action for defamation ( Watkin v. 
 Hall, L. R., 3 Q. B. 400; Macpherson v. Daniels, 10 
 B. 8f a 272; Gourle// v. Plimsoll, L. R., 8 C. P. 
 3G2). 
 
 In making it necessary to the success of an action 
 for defamation that the defamatory statement should 
 be false, our law follows the civil law, in which it 
 was a principle that " cum qui nocentium infamat, non 
 est a'quum et honum oh earn rem condemnari ; dclicta 
 enim nocentium, nota esse oportet et expedite 
 
 II. — Disparagement. The words, T^Titing, or 
 picture, must be disparaging to be actionable (see 
 Sheahan v. Ahearne, Ir. Rep., 9 C. L. 412). 
 
 Sub-rule 1. — Dispiaraging words are such as impute 
 conduct or qualities tending to disjxtrage or degrade tJie 
 plaintiff {Bighg v. Thompson, 4: B. Sf A. 821) ; or to 
 expose him to eontcmpt, ridicule, or 2)uhlic hatred, or to 
 prejudice his private character, or credit {Gray v. Gray, 
 34 i. J., C. P. 45); or to cause him to he feared or 
 avoided {lanson v. Stuart, 1 T. R. 748; Walker v. 
 Brogden, 19 C. B., JY. >S'. 165). 
 
 Thus describing another as an infernal villain is 
 a disparaging statement sufficient to maintain an
 
 OF DEFAMATION. 85 
 
 action {Bell v. Stone, 1 B. <^- P. 331) ; and so is an 
 imputation of insanity {Monjan v. Lingden, H L. 7'., 
 N. S. 800) ; or insolvency, or impccuniousnoss {Met. 
 Saloon Omnibus Co. v. ILiirkinx, 28 L. J., Ejt. 201 ; 
 Eaton V. Johns, 1 Doicl.y N. S. 012) ; or of gross mis- 
 conduct {Clement v. Chivis, 9 i?. 4" C'. 17C) ; or of 
 cheating at dice {Grevillc v. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 744 ; 
 or of ingratitude {Co.r v. Lee, L. R., 4 ^r. 284). 
 
 So reflections on the professional and commercial 
 conduct of anotlier are defamatory' ; as to say of a 
 physician, that he is a quack ; and oven to advertise 
 pills as prepared by him (contrary to the fact) would 
 proLahly be a Hbel {Clarh v. Freennni, 11 Jiera-. 117). 
 So, also, calling a newspaper proprietor " a libellous 
 journalist," is defamatory ( Wahelei/ v. Cooke, 4 E.r. 
 /518). 
 
 The imputation must however in such cases be a 
 charge of professional mixeondiict, and not a mere 
 imputation of imworthy liabits, or bad taste {Clai/ v. 
 noberfs, 9 Jar., N. S. 580). 
 
 III. — Construction of Words. Sub-rule 2. 
 — ll'onh utfenil mu.st be eon.strnid in the sense which 
 hearers of common and reasonable understandin(j uould 
 ascribe to them, eren though particular individuals] 
 better informed on the matter alluded to, might form a 
 different Judgment on the subject (per Pollock, C. B., 
 in Ilaukinson v. 7?/%, IG M. ^- IF. 442). 
 
 Thus words, which in themselves are innocent and 
 inoffensive, may become libellous or slanderuus wlien 
 used in an ii'onical manner, and in such a way that 
 no reasonable person coidd be expected to construe 
 them in their ordinary sense.
 
 86 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 lY. — Publication. Both written and spoken 
 defamation must have been published in order to 
 constitute an actionable wrong. 
 
 Sub-rule 3. — The making hwuii the Vibcl or slander 
 to any person other than the object of such libel or 
 slander is puMication in its legal sense. 
 
 " Though, in common parlance, that word may 
 be confined in its meaning to making the contents 
 known to the public, yet its meaning is not so limited 
 in law. The making of it known to an individual 
 only is indisputably in law a publishing" {Hex v. 
 Burdett, 4:JB.^ Aid. 143). 
 
 In civil actions it is immaterial — so far as the 
 right to recover so])ie damages is concerned — whether 
 the libel was published intentionally, or only by 
 accident, or through the negligence of the defendant 
 {Fox V. Broderick, 14 Ir. C. L. Rep. 453; see also 
 Earrimi v. Bush, 5 E. 4* B. 344). 
 
 It is for the jury to find whether the facts, on 
 which it is endeavoured to prove publication, are 
 true; but for the court to decide whether those facts 
 constitute a publication. 
 
 Y. — Malice. Express or implied malice must exist 
 in actions of defamation, but generally it is implied. 
 
 Malice, in the legal acceptation of the word, is not 
 confined to personal spite against individuals, but 
 consists in a conscious violation of the law to the 
 prejudice of another (per Campbell, C. J., 9 CI. 8f F. 
 321). 
 
 Sub-rule 4. — In an action for defamation, the exis- 
 tencc of express malice is only a matter for inquiry, 
 u-hen the words complained of iccre spohen on a Just if-
 
 OF DEFAMATION. 
 
 (ihlc occd.sion [Jloojhr v. (inixvotf, 2 liiny. N. C. loT ; 
 Watkiii V. 7/c///, mipra; Spcill v, JLiii/c, L. Ji., 3 Ex. 
 232). 
 
 The meaning of this is, that where a statement, 
 ■writing, or picture, is false ami defamatory, and was 
 not published upon such a lawful occasion as to rebut 
 the presumption of malice, the law •will conclude it 
 to be malicious {lidijlla v. Lainrnn; 11 A. ^y E. 920). 
 
 There are, however, cases in which it is necessary 
 to show express malice on the part of the defendant, 
 that is to say: — (1) AVhero the eommmiication is 
 said to be privileged (and with these I shall have to 
 deal at greater length subsequently); and (2) in 
 slander of title, that is to say, where the slander ■ 
 consists in falsely impeaching a man's right to land 
 or goods (inrii v. ird/d, L. /?., 4 Q. P.. 730). 
 
 VI. — Damag-es. In actions of slander (save in the 
 cases hereinafter mentioned), but not of libel, it is 
 necessary to prove damages, and unless the plaintiff 
 can do so he cannot succeed. 
 
 Sub-rule 5. — In oval drfaniafion, as in of/icr (orfSy 
 ichcrv ihttnagcs niiaf be proved, the Iohh roniplained of 
 must he such as " mif//if fair/// and reasonabhj hare been 
 anticipated and feared trould folloir from the speahimj of 
 the irords'' {L;/nrh v. Knifjht, f) JL of L. C. 517). 
 
 The rule laid down by Lord Elleuborough on this 
 point was, that the special damage must be the legal 
 and natm-al consequence of the words spoken, and, 
 consequently, that it is not sullicient to sustain an 
 action of slander to prove a mere wrongful act of a 
 third party induced by the slander, such as that he had
 
 88 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 dismissed tlie plaintiff from his employment, tefore \ 
 the end of the term for which they had contracted ) 
 [Vicars v. WilcocJcs, 2 Sm. L. C. 534). The decision-^ 
 in this case seems to have been arrived at on two 
 grounds; (1) that the plaintiff having been unlaw- 
 fully dismissed had a right of action against his 
 master, and that, therefore, he ought not to be 
 allowed a second action against the slanderer, lest he 
 should recover double damages ; and (2) that the act 
 complained of being a wrongful act could not possibly 
 be considered the kgnl and natui^al consequence of the 
 defamation. The first of these dicta has now ceased 
 to be law, and the cases of Green v. Button (2 C. M. 
 8f Rij. 171), and, more pai-ticularly, Lumley v. Gije;" 
 (2 E. Sf B. 21^) have completely overruled such an 
 objection. In respect to the rule that the damagesV 
 must be the legal and natiu-al consequence of the / 
 slander, the judgment of Lord Wensleydale, in Lynch [ 
 Y. Knight (.sw^x), throws considerable doubt thereon, f 
 and should be carefully read. His lordship thus V 
 proceeds: — "I am much influenced by the able 
 reasoning of Mr. Justice Christian (one of the judges 
 in the court below). I strongly incline to agree 
 with him, that to make the words actionable by 
 reason of special damage, the consequence must be 
 such as, taking human nature as it is, with its infir- 
 mities, and having regard to the relationship of the 
 parties concerned, might fairly and reasonably have 
 been anticipated and feared would follow from the 
 spealdng of the words, not what would reasonably 
 follow, as we might think ought to follow. 
 In the case of Vicars v. Wikoclis, I must say that
 
 OF DKFAMATIDN'. 80 
 
 the rules Liid down by I^urd Kllenboroup^li nro too 
 restrictive. Tliat wliicli I have tjikcn from ^[r. Justice 
 Christian seems to me, I own, correct. I cannot 
 agree that the special damage must bo the natural 
 and legal eonsequonee of the words, if true. I^ord 
 Ellenborough puts an absurd case, that a plaintiii" 
 could recover damages for being tlirowii into a horse- 
 pond as a consecpieueo of words spoken; but, I own, I 
 can conceive that, when the public mind was greatly 
 excited on the subject of some base and disgraceful 
 crime, an accusation of it to an assembled mob might, 
 under particular circumstances, very natui'ally pro- 
 duce that residt, and a compensation might be given 
 for an act occurring as a consequence of an accusation 
 of that crime." 
 
 Ej^ampha of Acfiuil DamiKjo. — (1) Words were 
 spoken imputing unchastity to a woman, and by 
 reason thereof she was excluded from a private society 
 and congregation of a sect of Protestant Dissentere, of 
 which she had been a member, and was prevented 
 from obtaining a ceitificate, without which she could 
 not become a member of any other society of the 
 same nature: Held, that such a result was not such 
 special damage as would render the words actionable 
 {Robci-h v. Roberts, 3:i /.. J., Q. B. 249). 
 
 (2) Action by husband and wife for slander, im- 
 puting incontinency to the wife, alleging tliat, by 
 reason thereof the wife became ill and unable to 
 attend to her necessary affairs and business, and that 
 the husband was put to expense in endeavouring to 
 cure her: Held, that the declaration showed no
 
 90 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 cause of action {Allsopp v. AUsojjp, 5 Hiwla. ^' Norm. 
 534). 
 
 (3) Wliere tlie wife, in consequence of words im- 
 puting want of chastity to lier, ceased to receive the 
 hospitality of divers friends, and especiall}^ of her 
 hushand, it was held that such a loss was the 
 reasonable and natural consequence of such slander 
 {Dai'ies v. Solomon, L. H., 7 Q. B. 112). 
 
 There is a custom in the City of London courts 
 enabling a woman whose chastity has been slandered, 
 to maintain an action, though she can prove no 
 special damage (3 Steph. Com. 379). 
 
 Imputation of Crime, Unfitness for Society^ 
 and Misconduct in Business. There are certain 
 exceptions to the rule that verbal slander must have 
 caused actual damage in order to be actionable. In 
 fact some slanders import such defamation as must be 
 naturally prejudicial, and therefore in such cases the 
 law presumes a damnum. 
 
 Excejition (1). A false oral imputation made^ 
 against another, of the commission of an indictable 
 offence, is a sufficient damnum of itself {Rotcdiff v. 
 Edmomh, 7 M. ^ JF. 12). 
 
 Thus the words " You are a rogue, and I wiU prove 
 you a rogue, for you forged my name," are actionable 
 {Jones V. Heme, 2 JFil-s. 89). And it is immaterial 
 that the charge was made at a time when it could 
 not cause any criminal proceedings to be instituted. 
 Thus the words " You are guilty " [innuendo of the
 
 OK DKF.VMATION. I'l 
 
 murdur of 1).] are, after tUo verdict of not guilty, a 
 Bufficieut charge of murder to support an action 
 {Pcakc V. Ohlliam, 2 W. BL DOO). 13ut if words 
 charging a criiuo are accompanied by an express 
 aUusion to a transaction ■which merely amounts to 
 a civil injury, as broach of trust or contract, they 
 are not actionable (per Ellenborough in Tliompsoa 
 V. Banu(n/, 1 Ctnnp. 48; and per Kenyou, Christ to 
 V. Coicell, Pcahe, 4). 
 
 The allegation, too, must be a direct charge of 
 crime. Thus saying of another, that he had foi-sworn 
 himself, is not actionable, without showing that the 
 words had reference to some judicial inquiry {Holt v. 
 Scholcjhld, G T. li. 691). 
 
 Exception (2). False words tending to cause ex- 
 clusion from society are actionable per se. 
 
 Tims to allege the prcncnt possession of an infec- 
 tious tlisease is actionable, but a charge of past infec- 
 tion is not; for it shows no present imfitness for 
 society (see Carshihc v. Mcppliilruni, 2 T. 1{. 47'"i; 
 Bhodnorth v. Gray, 7 M. ^- G. 334). 
 
 Except i(ni (3). Words imputing to a man miscon- 
 duct in, or want of some necessaiy qualification for, 
 his office or trade, are actionable per se; although 
 the office or trade is not one of which the court can 
 take judicial notice {Fonhjrr v. Neirroinliy L. li., 
 2 Ex. 327). 
 
 Thus words imputing tlnmkenness to a master 
 mariner whilst in command of a ship at sea are 
 actionable per se {Inrin v. Brnudtrood^ 2 JI. ^y C. 
 960; 33 L. J.,F.r.2o7).
 
 92 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 So where a clergyman is beneficed or holds some 
 ecclesiastical office, a charge of incontinence is ac- 
 tionable ; but it is not so if he holds no ecclesiastical 
 office {Galhcaij v. MarshaU, 23 L. J., Ex. 78). 
 
 So to say of a surgeon "he is a bad character; 
 none of the men here will meet him," is actionable 
 {Soufhce V. Denning, 17 L. J., Ex. 151; 1 Ex. 196). 
 
 Or of an attorney that " he deserves to be struck 
 off the roll" {PJiiUips v. Jansen, 2 Esi). 624). But 
 it is not ground for an action to say " he has de- 
 frauded his creditors, and been horsewhipped off 
 the course at Doneaster," because this has no refer- 
 ence to his profession. . 
 
 Repeating Slander. Rule 2. — AVlienever 
 an action will lie for slander or libel, it is of 
 no consequence that tlie defendant was not 
 the originator, but merely a repeater, or 
 printer, and publisher of it; and if tlie 
 damage arise simply from the re23etition, the 
 originator will not be liable [ParJcins v. Scott ^ 
 1 Hurl cV Colt. 153 ; Watkin v. Hall, L. R., 
 3 Q. B. 39G; 3IcPhersonY. Daniels, 10 B. ^^ C. 
 273); except (1) where tiie originator had 
 authorized the repetition [Kcndillon v. Malthj, 
 Car. ^ M. 402) ; and (2) where the words are 
 spoken to a person under a moral duty or 
 obligation to communicate them to a third
 
 OF DKFAMATION. f).'? 
 
 {Dcmi V. Unwlh'D, K', L. 7'., .V. >V., (). /;. 
 2G.'i). 
 
 (1) In that case, (Jockbuni, C. J., observes, ""Wlioro 
 an actual duty is east upon the person to whom the 
 slander is uttered to communicate what he has heard 
 to some third person, as wlien a eommunioation is 
 made to a husband, such as, if true, would render the 
 person the subject of it imfit to associate with liis 
 wife and daughtoi*s, the slanderer cannot excuse 
 himself by saying, ' True, I t(jld the husband, but I 
 never intended that he should caiTy the matter to his 
 wife.' In such case the connnunicator is privileged, 
 and an exception to the rule to which I have referred; 
 and the originator of the slander, and not the bearer 
 of it, is responsible for the consequences." 
 
 The reason of this rule is that an imauthoiized 
 repetition of words spoken is not the necessary result 
 or consequence of the original utterance of such 
 words. 
 
 (2) But where A. slandered 13. in C.'s hearing, 
 and C. without authority repeated the slander to D., 
 per quod D. refused to trust 13. : it was held that no 
 action lay against A., the original utterer, as the 
 damage was the result of C.'s unauthori;5ed repetition 
 and not of the original statement {Ward v. TF^r/.-v, 
 4 M. ^- P. 808). 
 
 (-i) Pri)iti)uj Slroidrr. So the printing and pub- 
 lishing by a third pai-ty of oral slander (not per 
 se actionable), renders the jierson wh*3 prints, or 
 writes and publishes the slander, and all aiding or
 
 94 PARTICULAR TOUTS. 
 
 assisting liini, liable to an action, althougli the origi- 
 nator, who merely spoke the slander, ^ill not be liable 
 {McGregor v. Thurdfes, 2> B. 8^ C. 35). 
 
 (4) Upon this principle the publisher, as well as 
 the author of a libel, is liable ; and the former cannot 
 exonerate himself by naming the latter, for " of what 
 use is it to send the name of the author with a libel 
 that is to pass into a part of the country where he is 
 entirely unknown ? The name of the author of a 
 statement will not inform those who do not know his 
 character whether he is a person entitled to credit 
 for veracity or not "(per Best, J., Creapujmj v. Wel- 
 lesley, 5 Binrj. 403). 
 
 Newspaper Proprietors. Sub-rule 1. — In an 
 action for libel againHt the proprietor or editor of any 
 newspaper or other periodical^ the defendant may 
 plead that the libel was inserted mthoxd medice and 
 uithont gross negligence; and that (d the earliest 
 subsequent opportunity he inserted in such or some 
 other p)uhlication a full apology; or, if such puhli- 
 cation was published at intervals exceeding a month, 
 thfd lie offered to puhlish such apology in any pxqyer 
 the plcdntiff might name. And iq^n fling such plea, 
 the defendant may pay a sum into court by nay of 
 amends (6 & 7 Yict. c. 96, s. 2). 
 
 Privileged Commtinication. Rule 3. — 
 Wliere a conimuiiication is made bond fide 
 vi\}0\\ any subject-matter in which the party 
 
 I 
 I
 
 OK DKFAMVTION. ft."i 
 
 coiniiuuiicaliii;^- lias an Iiit(>r(»st, or in refer- 
 ence to wliicli lio lias a dut}', either puldie, 
 or j)rivate, either le«;al, moral, or social, such 
 communiciition, it' made to a person havin<;" 
 a corresponding- interest or dut}', rebuts the 
 inference of malice, and is privileged. When 
 .such is the case the onus of provinn malice is 
 thrown upon llie plaintiff (Ad, on Torts, 770 ; 
 Harrison y. JJus//, 5 K cS' B. HU; Wrh/ht v. 
 Woodyate, 2 a, 31. ^y Ji. 57^ ; ."^omcrvillc v. 
 Ilau'/cius, 10 C. D. 58.'^ ; Zafvkss v. Am/lo- 
 Egijptian Cotton Co., L. A'., \ Q. B. 2r>'i ; >S>/// 
 V. Maulc, L. /i., -i Ex. 232 ; Daukins v. Lord 
 Pmdcf, L. n., ') Q. B. 04 ; Dxrics v. S/irad, 
 L. Ji., Q. B. G08 ; llcmiyxid v. ILirrisou, 
 L. 11., 7 C. P. 006; Lauf/hton v. Bishop of 
 Sodor and Man, ihid. 008; Uarl v. Cuwpach, 
 L. /;., 4 l\ C. 4:}0; Kvll/j v. Tinlin;/, L. /,'., 
 1 il II. O'JO; Didceson v. Ililliard, L. 11., I> 
 Ex. 79). 
 
 This nile •woultl seem to apply even . when tho 
 person to whom the communication is made has not, 
 in fact, any corresponding^ interest or dnty, if tho 
 plaintilF honestly thought ho had, and there were 
 good and reasonable grounds for hira so to tliink 
 {llarrixoii v. Bnxh^ .supra) . 
 
 AVherc in an action for libel tho defendant insists 
 that tho publication is privileged, it is for tho judge 
 to rule whether the occasion creates a privilege. If
 
 96 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 the occasion creates sucli privilege, but there is evi- 
 dence of express malice, either from extrinsic circum- 
 stances or from the language of the libel itself, the 
 question of express malice should be left to the jury 
 {Cook V. Wildes, 5 E. S^ B. 328). 
 
 (1) PaH'tamentarii Proccediufjs. Sj)eeches in par- , 
 liament are privileged {Stockdak v. Hansard, d A. 
 4* E. 1) ; and a faithful report in a public news- / 
 paper of a debate in either House of Parliament, con- 
 taining matter disparaging to the character of an 
 individual which had been spoken in the course of 
 the debate, is not actionable at the suit of the person 
 whose character has been called in question {Wason 
 V. Waltc)', L. R., 4 Q. B. 73). 
 
 (2) Judicial Proceedings. Statements of a judge 
 acting judicially, whether relevant or not, are 
 absolutely privileged {Scott v. Stans/ield, L. P., 3 
 Ex. 220) ; but those of coimsel only if relevant 
 and according to instructions. But fair comments 
 on the opponent's case are allowable {Hodgson v. 
 Scarlett, 1 B. Sf AI. 232). Attorneys acting as ad- 
 vocates have a like privilege {Mackaij v. Ford, 29 
 L. J., Ex. 404). Statements of witnesses can never 
 be the subject of an action {Dawkins v. Lord Rokcshij, 
 L. P., 8 Q. B. 2G1). If false, the remedy is by in- 
 dictment {Henderson v. Broomhead, 28 L. J., Ex. 
 360). Fair reports of trials are also privileged', 
 {Leicis V. Lev//, 27 L. J., Q. B. 282) ; but the repori 
 of an application to a justice not sitting judicially is , 
 not privileged. An apphcation to a magistrate for 
 advice, for instance, is not privileged {McGregor v. 
 T/ncaites,SB.8f C. 24).
 
 OK DKKAM VTION. 07 
 
 . ('3) Coiifiilcitddl Adcirr. So advice glvou in oii- 
 fidenco at the request of another, and for his pro- 
 tection, is privilofi;(>(l ; and it sooms that the prosenoo 
 of a third party makes no diit'erenee {Tdijlor v. IIku- 
 klm, 10 Q. B. 'M)X ; Maul,;/ v. Witt, '2o L. J., C. P. 
 :394; 18 C. li. 544) ; but it seonLs doubt fid whotlier 
 a vohmtary statement is equally privileged (see Cox- 
 head V. Iiic/i(infs, 15 L. J"., C. P. i27S ; and Fn/rr v. 
 Kinnci'Hlei/, .'Vi L. ,/., C. P. 90). 
 
 Thus the character of a servant given to a person 
 requesting it, is privileged {(idrdinvr v. S/odr, LS 
 L. -/., Q. ]i. ;]l;] ; Paftlson v. Jourx, S B. ^ G. 578). 
 
 Tlie character of a candidate for an ofRce, given to 
 one of his canvassers, "was held to bo privileged 
 {Coirks V. Pott><, 34 L. J., Q. B. 247). 
 
 But imputations cirrulatod froc^ly against another 
 in or<k'r to injure liim in his calling, however Ikjuu 
 fide made, are not privileged. Thus a clerg^nnan is 
 not privileged in slandering a schoolmaster about to 
 start a school in his parish {(liliiiu v. Fmrlrr, f> E.r. 
 015). 
 
 The unnecessary transmission by a post ollice 
 telegram of libellous matter, which would have been 
 privileged if sent by letter, avoids the prinlege 
 {Williamson v. Freer, L. P., 9 C. P. 393). 
 
 (4) Criticism. Lastly: Fail' and jiLst criticisms 
 of literary publications and works of art are privi- 
 leged, provided the private character of the author or 
 artist is not attacked {McLeod v. iniate/i/, 3 Car. ^• 
 P. 311; Carr \. Hood, 1 Camp. 355; Thompson v. 
 Shackell, J/". ^ M. 187). 
 
 Tradesmen's advertisements are witliin the mean- 
 
 u. V
 
 98 PARTICILAR TORTS. 
 
 ing of literary publications {Paris v. Lev//, 30 L. J., 
 
 a p. 1). 
 
 So, too, fair criticism is allowed upon the public 
 life of public men, or men filling public offices ; sucb 
 as the itcpnduct of public worship by clergymen 
 {Kelly V. Tinling, L. P., 1 Q. B. 699) : provided 
 such criticism does not touch upon their private lives 
 {Gathercolc v. Mlall, 15 M. 4- W. 319). 
 
 Limitation. Rule 4. — All actions for oral 
 slander must l^e commenced within two years 
 next after the cause of action arose, and all 
 actions for libel within six years. 
 
 Of com'se this rule is subject to the general ones 
 particularly set out in the first part of this work. 
 
 It may be mentioned that where the tort consists 
 of the actual damage caused by an oral slander, the 
 period begins to rim from the date of the damage, 
 and not that of the slander {Saunders v. Pd/cards, 
 1 >S'/(/. 95).
 
 ( ou ) 
 
 CIIArTER II. 
 
 Of Maliciois Puosecution. 
 
 Ax action may bo luaintaiucd for maliciou.sly insti- 
 tuting^ criminal proceedings against another [Chmrliill 
 V. Siygcrs, 3 Ell. i^ lil. 1)37), or f<n' maliciously causing 
 him to he adjudicated a bankrupt {Farlnj v. D(iii/:xy 
 4 a. iif B. 4!)'J; Joltmon v. Emerson^ L. li., G Ej . 
 329). 
 
 Rule 5. — In order to support an action 
 for malicious jji-osecution the j)biintiflt must 
 show (1) malice, and (2) M'ant of probable 
 cause on the part of tlie defendant, (o) tliat 
 tlie former proceedin<^s were determined in 
 his favour, and tluit (4) lie has suffered 
 damage by reason of such })rosecution. 
 
 I. — Malice, ilalice, as I explained in thi' last 
 eliai)ter, is either express or impUed. 
 
 8ub-nilo 1, — /// an action for ma/irioas prosecution 
 malice is (jenerallif implied upon proof of' abnenee of 
 rrasonah/f and protudde rauxe for institutintj the criminal 
 proeeedinr/s {Jolintitone v. Sutton, 1 1\ li. -344). 
 
 (1) Thus where the defendant at the time of the 
 prosecution of the plaintiff showed that he had a 
 f2
 
 100 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 consciousness of the innocence of tlie accused, it was 
 held evidence of malice. 
 
 (2) So too where one is assaulted justifiably, and 
 he institutes criminal proceedings for the assault ; if 
 in the opinion of the jury he commenced such pro- 
 ceedings knowing that he was wrong, and had no 
 just cause of complaint, malice may be presmned 
 [Hiuton V. Heather, 14 M. ^ W. 131). 
 
 (3) So too it may be presumed, if it be shown that 
 the defendant l-jietr that the plaintiff against whom 
 he had charged a theft, took the goods under an 
 erroneous belief that he had a legal right to do so 
 {Hunf/efj V. Siinj^HO}), 27 L. J., Ex. 131). 
 
 (4) So where the prosecutor of another says that 
 he is prosecuting him in order to stop his mouth, it 
 is evidence that he knew him to be innocent, and 
 therefore that the prosecution was malicious (Ileslop 
 V. Chapman, per Maule, J., 23 L. J., Q. B. 49). 
 
 The fact of malice is a question for the jmy [Payne 
 V. Riran, 9 W. R. 693). 
 
 Subsequent Malice. Sub-rule 2. — A prose- 
 cution, fhougli in the outset unniaJieions, may become 
 malicious if the jjrosecator, hariny acquired positive 
 knou-/e(Iye of the innocence of the accused, jn-oceeds malo 
 aninw in the jjivsecution (per Coekburn, C. J., Fitz 
 John V. MacKinder, 30 L. J., C. P. 264). 
 
 And where a person has not instituted, but only 
 adopts and continues proceedings, the same principle 
 applies {Weston v. Beeman, 27 L. J., E.v. 57). 
 
 Thus where, through the defendant's perjmy, the 
 judge of a county court, believing the plaintiff to
 
 OF MM.Kims I'ltOSF.rUTIOX. 101 
 
 have perjured liinis(.-lf, eominiltvtl liim for trial, and 
 bound over the defendant to proseeute him, whit-li 
 he did, but unsuecessfully ; and after the eriininal 
 trial the plaintiff brought an action for malir-ious 
 prosecution ; it was held that the action was main- 
 tainable, because, although the defendant had not 
 initiated the proceetlings, yet there "was no reason 
 why he should have followed them up ; for he miglit 
 have discharged his recognizance b}' appearing and 
 telling the tmth {Fifz Jolui v. Marh'i.a/n; 30 L. J., 
 C. 1\ 2G4). 
 
 II. — Want of probable Cause. .Vlthough,aswe^ 
 have seen, malice may be implied from want of pro-; 
 bable cause, in no case can the want of probable cause/ 
 be implied from the mere existence of malice {Jo/iiixfone] 
 v. Siiffo>i, 1 T. li. 044). In Ta>//or v. Wil/iatus {(] nhi;/. 
 180), Tindal, C. J., remarks, "Malice alone is not 
 sufficient, because a person actuated by the plainest ' 
 malice may, nevertheless, have a justifiable reason \ 
 for prosecution." 
 
 The existence of reasonable and probable cause 
 is a question of law for the judge, tlie jury having 
 ascertained the facts, if the facts are in dispute 
 (per KeUy, C. 13., Pcrri/ntan v, Lisfrr, L. R.^ 3 Ex. 
 202). 
 
 AVhat is reasonable and probable cause " is a mere 
 question of opinion depending entii'ely \ipon the 
 view wliich the judges may happen to take of the 
 circumstances in each particular case" (per Kelly, ('. 13., 
 in Pcrri/iiian v. Lister, utip.). "There mu.st be a 
 reasonable cause, such as wouM operate on the mind
 
 102 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 of a discreet man; tliere must be also a probable 
 cause, such as would operate on tbe mind of a reason- 
 able man ; at all events, sucb as would operate on 
 the mind of the party making the charge, otherwise 
 there is no probable cause for him" {Broad y. Ham, 
 5 Bing. N. C. 725). 
 
 CoimseVs Opinion. A man cannot shield him- 
 self from the results of a malicious prosecution, on 
 the ground that it was instituted under the advice of 
 counsel. " It would be a most pernicious practice," 
 remarks Heath, J., "if we were to introduce the 
 j^rinciple that a man, by obtaining the opinion of a 
 coimsel, by applying to a weak man or an ignorant 
 man, might shelter his malice in bringing an un- 
 founded prosecution" {6-T(tiiiitoii, 283). 
 
 III. — The former Proceedings must have 
 been determined in the Plaintiff's favour. 
 
 It is necessary to show that the proceeding alleged to 
 have been instituted maliciously, and without reason- 
 able or probable cause, has terminated in favour of 
 the plaintiff, if, from its nature, it be capable of such 
 a termination {Baseb// v. Matheics and Wife, L. M., 
 2 a P. 684). 
 
 This rule applies equally to the case where the 
 plaintiff has been summarily convicted under a statute 
 Avhich gives no power of appeal {Ba-sch// v. Mathews, 
 siq}.). 
 
 IV. — Damage. "In order to support an action for 
 malicious prosecution or suit, it is necessary to show 
 some damage resulting to the present plaintiff from
 
 OF MALKIOIS rilOSELCllON. 103 
 
 tbe former ]tro(f('iliii^ agiiinst liim. This may bo 
 either tlie damiigo to a iiuurs famo, jus if tlitj matter 
 he is accused of be scandalous, or wlicre ho has been 
 put iu danger to lose his life, or limb, or liberty; or 
 damage to liis property, as where he is obliged to 
 spend money in necessary charges to acquit liimself 
 of the crime of which lie is accused" {Maijur's Tiraiise 
 on DdiiKKjcs^ J). 310). 
 
 In tliis case, as in slander, the damages must be the 
 reasonable and probable cause of the malicious prose- 
 cution, and not too remote. 
 
 Non-liability of Complainant for Acts of 
 Magistrate. Kii^k G. — \i ;i jxtsou Ixmn foU: 
 inakcs ii conipluiiit to a nuioistrato, and tlio 
 magistrate erroneously treats the matter as 
 a felony, wlien it is in reality only a civil 
 iiijurv, and issues his Avarrant for the ajjjtn'- 
 liension of the jdaintilf, the defeudaut ^vllo 
 eomplained t(» the maji^istrate is not respon- 
 sible for the mao-istrate's error ( IFy^/// v. W/tifc, 
 20 L. ./., Ex. VX\). P,ut if there he no rea- 
 sonable and probable eause for suspi^ctino; 
 tliat a felony has been committed, and the 
 defendant luakes a specifie. charge of felony, 
 it is otherwise. 
 
 Thus, if one, without reasonable and probable cause,
 
 104 rARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 causes a search warrant to issue against tlie plaintiff, 
 he is liable to an action ; but if he merely goes before 
 a magistrate and ho)tu fide puts before him reasonable 
 grounds of suspicion, and the magistrate thereupon, 
 in the exercise of his discretion, issues the warrant, no 
 action lies [Cooper v. Booth, 3 Esj). 144).
 
 ( 105 ) 
 
 CIIArTEPt III. 
 
 Of False Imprisonment and Malk iol's Akhkst, 
 
 What constitutes Imprisonment, IviLi: 7. 
 — Where a total restraint for .some peri(jd, 
 liowever short, is ])ut upon the liberty of 
 another AWthoiit siiflicient le<i:al authority, an 
 action lies for tlie iiifrin<j:enient of the ri*^lit 
 {BinI V. Jones, 7 (J. JJ. 74.*J). 
 
 Moral Restraint. Imprisonment does not imply 
 incarceration, Imt any restraint by force or show of 
 authority; as, for instance, where a LaililT tells a per- 
 son that he has a writ against him, and thert'iipon 
 such person peaceably accompanies liim, that consti- 
 tutes an imprisonment {Gnt'unjcr v. /////, 4 liinij. 
 N. C. 212). 
 
 But some total restraint there must be, for a partial 
 restraint of locomotion in a particular direction, as 
 by preventing tlie plaintiff from exercising his right 
 of way over a bridge, is no imprisonment, for no 
 restraint is thereby put upon his liberty {liini v. 
 Jotirs^ .siiji.). 
 
 The rules which apply to imprisonments by private 
 persons, and those which apply to imprisonments by 
 f5
 
 106 PAETICULAR TORTS. 
 
 judges and other magistrates, are necessarily diffe- 
 rent. 
 
 It will be therefore more convenient to consider 
 them separately and in order. 
 
 Section 1. 
 Of Imjirisonments hy Private Persons and Constables. 
 
 General Immunity. Rule 8. — ^No j^erson 
 can in general arrest or imprison another 
 without a legal and legally executed Avar- 
 rant. 
 
 Excej)tions. (1) Bail. — A person who is hail for 
 another may always arrest and render him up in his 
 own. discharge {Exp. Lyne, 3 Star!;. 132). 
 
 (2) Felons. — A treason or felony having been 
 actually committed, a private person may arrest one 
 reasonably suspected by him ; but the suspicion must 
 not be mere sm-mise {Peck /r it It v. Pliilby, 6 P. ^ C. 
 635). 
 
 A constable may, however, arrest merely upon 
 reasonable suspicion that a felonj^ has been com- 
 mitted, and that the party arrested was the doer, 
 and even though it should tiu-n out eventually that 
 no felony has been committed he will not be liable 
 {Marsh v. Loader, 14 C. P., JV. S. -335 ; Griffin v. 
 Coleman, 28 L. J., Ex. 134). 
 
 The suspicion, however, must be a reasonable one, 
 or the constable will be liable. Thus where one 
 told the defendant, a constable, that a j-ear before 
 he had had his harness stolen, and that he now saw
 
 FAI.sk niritlSONMKNT AND MAl.UIors AKllKST. l07 
 
 it on tlio jiluiiitilF's liorsc, mul tlicrciijujii the ilffen- 
 dant Avont up to tlie iihiiiitiir ami asked liini wliire 
 he got liis harness from, and the iihuiitiir making 
 answer tliat lie liad houglit it from a person unknown 
 to him, the constable took liim into custody, although 
 lie had known Imu to be a respectable householder 
 for twenty ycai"?. It was held tliat the constable 
 had no reasonable cause for suspecting the plaintiff, 
 and was consecpiently liable for the false imprison- 
 ment {Ho'Jii V. Ward, 27 L. «/., Ex. AA'-]). 
 
 Where one man charges another with having com- 
 mitted a felony, and a constable at and by his 
 direction takes that other into custody, the party 
 making the charge, and not the constable, is liable 
 should the charge turn out false {Darin v. llnnacll^ 
 2 M. cV P. 007). 
 
 "• It would be most mischievous," Lord ^Mansfifld 
 remarks, " that the officer slujuld be bound first to 
 try, and at his peril exercise, his judgment as to the 
 truth of the charge, lie that makes the charge 
 alone is answerable'' {Griffin v. CuhnnDy 4 II. ».y N. 
 200). 
 
 (3) Brcuhefx of Peace. — A jtrivate person may 
 and ought to arrest one committing, or about to 
 commit, a breach of the peace, but not if the affray 
 be over and not likely to recur {Timotlii/ v. Simpson^ 
 1 O-., M. .y 7i'. 7o7). 
 
 But if seems that a constable may arrest even after 
 the affray (so that it be unmediately after), in order 
 to take the offender before a magistrate (A*, v. Z/y///, 
 27 L. J., M. C. I).
 
 108 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 (4) Night Offenders. — Any person may arrest and 
 take before a justice one found roniniitting an indict- 
 able offence between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. (14 & 15 Vict. 
 0. 19, s. 11). 
 
 (5) Malicious Injuries. — The owner of property, 
 his servant, or a constable, may arrest and take before 
 a magistrate any one found comnuttinrj malicious in- 
 jury to such property (14 & 15 Yict. c. 19, s. 11; 
 
 24 & 25 Yict. c. 97). 
 
 (6) Offering Goods for Pauii. — A private person 
 to whom goods are offered for sale or pawn may, if 
 he has reasonable ground for suspecting that an 
 offence against the Larceny Amendment Act (24 & 
 
 25 Yict. c. 96) has been committed with respect to 
 them, arrest the person offering them, and take him 
 and the property before a magistrate. 
 
 (7) Vagrants. — Any person may arrest and take 
 before a magistrate one found committing an act of 
 vagrancy (5 Greo. 4, c. 83). 
 
 N.B. Such acts are soliciting alms by exposure of 
 wounds, indecent exposm^e, false pretences, fortune- 
 telling, betting, gaming in the public streets, and 
 many other acts, for which I must refer to the 4th 
 section of the Act. 
 
 In other cases, to justify an arrest, the waiTant, 
 writ or order of some competent court must be 
 obtained, and the person arresting must have it with 
 him at the time, ready to produce if demanded {Gil- 
 Jiard v. Loxton, 31 L. J., M. C. 123). 
 
 Under the 4th, 5th and 7th exceptions, it is no ex- 
 cuse to prove commission of the oifence immediately
 
 FAI.SK IMrUISONMKNT AM) MAI.ICIOl S AltUK.ST. lOO 
 
 before the am'st, f»n' the nrn'st must bo iiiiulo /// thr 
 course of fill' roiiiniis.sion of tlie ofrt'iicu fsec Sinn/ion v. 
 
 Milfif/aii, 2 c. n. 53;n. 
 
 Pdrtiriihir KrcrpfioiiN, — In ijoiidon, tln' owner of 
 property may arrest any one /oiiiid committing any 
 indictable olfenee, or misdemeanor in respect to it, 
 punisbablo uj)on summary o(»nviotion. 
 
 Most Haihvay Acts, too, give jjower to ollicers of 
 the company to detain unknown offenders against the 
 Act. 
 
 Officers in the army may arrest a deserter, and 
 sliip masters have special powers of imprisoning crew 
 and passengers. 
 
 Special powers too are frequently given to the 
 police of certain towns and cities by their local acts. 
 
 Section 2. 
 Of Impriaotunent Inj Judicial Offivrrs. 
 
 RliLK 9. — No judicial ofHccr, IiivcsIcmI with 
 iiutliority to imprison, is lialih' to an artinn 
 for a wron<iful iniprisonnicnt, unless lie acted 
 beyond liis jurisdiction [Dosivall v. Jnipct/, 
 1 /;. cN- C. 100; Kemp v. Xevnic, 10 C. />'., 
 N. S. i')'2'i): not even tlnm<i]i ]io imprisons 
 tlie plaintiff maliciously (Jlt'/lcr v. I/opc nn<l 
 Shttw^ Sc. Ap)). Cas. VZ')\ Jiron v. Sin/'///, 1 >> 
 C. B. 120; Henderson v. Broomheud, 4 Jl. <y 
 N. 569. Sec also Dmvkins v. Paitlet, L. B., 
 o Q. B. 94).
 
 110 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 (1) In tlie case of Scott v. Stansfidd {L. H., 3 £x. 
 220), wliich, though an action of slander, will very 
 well repay a careful perusal, Kelly, C. B., remarks, 
 " It is essential, in all courts, that the judges, who are 
 appointed to administer the law, should be permitted 
 to administer it under the protection of the law in- 
 dependently and freely, without favoui- and without 
 fear. This provision of the law is not for the pro- 
 tection, or benefit, of a malicious or corrupt judge, 
 but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is 
 that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their 
 functions with independence, and without fear of 
 consequences. How could a judge so exercise his 
 office, if he were in daily and houi'ly fear of an action 
 being brought against him, and of having the ques- 
 tion submitted to a jury, whether a matter, on which 
 he had commented judicially, was or was not relevant 
 to the case before him ? 
 
 " Again, if a question arose as to the bona fides of 
 the judge, it would have, if the analogy of similar 
 cases is to be followed, to be submitted to the jury. 
 Thus, if we were to hold that an action is maintain- 
 able against a judge for words spoken by him in his 
 judicial capacity, under such circumstances as those 
 appearing on these pleadings, we should expose him 
 to constant danger of having questions, such as that 
 of good faith or relevancy, raised against him before 
 a juiy, and of having the mode in which he might 
 administer justice in his couii; submitted to deter- 
 mination. It is impossible to over-estimate the in- 
 convenience of such a result. Por these reasons 
 I am most strongly of opinion that no such action
 
 FALSI-: IMI'UISONMKNT AND MAl.K lol S AKIUlsl, 111 
 
 as this can luiflor any oireimistances bo maintain- 
 able "(^O- 
 
 (2) Where a court lias jurisdiction of a matter bo- 
 fore it, but acts erroneously, the parties suing, the couii 
 itself, and the oflk-ers exeouting its orders or war- 
 rants, will 1)1' protected from any action at the suit 
 of a person arrested. But where it has no jurisdic- 
 tion all these parties may be liable {Comi/ii, l)i<j. tit. 
 Cuuntij Court, 8 ; llonhlvn v. Hmith, 14 Q. 7A 841 ; 
 WitKjdtc V. Wnite, G J/, .y W. 740). 
 
 (3) So where a magistrate acts without those cii-- 
 cimistances which must concur to give him juris- 
 diction he will be liable {Moryaii v. Jliit/Iics, 2 T. 11. 
 225). 
 
 Jurisdiction. In order to constitute a jurisdic- 
 tion such oliicer must have before him some suit or 
 comitlaiut about which he has authorit}' to mquire. 
 Thus an information brought before a magistrate 
 chai'ging an offence within his cognizance gives him 
 jurisdiction [Cave v. Jlotaitaiii, 1 J/, c^ (/. 257). 
 
 (fl) Whether a mapistmte wotild lx> equally exempted from 
 liability iu cases where he had acted malici(jusly, di.)es not (iceiii 
 to have been decide<l. It will at oucc appear that the judjni'eut 
 of the Cliief Baron, which I have citetl at considerable h-nprth on 
 account of its lucid euiiuciatiou of the principles on which this 
 exception is based, is broad tnoujrh to include actions brojijrht 
 •apaiust a justice of the peace. At the same time, it mast be 
 admitted the tinst section of Jer\is' Act (11 A: 12 Vict. c. 44), as 
 has been pointed out by ^fr. Roscoe in his Law of Nisi Prius Evi- 
 dence, would seem toini])ly that such an action could.be sui>iH)rted. 
 Tliere the matter rests, but I confess I have little doubt, should 
 the question ever arise, tliat. provided he aits within his jurisdic- 
 tion, a ma>,'iHtnitc is no more aii>wcrable (by action, that is to 
 Hay,) for a malicious act than is a jud>,'c of ii county court or of 
 the High Court. In this opinion the leametl author alxjve cited 
 seemfl to conciir.
 
 112 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 Prima facie Jurisdiction. Sub-rule. — A judge 
 of an inferior court haximj a prima facie jurisdiction 
 over a matter is not responsible for a false imprisonment 
 committed on the faith of such prima facie jurisdiction, 
 if by reason of something of which he could have no 
 means of hiowledge he realhj has no jurisdiction [Calder 
 V. HalMt, 3 Moore, P. C. C. 28). 
 
 Thus if through an erroneous statement of facts a 
 person be arrested under process of an inferior court 
 for a cause of action not accruing within its juris- 
 diction, no action lies against the judge or officer of 
 the court, but against the plaintiff only {Olliett v. 
 Bessey, 2 W. Jones, 214). 
 
 In general, however, where a court has jurisdic-^ 
 tion, the person setting it in motion is not liable for 
 a false imprisonment committed under its order, unless 
 he set it in motion maliciously ; but where it has no 
 jurisdiction the complainant will be liable, even 
 though acting bond fide ( West v. Smalluvod, 3 M. ^ 
 W. 421). 
 
 Contempt of Court. Rule 10. — The supe- 
 rior courts of law and equity have power to 
 2:)unisli by commitment for any insult offered 
 to tliem, and any libel upon tliem, or any 
 contemptuous or improper conduct committed- 
 by any person with respect to them ; but 
 inferior courts of record have power only to 
 commit for contempts committed in the 
 court. 
 
 (1) During the pendency of a suit, the publisher
 
 FAi sK i.Mrnis()\>rF.Nr and maikiois Auur.si. 11;; 
 
 of a newspaper cominits a rctntcinpt oi <<»urt if In- 
 publishes extracts from the alHJavits with euniments 
 upon them {Tic/4 fiornr v. Mosti/n^ L. 7i., 7 Eq. 50). 
 
 (2) AVlnTe an indictment has been removed into 
 the Court of (iueen's Bench, and a day ajipointed for 
 trial, the liolding of public meeting, alleging that 
 the defendant is not guilt}', and that there is a con- 
 spiracy against him, and that he cannot have a fair 
 trial, is a contempt of com*t (Oii.s/oic^s and Mnidllcifs 
 ra.,r, llcij. v. C<i.s(,-o, L. R, !) Q. B. 219). 
 
 (-3) A solicitor is guilty of a contempt of court in 
 WTiting for publicati(;u letters tending to influence 
 the result of a suit {Davis v. FJci/, L. 11., 7 Eq. 49). 
 
 (4) It seems that the judge of a county court has 
 power only to commit for contempts connuitted in 
 the court and whilst it is sitting. (See 11. v. Lrroy, 
 nWkh/ Nofrs, Feb. 8, 187.'J.) 
 
 (0) A justice of the peace may commit one who 
 calls him in court a liar {Hex v. Itcrr/, 1 tStr."421). 
 
 Justices. Jii'Li: 11. — If 11 iVloiiy or brcacii 
 <»f the ])cacc bo committed in view of a jus- 
 tice, he may i)ei\sonally arrest tlie of¥eiuler 
 ur command a l)ystander to do so, sudi coiu- 
 mand Lein^i^ a g-ood warrant. I kit if lie he 
 not present he must issue his written warrant 
 to a2)i)reliend the malefactor (2 JI>(i>\ PL Cr. 
 86).
 
 114 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 Protection of Justices acting without 
 Jurisdiction. Rule 12. — Where a justice 
 acts in a matter mtliout any or beyond his 
 jurisdiction, a person injured by any con^dc- 
 tion or order issued by such justice in such 
 matter cannot maintain an action in respect 
 thereof until such conviction shall have been 
 (juashed by the proper tril)imal in that behalf, 
 nor for anything done under a warrant fol- 
 lowed by a conviction or order, luitil such 
 conviction be quashed, nor at all for any- 
 thing done under a warrant for an indictable 
 offence, if a summons had been previously 
 served and not obeyed. (See 11 & 12 Vict, 
 c. 44.) 
 
 Constables executing the warrants of justices 
 issued without jurisdiction are specially protected 
 by 24 Greo. 2, c. 44, ss. 6, 8, from any action, unless 
 they have refused for six days after written demand 
 to produce the warrant. 
 
 It may be also observed that, by sect. 9, a month's 
 notice is required to be given before commencing an 
 action against a justice for any act done in the exe- 
 cution of his office; and by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, 
 s. 11, if after such notice, and before the commence- 
 ment of the action, the justice tender a simi of money 
 in amends, then if the jury shall be of opinion that 
 such sum is sufficient they shall give theh verdict for 
 the defendant. A justice acting mahciously is en-
 
 FALSE nirUISONMKNT AM) M M.ir KMS AKin>l. 110 
 
 titled to notice and to teiulor uiufiids {Lxirn v. 
 ratriih; l.j Q. n. -272). 
 
 Malicious Arrest. This consists in wilfully 
 putting the liiw in motion to effect tlio arrest of 
 another without cause. Its occurrence, owing to the 
 practical abolition of imprisonment for debt by the 
 Debtors' Act, l.SG!), is now infrequent. 
 
 Rule 1'). — Aii}- i)ers()ii iiuilicIou.sly causing 
 the arrest of another is liable to an action. 
 
 By a malicious act is not only meant a wicked 
 and spitcfid act, but also a deliberately intentional 
 wrong, although done without any actual spite or 
 ill-feeling. 
 
 (1) Therefore, if by a false statement or suppres- 
 sion a man obtains the airest of another, he is liable 
 to an action. 
 
 (2) So a false affidavit whereby a judge's order 
 is obtained for the ari'est of an absconding debtor, 
 renders the deponent liable to the person arrested. 
 
 Habeas Corpus. Such are the leading principles 
 of law relating to deprivation of liberty ; it remains 
 to notice a peculiar and unique remedy which the 
 law affords in adtlition to that by action. I mean 
 the writ of habeas eoii^us ad subjidendiun. 
 
 This writ may be obtained upon motion to any of
 
 116 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 the superior eouiis of law or equity, or to a judge 
 when those courts are not sitting. Probable cause 
 must be shown by the person moving that there is a 
 wrongful detention, and if the court or judge thinks 
 that there is reasonable ground for suspecting ille- 
 gality the writ is granted. 
 
 It is directed to the individual detaining the person 
 in custody, and commands him to produce the body 
 of the prisoner in court on a certain day, and there 
 account for his detention, and to do and submit to 
 whatsoever the court or judge shall order in the 
 matter. If on the day mentioned the detainer can 
 justify the detention, the prisoner is remitted to his 
 custody. If not he is discharged, and may then 
 have his remedy by action. 
 
 The writ of habeas corpus existed at common law, 
 but it has been more formally declared and defined 
 by statutes, chief among which are 31 Car. 2, c. 2, 
 and 6Q Geo. 3, c. 100. 
 
 Limitation. Rule 14. — No action shall be 
 brought for false imprisonment except within 
 foiu' years next after the cause of action 
 arose. 
 
 It must be recollected that imprisonment is a con- 
 tinuing tort, and therefore the period runs from the 
 last day of the imprisonment, and not from the first. 
 
 Exceptions. (1) Justices. — An action against a 
 justice of the peace for anything done by him in the
 
 FALSE IMIMUSONMKNT AM) MAI.K lOlS AKUKST. 117 
 
 execution of liis ofTioo must lie commenoed within six 
 calendiir niontlis next alter tlio coniniission of the m-i 
 complained of (11 v^ 12 Vict. c. 44, s. 8). 
 
 (2) Ct))i.\((ihJrH. — Various Acts for the appoint- 
 ment and rcfjulatidu of pcjlico limit the period witliin 
 which actions may Lo brought against them. Th'- 
 following are the most important: 10 Geo. 4, c. 44, 
 relating to the Metropolitan jiolicc, by sect. 41 enacts 
 that all actions for anj^liing done in pursuance of the 
 Act shall be (inter alia) r-ommcnccd witliin six 
 calendar months, and that a month's AVTitten notice 
 shall be given to them, and the same provision is 
 extended to special constables and county policemen 
 by 1 & 2 Will. 4, e. 41, and 2 it -'J Vict. c. 5):{, 
 respectively. Borough constables are protected in a 
 similar manner by 5 & G AVill. 4, c. 7G, s. ll-i; and 
 sect. 70 of the same act enacts that men swoni as 
 such shall not only within the borougli, but also within 
 the county in which the same is situated, and in any 
 county within seven miles of such borough, have all 
 such powei-s and privileges, and be liable to all such 
 duties and responsibilities, as any constable at the 
 time of the passing of that act had or thereafter 
 might have within his constablewick. 
 
 Constables may also pay money into court. (See 
 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, ss. J), 11.) 
 
 All such actions against justices and constables 
 must (by various acts) be laid in the county in 
 which the trespass was conmiitted.
 
 118 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 CHAPTEE lY. 
 
 Of AssAt'LT AND Battery. 
 
 Direct and Indirect bodily Injuries. Torts 
 affecting the body are either the imraediate results 
 of force put in motion by the defendant, or the in- 
 direct results of TVTongful conduct on his part. In 
 this chapter I shall speak of direct bodily injuries or 
 trespasses. 
 
 Causing Death. Dii-ect personal injuries caus- 
 ing death are crimes of a most heinous nature. They 
 rather come, therefore, under the ordinances of the 
 criminal than of the civil law. Putting these aside, 
 all other direct bodily injm-ies may be considered as 
 either assaults or more or less aggravated forms of 
 battery. 
 
 Definition of Assault. An assault is an unsuc- 
 cessful attempt to do harm to the person of another. 
 
 Rule 15. — If one make an attempt, and 
 have at the time of making such attempt a 
 j^resent ability to do harm to tlie j^erson of 
 another, although he actually do no harm, it 
 is nevertheless an assault.
 
 OF ASSAll.T ANn ItAITFKY. 11!) 
 
 (1) (Sucli, for iiistanco, is nu'imciiin; with a sti<'k 
 a person within roach tlioroof, althongh no blow he 
 struck {Il>wfy. Cohn; V\ C. B. 800). 
 
 (2) But a niort' tin-cat is no assault, unless thero bo 
 a present ability to caiTy it out. 
 
 This was illustrated by l^ollock, C.B., in Cohbrf v. 
 Ginj (4 Exrh. 744). "if," said that learned judg.-, 
 " you direct a weapon, or if you raise yoiu- fist witliin 
 those limits which give you tlie means of striking, 
 that may be an assaidt ; but if you simply say, at 
 such a distance as that at whicli you cannot commit 
 an assaidt («'/), * I will commit an assaidt,' I think tliat 
 is not an assaidt." 
 
 (3) To constitute an assaidt tliere must be an 
 attonpt. Therefore, if a man says tliat he would hit 
 another were it not for something which withholds 
 him, that is no assaidt, as there is no apparent attt-miit 
 {Tnhn-rillc v. Sav(i(jr, 1 Mod. 3). 
 
 (4) For the same reason shaking a stick in sport at 
 another is not actionable (see Clirixtoplwrnou v. Bnir, 
 II (I ]{. 477). 
 
 Battery. Ivii.i: 1('>. — The least toiiclnii^i- 
 of another's person lio!»tih'ly or ao^ainst liis 
 will is a batter\' {RawUnys v. Till, :i J/. cS" IT. 
 28). 
 
 This touching may be occasioned by u missile or 
 any instrument set in motion by the defendant, as 
 
 (a) Qucrj-— battery.^ ^Iw^h^ \^^a«i;r.
 
 120 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 by throwing water over another [Eusscll v. Home, 8 
 ^. 8f E. 602), or spitting in liis face. In accordance 
 ■witli the rule a battery must be involuntary ; there- 
 fore a Toluntarily suffered beating is not actionable 
 (Patteson, J., in C7/n'>;fo])//e)'so)i v. Brar, 11 Q. B. 
 477). Merely touching a person in order to engage 
 his attention is, ho-wever, no battery {Coicard v. Bad- 
 deUij, 28 L. J., Ex. 261). 
 
 "Wounding' and Maiming". If the -violence 
 be so severe as to wound, the damages will be greater 
 than those awarded for a mere battery; so also if the 
 hurt amount to a mayhem (that is, a deprivation of 
 a member serviceable for defence in fight), but other- 
 wise the same rules of law apply to these injuries as 
 to ordinary batteries. 
 
 Intention, liule 17. — An iujmy may 
 be a trespass although unintentional, unless 
 it were the result of inevitable accident 
 ( Covell V. Laminc/, 1 Camjj. 477). 
 
 (1) Thus where the defendant imintentionaUy up- 
 set the plaintiff in his eaniage, it was held to be a 
 trespass {Hopper v. Reeve, 7 Tauiif. 698). 
 
 (2) Indeed an act which is of itself lawful may 
 be a trespass if another suffers damage thereby, for 
 every bodily injury is an invasion of a right and is 
 actionable unless caused by unavoidable accident (in 
 which case it may be said to be the act of no one), or 
 by the negligence or malice of a thii-d party. 
 
 I
 
 OF ASSAII.T AM) HAITKIIY. 12\ 
 
 Thiis if a man assault mo, and in lifting up my 
 stick to defend myself I hit another, an aetion lies 
 against mo (per Blaekstono, J., in Scott v. S/trp/ifnt, 
 1> ir. lihi. .S!)4); and so in Wearer v. Ward, it was 
 held that no man shall bo excused of a trespass, ex- 
 cept it may bo judged utterly without his fault (J/oA, 
 134). 
 
 Such being tho natiu-o of a battery, let us now 
 consider when it is, and when not, a tort. 
 
 Rule 18. — Every man lias an inherent 
 rii^lit to innnunitv from interference with, or 
 violence or injury to, his body at the hands 
 of any other person. 
 
 Except ions. (1) Sc//-Defener. — A battery is jus- 
 tifiable if committed in self-defence. Such a plea is 
 called a plea of son assault demesne. But to support 
 it, the battery justified must have been committed in 
 actual defence, and not aften\ards and ui mere reta- 
 Hation {Cockro/t v. Smif/t, 11 3lo(/. 4-i). Neither 
 does every common battery excuse a mayhem. As, 
 if "A. strike B., B. cannot justify d^a^^'ing his sword, 
 and cutting off A.'s hand," unless there was a dan- 
 gerous scuHIe, and tho ma^-hem was inflictod in self- 
 preservation {Cooper V. Beale, L. liai/ni. 177). 
 
 (2) Deftiice nf Projierf;/. — A battery committed in 
 defence of real or personal property is justifiable. 
 
 Thus if one forcibly enters my house, I may 
 forcibly eject him ; but if he enters quietly, I must 
 
 u. o
 
 122 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 first request him to leave. If after that he still 
 refuse, I may use sufficient force to remove him, in 
 resisting which, he will be guilty of an assault 
 {Wlieelor v. Whiting, 9 C. 4' P. 265). 
 
 So a riotous customer may be removed from a 
 shop after a request to leave. 
 
 (3) Correction of Pnpil. — A father or master may 
 moderately chastise his son, pupil, or apprentice 
 {Pemi V. Ward, 2 Cr., M. ^^ P. 338). 
 
 Of//er PJxceptions. — An assault may be committed 
 in order to stop a breach of the peace ; to arrest a 
 felon, or one, when a felony having actually been 
 committed, is reasonably suspected of it ; in arresting 
 a person found committing a misdemeanor between 
 the hom's of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. ; in arresting a mali- 
 cious trespasser, or vagrant under the Vagrancy Act. 
 
 A chiu'chwarden or beadle may eject a distiu-ber 
 of a congregation, and a master of a ship may assault 
 and arrest an unruly passenger. So assaults and 
 batteries, committed under legal process, are justifi- 
 able ; but a constable ought not Knnecessarilij to 
 handcuff an imcon\dcted prisoner, and if he do so he 
 will be liable to an action {Griffin v. Coleman, 28 
 i. J'.,J5'.<-. 134) (r/). 
 
 Defence under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. By 
 sections 42, 44, 45, it is enacted, in effect, that, — 
 
 Sub-rule. — WJiere an>/perso)i shall nnlanfnlhj assault 
 or heat any other person, two justices of the peace, vpon 
 
 (a) The same rule as to notice, tender of amends and limitation 
 applies to batteries committed by constables in tlie execution of 
 their duty as in false imprisomnent.
 
 OF ASSAll.T AM) ItATTKUY. 1'2'^ 
 
 complaint hij or on ht'lmlf of the jxirtif aijiirifcrd, may 
 hear and determine skc/i ojfrncr^ and if the j'tt-ifiirs^ 
 upon thi' hcarinii of ainj such ca.sr, nhould (fccni thr 
 opener not to be prorrdy or ahall find the aasau/t or 
 hatterij to have been justified^ or so trijUng as not to 
 merit any punishment, and shall aeeordinyly dismif'K 
 the complaint, they shall forthnith nntke out a certi- 
 ficate statin;/ the fact 0/ such dismissal, and shall delirer 
 the same to the party charged ; and if any such person 
 shall hare obtained such certificate, or hariny been con- 
 victed shall hare paid the amount of the fine imposed, or 
 shall hare suffered the imprisonment infiicted, in every 
 such case he shall be released from all further or other 
 proceedings, civil or criminal, for the same cause {see 
 also sect. 43). 
 
 (1) A party ha\ing beou summoned before two 
 justices under 9 Geo. 4, c. 'M, s. 27 (a statute con- 
 taining an enactment similar to the above), for an 
 assaiUt, appeared and pleaded not guilty; the plain- 
 tiff declined to proceed, stating that he meant tn 
 biing an action. The jastices ilismissod the com- 
 plaint, and gave the following certificato : — " AVe 
 deemed the ofFenco not proved, inasmuch as the com- 
 plainant did not offer any evidence in support of thf 
 information, and have accordingly dismissed the com- 
 plaint:" held, that what passed before the justices 
 constituted a heai'ing, and that the certificate was a 
 complete bar to an action for the a.ssaidt ( Tunnirliffc 
 v. Tcdd, 5 C. R 503). 
 
 As to what constitutes a "heai-ing," see also 
 Vaughton v. liradshair, 1) C. IL, X. S. 1(>3. 
 
 (2) The words " from all fui-ther or other proceed- 
 
 G 2
 
 124 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 ings against the defendant, civil or criminal, for the 
 same cause," include all proceedings against the de- 
 fendant arising out of the same assault, whether 
 taken by the prosecutor or by any other person con- 
 sequentially aggrieved thereby {Masper and icife v, 
 Broun, L. R., 1 C. P. Div. 97; 25 W. JR. 62). 
 
 (3) If a person is charged for an assault, and the 
 complaint is dismissed and a certificate given him, 
 he cannot avail himself of the defence imder the 
 statute, when sued on for the tort, unless he specially 
 pleads such defence [IlavdiiKj v. King, Q C. 8^ P. 
 427). 
 
 Damages. Rule 19. — In assessing Avhat 
 amount of damages may be recovered for an 
 assault, or battery, or mayhem, the time 
 when, and the place in which, the assault 
 took place sliould be taken into considera- 
 tion. 
 
 Thus an assault committed in a public place calls 
 for much higher damages than one committed where 
 there are few to witness it. " It is a greater insult," 
 remarks Bathurst, J., in TulMge v. Wade (3 Wih. 
 10), "to be beaten upon the Royal Exchange than 
 in a private room." 
 
 Limitation, llule 14 applies to assaidt and 
 battery.
 
 ( 1^^'5 ) 
 
 ClIArTKR V. 
 Of noDii.Y iNjruiEs c.vrsKi) my Nris\N( ks. 
 
 Definition. TUo -svord iiiiisance (from tho French 
 iiiilvc, to luu't) is applied in the English law indis- 
 criminately to infringements of proprietary or per- 
 sonal rights {Ad. 150) ; but for the puii)0se8 of tliis 
 chapter it may be defined, as any >vrongfiil conduct 
 in the management of property, or any wrongful 
 interference with tho property of the public, not 
 necessarily depending for its wrongful character 
 upon negligence. 
 
 General Duty. Rule 20. — A person Is 
 IkjiurI so to use liis ju'operty as not to injure 
 other persons, and he is also bound to ob- 
 serve tlie express provisions of the law witli 
 regard, to the user of his own and tlu> })ublic 
 property. 
 
 (1) lu-randions. Tlius wliere a man makes an 
 excavation adjoining a liigliway, and keeps it un- 
 fenced, he will be liable for any injury occasioned to 
 a person falling into it {BonivH v. Ward, C. li. .'{f)2 ; 
 Bishop V. Tni-skrH of ]i,d/i,rd Char., 2S L. ./., Q. 11. 
 215). 
 
 (2) No.rioH.'i Fames. And so anything injurious
 
 126 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 to the liealtli of persons li-ving near, as a foul cess- 
 pool, or any noisome or noxious employment, act, or 
 omission, is a nuisance. 
 
 (3) Statutory Nuisances. Certain acts have been 
 declared nuisances by statute, and private damage 
 caused \)j them is of course actionable. Thus by 
 24 & 25 Yict. c. 100, s. 31 (re-enacting 7 & 8 Geo. 4, 
 c, 18), the setting of spring-guns, man-traps, or other 
 engines calculated to kill or do grievous bodily harm 
 to a trespasser is made a misdemeanor, and even a 
 trespasser hurt thereby may recover ; for although it 
 would be partly owing to his own misconduct, yet if 
 the defendant might, by acting rightly, have avoided 
 doing the injurj^, the plaintiff's contributory miscon- 
 duct is no excuse. But this act does not apply to 
 the setting of traps or guns in the night in dwelling- 
 houses for the protection thereof. 
 
 (4) So by the General Highway Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, 
 c. 50, s. 70, it is made illegal for any person to sink 
 any pit, or erect any steam or other like engine, gin, 
 or machinery attached thereto, within twenty-five 
 yards from any part of a carriage or cart way, unless 
 concealed within some building or behind some fence, 
 so as to guard against danger to passengers, horses, 
 or cattle. It also prohibits the erection of -svindmills 
 within fifty yards, and fires for the burning ironstone, 
 limestone, or making bricks or coke, within fifteen 
 yards of a carriage or cart way. 
 
 Sect. 72 prohibits the letting off of fireworks or 
 fircanus within fifty feet of the centre of the way, as 
 also laying of things upon it or obstructing it in 
 any way.
 
 OF liOnil.Y INJURIES CAUSED HY NUISANCES. 127 
 
 This Act creating these or some of these duties, 
 :my coi-poral injury caused to an individual by theii' 
 non-oLservanee is actiouaLle, even thougli the person 
 injured were trespassing at the time (within twenty- 
 five yards of the way). But if the Act has been 
 conipUcd with, any injury caused by any of the 
 things therein mentioned woidd be no ground of 
 action, there being no injima or wrongfid act. 
 
 (5) Thus where the defendants were ONvners of 
 waste land bounded by two highways, and worked a 
 •juany outside the prohibited distance in such land, 
 and the plaintiff, walking over the waste, fell into the 
 (^uarry and broke his leg, it was held that no action 
 lay, the plaintiff being a mere trespasser {Uounsell 
 V. Smith, 29 L. J"., C. P. 203 ; and see Bi>tk.^ v. 
 S. Y. 8s It. D. II Co., 32 L. J., Q. B. 2G; Ilurd- 
 castle V. S. W. ^- Y. IJ. li. Co., 23 L. J., Ex. 
 139). 
 
 And so, by the civil law, a trespasser could not re- 
 cover for injuries suffered whilst trespassing, tlu'ough 
 the dangerous bushicss of the landowner, for " extra 
 oulpam esse iutelligitur si seorsum a via forte vel in 
 medio fundo caidebat, quia in loco nulli extraneo 
 jus fuerat versaudi" {Imt., lib. iv., iii. 5). 
 
 (G) Ilaiuou>i Prcmm's. Lea^^.ng premises adjoining 
 a highway, or the land of another, in a ruinous con- 
 dition is a public nuisance entitling a person, injured 
 thereby, to damages {Tn.U v. FI!<il,f, L. J., C. P. 21). 
 
 Negligence Immaterial. lIuLi: 21. — 
 WIr'11 aiiytliiiiy lias Ijccu done or permitted 
 upon property, ■vvliicli lias in fact created or
 
 128 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 perj^etuated a nuisance, the person in pos- 
 session of the property is liable for any 
 damage caused thereby, notwithstanding that 
 he emjiloyed a competent person to do or 
 repair the thing. 
 
 Thus, in Terry v. Ashton {L. E., 1 Q. B. Dii\ 314), 
 the defendant had a lamp or lamp-u-on projecting 
 from his premises over the street, and had given 
 orders to a competent contractor to repah it ; hut the 
 contractor had done the work hadly, by reason of 
 which the lamp fell and injiu-ed the plaintiff : Held, 
 that the defendant was liable. And Lush, J., said : 
 "The question is. What is the duty of an occupier who 
 has a lamp in the position of that of the defendant ? 
 Is his duty absolutely to maintain that lamp in proper 
 repair, or to employ a competent person to repair it ? 
 I apprehend that the wider duty is incumbent on the 
 occupier. He permits a lamp to hang over the public 
 liighway, and continues it there for the benefit of his 
 own trade, and thereby, if the lamp is not in a safe 
 condition, puts the public in danger. He is thus 
 placed under a liability which he cannot shift from his 
 own shoulders by saying, ' I have employed another 
 person to do it for me.' He, and he only, is primarily 
 bound to keep the lamp in repair, and he is answerable 
 for the consequences if it is not so, and has his remedy 
 over against the negligent contractor."
 
 OF HODII.Y INMTRIF.S CAUSED BY NUISANCES. 120 
 
 Owner and Occupier. But hero a qiiestion 
 arises as to tlui respectivu liabilities of the landlord 
 and the tenant. 
 
 Rule 22. — As bctAvoon landlord and tenant, 
 tlicro is no implied obligation on the part of 
 the former that the property is in a safe con- 
 dition {Keats V. Caihgan, 20 L. J., C. P. 21). 
 With regard to tliird parties, the tenant is the 
 person responsil)le for any injmy resultin<i; 
 from the })remises being out of repair, and 
 the landlord will also be responsible if he has 
 done any act authorizing the continuance of 
 the dangerous state of the house (per Bovill, 
 C. J., PrcU/j V. BicJcmorc, L. R., 8 C. P. 404.) 
 
 (1) Thus, if in consequence of the ruinous state 
 of a house, the chimney fall and injure the tenant's 
 family, yet he has no remedy, unless the landlord 
 had contracted to keep the house in repair, or unless 
 there was fraud on liis part m concealing the defect 
 from the tenant {Gott v. Gandij, 23 L. ./., Q. Ji 1 ; 
 Kcaf.s V. Cr(f/of/aii, 20 L. J., C. P. 7G). 
 
 (2) The defendant let premises to a tenant under 
 a lease, by which the latter covenanted to keep them 
 in repair. Attached to the house was a coal-eellar 
 under tlie f(wtway, with an aperture covered by an 
 iron plate, which was, at the time of the demise, out 
 of repair and dangerous. A passer by, in con- 
 sequence, fell into the aperture, and was injured : 
 Held, that the obligation to repair, being, by tlie 
 
 G 5
 
 130 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 lease, cast upon the tenant, the landlord was not 
 liable for this accident. And Keating, J., said, 
 " In order to render the landlord liable in a case 
 of this sort, there must be some evidence that he 
 authorized the continuance of this coal shoot in an 
 insecure state ; for instance, that he retained the 
 obligation to repair the premises: that might be a 
 eu'cumstance to show that he authorized the con- 
 tinuance of the nuisance. There was no such obli- 
 gation here. The landlord had parted with the 
 possession of the premises to a tenant, who had 
 entered into a covenant to repair (see also Gwinnell v. 
 Earner, L. JR., 10 C. P. 658, and Eich v. Basterfield, 
 16 L. J., C. P. 273 ; and comp. Rosicell v. Prior, 
 12 Mood. 639). 
 
 (3) In Nekon v. The Liverpool Breicery Co. (25 
 W. R. 877) Lopes, J., laid it do^vn, that the owner 
 of premises demised to a tenant is not liable for an 
 injury sustained by a stranger, owing to the premises 
 being out of repair, unless he has either contracted 
 to do the repairs, or hm let the premises in a ruinous 
 and improper condition. It is, however, humbly sug- 
 gested that the last alternative is not accurate, except 
 where the tenant has not undertaken the repairs ; and 
 tlie dictum is not a complete summary of the law, 
 inasmuch as there may be possible cases where the 
 landlord may prevent the tenant from repairing a 
 nuisance, by tlireatening an action for waste. 
 
 (4) But in Todd v. Flight (30 L. J., C. P. 21 ; 
 9 C. B., N. S. 377), where the declaration contained 
 an allegation that the defendant let the houses when 
 the chimneys were known by bim to be ruinous and
 
 OF BODILY INJURIES CAVSF.n 15Y NUISANCES. 131 
 
 in danger of falling, and that ho hrjif and tnauifaiite<l 
 Hum in Hint sfafr, and the case was tried on demnrrer, 
 and the allegation -was therefore assumed to he true, 
 it was held that the landlord was liable. 
 
 Nuisances on Private Ways. Rulk 2'S. — 
 AVlion a person expressly or impliedly per- 
 mits others to come on to ])rivate ways on 
 his land, he is liable for any injiuy caused to 
 them by a nuisance thereon or near to the 
 same, but not if they stray from such })atlis 
 and trespass on the adjoining- ground. 
 
 (1) Thus a person permitting the use of a pathway 
 to his house, holds out an in%ntation to all ha^•ing any 
 reasonable ground for coming to the house, to use 
 his footpath, and he is responsible for neglecting to 
 fence dangerous places; and so also a shopkeeper, 
 who leaves a trap-door open without any protection, 
 is Hable to a person lawfully coming there who 
 . suffers iuj\iry by falling through such trap-door 
 (Tindal, C. J., Lanatater Canal Co. v, Parnabi/, 11 
 A. ^- E. 243 ; Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 420 ; 19 
 L. J., C. P. 200 ; and see Blyth v. Tojihani, 1 Roll. 
 
 Ah. m). 
 
 But where a person, straying from the ordinary 
 approaches to a house, trespasses where there is no 
 path, and falls into an unguarded pit, he has no 
 remedy for any iujiuy suffered thereby, as tlie hurt 
 is in such case caused by his own carelessness and
 
 132 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 misconduct, and accordingly tlie doctrine of con- 
 tributory negligence applies (Wilde, B., Bokh v. 
 Smith, 31 L. J., Ex. 203). 
 
 (2) Eailway companies are responsible for the 
 state of their works, and therefore are liable to any 
 person injured by the faulty construction or neg- 
 ligent keeping up of their bridges, embankments, &c. 
 {Chester v. Holyhead R. Co., 2 Ex. 251). But if the 
 ruinous state has been caused by a vis major or act of 
 Grod, (as where the railway gave way through an 
 extraordinary flood,) the company are not Hable, 
 provided their line was constructed so firmly as to be 
 capable of resisting the foreseen though more than 
 ordinary attacks of the weather {Withers v. North 
 Kent R. Co., 27 L. J., Ex, 417 ; G. W. R. Co. of 
 Canada v. Faiccett, 1 Moore, P. C. C, JSf. S. 120). 
 
 (3) Canals. So too canal companies are bound to 
 take reasonable care to make their canal as safe as 
 possible to those using it {Lane. Can. Co. v. Rarnalty, 
 11^. <^^. 243). 
 
 Injuries to Guests. Rule 24. — Mere 
 <,^ucsts, licensees and volunteers are con- 
 sidered as temporary members of the host's 
 family, and can therefore only recover for 
 injuries caused to tlicm by hidden dangers 
 which they did not know of, but which the 
 host knew or ought to have known of. But 
 visitors on business which concerns the occu-
 
 OF nODILY INJ TRIES CAUSED 1!Y NUISANCES. 133 
 
 ])ier of })rcnii.scs, may niaiiitaiii an action for 
 any injury caused 1)y the unsafe state of the 
 premises. 
 
 (1) Tims in Sonthcofc v. Stanki/ (1 H. ^' N. 247), 
 the plaintiff was a guest of the defendant's, and when 
 leaving the house a loose pane of glass fell from the 
 door as he was pushing it open and cut him. It was 
 held, that the plaintiff being a guest was for the time 
 being one of the family and eoidd not recover for an 
 accident, the liability to suffer which, he shared in 
 common with the rest of the family. 
 
 (2) Persons com i in/ on Business. But where, on the 
 contrai'}', a workman came on hnsinrss to the defen- 
 dant's manufactory, and there foil down an imguarded 
 shaft, the defendant was held to be liable ; although 
 it would have been otherwise had the plaintiff been 
 one of his o\m servants, for it was not a hidden 
 danger [Indcmiaur v. Dames, L. i?., 1 C. P. 274 ; 2 
 ib. 311). 
 
 (3) The plaintiff, a licensed watemian, ha%ing 
 complained to the person in charge that a barge of 
 the defendants was being navigated unlawfully, was 
 referred to the defendants' foreman. AVhile seeking 
 the foreman, he was injiu-ed by the falling of a bale 
 of goods so placed as to be dangerous, and yet to give 
 no warning of danger: Held, that the defendants 
 were liable {in>i(r v. Franc, L. R., 2 C. P. D. 308). 
 
 (4) Nuisances on Raihray Stations. So in the case 
 of railway companies, the company must take groat 
 care to ensm-e the safety of persons coming to their 
 station, and if through want of light or proper direc-
 
 134 PARTICrLAR TORTS. 
 
 tions any such person is injured, lie may maintain an 
 action against the company. Thus, where the plain- 
 tiff, having a return ticket, arrived at the wrong side 
 of the station, and there being no proper crossing, and 
 no directions, crossed the line in order to get to his 
 train, and in doing so, on account of the ill-lighted 
 condition of the station, fell over a switch and was 
 injured, it was held that an action lay against the 
 company {Martin v. G. JSf. R, Co., 24: L. /,, C. P. 209; 
 Burgess v. G. W. R. Co., 32 L. T. 76). 
 
 The principle to be gathered from these cases seems 
 to be, that a guest or licensee who comes for his own 
 pleasure must take the risk of any ordinary dangers 
 attending it, but that one who comes on lawful busi- 
 ness has a right to immunity from all but inevitable 
 dangers. 
 
 Limitation. Rule 25. — Actions for in- 
 jmics to the person must be brought within 
 the period of six years next after the cause 
 of action arose. 
 
 Exception. — AVTiere the injmy has caused death, 
 any action brought by the personal representative, 
 under Lord Campbell's Act, must be commenced 
 within twelve calendar months from the death (sect. 3). 
 
 oi P . Vc 
 
 ) / Q>
 
 ( 130 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Of Injuries to Person or Proi'Erty caused ry 
 Neglioence. 
 
 It is a public duty, iucumbent upon every one, to 
 exercise due care in his daily life ; and any damage 
 resulting from his negligence is a toi-t. 
 
 Definition. Rule 26. — Tlic negligence in 
 respect of the duty wliicli is actionable, is 
 tlie omission to do sometliino- "which a reason- 
 aide man Avould do, or the doing sometliing 
 which a reasonable man would not do (Bhjthc 
 V. Birm, Water Co., 20 L. J., Rr. 212). 
 
 (1) Thus, where the plaintiff was in the occupation 
 of eortaiu fanu huildiiigs, and of com standing in a 
 field adjoining the liold of the defendant, and the 
 defendant stacked his hay on the latter, knowing that 
 it was in a highly dangerous state and likely to catch 
 fire, and it subsequently did ignite and set fii'C to the 
 plaintiff's property, it was held, that the defendant 
 was hable {Vatdjlinu v. Mmlocv, ;J Bi)uj. N. C. 4G8). 
 
 (2) So where the defendant entrusted a loaded 
 gim to an inexperienced servant girl, with directions 
 to take the priming out, and she pointed and fired it 
 at the plaintiff's son, wounding and injuring him — 
 the defendant was held hablc {Dixon v. Bill^ ij 31. cS' 
 S. 198).
 
 136 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 (3) On the other hand, a water company whose 
 apparatus was constructed with reasonable care, and 
 to withstand ordinary frosts, was held not to be liable 
 for the bursting of the pipes by an extraordinarily 
 severe frost {Bhjthc v. B. W. W. C, suj).). 
 
 (4) And so where the defendants' line was mis- 
 placed by an extraordinary flood, and by such mis- 
 placement injury was done to the plaintiff, it was 
 held that no action could be maintained against the 
 defendants {Withers v. The North Kent R. Co., 27 
 L. J., Ex. 417). 
 
 (5) Again, a valuable greyhound was delivered by 
 its owner to the servants of a railway company, who 
 were not common carriers of dogs, to be carried ; and 
 the fare was demanded and paid. At the time of 
 delivery the greyhound had on a leathern collar, with 
 a strap attached thereto. In the com-se of the journey, 
 it being necessary to remove the greyhound from one 
 train, to another which had not then come up, it was 
 fastened by means of the strap and collar to an iron 
 spout on the open platform of a station, and, while 
 so fastened, it slipped its head,* ran on the line, and 
 was killed : Held, that the fastening the greyhoimd 
 by the means furnished by the OAvner himself, which 
 at the time appeared to be sufficient, was no evidence 
 of negligence {Richardson v. N. E. R. Co., L. R., 
 7 a p. 78). 
 
 See also Ilolmes v. Ilather, L. R., 10 Ex. 261; 
 Wat ling v. Oastler, L. R., Q Ex. 73 ; John v. RacoUf 
 L. R., 5 a P. 437; We/fare v. Loudon and Brighton 
 R. Co., 4 Q. B. 693 ; Daniel v. 3Iet. R. Co., L. R., 5 
 //. L. 45 ; Richardson v. G. E. R. Co., L. R., 10
 
 OF NEOLIGENCE. 137 
 
 C. p. 486 ; Smith v. G. E. R. Co., L. H., 2 C. P. 4; 
 
 Simsoii V. London General Onniihua Co., L. It, 8 C. P. 
 390. 
 
 (6) From the above rule and illustrations, it will 
 he seen that the tcnn negligence is quite a relative 
 expression, and that in decitliug whether a given act 
 is, or is not, negligent, the circumstances attending 
 each particular case must he fully considered. " A 
 man," it has been said, "who traverses a crowded 
 thoroughfare with edged tools, or bars of iron, must 
 take especial care that he does not cut or bruise others 
 with the things he carries. Such person would be 
 bound to keep a better look out than the man who 
 merely carried an umbrella ; and the person who 
 caiTiod an imibrcUa would be bound to take more 
 care in walking with it than a person who had nothing 
 at all in his hands." 
 
 Contributory Negligence. IvULi: 27. — 
 Though negligence whereby actual damage 
 is caused is actionable, yet if the plaintiff has 
 liiniself contributed to his loss, lie cannot 
 recover from the defendant, except in the 
 case hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 The same principle held in the civil law, " Im- 
 pcritia quoque culpa) enumeratui" ; veluti si medicus 
 ideo servmn tuiun occiderit, quod emn male secuerit 
 aut perperam ci medicamentum dederit" {Insf. lib. iv., 
 iii. 7). And so contributory negligence was held an 
 excuse in case of injury occurring to another. Indeed,
 
 138 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 the civilians carried the principle much further than 
 we do. 
 
 (1) This rule is well illustrated by two cases, in 
 each of which the damnum was the same. In Ford- 
 ham V. Z. B. ^ S. a R. Co. {L. R., 4 C. P. 719) the 
 facts were these. The guard of one of the defen- 
 dants' trains, forcibly closed the door of one of the 
 carriages without giving any warning, whereby the 
 hand of the plaintiff, who was entering the carriage, 
 was crushed. It was held, that the jury were justi- 
 fied in finding that the guard was guilty of negli- 
 gence, and that there was no contributory neghgence 
 on the part of the plaintiff. 
 
 (2) Wliere, however, the plaintiff, on entering a 
 railway carriage, left his hand on the edge of the 
 door half a minute after so entering, and the guard 
 gave due warning before shutting the door, it was 
 held that the act was attributable to the plaintiff's 
 contributory negligence, in leaving his hand care- 
 lessly upon a door which he must have known 
 would be immediately shut {Richardson v. Metro- 
 pollian R. Co., L. R., 3 C. P. 326). 
 
 (3) And so in cases of collision, the question is, 
 whether the disaster was occasioned wholly by the 
 negligence or improper conduct of the defendant, or 
 whether the j)laintiff himself so far contributed to 
 the disaster, by his own negligence, or want of com- 
 mon and ordinary care, that but for his default in 
 this respect the disaster would not have happened. 
 In the former case he recovers, in the latter not 
 {Tiif v. Warman, 27 L. J., C. P. 322) ; and for
 
 OF XEGLIGEXCE. 130 
 
 fiirtlicr illustrations of the rule, see Slictton v. L. ^• 
 N. W. R. Co., L. R., 2 a P. 031 ; Stub/f>/ v. L. Sf 
 iY. jr. R. Co., L. R., 1 Ex. 13; /Stap/ci/ v. L. B. .y 6'. 
 C. R. Co., L. R., 1 Ex. 21 ; CUf v. i//rf. R. Co., L. 
 R., Q. B. 2o8 ; i-Z/Zo; v. G. W. R. Co., L. R., 
 C. P. 551. 
 
 Where Contributory Negligence no Ex- 
 cuse. >Sulj-riJo 1. — J/ tlic (lefrttdaid mijlit, hy lite 
 use of onUnarij care, have avoided the consequences of 
 tJw pJaintiff^^ mere ne(jUfjeuce, the plaintijf' is to recover. 
 
 The law on this point is thus summarized by 
 Willes, J. : " If both parties were equally to blame, 
 and the accident the result of their joint negligence, 
 the plaintiff eoidd not be entitled to recover ; if the 
 negligence and default of the plaintiff' was in any 
 degree the proximate cause of the damage he could not 
 recover, however great may have been the negligence 
 of tlie defendant ; but if the negligence of the plain- 
 tiff was only remotely connected with the accident, 
 then the question is whether the defendant might 
 not by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided 
 it" {Tajfx. Warmau, 27 L. J., C. P. 322). 
 
 (1) Therefore, where the plaintiff left his ass with 
 its legs tied in a public road, and the defendant di'ove 
 over it, and killed it, he was held to be liable ; for 
 he was bound to diive carefully, and cu'cumspectl}', 
 and had he done so he might readily have avoided 
 tlriving over the ass {Davies v. Mann, 10 J/, i^ W. 
 549). 
 
 (2) So, where the plaintiff' was a passenger on an 
 omnibus, which was racing with the defendant's
 
 140 PARTICLLAR TORTS. 
 
 omnibus, and in trying to avoid a cart a wlieel of 
 tlie defendant's omnibus came in contact with a step 
 of the omnibus on which the plaintiff was riding, 
 which caused the latter to swing towards the curb- 
 stone, and the speed rendering it impossible to pull 
 up, the seat on which the plaintiff sat struck against 
 a lamp-post and he was thrown off : Held, that the 
 jury were properly directed that the defendant was 
 liable {Ricjhi/ v. Hewitt, 5 Ex. 247). 
 
 (3) The plaintiff, a passenger on board a steam- 
 boat, was injiu-ed by the falling of an anchor, caused 
 by the defendant's steamboat striking the other 
 steamboat. It was no defence to say that the accident 
 arose in part from the negligent stowage of the 
 anchor, or that the plaintiff was in a part of the 
 vessel he ought not to have been [Grccnkuid v. Cluq:)- 
 lin, 5 Ex. 243). 
 
 Contributory Negligence in Infants. 
 
 Sub-ride 2. — It icas formerly thougJit that u-Jtcre the 
 pkiintiff teas a child of tender years, it icas no defence to 
 an action of negligence to i^rore that he himself had con- 
 trihut'id to his injury {Lynch v. Nnrdin, 1 Q. B. 29) ; 
 hit it seems to he now clearly settled that the jjrincij)^ of 
 contributory negligence applies to all cases, whether the 
 pla{)itifi' can be considered of an age to know the nature 
 of the act he is doing, or otherwise (Singleton v. Eastern 
 Counties R. Co., 7 C. B., N. S. 287; Abbot v. MeFie, 
 Eughes v. McFie, ^ H. ^^ C. 744; 33 L. J., Ex. 177). 
 So, where the defendant exposed in a public place 
 for sale, unfenced and without superintendence, a 
 machine which might be set in motion by any
 
 OF NEGLIGENCE. 141 
 
 passer-by, and wliicli was dangerous vrhon in motion, 
 and tlio plaintiff, a boy four years old, by the direction 
 of his brother, seven years old, placed his finger within 
 the machine, whilst another boy was turning the 
 handle which moved it, and his fingers were crushed: 
 Held, that the jilaintiff couM not maintain any action 
 for the injury {Mangfui v. Affrrfoi/, L. IL, 1 JH.r. 
 23!)). 
 
 13ut it appears that what would amount to contri- 
 butory negligence in a grown-up person may not be 
 so in a child of tender years (per Kelly, C. B., Lr/// 
 V. 3L li. Co., U L. T. 30). 
 
 Liability of the Owner of Dangerous 
 Animals. IvUle 28. — If an aniuuil is 
 known to be likely to do liann, or to possess 
 a savage disposition, tlie o^^nier thereof is 
 answerable for any Injur}' he may commit, 
 and that, too, tlioiio-li he lias done his best to 
 secure liis safe keei)iii<>-. In other words, he 
 wlio keeps an aninuil of tlie al)oye deseriptlon 
 {Mi(>j V. Burdett, 9 Q, B. KH), kno^ig it to 
 be so, does it at liis peril [Cnx \. BurhuJr/e, 
 13 Com. B., N. S. 430). 
 
 If the animal is by nature dangerous, no 
 actual knowledge of its previous disposition 
 is necessary, but if the animal is naturally 
 domestic then actual knowledg-e of his fierce- 
 ness must be proved (Ji. v. Iluf/f/ina, 2 Ld. 
 Bauni. 1583). See also tSaimdcrs on NvfjU-
 
 142 TARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 gence^ jj. 99, Avliere the whole subject is very 
 ably discussed. 
 
 (1) It is not necessary, in order to sustain an action 
 against a person for negligently keeping a ferocious 
 dog, to show that the animal has actually bitten 
 another person before it bit the plaintiff; it is enough 
 to show that it has, to the knowledge of its owner, 
 evinced a savage disposition, by attempting to bite 
 {Worth V. GiUiufj, L. R., 2 C. P. 685). It has been 
 held that, if the owner of a dog appoints a servant to 
 keep it, the servant's knowledge of the animal's dis- 
 position is the knowledge of the master {Bahhn'n v. 
 Casella, L. B., 7 Ex. 325). But where the com- 
 plaint is made to a servant, who has no control over 
 the defendant's business, nor of his yard where his 
 dog was kept, nor of the dog itself, the knowledge 
 of the servant would not necessarily be that of the 
 master {Stiles v. The Cardiff Steam Navigation Co.y 
 33 L. J., Q. B. 310). 
 
 (2) But where, in order to fix the defendant with 
 knowledge of the ferocious nature of his dog, which 
 had bitten the plaintiff, two persons, who had upon 
 previous occasions been attacked by it, were called to 
 prove that they had gone to the defendant's public- 
 house, and made complaint to two persons who were 
 behind the bar serving customers, and that one of 
 them had also complaiaed to the banuaid, but 
 there was no evidence that these complaints were 
 commimicated to the defendant, nor was it shown 
 that either of the two men spoken to, had the general 
 management of the defendant's business, or had the
 
 OF XF.GLIGENCE. 143 
 
 care of the dog: Hold (Brett, J., dissenting), tliat 
 there was evidence of scienter to go to the jiuy 
 {L. II., 1) C. P. 647). 
 
 Exception. By 28 & 20 Vict. c. GO, s. 1, a 
 scienter of a dog's disposition, who has injiu-ed sheep 
 or cattle, need not be proved. It has been held that 
 horses are to be included under the term cattle 
 ( Wrhjht V. Pearnon, L. P., 4 Q. B. r,S2. For further 
 cases on the subject of keeping dangerous animals, 
 see Brook v. Copcland, 1 Esj). ;j()2; GhKhnmt v. Jolui- 
 mf, 36 L. J., C. P. 150). 
 
 Lord Campbeirs Act. rre%aouslyto this Act, 
 no action could be maintained by the representatives 
 of a person who had been killed by the negligence of 
 another. The maxim Actio pcnonaUs ntorifiir cum 
 persomi, strictly applied, and the right of action was 
 held to die with the person. By sect. 1 of this Act, 
 the law is now altered, and it is thereby enacted — 
 
 Rule 29. — A^Ticncvcr the death of a person 
 .shall be caused l)y the wrongful act, neglect, or 
 default of another, and the act, neglect, or de- 
 fault is such as would (if death had not ensued) 
 have entitled the party injured to maintain an 
 action and recover damages in respect thereof, 
 then and in every such case, the person who 
 would have been liable if death had not en- 
 sued, shall be liable t(j an action for damages, 
 notwithstanding the death of the jhtsou in-
 
 144 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 jui'ed, and altlioiigli tlie death shall have been/ 
 caused under such circumstances as amount^ 
 in law to a felony (9 & 10 Vict. c^92, s. 1). J 
 
 Eveiy such action shall be for the benefit 
 of the wife, husband, parent and child of the 
 person whose death shall have been so caused, 
 and shall be brought by and in the name of 
 the executor or administrator of the jjerson 
 deceased ; and in every such action the jury 
 may give such damages as they may think 
 proportioned to the injmy resulting from 
 such death, to the parties respectively for 
 whom and for whose benefit such action shall 
 be brought ; and the amount so recovered, 
 after deducting the costs not recovered from 
 the defendant, shall be divided amongst the 
 before-mentioned parties in such shares as 
 the jury by their verdict shall find and direct 
 (sect. 2). 
 
 Not more than one action shall lie for the 
 same cause of complaint, and every such 
 action shall be commenced -s^dthin twelve 
 calendar months after the death of such 
 deceased person (sect. 4). 
 
 Where there is no executor or adminis- 
 trator, as above stated, or if there is such 
 executor or administrator, but no action is 
 brought witliln six months by him, the action 
 may be brought in tlic name or names of all
 
 OK nk(;i,I(;kn(i:. Ho 
 
 or any of tlio })c>r.soiis for whose bLMicfit tin; 
 j)ers(mal re})rostMitativ(' would linvc snod (07 
 cV: 'iS Vift. c. Oo, s. 1). 
 
 In rosjtL'ot to actions bronchi under the provisions 
 of this statute, the following points must be remem- 
 bered — 
 
 (1) The personal representatives (or should they 
 not sue, the parties mentioned in the last clause 
 of the rule) can only maintain the action in those 
 eases in Avliich, had the deceased lived, he himself 
 CDuld have done. >So, if the deceased liad been guilty 
 of such contributory negligence as Avould have bari'ed 
 him from succeeding, those claiming as his represen- 
 tatives can stand in no better position {P>/in v. G. uV. 
 jR. Co., 4 li. ^- S. ;}•)()). 
 
 (2) Every such action must be brought for the 
 benefit of the "wife, husband, parent and child of the 
 deceased. 
 
 The word parciif shall include a grand-parent and 
 a step-i)arent. The word c/ti/if, a grand-child and a 
 step-child, but not a bastard {Dickinsoit v. X. E. R. 
 Co., 2 Hurl. 4" Colt. 73o). 
 
 The jury may proportion the damages amongst 
 these persons in such sliares as they may think proper. 
 
 ('i) The persons for whose benefit the action is 
 brought must have suffered some pecuniary loss by 
 the death of the deceased {Fnnihlin v. -S. E. li. Co., 
 ;{ Hiir/. cV X. 211). 
 
 By the expression ^^jirciiiiian/ loss" is meant "some 
 substantial detriment in a worldh* point of view." 
 So, loss of reasonably anticipated pecuniary benefits, 
 
 u. u
 
 6>rf 
 
 146 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 ^. I , , ^ ^ loss of education or support is sufficient {Pi/ui v. G. 
 
 ^^^^ -W N. R. Co., sup.; Froul-Un \. S. E. R. Co.,>^ui).). Loss 
 
 i^-^*^ /;• < '^' of mere gratuitous liberality {Dalton v. /S'. J^". R. Co., 
 
 ■'■' ^ r y\' 27 L. J., C. P. 227), or to his personal property by 
 
 expenses incun-ed in medical treatment is equally so 
 
 {Ihwhhan- v. Lam. Sf York. R. Co., L. R., 10 C. P. 
 
 89). Funeral expenses alifcr (per Bramwell, Oshorn 
 
 V. Gillet, L. R., 8 Ex. 88). 
 
 -)J0 ' (4) If the deceased had obtained compensation 
 
 ■^ h fA-f ^^^i^? ^i^ lifetime, no further right of action accrues 
 
 ^f * ■ • . to his representatives on his decease {Read v. G. E. 
 
 R. Co., L. R., 8 Q. B. 555). 
 
 (5) The death must be actually caused by the 
 wrongful act for which compensation is sought. 
 
 (6) The action must be brought within twelve 
 calendar months after the death of the deceased. 
 
 A 
 
 Proof of Neglig-ence. Rule .30. — As a 
 ^eiicral rule the onus of proving negligence 
 is thrown upon the plaintiff (^HammacJc v. 
 White, 11 C. B., N. S. 588; Toome^ v. L. 
 cV n. R. Co., 8 C. B., N. S. 146). 
 
 Exception). "WTiere, hoM-ever, a thing is solely 
 under the management of the defendant or his ser- 
 vants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary 
 coiu-se of events, does not happen to those having the 
 management of such things, and use proper care, it 
 affords, priiiul facie, e'sddence of negligence {Scoff \. 
 Eondon Dock Co., 34 L. J., Ex. 220 ; Bume v. Boodle, 
 2 Hurl. ^ Coif. 722).
 
 OF NEfJI.IOKXCK. 117 
 
 Duties of Judg-e and Jury in case of 
 Negligence. ItiLi; .'U. — Wlictlicr there is 
 irdsonablr evidence to l)e left to the jury, of 
 neg'lig'ence occasioning' tlie injury complained 
 of, is a question for the judge. It is for the 
 jury to sav whetluu', and how far, the evi- 
 dence is to l)e ])elieved [Mrt. li. Co. v. 'Jackson, 
 L.ll., <S //. L. YX\). 
 
 Tliat is to say, the judge should not leave the case 
 to tlio jury merely because tlioro is a Kclntilhi of 
 evidence, hut shoidd rather decide whether there is 
 rcaspnahlc evidence of negligence, and then leave it 
 to the jury to find whether the facts which afford 
 that reasonable evidence are true. The law is thus 
 summarized in the above case, important alike for 
 the high tribunal before which it was heard, and the 
 recent date of its decision. "The judge has a certain 
 duty to discharge, and the jiu'ors have another and a 
 different duty. The judge has to say whether any 
 facts have been established by evidence from which 
 negligence ))i(ii/ be reasonably inferred ; the jiu'ors 
 have to say whether from those facts, when sub- 
 mitted to tliem, negligence oiujJif to be infen^ed. It 
 is, in my oi)inion, of the greatest importance in the 
 admuiistration of justice, that these separate functions 
 should be maintained, and shoidd be maintained dis- 
 tinct. It woidd be a serious inroad on the province 
 of the jury, if, in a case where there are facts from 
 which negligence may reasonably be infen-ed, tlie 
 judge were to withdraw the case from the jury, upon 
 the ground that in his opinion negligence ought not 
 k2
 
 148 PARTICUI-AR TORTS. 
 
 to be infeiTed. And it would place in the hands of 
 the jurors a power which might be exercised in the 
 most arbitrary manner, if they were at liberty to 
 hold that negligence might be inferred from any 
 state of facts whatever. To take the instance of 
 actions against railway companies : a company might 
 be unpopular, impunctual and irregular in its service, 
 badly equipped as to its staff, unaccommodating to 
 the public, notorious, perhaps, for accidents occurring 
 on the line, and when an action was brought for the 
 consequences of an accident, jm'ors, if left to them- 
 selves, might, upon evidence of general carelessness, 
 find a verdict against the company in a case where 
 the company was really blameless. It may be said 
 that this would be set right by an application to the 
 court in banco, on the ground that the verdict was 
 against evidence ; but it is to be observed that such 
 an application, even if successful, would only result 
 in a new trial. And on a second trial, and even on 
 subsequent trials, the same thing might happen 
 again."
 
 ( lii' ) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Of Ai)rj,Ti:uY and .Skdictkix. 
 
 Section 1. 
 
 Adidfi ri/. 
 
 Nature of. Adultery is the having eriniiiical iiiter- 
 (;oui-.se with the wife or Imshaiid of another. As 
 between man and wife the Law under certain condi- 
 tions gives a remedy by divorce, but of this it is not 
 my intention here to treat. It also gives to an in- 
 jured husband a further remedy. 
 
 Damages. Ivi.'Li: ''V2. — A husljand may in 
 II pL'titioii to the Divorce Division of tlic 
 Hio;]i Court claim damao-cs from any person 
 on tlic ground of liis liavin<^- connnitted 
 adultery with liis (the ])etition(>r's) wife ("iO 
 & 21 Vict. c. 8.3, s. :};J). 
 
 Before tlie passing of the above Act the remedy 
 which a husband liad against the seducer of his wife 
 was an action of i-riminal conversation, or " crlin. 
 von." as it was usually called. That action is, limv- 
 ever, now abolished, and tlie remedy indicated in tli(j 
 preceding rule substituted in its stead.
 
 150 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 By sect. 33 of the same Act the court is empowered 
 to direct in what way the damages obtained shall be 
 applied. 
 
 The usual course is, first, to allow the petitioner 
 his costs, and, then, to settle the residue on the wife 
 (while she remains chaste) and children, the wife 
 taking the interest during her life, and the children 
 taking the principal after her death {Maync on 
 Damages^ 386 ; Latham v. Latham and Getliin, 30 
 L. /., P. M. (^ A. 43 ; Clarke v. Clarke, 31 L. J., 
 P. M. 8^ A. 61). 
 
 The court has, however, entire discretion over the 
 application of the damages, and, accordingly, where 
 it was proved, on the hearing of the petition, that 
 there had been no issue of the marriage, and that the 
 respondent was living with the co-respondent, the 
 court made the order for the payment of damages 
 assessed against the co-respondent part of the decree 
 nisi, instead of postponing it until the decree absolute 
 {Ei-ans V. Ecam, L. JR., 1 P. ^ B. 36). 
 
 Mitigation of Damages. It is obvious that 
 it is impossible to assess the damages in the case of 
 adultery according to any scale calculated on the 
 ground of giving compensation. It is in fact a 
 wrong for which no adequate compensation can be 
 given. The damages are therefore more properly 
 regarded as in tlieir nature penal, and accordingly 
 vary very much according to more or less heinous 
 circumstances of each case, in accordance with Rule 
 23, Part 1. 
 
 Sub-rule. — The amoind of the daniayeH depeiuh apoa
 
 ADILTKRY AM) SKDLCriuN. 151 
 
 the liiisfxuHVn circiiiHsfdiu'cs and conduct, the terms uj>on 
 irliirli he and his irife tired totjether, and the trifc'H 
 t/enerat character {Ad. 8()J)). 
 
 (1) Thus ovidf'iico of tlic wife's adultory witli otluT 
 men before tlic adultery with tlic eo-respoiident, is 
 admissible in reduction of d;uua;^cs, as shoNving that 
 the ])etitioner has lost but a worthless wife ( Winter v. 
 llru,,, 4 C. cV P. 40S ; Fosfrr V. Foster, -.V-) L. J., P. 
 cV ^[. 1-00, n.). 
 
 (2) And so is evidence that the marriage was 
 kept secret, and that the defendant did not know 
 of it {Calcraft v. Earl of Harlinrounh, 4 C. Sf P. 
 .001). 
 
 ('5) 8o also are letters from the respondent to the 
 co-respondent enticing him to commit the adidtery 
 {Efsam V. Faircett, 2 E-sp. ."562). 
 
 (4) So, also, where the husband and wife are living 
 apart in different families, for their mutual eonveni- 
 ence (as opposed to a total separation), the damages 
 may be therebv reduced {Edirards v. Croc/,-, 4 Esj/. 
 
 E.rcrjdli)iix. A petitioner will not be entitled to 
 recover if he has been a party to his own dishonour, 
 either by giving his wife a general licence to conduct 
 herself as she pleased with men generally, or by 
 consenting to the particular adulter}' with the co- 
 respondent, or by having permanently and totally 
 given lip all advantage to be gained from her society 
 (Alderson, B., Winter v. Henn, 4 C. e^ P. 498), or 
 by condoning the adultery {Jlorris v. Morrif, ''\0 
 L. J.,JL 111). 
 
 Thus encoiu'aging a wife to live as a prostitute, is
 
 152 TAJITICULAR TORTS. 
 
 a bar to damages for adultery Avdth her {Cihbcr v. 
 Slopcr, cited 4 T, JR. doo). 
 
 Such is a brief exposition of the law relating to a 
 husband's remedies against the seducer of his wife. 
 With regard to matrimonial wrongs as between hus- 
 band and wife, they do not come within the scope of 
 this work, being in my opinion certainly not torts, 
 more probably wrongs ex contmdu, but still more 
 probably 'WTongs sul generic and unique. 
 
 Section 2. 
 
 Scdncfion and Injuries to Services. 
 Whence arising. An action lies by a master 
 or parent against a person who deprives him of the 
 services of his child or servant ; and although tliis 
 usually occurs through the debauching of such child 
 or servant, yet it is by no means confined to that 
 offence, for it equally lies against one who merely 
 entices a servant away from his master, the gist of 
 the action being the loss of service caused by the 
 defendant's wrongfid act. 
 
 Rule 33. — Every person designedly (1) 
 procuring a servant to depart from the mas- 
 ter's ser^^.ce during the sti})ulated })eriod of 
 service, or (2) liarbouring such servant, after 
 quitting the master, during such period, is 
 liable to an action [Lumleij v. Gjje^ 2 Ell. ^ 
 Bl. 224; Blake v. Lawjon, 2 T. R. 221). 
 
 Thus, if I employed (against the will of his 
 master) an apprentice or servant before the expu'a-
 
 AUri.TKKV AM) SKDltTHiN. l^'y•^ 
 
 tion of his t«'riu of service, 1 should be liiible, for by 
 so doing I shoidd be affording hiiu the means of 
 keeping out of his master's service. 
 
 Contract of Service when implied. Sub- 
 rule I. — J II unlcr to ■suj)j)ui't (in act inn fur c'lificiiit/ 
 (iirai/ f/ir jj/niiifijr-s .sm-finf, if /v xiifficintf if a rontnul 
 of .srrrirr rail he iinpUcd from the relation lirtirccn 
 till' plaintiff and tlir atlcijvit xercant. 
 
 Thus, in Erann v. Walton {L. IL, 2 ('. P. (J15), 
 the daughter of the plaintiff ^^a publican), who lived 
 \Wth hini and acted as his barmaid, but without any 
 express contract or wages, was induced by tlie defen- 
 dant to leave her father's house : it was held, tliat tlie 
 relation of master and servant might be implied from 
 these circumstances, and tliat it matters not wliether 
 the service is at A\ill or for a fixed period. 
 
 Sub-rule 'J. — //" the ilcfi ndant lias ijniiu'd (Unitliiinj 
 from till' >>orvant^x. lahoiu\ tin- inastir nia// rm/nr it 
 {Foster V. Stenart, 3 M. ^' *b'. 201). 
 
 It nmst be noticed that if the master recover 
 damages from the servant for leaving Ids service, 
 lie cannot, after that, bring anotlier action against a 
 third party for unlawfully <'nt icing that servant to 
 do so, or for keeping him in his emplo}Tnent after 
 notice {Bird y. llandall, 3 linrr. l-'U-'j; Add. m2). 
 
 Seduction and debauching- of Daughter. 
 
 Ri'LK .'j4. — All action for siHlucti<tii cannot 
 
 be maintained witlioiit proof of lial)ilit\' to 
 
 service, and it is not sulHcient to show that 
 
 n ij
 
 154 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 the plaintiff has incurred expense through 
 the confinement of the girl; but it is not 
 necessary to prove an actual contract or pay- 
 ment of wages [Satterthvjaite v. Dewhurst^ 5 
 East, 47 n.; Bennet v. Allcott, 2 T. R. 166). 
 
 (1) But small services suffice, such as milking, or 
 even making tea {Bonnet v. AUcoff, supra; Carr v. 
 Chirk, 2 Chit. R. 261). 
 
 (2) Where the daughter lived at, and assisted in 
 the duties of, the house from six in the evening until 
 seven in the morning, and the rest of the day was 
 employed elsewhere : it was held sufficient evidence 
 of service {Rist v. Tcnu, 32 L. J., Q. B. 387) ; and 
 where the daughter is a minor living with her father, 
 service will be presimied {Harris v. Batter, 2 M. ^ W, 
 542). 
 
 (3) But where the daughter at the time of the se- 
 duction is acting as housekeeper to another person, 
 the action will not lie {Dean v. Peel, 5 Bad, 45) ; not 
 even when she partly supports her father {JIanlei/ v. 
 Fiel(/, 29 L. J., C. F. 79). 
 
 (4) The plaintiff's daughter, being under age, left 
 liis house and went into service. After nearly a 
 month, the master dismissed her at a day's notice, 
 and the next day, on her way home, the defendant 
 seduced her: it was held, that as soon as the real 
 service was put an end to Ly the master, whether 
 rightfully or wrongfully, the girl intending to return 
 home, the right of her father to her services revived, 
 and there was, therefore, sufficient evidence of service
 
 ADULTERY AM) SEDUCTION. 155 
 
 fo maintain an action for the seduction [Tm-i/ v. 
 Hatrhiiis'ji,^ L. 11., :\ Q. Ji. 5f)9). 
 
 (5) When the child is only absent from her father's 
 house on a temporary visit, there is no tennination 
 of her services, ])roviding she still continues, in point 
 of fact, one of his o\vn household {GriffitliH v. Tcotjoii^ 
 15 C. B. MA). 
 
 Relation of Master and Servant at time 
 of Seduction. Suh-rule. — The relation of muster 
 (iiid Kircidtf iiiKst c.rlst at the time of the se(h(ctioii 
 {Dories V. lfl//iftnis, 10 (^. I>. 72->), ai/tf if icouhl 
 appear, oho, that the eoufiiieinciit or i//iies.s of the girl 
 mufit hare happeiwd trJiiJe she iras in tin- ptaintiff^H 
 serriee. 
 
 Thus, the plaintiff's daughter was in service as a 
 governess, and was seduced hy the defendant Avliilst 
 on a tlu'ee-days' visit, with lior employer's permission, 
 to tlio plaintiff her motlier. During lier visit she 
 gave some assistance in household duties. At tlie 
 time of lier confinomcnt she was in the service of 
 another employer, and afterwards retm-ned liomt^ to 
 her motlier: Held, that there was no evidence of 
 service at the time of the seduction. And also hy 
 Kelly, C. B., and Martin and Bramwell, BB., that 
 the action must also fail on tlie ground that the con- 
 finement did not take place whilst tlie daughter Avas 
 in the plaintiff's service {Iledcje-s v. Tarjy, L. Ji., 7 Ju: 
 283). 
 
 Death caused by Seduction. In this case, 
 probably no action could be maintained, on the
 
 156 PAKTICL'LAR TORTS. 
 
 ground that the " Acfio personalis morituv cum per- 
 sona'' {Oshorn V. GUM, L. R., 8 Ex. 88). 
 
 Misconduct of Parent. Rule 35. — If the 
 parent has introduced the daughter to, or has 
 encouraged profligate or improper persons, or 
 has otherwise courted his oa\ii injury, he has 
 no ground of action [Ad. 906). 
 
 Thus, where the defendant was received as the 
 daughter's suitor, and it was afterwards discovered 
 by the plaintiff that he was a married man, notwith- 
 standing which he allov/ed the defendant to continue 
 to pay his addresses to his daughter on the assurance 
 that the wife was dying, and the defendant seduced 
 the daughter : it was held, that the plaintiff had 
 brought about his own injury, and had no groimd of 
 action {Reddie v. ScooJf, 1 Peahe, 316). 
 
 "Who may bring the Action. Eule oG. — 
 Any person who at the time of the seduction, 
 and, as shown above, at the time of the ill- 
 ness accruing therefrom, stands in the posi- 
 tion of father (or mother) and master, or 
 guardian and master, or master only, may 
 bring the action [Ad. 006).
 
 ADII.TEIIY AM) SKDKTKlX. lo7 
 
 Damages. Altliougli the git^t of tlio a(>ti(>ii is 
 loss oi snvicc, yet tlie law somewhat iucousistoutly 
 ordains lliat — 
 
 IviLi: -'{7. — DaiiKiLi'cs ma\' Ix' ^iivcii for tlio 
 loss wliicli tlic plaiiitift" has sustained of the 
 socic'tv and comfort of liis cliild and hy the 
 dishonour hv lias received and tlie anxiety 
 and distress wliich he has suitered (^Bedford 
 V. JfrKitofn^ :j J'Jsp. 1:20 ; 7V//-y v. Hutchinson^ 
 L. IL, :i Q. n. r,9J)). 
 
 The plaintiff may recover any expenses he has 
 been put to by his daughter's or servant's illness, as, 
 for instance, for the medical assistance he lias been 
 obliged to procure. 
 
 Aggravated Damages. 8ub-ride 1. — IVJivrc. 
 iiioif tlidu urdiiinfih/ ha-sc inetliods have Ixrn cniploi/ed 
 Itif the ■seducer., the (tainfff/es mni/ he af/rjrarateft on f/iat 
 accoiiiif. 
 
 Thus if he make advances luidfr tlie guise of matri- 
 mony, and being civilly received by the plaintiff, 
 repays his kindness with this worst of insults, the 
 damages A\ill properly be exemplary (see judgt. Titt- 
 tid(je V. Wade, :j Wlls. 18). 
 
 Except ion. 13 ut a promise to marry is no aggra- 
 vation, the breach of it being a distinct ground of 
 action, having an appropriate remedy. 
 
 Mitigated Damages. 8ub-iide 2. — Tlie dc- 
 
 feiiddid 111(11/ s/toir f/tr liK)'<e clii(r((efi r of the ddinjlltcr ill 
 iiiitiijdtioii of ddiiKKji-s {Ad. 909; Eo-se. 799).
 
 158 TARTICUl.AR TORTS. 
 
 Thus the defendant may call witnesses to prove 
 that they have had sexual intercourse with the girl 
 previously to the seduction {Eager v. Grimwood^ 16 
 L. J"., Ex. 236; Vcrn/ v. Watkius, 7 C. ^ P. 308). 
 
 The damages for seduction are generally very large 
 and exemplary, and the com't will seldom interfere 
 with them on the ground of being excessive. 
 
 Liimitation. An action for seduction, being an 
 action of trespass on the case, must be commenced 
 within six years (see 21 Jae. 1, r. 16, .-^, 3).
 
 i 109 ) 
 
 ClIAl'TKU VIII. 
 
 Ok Trespass to Land and Dispossession. 
 
 Section I. 
 
 Definition. Trespass quavc dmoium fvcjit is a tres- 
 pass couiinitted in respect of another man's land, by 
 entry on the same without lawfid authority (^3 Stcph. 
 Com in., ell. 8). 
 
 What constitutes. KiLi; '-\>>. — Evuiy un- 
 authorized entry \\\n)\\ or direct interference 
 witli another's hind is a trespass, for wliicli an 
 action lies without })roof of actual danui<re. 
 
 (1) Thus driving nails into another's Avail, or 
 placing objects against it, are trespasses {Lnirreiive v. 
 ()b<r, 1 Stark. 22 ; amjori; v. Piper, 9 B. ^- C. 591). 
 
 (2) 8o it is a trespass to allow one's cattle to stray 
 on to another's land, indess there is contributory mis- 
 conduct on liis pai-t, such as keeping in disrepair a 
 hedge which he is bound by prescription or otherwise 
 to repair [Lvr v. lillr,/, 34 L. /., C. P. 212); but if 
 no such duty to repair exists the OAvner'of cattle is 
 liable for their tresj»asses even upon uninrlosod land 
 {Boylo V. Tdiiiliii, V) B. ».y C. 'V'M), and for all natimdly 
 resulting damage.
 
 160 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 (3) "Where one lias authority to use another's land 
 for a particular piu'pose any user going beyond the 
 authorized purpose is a trespass. Thus, where the 
 lord of a manor entitled by custom to convey under 
 the plaintiff's land (by means of subterranean pas- 
 sages) minerals got ivithin tJie n/aiior, brought there- 
 under minerals from mines without the manor, it 
 was held to be a trespass {Eardley v. Lord Gmnnlh\ 
 24 W. R. 528). 
 
 (4) So if a person allow substances which he has 
 brought on his land to escape into his neighbour's, 
 an action lies without proof of negligence in the 
 keeping of them. 
 
 Thus one bringing or collecting water upon his 
 land, does so at his peril, for if it escapes and injures 
 his neighbour, he is liable, however careful he may 
 have been {Fletcher v. E>/Imuh, L. E., 3 JL L. 330 ; 
 Smith V. Fletcher, L. E., 9 Fx. 64), unless the escape 
 was caused by something quite beyond the possibility 
 of his control, as the act of Grod or malice of a third 
 party {Nichols v. MardcDid, L. E., 2 Ex. Dii\ 1) ; but 
 where the water is naturally upon the land, the owner 
 is only liable for neghgence in keeping it. 
 
 Distress Damage feasant. It is convenient 
 to mention here, a peculiar remedy of lando'wners for 
 trespasses committed by cattle, viz., by seizing the 
 animals A\-hilst trespassing, and detaining them until 
 compensation is made. This is not, however, avail- 
 able where animals are being actually tended; in 
 such case the person injui-ed must bring his action. 
 A somewhat analogous remedy is allowed in the case
 
 TRESPASS TO I.AM) AND DISPOSSKSSION. l(Jl 
 
 of animals _/r/vf' luifnnv reared Ity a i)artieular person. 
 In sucli eases tlio law, not reeognizinp^ any i)ro]>erty 
 in them, does not make their owner liable for tlu'ir 
 trespasses, hut iuiy person injured, may shoot or 
 eajiture them Avhile trespassiIl<,^ Thus I may kill 
 pigeons eoming upon m\' land, hut I eannot sue the 
 hreetler of them {JLmufDii v. Jfockrff, 2 B. i^' C. 939, 
 per Bayle}', J.). 
 
 Exceptions. (1) licfdkiiuj (ioods. — If one takes 
 another's goods on to his land, the latter may enter 
 and retake them {Pafrirk v. Co/eric/,-, '■> J/. ^- ir. 
 4S;j). 
 
 (2) Cdff/c. — If cattle escape on to another's land 
 through the non-repair of a hedge wliidi tlie latter 
 is hound to repair, the owner of the cattle may enter 
 and drive them out (see Fa Ida v. liidt/c, Yr/r. 74). 
 
 (3) Di.strdliiiiHi for Jii'iif. — So a huKllord may enter 
 his tenant's liouse to distrain for rent, or an (tffieer to 
 serve a legal process {Kcaiir v. lici/iio/d.s, 2 J£. k^' li. 
 74S) ; hut he may not break open the outer door of a 
 house, except to arrest under a wan-ant for felon}', 
 wounding, or breach of the peace {Ad. 708). »So in 
 any case wliere the law will imply leave, an entry is 
 lawful. 
 
 (4) Jirrcr-sioiirr inHpirtimj Pniiu-si'a. — A reversioner 
 of lands may enter in order to see that no waste is 
 being committed. 
 
 (0) EsrapiiHj Daiu/cr. — A trespass is justifiable if 
 committed in order to escape some pressing danger, 
 or in defence of goods (Ad. 205). 
 
 (G) Graiifcr of Ettsciiiciif. — And the grantee of an 
 easement may enter upon the servient tenement, iu
 
 1Q2 PARTICUI-AR TORTS. 
 
 order to do necessary repairs {Tai/Jor v, WJiiti'licad, 
 2 DoH(j. 7-15). 
 
 (7) Public Riijlds. — Land may be entered under 
 the authority of a statute {Beaver v. Mayor, i^c. of 
 MaiicJir-'iter, 26 L. J., Q. B. 311), or in exercise of a 
 public right, as the right to enter an inn, provided 
 there is accommodation {Damey v. Iitchar(hon, 3 E. 
 .^' B. 1859). 
 
 (8) Liber nm Tenement am. — Lastly, land may be 
 entered on the ground that it is the defendant's. 
 This latter, known as the plea of liberum feiiemenfam, 
 is generally pleaded in order to try the title to lands. 
 
 Trespassers ab Initio. Rule 39. — (1) 
 Whenever a person has authority given him 
 by law to enter upon lands or tenements for 
 any pm-pose, and lie goes beyond or abuses 
 such authority by doing that wliicli he lias 
 no right to do, then, although the entry was 
 lawful, he will be considered as a trespasser 
 ab initio. (2) But where authority is not 
 given by the law, ])ut by the party, and 
 abused, then the ])erson abusing such autho- 
 rity is not a trespasser ab initio, but must be 
 ])unished for his abuse. (3) The abuse neces- 
 sary to render a person a trcsi)asser ab initio 
 must be a misfeasance, and not a mere non-
 
 TRESPASS TO I.AM) AND IHS POSSESSION. 103 
 
 feasaiico (*SV./- ('((rpoitcm'' chhc^ 1 Sin. L. (\ 
 
 Thus, in the abovo case, six caiiientors entered an 
 inn and were served with wine, for wliicli they paid. 
 Being afterwards at theii* request supplied with more 
 wine, they refused to pay for it, and upon this it was 
 sought to reiuh'r them trespassers ah initio, hut Avilliout 
 success ; for although they had authority by law to 
 enter (it being a publie inn), yet the mere non-pay- 
 ment, being a non-feasance and not a mis-feasance, 
 was not sufficient to render them trespassers. 
 
 Possession necessary to maintain Tres- 
 pass, in order to maintain an acticju of trespitss 
 the plaintiff must bo in the possession of the land, 
 for it is an injury to possession rather than to title. 
 
 KiLi: 40. — 'V\\v })().ss('.ssi()ii of land suffices 
 to maintain an action of tivspass against any 
 person wronii-fully cntcrin;^- u[)on it; and if 
 two })ersons are in possession of land, each 
 asserting hi.s riglit to it, then the i)ersou 
 Avlio lias the title to it is to be considered in 
 actual ])ossession, and the other })erson is a 
 mere trespasser [Jones v. Chn/rninn, 2 Jlr. <S-J1). 
 
 Thus a person entitled to the possession of lands 
 or houses, cannot bring an action of trespass against 
 a trespasser until he is in actual possession of them
 
 164 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 {Pil/cn y. Clarh, 14 Q. B. 65) ; but when he has once 
 entered, he acquires the actual possession, and such 
 possession then dates hack to the time of the legal 
 commencement of his right of entry, and he may 
 therefore maintain actions against intermediate and 
 then present trespassers [Andenon v. Eadcliff, 29 
 L. J., Q. B. 128; Butcher v. Butcher, 7 B. 8f C. 
 402). 
 
 Onus of Proof of Title. Sub-rule 1. — The 
 onus lies upon a prima facie trespasser to show that he 
 is entitled to enter upon land in another's jiosscssion. 
 (Brou-n v. Bauson, 12 A. Sf E. 624; Asher v. Whit- 
 lock, L. B., 1 Q. B. 1). 
 
 Surface and Subsoil in different Owners. 
 
 "Where one parts with the right to the surface of 
 land, retaining only the mines, he cannot maintain 
 an action for trespass to the sm-face {Cox v. Mouseley, 
 5 C. B. 549), but he may for a trespass to the subsoil, 
 as by digging holes, &c. (Cox v. Glue, 17 L. J., C. P. 
 162) ; so the oAvner of the surface cannot maintain 
 trespass for a subterranean encroachment on the 
 minerals [Eeyse v. Pou-ell, 22 L. J., Q. B. 305), 
 unless the surface is disturbed thereb3^ 
 
 Highways, &c. Sub -rule 2. — When one 
 dedicates a Jiiglnraij to the puhlic, or (jrants any other 
 easement on land, possession of the soil is not thereby 
 jKirted uitli, hut only a liyht of way or other privilege 
 (/ranted {Goodtitkx. Alder, 1 Burr. 133; a )ul North- 
 ampton V. Ward, 1 JVils. 114).
 
 TRESPASS TO I. AM) AND DISPOSSESSION. 1 G") 
 
 An action for trespasses committed upon it, as for 
 instance, by tlirowing stones on to it or erei-tino^ a 
 })ridge over it, may bo therefore maintained by the 
 grantor [Ercri/ v. Smit/i, 2G L. J., Ex. 340). 
 
 Joint Owners. lvrLi:41. — Joint tenants, 
 or tenants in connnon, can only sue one 
 anotlier in trespass for acts done by one in- 
 consistent witli tlie rig-lits of the other (see 
 Jacobs V. Senari/, L. Ii., o //. X. 464). 
 
 (1) Among such acts may be mentioned the de- 
 struction of buildings {Cirs.sirr// v. llc(l(jcx, .'31 L. J., 
 Ej\ 4i)), carrying off of soil {Wilhinmn v. ILujuriJi, 
 12 Q. B. 837), and expelling the plaintiff from his 
 occupation {Murmij v. Jlall, 7 C. B. 441). 
 
 (2) But a tenant in common of a coal mine nuiy 
 get the coal, or license another to get it, not appro- 
 priating to himself more than his share of the pro- 
 ceeds; for a coal mine is useless imless worked {Joh v. 
 Potton, L. J{., 20 E<j. 84). 
 
 Party-walls. There is also one other impor- 
 tant case of trespass between joint owners, viz., that 
 arising out of a party-wall. 
 
 Sub-rule. — 1/ 0)i(' onuer of ihc ivall crclinlfs fhr ofhrr 
 o/nirr entire/// from /lis orriipafioii of if, ax h;/ (/esfroi/in;/ 
 if, or hiii/diiifj upon if, for instance, he fherehij commits
 
 166 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 a tresjHOiH ; hat if he pulh it itoirn for the purpO'SC of 
 reI)uihliiHj it, Jw docs not {Stedmaii v. Smith, 26 L. J., 
 Q. B. 314 ; Cuhitt x. Porter, 8 B. ^ C. 257). 
 
 Continuing Trespasses. Rule 42. — AYliero 
 a tres23ass is permanent and continuing, tlie 
 plaintiff may bring his action as for a con- 
 tinuing tresj^ass, and claim damages for the 
 continuation ; and where after one action the 
 trespass is still continued, other actions may 
 be brought imtil the trespass ceases [Boivyer 
 V. CooJr,4: C.B. 286). 
 
 Limitation. All actions of trespass quare clausiun 
 fregit must be commenced within six years next after 
 the cause of action arose (21 Jac. 1, e. IG, s. 3). 
 
 ►Section 2. 
 
 Of JJispossrssioii. 
 
 Definition. I )ispossession or ouster consists of 
 the Avrongfid withholding of the possession of land 
 from the rightful owner. 
 
 Specific Remedy. Before the Judicature Act, 
 1873, the remedy for this wrong was by an action of
 
 •ruKsr\><s TO I, wn and dispossession. 107 
 
 ejectment for tlif aftual recovorv '»f tln' laii<l, and 
 since tliat statute it is by an action claiming the 
 recovery of the land. 
 
 Onus of Proof. It i.s obvious that no reasonable 
 system of law woidd throw upcjii the prima fach' 
 o>mer of land, the burden of proving his title upon 
 every occasion that it Avas called in question ; and 
 therefore it is an elementary principle, that — 
 
 Ivi'LK 4'}. — Tlio tdainiaut must recover on 
 tlie stren<;-tli of liis own title, and not on 
 the weakness of tlie defendant's {Martin v. 
 kitrachxti, r> T. It. 107). 
 
 Thus mere possession is p ri m a fa rir eAidence of title, 
 until tlie claimant makes out a bettor one [Sircctlantl 
 V. Wvhhrr, 1 A<l. cS- K. 11!>)- 
 
 Sub-rule 1. — llaf irlirrr tlir chumnni ^Hihrx out a j 
 hcffcr fitli' fliaii flic (Irffiiiltnif, hr may rrcorrr fjir lamls, ' 
 alflioiitjli such fitiv mail not he halcfraKihJc 
 
 Thus where one enclosed waste land, and died 
 without having had twenty years' possession, the 
 heir of liis devisee was held entitled to recover it ( 
 against a person who had entered upon it without \ 
 any title {Axhn- v. Jlliitloch, L. li., 1 Q. B. I). 
 
 Jus Tertii. A man who may not have an in- 
 defeasible title as against a third party, may yet 
 have a better title than the actual claimant, and 
 therefore — 
 
 Sub-i-ule 2. — T/ic difemlanf maif srf aj/ f/ir rltjlit
 
 16(S PARTICl'LAR TOKTS. 
 
 of a ihlrd peraon to the hin<h, in order to disprove ilmt 
 of the daunant {Doe d. Carter v. Bernard, 13 Q. B. 
 
 But the claimant cannot do the same, for posses- 
 sion is, in general, a good title against all but the 
 true owner {As/ier v. Wliitloclc, sap.). 
 
 Exceptions. (1) Landlord and Tenant. — Where the 
 relation of landlord and tenant exists between the 
 claimant and defendant, the landlord need not prove 
 his title, but only the expiration of the tenancy, for 
 a tenant cannot in general dispute his landlord's title 
 {Betanei/ v. Fox, 26 L. J., C. P. 248), unless a defect 
 in the title appears on the lease itself [Saanders v. 
 Merrija-eather, 35 L. J., Ex. 115; Boe d. Kniijht v. 
 8)ni/tJi, 4 31. ^ S. 347). But nevertheless he may 
 show that his landlord's title has expired, by assign- 
 ment, conveyance, or otherwise (Boe d. 3Iarriott v. 
 Edn-ards, 5 B. 8^ Ad. 1065 ; Walton v. WaterJwuse, 
 1 Wms. Saand. 418). 
 
 The principle does not extend to the title of the 
 party through whom the defendant claims prior to 
 the demise or conveyance to him. Thus where the 
 claimant claims under a grant from A. in 1818, and 
 the defendant under a grant from A. in 1824, the 
 latter may show that A. had no legal estate to grant 
 in 1818 {Boe d. Oliver v. BoHrll, I A. i^ E. 531 ; 3 
 A. 8fE. 188). 
 
 (2) Serra)its and Licensees. — The same principle is 
 applicable to a licensee or servant, who is estopped 
 from disputing the title of the person who licensed 
 him {Boe d. Jol/nson v. Ba>/tap, 3 A. Sf E. 188).
 
 TRESPASS TO LAND AM) .DISPOSSESSION. 1G9 
 
 Character of Claimant's Estate. Kulo 44. 
 — The clamiaiit's title may l)e eitlicr legal or 
 cqiiltal)le [scuihlr), provided tliat he is equit- 
 ably Ijetter entitled to the possession than the 
 defendant. 
 
 Before the Judicature Act, 1873, it was a well- 
 establisliod rule that a plaintilf in ojoctmcnt must 
 have tlic legal estate {Due d. North v. JFcbbcr, 5 Scott, 
 189). It is submitted, however, that since that act, 
 seeing that all Lranclies of the High Court are to 
 take c'ogiiizance of equitable rights, an equitable estate 
 will be alone sullicient. 
 
 Limitation. liiLE 45. — No person shall 
 bring an action for the recovery of land or 
 rent but ^vithin twenty years after the right 
 to maintain such action shall have accrued to 
 the claimant, or to the person through whom 
 he claims (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 2 ; Bras8/)ir/- 
 ton v. Llewellyn^ 27 L. J"., Ex. 297), and after 
 the ;31st December, 1878, no such action shall 
 be brought but within twelve years ('i7 & 38 
 Vict. c. 57, s. 1). 
 
 Exceptions. (1) Disahilit;/. — AVTiere claimants are 
 under disability, by reason of infancy, covci-tui-c, 
 unsound mind, or absence beyond the seas, they 
 must bring their action within ten years after such 
 disabihty has ceased; provided that no action shall bo 
 
 u. I
 
 170 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 brougM after forty years from the accrual of the right 
 
 (sects. 16 and 17). ' , " ^ \> fuwr^ ' <) '--cv^-^ ^ 
 
 After the 31st December, 1878, disability by reason 
 of absence beyond the seas is abolished, and six years 
 and thirty years substituted for the above-mentioned 
 periods of ten and forty years (37 & 38 Yict. c. 57, 
 6s. 4, 3 arid 5). 
 
 (2) Aclaioicledgmcnt of Title. — When any person 
 in possession of lands or rents shall have given an 
 acknowledgment in writing, and signed by him, to 
 \h.Q person entitled to such lands or rents, or to his 
 agent, of his title, then the possession of the person 
 by whom such acknowledgment shall have been made 
 shall be deemed to be the possession of the person to 
 whom such acknowledgment shall have been given, 
 and the right of such last-mentioned person shall be 
 taken to have accrued at and not before the date at 
 which such acknowledgment was made, and the sta- 
 tute shall begin to run as from that date {Ley v. 
 Peter, 27 L. J., Ex. 239). 
 
 (3) Ecclemtstieal CorporatlouH. — The period in the 
 case of ecclesiastical and eleemosynary coi'porations 
 is sixty years (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 29). 
 
 Cominencenient of Period of Limitation. 
 
 Sub-rule 1. — Tlte right to maintain ejectment accrues 
 at the time of dispossession or (liscontinnance of j)osses- 
 sion of the profts or rent of lands, or of the death of 
 the last rightful ou-ner (see sect. 3), or in respect of an 
 estate or interest in rerersion or remainder, or other 
 future estate or interest, at the time of ivhicli the same 
 shall have hecome an estate or interest in p)OSsession, hy
 
 TllESPASS TO LAND AM) DISPOSSESSION. 171 
 
 the (/rfrr)ttiii(i/io)i of ////■ partictilar e-sfafr, iwtnifli- 
 sfandiiig the person e/aimiiif/ such hnd or rent, or some 
 person throiKjh irhom he ehiinis^ mis at aiii/ tiiih' pre- 
 rioiis/i/ to the ereatioii of the estate or estates nhieh shall 
 /tare (letennined, in the possession or receipt of the profits 
 of such land, or reeeij)t of the rents (37 it 3S Yiet. c. 57, 
 S. !>). 
 
 It seems that discontinuance does not mean nier(> 
 aLandoiiinont, Lut rather an ahandonment by one 
 foll<nvcd hy actual possession by another (see Sniifh 
 V. Lloi/d, 23 L. J., Ex. 194; Ad., Caj). VI. Sect. 2). 
 
 Thus where A. grants tlio surface of lands to B., 
 and the mines thereimder to C, and C. does not 
 enter for more tlian forty yeai*s, yet his right is not 
 han-cd ; for although lie has not been in possession 
 for forty years, yet there has been no adverse posses- 
 sion by anotlier (see Sniifh v. Lloyd, 9 Ex. 571) 
 
 Occupation of Servants. As -we have seen, 
 the occupation of a servant is that of his master; 
 therefore where a landowner allows his gardener to use 
 a cottage rent free, sueli i)onuission is not a discon- 
 tinuance of possession, and no title can be gained l)y 
 the gardener by twenty years' possession {Ad. 262) ; 
 and so allowing another from kindness to occupy 
 one's tenement, is not necessarily a discontinuance if 
 one continues to exercise proprietary rights, as of 
 repaii-ing or planting, &.Q. {Turner v. Dm , I) Jf. \ Jf. 
 040). 
 
 Continual Assertion of Claim. Sub-nde2. 
 
 — JN'o dijciidiint is d(riii('d to hare hcen in possession of 
 
 I 2
 
 172 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 land, mcrehf from the fad of having entered upon it ; 
 and, on the other hand, a eontimial assertion of claim 
 2)reserres no right of action (sects. 10 and 11). 
 
 Therefore a man must actually bring his action 
 within the time limited; for mere assertion of his 
 title will not preserve his right of action after adverse 
 possession for the statutory period.
 
 ( ir.i ) 
 
 CHiVrTER IX. 
 
 Of rJilVATE NUISANX'ES AFFECTING ItEAI.TY. 
 
 Of Easements and Servitudes. In order 
 that tlio student may approach the subject of private 
 nuisances witli intelligence, it is in the first place 
 necessary that he should understand the elements of 
 the law relating to easements and servitudes. 
 
 Definitions. A servitude is a duty or service 
 ■which one piece of land is bound to render, either to 
 another piece of land, or to some person other than 
 its o\\iier. Where the servitude gives a mere right 
 of user, without any right to take any of the mines 
 or crops or other profits of the land, such right is 
 called (in ca-semctit. AVhere, on the other hand, it 
 confers the right to any of the profits of the land, 
 it is called a jtrofit d prendre. Easements enjoyed 
 in respect of the o^\^lership of particular lands are 
 called easements appurtenant, and the property to 
 which the right is attached is called the dominant 
 tenement, that over which the right is exercised 
 being denominated the servient tenement. Ease- 
 ments enjoyed in'es[)ectively of the ownership of 
 land are called easements in gross. 
 
 Creation of Servitudes. Servitudes are either 
 natiu-al or cunveutionul. Natural servitudes are such
 
 174 r ARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 as are necessary and natm-al adjuncts to the pro- 
 perties to wliicli they are attached, and they apply 
 tiniversally throughout the kingdom. Conventional 
 servitudes, on the other hand, are not universal, but 
 must always arise either by custom, prescri23tion or 
 grant; and in the case of profits d prendre, it is said 
 that they can take their rise either by prescription or 
 grant only, but this doctrine is now much modified, 
 particularly in the case of commonable rights. 
 
 Title to Servitudes. As to what kind and 
 what length of user will give a right to the various 
 kinds of servitudes known to om- law, and as to 
 what servitudes are governed by the common law 
 doctrines of prescription and what by the Prescrip- 
 tion Act, all these are matters of real property law, 
 for which I must refer the reader to works on that 
 subject ; but wherever I shall hereafter speak of a 
 servitude imposed, or an easement or profit a prendre 
 gained, by custom or prescription, I must be under- 
 stood to mean properly imposed or gained, in accord- 
 ance with the doctrines of the law in reference to 
 such matters of title. 
 
 Definition. " A private nuisance," says Black- 
 stone, " is anything done to the hurt or annoyance 
 of the lands, tenements or hereditaments of another 
 not amounting to trespass." It may either affect 
 corporeal property or incorporeal rights. 
 
 Rule -IG. — Every person .should so use liis
 
 PRIVATE NUISANCES AFFEClINfi UKAI.TY. 175 
 
 })roperty luul liylits, us not tu cause injury to 
 aiiotlicT. 
 
 (1) Thus a man has an uiKhjubted right to get 
 minerals lying in and under his land, but in doing 
 so he niu.st not mine or excavate so near to the land 
 of his neighbour, as to disturb such land and causo 
 it to subside; for there is a natnral servitude imposed 
 upon every owner of hind to all'ord lateral support to 
 the adjacent land of his neighbour in its original 
 state, and the withdrawal of such support is a 
 nuisance [Iluuqj/uri/s v. linxjilcti, 12 Q. B. 7-39). 
 
 Section 1. 
 
 Niii-sdiiccs to Corporeal Hereditaments. 
 
 Rule 47. — Any act or omission of a ])crson, 
 wlicreby sensildc injury is caused to tlic j)ro- 
 pcrtv of another, or whereby the ordinary 
 physical comfort of human existence in such 
 property is material/// interfered with, is 
 actionable. 
 
 (1) Fames. Thus, in the case of Tippings v. St. 
 Helms'' Smelt huj Co. {L. It., 1 C/i. GO), the fact that 
 the fumes from the company's works killed the plain- 
 tiff's shrubs, was held sufficient to support the action ; 
 for the killing of the shrubs was an injiuy to the 
 property. 
 
 (2) Noisi/ Trade. So, too, it was said, in Crump v. 
 Laiithert (Z. i?., 3 Eq. 409), that smoke unaccom- 
 pamed with noise, or with noxious vapuui-, uoiso
 
 176 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 alone, and offensive vapours alone, although not in- 
 jurious to health, may severally constitute a nuisance ; 
 and that the material question in all such cases is, 
 whether the annoyance produced is such as materially 
 to interfere with the ordinary comfort of human ex- 
 istence. 
 
 (3) And so, again, in TFalfcr v. Selfe (4 B. G. ^ 
 Sm. 322), Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce said: " Both 
 on principle and authority, the imj)ortant point next 
 for decision may properly, I conceive, be put thus : 
 ought this inconvenience to he considered in fact as 
 more than fanciful, more than one of mere delicacy 
 or fastidiousness, as an inconvenience materially in- 
 terfering with the ordinary comfort physically of 
 human existence, not merely according to elegant or 
 dainty modes and habits of living, but according to 
 plain and sober and simple notions among the Eng- 
 lish people?" (and see perKindersley,V.-C.,in>S'o/iff/?« 
 V. De Held, 2 Sidi. JV. S. 133 ; and per Selwyn and 
 Giffard, L.JJ., in Inchbald v. Robinson, L. li., 4 Ch. 
 388.) 
 
 (4) iVb/sy Entertainments. So, too, the collection 
 of a crowd of noisy and disorderly people, to the 
 annoyance of the neighbourhood, outside grounds in 
 which entertainments with music and fireworks are 
 being given for profit, is a nuisance, even though the 
 entertainer has excluded all improper characters, and 
 the amusements have been conducted in an orderly 
 way {Wa/Icer v. Brr/rster, L. li., 5 Bq. 25; and see 
 also Inchbald v. Robinson ; and Same v. Barrington, 
 L. R., 4 C//. 388). 
 
 (5) So, it is apprehended, that the letting off of
 
 I'KIVATK MISAN'CES AFFECTlXCi KKAL'JV. 177 
 
 rockets, and tlie establishment of a powerful Land of 
 music playing twice a week for several hours within one 
 himdred yards of a dwellinglioiiso, are nuisances (///.) 
 (G) Other Exdiiqihs. Other examples of nuisance 
 to corporeal hereditaments are overhanging eaves 
 from which the water flows on to another's property 
 {linUi.shiU V. Rird, 20 L. J., C. P. 2!K)) ; or over- 
 hanging trees, or pigstys, creating a stench, erected 
 near to anotlier's house {lio.sc Goo) ; and it would 
 seem that noisy dogs preventing the plaintiif's family 
 from sleeping are nuisances, if the jury find that such 
 discomfort is caused, altliough, wliere the jury find 
 that no serious discomfort has arisen, the com-t will 
 not interfere {Street v. Gitf/iceU, Seliri/n^n N. P., Vit/i 
 ed. 1090; and see iiovc. GOo). 
 
 Reasonableness of Place. SuL-rulo 1. — 
 W/ierc (III act is proved to interfere with the comfort of 
 an indiriditn/y so as to come irithin the leyal dejinition of 
 a iiuisaiiee, it cannot be Ju.stifrd h// the fact that it iras 
 done in a reasonabfe j^fffcc {Bamford v. Tarn/ei/, 31 L. 
 J., Q. B. 286). But ichat icouhf constitute a nuisance 
 in one localiti/ may not be one in another (St. Helens* 
 Smelting Co. v. Tipjn'ii'js, infra). 
 
 (1) The spot selected may he very convenient for 
 the defendant, or for tlie public at large, but very 
 inconvenient to a particular individual who chances 
 to occupy tlie adjoining land, and proof of the benefit 
 to the public, from the exercise of a particidai' trade in 
 a particular locahty, can be no ground for depri\'ing 
 an individual of liis right to compensation in respect 
 of the p:u-ticidar injury he has sustained fi'om it. 
 I 5
 
 178 TAKTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 And so, where the defendant made bricks upon his 
 own land for the purpose of building thereon, and 
 every precaution had been taken to prevent a nui- 
 sance, but a nuisance was actually caused to the 
 plaintiff's dwellinghouse : here, although the jury 
 found that the act complained of was merely a rea- 
 sonable use of his own land by the defendant, and 
 found a verdict for him, yet the majority of the court 
 set that verdict aside {Ih.). 
 
 (2) In St. Helens' Smelting Co. v. Tippings (11 
 H. L. C. 650), Lord Westbury said : " In matters of 
 this description, it appears to me that it is a very 
 desirable thing, to mark the difference between an 
 action brought for a nuisance upon the ground that 
 the alleged nuisance produces material injury to the 
 property, and an action brought for a nuisance on the 
 ground that the thing alleged to be a nuisance is pro- 
 ductive of sensible personal discomfort. With regard 
 to the latter, — namely, the personal inconvenience and 
 interference with one's enjoyment, one's quiet, one's 
 personal freedom, anything that discomposes or in- 
 juriously affects the senses or the nerves, — whether 
 that may or may not be denominated a nuisance, 
 must undoubtedly depend greatly on the cu-cum- 
 stances of the place where the thing complained of 
 actually occurs. If a man lives in a town, it is 
 necessary that he should subject himself to the con- 
 sequences of those operations of trade which may 
 be carried on in the immediate locaKty, which are 
 actually necessary for trade and commerce, and also 
 for the enjoyment of property, and for the benefit of 
 the inhabitants of the town, and the public at large.
 
 piuvatp: nuisances affecting realty. 170 
 
 If a iiuui lives in a street where there are numerous 
 shops, and a shop is opened next door to him wliieh 
 is earned on in a fair and reasonable way, he has no 
 gromid of coniplahit because, to liimself individually, 
 there may arise much discomfort from the trade 
 carried on in that shop. But when an occupation is 
 carried on by one person in the neighbom-hood of 
 another, and the result of that trade or occupation 
 or business is a material injury to proprrfi/, then un- 
 questionably arises a very dilferent consideration. I 
 think that in a case of that description, the submission 
 which is required from persons living in society to 
 that amount of discomfort which may be necessary 
 for the legitimate and free exercise of the trade of 
 their neighbours, would not apply to circimistances, 
 the immediate result of which is sensible injury to 
 the value of the property." And Lord Cranworth 
 said (referring to a case which he had tried when a 
 Baron of the Exchequer) : " It was proved incontes- 
 tably that smoke did come, and in some degree inter- 
 fere with a certain person ; but I said, * You must 
 look at it, not with a view to the question M-hether 
 abstractedly that quantity of smoke was a nuisance, 
 but whether it was a nuisance to a person living in 
 the town of Sliields.' " 
 
 Coming to the Nuisance. Sub-rule 2. — 
 It is no (tii-sirrr to an action for nuimncc that the plaint if)' 
 hnctc that thcvc a-an a nidmncc, and yet ircni and lired 
 near it {Hoh' v. Barlon; 27 L. J., C P. 208). 
 
 Or in the words of Mr. Justice Byles in the above 
 case, " It used to be thought that if a uuin knew that
 
 180 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 there was a nmsance and went and lived near it he 
 could not recover, because it was said it is he that 
 goes to the nuisance, and not the nuisance to him. 
 That, however, is not law now." The justice of 
 this is obvious from the consideration, that, if it were 
 otherwise, a man might be wholly prevented from 
 building upon his land if a nuisance was set up in 
 its locality, because the nuisance might be harmless 
 to a mere field, and therefore not actionable, and yet 
 unendurable to the inhabitants of a dwellinghouse. 
 
 Sub-rule 3. — TJie rigid to carry on a noisome trade 
 in derogation of the rights of another may he gained hy 
 custom, grant, or prescription, hut not the right to carry 
 on a trade which creates a puhJic nuisance (see Elliotsoii 
 V. Feetham, 2 Bing. N. C. 134 ; and see Flight v. 
 Thomas, 10 A. 8^ E. 590). 
 
 Section 2. 
 
 Nuisances to Incorporeal Hereditaments. 
 
 Disturbance of Easements of Support. 
 
 Rule 48. — Subject to any express grant, re- 
 servation, covenant, or inconsistent right 
 gained by prescription [Roivlotham v. Wilson, 
 8 //. L. a -348 ; JMiirc/ue v. Black, 34 L. J,, 
 C. P. 337), it is well established, that where 
 the siu'face of land belongs to one person, 
 and the subjacent soil and minerals to ano- 
 ther, the latter is burdened with a natural 
 servitude to support the former {Iliimplireys
 
 I'IMVATE MlSAN(i:s AFFECTING UKALTY. 181 
 
 V. Bmjdcn, 12 Q. 11. T-'iD), and also that tlio 
 owTicr of land is entitled to the perfoiiiiance 
 of a similar servitude of lateral siip})ort by 
 the (uljdccnt laud [lionomi v. Biu-kliomc^ 27 
 L. ./., q. B. 378; 28 ih. 378); but these ease- 
 ments only extend to the land in its natural 
 and unencumbered state, and not Avith the 
 additional wei^^ht of buildings upon it. In 
 order to nuiintain an action for a nuisance 
 affecting such an easement, some appreciable 
 damage nmst l)e shown (Hmitli v. Tliachcrnh^ 
 L. /.'., C. P. ;jG4). 
 
 (1) JIitnipJirei/H v. Broydvn was an action hy the 
 occupier of the siu'face of land, for negligently and 
 improperly, and without lea-sing any sufficient pillars 
 and supports, and contrary to the custom of mining 
 in the comitry, working the subjacent minerals, 
 whereby the surface gave way. It was proved at 
 the trial, that the plaintiff was in occupation of the 
 siu-face, and the defendant, of the subjacent minerals, 
 but there was no evidence how the occupation of the 
 superior and inferior strata came into different hands. 
 The sui-face was not built upon. The jury found 
 that the defendants had worked the mines carefully 
 and according to custom, but without leaAdng suffi- 
 cient siipport for the sm-face. V[)0u this finding, it 
 was held that the plaintiff was entitled to have tlic 
 verdict entered for him, for that of common right the 
 o^vTier of the surface is entitled to support from the 
 subjacent strata, and if the OAnicr of the mint'rals
 
 182 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 removes them, it is liis duty to leave sufficient support 
 for the surface in its natural state. And Lord Camp- 
 bell, in delivering the judgment of the court, said : 
 " The right to lateral support from adjoining soil is 
 not, like the support of one building upon another, 
 supposed to be gained by grant, but is a right of pro- 
 perty passing with the soil ; if the owner of two ad- 
 joining closes conveys away one of them, the alienee, 
 without any grant for that purpose, is entitled to the 
 lateral support of the other close the very instant when 
 the conveyance is executed, as much as after the ex- 
 piration of twenty years or any longer period. Pari 
 rafionc, where there are separate freeholds, from the 
 surface of the laud and the mines belonging to dif- 
 ferent owners, we are of opinion that the owner of 
 the surface, while unincumbered by buildings and in 
 its natural state, is entitled to have it supported by 
 the subjacent mineral strata. Those strata may, of 
 course, be removed by the owner of them, so that a 
 sufficient support is left ; but if the surface subsides 
 and is injured by the removal of these strata, al- 
 though tlie operation may not have been conducted 
 negligently nor contrary to the custom of the country, 
 the owner of the surface may maintain an action 
 against the owner of the minerals, for the damage 
 sustained by the subsidence. Unless the surface 
 close be entitled to this support from the close under- 
 neath, corresponding to the lateral support to which 
 he is entitled from the adjoining surface close, it 
 cannot be securely enjoyed as property, and under 
 certain circumstances (as where the mineral strata 
 ap];»roach the surface and are of great thickness) it
 
 PRIVATE NUISANCES AFFE(T1N(; KKM.IY. 
 
 183 
 
 might ho cntiri'ly destroyed. A\'e likewise think, 
 that the nde giving the riglit of sujJiMirt to the sur- 
 face upon the minerals, in the absence of any express 
 grant, reservation or covenant, must bo laid do\vii 
 generally, witluMit reference to the nature of the 
 strata, or tlio difliculty of propping up the surface, 
 or the comparative value of the surface and the 
 minerals." 
 
 (2) But Avhere allotment commissioners, by their 
 award, allotted land, so that scmie of the mhics allotted 
 to A. were situate under portions of the land allotted 
 to Vk, and the persons interested executed the award, 
 which contained a clause declaring that the pro- 
 prietors agreed with each other and their heirs, that 
 the land so allotted, should bo lawfully held and 
 enjoyed by the allottees without molestation, and 
 without any mine owner being subject to any action 
 for damages on account of working and getting the 
 mines, or by reason that the lands might be " ren- 
 dered luieven and less commodious to the occupiers 
 thereof by sinking in hollows, and being otherwise 
 defaced and injured where such mines should be 
 worked," it was held, that this clause operated as a 
 grant of a right to disturb the surface, and that a 
 surface owner could not maintain any action for any 
 such disturbance {Roirl)otIi<iiii v. ini-soii, S //. L. C. 
 348, and see oX&oEndon v. Jr/fcocI,; L. li., 7 Ex. 379). 
 
 (3) And in Sniifli v. Tluu-hrah {L. li., 1 C. P. 004) 
 Byles, J., said : " In actions for trespass, the trespass 
 itself is a sufficient cause of action ; but in actions 
 for indirect injuries, like tlie present, the judgments 
 of the llouse of Lords iu BouQiui v. JJdchhuitsc show
 
 184 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 that there is no cause of action if there be no damage ; 
 and I cannot distinguish between no appreciable 
 damage to the land in its natural state, and no 
 damage at all." 
 
 Exception. — Companies governed by the Eailway 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, do not acquire any 
 such right to subjacent support by purchasing the 
 surface; and the owners of the mines may, after 
 ha\ing given notice to the company, so as to give 
 them the opportunity of pm-chasing the mines, work 
 them with impunity, in the ordinary way {G. W. R. 
 Co. V. Bennett, L. R.,2 H. L. 29). But neither wiU 
 an action lie against the company for any damage 
 suffered by the mine owner, although perhaps he 
 may demand compensation under the act (see Dunn 
 V. Blnn. Canal Co., L. K, 8 Q. B. 42). 
 
 Subterranean Water. Sub-rule 1. — An o/rner 
 of land lias no right at common law to the support of 
 mljterranean water {Boppleicell v. Hodkinson, L. JR., 
 4 Ex. 248. 
 
 Extra Weight of Building-s. Sub-rule 2. — 
 The owner of land may maintain an action for a distur- 
 bance of the natural right to sujyjwrt for the surface, 
 notwithstanding buildings have been erected ujwn it, 
 provided the weight of the buildings did not cause the 
 injury {Brown v. Robins, 4 H. 8^' N. 18G ; Stroyan v. 
 Knou-les, Ilamer v. ICnowles, 6 //. d^- N. 454). 
 
 Support of Buildings. Rule 49. — The 
 right of support for Ijuildiiigs, whether lateral
 
 PRIVATE MISANfES AFFEtTINO UKAI.TV. IS-J 
 
 or subjacent, aiuL wlictliLT ui' the s(jil u|)<>ii 
 wliicli they stand, or of tlio buildings lliiiu- 
 selves, must arise out of grant or prescription 
 {Parfriihir v. >SVo//, 3 M. \ IT. 220; Brown 
 V. linhin^, \ U. cV N. 180; K. E. 11, Co. v. 
 ElliuU^ 2!) L. J., C/i. 808). 
 
 (1) Thus, in raiiridiir v. Scott, it was said that 
 " rights of this sort, if they can be established at all, 
 must, -we think, have their origin in grant ; if a man 
 builds a house at the extremity of his land, he does 
 not thereby acquii'e any easement of support or 
 other-^-ise over the land of his neighbour. Ho has 
 no right to load his own soil, so as to make it requii'o 
 the support of his neighbours, unless he has some 
 grant to that effect." Of course such grant may 
 be express or implied (that is, prescriptive), and it 
 woidd seem to be clear, that no prescriptive right of 
 suppoi-t for buildings can be gained wliore the natural 
 right of support for the unincumbered sm-face has 
 been given up {Roicbot/iain v. Wilson, sup.). 
 
 (2) So again, as Tjetween adjoining houses, there 
 is no obligation towards a neighboui' cast by law on 
 the owner of a house, merely as such, to keep it 
 standing and in repair; Ins only duty being to 
 prevent it from being a niusance, and from falling 
 on to his neighbom-s' property {Cliaudlcr v. liobiii.'ion, 
 4 Ex. 1G3). 
 
 (3) But where, on the other hand, houses are built 
 by the same owner, adjoining one another, and 
 depending upon one another for support, and are 
 afterwards conveyed to different OAniers, there exists.
 
 186 rARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 Toy a presumed grant and reservation, a right of 
 support to eacli house from the adjoining ones 
 {lUcJianh V. lio^e, 9 Ex. 218). 
 
 (4) And so it is said, that where adjoining houses 
 are built by separate owners, a right of support may 
 be gained by prescription {Hide v. Thornhorougli, 2 
 C (^ K. 250 ; sed qiKt-re, Salomon v. Vintner^'' Co., 
 4:n.8fN. 585 ; Aiujm v. Dalton, L. E., 3 Q. B. Div. 
 170). 
 
 liight and Air. Rule 50. — There is no 
 right, ex Jure nuturcc, to tlie free passage of 
 lighit and air to a house or building (2 & 3 
 Will. -4, c. 71, s. 6); but such a right may 
 be acquired, either by grant from the con- 
 tiguous proprietors, or by prescription. 
 Where such a right has been gained, no 
 person will be allowed to interrupt such 
 passage, unless he can show that, for what- 
 ever purpose the plaintiff might wish to em- 
 ploy the light, there w<juld be no material 
 interference with it by the alleged obstruc- 
 tion [Yates V. Jack, L. R., 1 Cli. 295; and see 
 per Best, C. J., in Back v. Htaceji.^ 2 C. ^^ P. 
 465, and Dent v. Auction Mart Co., L. 11., 2 
 Eq. 245, and llohson v. Whittingham, L. R., 
 1 Ch. 442). 
 
 (1) Thus in Yates v. Jaclc, where it was con- 
 tended that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief,
 
 rUlVATK M ISAN'CES AFFECTIXO UEAI.TY. 187 
 
 because, for tlic purposes of his then jtrc.sc/if trade ho 
 was oLliged to shade uud suhdiic tlio light, and 
 tliat tliereforo lie suffered no actual damage. Lord 
 Cranworth said: "Tliis is not the question. It is 
 comparatively an eas}' thing to shade off a too 
 powerful glare of sunshine, hut no adequate sub- 
 stitute can be found for a deficient supply of day- 
 light, and an attentive consideration of the evidence 
 of the trade witnesses on the one side, and on the 
 other, has led me to the conclusion, as did the 
 evidence of the architects, that the erection of the 
 new buildings ^^■ill materially interfere mth the 
 quantity of light necessary or desii'able for the 
 plaiutilfs in the conduct of their business. I desire, 
 however, not to bo understood as saying that the 
 plaintiffs woidd have no right to an injunction unless 
 the destiiiction (jf light wero such as tu bo injiu'ious 
 to them in the trade in A\lii(h they are now engaged. 
 The right confeiTcd or recognized by the statute. 
 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71', is an absolute and indefeasible 
 right to the enjo}Tiient of the light without reference 
 to the piiqiose for which it has been used. There- 
 fore, even if the evidence satisfied me (which it does 
 not) that for the purpose of their present business 
 a strong light is not necessary, and that the 
 plaintiffs will still have sufKcient light remaining, I 
 should not think the defendant had established his 
 defence, imless he had shown, that, for whatever 
 pirqiose the plaintiffs might wish to employ the light, 
 there would be no material interference with it'' (and 
 see Aymlcijw (iloar, L. ii'., 18 Eq. 044, and 10 Ch. 
 283).
 
 188 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 (2) And so, where ancient lights are obstructed, 
 the fact that the owner of the building to which the 
 ancient lights belong has himself contributed to the 
 diminution of the light, will not in itself preclude 
 him from obtaining an injunction or damages {Tap- 
 Ihuj V. Jones, 11 H. L. C. 290; Arcedeckne v. Kelk, 2 
 Giff. 683; Strairjht v. Bum, L. E., 5 Ch. 163). 
 
 (3) So, on the other hand, an enlargement of an 
 ancient light, although it wUl not enlarge the right 
 {Cooper V. Ilubhock, 31 L. J., Ch. 123), does not 
 diminish or extinguish it ; and, therefore, where the 
 owner of a building having ancient lights enlarges or 
 adds to the number of windows, he does not thereby 
 preclude himself from obtaining an injunction to re- 
 strain an obstruction of the ancient hghts {Ai/nsley v. 
 Glover, sup.). 
 
 (4) The dominant tenement must be a building ; 
 and, therefore, a person who grants a lease of a house 
 and garden, is not precluded (under the doctrine of 
 not derogating from his own grant) from building 
 on open ground retained by him adjacent to the 
 house and garden, though, by so doing, the enjoy- 
 ment of the garden, as pleasm-e ground, is interfered 
 with, there being no obstruction of light and air to 
 the house {Potts v. Smith, L. R., Q Eq. 311). 
 
 Exception. Right over Grantor^s Land. — A man 
 cannot derogate from his own grant. 
 
 (1) Therefore, if one grants a house to A., but 
 keeps the land adjoining the house in his owti hands, 
 he cannot build upon that land so as to darken the 
 windows of the house. And if he have sold the 
 house to one and the land to another, the latter
 
 riUVATK NIISANCES AFFE(T1N(; UF.ALTY. 189 
 
 stands in tlio {^i-jmtor's place as regards the hmiso 
 (see per Bayley, J., Con/iain v. Fish; 2 Cr. i^- J. I'JS ; 
 SinnisIjoroKff/i v. Corcntr;/, Biiuj. 300 ; iJKn'rs v. 
 JLirs/ifi//, JJc G. <1^' Sm. 557; Firiwii v. Pliillipf^, 11 
 C. IL, N. S. 449). 
 
 (■J) And so, where two separate purchasers buy two 
 unfinished houses from the same vendor, and, at the 
 time of the purchase, the windows are marked out, 
 this is a sufficient indication of the rights of each, 
 and implies a grant [Coinptoii v. Iticliards, 1 Pr. 27 ; 
 Glare v. Ilardiiuj, 27 L. J., Ex. 286). 
 
 (3) Similarly, where two lessees claim imder the 
 same lessor, it is said that they cannot, in general, 
 encroach on one another's access to light and air 
 {Coutt-s V. Gor/iani, 1 M. ^- M. 39G ; Jacomb v. K)ii<jht, 
 32 L. J., r//. GOl) ; but it would seem that this state- 
 ment of the law is too wide, as it is difiicult to see 
 what right the second lessee can have against the 
 fii'st, as no act of his can ho a derogation from the 
 second demise ; and, indeed, it has been distinctly 
 held, that where the grantor sells the land but retains 
 the house, there is no duty upon the grantee of the 
 land to abstain from building upon it, and the grantor 
 cannot prevent him, for to do so would be, as much as 
 in th(> preceding case, a derogation from his own grant 
 {White V. i/^m, 31 L. J., Ex. 283). 
 
 Estoppel in case of Disturbance in pur- 
 suance of Licence. .Sub-rule. — 1/ ihc oirarr of 
 the dominant tenement authorizeH theoicnerqfthe servient 
 tenement, either verhalbj or ofhencise, to do an aet of 
 notoriety upon his land, irhieh, irhen done, irill ajf'eet or
 
 190 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 pid an end to the cnjoi/meut of the easement, and sueJi 
 act is done, the licensor cannot retract, hut must abide 
 by the result. 
 
 Thus where A. had a right to light and air across 
 the area of B., and gave B. leave to put a skylight 
 over the area, which B. did : it was held that A. could 
 not retract his licence, although it was found that 
 the skyKght obstructed the light and air ; and Lord 
 Ellenborough, C. J., said that at the trial he thought 
 it very unreasonable, that after a j)arty had been led 
 to incur expense in consequence of having obtained 
 a licence from another to do an act, and that licence 
 had been acted upon, that other should be permitted 
 to recall his licence and treat the first as a trespasser 
 for ha\'ing done that very act. That he had after- 
 wards looked into the books on the subject,' and found 
 himself justified by the case of Webb v. Paternoster 
 {Palmer, 71), where Haughton, J., lays do-vvTi the 
 rule, that a licence executed is not countermandable, 
 but only when it is executory {Winter v. Brocku-ell'y 
 8 East^m^). 
 
 Disturbance of Watercourse. Rule 51. — 
 The right to the use of the water of a 
 natural stream, belongs, jure naturce and of 
 right, to the owners of the adjoining lands, 
 every one of whom has an equal right to use 
 the water which flows in the stream; and
 
 I'linATF, Nl"ISA^■CES AFFEOTIX(; REAI.IV. l!)l 
 
 consequent! ^', no pro})rictoi- can have tlic 
 right to use tli(> water to tlie prejudice of any 
 otlier proi)rietors {^Chasemore v. Richards, 7 
 11. L. Ca. ;349 ; Wrir/ht v. Iloivard, 1 >S'. cV .V. 
 20'3 ; DicJccnson v. Gr. June. Canal Co., 7 E.v. 
 299). 
 
 (1) Every riparian owner may reasonably nso the 
 stream, as, for instance, for diiiiking, watering his 
 cattle or turning his mill, and other pm*poses, pro- 
 vided he does not thereby seriously diminish the 
 stream. In short, it is a question entirely of degree, 
 and depends upon the fact whether or not an injury 
 is caused to the remaining proprietors by his user 
 (see Emhri'ii v. Oiroi, G E.c. 3-j3). 
 
 (2) If the rights of a riparian proprietor are inter- 
 fered with, as by diverting the stream or abstracting or 
 fouling the water, he may maintain an action against 
 the wrongdoer, even though no actual damage has 
 been sustained ( Wood v. Wand, 3 Ex. 748 ; Emhreij 
 V. (Jircii, G E.v. ;>Cr) ; Crox-'ih'!/ v. Lighfofcler, L. JR., 
 2 Ch. 478). 
 
 Penning back Water. Besides the natm-al 
 right which ovurj' riparian proprietor has to the 
 ordinary user of the water of a stream, and immunity 
 from disturbance of that right by the riparian jiro- 
 prietors higher vip the stream, he has also a right to 
 have the Avater conveyed along the watercourse out 
 of his lands, and immunity from disturbance of this 
 right by riparian proprietors lower down the stream.
 
 192 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 Sub-rule. — If hy means of impediments placed in or 
 across a stream a riparian j^f^oprietor causes the stream 
 to flood the lands of a p)rop)rietor higher up> the stream, 
 he mil he liable for damages resulting therefrom ; and 
 equally if a higher proprietor collects water and pours it 
 into the ivatercourse in a body, and so foods the lands' 
 of a proprietor lower down the stream, he will be liable 
 for damage resulting therefrom {Chasemore v. Richards, 
 7 H. L. C. 349; Sha^pe v. Hancoeh, 8 Sc. N, JR. 
 46). 
 
 Exception. Prescri2)tire Mights. — Eights in dero- 
 gation of those of the other riparian proprietors may 
 be gained by grant or prescription {Acton v. Blun- 
 dell, 12 M. 8f W. 353 ; Carlyon v. Larering, 1 //. 
 8f N. 784 ; 26 L. J., Ex. 251) ; but where a man has 
 gained a right to use a stream in derogation of the 
 rights of the other riparian proprietors (as, for 
 instance, by fouling it), he must not use such ac- 
 quired right to the injury of his own grantees, for 
 that would be derogating from his own grant {Crossley 
 V. Lighton-ler, L. B., 2 Ch. 478). 
 
 Artificial Watercourses. Rule 52. — An 
 artificial watercourse may have been ori- 
 ginally made under such circumstances, and 
 have been so used, as to give all the rights 
 which a riparian proprietor would have had 
 if it had been a natm'al stream (per Wight-
 
 I'KIVATK NUISAN'CES AFFFXTINO UEAI.TY. 103 
 
 man J., Suflifc v. Boothc, ;i2 L. J., Q. B. 
 
 i;i6). 
 
 (1) "Where a loop had beeu made in a stream, which 
 loop passed through a field A., it ■was held that the 
 grantee of A. became a riparian propiiotor in respect 
 of the loop {N tiff (ill V. Bran- mil, L. li., 2 Ex. 1). 
 
 (2) A natural stream was divided immemorially, 
 but by artificial means, into two brandies; one branch 
 ran down to the lliver Irwell, and the other passed 
 into a fanu yard, where it supplied a watering trough, 
 and the overflow from the trough was formerly dif- 
 fused over the sm-face and discharged itself by per- 
 colation. In 1847, W., the owner of the land on 
 which the watering trough stood and thence down 
 to the Irwell, connected the watering trough with 
 reservoirs which he constiiictcd adjacent to, and for 
 the use of, a mill on the Irwell. In 1860, W. 
 became owner of all the rest of the land through 
 which tliis branch flowed. In 18G7, he conveyed 
 the mill with all water rights to the plaintiff. In an 
 action brought by the plaintiff against a riparian 
 ow^ler on the stream above the point of division for 
 obstructing the flow of water, it was held that the 
 plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action {Ilolkrt 
 V. Porrif, L. li., 8 Rr. 1U7; L. li., 10 Ex. {Er. Cli.) 
 59). 
 
 (3) But where the watercourse is merely put in 
 for a temporary purjiose, as for drainage of a farm, 
 or the carrying off of water pumped from a mine, a 
 neighbouring landlord, benefited by the flow from 
 the drain or stream, cannot sue the farmer or mine
 
 194 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 owner for draining of! the water, even after fifty 
 years' enjojTnent {Greatrex v. Hojjirard, 8 Ex. 291). 
 
 Discliar ging' Water on to another's Land. 
 
 A right to discharge water on to another's land may 
 be acquired by grant or prescription, but it is a nde 
 that— 
 
 Rule 53. — A j^erson having a right to dis- 
 charge pm-e water on to the land of another, 
 has no right to discharge water in a polluted 
 state {3Iar/or \. ChadickJc, II A. 6^^ E. o71). 
 
 Private S,iglits of Way. There is no natural 
 
 servitude of a private right of way. The only right 
 of way which calls for remark in an elementary work 
 of this kind, is that which is said to arise by necessity ; 
 that is to say, — 
 
 Rule 54. — "Where one grants land to an- 
 other, and there is no access to such land 
 except through other land of the grantor, 
 tlie law gives to the grantee a j^rivate right 
 of way over the latter [Gaf/ford v. Mo fat ^ 
 L. B.,\ Ch. 1.33). 
 
 A way of necessity is really a way by grant, for 
 there is no difference where a thing is granted by 
 express words, and where by operation of law it 
 passes as incident to the grant (1 Wins. Saxnd. 323r('; 
 Frocfor v. Hodyson, 24 L. J., Ex. 195).
 
 riUVATE NUISANCES AFFECflXG REALTY. 105 
 
 (1) Thus, as is said by Mr. Sergeant Williams 
 (1 mns. Saniuf. 321, ;/. G), " Wliere a man having 
 a close surrounded -with his own laud, grants the 
 close to another in fee, for Kfe, or for years, the 
 grantee shall have a way to the close over the 
 grantor's land as incident to the grant, for "witTiout 
 it he cannot derive any benefit from the grant. 
 
 (2) And so again, where one ha\'ing two fields, 
 the only access to one of which lies tlu'ough the 
 other, sells this latter, the law reserves to him a right 
 of way over it {PciuiiiH/toii v. Gal/and^ 22 L. J., Ex. 
 340). 
 
 Sub-rule. — WJtcn the necessity ceases the right ceases^ 
 but the ri'jht rerires acjnin when the neeessiti/ revives 
 {Holmes v. Goriiir/, 2 Bin<i. 70 ; Pcarxoii v. Spencer, 
 I B. 4- >S'. 584). 
 
 Therefore, when by a subsequent pm'chase a man 
 can apprijacli his land ^vithout going over that of his 
 neighbour, his right to do so ceases; but upon the 
 re-sale of such subsequent purchase the right renves. 
 
 Alteration in Object. Rl'LE 66. — ^A riglit 
 of way is extiiiguisjied by a substantial alter- 
 ation in the ori<^-inuI object of the grant of 
 the way. 
 
 Thus, where the way is granted to an open space 
 of land, described in the gi-aut as " now used as a 
 wood house," the grantee, although not bound to 
 K 2
 
 19G PAETICULAR TORTS, 
 
 continue to use it as a wood liouse, cannot use the 
 way if he alters the mode of user of the piece of 
 land. 
 
 Disturbance of Common. This happens when 
 any act is done by which the right of another to his 
 common is incommoded or diminished {Steph. Comm., 
 bk. V. c. viii.). There are three different conditions 
 under which this wrong may be suffered, \iz. — 
 
 (1) Where the wrongdoer ha-^ing no right of com- 
 mon, puts beasts on the land ; or, having such right, 
 puts uncommonable ones on to it. 
 
 (2) Where a commoner sm-charges or puts more 
 beasts on the common than he is entitled to ]Dut; and 
 
 (3) Where the wi'ongdoer encloses or obstructs the 
 common. 
 
 Prescription. Rule 56. — The lord may 
 by prescription put a stranger's cattle into 
 the common, and also by a like prescrij^tion 
 for common a2:)purtenant cattle that are not 
 commonable may be put into the common 
 [StepJt. Comm., bk. v. c. viii.). 
 
 If, however, no such prescription exists the cattle 
 of a stranger, or the imcommonable cattle of a com- 
 moner, may be di-iven off, or distrained damage 
 feasant, or their owner may be sued either by the 
 lord or a commoner.
 
 rUIVATE NVISANCES AFFECTINfi RKAl.TY, 197 
 
 Surcharging. Tliis generally happens where 
 the right of common is appendant, tliat is to say, 
 where the common is limited to beasts that serve 
 the plough or maniu'e the land, and are levant and 
 couchant on the estate ; or where it is appurtenant, 
 that is to say, where there is a right of depasturing 
 a limited number of beasts upon the common, wliicli 
 number is taken to be the number which the land 
 in respect of wliicli the common is appurtenant is 
 capable of supporting thruugli the winter if cultivated 
 for that pui-pose {Can v. Lambert, L. IL, 1 Ur. 108). 
 A common in gross can only arise from express gi'ant 
 to a jiarticular person and his heii-s, and, having no 
 connection with his land, the number of commonable 
 beasts, unless expressly limited by the grant, is in- 
 definite. 
 
 Rule o7. — Common appendant and a})- 
 piu'tcnant being liniitablc by law, a cum- 
 moner surchar«^in«j; the eonnnon cmnmits a 
 wrong for wliieli tlie lord dkiv distrain tlu? 
 beasts surcharged or bring an action, and 
 any eonnnon er may also bring an acti(.)n, 
 wlietlier tlie surcluu'ger may be the lord or 
 another connnoner (Sfrj>/i. Cniuni., l)k. v. c. 
 viii.). 
 
 Obstruction. The common being free and open 
 to all liaving commonable rights over it, it follows 
 that— 
 
 Rule dS. — Wlien tlie owner of the land or
 
 198 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 some other person so encloses or otherwise 
 obstructs it that the commoner is preckicled 
 from enjoying the benefit to which he is by 
 law entitled, the commoner may maintain an 
 action (SfejjJi. Comm., bk. v. c. yiii. ; and see 
 Citi/ Commissioners of Sewers v. Glass ^ L. M., 
 19 £q, 134). 
 
 This may happen either by enelosrag the land or 
 ploughing it up, or chiYing off the cattle, or making 
 a wan'en and so stocking it that the rablaits eat up 
 all the herbage. The lord may, however, lawfully 
 make a warren if the rabbits be so kept under as not 
 to occasion this wrong {Ibid.; nndBidkn v. Langdon^ 
 a EUz, 876). 
 
 Other Disturbances. There are cei-taia other 
 kiuds of disturbance, for which I must refer you to 
 the larger works. 
 
 Such are disturbance of patronage, pews, franchise, 
 and tenure. 
 
 Remedy by Abatement. The law gives a 
 peculiar remedy for nuisances by which a man may 
 right liimself. This remedy is called abatement, and 
 consists in the removal of the nuisance. 
 
 E-ULE o9. — A nuisance may be abated by 
 the party aggrieved thereby, so that he com-
 
 I'KIVATE NIISAXCES AFFECTIXfi REALTY. 199 
 
 luits 111) riut in tlio doiiij^' of it, nor occasions, 
 in the case of a })rivate nuisance, any damage 
 beyond wliat the removal of tlie inconveni- 
 ence necessarily requires (>S7(y)/z. Comm., bk. v. 
 c. i.); but a num cannot enter a nei<;hbour'.s 
 land to prevent an apprehended nuisance 
 {A^L 18S). 
 
 (1) Thus, if my neighbour build a wall and ob- 
 struct my ancient liglits, I may, after notic'c and 
 request to him to remove it, enter and pull it down 
 {R. V. Hossicel/f 2 S(dk. 459) ; but this notice should 
 always be given {D((n'cs v. Wil/iani^s^ IG Q. B. 056). 
 
 (2) But where tlie plaintiff had erected scalfolding 
 in order to build, which building when erected would 
 have been a nuisance, and tlie defendant entered and 
 tlu'cw down the scafPohling, such entry was held 
 wholly unjustifiable {NorriH v. Baker, 1 Bo//. Bop. 
 393, yb/. 15). 
 
 (3) Obstructions to watercourses may be abated 
 by the party iujiu'ed, whether by diminution or 
 ilooding [Bo/ieHn v. AVr, L. B., 1 Ej: 82). 
 
 (4) A commoner may abate an encroachment on 
 his common, such as a house [Biti-it'.s v. Wi//ianis, 
 ■supra), or fence obstructing his right {JI(i'<oii v. 
 C(csar, 2 M(j(I. GO) ; but he cannot abate a wan'cn 
 however great a nuisance, but must appeal to a court 
 of justice {Cooper v. Mars/ia//, 1 Burr. 22G).
 
 200 PAETICULAR TORTS. 
 
 Remedy of Reversioners. Rule 60. — 
 Wlienever any wi'ongful act is necessarily 
 injurious to the reversion to land, or has 
 actually been injurious to the reversionary 
 interest, the reversioner may sue the wrong- 
 doer [Bcdingfield v. Onsloiv, 1 Saimd. 322). 
 
 (1) Thus opening a new door in a house may be 
 an injury to the reversion, even though the house is 
 none the worse for the alteration ; for the mere alte- 
 ration of property may be an injury {Young v. 
 Sjmicer, 10 B. 8f C. 145, 152). 
 
 (2) So if a trespass be accompanied with an 
 obvious denial of title, as by a public notice, that 
 would probably be actionable (see judgment, Bobson 
 V. B/acl-iiwre, 9 Q. B. 991). 
 
 (3) So the obstruction of an incorporeal right, as 
 of way, ah, hght, water, &c., may be an injury to the 
 reversion {Kichjell y. Moore, 9 C. B. 364; 3M. Ass. 
 V. Fetc/f, 27 L. J., C. P. 330 ; Greenslade v. Balliday, 
 6 B'uKj. 379). 
 
 Sub-ride 1. — The action icUl not lie for a tresjxiss 
 or nuisance of a mere transient and temporary character 
 {Baxter v. Taylor, 4 B. ^ Ad. 72). 
 
 Thus a nuisance arising from noise or smoke will 
 not support an action by the reversioner {Mumford 
 V. 0. W. ^ W. R. Co., 26 L. J., Ex. 265 ; Simpson 
 V. Savage, 26 L. J., C. P. 50). 
 
 Sub-rule 2. — Some injury to the reversion must 
 ahvays he proved, for the law irill not assume it from 
 any acts of the defendant {Kidgcll v. 3Ioore, sup.).
 
 ( ^^01 ) 
 
 CELVrTER X. 
 
 OF FKAUD AND DECEIT. 
 
 A A ERY important class of wilful ^vrongs are those 
 arising out of fraud and deceit. 
 
 IxULE Gl. — An action for deceit will lie 
 
 (1) When tlio defendant has by a fraudulent 
 misrepresentation, induced another to act, 
 and, so acting, he has been injured or damni- 
 fied (P((sk//Y. Freeman, 2 Sm. L. C. 71): and 
 
 (2) "Nvliere owing to such fraudulent re})re- 
 sentation made by him to another, some 
 third person has been induced to act, and, so 
 acting, he has been injm'cd or danniified; 
 provided that such false representation was 
 made with the direct intent that such tliird 
 person should act in the nunmer that occa- 
 sioned the injury or loss {LangriJijc y. Lcvy^ 
 2 J/. cV W. olO). 
 
 (1) So, whore one fraudulently misrepresents the 
 amount of his business, and the person to whom 
 such representation is made, acting on the faith 
 K 5
 
 202 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 thereof, purchases it and is damnified, an action of 
 deceit will lie against the vendor {Dohell v. Stevens, 
 SB.SfC. 623). 
 
 (2) Similarly, where a gunmaker sold a gun to B., 
 for the use of C, fraudidently warranting it to be 
 sound, and the gun biu'st while C was using it, and 
 he was thereby injured : Held, that C. might maintain 
 an action for false representation against the gun- 
 maker {Langrkhjc v. Leoj, siij).). 
 
 Meaning of the Expression "Fraudu-■^ 
 lent." It is now clearly settled that in order to make \ 
 a person liable for a fraudulent misrepresentation he I 
 must have been guilty of some moral wrong. In v- 
 other words, legal fraud, unaccompanied by moral 
 fraud, will fail to support an action of this description 
 {Comns V. Errois, 5 Q. B. 820; Taylor v. AsJdou, XL 
 M. 4' W. 401). But though it is necessary that the 
 defendant, in making the false statement, should 
 have committed some moral turpitude, it is by no 
 means essential to show that he knew, as a fact, what 
 he stated was false. " I conceive," remarks Maule, J., 
 in Evam v. Edmunds, 13 C. B. 786, "that if a man, 
 having no hioidedge whatever on the suJjject, takes upon 
 himself to represent a certain state of facts to exist, 
 he does so at his peril ; and if it be done either with 
 a view to secure some benefit to himself, or to deceive 
 a third person, ho is, in law, guilty of a fraud, for he 
 takes upon himself to warrant his own belief of the truth 
 of that which he so asserts." Or again, in Taylor v. 
 AnUon (11 J/. ^ IF. 401), Parke, B., remarks, "There 
 may, undoubtedly, be a fraudulent representation, if
 
 FKAl 1) AND DECEIT. 20'6 
 
 made dlslioiiestly, of tliat which the party does not 
 kuow to 1)0 untrue if /ic doia not knoir it to br fr>ir.''^ 
 
 >Sub-nile 1. — A drfcmhint Ikih artid frdudulcntlij 
 and k linhlv — 
 
 (1) 7/7//' liii.s )nadc the mi-nrprescntafion not linotiiny 
 it to bo tnw, or icithoid rcmonabtc (ind jirobdbic (/rounds 
 on nhich to sitj)j)o>i(' it to be trnCj and it /6- Jiot nrccsnar// 
 to shoic that Jic hnctc it to be nntrui' ; or 
 
 (2) Jt\ ichrn he inadr the ntis-statcnient, he made it 
 for the purpose of defraudiixj tlie phintiff\ or u'ith a eie/c 
 
 to xceure some tjonrft to himsilf 
 
 The fraudulent pui-pose is absolutely essential 
 {Thorn V. lii(jh(ud, <S E.r. 72'j). If it were other\vise, 
 as remarked in Bailii/ v. Watford, \) Q. Ji. U)?, 208, 
 "a man might sue his neighbour for any mode 
 oi communicating erroneous infonnation ; such, for 
 example, as having a conspicuous clock too slow, 
 since the plaintiff might thereby be prevented from 
 attending to some duty, or acquii'ing some benefit." 
 
 A Principars Liability for the Fraud of 
 his Agent. »Sub-i-ule 2, — Though^ as above stated, 
 It is nuic svtflcd, that the defendant, in aetions of deeeit, 
 must hare lieen yuilt;/ of moral fraud, it has also tteen 
 he/d, after inavh eonfiet of opinion, that the fraud of 
 the ayent /s", /// /////•, the fraud <f the principal. 
 
 (1) Thus, a plaintiff' having for some time, on u 
 guarantee of the defendants', supplied J. D., a cus- 
 tomer of theirs, with oats on credit for canying out 
 a government contract, refused to continue to do so 
 unless he had a better guarantee. The defendants'
 
 204 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 manager tliereupon gave him a written guarantee to 
 the effect that the customer's cheque on the bank in 
 plaintiff's favour, in pajanent for the oats supplied, 
 should be paid on receipt of the government money 
 in priority to any other payment " except to this 
 bank." J. D. was then indebted to the bank to the 
 amount of 12,000/., but this fact was not known to 
 the plaintiff, nor was it communicated to him by the 
 manager. The plaintiff thereupon supplied the oats 
 to the value of 1,227/. ; the government money, 
 amoimting to 2,676/., was received by J. D. and paid 
 into the bank; but J. D.'s cheque for the price of 
 oats drawn on the bank in favour of the plaintiff 
 was dishonoured by the defendants, who claimed to 
 detain the whole sum of 2,676/. in payment of J. D.'s 
 debt to them. The plaintiff having brought an action 
 for false representation : Held, first, that there was evi- 
 dence to go to the jury that the manager knew and 
 intended that the guarantee should be unavailing, and 
 fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff the fact 
 which would make it so ; secondly, that the de- 
 fendants would be liable for such fraud in their 
 agent {Bancick v. EufjUaJi Joint-Stock Bead-, L. B., 
 2 Ex. 259). 
 
 (2) An officer of a banking corporation, whose 
 duty it was to obtain the acceptance of bills of ex- 
 change in which the bank was interested, fraudu- 
 lently, but without the knowledge of the president or 
 directors of the bank, made a representation to A., 
 which, by omitting a material fact, misled A., and 
 induced him to accept a bill in which the bank was 
 interested, and A. was compelled to pay the bill:
 
 FRAVD AND DECKIT. 205 
 
 Ileld ; that A. could recover from the bank the amount 
 60 paid. In an action of deceit, whether against a 
 person or against a company, the fraud of the agent 
 may be treated, for the purposes of pleading, as that 
 of the principal {Muchi'/ v. Coiiuuen-'utl Bauh of Ncic 
 Bntmirii-h; L. li., P. C. '6\)A). 
 
 Fraudulent Character must be in Writing-. 
 
 Sub-ride -i. — No lutiun lux (Ujaiit.st a jn rnoit fur nidkiiKj 
 a false ropreseutation of the conducf, credit, abilitij or 
 dealings of another, nith intent to proeure credit, money, 
 or goods for such person, unless such false representation 
 is in uriting, signed by the defendant (9 Geo. 4, c. 14, 
 
 s. (;). 
 
 Under this act, a false representation as to the 
 credit of another person, in order to maintain an 
 action, must be signed by the person making it, and 
 not by an agent {Sicift v. Jeushury {P. O.) and God- 
 dard, L. 11, 8 Q. B. 244; 9 Q. B. {Ex. Ch.) 301). 
 For the same reason, one partner cannot bind his co- 
 partners, even though he has express authority to sign 
 {Mason V. Williams, 28 L. T., N. S. 232). 
 
 Fraudulent Concealment and Non-dis- 
 closure. IviLi: 02. — The mere fact of uit'er- 
 in*^ a defective chattel fur sale, where notliiii<;- 
 is said about quality and condition, and 
 nothing is done to conceal tlio defect, gives 
 no cause of action, though tlie seller knows 
 of the defect, and he knows that if tlie }jur- 
 chascr even suspected him of the knowledge,
 
 206- PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 he would not buy (see Brett, L. J., in Ward 
 V. IMhs, L. E., 3 Q, B. D. 162). 
 
 (1) Thus the defendant sent for sale to a public 
 market pigs which he knew to be infected with a 
 contagious disease. They were exposed for sale subject 
 to a condition that no warranty would be given and 
 no compensation would be made in respect of any 
 fault. No verbal representation was made by or on 
 behalf of the defendant as to the condition of the 
 pigs. The plaintiff having bought the pigs, put 
 them with other pigs which became infected. Some 
 of the pigs bought from the defendant, and also some 
 of those with which they were put, died of the con- 
 tagious disease : Held, that the defendant was not 
 liable for the loss sustained by the plaintiff, for that 
 his conduct in exposing the pigs for sale in the market 
 did not amount to a representation that they were 
 free from disease {Ward v. Jlobha, tiup.). 
 
 (2) So where a vessel was sold " with all faults," 
 but the seller knew of a latent defect, but made no 
 representation in fact, nor did anything to conceal or 
 to endeavom* to conceal the defect: Held, that his 
 knowledge of the latent defect gave no right to the 
 purchaser to complain of the purchase (3 Canij). 164). 
 
 See also Peek v. Guniei/ {L. H., 6 //. L. 403), 
 in which case Lord Cairns remarks : "I entii"ely 
 agree with what has been stated by my noble and 
 learned friends before me, that mere sQenee could 
 not, in my opinion, be a sufficient foundation for this 
 proceeding. Mere non-disclosure of material facts, 
 however morally censm-able, however that non-
 
 FRAIT) AND DECEIT. 207 
 
 disclosure miglit be a groiuul in a proper proceeding 
 at a proper time ioY setting aside an alLjtment or a 
 pm-cliase of shares, ^V()ul(I, in my ojiinion, fonn no 
 ground for an action in the nature of an action for 
 misrepresentation. There must, in my opinion, he 
 some active misrepresentation of fact, or, at all 
 events, such a partial and fragmentary statement of 
 fact, as that the withholding of that which is not 
 stated makes that which is stated absolutely false." 
 
 (3) "Even if the vendor was aware," observes 
 Lord Blackburn, "that the purchaser thought the 
 article possessed that equality, and would not have 
 entered into the contract imless he had so thought, 
 still the purchaser is bound, unless the vendor was 
 guilty of some fraud or deceit upon him, and a 
 mere abstinence from disabusing the piu'chaser of 
 that impression is not fraud or deceit ; for, whatever 
 may be the case iu a court of morals, there is no legal 
 obligation on the vendor to infonn the purchaser that 
 he is imder a mistake, not induced by the act of the 
 vendor" {S/iiif/> v. JLn//if.^, L. R, G C. P. 597). 
 
 E.tTcption. 13 ut when the vendor does something 
 actively to deceive the vendee, as where he endeavours 
 to conceal the defect by some artificial means, or 
 where he makes a false representation, then an action 
 will lie. 
 
 (1) The vendor of a house, kno^^'ing of a defect in 
 one of the walls plastered it up and papered it over, 
 in consequence whereof the vendee was deceived as 
 to its true condition, and was damnified: llehl, the 
 purchaser coidd maintain an action of deceit {Pirhcr- 
 iit(j V. Daicnoiiy 4 Taunt. 785).
 
 208 rARTICLLAR TORTS. 
 
 (2) Again, where a ship was to he taken " with all 
 faults," and the vendor knew of a latent defect in 
 her, and in order to escape its detection, concealed it 
 and made a fraudulent representation of her con- 
 dition: Held, that an action of deceit would lie 
 {Schneider v. Heath, 3 Camp. 506). 
 
 Expression "With all Faults." Sub-rule. 
 
 — This e.rjyression trill not protect the vendor trhere he 
 has been (juiltij of fraud either by making a fraudulent 
 rejjresentation, or bij doing something to 2)>'ci'ciit the 
 vendee from discovering a defect. 
 
 " A stipulation that the thing sold is to be taken 
 with all faults, and without allowance for any defect, 
 error, or misdescription, will protect the vendor from 
 all unintentional mistakes, misstatements, and mis- 
 description, but not from the consequence of any 
 wilful deception" {Add. on Torts, p. 852).
 
 ( 2U!J ) 
 
 ClIAPTEli XI. 
 Of Trespass to and Conversion ok Chattels. 
 
 General Rule. Rule G3. — Every direct for- 
 cible injiirv, or act disturbing the possession 
 of goods Avitliout the o^\^ler^s consent, how- 
 ever slight or temi)orary the act may be, is 
 a trespass, whether the injiu-y be committed 
 by the defendant liimself or by some animal 
 belonging to him; and if the trespass aniomit 
 to a deprivation of possession to such an 
 extent as to be inconsistent ^\'ith the rights 
 of the o^vner (as by taking, using or destroy- 
 ing them), it then becomes a ^^Tongful con- 
 version {Fouides V. Willoujhbij^ <S J/, c^• W. 
 540; BurroiKjhs v. Bajjne^ 29 L. J., Ex. 185). 
 
 (1) Thus beating or otherwise ill-using the plain- 
 tiff's dogs or other animals is a trespass {Band 
 V. Sexton ^ 3 T. It. 37). And so where the defend- 
 ant's horse injm-ed the plaintiff's mare, by biting 
 and kicking her tlirough the fence separating the 
 plaintiff's land from the defendant's, it was hold that 
 there was a trespass by the act of the defendant's 
 horse, for which the defendant was hable, apart from 
 any question of neghgence on tlio part of tlio do-
 
 210 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 fendant {EUis v. Loftus Iron Co., L. E., 10 C. P. 
 10). 
 
 (2) The innocence of the trespasser's intentions is 
 immaterial. Thus where the sister-in-law of A., 
 immediately after his death removed some of his 
 jewelry from a drawer in the room in which he had 
 died to a cupboard in another, in order to insiu'e its 
 safety, and the jewelry was subsequently stolen, it 
 was held that the sister-in-law had been guilty of a 
 trespass in the absence of proof that it was reasonably 
 necessary {Kirk v. Gregory, L. R., 1 Ex. D. 55). 
 
 (3) An illegal distress, or any other mode of seizing 
 and taking goods without due authority, is a trespass ; 
 as, for instance, the taking away a tombstone erected 
 by the plaintiff {Sjjooner v. Brewster, 3 Bing. 136). 
 
 (4) So if one lawfully having the goods of another 
 for a particular purpose destroy them, he is guilty 
 of trespass and conversion {Cooper v. Willomaf, 1 
 C. B. G92). 
 
 (5) So if a sheriff sells more goods than are suffi- 
 cient to satisfy an execution, he will be liable for a 
 conversion of those in excess {Aldred v. Constahlc, 
 6 Q. B. 381). 
 
 (6) So if A. starts a hare in the ground of B., 
 and hunts it and kills it there, it is a trespass ; for so 
 long as the hare is upon I3.'s land it is B.'s property 
 {Sutton V. Moodij, 1 Ld. Raijm. 250). So rabbits 
 bred in a warren are the property of the breeder so 
 long as they stay in his land, but not after they have 
 left it {Hddesdcn v. Grij^scJ, Cro. Jac. VJo). 
 
 (7) And so when the plaintiff granted a lease to 
 the defendant, excepting the trees and herons build-
 
 TRESPASS TO AND f ON VERSION OF ( IIATTELS. 211 
 
 iug tlit'ivln, and the defendant shot the herons, the 
 plaiutilt was held entitled to recover ; for, although 
 herons aro frnr ntifurif, and incapahle whilst free of 
 being absolutely o^vncd, yet, so long as they remained 
 in the trees of the plaintiff they were his property 
 (Bin/ioj) of Loiiihti'a ra.se^ 14 JLn. 8). 
 
 (8) The purchase of gooils, which the vendor had 
 no right to sell, accompanied by taking possession, 
 is a conversion by the pmxhaser as against the real 
 o^vne^, oven though the purchaser was imaware that 
 the vendor had no authority ; for want of intention 
 is no excuse {Ililbcr// v. Uatfoii, 33 L. J., Er. 190). 
 
 Except iom. (1) Plaintiff^ n Fault. — It is a good 
 justification that the trespass was the residt of the 
 plaintiff's own negligent or wrongfid act. 
 
 Thus, if ho place his horse and caii so as to ob- 
 struct my right of way, I may remove it, and use, 
 if necessary, force for that pui*pose {Slater v. Siraim, 
 2 St. 892). So, if his cattle or goods trespassing on 
 my land get injured, he has no remedy {T/inicr v. 
 Jlimt, Broicii/. 220) ; unless I use an uiu-easonable 
 amoiuit of force, as, for instance, by chasing tres- 
 passing sheep vnth. a mastilf dog {KiiKj v. iiVc, 1 
 Ft'i'cin. 347). 
 
 So, if a man wrougfvdly takes my gannent and 
 embroiders it with gold, I may retake it ; and if 
 J. T. have a heap of coni, and J. J), will inter- 
 mingle his corn with the com of J. T., the latter 
 shall have all the com, because this was done by 
 J. D. of his own A\Tong (Coke, C. J., in Ward v. 
 Ei/rc, 2 Buhtr. 323). And lilvcwise if one takes 
 away my carnage, and has it painted anew without
 
 212 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 my authority, I am entitled to have the caniage 
 without paying for the painting [Hiscox v. Green- 
 wood, 4 Eq-). 174). 
 
 (2) Defence of Froperty. — A trespass committed 
 in defence of property is justifiable. 
 
 Thus a dog chasing sheep or deer in a park, or 
 rabbits in a warren, may be shot by the owner of the 
 property in order to save them, but not otherwise 
 \Welh V. mad, 4 C. ^ P. 568). 
 
 But a man cannot justify shooting a dog on the 
 ground that it was chasing animals feroi natiuw 
 {Vere v. Lord Ca/rdor, 11 East, 569), unless it was 
 chasing game in a preserve, in which case it seems 
 that it may be shot in order to preserve the game, 
 but not after the game are out of danger [Rcade v. 
 Edu-ards, 34 L. J., C. P. 31, and Ad. 359). 
 
 (3) Self-defence. — ^A trespass committed in self- 
 defence is justifiable. 
 
 Thus to kill another's dog whilst in the act of 
 attacking the defendant is justifiable, but not other- 
 wise. 
 
 (4) III exercise of Rigid. — A trespass committed 
 in exercise of a man's own rights is justifiable {Ad. 
 308). 
 
 Thus, seizing goods of another under a lawful dis- 
 tress for rent or damage feasant is lawful. 
 
 (5) Leejal Authority. — Due process of law is a 
 good justification. 
 
 Thus to take goods under a ca. sa., or to destroy 
 or seize goods under the order of a court, is justifiable.
 
 TRESPASS TO AND CONVERSION OF t'HATTKI.S. 213 
 
 Possession. Kru: 04. — To inaiiitiiin an 
 action for trespass or conversion, tlic plaintiff 
 must hv tlic jxTson in actual or constructive 
 possession of tlie uoods (Smi/// v. Miller^ T. /.'. 
 480). 
 
 Thus a revcrsioucr cannot sue a tkii-J. pai'ty for 
 trcspciHS or conversion {Bradley v. Copley, 1 C. B. GS5) : 
 conversely, the person in possession of a chattel, 
 although not the owner, may maintain trespass in 
 respect of it, ex. gra., the master of a ship {Jloorc v. 
 Robinxon, 2 B. Sf Ad. 817). 
 
 Possession follows Title. ►Sub-inilo 1. — A 
 legal right to tJie possesnion of jjersonalty draus to if ilir 
 posscssioji {Balmc v. JIaffon, 9 Bing. 477). 
 
 (1) Thus-svliero the person in temporary possession 
 (as a carrier) delivers my goods to the wrong person, 
 then, as the immediate right to the possession of 
 them becomes again vested in me, so the law im- 
 mediately invests me with the possession, and I can 
 maintain an action for them against either the bailee 
 or the piu'chaser {Cooper v. in/loinaf, 1 C. B. 072 ; 
 Wild V. Fiehford, S M. Sf IF. 443). 
 
 (2) So where a bailee became banknipt, and his 
 assignees sold the goods, the bailor was held entitled 
 to sue them for a conversion {Fenn v. Biftle-ston, 7 
 Ex. 102). 
 
 (3) Sale of Projierty under Li( n. iVnd so when 
 by a sale of goods the property in them has passed 
 to the purchaser, subject to a mere lien for the price, 
 if the vendor resells and delivers them tc* anotlier he
 
 214 PARTICULAK. TORTS. 
 
 will be liable for conversion, but in such a case the 
 plaintiff will only be entitled to recover the value of 
 the goods, less the sum for which the defendant had 
 a lien upon them {Page v. Edulgec, L. E., 1 C. P. 
 127; Martindale v. Smith, 1 Q. B. 389). 
 
 (4) And on the same principle an administrator 
 may maintain an action for trespass to goods, which 
 trespass was committed previously to his grant of 
 letters of administration {Thorpe v. Smallicood, 6 
 M. ^- G. 760). 
 
 (5) So a trustee ha\ing the legal property may 
 sue in respect of goods, although the actual posses- 
 sion may be in his cestui que trust {Woodennan v. 
 Baldock, 8 Taunt. 676). 
 
 What Possession sufB.ces. Sub-rule 2. — 
 Ail// jwsscssioii is sufficient to sustain an action for tres- 
 pass or conversion against a irrongdoer. 
 
 (1) Thus in the leading case of Arniorg v. Dek'' 
 mirie (1 Sni. L. C. 315), it was held that the plaintiff, 
 the finder of a jewel, could maintain an action of 
 trover against a jeweller to whom he had shown it, 
 with the intention of selling it, and who had refused 
 to return it to him ; for his possession gave him a 
 good title against all the world except the tme owner. 
 
 (2) So also in Etliott v. Kempe (7 31. 8^' W. 312), 
 it was laid down that the fact of possession is prinui 
 facie evidence of the right to possession, and there- 
 fore sufficient to maintain trespass against a ■\\Tong- 
 doer who cannot show a better title, or authority 
 under a better title. 
 
 Therefore a defendant cannot set up a jus tertii
 
 TRESPASS TO AND ( OXVKRSIOX OF CHATTF.I.S. 215 
 
 against a person in actual possession. But where 
 the possession of tlio plaintiff is not actual, but only 
 constructive, the defendiuit may set up a Jiifi fcrtii; 
 for constructive possession depends upon a good title, 
 and if the title be bad there can be no construc- 
 tive possession (see Lra/ce v. Loirihn/, 4 J/. *.y Cr. 
 072). 
 
 Reversioner's Remedy. Sub-rule 3. — The 
 prrsvit ritfiflril io the rcccrsio)i of (joo(h may maintain 
 an action of tirftjxtss on the case for any permanent 
 injur// done to them {Tancred v. Alhjood, 28 L. J.j 
 Rv. 362; Lanras. Wagyon Co. v. Fifz/nrr///, 30 L. J., 
 Ex. 231). 
 
 Thus where the plaintiff, the owner of a barge, let 
 it to A., and whilst in A.'s possession and during 
 the continuance of the lease it was pennauontly in- 
 jured by a third party (the defendant) : it was held 
 that an action lay by the plaintiff, although he coidd 
 not have sued for conversion [Jlears v. L. ^- S. IF. 
 E. Co., 11 C. B., N. S. 854). 
 
 In the same case, AVilliams, J., says : " It is fully 
 established that in the case of a bailment not for 
 reward, either the bailor or bailee may brmg an 
 action for an injury to the thing bailed ; but in the 
 case of a hu-ing the OAvner cannot bring trover, 
 because ho has temporarily paried with the posses- 
 sion. It seems to me, however, clear that though 
 the o\\aier cannot bring an action where there has 
 been no penuanent injiuy to the chattel, it has never 
 been doubted that where there is a penuanent injury
 
 216 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 the owner may maintain an action against the per- 
 son whose wrongful act has caused that permanent 
 injury." 
 
 Joint Owners. Rule 65. — A joint owner 
 can only maintain trespass or conversion 
 against his co-owner when the latter has clone 
 some act inconsistent with the joint-ownershij) 
 of the plaintiff (2 Wms. Saiind. 47 o ; and see 
 Jacobs V. 8cnard^ L. R.^ 5 H. L. 464). 
 
 (1) Thus a complete destruction of the goods 
 would be sufficient to sustain an action, for the plain- 
 tiff's interest must necessarily he injured thereby. 
 
 (2) But a mere sale of them by one joint owner 
 would not be a conversion, for he could only sell his 
 share in them. Unless, indeed, he sold them in 
 market overt, so as to vest the whole property in the 
 purchaser, in which case it would be a conversion 
 {MayJmo v. Eerrid; 7 C. B. 229). 
 
 Trespass ab initio. Rule 66. — If one, 
 lawfully taking a chattel, but not absolutely, 
 abuses or wastes it, he renders himself a tres- 
 jiasser ab initio {Oxley v. Watts ^ 1 T. R. 12). 
 
 Thus if one find a chattel it is no trespass to keep 
 it as against all the world except the right owner,
 
 TRESPASS TO AM) CONVERSIOX OF CnATTELS. 217 
 
 but if one spoil or damage it, and tin- right owner 
 eventually claim it, then the subsequent damage 
 will revert baek, and render the original taking un- 
 lawful {Ibid.). But, as against the true o^^'ncr, a 
 man commits no conversion by keeping the goods 
 until he has made due inquiries as to the right of the 
 owier to them {VaHyhan v. Watt, G M. v.V W. 402; 
 and see PiUott v. WUMnsou, 34 L. J"., Ex. 22). 
 
 Remedies. There were formerly four fonus of 
 rcnied}- for the preceding trespasses by action, and 
 one peculiar one by act of the person injured called — 
 
 Recaption. Rule G7. — Wlioii any one 
 has dej)rived another of his floods or chattels, 
 the owner of the <:;'0()ds may laAvfully reelaini 
 and take tlicni wherever he happens to find 
 them, so it be not in a riotous manner or 
 attended Avitli Ijreach of the peace {Bl. Comm.). 
 
 Thus if, for instance, my horse is taken away, and 
 I find it in an inn or on a common, or at a fail-, I 
 may retake it, but (unless it was feloniously stolen) 
 I cannot break open a private stable for the purpose 
 {Tliid.; and Iliyfjins v. Aii(tir>rs, 2 Holt. li. ;j-j). 
 
 Remedies by Action. By the effect of the 
 Judicature Acts the tUstinction in fonu between 
 actions has been finally abolished, so that the former 
 
 u. L
 
 218 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 actions of trespass, which lay for an interference "^ith 
 goods, trover, which lay for a wrongful conversion of 
 goods, and detinue, which lay for a wrongful de- 
 tainer of goods, no longer exist, although that of 
 replevin is, at all events in its inception, still different 
 from all other actions. It "nill, therefore, he con- 
 venient to consider the ordinary form of action first, 
 and the action of reple\TQ by itself afterwards. 
 
 Ordinary Remedy by Action. Kule 6S. 
 — Wherever there has l)een a trespass or 
 wrongful conversion or a wrongful deten- 
 tion of a chattel, an action lies at the suit of 
 the 2:)erson injured ; and where the defendant 
 still retains the chattel the court or a judge 
 has power to order that execution shall issue 
 for retimi of the specific chattel detained, 
 Tvithout giving the defendant the option of 
 paying the assessed value instead ; and if the 
 chattel cannot be found, then, unless the covirt 
 or judge shall otherwise order, the sheriff 
 shall distrain the defendant by all his goods 
 and chattels in his bailiwick till the defendant 
 renders such chattel (Com. Law Proc. Act, 
 1854, s. 78). 
 
 Replevin. This remedy is, practically speaking, 
 apphcable only in cases of goods unlawfully dis- 
 trained.
 
 TRESPASS TO AND (OXVEHSIOX OF CHATTELS. 210 
 
 Rule G9. — The (mnier of ji^oods distrained 
 is entitled to luive tlieni returned npon givinii: 
 such security as tlie law re(|uires to prosecute 
 his suit, Avitliout delay, a^'ainst the distrainer, 
 and to retui'n the good if a return should ]k> 
 awarded (see 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, ss. G3— 
 GO). 
 
 The appKcation for the roplevpng or retiuTi of 
 the goods is made to the registrar of the eoimty 
 court of the district where the distress was made, 
 who thereupon causes theu' return on the plaintiff's 
 giAing siiffieient security. The action must be com- 
 menced within one month in the county coiu't, or 
 Anthin one week in one of the superior comis ; hut if 
 the plaintiff intends to take the latter coiu^e it is 
 also made a condition of the replevin bond that the 
 rent or damage in respect of which the distress was 
 made exceeds 20/., or else that he has good grounds 
 for heheving that the title to some corjioreal (ir in- 
 corporeal hereditaments, or to some toll, market, fair, 
 or franchise, is in dispute (19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 95). 
 
 Waiver of Tort, lii'i.i: To. — Wlien a con- 
 version consists of a wrongful sale of goods 
 the owner of them nuiy waive the tort, and 
 sue by a count for money had and received 
 for the price which the defendant obtained 
 I, 2
 
 220 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 for them {Lamhie v. Dorrell, 2 L. Raym. 1216; 
 Oughton v. Seppings, 1 B. ^^ Ad. 2-4:1). 
 
 (1) Thus where the sheriff took in execution the 
 goods of a bankrupt which had vested in the as- 
 signees by reason of a previous act of bankruptcy, 
 and sold them after notice of the act of banki'uptcy, 
 the assignees were held entitled to recover the price 
 obtained for the goods by the sheriff as money paid 
 to theii' use {Notle// v. BkcJc, S B. Sf C. 160). 
 
 (2) And so where some stock of the plaintiff's was 
 sold by a member of the defendant's firm under a 
 forged power of attorney, and the firm received the 
 money for wliich it had been sold, it was held that 
 the plaintiff could recover the money as paid to his 
 use l3Iarsh v. Keating, 1 Bing., N. C. 198). 
 
 Hub-rule. — But hy icamng the tort the plaintiff 
 entopn himself from recovering any damages for the 
 ni'ong. 
 
 Thus he cannot claim the money received under a 
 wrongful sale, and also claim damages in respect of 
 the tort itself {Brewer v. Sparrow, 7 B. Sf C. 310). 
 
 Stolen Goods. Rule 71. — If any person 
 wlio may have stolen property is jDrosecuted 
 to conviction by or on behalf of the owner, 
 the property shall be restored to the owner, 
 and the court Ijcforc whom such person shall
 
 IKKSPASS lO AM) ( <iNM:11S1<).N OF (IIAITELS. 221 
 
 bo tried shall luivc i)()\vci' to order restitution 
 thereof (24 & 20 Vict. c. 9G, s. 100). 
 
 Tliereforc, even if the goods were sold by tlie thief 
 in market overt (wliieh at eoninion law gives an in- 
 defeasible title to the purchaser), yet by this section 
 they must be given np to tlie original OAmer ; and 
 wliero no order is made \nider the art, yet the act 
 revests the goods and gives the OAvner a right of 
 action for them {Scatfcryood v. Si/irsfr^r, 1!) L. J., 
 Q. B. 447). 
 
 Limitation. All actions for trespass to or con- 
 version or detainer of goods and chattels, mnst be 
 commenced within six years next after the cause of 
 action arose.
 
 222 PARTICrLAR TORTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Of Infringements or Trade Marks and Patent 
 AND Copyright. 
 
 Class of Rights. Besides injuries to person, re- 
 laitation, liberty, or property, there are also injiuies 
 whicli cannot, perhaps, strictly speaking, be ranged 
 under any of these heads. 
 
 There are very many rights belonging to indi- 
 viduals of which it is impossible to treat in any 
 single work, much less in a work of this kind; and 
 therefore of these it is sufficient to say, that where 
 they are infringed the law will always supply a 
 remedy, in accordance with the maxim uhi jus ihi 
 remedium eat. 
 
 But there are three instances of rights so im- 
 portant that they demand some special elementary 
 notice to be taken of them, even in a small work. 
 Such are the rights incident to a trade mark, patent 
 right, and copp-ight. 
 
 Section 1. 
 
 Iiiiitdtion. of Trade Jlarl-.s. 
 
 Definition. E-ule 72. — A trade mark is 
 the symbol by Avliich a man causes his goods
 
 INVlUNGKMr.Nl' OF li: ADK M AKIvS, I'AIKNT, KTC. 223 
 
 or wares to hr idciitilicd and known in tlic 
 market, and must nt)\v consist of one or 
 more of the following' essential particulars, 
 namely: — 
 
 \ name of an individual or lirm printed, 
 impress(Ml or w<»ven in sonu> particular and 
 distinctive manner; or 
 
 A written sin-nature or copy of ii written 
 si<;-nature of an individual or tirm, or a dis- 
 tinctive device, mark, hcadin<^', label or 
 ticket; or 
 
 A combinati(jn of any one or more of the 
 ah(n'C Avith any letters, words or figm'cs, or 
 (ujnd)ination of letters, Avords or fi<^urcs; or 
 
 Any special and distinctive word or words, 
 or combination of fi<^ures or letters used as a 
 trade mark previously to the l'3tli August, 
 l.s;.-) (;],S Si .'{!) Vict. c. {)1, s. 10). 
 
 Nature of the Title to Relief. AVIiother the 
 relit'f in the ease of iut'riiig-ciueiils of trade mark is 
 foimded upon a right of property in the mark, or on 
 fraudulent misreprosentatic^n, is hy no means so clear 
 as could he desired. It would seem tliat the tendency 
 of the older eases was to hold that the jurisdiction 
 was foimded on fraud; hut in the ease of the AinerUdit 
 Clotli Co. v. Anicrhm Lcdtlirr Cloth Co. (^J-i L. J., 
 Ch. 199), Lord Westhury said, "The true principle 
 seems to be that the jurisdiction of the coiui in the 
 protection given to trade marks is foimded upon
 
 224 PARTICTLAR TORTS. 
 
 property," not of course property in tlie symbol itself, 
 but in the sole application of the symbol to the parti- 
 cular class of goods of wbich it constituted the trade 
 mark; and this \dew was followed in MiUington v. 
 Fox (3 M. (^ C. 338), and in Harrison v. Tai/Ior (11 
 Jur.^ N. S. 408). On the other hand, in The Singer 
 Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson {L. JR., 2 Ch. D. 
 434), the Master of the Rolls scouted the idea of 
 there being any property in a trade mark, and 
 founded the jurisdiction whoUy upon deception. 
 This view was supported by the court of appeal 
 (X. R., 2 Ch. D. 451), but upon the case being 
 brought before the House of Lords at the end of 
 1877, Lord Cairns said, "That there have been 
 many cases in which a trade mark has been used, 
 not merely improperly but fraudulently', and that 
 this fraudulent use has often been adverted to and 
 made the ground of the decision, I do not doubt; 
 but I wish to state in the most distinct manner that, 
 in my opinion, fraud is not necessary to be averred 
 or proved m order to obtain protection for a trade 
 mark. . . . The action of the coiut must depend 
 upon the right of the plaintiii and the injury done 
 to that right. What the motive of the defendant 
 may be, the court has very imperfect means of know- 
 ing. If he was ignorant of the plaintiff's rights in 
 the first instance, he is, as soon as he becomes ac- 
 quaiated with them, and perseveres in infringing 
 upon them, as culpable as if he had originally known 
 them." Lord Blackbm-n, however, was more guarded 
 in his language, and said, "I prefer to say no more, 
 than that I am not as yet prepared to assent, either
 
 lNFKIX(iEMi:NT Ol' J llADi; MAKKS, I'ATENT, ETC. 2'25 
 
 to the jiositioii that there is a right of property in a 
 name, or, what seems to me nearly the same tiling, to 
 assent, to its full extent, to the proposition, that it is 
 not necessary to prove fraud." It is, therefore, 
 somewhat difficult to see upon what ground the 
 court gives relief, but it is humbly suggested, that, 
 as distingmslK'd from an actual property in a trade 
 mark, there is a negative property or right of pre- 
 venting any other person from using it in such a 
 manner as to cause a probability of such latter per- 
 son's goods being mistaken for those of the person 
 who has used the trade mark, but that such Avi'ongful 
 user, without fraud, is no ground for obtaining 
 damages. AVhether, however, this is the true reason 
 or not, it seems to be well established that, — 
 
 Rule 7;J. — Where a i)ers()ii lias a definite 
 mark, he is entitled to an injunction to re- 
 strain fyiy other person from using any mark 
 of such a degree of similarity, as eitlier 
 actually to have deceived, or such as ob- 
 viously might deceive, the public, although 
 there might be no intention to deceive (see 
 per Lord Cairns in Singer Machuic Manufac- 
 fiirers v. Wiiwn, sup., and per Vice-Cliancellor 
 Wood in Wclrh v. Knoif, 4 K. ,y J. 747). 
 But he will not be liable to an action for 
 damages, or (query) to render an account of 
 his profits, unless lie has acted fraudulently 
 L 5
 
 226 PAETICULAK TORTS. 
 
 (see per Lord Blackburn in Singer Manufac- 
 turers V. Wilson, siq).). 
 
 1. Thus, in Harrison v. Taylor {sup.), tlie plaintiff 
 had adopted as his trade mark the figure of an ox, 
 on the flank of which was printed the word " Durham," 
 the names of the plaintiff being printed above the 
 word "Durham," and the word "mustard" below. 
 The defendants, who were also mustard manufac- 
 turers, used a smiilar ox, but without the words 
 "Durham" and "mustard," but having his name 
 Taylor printed below. The court, however, held, 
 that the mark was so similar as to be likely to deceive 
 intending purchasers ; and, although the defendant 
 did not know that he had infringed the plaintiff's 
 mark, granted an injunction to restrain him from 
 further using it. 
 
 (2) So, in Cocks v. Chandler (i. R., 11 Eq. 446), 
 where the inventor of a sauce sold it in wrappers, 
 whereon it was called "The Original Heading Sauce," 
 and the defendant brought out a sauce which he 
 labelled " Chandler's Original Reading Sauce," he 
 was restrained from doing so for the future. 
 
 (3) So where A. introduces into the market an 
 article whicli, though previously known to exist, is 
 new as an article of commerce ; and has acquired a 
 reputation in tlie market by a name, not merely de- 
 scriptive of tlie article ; B. will not be pennitted to 
 sell a similar ariicle under the same name {BraJtam 
 V. Bustard, 1 //. i^ 31. 449). 
 
 (4) And so also in McAndrcu- v. Basseft (33 L. J., 
 Ch. oGl), the plaintiffs had manufactm'ed liquorice
 
 IM'RINfiEMENT OF TRADE MARKS, IVVTENT, ETf. 227 
 
 which they stampc<l witli the word "Anatolia;" and 
 it was held, that, thougli this was but the name of 
 a place, yet a propei-ty in it coidd he acquired when 
 it had been notoriously applied to a vendible com- 
 modity. 
 
 (0) And so where tlio omnibuses of an omnibus 
 proprietor were marked with particular figm-es and 
 devices, an injunction was granted to restrain an 
 opposition omnibus proprietor from adopting similar 
 figures and devices (Knoff \.JIon/aii, 2 Keen, 210). 
 
 Assignment of. >Sub-rule. — Alf/ioHf/// a trader 
 »un/ hare a propcrf;/ in a trade mar/,-, sapicietit to <jice 
 liitn a rlijht to v.rcltidf all ofliira from asiiKj it ; if //is 
 (jood-s drrirr their iiierea.srd ra/ae from the persoaal ahill 
 or aliilitij of the adopter of the trade niarhy he n-ill not 
 he allowed to as.sifjn it ; for that iroald f/r a f rand ujion 
 the patilie [Leather Cloth Co. v. Ainerieaii Leather Cloth 
 Co., 1 If. ^- M. 271). Bat if the increased ralae of 
 the f/oods /.s- not dependent apon such personal narits-, 
 the tradr )nark is assifjnahle {Bar// v. Bedford, 3'i L. J., 
 Ch. 4G5). 
 
 E.rception. t^ellimj Articles aader Vcndor^s oira 
 Name. — AVliere a person sells an article with liis own 
 name attached, and another person of the same name 
 sells a Hke article witli his name attached, an injunc- 
 tion will not be granted to prevent such last-named 
 person from doing so, unless it be proved that he 
 does it with the fraudulent intention of palming his 
 goods upon the public, as being those of the plaintiff 
 {Barf/ess v. Baryess, 22 L. J., Ch. 075 ; Sz/hes v. <S'y/./ ••>■, 
 iiB.\^- C. 041).
 
 228 PARTICULAR. TORTS. 
 
 Registration. Rule 74. — No person can 
 Institute any suit to prevent the infringement 
 of any trade mark, imtil and unless such 
 mark is registered in the register of trade 
 marks (with regard to textile fabrics, this rule 
 does not come into operation untilJanuary 1st, 
 1879). Registration is prima facie evidence 
 <jf tlie right to the trade mark, and after five 
 years is conclusive evidence (38 & 39 Vict, 
 c. 91, ss. 1, 3). 
 
 Section 2. 
 Infringement of Patent Eight. 
 
 Patent Right. A patent right is a privilege 
 granted by the Cro-WTi (by letters patent) to the first 
 inventor of any new manufacture or invention, that 
 he and his licensees shall have the sole right, during 
 the term of fourteen years, to make and vend such 
 manufacture or invention. 
 
 The right is created and defined by various statutes, 
 the first of which was 21 Jac. 1, c. 3, usually called 
 the Statute of Monopolies. The rule laid down by 
 that Act was as follows : — 
 
 Rule 7-"). — All letters patent for the term 
 of fourteen years or under, by which the 
 privilege of sole working or making any new 
 manufactures within this realm, which others 
 at the time of granting the letters patent shall
 
 INFRINOEMF.NT OF TRADE MAKKS, I'ATKNT, KTC 220 
 
 not use, sliall be <;Taiited to tlio true and 
 first inventor tlicroof; so as tliey be not 
 contrary to law nor mischievous to the state, 
 nor to the hui't of trade nor generally incon- 
 venient. 
 
 It -svill be seen that tlio rule limits the grant of 
 letters patent to the concurrence of four conditions : 
 xiz. (1) that the article must be a manufacture, (2) 
 that it must bo new, (3) that the patentee must be 
 the true and first inventor, and (4) that it be of 
 general public utility. 
 
 What is a Manufacture. A manufacture, 
 according to the derivation of the word, means some 
 article made by liand ; but this is hardly the sense 
 in wliich it is used in the ride. 
 
 Sub-rule 1. — "77/^ nord inaniifdctHn' /las hecn 
 (joncrnUij nndemiood to denote cif/irr a thing made 
 tr/u'ch is useful for its oirn sake, and vendibk as such, as 
 a medicine, a store ^ a telescope, and many others; or to 
 mean an engine or instrume)it,or some jyart of an engine 
 or instrument, to be onploi/ed either in the mahing of 
 some precioushj known article, or some other useful 
 purpose; or it ma// perhaps extend also to a neic process 
 to be carried on bij known implements, or elements, 
 acting upon known substances, and ultimatehj producing 
 some other known substance, but in a cheaper or )nore 
 expeditious manner, or of a better and more useful kind " 
 (Abbott, C. J., li. v. irheeler, 2 B. S^- Al. 349). 
 
 The latter part of this sub-rule has since been
 
 230 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 taken out of tlie regions of conjecture, and expressly 
 confirmed {Crane v. Price, 4 M. 8f G. 580). 
 
 Thus a patent for tlie omission merely of one 
 or more of several parts of a process, whereby the 
 process may be more cheaply and expeditiously per- 
 formed, is valid {RusseU v. Cou-Ieijy 1 Wchst. R. 
 464). 
 
 II. Newness of Manufacture. As we have 
 seen, the invention must be new, or otherwise the 
 letters patent will afford it no protection. On this 
 point the following principle, generally knowTi as 
 the rule in Hill v. Evans, is applicable. 
 
 Sub-rule 2. — The prior hnoiclcdcje of an invention to 
 avoid a patent must he such laiou-ledge as kHI enable the 
 British 2iuhlic to perceive the veru discovery and to carry 
 the invention into practical use {Hill v. Evans, 4 D., F. 
 ct J. 2S8.) 
 
 (1) Thus, a new combination of purely old ele- 
 ments is a novel invention, because the public could 
 not have perceived the combination from the sepa- 
 rate parts {Hindm. 124). 
 
 (2) On the other hand, the mere appKcation of a 
 known instrument to piu'poses so analogous to those 
 to which it has been previously applied as to at once 
 suggest the application, is no ground for a patent 
 (Haru-ood v. G. N. E. Co., 2 B. 8f S. 194, and 11 //. 
 L. C. 654). So where there was a known invention 
 for dressing cotton and linen yams by machinery, 
 and a subsequent patent was procured for finishing 
 yams of wool and hair, the process being the same 
 as in the first invention for cotton and linen, the
 
 INKKINfiKMKNT OF TKADi: MAUlvS, ]' A IKNT, KTC. 231 
 
 patent Avas lu'ld void {Brook v. Anfoii, '42 L. J. oil, 
 and Patent lh,t(lc Co. v. Sri/nu-r, "j C. 11, iV. S. WA ; 
 Lut compare D'oujcr field v. Jones, Li L. T., N. S. l-i'2, 
 and YoiiiKj V. Fernie, 4 Giff'. 577). 
 
 (3) Again, wliere crinolines were made of whale- 
 bone suspended l)y tapes, and an inventor claimed a 
 patent for crinolines of exactly similar construction, 
 ^vitll the single substitution of steel watch-springs for 
 whalebone, it was held tliat there was not sufticient 
 novelty. 
 
 (4) If the article bo new in tliis realm, but not 
 new elsewhere, it is yet the subject for a valid 
 patent ; for the object of letters patent is to give a 
 species of premium for improving the manufactures, 
 not so much of tlie world, as of tlie T'nited Kingdom 
 {Beard v. Ffjerton, 3 C. B. 97). 
 
 Inference of Novelty. Sub-nde 3. — //' there, 
 is (jreat ati/iti/ prored, norelti/ (cill fje inferred, anlois the 
 facts render such inference impossible {Crane v. Price, 
 1 Webst. Pat. Ca. 3!)3 ; Yonn;/ v. Fernie, 4 Giff. 
 577). 
 
 III. Meaning of true and first Inventor. 
 
 8ub-nde 4. — Jf the invention has tjerit eontiitnnieated to 
 tJie patentee b;/ a person in this coantnj, he cannot claim 
 to be the true and Jirst inrentor; but if he has acquirrd 
 the hnou-led(je of the invention abroad, and introduces it 
 here, the law luohs upon him as the true and first in- 
 ventor {Lewis v. Marline/, lo Ji. ^V C. 22; Fdfjrbur;/ v. 
 Stephens, 2 Sulk. 447). 
 
 The reason of this sub-rule is, that it is immaterial,
 
 232 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 as far as regards the good of the kingdom, whether a 
 man has acquired knowledge of the manufacture by 
 study, observation, or travel (2 Step/i. Connii. 27). 
 
 If the invention has been discovered before, but 
 kept secret by the inventor, it does not render the 
 patent of a subsequent inventor of it invalid ; for it is 
 new so far as the public are concerned {Carpenter V; 
 Smith, 1 Wehst. R. 534, per Lord Abinger). 
 
 lY. General Public Utility. Sub-rule 5. — 
 
 The coniijuout// <d larye iinisf reeeive some hcnefit from 
 the inrention (Ad. 53). 
 
 The reason of this condition is obvious, for an use- 
 less invention not only does not merit the premium 
 of a monopoly, but what is worse, prevents other in- 
 ventors from improving upon it. 
 
 Thus if one produces old articles in a new manner, 
 such new way must, in some way, be superior to the 
 old method, in order to support a patent ; for other- 
 wise the old method is as good as the new. But if 
 the article is produced at a cheaper rate by the new 
 machine, or in a superior style, it is a good ground 
 for a patent. 
 
 Specification. As the object of letters patent is 
 to give the benefit of an invention to the public at 
 large, instead of allowing it to remain a secret in the 
 hands of the inventor ; it follows that the natiu"e of 
 the invention must be declared by the inventor. 
 
 Rule 7G. — Tlie letters patent are always
 
 INFRINGEMENT OK Til VDK MARKS, I'ATKNT, ETC. 233 
 
 granted ujxni tlie coiulition, that they sliall 
 bo void unless a suiHcIent description of the 
 nature of tlie invention and tlie mode of 
 carryin*:; it into effect (so as to enable ordi- 
 narily skilful perstuis to })ractise and use it 
 at the end of the term of fourteen years) 
 shall l)e filed in the CWrt of Chancery, 
 "within a s])(M-ified time (!•") & 10 Vict. c. 8''3, 
 s. -7). 
 
 Thus if the specification (as the description is 
 called) be ambiguous, insufficient or misleading, it 
 will render the patent void {Siinp-son v. JLj/lidfi//, 
 L. J!., 1 JL L. -'UO; Snrori/ v. P/vVr, i?y. ^- JIo. 
 1); imless the ambiguity, variation, or imperfection 
 be slight and innnaterial, when it will not avoid tlie 
 patent {Gibbs v. t'o/r, -i P. Wins. 250). 
 
 Remedy for Infringement. UiLi: 77. — 
 The court ma}' award damafjfes, and also 
 grant an injunction, and order an account for 
 the infringement of a })atent (1-") tt 10 Vict, 
 c. 83, ss. 41 and 42; Pom v. Jack, L. h'., 
 ') Eq. 81). 
 
 Of coiu'se the defendant in any sucli action or 
 suit may plead the invalidity of the patent, on the 
 groimds of want of novelty or utility, iliat tlio patentee 
 is not the fii'st and true invcnt(jr, tliat the article is
 
 234 PARTICrLAR TORTS. 
 
 not the siiLject for a patent, &c. : or lie may plead 
 that his manufactui'e is different from that of the 
 plaintiff ; hut in such a case he must show that the 
 general idea and fashion of his invention is different 
 to that of the plaintiff ; for it may be, that the 
 machinery for making the manufacture is not of the 
 essence of, hut only incidental to, the manufacture 
 {Boulton V. Watt, 2 E. BL, per Eyre, C. J. ; Jupe v. 
 Pratt, 1 Webst. R. 14G). 
 
 Such is a slight sketch of the law relating to 
 patents, which is, however, of so vast a character, 
 that it almost forms of itself a separate branch of 
 jurisprudence. Let us now pass on to the law of 
 copjTight. 
 
 Section 3. 
 Of Infringement of CopyrigJit. 
 
 Definition. Copyright is the exclusive right 
 which an author possesses of multiplying copies of 
 his own work. 
 
 It seems to be doubtful whether copyright existed 
 at common law, but, however that may be, it is now 
 positively defined and settled by statute. 
 
 The first act on the subject was 8 Ann. c. 19, 
 (afterwards amended by 10 Greo. 3, c. 53, and 41 
 Geo. 3, c. 107), by which the exclusive right of 
 printing and reprinting was given to the author and 
 his assigns for the term of foiuieen years and no 
 longer ; provided that if the author should be living 
 .at the expiration of that period, the period should be 
 extended to him for another term of fourteen years.
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF TKADE MARKS, PATEN T, ETC. 235 
 
 Common La"w Right. It was long douUed 
 whether, supposing the author to have a common law 
 copyright, these statutes abridged it ; but at length 
 this was set at rest by the celebrated ease of Dondld- 
 >iOii V. Bn'hdt (4 Bun: 2408), by which it was de- 
 eidod, that if any such right did exist at common 
 law, it was nevertheless taken away by the statutes. 
 And at the same time the majority of the judges 
 expressed an opinion, that at common law the right 
 of publishing and republishing his works belonged to 
 the author and his assigns for ever. 
 
 The next act was 'j4 Geo. -i, c. 150, which ex- 
 tended the period to twenty-eight years ; and if the 
 author should be still living at the expiration of that 
 period, to the residue of his natm'al life. 
 
 Law at present Time. All these acts, how- 
 ever, are now repealed by 5 it Vict. c. 45. 
 
 Rule 7S. — (1) 'i'lic copyrijzlit in a book 
 published in the iiutlior'.s lifetime sliall he- 
 loiio- to the author and his assi^i^ns duriii<;- the 
 life of the author, and seven years after his 
 death ; provided that, if sueh i)eriod of seven 
 years shall ex})ire before tlie end of forty-two 
 years from the first })ub]ication of such book, 
 the copyri^'ht sjiall in that case endure for 
 such })eriod of forty-two years (5 & G Vict, 
 c. 45, s. :i). 
 
 (2) And also the coj^yright in a work i)ub- 
 lished subsequently to the autlior's death,
 
 236 PABTICTLAR TOETS. 
 
 shall belong to the proprietor of the manu- 
 script for the term of forty-two years from 
 the first publication (Ibid.). 
 
 (3) The proprietor of copyright commenc- 
 ing after the passing of that act (10th June, 
 1833) shall not sue or proceed for any in- 
 fringement of his copyright before making 
 an entry of it at Stationers' Hall (sect. 11). 
 
 Exception, humoral IForlcs. — There is no copy- 
 right in hbellous, fraudulent or immoral works {Stock- 
 dale V. Oiuc/njn, 5 B. i!^* C. 173; Southey v. S/icnrood, 
 2 Mer. 435). " 
 
 So where a work professes to be the work of a 
 person other than the real author, with the object 
 thereby to induce the public to pay a higher price 
 for it, no copyright can be claimed in it {IFr/'g/d v. 
 Tain.^, 1 a B. 893). 
 
 Meaning of Book. Sub-rale. — The icord hook 
 incIudcH evertj volume, part and division of a volume, 
 pamphlet, sheet of letter-press, sheet of music, chart, map 
 or p)lan separedelij published (sect. 2). 
 
 (1) Thus there may be copyright in the wood en- 
 gravings of a work, for they are part of the volume 
 [Bofjue V. Ilouhton, 5 Be G. c^ Sm. 267). 
 
 (2) So also copyright may subsist in part of a 
 work, although the rest may not be entitled to it 
 {Low V. Wood, L. It., G Eep 415). 
 
 (3) But it seems that copyright is not claimable in
 
 IXFKINOKMKNT OF TU VDK MAKKS, PATFA'T, ETC. '237 
 
 a single word, as the title of a magazine ; *' Belgravia " 
 for instance {MnxHrll v. Hofjn, L. IL, 2 Cl>. 207). 
 
 What is Piracy of Copyright. lii'Li: 71 >. 
 — Tlic act tliut sccuFL's c-opyri^ht to autlior.s, 
 guards against the piracy of the words and 
 sentiments, but it does not ])roliibit "WTiting 
 on the same subject (per Mansfield, C. J., 
 Satjre v. Jfoore, 1 Fas-f^ 'i;jO). 
 
 (1) Thus, in the above case, Lord Mansfield fiu'- 
 ther dii-ected the jury, that the question for thcni 
 was, *' whetlier the alteration be colorable or not ; 
 there must be such a similitude as to make it pro- 
 bable and reasonable to suppose that one is a tran- 
 script, and nothing more than a transcript. In the 
 case of prints, no doubt different men may take 
 engravings from the same pictiu'e. The same prin- 
 ciple holds with regard to charts. Whoever has it 
 in liis inti'utioii to publish a chart, may take advan- 
 tage of all prior pul)lioations. There is no monopoly 
 here, any more than in other instances; but upon 
 anv question of this kind, the juiy will decide 
 whether it be fl servile imitation or not. If an eiTO- 
 neous chart be made, God forbid it should not be 
 corrected, even in a small degree, so that it thereby 
 becomes more serviceable and useful." 
 
 (2) And even where a great part of the plauitiff's 
 work has been taken into the defendant's, it is no 
 infringement, so that the defendant has so carefully
 
 238 PARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 revised and connected it, as to produce an original 
 result {Spiers v. Broinie, 6 W. H. 352) ; or, if it was 
 fairly done with the view of compiling a useful book 
 for the benefit of the public, upon which there has 
 been a totally new arrangement of such matter (per 
 Ellenborough, C. J., Car// v. lurirsle//, 4 I!^]). 170). 
 
 Honest Intention no Excuse. Sub-rule. — 
 
 If, in effect, the great hulk of the plai)itiff^s jutblication 
 — a iarge and vital part of his lahoar — has been 
 appropriated, and puhlished in a form that mil mate- 
 rially injure his eopyrieght ; mere honest intention on 
 the part of the appropiriator uill not xuffiee (per Wood, 
 Y.-C, Scott v. Stanford, L. JR., 3 JEq. 723). 
 
 What is Piracy of Music. Thus, ynth. re- 
 spect to music, if the whole air be taken it is a 
 piracy, although set to a different accompaniment, or 
 even -with variations ; for the mere adaptation of the 
 air, either by changing it to a dance, or by trans- 
 ferring it from one instrument to another, does not, 
 even to common apprehensions, alter the original 
 subject. The ear tells you that it is the same 
 substantially; the piracy is, where the appropriated 
 music, though adapted to a different pui-pose from 
 that of the original, may still be recognized by the 
 ear {B^Almaine v. Booseij, 1 Y. ^ C, Ex. 288, per 
 Ljnidhiu'st). But, on the other hand, where one 
 composed and published an opera in full score, and 
 after his death 13. an\anged the whole opera for the 
 piano, it was held that this was an independent
 
 INFRINGEMENT OF TKADK MARKS, I'ATF.NT, KTC 239 
 
 musical composition, and no piracy ( WW/ v. Booscify 
 L. R., .} (I Ji., E.r. Ch. 223). 
 
 Plays founded on Novels. To produce the 
 incidents of a novel in the fonn of a play, is no in- 
 fi-ingement of cop^'right, unless the play he printed, 
 or unless the novel was founded on a play, of the 
 copj-right of -which the author was owner (see Reach' 
 V. Coiiqur.sf, 30 L. J., a P. 209; Tinslr;/ v. Zw//, 
 32 L. ./., Cli. 535; mid Rvade v. Lacy, 30 L. </., Ch. 
 655). 
 
 Remedies. itiLi: 80. — Any person causintr 
 a book to 1)0 ])rinted for sale or exportation, 
 Avitliout the written consent of the i)roprictor 
 of the eopyrio-lit; or who imports for sale such 
 unlawfully j)rinte(l book; or \y\i\\ a g-uilty 
 knowleJoe sells, ])ublislies, or exposes for sale 
 or hire, or lias in his possession for sale or 
 hire, any sucli book witliout the consent of 
 the proprietor, shall be liable to a sjiecial 
 action (jn the case at the suit of the pro- 
 prietor, to be bron<»]it witln'n twelve calendar 
 months. And an injunction nun' l)e also 
 obtained, to resti-ain tlu' further infrinu-c- 
 ment. 
 
 (1) Thus an injunction may be granted to restrain 
 a person from printing the impublished works of
 
 240 TARTICULAR TORTS. 
 
 another {Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 3Iac. 4' Gor. 
 25). And an action at law may also be maintained 
 for tb.e same cause {Mai/alt v. Ifigb//, 6 L. T., iY. S. 
 362). 
 
 (2) An injunction will also be granted, if a per- 
 son under colour of writing a review copies out so 
 large and important a portion of the work as to in- 
 terfere with the sale of it : but a reasonable amount 
 of quotation, in order to review the work properly, 
 is allowable {Campbell v. Scott, 11 Sim. 31; Bell \. 
 Walker, 1 Bro. Ch. C. 450). 
 
 Penalties. Besides the remedy by action and 
 injunction, there is also a quasi-criminal remedy in 
 the case of imjjorted piracies, by means of penalties. 
 These do not take away the remedy by action or 
 injunction, but are cumulative upon them (sect. 17). 
 
 Copyright in Oral Lectures, Dramas, and 
 Works of Art. Besides the copyright in literary 
 works, there is also a copyright in various other pro- 
 ductions. 
 
 Such are oral lectm-es, di-amatic compositions, 
 engravings, piints, lithographs, di-awings, paintings, 
 photographs, and sculptm'es and models. In a work 
 like the present, space will not permit me to do any- 
 thing more than sketch out the main heads of the 
 rights of individuals in respect of these productions. 
 
 The pubhcation of oral lectiu'es, except those de- 
 livered in colleges, &c., is prohibited by 5 & 6 Will.
 
 INFKINfiKMFNT OF TKADK M.VIIK>;, 1" A TKNT, TAT. 241 
 
 4, c. O'j, without the author's consent; hut in order 
 to have the henefit of this act, the lecturer must give 
 previous notice to two justices of the peace. 
 
 Right of Representation of Dramatic and 
 Musical Works. The right of represent in/j dra- 
 matic and niusieal compositions is vested in the 
 author or composer, and his assigns, for tlio same 
 period as in literary compositions, hy 5 & G Vict. 
 c. 45, s. 20, wliicli also imposes penalties upon any 
 pei'son performing them without the A\ritten leave of 
 the author or composer. These penalties are not 
 cumidative, but only alternative. 
 
 Assignment of Copyright does not in- 
 clude Right of Representation. I may men- 
 tion, that the assignment of the copyriglit of a book 
 containing dramatic or musical compositions is only 
 an assignment of the right of multiplying copies of 
 it, and not of the right of representing it (sect. 22), 
 unless at the time of registering the assignment the 
 same is expressly stated. But a mere assignment of 
 the right of representation does not seem to require 
 registration {Dtn/ v. iiV///.s, 22 L. J., Q. B. 157). 
 
 Engravings. Engravings are protected by the 
 statutes iS Geo. 2, e. lo; 7 Geo. 'J, c. 38; and 17 Geo. 3, 
 c. 57. 
 
 Sculpture. Scidptm-es and models by 38 Geo. 3, 
 c. 71, and 54 Geo. 3, c. 50. 
 
 u. M
 
 242 PARTICULAR TORTS, 
 
 Designs. UseM and ornamental designs by " The 
 Copyright of Designs Act, 1858," "The Designs 
 Acts," 1842, 1843, and 1850, and " The Protection 
 of Inventions Act, 1858." 
 
 Works of Art. Paintings, di-awings and photo- 
 graphs by 25 & 2G Yict. c. QS. 
 
 Conclusion. Here this summary statement of 
 the law relating to torts must conclude. In compil- 
 ing it, my design has been throughout to present to 
 the reader an intelligible and orderly arrangement of 
 the principles upon which the law depends. 
 
 It must not be imagined that I put forth this work 
 as in any way a digest of the subject. Far from it. 
 Were a digest alone wanted, nothing more could be 
 desired than Mr. Addison's exhaustive treatise. I 
 only claim for this the place of a guide book or 
 manual, in which mil, I think, be found all that is 
 needful in the ordinary every-day practice of a soli- 
 citor's business. 
 
 Neither must the student imagine that such inju- 
 ries as are not named in this or any other treatise are 
 therefore not remediable by the law, for wrongs are 
 infinitely various. Let him in such cases recollect 
 the observation of Cicero, " Erat enim ratio profecta 
 a rerum natura, et ad recte faciendiuu impellens, et a 
 delicto avocans: quoo non turn denique incipit lex 
 esse cum scripta est, sed turn, cum orta est."
 
 INFUINCKMllNT OK TUADF. MARKS, I'ATKNT, KTC. 24^^ 
 
 Lastly, although it has been my chief endeavour to 
 render the work accurate and trustworthy, yet, to 
 eoncludo in tlio words of Littleton, " I will not tliat 
 thou believe that all I have said is law, for that will 
 not I take upon me nor presume ; but of those things 
 tliat bo not law, inquire and learno of my wise masters 
 learned in the law. Notwithstanding that certain 
 things that be noted and specified be not law, yet 
 such things shall make thee more apt and able to 
 understand, and leanie the arguments and the rea- 
 sons of the law: for by the arguments and reasons 
 in the law, a man may more sooner come to the cer- 
 taintie and to the knowledfre of the law." 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 M -J
 
 

 
 INDEX. 
 
 ABATEMENT, 
 
 of uiiisiiueo, 19.S. 
 
 not proper remedy to preveut prospective nuisaucc, 199. 
 not proper remedy of commoner in respect of ovei"stookcd 
 warren, ib. 
 
 ACCIDENT, 
 
 if inevitable, not aftiouablo, 120. 
 
 actionable, if prevcutible, iV;. 
 
 when oeeurreuce of, prima facie evidence of negligence, HG. 
 
 ACT OF GOD excuses what would be otherwise actionable, 12. 
 
 ACTION, cannot be brought t^vice for some wrong, 63. / 
 
 ^U^MINISTRATOR, title of, to personal property, dates from 
 death of intest^ite, 214. " .-. ' < 
 
 ADOPTION. Sec Ratification. 
 
 -VDULTERY, 
 
 damages fur, H9. 
 application of damages, l.jO. 
 mitigation of damages for, if). 
 ^^'ife's pre\'i()us adidtery witli other men, 151. 
 secrecy of marriage, ib. 
 
 e'videuf'o of wife's ha\'ing enticed co-respondent, ib. 
 connivaiue or iuditference of petitioner, a bar to claim for 
 damages, ib. 
 
 .VDVERTISEMENTS, criticis-m of, privileged, 98. 
 
 ^VDVICE, confidential, a privileged communication, 97. 
 
 AGGRAVATION. Sec Damages. 
 
 ANIMALS. See Febocious Aximals. 
 injuries done t<j, 209. 
 trespasses of, ib. 
 
 iujiiries to, wliile trespassing, when tortious, 211. 
 killing, in self-defence, justifiable, 212.
 
 246 INDEX. 
 
 ARREST. Sec Ixipeisonment. 
 
 malicious, liability for, IJo. ,^ . a _ , 
 
 what is malicious, ib. .■Ml^-iiilc^ .<a 'i-V ; '• *v^ «/^/Vtr^->t/ t /ti-ii^ - 
 
 caused by false statement or suppression, ib. 
 
 caused by false affidavit, ib. 
 
 ASSAULT AND BATTERY, 
 
 master responsible for, if committed by servant uathin the 
 
 general scope of authority, 33 ct scq. 
 damages for, 56, 124. 
 aggravation of damages for, 66. 
 mitigation of damages for, ib. 
 
 caiisijig death, 118 . ..^ /^ oMe.<^^'is rU ^^djL /^ 
 
 defimtion of assault, ih.r, .^^n^ e**£^ ^^t^^Mi^J- 1^ ^ 'i^.i-. 
 menacmg, \b. i 
 
 ability to do hai-m, necessary, ib. 
 attempt necessarj-, ib. 
 
 committed in sport, not actionable, 119. ,j^_ , 
 
 definition of battery, ib.' 'j'^^ \' .] ,, ^^ ' ''fj ' ■ /" • ' ' ■* '--^ i, ./ 
 may be occasioned by anything set in motion by defendant, ib. 
 batteiy, voluntarily suffered, not actionable, 120. 
 mayhem, ib. 
 
 intention to commit, immaterial, ib. 
 caused by lawful act, actionable, ib. 
 caused by iue^•itable accident, excusable, 121. 
 general immunity from, ib. 
 committed in self-defence, justifiable, ib. 
 committed in mere retaliation, not justifiable, ib. 
 committed in defence of property, justifiable, ib. 
 of pupil for sake of coiTection, justifiable, 122. 
 in order to stop breach of the peace, justifiable, ib. 
 in order to arrest night offender, felon, malicious trespasser or 
 
 vagrant, justifiable, ib. 
 in order to expel disturber of congregation, justifiable, ib. 
 by master of ship, ib. 
 by officer of law, \b. 
 
 unnecessary handcuffing of prisoner is, ib. r 
 
 proceedings before justices release civil proceedings, ^5i^*I^V'•M^.♦v'W 
 limitation of actions for, 124. ''■•»r- .■/-■ /'.'■r'.' .^.lii\(<^>") '^-,-^^'Y,^ 
 
 ATTORNEY, slandering an, 92. 
 
 BAIL, arrest of princij^al by his obligor, lawful, 1 06. 
 
 BAILEE, 
 
 may maintain trover and trespass, 2 13.^-^^ '»'■-*• *^i*»vo£<jA*v>^ j~r\. p«-* :^ 
 
 destruction of goods by a conversion, 210. 
 
 sale of goods by assignees of, revests possession in bailor, 213. 
 
 may set up jus tertii, when, 214. .'v V ',^ ',, r.- / . I 
 
 loss of goods by, no excuse, 218.'' ' "'''-'' " ^c ^''•<^
 
 INDEX. 247 
 
 B^VILMENT, remarks aa to coutract of, 27. 
 
 BAILOR, 
 
 may l>riii;r trespaiw agaiii.-st puirluwer, where bailee has solil 
 
 ^'ootls, •l\\.f(-^f •'' 'I ' (/t -L : . > 
 may maiiiUiin trover for OTDversion of goods by bailee, 210, 
 
 212. 
 
 BANKRUPT BAILEE, actiou agaiust assignees of, by bailor 
 for seUiug bailed goods, 213. 
 
 BATTERY. Sic Ks&kxsiji and Battery. 
 
 BODILY INJURIES. Sic Assault. 
 eaiisetl by miisances. See Nuisance. 
 caused by uegligeuce. .SVt Negligence. 
 
 BOOKS, copp-ight in. See Copyiught. 
 BRICK-BURNING, near highway a public umsance, 126. 
 
 CAMPBELL'S (LORD) ACT, 113 ct seq. 
 
 gives right of action to relatives of person killed through 
 
 another's default, ib. 
 who may sue in ease executor docs not, 144. 
 wlieu actiou maintainable, 145. / 
 
 for whose benefit maintainable, «^. < v ' t^"'- 
 
 jiuy must apportion daiua^'cs, ih. 
 phiiiititts must have butiiTwl some pecuniaiy loss, ib. 
 not maintainable when deceased received compensation before 
 
 death, 14G. 
 deatli must be caused by the act for wliich compensation 
 
 claimed, ib. 
 action must be brought within twelve months, ib, ." , V 
 
 CANDIDATE for office, character of, privileged communication, 
 97. 
 
 CARRIER liable for misfeasance to a pei-sou witli whom he has 
 not contracted, 20. 
 
 CATTLE. Sw Tkespass. 
 
 when injury is done to, by dog, scienter need not be shown, 
 
 143. 
 word includes horses, ib. 
 
 CILIRACTER, 
 
 fraudulent, when actionable, 13. 
 of SLl•^•ant when a privileged communication, 97. 
 of candidate for office, given to a voter or elector, a privilegt-d 
 communication, ib.
 
 248 INDEX. 
 
 CHAPtACTER— f o»i!;« wd. 
 
 evidence of ijlaintiff's bad character in mitigation of damages 
 in defamation, 65. 
 
 of daughter's loose character in mitigation of damages in se- 
 duction, 64, 157. 
 
 of wife's bad character in mitigation of damages in adultery, 
 151. 
 
 CHASTISEMENT, plea of reasonable, 122. 
 
 CHATTELS, trespass to, and conversion of. See Teespass ; and 
 see Wegngfctl Conveesion. 
 
 CHILDREN of deceased parent, action by. See Caitpbell's 
 (Loed) Act. 
 
 CLERGYIIAN, imputing unchastity to a beneficed, is actionable 
 per se, 92. 
 
 COMIMITMENT, 
 
 for contempt of coui-t, 112. 
 
 by judges of inferior courts, ib. 
 
 COMMON, 
 
 disturbances of, threefold, 196. 
 
 putting beasts on to by person not a commoner, or putting of 
 
 iincommonable beasts on to by a commoner, ib. 
 prescriptive right to put uucommonable beasts on to, ib. 
 without prescription iracommonable beasts may be distrained 
 
 damage feasant, ib. 
 surcharging, what is, 197. 
 
 remedy of lord and commoners for, ib. 
 obstructing, ib. 
 
 remedy for, 198. 
 
 C0:MM0N EMPLOYMENT, meaning of. See Mastee and 
 Seevaxt. 
 
 CONCEALMENT, when fraudulent, 13. 
 
 CONSEQUENTIAL DAJLiGES. See DAiiAGES. 
 
 CONSTABLE, 
 
 cannot, in general, arrest without a warrant, 106. 
 must have warrant with him, 108. 
 may aiTcsi without wan-ant, 
 
 on reasonable suspicion of felony, 106. 
 
 for breach of peace, even after affray over, in order to 
 take olicnder before a justice, 107. 
 
 for night offences, 108. 
 
 for malicious injuries, ib. 
 
 for offei'ing goods for pawn suspiciously, ib. 
 
 for acts of vagrancy, lb.
 
 INDEX. 240 
 
 CONSTABLE— coH^wwrf. 
 
 local .lets ompowerinjj' coustiiblcs, 109. 
 
 protectt-d if actiuff inmisteriully for a court haviii}^ jurisdictiou 
 
 (or ])rima facie jurisdiction in certain cases), 111, 112. 
 special protection of, iu executiug waiTonts of justices without 
 
 jurisdiction, 114. J-j 
 
 limitation of actions ajfainst, 117. ' '^ ''^''" " ' ' 
 
 notice of action to, ib. 
 
 power of, appointed by luuuicipal corporations, ib, 
 payment of money into court by, ib. 
 venue iu actions ag'aiust, local, ib. 
 
 CONTINUAL CLAIM no bar to statute in ejectment, 171. 
 
 CONTINUING TORTS, 
 
 conuueucemcnt of period of limitation in, 54. 
 
 fresh action may be brought for, until they are stopped, ib. 
 
 CONTRACT,/ .,^, . .^, 
 
 torts arising out of, 24. 
 
 pri\-ity neces-sary in order to recover for torts arising out of, 25. 
 damages in torts arising out of, 69. 
 
 CONTRACTOR, employer not in general liable for nuisance com- 
 mitted by, or negligence of, 38. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See Neguoence. 
 CONVERSION. .Sec Wrongful Conversion. 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 
 
 definition of, 234. 
 
 former law of, ib. 
 
 at common hiw, 235. 
 
 law of, at present time, ib. 
 
 none in inuuoral or fraudulent works, 236. 
 
 meaning of book, ib. 
 
 iu jiart of a book and not iu residue, ib. 
 
 UDUc iu a mere word, ib. 
 
 what is piracy of, 237. 
 
 carefully rensing and correcting old matter no infringement, 
 
 ib. 
 new arrangement of old work no infringement, ib. 
 honesty of intention immaterial, 238. 
 what is piracy of, in niusic, ib. 
 phiys founded on novels, 239. 
 remedies for infringement of, ib. 
 iujimction to prevent publication of unpublished manuscript, 
 
 ib. 
 piracy by re\-iew, 240. 
 in oral Icctiu-es, ib. 
 
 M 5
 
 250 INDEX. 
 
 CO^TRlGWT—coitfauied. 
 
 right of representing di-amatic and musical compositions not 
 
 included in assignment of copyright of, 241. 
 in engra\ings, ib. 
 in sculpture, ib. 
 in designs, 242. 
 in works of art, ib. 
 
 COUNSEL, 
 
 opinion of, no exciise for malicious prosecution, 102. 
 statements of, how far privileged communications, 96. 
 
 CRIME. See Defamation. 
 
 CRITICISM. See DEFAiiATiON. 
 
 DAMAGE, 
 
 without wrongful act, not actionable, 5. 
 when necessary, ib. 
 
 DAMAGE FEASANT, 
 
 cattle may be distrained when trespassing, 160. 
 unless tended at time, ib. 
 
 DAMAGES, measure of, in actions of tort, 55. 
 
 (1) For injuries fo person and reputation. 
 
 for false imprisonment, ib. 
 
 for adulteiy, 149. 
 
 for seduction, 56, 157. 
 
 for assault and battery, 124. 
 
 for defamation, ib. 
 mistake or ill-feeling of jury, 57. 
 aggravation and mitigation of, 64. 
 
 for adultery, 151. 
 
 for seduction, 64. 
 
 for defamation, 65. 
 
 for false imprisonment, 66. 
 
 for battciy, ib. 
 consequential damages, 59. 
 
 loss of business, ib. 
 
 medical expenses, ib. 
 
 loss of property through agitation, ib. 
 
 binder Lord Campbell's Act, 60. 
 
 injuiy to trade, ib. 
 prospective damages may be given, 63. 
 continuing torts, 64, 
 
 (2) For injuries to projjerfi/, 57. 
 
 compensatory in character, ib. 
 injury to horse, ib. 
 for wrongful conversion, 58. 
 infriugement of patent, ib.
 
 INDEX. 251 
 
 DAMAGES— coiitiiiiud. 
 
 aggravation and mitigation, 04. 
 
 insolence, G7. 
 
 wrun^rfiil seizure, ib. 
 
 ciuisinjjr suspicion of insolvency, ib. 
 
 return of i^'-oods, ib. 
 where j)l;iintitt only bailee, G8. 
 cousecjueiitial daiuajj^es, 59. 
 
 hirinj,' substitute in place of a chattel, 61. 
 
 trespass, ib. 
 
 infectious disease, ib. 
 
 floodiuff lauds, G2. 
 
 having- been tibliyed to pay damages to third party, ib. 
 presuuiptidu (if amount of damage against a wrongdoer, 63. 
 in torts founded on contract G'J. 
 
 DAMNUM, definition of, G, u. A Kv 
 
 DANGER, trespass under the influence of a pressing, 7, 14. 
 
 DANGEROUS substances brought on to laud must be kept at 
 peiil of bringer, 13. 
 
 DAUGHTER, action for seduction of. 'Sec Seduction. 
 
 DECEASED person. Sec Campbell's (Lord) Act. 
 
 DECEIT. See Fraud. 
 
 DEFAMATION, S3, 
 oral or written, ib. 
 what constitutes, ib. 
 falsity, 84. 
 
 disparagement, what is, ib. 
 untrue accusation of frauil incident to an actually conunitted 
 
 illegal act actionable, 8'). 
 construction of words in natiu'al sense, ib. 
 ironical words, ib. 
 publication, 86. 
 
 intention to publish immaterial where negligence, ib. 
 functions of court and jury as to publication, ib. 
 malice, ib. 
 actual damage when necessary, 87. 
 
 when too ix-mote, 88. 
 
 imputation of unchastity, 89. 
 
 imputation of crime actual damage of itself, 90. 
 
 imputation of mere breach of trust aliter, 91. 
 
 imputation of imtitness for society, ib. 
 
 imputation of misconduct in business, 66. 
 repetition of defamation, 92. 
 
 printing of, 93. 
 
 newspaper proprietors protected, 94.
 
 252, INDEX. 
 
 BEFAM.ATlO'N—contumcd. 
 
 privileged coirnnuuications, 94. 
 
 functions of court and jury, 95. 
 
 parliamentary proceedings, 96. 
 
 judicial proceedings, ib. 
 
 confidential ad\'ice, 97. 
 
 criticism, ib. 
 
 criticism of public men, 98. 
 limitation of actions for, 98. 
 damages. See Damages. 
 
 DEFECT. Sec Fraud. 
 DEFENCE. Sec Assault. 
 DESIGNS, copyright in,. 242. 
 
 DETINUE, 
 
 action of, 218. 
 
 judge may order return of specific goods in, ib. 
 
 DISABILITY, 
 
 suspends commencement of period of limitation, 53. 
 when taking place subsequent to commencement of period of 
 limitation, is no bar, 54. 
 
 DISPOSSESSION, 
 
 definition of, 166. 
 
 plaiutiff must rely on sti-ength of his own title, 167. 
 
 mere possession evidence of title for defendant, ib. 
 
 plaintiff's title need not be indefeasible, ib. ^^fjjlttwv^ p- 
 
 jus tertii available by defendant, but not by plaintiff, i^-Jjjl i / • 
 
 landlord claimant need not prove his title, 168. '■■<-v ^vv^oi^,^ 
 
 tenant may show expiration of landlord's title, ib. 
 
 master and servant, ib. 
 
 licensor and licensee, ib. 
 
 claimant's title must be legal, not cqiutable, ib. 
 
 limitation, 169. 
 
 disability, ib. 
 
 acknowledgment of title, 1 70. 
 
 ecclesiastical corporations, ib. 
 
 conuuencemcut of period of, ib. 
 
 discontinuance of possession, 171. 
 
 occupation of ser\-ant no discontinuance, ib. 
 
 mere entry and continual assertion of claim uo bar to 
 running of statute, ib. 
 DOGS, 
 
 noisy, 177. 
 
 liability of owner for injuries by. See Feeocious Animals, 
 
 injury to, 209. 
 
 killing in self-defence, 212. 
 
 killing in defence of sheep or cattle, ib. 
 
 killing in defence of game, when justifiable, ib.
 
 INDEX. 253 
 
 DOOR, 
 
 careless sliuttinir. of railwny caiTiafres, 13.S. 
 contributor}- uegligeuoe by lea\'iiig baud ou, ii. 
 
 DILVMATIC COMPOSITIONS. See Coptkioiit. 
 
 EASEilENT, 
 
 wbnt is an, 173 ; and nee XriSANCE. 
 
 jrrantw of, may enter tipon ser\-icnt tenement in order to repair, 
 161. 
 
 EJECTMENT. See Dispossessiox. 
 
 ENGINES, near hig^hway, a public niiisance, 126. 
 
 EN(;R.VVINGS, copyright in, 241. 
 
 ENQUIRIES, by the finder of a chattel, before delivering to true 
 o\\Tier, is no conversion, 217. 
 
 EX DA:MN0 SINE INJURIA, &c., 5. 
 
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT. See Impiusoxment, Constables, 
 Justices. 
 
 FALSE REPRESENTATION. See Feaud. 
 
 FELLOW SERVANTS. See Master axd Seevaxt. 
 
 FELONY, remedy by action for, suspended until criminal trial 
 ended, 22. 
 how suspension may be effected, ib. 
 
 FENCES, non-liability for trespass of cattle if adjoiniug owner 
 bound to keep in repaii-, 159. 
 
 FEILE NATURAE, trespasses of animals, IGl. 
 
 FEROCIOUS ANIM.VLS, 
 
 liability for injuries caused by, HI. 
 scienter the gist of the action for, ib. 
 
 presiunptiou of soieutor, ib. 
 
 when scienter not presmned, ib. 
 
 prtxif of scienter, 142. 
 
 FIRE, negligent keeping of, IS.). 
 
 FIREWORKS near highway, a public nuisance, 126. 
 
 FRAUD, 
 
 when actionable, 201. 
 
 false representation of value of business to a jjurchaser, ib. 
 false representation of soundness of a dangerous iustni- 
 ment, 202.
 
 254 INDEX. 
 
 meaning of frandulent, 202. Vs^'^ v^XtU^ ^ ^2£22L^ 
 
 must be moral tm-pitude, ib. 
 
 recklessness sufficient, ib. 
 liability for fraud of agent, 203. 
 
 fraudulent character must be in ■m.'iting to be actionable, 
 205. 
 
 FEAUDULEKT CONCEALMENT, 
 
 when actionable, 200. 
 
 concealing infectious disease in pigs, 206. 
 
 concealing defect in ship, ib. 
 
 mere abstinence from mentioning a known defect is not 
 
 actionable, 207. 
 an industrious concealment aliter, ib. 
 plastering over a defective wall, ib. 
 expression, "with all faults," 208. 
 
 FUNERAL EXPENSES not recoverable under Lord Campbell's 
 Act, 146. 
 
 GAjME, 
 
 property in, not absolute, 210. 
 
 killing dog in order to preserve, when justifiable, 212. 
 
 GOODS. See Teespass and WEOyGFUL Coxveesion and Neg- 
 ligence. 
 
 GUN, explosion of a warranted, 26. 
 
 HIGHWAY, 
 
 obstruction of, 8. 
 
 dedication of, to public not a grant of the land, 164. 
 
 trespass may be maintained by grantor of, ib. 
 
 HORSE, 
 
 accident caused by a runaway, excusable, 1 1 . 
 
 iujui-ies to, by dog, 143. 
 
 is included in the word cattle, ib. 
 
 measure of damages for injury to, 57. 
 
 HOUSE, liability for ruinous state of. Sec Nuisance. 
 
 ICE, when a public nuisance, 17, 18. ■'' 
 
 IJBIORALITY, 
 
 verbal imputation of, against a beneficed clergyman, a slander 
 
 per se, 67. 
 verbal charge of, in general not actionable without proof of 
 
 special damage, 89.
 
 INDEX. 255 
 
 IMPRISONMENT, 
 
 wliat cmistitutcs, lOo. ' 
 
 moral restraint fonstitutes, ib. 
 
 total restraint ucccssaiy, ih. 
 
 by jud<res and mairistratcs. See Judge, 
 
 by private jiersous and constables, lOG. 
 
 freneral immunity from, ib. 
 
 arrest of bail by his surety, ib. 
 
 arrest of suspe<ted felon when justifiable, ib. 
 
 what suspicion suftieieut, ib. 
 
 an-est of breakers of the peace, 107. 
 
 arrest of nijrht offenders, 108. 
 
 arrest of malicious injurers, ib. 
 
 aiTest of suspected jjersons offering goods for pa\\^J, ib. 
 
 arrest of vagi-ants, ib. 
 
 acts of vagi-ancy, ib. 
 in other cases waiTant necessary, ib. 
 
 certain offenders can «iijt-be arrested flagi'antc delicto, 
 109. 
 
 jmrticidar powers of aiTCst given to individuals, ib. 
 
 general protection of persons setting coiu-ts of justice in 
 motion, 111. 
 
 no protection if court has no jui'isdiction, ib. 
 for contempt of court, 112. 
 
 by county coui-t judge, 113. 
 
 by justice, ib. 
 habeas corpus, 115. 
 |( limitation of action for, IIG. 
 
 is a continuing tort, ib. 
 
 in case of justices and constables, 117. 
 notice of action to justices and constables, 11 G ct scq. 
 damages for, .5.5. 
 
 aggravation of damages, 6G. 
 
 INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENT, iujiuy to. Sec tirrrORT, 
 Light, Wateecouksk, "Way, aud Coitsiox. 
 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. Sec Accidext. 
 
 INTERIOR COURT, power of, to commit for contempt, 113. 
 
 INJUNCTION, 
 remedy by, 71. 
 
 interlocutory or perpetual, ib. 
 injuries r^emediable by, ib. 
 no.xious fumes, 7"-. 
 noise, ib. 
 
 obstruction of light and air, ib. 
 cases where damages given instead, 73. 
 not granted for a mere trespass, 75. 
 where waste also alitcr, ib. 
 pollution of lake, ib.
 
 25G INDEX. 
 
 INJITXCTION— ro«/ 6« «f ^. 
 deprivation of support, 75. 
 trade mark, jjatent, and copp-ig'ht, il>, 
 not granted to restrain libel, ib. 
 publication of private letters, 76. 
 where injury merely threatened, ib. 
 granted even where it will inconvenience public, 77. 
 mandatory, ib. 
 delay, 79. 
 
 INJURIA, 
 
 is always necessary to a tort, 5. 
 
 when no tort "without special damage, ib. ct seq. 
 
 INJURIA, classification of, 9. 
 
 INSANITY, imputation of, defamatory, 85. 
 
 INTENTION, not material in torts, 15 et scq. 
 
 INVENTOR. Sec Patent. 
 
 INVOLUNTARY TORTS, when actionable, 10. 
 
 JOINT OWNERS, trespasses of, towards each other, 165, 216. 
 
 JUDGE, 
 
 statements of, absolutely privileged communications, 96. 
 not liable for a wrongful imprisonment committed erroneously 
 
 if acting within his jurisdiction, 109. 
 who is a, 111. 
 
 jurisdiction of, how constituted, ib. 
 prima, facie jurisdiction is sufficient if through ignorance of 
 
 some fact of Avhich he could have no knowledge he has no 
 
 jurisdiction, 112. 
 jiowcr of, to commit for contempt, ib. 
 of county court, power of, 113. 
 
 JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, how far privileged communica- 
 tions, 96. 
 
 JURISDICTION. See Judge. 
 
 .lUS TERTII, 
 
 defendant in ejectment may set up, but not claimant, 167. 
 may be set up in trover wliere defendant not bailee or agent, 
 214. 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. See Imprisonment. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. Sec Defamation, Assault, Trespass, Im- 
 
 PKISONMENT. 
 ■^ ' ' / >- 
 
 "-T*."' it J. A" 4.t: i&..^i^c jC-^i^.
 
 INDEX. \:-Jt 
 
 I^VNDLORD, 
 
 title of, cannot be dispiitwl by touant, 1(J8. 
 may maintain aition ivv injuiy to the reversiou, "200. 
 when liable for nuisauee ou demised i)remiHes, 129 it xetj. 
 written aeknowledgincnt of title of, a bar to the Statute of 
 
 Limitations, 170. 
 occupation of scnaut of, equivalent to personal occupation, 
 
 IGS. 
 
 LECTTTRES, copyriglit in, 211. 
 
 LIBEL, no injimetion to restrain a, 7o. -SVc Defamation. 
 
 LIBERUil TENEMENTUJr, plea of, in trespas.s to laud, 1G7. 
 
 LICEX.SEE, 
 
 a mere, stands in the position of one of the family as rcgard.s 
 
 injm-ies causetl by nuisances, 132. ' . - f 
 
 possession of, is the p(jssession of the licensor, 1G8. 
 
 LIEN, 
 
 sale of goods held imder, a wronirful conversion, 213. 
 damages for sale of goods held under, il/. 
 
 LIGHT AND AIR, 
 
 no right to, ex jure naturie, 18G. 
 
 no proof of special damage necessary, il/. it wy. 
 
 no excuse that plaintiff has contributed to the diminution, 188. 
 
 enlargement of ancient lights, ifi. 
 
 dominant tenement must be a building, ili. 
 
 a man cannot obstruct on j^i'operty granted bj- him to 
 
 another, i//. 
 rights of two vendees from same vendor, 189. 
 right to, lost by giving licence to another to do an act, the 
 
 uatmal couse<juence of which is an obstnictiou of, ib. 
 
 LIME KILN, when a i>ublic nuisance, 12G. 
 
 LIMITATION, 
 
 of actions of tort, 51. 
 
 reasons for, ib. 
 
 commencement of period of, o2. 
 
 when tort consists of actual damage, commencement of period 
 
 of, .«. 
 conversion, o3. 
 disability, i/>. 
 
 disability arising subscqiiently to commencement of period, o-l. 
 commencement of period when tort continuing, iV*. 
 ill particular cases see under the seveiiil headings of those 
 
 cases. 
 
 LOSS OF SERVICE. i>ic Selvctiox.
 
 258 INDEX. 
 
 MAGISTRATE. See Justice. 
 
 MALICE. See Defamation. 
 
 MALICIOUS ARREST. See Ijepeisoniiext. 
 
 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, 
 
 meaning of, 99. 
 "what constitutes, ib. 
 malice generally implied, ib. 
 
 knowledge of plaintiff's innocence evidence of malice, 
 
 100. 
 knowledge of defendant that he was in the wrong, e\-i- 
 
 dence of mahce, ib. 
 to stop plaintiff's mouth, ib. 
 coimsel's opinion no excuse for, 102. 
 not actionable if reasonable cause for suspicion existed, 
 
 101. 
 want of probable cause, never implied in actions for, ib. 
 subsequent malice of the defendant, 100. 
 adoption of proceedings already commenced, ib. 
 where defendant bound over by a magistrate to prosecute, 
 
 no excuse for, ib. 
 act of magistrate in general an excuse, 103. 
 aliter where specific charge made, ib. 
 causing search warrant to issue, ib. 
 setting aside of proceedings, a condition precedent to 
 
 action for, 102. 
 
 3LVN- TRAPS, when illegal, 126. 
 
 M^^JSarFACTURE. See Patent. 
 
 noxious or offensive, an actionable nuisance, 175. 
 
 MANUSCRIPT, copyi'ight in unpublished, 239. 
 
 MAP, copyright in, 236. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT, 
 
 as to enticing and seducing servants. Sec Seduction. 
 master in general has no remedy against one who injures 
 
 servant ex contractu, 25. 
 general liabihty of master for torts of, 29. 
 accidents occasioned by carelessness of seiwant, ib. 
 master not liable for illegal act of seiwant, 31. 
 master liable for wilful act of servant if within the general 
 
 scope of his authorit}-, ib. 
 liability of master for assaults of servant committed in scope 
 
 of his emplojTncnt, 33, 34, 35. 
 master not liable for servant's torts when committed outside 
 
 or beyond scope of his employment, 30, 33. 
 master not liable for injmies caused by servant while diiving 
 
 master's carnage on business of his own, ib.
 
 INDEX. 259 
 
 MASTER AND iiERYA'ST—<v,iti>,„c(l. 
 
 nititifatiim of servant's tort, 36. 
 
 ineauiujf of term servaut, i/>. 
 
 master uot liable for torts comiiiitted by persoiis employed by 
 scn'aut, id. 
 
 eontractcir or iutennediato employer liable for torts of work- 
 mcu, 37, 3S. 
 
 job-master liable, aud uot hirer of horses, ib. 
 
 raises where employer and coutractor liable, 38 et sci/. 
 
 temporary eiiiiiloymeut by a third party excuses master, 40. 
 
 uuJiuthorized delectation by a scrvaut of hia duties excuses 
 master from dcleLrates' torts, ili. 
 
 wheu master liable for iujimes caused by servant to fellow- 
 servant, 42. 
 
 meauiuf^ of common emplojnneut, 43 et sc<j. 
 
 personal ne<flijj:enee of master, 4G. 
 
 sen'aut's knowledge of dauy^er, wlien a bar, 48, 49. 
 
 vohuiteers, 49. ^ 
 
 MAXIMS OF LAW, 3.'^;^r- -.;. 
 
 MEASURE OF DAMAGES. See Daitaoes. 
 MEDIC^Ui EXPENSES. See Campbell's (Lord) Act. 
 
 MEDIC.VL MEN, 
 
 ue)j:liyenee of, 24, 2G. 
 slanderin<r, 92. 
 
 MEDICINES, duty of ships to have on board, 19. 
 
 MINE, 
 
 causing subsidence of surface by excavating, 175 — 181. 
 flooding of, by water bi'ought by defendant on to his land 
 actionable without proof of negligence, 13. 
 
 MISFEAS.VNCE, liability for, 27. 
 
 MISREPRESENTATION. Sec Feaud. 
 
 MISTAKE, no j ustification, 14. 
 
 MITIGATION. Sec Damages. 
 
 MURDER. Sec Defam.\tio.v. 
 
 MUSICAL CO^rPOSITIONS, assignment of copp-ight in, is no 
 assigujnent of the right of public representation of them, 
 241. 
 
 NECESSITY, right of way of, 194.
 
 260 ]XDEX. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE, 
 
 when actionable, 13.5. 
 
 ■what constitutes, il>. 
 
 onus of proof of, 145. 
 
 contributory, 137. 
 
 "where contributoiy, affords no excuse, 139. 
 
 contributoiy, in infants, 140. > / . '' \ C ( ^ 
 
 keeping- ferocious animals. <S'e(^FEEbCIO•^JS Animals. 
 
 actions by representatives of a person killed by. See Castp- 
 BELi's (Loed) Act. 
 
 duties of judge and juiy in actions for, 147. 
 NEWSPAPERS. Sec Defaiiatiox. 
 NOISE. See Nuisance. 
 
 NOTICE of action to justices and constables, 116 et seq. 
 NOXIOUS TRADE. See Nuisance. 
 
 NUISANCE, 
 
 (1) Causing Injurij to the Tersoii, 125. 
 definition, id. 
 
 excavations near roads, ib. 
 noxious fuiiies, ib. 
 foul cesspools, 126. 
 spring-guns and man-traps, ib. 
 even tresj)assers injured by spring-gains and man-traps 
 
 may maintain action, ib. 
 spi-ing-gims for protection of dwelling-houses at night, 
 
 la-v\rful, ib. 
 pit or engine near highway, illegal, ib. 
 windmills and fires for biu-ning ironstone near highway 
 
 nuisances, 126. 
 letting off fireworks near highwaj-s, ib. 
 injiuies caused by quames at a distance from highway 
 
 not actionable, 127. 
 ruinous premises, ib. 
 
 where nuisance subsists negligence is immaterial, ib. 
 landlord not liable for injiu-ies caused to tenant by ruinous 
 
 premises, 129. 
 aliter in case of fraud, ib. 
 
 tenant only generally liable to third parties, ib. 
 landowner liable if he authorized the nuisance, ib. 
 nuisances on or near private ways, 131. 
 iniinous railway works, 132. 
 act of God justification, ib. 
 dangerous canals, ib. 
 
 injuries to guests througli a subsisting, ib. ct seq. 
 injuries to persons coming on business, ib. 
 injuries through iiniiroper condition of railway stations, 
 
 133. 
 ill-lighted stations, ib. 
 limitation, 134.
 
 INDEX. 261 
 
 Nl'ISANCE— ffl;/^«»/.v/. 
 
 (■J) Viiimiifi Iii/iiri/ to Real Properti/. 
 
 dcfinitinu of n, 17K 
 
 gotuTal priiuM])k' ajtplicaMc to, I'A. 
 
 atfectiii;;' curiioroal liiTi'ditiimouts, 17'). 
 
 di.s'i'iistiii'; fiiiuos, i/i. 
 
 iiiu.-^y tnnlc. i/'. 
 
 tlie uiii.saiicf imi."<t be luatorial, 17G. 
 
 noisy entortainiU('uts, i/>. 
 
 otluT txamplcs, 177. 
 
 overhauffiii^' eave.-*, if>. 
 
 overhauying' trees, ib. 
 
 pifr'-stys, i/). 
 
 uoisy (lojfs, i/). 
 
 reasoual)leue.s.s of place wheu uo excuse, ib. 
 
 dLstiiietiou between injury to property and annoyance in 
 its user, ib. 
 
 inunaterial whether plaintiff goes to the nuisance or it to 
 hin», ib. 
 
 prescriptive ri;;ht to coiniiiit, 180. 
 
 easciiu'iits, 173. 
 
 protit.s a i)reudi'e, ib. 
 
 customs, ib. 
 
 title to casements, 174. 
 
 disturbance of right to support, 180. 
 
 riglit may be released by agreement, 181. 
 
 tlie damage mu.st bo material, ib. 
 
 railway and canal companies have no right of support, 
 184. 
 
 subtciTaiioan water, ib. 
 
 laud burdened with buildings, ib. 
 
 sui)port from adjoining hou.scs, 18."). 
 
 quitre whether right can be gaiuetl by prescription, 18G. 
 
 riglit to light and air. Sir Light axd Air. 
 
 right tu watercuurse. Sir AVatekcouese. 
 
 right to ways. Sir Way. 
 
 remedy l)y abatenuut, 108. 
 
 remedy by abatement not applicable to prospective nui- 
 sances, 199. 
 
 OBSTRl'CTION of entiy to places of business, 7, 8. 
 of road, 8. 
 of light and air. Sec LioiiT axd Aiu. 
 
 O^INIBUS, fraudident imitation of, by a rival proprietor, "J 
 
 Ol'STER. Sec Dispossessiox. 
 
 r.VRTY AVALL, trespass to, 16.5.
 
 262 INDEX. 
 
 PATENT, how obtained, 228. 
 
 conditious to valid gi-ant of, 229. 
 what is a niauvifacture entitled to, ib. 
 newness of manufactui-e necessary to, 230. 
 rule in Hill v. Evans, ib. 
 prior knowledge of the public fatal to, ib. 
 new combination of old elements, ib. 
 
 application of a known instrument to analogous pui'poses, ib. 
 newness only applies to the United Kingdom, 231. 
 novelty infelxed where utility very great, ib. 
 meaning of ti-ue and.iirst inventor, ib. 
 secret prior knowledge of another no bar to, 170. 
 manitfactui-e must be of general public utility, 232. 
 producing old articles in a new way when a new manufac- 
 ture, ib. 
 specification, ib. 
 remedy for infringement, 233. 
 
 PATENT DEFECT. See Feaud. ^ ' 1.^ 
 
 PERJUE.Y, no action lies for consequences of, 961 ': '^■"'- t-WX,'*-*^ ) 
 imputation of, not actionable, unless made with reference to a 
 judicial inquiry, 91. 
 
 PERSONAL PROPERTY, trespass to. See Teespass. 
 
 PIGSTY. See Nuisance. 
 
 POSSESSION, necessary to maintain trespass, 163. 
 dates back to accinial of title, 164. 
 prima facie evidence of title, ib. 
 in general good against all but true owner, 167. 
 meaning of discontinuance of, 170. 
 distiu'bance of, with respect to goods, 209. 
 necessary to maintain trespass for goods, 213. 
 follows title in personal property, ib. 
 what, suffices as against a wrongdoer, 214. 
 injuries to goods whilst in another's, 215. 
 
 PRESCRIPTION. Sec Light axd Aie, Nuisance, Suppoet, 
 Wateecouese, Way, Common. 
 
 PRINTER liable for libel, 93. 
 
 PRINTING of an oral slander by imauthorized third party, 91. 
 
 PRIVATE WAY. See Way. 
 
 PRI^T:LEGED communications. See Defamation. 
 
 PRIVITY in quasi torts, 25. 
 
 PROBABLE CAUSE, want of, in malicious prosecutiou, the gist 
 of the action, 101.
 
 INDEX. 2(j'4 
 
 rilOBABLE CONSEQUENCE, cvciy niau presumed to iuteud 
 the, of his acta, IG. 
 
 PROFESSIONAL ISIEN, ucgligcuoe of, 21. 
 
 PUBLICATION. Sec Def.ulvtion. 
 
 Pl^BLIC NUISANCE. Sec Nuisance. 
 
 QUARRY, iujiiries caused by falling into, whcu actiouable and 
 wlieu uot, 126. 
 
 ILVILWAY COMPANY. S,r Nkglioence, M.vster assd Servant, 
 enid Nuisance. 
 
 RATIFICATION. Sec Master and Servant. 
 
 RECAPTION, 217. ^^ . ,. ', 
 
 RECKLESS CONDUCT, liabiUty for consequences of, 10. 
 
 REMOTENESS of damage, 11, 16. 
 
 REPLEVIN, action of, 219. 
 
 RESULT of wrongful act, if naturally in sequence, may be sui-d 
 on, 18. 
 
 REVERSIONER, 
 
 may enter into and inspect premises, 161. 
 
 remedy of, for injuiy to laud, 200. 
 
 remedy of, for trespass, affoinpanicd l)y a denial of title, if>. 
 
 remedy of, for obstnictious, ib. 
 
 no remedy given to, for mere transient trespasses or nuLsauces, 
 
 ib. 
 some injury to the reversion must bo proved, ib. 
 
 RIVER. Sec Watercouese. 
 
 RUINOUS PREMISES. Sec Nuisance. 
 
 S.YLE, 
 
 wrou^-ful, is a conversion, 212, 213. 
 of gooiLs held luider a lieu i.s a couver.siou, 21. '5. 
 of goods in market overt passes property, 221. ^ ' 
 
 imless seller proseeuted to eouvicti(")n, /''. t ■''• vl < . cC 
 
 SCIEN^TER. Sec FERoaous Animals. 
 
 SCITjPTL'RE, copyi-ight in. Sec CorYRionT.
 
 264 INDEX. 
 
 SEDUCTION, 
 
 action for, whence arising, 152. 
 
 of servant from master's emploj' is actionable, ib. 
 
 contract of sei'vice when implied, 153. 
 
 any profit gained by, may be recovered, ib. 
 
 debauching plaintiff's daughter, ib. et seq. 
 
 proof of loss of service necessary to sustain an action for, ib. 
 
 contract to pay wages unnecessaiy to create relation of master 
 
 and seiTant, 154. 
 small sei-vices suffice, ib. 
 
 when daughter lives with her father and is a minor, service is 
 presumed, ib. 
 / ahter where the daughter acts as another's housekeeper, ib. 
 
 S'WX^ Tiv-C aJiterwhei-e she supports her father, ib. 
 
 where service to another is put an end to, the right of the 
 
 parent re\dves, ib. 
 temporaiy visit no tennination of service, 155. 
 relation of master and servant must subsist at time of seduc- 
 tion, ib. 
 death of daughter, ib. 
 if i^arent helps to bring about his own dishonour he cannot 
 
 recover, 156. 
 who may be plaintiff, ib. 
 damages in, 157. 
 
 aggi-avation of, ib. 
 
 breach of promise of marriage not matter of aggravation, 
 
 ib. 
 mitigation of, ib. ' 
 
 previous immorality or looseness, ib. 
 limitation, 158. 
 
 SERVANT. See Master axd Seevaxt. 
 
 may sue for loss of luggage although master paid the fare, 26. 
 
 SHEEP, injuries to, by dog actionable without proof of scienter, 
 143. 
 
 SLANDER. See Defa^i-vtiox. 
 
 SPRING-GUNS. See Nuisance. 
 
 STATUTORY DUTIES, 
 
 breaches of, 19. 
 
 remedy by action for, not taken away by jeason of a j)enalty 
 
 being attached, ib. • r * •''. ■>; ''<? _.. , i' c^u^.-^ 
 
 alitcr if penalty only recoverable by part^ aggiieved, ^0. 
 where no right created in favour of the plaintiff there is no 
 
 action maintainable, 21. 
 copjTight, ib. 
 
 SUPPORT. Sec Nuisance (2).
 
 INDEX. 265 
 
 TENANT. S,r Landlord. 
 
 caiuiut dispute liindloni'H title, 1G8. 
 but may whow that title has expired, if/. 
 
 TITLE. See Teespass and Disijossession. 
 
 TORT, 
 
 defiuitiuu of, 4. 
 
 ari.siug' out of contract, 24. 
 
 TRADE MARK, /. '' , , ', . ,, 
 
 defiuitiou of, 222^ ''/;?' ' ' i'-^ >~ * '^^^^^ ^6 /^-''Y) ^ ' ' 
 nature of the title tb relief, 223. ^ 
 
 , iujimction to restrain infringement of, 225. 
 damages, ib. 
 awoimt of profitrt, il). 
 aswigTimeut of, 227. 
 
 selling' articles under seller's own name, ib. 
 registration necessary before bringing an action, 228. 
 
 TRESPASS, ratification of a, 36. 
 
 (1.) 'Ju Lands (i/itarc ciausumf regit), 159. 
 defiuitiou, ib. 
 what it consists of, ib. 
 driviug nails into wall is, ib. 
 by straying cattle, ib. 
 
 any user going beyond that siuthorized, 160. 
 remedy for, by distress djimage feasant, ib. 
 committed by escape of dangerous substances, 12 e( m'q., 
 
 160. 
 by escape of water brought by defendant on to his hiiul, 
 
 ib. 
 of animals ferae natune, 101. 
 in retaking goods, justifiable, ib. 
 
 in dri\ing cattle off plaintiff's laud, when justifiablo, ib. 
 iu distraining for rent, justifiable, ib. 
 in executing legal process, jiLstifiable, ib. 
 by reversioner inspecting premises, justifiable, ib. 
 in escaping a pressing danger, justifiable, ib. et seq. 
 by grantee of easement for the purpose of making repairs, 
 
 justifiable, 161. 
 under due legal authority, justifiable, 162. 
 plea of libenmi tenementum, ib. 
 trespassers ab initio, ib. 
 intention unmaterial, 14. 
 
 possession necessary to maintenance of action for, 163. 
 when two people fire in adverse possession, possession Ls 
 
 in person entitk-d, ib. 
 possession dates back to title, 164. 
 onus of proof of title lies on prima facie trespasser, ib. 
 when surface and subsoil in different owners, ib. 
 to highways, ib. 
 
 TJ. N
 
 266 INDEX. 
 
 TBESPASS—cotithuted. 
 
 (1) Tresjias-s to Lands {qiiare clausum f regit) — continued, 
 of joint owners, 165. 
 
 carrying- away of soil by one of two joint owners, ib. 
 reasonable woi'kiug of coal mine by joint OMTier, ib. 
 injuries to pai-ty-walls, ib. 
 continuing, 166. 
 damages for, 58. 
 aggravation of damages, 64. 
 limitation of actions for, 166. 
 (2.) To Goods and Chattels {dc asjMrtatis bonis). 
 what is, 209. 
 
 to animals, ib. , 
 
 good intention no excuse, 210. 
 by wi'ongful distress, ib. 
 destruction of goods by bailee, ib. 
 excessive sale by sheriff, ib. 
 killing game or animals fersB natui'se, ib. 
 pui'chasing goods without title, 211. 
 no trespass if plaintiff in fault, ib. 
 no remedy if animals get injured whilst trespassing, 
 
 unless defendant used unreasonable force, ib. 
 wrongful alteration or mixing up of goods prevents the 
 person altering from maintaining an action for the 
 materials or goods with which the alteration w^is made 
 or nrdxed, ib. 
 unauthoi-ized painting of carriage, ib. 
 trespass in defence of property, 212. 
 shooting a trespassing dog, when allowable, ih. 
 trespass in self-defence, ib. 
 trespass in exercise of right, ib. 
 trespass in exercise of legal authority, ib. 
 possession necessary to maintenance of action, 213. 
 
 reversioner cannot sue for, ib. 
 possession follows title, ib. 
 bailee delivering goods to an imauthorized person revests 
 
 possession in bailor, ib. 
 sale of bailor's goods by assignees of bailee revests pos- 
 session in bailor, ib. 
 sale by a person ha\ang a Uen is a trespass, ib. 
 damages for sale of goods by person ha\'ing a lien, 214. 
 administiator may maintain trespass for injuries to goods 
 
 committed before grant of administrator, ib. 
 so may a trustee when possession actually in cestui que 
 
 trust, ib. 
 what possession suffices, ib. 
 possession of finder, ib. 
 possession, prima facie proof of title, ib. 
 defendant cannot in general set up jus tcrtii, ib. 
 remedy of reversioner for pennanent iiijurj', 215. 
 trespass ab initio, 216.
 
 INDKX. 267 
 
 TRESPASS— fo;//iwM<-</. 
 
 (2) To Goods and Chatteh {ik asportatU bonis) — continued, 
 rwuptiou, 216. 
 attiuu for trespass, 218. 
 liiititatiuu, ib. 
 
 TRESrASSER, injury to, when actiouablc, 126. 
 when not uctiouable, 127. 
 
 TROVER. See Weonofto Conveesion. 
 
 TRUSTEE may maintain trespa.ss or conversion for injuries to 
 goods wliou actual pos8Cs.sion iu cestui que trust, 214. 
 
 UNFENCED HOLE, 8. 
 
 VIEW, interi'uption of, is no tort, 7. 
 
 VIS MAJOR excuses, wliat would otherwise bo actionable, 12. 
 
 VOTE, AVTongful refusal to record, is a tui-t, 7. 
 
 WALL, 
 
 trespass to, by stickinjj nails into it, 159. 
 party, 165. 
 
 W^UlRiVNT. See Coxstadle. 
 
 WARR^VNTY, damages inciUTcd through breach of, may bo 
 recovered, 26. 
 
 WASTE, 25. 
 
 WATER, 
 
 causing accumulation of, whereby another's property is in- 
 jiu-ed, is actionable, luiless injury caused by vis major, 12 
 ef nci/. 
 
 prescriptive right to discharge, on to another's laud, 194. 
 
 WATERCOURSE, 
 
 right to use of, vested in riparian proprietors, 190. 
 
 disturbance of right to use of, ib. 
 
 penning back-water in, ib. 
 
 prescriptive rights in derogation of other riparian proprietors, 
 
 ib. 
 rights may be gained in an artificial, ib. 
 
 WAY, 
 
 private, nuisance on, l.'!l. 
 
 right of, 194. 
 
 right of, of ue<'es.sity, ib. 
 
 cesser of right when necessity cea.ses, 195. 
 when granted right cea«es with the object, ib.
 
 268 INDEX. 
 
 WIFE may sue for loss caused by the killing of her husband, 144. 
 
 See Adulteey. 
 
 WINDMILL near a public highway is a public nuisance, 126. 
 
 WINDOWS. See Light aito Aie. 
 
 WORDS. See Defamation. 
 
 WRONGDOER, 
 
 any possession sufficient to sustain trespass against a, 214. 
 all things are presumed agaiost a, 68. 
 
 WRONGFUL CONVERSION, 
 
 what is, 209. 
 
 destmction of goods by baUee is, 210. 
 
 purchase of goods from a person not entitled is a, even by a 
 
 bona fide purchaser, 211. 
 possession necessary to maintenance of action for, 213. i 
 
 reversioner cannot sue for, ib. I ' 1. i 
 
 reversioner's remedy, 215. ^ '' 't'tj-tt'I''*^/ '^•'^ 
 
 possession follows title, 213. ■ 
 
 unauthorized delivery by bailee revests possession in bailor, ib. 
 sale of goods by bailee's assignee revests possession in bailor, 
 
 ib. 
 sale by one having a lien is a conversion, ib. 
 damages for sale by person having a lien, 214. 
 any possession suffices against a wrongdoer, ib. 
 possession of finder, 214. 
 possession prima facie evidence of title, ib. 
 when defendant may set up jus tertii, ib. 
 conversions of jotut owners, 216. 
 
 subsequent conversion of lawfully obtained chattel, 210. 
 making inquiries as to real owner before delivering goods 
 
 to him is no conversion, 217. 
 recaption, ib. 
 
 ordinary remedy by action, 218. 
 power of judge to order restitution, ib. 
 replevin, ib. 
 waiver of tort, 219. 
 limitation, 221. 
 restitution of stolen goods, 220, 
 
 WRONGS, 
 
 division of, 3. 
 
 definition of public and private, ib. 
 
 London : Printed by C. F. Boworth, Bream's Buildings, Chancery Lane.
 
 r.VTAioriUE 
 
 OF 
 
 PtTBLISHED BY 
 
 MEISSKS. J'.UTTlvRWC)UTIl, 
 
 TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, 
 
 AND TO 
 
 H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES. 
 
 " Xow for ih' Tjdwa of England {if I shall speak my opinion of them without 
 '^partiality either to my profession or country), /or the matter and nature of 
 " them, I hold them wise. Just and moderate laws: they give to God, they give to 
 " Catsar, they give to liie subject what appertainelh. It is true they are as mixt 
 " as our language, enmpounded of British, Sajcon, Danish, Xorman customs. 
 " And surely as our language is thereby so much the richer, so our laws are lik»- 
 " wise by that mixture the more complete." — LoKD Bacon. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 7, FLEET STREET, EC. 
 
 1879.
 
 INDEX TO CATALOGUE. 
 
 Page \ 
 
 Accounts, 
 
 Law of. Pulling ... 59 , 
 
 Actions at Law. i 
 
 Browne 61 
 
 Kerr 62 
 
 "Williams 61 ; 
 
 Administration Bonds. ; 
 
 Chadwick 10 : 
 
 Admiralty, 
 
 Practice. Coote ... 31 
 
 Advowsons. 
 
 Mirehouse 60 
 
 Agricultural Holdings. 
 
 Bund 16 
 
 Aliens. Cutler ... 31 
 
 Appeals, House of Lords 
 Denison & Scott ... 7 
 
 Arbitrations. Redman 33 
 
 Articled Clerk. 
 
 Mosely 29 
 
 Attachment, 
 
 /^o re !>7i, Brandon ... 43 
 
 Average. Crump ... 8 
 
 Awards. Redman ... 33 
 
 Banking. Grant ... 19 
 Keyser ... 60 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 Manual. 
 
 Bulley &Bund ... 48 
 In County Courts. 
 
 Davis 13 
 
 Index. Linklater ... 61 
 
 Bar. 
 
 ExaminationJoumal 56 
 
 Smith 
 Pearce 
 
 Barbados. Laws of ...60 
 
 Belligerents. 
 
 Hamel 60 
 
 Bengal Code, 
 
 Hegu'ationa of the.. 
 
 Held 43 
 
 Bills of Exchange. 
 
 Grant 19 
 
 Bills of Sale. Hunt 15 
 
 Blackstone. 
 
 Stephen's 5 
 
 Page 
 Blockade. Deane ... 61 
 
 Bookkeeping, 
 
 Solicitors' . Coombs 45 
 
 Boundaries. Himt... 46 
 
 Brokers. Keyser ... 60 
 
 Burgesses Manual. 
 
 Gaches 62 
 
 Carriers, 
 
 Inland. Powell ... 36 
 Sailway. Shelford 18 
 
 Chamber Practice. 
 
 Com. Law. Parkinson 62 
 
 Chancery Practice. 
 
 Goldsmith 29 
 
 Hunter 62 
 
 Chancery Claims. 
 
 Drewry 10 
 
 Drafting. Lewis ... 21 
 
 Charitable Trusts. 
 
 Tudor 40 
 
 Church Building. 
 
 Trower 47 
 
 Pews. Heales ... 44 
 
 Church and State. 
 
 Hale 63 
 
 Civil Law. 
 
 Tomkins & Jencken 22 
 
 Claims and Defences, 
 Forms nf. Drewry... 10 
 
 Collieries. 
 
 Bainbridge 25 
 
 Colonial Law. 
 
 Barbados 60 
 
 Commentaries . 
 
 Stephen's Blackstone's 5 
 Phniimore's ... 24, 64 
 
 Common Form Practice. 
 Coote 17 
 
 Common Law, 
 
 Law & Equity. Chute 14 
 Ihractice. DLxon ... 59 
 
 Lush 59 
 
 Kerr 62 
 
 Companies. Grant... 46 
 Shelford 9 
 
 Compensation, 
 
 Law of. Ingram ... 40 
 Shelford 18 
 
 Page 
 
 Consolidation Acts. 
 Shelford 18 
 
 Conspiracy, 
 
 Law of. "Wright ... 58 
 
 Constitution. 
 
 May 26 
 
 Stephen 5 
 
 Constitutional History. 
 
 Pulton 27 
 
 Contraband of War. 
 
 Moseley 43 
 
 Deane 61 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 Plumptre 37 
 
 Contributories. Collier 48 
 
 Conveyancing, 
 
 Introduction. Lewis 21 
 Practice. Ball ... 56 
 
 Barry 38 
 
 Smith 37 
 
 Tudor ... 28,64 
 Forms. Barry ... 38 
 
 Crabb 30 
 
 Christie 30 
 
 Kelly 33 
 
 Shelford 30 
 
 Rouse 34 
 
 Con"vdctions, 
 
 Synopsis of . Oke ... 49 
 
 Saunders 64 
 
 Forms. Oke ... 50 
 
 Co-operation. 
 
 Brabrook 44 
 
 Copyholds, 
 
 Enfranchisement. 
 
 Rouse ... !.. 44 
 Law of. Scriven ... 40 
 
 Coroner. Baker ... 60 
 
 Corporations inG-eneral. 
 Grant 46 
 
 Costs, Law of. Gray ... 59 
 
 County Courts, 
 
 Practice. Davis ... 12 
 Practice inEquity , Bank- 
 ruptcy, &c. Davis 13 
 Practice in Admiralty. 
 Coote 31
 
 INDEX TO CATALOGUE. 3 
 
 r 
 
 ii/f Pnge 1 Pnge 
 
 Criminal Law. DhWc 
 
 41 
 
 Examinations. 
 
 International Law. 
 
 Ukiv. 
 
 •lit 
 
 Bar Kxainination 
 
 Deane 6t 
 
 Curatcn. Fioia 
 
 60 
 
 .lounml 56 
 
 Luw Kxaioinatiun 
 
 Hainel 60 
 
 PhiUimoro ... 24,64 
 
 CustomH Laws. 
 
 
 m"':;"™'' Artidoil'^ Intoxicating Liquors i 
 
 Haniel 
 
 <l 
 
 Clerks'IIandyHook 2!t 
 
 Act. Oke .M 
 
 Joint Stock Companies. 
 
 ("oilier 48 ' 
 
 Deeds. Tudor 
 
 2S 
 
 Fences. Hunt . 4(i 
 
 
 
 
 Slielford 9 
 
 Descents. Feiimo ... 
 
 62 
 
 Final Examination 
 
 ,lr,„»,,/.». Pulling 59 
 
 
 
 Guide. Bedford ... 22 
 
 Judicature. 
 
 Dictionnn*, Law. 
 
 
 Fisheries. Bund ... 47 
 
 Baxter ... ... .^7 
 
 M»)/ley*i: ^Vllitelcy 
 
 11 
 
 lUwlford 22 
 
 
 
 ( )kt' :i\ 
 
 I)r«'wr>* Ill 
 
 Divorce. Ptartkf. 
 
 
 
 Trower 14 
 
 Browninff 
 
 57 
 
 Foreshores. Hunt ... 46 
 Williajnsi'.Nioliolson 60 
 
 Jurisprudence, 
 
 Domestic Servants. 
 
 
 Forms 
 
 (hi Form of the I^w. 
 Holland 58 
 
 Baylis 
 
 41 
 
 Conveyancing. Barrj' .38 
 
 Wil.b .17 
 
 DraftHman (The). 
 KeUy 
 
 33 
 
 Crabb .H) 
 
 Rouse 34 
 
 Maijisterinl. Oke ... 50 
 
 Justice of Peace. Oke 49 
 Labour Laws. Davis 7 
 
 Drainage, wason ... 
 Woolrych 
 
 62 
 
 28 
 
 Pleading. Chitty ... 58 
 Greeninif 61 
 
 Land Settlements. 
 
 Bund 62 
 
 
 
 Probate. Chadwick 10 
 
 Laudloi-d and Tenant. 
 
 Ecclesiastical. 
 
 
 Frauds, nunt .15 
 
 Fawcett 16 
 
 Prnetir-f. Coote 
 
 6.1 
 
 Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 Jud'imriil. Bii>-ford 
 Hunior V. Ilciitli... 
 
 63 
 63 
 
 Game Laws, oke ... 52 
 
 InRTam 40 
 
 Shelford 9 
 
 Oorhiim C'lmc ... ^X^ 
 
 Gas Companies Acts. 
 
 Law Dictionary ... n 
 
 Martin v. Macko- 
 
 
 Michael & Will ... 36 
 
 Law Student's Mag. 54 
 
 norhie 
 
 Phillimore 
 
 6.1 
 6.S 
 
 Guarantees. DeColyar 13 
 
 Law Studies. Mosely 29 
 
 Htl.lHrt I'. Purchase;! 
 
 Highways. Glen ... 64 
 
 Smith 43 
 Leading Cases, 
 
 Enfrland. i.„u)sof. 
 Ulackstone ... 
 
 
 
 Ural Property. TadOT ... 28 
 
 6 
 
 House of Lords, 
 
 Leases. Cmbb ... .10 
 
 rninciUon 
 
 61 
 
 Appeals. 
 
 Rouse ... .1-1 
 
 iSU'phfn 
 
 6 
 
 DeniHon & Scott ... 7 
 Digent. Clark ... 27 
 
 Legacy Duties. 
 
 Engli.sh Bar. Poarce 
 
 60 
 
 J'raetice. May ... 26 
 
 Shelford 41 
 
 Smith 
 
 43 
 
 
 Libel, starkie ... 15 
 
 Equity, 
 
 I'laimn. Drewry ... 
 
 10 
 
 Income Tax Laws. 
 
 DoweU 39 
 
 Licensing Laws, okc 51 
 
 Counig Courlji. Davis 
 
 13 
 
 
 Life Assurance. 
 
 Dortrinr ami Prarticr 
 (iolilwinith 
 
 29 
 
 Indian Penal Code. 
 Annh/six. CutlerArUriffin 29 
 
 Blajnjoy 60 
 
 Drnft.tmitn. Lewis 
 
 21 
 
 
 Lights (IVindow). 
 
 Equity d- Law. CTiute 
 
 14 
 
 Indian Statutes, Index. 
 
 LathJun 33 
 
 Judicnture. Trtiwer 
 Pleader. Drewry . . 
 
 14 
 42 
 
 Fi.'ld 43 
 
 Local Government. 
 
 Principles. Roberts 
 Suit in. Hunter ... 
 
 13 
 62 
 
 Industrial Societies. 
 Brabrook 44 
 
 Olen 64 
 
 Locus Standi. 
 
 Evidence, 
 
 County Court. Davis 12 
 
 Institutes of English 
 Public Law. Na.«imith 26 
 
 Clifford & Rickards 32 
 Lunacy. Pliillips . . 57 
 
 Law of. Powell ... 
 
 6 
 
 Magisterial Law. Oke 49 
 
 Wiiu'. WisTram ... 
 
 45 
 
 Private Law. 
 
 Form.1. Oke 50 
 
 Cirrum.itnnlial. Wills 43 
 
 Nasmith 26 
 
 Saunderw . 64 
 
 A 2
 
 4 INDEX TO CATALOGUE 
 
 
 Pagp. 
 
 Page 
 
 Page 
 
 Marine Insurance. 
 
 Precedents, 
 
 Servants. Baylis ... 41 
 
 Cnimp 8 
 
 Conveyancing. Barry 38 
 
 
 
 Crahh 30 
 
 Sewers. Wooh^-ch ... 28 
 
 Maritime Warfare. 
 
 Rouse 34 
 
 
 Deane 61 
 
 Pleading. Chitty ,jun. 58 
 
 Sheriff's Com-t. Davis 12 
 
 Hamel 60 
 
 Preliminary Exami- 
 
 Short Hand. Gumey 61 
 
 Masters and Servants. 
 
 nation Journal ... 56 
 
 Baylis 41 
 
 
 Slander. Starkie ... 15 
 
 Davis 7 
 
 Principal and Sm-ety. 
 
 
 Masters and Workmen. 
 
 DeColyar 13 
 
 Stamp Laws. Dowell 19 
 
 Lovesy 58 
 
 Private Bills. 
 
 Statutes, Table of Lead- ' 
 
 Mayor's Court Practice. 
 
 Clifford k Stephens 32 
 May 26 
 
 ing. Bedford ... 22 
 
 Brandon 43 
 
 Private Law. Nasmith 26 
 
 Stock Exchange. 
 
 Memoii's of — 
 
 
 Keyser 60 
 
 Lyndhurst 60 
 
 Prize Law. Lushington 44 
 
 
 Talfourd 60 
 
 Probate, 
 
 Succession Duty. 
 
 Shelford 41 
 
 Mines and Minerals. 
 
 Practice. Coote ... 17 
 
 
 Bainbridge 25 
 
 Dr. Tristram... 64 
 Forms. Chadwick... 10 
 
 Suit in Equity. Hunter 62 
 
 Mortgages. Fisher... 20 
 
 Duties. Shelf ord ... 41 
 
 Summary Convictions. 
 
 Rouse... 34 
 
 Provident Societies. 
 
 Oke 49 
 
 Saunders ... ... 64 
 
 Municipal Law. 
 
 Brabrook 44 
 
 
 Gaches 62 
 
 
 Tariffs and Treaties. 
 
 Grant 46 
 
 Public Law. Nasmith 26 
 
 Hamel 9 
 
 Municipal Registra- 
 
 Railways. Shelford 18 
 
 Hertslet 38 
 
 tion. Davis ... 37 
 
 Compensntion. 
 
 Tenancies, Agricul- 
 
 Natiu-alization. Cutler 31 
 Negligence. Saunders 35 
 
 Ingram 40 
 
 Real Property. 
 
 Tudor 28 
 
 tural. Bund ... 16 
 Torts. UnderhiU ... 23 
 
 Parliamentary. 
 
 Chan. Feame ... 62 
 Seaborne 42 
 
 Trade Marks. Adams 25 
 
 Clifford & Stephens 32 
 May 26 
 
 Referees' Court. 
 
 Clifford & Stephens 32 
 
 Treaties. Hertslet ... 38 
 
 Partition, Law of. 
 
 Lawience 46 
 
 Registration. Davis 37 
 
 Trusts. Underbill ... 23 
 Charitable. Tudor... 40 
 
 Partnership. Dixon .35 
 Tudor's Pothior ... 61 
 
 Religious, Doctrine. 
 
 Burdery. Heath... 63 
 
 Discipline. 
 
 Tm-npike Laws, oke 53 
 
 Patent Cases. Higgins 39 
 Patents. Norman ... 61 
 
 Long V. Cape Town 63 
 
 Reporting Cases. 
 
 Cutler 57 
 
 Vendors & Purchasers. 
 Seaborne 42 
 
 Water Companies Acts. 
 
 Petty Sessions, oke 49 
 
 Ritual. Bayford ... 63 
 
 Michaels Wm ... 36 
 
 Saunders 64 
 
 Hamel ... 63 
 
 Wills. Coote 17 
 
 Pews. Heales ... 44 
 
 Roman Law. Gaius 42 
 
 Crabb 30 
 
 Pleading, 
 
 Ortolan's 32 
 
 Tomkins 42 
 
 Tudor 28 
 
 Wigram . . 45 
 
 Common Law. Chitty .58 
 Greening 61 
 
 Tomkins & Jencken 22 
 
 Winding-up. CoUier 48 
 
 "Williams 61 
 
 Salmon Fisheries. 
 
 Shelford 18 
 
 Equity. Drewry ... 42 
 Lewis 21 
 
 Bund 47 
 
 Oke 53 
 
 Window Lights. 
 
 Poor Law, 
 
 Savings Banks. 
 
 Latham 33 
 
 Orders. Glen ... 64 
 
 Forbes 41 
 
 Wrongs. Underbill... 23
 
 r;iliT ('('I'orl;,'; publi.'iljfD bn ^ITf.'i.'iv.'i. Jiutirvboillj. 
 
 STEPHEN'S NEW COMMENTARIES. 7th Edit. 
 Mu. SEIMKANT STKIMIKX'S NEW COMMEX- 
 TAKIKS t)X THE EAWS ()!• IINCIEAXI), partly founded 
 on Blackst«tno. The Seventh Edition, by James StkI'HEX, 
 Es([., IJj.I)., Judp! of County Courts, lato Professor of Enj^lish 
 Law at Kinjr's Collcf^e, London, and formerly Recorder of Poole. 
 4 vols. Svo. 4/. 4s. clidh. 
 
 *,* This work is set for the Intermediate Examination for Solici- 
 tors for 1880. 
 
 From Ihr " Iaiw Journal." 
 " It is unnowssary for «s on this oora- 
 sion to rejieat tlic piilo(rj- wliicli six yvtirti 
 iiKf> we bestowtxl, in is^w, n(>t witliout 
 just rwutfin, on tlie C<inimentarif'« us 
 tlicy then iippoiirtHl. It hiis been re- 
 marked tliat Stephen's Commentjuies 
 enjoy the sperial merit of bcinjr an 
 educational work, not merely a lepal 
 text book. Tlieir scope is so wide tliat 
 every man, no matter what his position, 
 profession, trade or employment, can 
 scarcely fail to tlnd in them mutter of 
 special interest to himself, besides the 
 vast fund of (jeneml infonnation upon 
 ■which everj' Knt-'lishman of intelligence 
 may draw with advantajre." 
 
 From thf " SiiliriUir.i' Journal." 
 " A work which hius reacheil a Seventh 
 Edition needs no other testimony to its 
 usefulness. And when a law book of 
 tlie size and ci istliness of these ' Coin- 
 nientimes' p:i8.s<'s thron^'h many e<li- 
 tions, it must be taken a.s establi.'ihtxl 
 that it supplies a ni-eil felt in all branches 
 of the profi'ssion, and prol)ably to some 
 extent, also, outside the ])riit'i-.'ision. It 
 isdithcult indceil to name a lawbook of 
 more tfeneial utility than the one before 
 us. It is : as rei,iinls the j^Teater part) 
 not too technical for the lay reader, and 
 not too full of detail for the law studi'Ut, 
 wliile it is an accurate and c•(>nsi(lerin^f 
 its de.sijm* a sinirularly complete piide 
 to the practitii mer. This result is due in 
 no small iIcltcc to the mode in which 
 the succ»'.ssi\'e editions have l>een re- 
 vised, the alterations in the law l>ein(r 
 concisely embodied, and can-fully inter- 
 woven with the i)revioiis material, fonn- 
 inu' a refreshinir contni-stto the lament- 
 able si>ectacle pri •.■«nted by cert.iin works 
 into whic'h succ<>ssive learned editors 
 liave pitchforked hcadnofes of casef 
 thereby rendering' each edition more un- 
 Cfinnected and omfusiiij? than its pre- 
 deces.sor. As the result of our exami- 
 nati(m we may say that the new law 
 has, in (renenil, l)oen accurately and 
 tersely stjited, and its relation to the 
 old Uiw carefully pointed out." 
 
 From the " Law Timrs." 
 "We have in this Work an old and 
 valued friend. For years we have had 
 the bust, the Sixth Edition, upon our 
 shelves, and we can state as a fact that 
 when our text books on particular 
 branches of the I^aw have failed us, we 
 have always found that Stephen's Com- 
 mentaries hrive suppliwl us with the 
 key to what we sought, if not the actual 
 thintr we recjuired. We think that these 
 f'lmimentJU'ies establish one important 
 proposition, that to be of thorouirh prac- 
 tical utility a treati.ne on Eni-'lish Law 
 cannot lie reduce<l within a small com- 
 
 fMiss. Tlie subject is one wliich must 
 >c dealt with comprehensively, and an 
 abridi-Muent, except mcifly for the ptir- 
 poses of elenieritjuy study, is a decided 
 blunder. Of the scope of the C'om- 
 iniiit'irios we need .say nothinf?. To 
 all who pn>fess acquidutance with the 
 Eu^rlish Ijiw their i)lun and execution 
 nui.-<t be thorouK'ldy famiUar. Tlie 
 learned Author has made one c<m- 
 spicuous alteniticm, contiiiinR' ' fivil 
 Injuries' within the compass of one 
 volimie, and eommencinp tlie last 
 volume with ' f Vimes,' — and in that 
 volume he has phtced a Table of 
 St.itutcs. In eveiy respect the Work 
 is improved, and the present winter can 
 say, from practical exp<'riincc, that for 
 the Student and the IVactitioner there 
 is no better Work published than 
 ' Stephen's Commentaries.'" 
 
 From l/if "Law Fxamination Journal." 
 " Tliis most Tiduablc work has now 
 reachetl ita Seventh Edition. Tliose 
 who desire to take a survey of the 
 entire field of English Ijiw cannot do 
 Ix'tter than procure this work. For a 
 peneral sun'cy of the entire field of 
 EnL'li.-*!! Ijiw, or, at lea.st, for a coni- 
 pui-ative .survey of different branches of 
 law, Stephen's fonimentaries are un- 
 rivalh-fl , and we may obs«"r\e that these 
 Commentaries should not be used 
 mere'lv as a book of reference, they 
 should be carefully studied."
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 POWELL ON EVIDENCE. By CUTLER & GRIFFIN. 
 
 — Fourth Edition. 
 
 POWELL'S PRINCIPLES and PRACTICE of the 
 LAW of EVIDENCE. Fourth Edition. By J. Cutler, B.A., 
 Professor of EngHsh Law and Jui-isprudence, and Professor of 
 Indian Jurisprudence at King's College, London, and E. F. 
 Griffin, B.A., Barristers-at-Law. Post 8vo. 18s. cloth; 22s. calf. 
 
 •»* This edition contains the alterations necessary to adapt it to the practice under the 
 Judicature Acts, as Well as other material additions. The Bankers' Book Evidence 
 Act, 1876, is given as an Addenda to the Appendix of Statutes. 
 
 the Law of Evidence,' by Cutler and 
 Griflin. "We are inf oi-med in the preface 
 that the results of the Judicature Acts 
 as reg'ards evidence have been duly- 
 noted, whilst the work itself has been 
 rendered more comprehensive. It is an 
 excellent summary of principles." — Law 
 Times. 
 
 " There is hardly any branch of the 
 law of ^-eater interest and importance, 
 not only to the profession, but to the 
 public at large, than the law of evidence. 
 On this branch of the law, moreover, 
 all well as on many others, important 
 changes have been effected of recent 
 years. We are, therefore, all the more 
 inclined to welcome the appearance of 
 the Foirrth Edition of this valuable 
 work." — Law Examinatioyi Journal. 
 
 " In Powell's Law of Evidence, of 
 which a f oui'th edition by Messrs. Cutler 
 and Griffin has now been publi-shed, the 
 Indian Evidence Act and the rules of 
 evidence adopted in the Anglo-Indian 
 com*ts occupy a prominent place, and 
 while this must form a special recom- 
 mendation of the work to students in- 
 tending to g-o to India, it is a featm-e 
 which others besides will find reason to 
 appreciate. To the general practitioner, 
 however, the main value of the work 
 must consist in its treatment of the 
 law prevailing in this countiy and in 
 England, and in this respect we confi- 
 dently recommend the work to our 
 readers. The principles and practice of 
 the law of evidence in equity are also 
 more fully treated than in any modem 
 work on evidence with which we are 
 acquainted, and the provisions of the 
 Judicature Act, as well as the new 
 English rules, have been incorporated 
 with this edition, besides many impor- 
 timl Htatutes passed since the date (1868) 
 of the preceding edition. To the stu- 
 dent we know no work on the law of 
 evidence we could more strongly recom- 
 mend, and both bi'anches of the profes- 
 sion win find Powell's Law of Evidence 
 a work which can be consulted with 
 confidence." — Irish Law Times. 
 
 ' ' The editors of this work put forward 
 ' no claim to that exliaustiveness which 
 other works dealing with the law of evi- 
 dence aim at.' Their desire, on the 
 eontraiy, is to ' adhere to the principle' 
 of their author ' of not overloading the 
 book with cases.' We heartily approve 
 the principle ; which, however, is some- 
 what difficult of application. We must 
 add, however, that in most instances the 
 cases are tersely absti-acted, and the 
 convenience of the reader is consvdted 
 by references to more than one set of 
 reports. The plan of the book is to give 
 pretty frequently, and, as far as we can 
 discover, in almost every chapter, a 
 'rule' of general application, and then 
 to group the cases roimd it. These rules 
 or axioms are pi-inted in a distinctive 
 type. The work has been pruned and 
 remodelled by the light of the Judica- 
 ture Acts. The authors give in an ap- 
 pendix the Indian Evidence Acts, with 
 some Indian decisions thereupon, and 
 occasionally notice these acts in the text. 
 On the whole we think this a good edi- 
 tion of a good book. It brings down 
 the ca.ses to the latest date, and is con- 
 structed upon a model which we should 
 like to see more generally adopted." — 
 Solicitor.H' Journal. 
 
 "The plan adopted is, we think, an 
 admirable one fur a concise handy-book 
 on the subject. Such maxims as that 
 'hearsay is inadmissible,' are given at 
 the head of the chapter in large t\7)e, 
 and then follow the exj)lanati(ins. The 
 Indian code of evidence given at the end 
 of the book deserves to be read by eveiy 
 student, whether going to India or not. 
 The few rules of the English law fif 
 evidence, which arc purelystHtutijry,are 
 also given vcitiatini, incimliTig the two 
 orders of the. luiliiatuiv Aft, l.s7.'-),\vliich 
 appear to be correctly a]iprccin1i-(l. The 
 present fonn of Powell on I'lvidi'iice is a 
 handy, well printed and ciucfnlly pre- 
 pared editioTi of a book of deserved re- 
 putation and aiithonty." — LntrJounn:!. 
 
 "We have received the fourth edition 
 of ' Powell's Principles and Practice of
 
 MESSRS, HUITERWORTH, <, KI.EET STREET, E.G. 
 
 DENISON AND SCOTT'S HOUSE OF LORDS APPEAL 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 APPEALS TO THE HOUSE OF LOEDS: Procedure 
 and I'ractico relativo to English, Scotch and Irish Appeals; with 
 the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876; the Standing Orders of 
 tho House ; Directions to Agents ; Fonns, and Ta])Ies of Costs. 
 Edited, wath Notes, Eeferenccs and a full Index, fonning a 
 complete Book of Practice under the New Appellate System. 
 By Chaules Mausii Denisox and Chakles IIexdeuson Scott, 
 of the Middle Temple, Esqs., Barristers-at-Law. 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 " The most important portion of the 
 work, viz., that conct'niinjr tlie Prooe- 
 dure and Pructire on Appriil to the 
 House of I/onls, contiiins mformntion 
 of the most important kind to those 
 g'entlemcn who nave business of this 
 nature ; it is well and alily oompiled, 
 and the praotitioner will find no ditH- 
 rultf in foUowintj the various steps 
 indii'ate«l. 
 
 " The whole book is well and carefully 
 prepared, and is imusnially n-adable in 
 ita style." — Justirr of thr I'rncf. 
 
 "Tliis is a small volume upon a hu1>- 
 ject of the trreiitest pnirtieal interest at 
 the pre.M'nt time, for, notwitlistnndiiii; 
 the changes which have been made in 
 
 the construction of the ultimate Court 
 of Appeal, there are no two opinions an 
 to the position which it holds in the 
 eonfl<lenee of the profession and the 
 public. A learned introduction (rives a 
 brief but suftiiient historical sketch of 
 the jurisdiction of the Hou.se of I»rd8. 
 This is fi)llowt"d by a practical treatise, 
 which IS a complete and well-written 
 (fuide to the procedure by which an 
 Appeal is bi'^jun, continued, and ended, 
 includint^ an important chapter on 
 Costs. In an ApjK'udix are ffiven the 
 Act of ls7(!, the portions of the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, 
 and the Scotch Statutes, Forms, and 
 Bills of Cobta." — Liiw 'I'imti. 
 
 DAVIS'S LABOUR LAWS OF 1875. 
 
 THE LABOUK LAWS OF 1875, ^^-ith Introduction 
 and Notes. By J. E. Pavis, Esq., Bamster-at-Law, and late 
 Police Magistrate for Sheffield. 8vo. 12«. cloth. 
 
 " We advise the pnietitioner to arm 
 himself with what will probably \m- the 
 standartl work on the subject. He will 
 find the arrangement )^>(k1, and the ex- 
 planation of the procedure exceptionally 
 lucid." — Liiw Mngnziuf. 
 
 " This is a cla-ss of b<x)k which is very 
 much want*^!, and should n'c^eive every 
 encouragement. Mr. Da^^s sjiys that his 
 object has Xiocn to combine a popular 
 comment with a strictly practical trea- 
 tise. Inthishehassuci'tt'ded. Tliebook 
 is in every n'.sjH'ct carefid and thoujfht- 
 ful, it (rives the best readinj; of the law 
 wliich we have, and fumislii'S in fjclrn.m 
 all the Acts of rarliiunent relating to 
 
 the subject." — I.ntv Timfs. 
 
 " Mr. DaNTs's lxx)k is not a reprint of 
 the acta with a few notes, but an original 
 and complete treati.se, and it will bi> ap- 
 preciated by tliose who are concemi-d in 
 the working of the labour laws." — Law 
 Joitmnl. 
 
 " A good book on this subject should 
 fulfil two distinct fimctions by no means 
 easy to combine. Mr. I)a\ns has, in our 
 opinion, successfully fulfilled both these 
 re<juisites, and may l>e confoutulated 
 upon havintr produced a book which 
 will pntbably Ipecome the standard work 
 on this important mihjfxt."— Solicitor^ 
 Jountitl.
 
 CRUMP'S PRINCIPLES OF MARINE INSURANCE. 
 
 THE PEINCIPLES OF THE LAW EELATING TO 
 MAEINE INSUEANCE AND GENERAL AVERAGE in 
 England and America, with, occasional references to French and 
 German Law. By F. Octavius Crttmp, of the Middle Temple, 
 Esq.,Barrister-at-Law. Li 1 vol. royal 8vo. 21s. cloth; 26s. caK. 
 
 "This is decidedly a clever book. "We 
 always ■welcome cordially any genuine 
 effort to strike out a new line of legal 
 exposition, not merely because such 
 effort may more etfectually teach law, 
 but because it may exhibit a better 
 method than we now possess of ex- 
 pressing law. "We have been at pains 
 to search the book for many of the 
 most recent cases in marine insuraface, 
 and although some of them are exactly 
 of a character to puzzle and embarrass 
 a codiiier, IVIr. Crump has dealt suc- 
 cessfully -with them. We think we may 
 fairly congratvdate the author upon the 
 production of a work original in design, 
 excellent in arrangement, and as com- 
 plete as could fairly be expected." — 
 Law Journal. 
 
 "The principles and practice of 
 general average are included in this 
 admirable summarj'." — Standai-d. 
 
 " Mr. Crump, we may observe, in 
 this treatise of the law of average and 
 insurance, has suppUed a ready armouiy 
 of reference." — Shipping and Mercantile 
 GazetlK. 
 
 " Alphabetically arranged this work 
 contains a number of the guiding prin- 
 ciples in the judge-made law on this 
 subject, which has got into such a 
 tangle of precedents that a much less 
 careful digest than that under the above 
 title would have been welcome to stu- 
 dents as well as merchants. Mr. Crump 
 has made a very commendable effort at 
 brevity and clearness." — Economist. 
 
 " Tliere are many portions of it well 
 arranged, and where the law is carefully 
 and acciu-ately stated." — Law Magnzine. 
 
 " We rejoice at the pubUcation of 
 the book at the head of this notice. 
 Mr. Crump is a bold man, for he has 
 positively made an innovation. Instead 
 of a ponderous tome, replete with obso- 
 lete law, useless authorities, and anti- 
 quated quotations, we have a handy, 
 clearly written, and well jjrinted book, 
 seemingly containing the whole law on 
 the suliject, in the shape of a digest of 
 decided oises in the very words of the 
 judges, and leaving nothing doubtful 
 and misleading to beguile the reader. 
 It is true that such a plan increases the 
 trouble of the author, but as it diminishes 
 that of the reader he may pardon the 
 irregularity. Seriously speaking, Mr. 
 Crump's book seems very perfect and 
 is certainly very clear in its arrangement 
 
 and complete in its details, conscien- 
 tiously going into the most minute 
 points, and omitting nothing of im- 
 portance." — Irish Law Times. 
 
 "It is at once a treatise and a dic- 
 tionary on the difficult and complicated 
 branch of the law with which it deals, 
 and to which Mr. Crump has in this 
 volume done something to give an 
 orderly simphcity." — I/aily Xews. 
 
 " Considering the narrow compass 
 within which it is comprised, we have 
 been surprised to find how complete and 
 comprehensive it appe;ti-s to be, and if 
 fm-ther experience should justify the 
 expectations which our perusal of it 
 induces us to form, Mr. Crump will not 
 be disappointed in liis hope that he has 
 made a step in advance towai-ds .simpb- 
 tication — not to use the term codification 
 — of the law." ..." The work, which 
 must have involved great labour, ap- 
 pears to us to have been executed with 
 fulness, accui-acy and fidehtj', and its 
 value is much increased by references, 
 not only to EngUsh and American de- 
 cisions and text writers, but to the 
 Flench and Gei-man law on the same 
 subject." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " The plan of the book differs mate- 
 rially, and, we think, advantageously, 
 from the ordinary text book. By this 
 system several advantages are secured. 
 We have examined several of Mr. 
 Cnmip's propositions in order to test 
 him on these points, and the result is 
 decidedly in his favour. We have no 
 hesitation in commending the plan of 
 Mr. Crump's book. Its use in actual 
 practice must of course be the ultimate 
 gauge of its accui'acy and cnmpleteness, 
 but from the tests th.'it we have applied 
 we have little doubt that it -will stand 
 the ordeal satisfactorily." — Athenrpum. 
 
 "The volume by Mr. Octa\'ius Ci-ump 
 on the Principles of the Law of Marine 
 Insurance and General Average at- 
 tempts what, we believe, has never be- 
 fore been attempted in legal literatm-e 
 — namely, under an alphabetical clas- 
 sification of subjects, to stiite piinciples 
 without aigument in such a manner as 
 to dispense with the necessity for an 
 inde.x. The experiment is one which, 
 if successful, seems to point the way to 
 codification. This mode of treatment 
 makes it easy for any one to follow the 
 law from the beginning to the end of a 
 marine risk." — Times.
 
 MESSRS. BUITERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 9 
 
 HAMEL'S CUSTOMS LAWS. 
 
 Till-: lAWS OF TIIK CUSTOMS, 1870. loiiHoliclated 
 by iliivction ot' tlu; Lords ( 'omiiiissioiiers of her Majesty's 
 Treasury. With ])riirticiil Notes antl Kelormuos tlirouf^hout ; 
 an A])iK'n(lix contuiuinfi; various Statutory Provisions int-idontul 
 to thu Customs ; tlio Customs TarilY Act, INTO, and a Copious 
 Indfx. By Felix Joiix IIamel, J'1h«i., Solicitor for hor 
 Majesty's Customs. Post 8vo. (is. cloth; demy 8vo. Hs. (j<l. 
 
 " Mr. Hiinipl, Holicitor for her Ma- uniiiue faoilitii'x, and whir'li oiiK-ht to be 
 
 jextv'H customs, ha.s produoed a very in tlu- handsof all who hawan intcrext 
 
 uso/ul 'pooki't volume' wlit ion of the in our luuritiiue comnifrce." — /mw 
 
 Customs Laws and TaritT Act, 1W6, for Muijaziun:. 
 which Ilia official pusitiun atfurds hiin 
 
 SHELFORD'S JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.— 
 Second Edition by PITCAIRN and LATHAM. 
 
 SIIELFOKD'S LAW of JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, 
 containin;^ a Dij^est of the Case Law on that subject ; the Com- 
 panies Acts, 1S()2, 18(57, and other Acts relatinj^ to Joint Stock 
 Comimnies ; the Orders made under those Acts to rej^ulato Pro- 
 ceeding's in the Court of Chancery and County Courts; and Ncjtes 
 of all Cases intei-])retinf]^ the above Acts and Orders. Second 
 Edition, much enlar<<eit and bringinj? the Statutes and Cases 
 down to the date of publication. By David Pitcaiun, M.A., 
 Fellow of Ma^'dalen Colbsgo, Oxford, and of Lincohi's lun, 
 Barrister-at-Law, and Francis Law Latham, B.A., Oxon, of 
 the Inner Tem])le, Banister-at-Law, Author of "A Treatise ou 
 the Law of Window Lights." 8vo. 21s. cloth. 
 
 " We may at onc»' slate that, in our 
 opinion, the mciit.s uf the work art' very 
 (^■eat, and we oontidently expect that it 
 will be, at least for the prcs«-nt, the 
 Htan(hird manual of joint stock com- 
 pany law. That (fn-at leitniiii^ and 
 r<'s«'arch have Ihi'ii expende<l by Mr. 
 l*itcaim no one can doubt who reads 
 only a few pa^es of the Isjok ; the i-e- 
 sult of each cjise which has any bearing 
 upon the subjei't under discussion is 
 ver>' lucidly and aeeurjitcly stated. We 
 heartily contmitulate him ou the ap- 
 pearance of this work, for which we 
 anticipjite a (jreat success. There is 
 hardly any p<irtion of the law at the 
 present day so important as that which 
 relates to joint st<K>k companies, and 
 that this work will he the standard 
 authority on the subji-ct we have not 
 the shadow of a doubt." — f.nic ,/nurnnl. 
 
 " After a cjuvful examination of this 
 work we are bound to sjiy that we know 
 of no other which suri>a.sscs it in two 
 all-important attributi« of a law book; 
 first, a clear eone<'ption on the jmH of 
 the author of what he intends to do 
 and how he intends to treat his subject ; 
 and secondly, a consistent, labonous 
 
 and int<'lli»fent adherence to his pro- 
 j)o«ed onler and method. All decisuma 
 are not<.-»l and e])itomi.He<l in their jn-oper 
 places, the pnictice-de<'isions in tlie 
 notes to Acts and Uules, and the re- 
 mainder in the intnKluctory account or 
 dif,ivst. In the <li(rt-st Mr. l^iti-oim tOKt 
 into everythintf with oriKinal rest'arch, 
 and nothin)^ st^^ems to escai>e hiin. It 
 is enouffh for us that Mr. Pitcuim's 
 perfonnance is able and e.xhau.stive. 
 S'othinjf is oniittt-d, and ever)"tlun>f is 
 noted at the pro]H'r phice. In conclu- 
 sion, we have KTcat ]>leiLsure in recom- 
 niendintf this iHlition to the pnictitioner. 
 ANlioever po,s,ses.ses it, and ke< ps it noted 
 up, will be anne<l on all piu-ts and points 
 of the law of joint st4>ck compjinies." — 
 Solicitors* Journal. 
 
 " Althou^'h nominally a second o<li- 
 tion of Mr. Shelfonl's treatise it is in 
 reality an ori^'iual work ; the f(inn and 
 arrant^'iuent adcipte<l by Mr. Shelford 
 have iK-fn chan>{''<l. and, we think, im- 
 proved, by Mr. l*itcnim. A full and 
 ttccunite index also adds to the value of 
 the work, the merit* of which we can 
 have no doubt will be fully recoimizcd 
 by the profession." — I^w MayoiiHt.
 
 10 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 DREWBY'S FORMS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENCES. 
 
 FOEMS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENCES IN CASES 
 intended for the CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH 
 COUET OF JUSTICE. With Notes, containing an Outline of 
 the Law relating to each of the subjects treated of, and an 
 Appendix of Forms of Endorsement on the Writ of Summons. 
 By C. Stewart Drewry, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister- 
 at-Law, Author of a Treatise on Injunctions, and of Reports of 
 Cases in Equity, temp. Kindersley, V.-C, and other works. Post 
 8vo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 "Mr. Drewry has attempted to supply adopted. The forms we have looked at 
 
 the defect of the schedule to the Judi- seem to be fairly correct." — Solicitors' 
 
 cature Act of 1875, and he has proceeded Journal. 
 
 in his work in the safest and most satis- " The equity draftsmen of the present 
 
 factory manner. He has not put forward day, who, however experienced in the 
 
 a number of imaginary forms of plead- niceties of the past system, cannot but 
 
 ings, but he has collected from the re- need the aid of a work thus compiled, 
 
 ports pleading's in decided cases, and and, tnisting to its gTiidance, benefit in 
 
 has moulded these into precedents for time and labour saved ; while to the 
 
 similar actions under the Judicature younger members of the profession es- 
 
 Act. The forms thus inti'oduced are pecially we cordially recommend the 
 
 concise, and cannot fail to be very use- work." — Irish Law Times. 
 
 ful and welcome." — Laiv iliKjazine. " On the whole we can thoroughly 
 
 " Mr. Drewry's plan of taking the recommend it to our readers." — Law 
 
 facts for the forms from reported cases Examination Journal. 
 
 and adapting them to the new rules of " The work is likely to prove useful 
 
 pleading, seems the best that can be to the practitioner." — Justiceof the Peace. 
 
 CHADWICK'S PROBATE COURT MANUAL. 
 Corrected to 1876. 
 
 EXAMPLES of ADMINISTEATION BONDS for the 
 COUET of PEOBATE ; exhibiting the principle of various Grants 
 of Administration, and the correct mode of preparing the Bonds in 
 respect thereof; also Directions for preparing the Oaths ; arranged 
 for practical utility. With Extracts from Statutes ; also various 
 Forms of Affirmation prescribed by Acts of Parliament, and a Sup- 
 plemental Notice, bringing the work down to 1876. By Samuel 
 CnADWiCK,of her Majesty's Court of Probate. Eoy. 8vo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 " We undertake to say that the pos- annexed being delayed on account of 
 
 session of this volume by practitioners the defective tilling up of such instru- 
 
 will prevent many a hitch and awkward ments." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 delay, provoking to the lawyer himself " Mr. Chadwick's volume will be a 
 
 and ditficult tt) be satisfactorily ex- necessary part of the law library of the 
 
 plained to the clients." — Law Muyazine practitioner, for he has collected pre- 
 
 and Ite.view. cedents that are in constant require- 
 
 " Tlie work is principally designed to ment. This is purely a book of practice, 
 
 save the profession the necessity of ob- but therefore the more valuable. It tells 
 
 taining at the registries information as the reader what to do, and that is the 
 
 to the preparing or ttlling up of bonds, information most required after a law- 
 
 and to prevent grants of administra- yer begins to practise." — Law Times. 
 tion and administration with the will
 
 MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 11 
 
 MOZLEY AND WHITELEY'S CONCISE LAW 
 DICTIONARY. 
 
 A CONcrsK LAW DICTIONARY, tontaiiiiiif,' Sh(,rt 
 and Siiiiplt' I)<-linitiniis of tlio Tcrnis used in tho Liiw. By 
 IIkuueht Newman Mo/i-ky, M.A., Fellow of King's College, 
 Cambridge, and of Lineohrs Inn, p]s(|., and Geouge CuiSPE 
 "\VniTELEY,M.A.,Cantjib,of the Middle Tenij)le, Esc|.,Bam8ter8- 
 at-Law. In 1 vol. 8vo. 20<i. cloth ; 2os. browii calf. 
 
 "Mes,»r!<. Miizley and 'Wliitfloy, by 
 the wonlinjf of their title pn«e, Keem to 
 have wt lircWty Ix'foii' tlii-iii u.s tlie 
 npo»'iiil feature of tlieir work, which in 
 coninristHl witliin little more than five 
 hun»ire<l pain*. As a hanilr ImmiIc for 
 the desk, and lus eon\l>inin)f K^'nenil 
 aceuniov with bre\ify, we liave no d(>ul>t 
 tlmt Xfessrs. Mozley and uniiteley'H 
 ConiM.sc Ijiw Pictionar>- will inert with 
 tt large amount of favour." — l.nw Mnyii- 
 tinr.. 
 
 "This book is a creat deid more 
 modest in its views than the law dic- 
 tionary we re\'iewed a little while ajro. 
 Its main obji^'t i« to explain briefly 
 le;?al terms, both ancient and modem. 
 In many ejLses, however, the authors 
 have added a concise stjitement of the 
 law. Hut, as the work is intended both 
 for lawj-ers and the public at larKf, it 
 does not pnifess to (rive more than an 
 outline of the doctrini-srefeiTtHl to under 
 thesevenil heailiiijrs. lla%-inif rt^ininl to 
 this de.si^ni, we think the work is well 
 and canfully edite<l. It is exeeedin(fly 
 complete, not only (rinntf t<'r»c explana- 
 tions of h'lfal phrases, but al.«o notiet»s of 
 leadintr cast's and short biotniiphies of 
 Ictral luminaries. We may add that a 
 ver>' convenient table of reports is iriven, 
 showintf the abbreviations, the date and 
 the court, and that the ls>ok Lt verj- well 
 printed." — .S'"'i<i/.ir.<' Jmimnl. 
 
 " This l)ook contains a liuxe nuiss of 
 infomuition more or less u.seful. A 
 considerable amount lK)thof labour and 
 leamint? has evidently Irh-h expondwl 
 upon it, and to the general public it may 
 be rtX'ommendiKl as a relialile and use- 
 ful fniide. Law students desirtnis of 
 craniminif will also find it acceptable." 
 
 "Mr. ^\'^^art<)n's work, althoutrh it is 
 brought down U> a very ree<'nt periixl, is 
 nevertheless so bulky and so costly that 
 a more concise and cheajHT publication 
 miu'htwell And favour in the eyes of the 
 public. Tlie authors of the alsive work 
 ao not profess to addn*ss thems»>lves 
 solely to the memt)ers of the h^il pro- 
 fe.-wion, their object haslM'<>n to pnxlui-e 
 a b<M>k which shall al.so be u.seful to the 
 general public by frivin^ clear yet con- 
 cise explanations of the legiil terms and 
 
 phra.st's in past and present use, and we 
 think they nave satisfactorily performed 
 
 tlieir Uisk."—Jlislirr nf th'- i'l-'hf. 
 
 " It should contain evervthinfr of 
 value to lie found in the otlier larifer 
 ■works, and it should l>e u.seful not 
 merely to the Icfjal pnifession, but also 
 to the (general imblic. Now, the work 
 of Messrs. M<i/.ley and WHiiteley appears 
 to fulfil those very conditions; and, 
 while it lu-isists the lawjer, will be no 
 less u.-icful to his client. On the whole, 
 we repeat that the work is a praise- 
 worthj- pefonnanee which de.sen-es a 
 place m the libraries both of the hffal 
 pnife.ssion and of the p-'neral public."— 
 Irish Law Timrs, 
 
 "The 'Concise Law Dictionarv,' by 
 Mr. H. Mozlej- and Mr. (J. Whiteley, ia 
 not only eonci.se but compendious, and 
 is well adapte<l for those who desire to 
 refi-e,>ih the memory or obtain a succinct 
 explanation of letral terms without Koinj? 
 throU(fh a ma.ss of details." — Saturday 
 
 lirvirw. 
 
 "Tliis work will supply a want felt 
 by many, as well amonff law students aa 
 the treni'nil public, of an exphmattiry 
 inde.x of lepil t«"nns and phrasi-s ; com- 
 plete to the pr<!sent time, and at the 
 same time mcHlcrate in bulk. To such, 
 too, it nuiy be rf<"ommende<l for itil 
 many Cfjncisesupjilemi'ntary expositions 
 of the law l)earintr upon the subject- 
 matter of manv of the titles indexed." 
 — S,m,n„/nnmM. 
 
 " Tliouirh devotinp lets space to ex- 
 positions tif the law than \\'liarton and 
 nis e<litors allow, will yet Ik- found u.h<»- 
 ful for pi-eci.se deflnitions of law tenns. 
 In many cases its (rreater bn"%ity L-* an 
 advantiiKe, en.iblin)f the Issik to Ix'con- 
 sult*^] with more rapidity and prompti- 
 tu<le." — l)aih/ Srw.i. 
 
 " The compilers l>ein(7 scholars and 
 ^'iitlemen, have taken pains anil made 
 their Issik a valuable one, of which we 
 can prophesy new and even improved 
 editions." — /'uhli.thrr.i' l 'irmlar. 
 
 " An extremely handy Issik of refer- 
 ence. On the whole suc<inctness,clejir- 
 ni-ss and condensjition of matter have 
 lie<>n happily studicil and effeotUHlly se- 
 cured in the double columns of a small 
 octavo volume." — liookarUrr.
 
 12 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 DAVIS'S COUNTY COURT RULES AND ACTS OF 1875 
 and 1876. 
 THE COUNTY COUET EULES, 1875 and 1876, 
 ■with. Fonns and. Scales of Costs and Fees; together witli tlie 
 County Courts Act, 1875, and other recent Statutes affecting the 
 Jurisdiction of the County Coui-ts. Foi-ming a SUPPLEMENT 
 to the Fifth Edition of the COUNTY COUET PRACTICE and 
 EVIDENCE, but entirely complete in itself. By James Edward 
 Davis, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In 1 vol. 
 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 " Such disadvantages as are inherent relating to County Courts. The book 
 
 to a Supplement lie has reduced to a opens with the act of last session, 
 
 niinimimi by numerous references and shortly annotated ; then follow the por- 
 
 a full index to the whole work. Some tions of other acts passed last session 
 
 notion can be gained of the extent of wliich relate to County Com-ts ; and, 
 
 the new matter ■with which Mr. Davis after these, the Consolidated Rules is- 
 
 had to deal from the fact that the sued last year, and the new Rules which 
 
 volume before us contains, exclusively came in force on Monday last. A vei-y 
 
 of the index, 326 pages of matter. The fuU index is added, containing refer- 
 
 volvune is in a neat and handy f oi-m and ences, not only to the present volume, 
 
 well adapted for general use." — Law but also to the work to which it is in- 
 
 Joarnal. tended as a supplement." — Solicitors' 
 
 "We will merely content ourselves Jour/ml. 
 
 with pointing out that the additions "Tlie number of statutes affecting 
 
 and changes as regards Coimty Court Coimty Courts passed in 1874—75 is 
 
 im-isdiction have been veiy great and certainly fonnidable, and requii'ed to 
 
 important, and that this volume indi- be brought at once to the notice of 
 
 cates them in a well-an-anged and con- practitioners. This ilr. Davis does in 
 
 venient form. Its issue has been wisely a f oi-m which has thoroughly recom- 
 
 delayed, so as to include the Rules of mended itself to the profession. The 
 
 1876." — Law Mar/azine. voluminous index will fonn an excel- 
 
 " We have here in good type and con- lent guide to the legislation as weU as 
 
 veniently aiTanged all the new legisla- to the rules and orders." — Law Times. 
 tion, whether parliamentary or judicial, 
 
 DAVIS'S COUNTY COURTS PRACTICE & EVIDENCE. 
 
 —Fifth Edition. 
 
 THE PEACTIOE AND EVIDENCE IN ACTIONS 
 IN THE COUNTY COURTS. By James Edw.ird Davis, of 
 the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition. 8vo. 
 388. cloth; 43s. calf. 
 
 *,* This is the only work on the Count// Courts which gives Forms of Plaints and treats 
 fully of the Law and Evidence in Actions and other Froceedinys in these Courts. 
 
 " We believe Mr. Davis's is the best " It is hardly necessary for us to sum 
 
 and newest work on County Court prac- up in favour of a book which is so 
 
 tice." — Law Times. popular that the several editions of it 
 
 " Mi\ Davis's works are all con- pass rapidly out of print. All we need 
 
 spicuous for clearness and accuracy. say is, that the verdict of the purcha.sing 
 
 The present edition will fully su.stain the pubUc has our entire approbation." — 
 
 well-earned reputation of the work." Law Journal. 
 ■ — Solicitors' .Journal.
 
 MESSllS. iniTERWORTTI, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 13 
 
 DAVIS'S EQUITY AND BANKRUPTCY IN THE 
 COUNTY COURTS. 
 
 THE JITJJISDKTION & rKAfTIOE of the COUNTY 
 COUHTS in Iviuity (iiuludiii}^ Frifiidly Societies), Admiralty, 
 Probate of AVills, Ailiiiinistratioii, and in liunkruittey. By J. E. 
 
 Davis, of the Middlti Temple, Es^., Burrister-ut-Luw. 
 18s. cloth ; 2'ls. calf. 
 
 1 vol. 8vo. 
 
 This work, although i.t.turd sepnrntrly, fnrtn.1 a SupplrmenUiry, or Second, Volume 
 to Davis's County Courts Practice, and Evidence in Actions. 
 
 ROBERTS' PRINCIPLES OF EftUITY.- Third Edition. 
 
 THE I'lJIXCIPLES OF EQT^ITY as administero.l in 
 the SUIT{]<:ME court of JUDICATURE and other Courts 
 of Ec[iutable Jurisdiction. By Thomas Archibald Roberts, 
 of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third EcUtion. 
 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 " The work is calotilated to prove 
 useful to the profession, but more 
 esiK-cially to the student cluss of our 
 readers, and we eordiallj- recommend it 
 to them." — fynw Journal. 
 
 " The author tells us, in the prefiiee 
 to this edition, that he wrote the Hrst 
 edition for students, hut that he has 
 carefully revisj-d tlie whole work, and 
 enlanre<l it ■«ith sliort references to 
 books and cases, so as to adajit it not 
 only to the wants of students l)ut also 
 for tlu' use f)f pnictitioners. Tlie book 
 is praiseworthy." — I^aw Time.i. 
 
 "Tlie work, however, ■«nll be found 
 to aboiuid in usi>ful sumniaines of the 
 leading doctrines in equity, and the 
 student and practitioner may safely 
 rely on finding this work executed with 
 great experience and knowledge of the 
 
 subject, which are indeed the only sure 
 foundation for a work of this kind cal- 
 culated to be useful." — Ju.Hticv of the 
 
 " lYnctitioners would find in it much 
 that they imperfectly know, and stu- 
 dents would find much rudimentary 
 leamintr. By studious compre.ssidn the 
 autlior lias contrived to introtluce into 
 by no means a lar^e book a surprising 
 amount of matter." — Sulirilnrs' Jinmutl. 
 
 " Tliis work, by a member of the 
 Cliancery biu-, will meet a want which 
 must have been felt by every student of 
 equity since the pa.winR' of the Jtidica- 
 tiirt! Acts. Mr. R(^lK'rt«'s work is more 
 extensive than Mr. Smitlj's, tut well as 
 more rt'adable. Tlie tiible of statutes is 
 especially valuable." — Law Kj-tiininniinu 
 Journal, April, 1877. 
 
 DE COLYAR'S LAW OF GUARANTEES. 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF GUAEANTEES 
 and of ITilNCll'AL and SURETY. By Hexry A. De Colv.vr, 
 of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 148. cloth. 
 
 subject in hand." — Ju.itiee of the Pence. 
 
 "The volume before us is a very clear 
 and frustworthv statement of the pre- 
 sent liearinp ani^ scope of the law on ail 
 such questions." — Slnndard. 
 
 " The amuijrement of the work in 
 pood, the sul)ject is treated fully yet 
 eoncis<^ly, and an excellent index is 
 added. Tlic book will, we think, be 
 found r>f use to law students as well ua 
 legal practitioners." — Athen<rum. 
 
 " Mr. Colyar's work contains internal 
 c^^dcIu•ethat he is quite at home with his 
 sutiject. His book hu-Kthe preat merit nf 
 thoroupluK'.ss. Ilene*' it.s present value, 
 and hence we veutui-e to predict will be 
 it.s endurinjf reputation." — I.^ir 7'iw,i. 
 
 " The whnlc work displays preat care 
 in its production; it is clear in its state- 
 ments of the law, and the result of the 
 many authorities collected is stated 
 ■with an intelligent appreciation of the
 
 14 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 CHUTE'S EaUITY IN RELATION TO COMMON LAW. 
 
 EQUITY UNDER THE JUDICATURE ACT, or the 
 Eelation of Equity to Common Law. By Chaloxer William 
 Chute, Barrister-at-Law; Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; 
 Lecturer to tlie Incorporated Law Society. Post 8vo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. Chute has a chance of prolonged 
 existence. His book is not on the Judica- 
 ture Act. His manner is evidently philo- 
 sopliical, and proves the capacity of the 
 author for the position of a lecturer, 
 while it is just the kind of teaching by 
 wliich students are attracted to the 
 light. Students may here congratulate 
 themselves on the possibility of finding, 
 ■within the limits of two hundred pages, 
 many of the chief doctrines of Equitj-, 
 set forth briefly, lucidly and com- 
 pletely." — Laiv Journal. 
 
 " All the more important branches 
 of Equity are ftilly discussed by Jlr. 
 Chute ; and we may add that his style 
 presents a very agreeable contrast to 
 the general st}"le of law books. In 
 conclusion, we would heartily recom- 
 mend this most insti-uctive and" interest- 
 ing work to the perusal of the student, 
 regretting that the limits of our space 
 confine us to so brief a notice of it." — 
 Law Examination Reporter. 
 
 " Ml'. Chute's Lectures on Equitj' 
 attracted considerable attention when 
 they were delivered before the Incor- 
 porated Law Society, and he has done 
 wisely in making them the basis of the 
 present volume, which can scarcely fail 
 to become a standard work on the sub- 
 ject of which it treats." — Morning Post. 
 
 " The book is deserving of praise, 
 both for clearness of exposition and for 
 the interesting way in which modem 
 cases are used to illustrate the doctrines 
 expounded. As it stands it appears to 
 us to be a useful guide to the leading 
 principles of Equity Jiuisprudence. The 
 book is written in easy and familiar 
 language, and is likely to prove more 
 attractive to the student than many 
 formal treatises." — Solicitor.i' Journal. 
 
 " To the student commencing to study 
 under the new system, Mr. Chute's 
 treatise may prove of service. He 
 thinks clearly, ■n-rites very well. As a 
 smaU and meritorious contribution to 
 the history of jiuisprudence it deserves 
 to be welcomed." — Latf Times. 
 
 '• The work is conscientiously done, 
 and will be useful to the student at the 
 present moment." — Echo. 
 
 "Mr. Chute's book is founded upon 
 lectures delivered by him to the students 
 at the Law Institution. The object of 
 it is to point out concisely the principles 
 on which the doctrines of Equity de- 
 pend, and to show the relation of equity 
 to the common law, and the work is a 
 useful one for the class of persons to 
 whom the lectures were delivered." — 
 Athe7i(eum. 
 
 TROWER'S PREVALENCE OF EQUITY. 
 
 A MANUAL OF THE PREVALENCE OF EQUITY, 
 under Section 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, amended by the 
 Judicature Act, 1875. By Charles Fraxcis Trower, JEsq., 
 M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, late Fellow of 
 Exeter CoUege, and Vinerian Law Scholar, Oxford, Author of 
 " The Law of Debtor and Crechtor," " The Law of the Btiilding 
 of Churches and I)i\'i.sions of Parishes," «S:c. 8vo. os. cloth. 
 
 " AVe congratulate Mr. Trower on 
 having produced a concise yet compre- 
 hensive treatise on the Prevalence of 
 Equity \mder the 2.5th section of the 
 Judicature Act, which cannot fail to 
 prove of great service alike to the stu- 
 dent and to practitioners of the common 
 law branch of the profession, who, under 
 the recent legislation, find themselves 
 called upon, probably for the first time, 
 to study and apply in practice the equi- 
 table principles which now ' prevail.' " — 
 Law Magazine, February, 1877. 
 
 "The amount of irrformation con- 
 
 tained in a compressed form within its 
 pages is very considerable, and on the 
 whole it appears to be accurate. The 
 work has been carefully revised, and is 
 weU and clearly printed." — Law Times. 
 " The propositions are fairly worked 
 out and substantiated by references. 
 The author hopes that his pages may be 
 useful to the common law branch of the 
 profession, which now finds itself called 
 upon to apply the principles of equity 
 to practice. Mr. Trower's manual may 
 save them some hunting in text books 
 of equity." — Law Journal.
 
 MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 16 
 
 FOLKARD ON SLANDER & LIBEL.- Fourth Edition. 
 Till-: LAW OK SLANDKi; AM) Lll'.KI. (foinulrd 
 xnxtii Starkif's Tivati.sf), including,' tlie i'lfadinj; iiiul Kvideiice, 
 Civil and ('riiiiiiial. adai)t<'d to tho i)n'Sfiit i'rocinlun' ; also 
 AL\L1('I( )rs VIH )SKCUTIOXS and CUNTEMITS of COURT. 
 By II. C. I'\)LKAia), Bamstor-at-Law. In 1 thick vol. roy. 8vo. 
 4os. cloth. 
 
 "The fiiurth edition of thLs well- 
 known work on Slander and Ijl)el, to 
 whieh eireurnstance.s have prevente<l our 
 reeonlinjr an eurber notiee in these 
 patfe«, refleetM ^rreat ennlit on the 
 learned author by the eWdence wliieh it 
 exhihit.s of laborious ejirefulness and 
 di.icriminatin)f judtnnent, toj^tlier with 
 their resultant lucidity, aecuraoy and 
 comprehensiveness, lliere is a full 
 bible of cases, and the index aj)pears 
 to be copioiLS and well executed." — 
 Low Magazine, Auiju.it, 1877. 
 
 " It is well that such a treatise should 
 have been re-edited, and it is well that 
 it should have l)een e<lited by so cjireful 
 and painstjikinR a man as lli-. Folkanl . ' ' 
 — Iaiw ilnijazinf. 
 
 " The real merit of the author of such 
 a work a.8 tliis, must consist in airef ul 
 collation and syatenmtic arrangement of 
 
 decided ca-ses. No one can wiy that 
 Mr. Folkanl has failed in the full dist- 
 charve of this onerous duty, and we are 
 sure that he will (>am, as he will obtain, 
 the ^Tutitudc of the pn)fession." — Imw 
 Jiiuriiat. 
 
 " We recommend Mr. Folkanl's work 
 to the attention of the prof<>s.sion and 
 the public. It is, as now edited, very 
 valuable." — Law Tiiwi. 
 
 " It would be difficult to find any part 
 of his subject wliich Mr. Folkard has 
 not fully invcstij.'Hte<l, and the result 
 is a valuable addition to the lawyer's 
 librarj', which for many years has been 
 mudi needed," — Ju.ilirr nf the I'raer.. 
 
 " It has been most lalMjriou.sly exe- 
 cuted. Th<' pr(>fes.si()n may, we think, 
 be pretty contidi'iit that wliatever has 
 been decided upon the Law of Libel will 
 be found here." — HoUcUora' Journal. 
 
 HUNT'S LAW OF FRAUDS AND BILLS OF SALE. 
 TILK LAW ivlutiiiK to FJiAUDlLKXT CONVEY- 
 ANCES undur tho Statuto.s of Elizabeth and tho Bankrupt Acts; 
 with Remarks on tho Law relating to Bills of Sale. By AuTllUR 
 Joseph Hunt, of tho Inner Tenijjlo, Escj., Bamstor-at-Law, 
 Author of "A Treatise on tho Law relating to Boundaries, Fences 
 and Foreshores." Post 8vo. 9«. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. Hunt has brought to bear upon 
 the subject a clearness of statement, 
 an orderliness of amingement and a 
 subtlety of logical a<'utcne.ss which 
 carr>' him far towards a complete sys- 
 tematiyjition of all the auses. Neither 
 hius lus industrj- Ijeen lacking; the cilhos 
 that have ari.sen under ' The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 186!),' and under the Hills 
 of Sale Act, have l)een cjirefully and 
 completely noted up and dispose<l by 
 him in their appropriate places. The 
 index also is both accurate and cjircfid, 
 and secures much facility of reference 
 to the various jnatters which arc the 
 subjects of the work." — /»«' Macinzinf. 
 
 " Though siualler in size, Mr. Hunt's 
 book deals with fraudulent convt'vances 
 under tho Hankruptcy Acts, a subje<-t 
 which Mr. May in his work left almost 
 untouched, although his l)ook has the 
 undoubted merit of being the first to 
 break fresh ground in treating fraudu- 
 lent conveyances in a separate volume. 
 
 In reviewing that book last year we 
 took occasion, while praising the in- 
 dustry and care with w-hich it was com- 
 piled, to n'Uiark on the ob,sfurity of its 
 style. In this n^sixM-t its younj^'r rival 
 hiusconsidiTuble advantage. Mr. Hunt's 
 book is as readable as a treatLse on so 
 t<>chnical a subjtM-t can well l>e made. 
 Mr. Hunt's aiTangi'nient of his mat<'riaU 
 follows an f>rderly and intelligible plan. 
 The index is appan-nlly cari'fully prt>- 
 pared, and the Uible of cjtses shows that 
 none of the recent <)i.s<^s have lK"en over- 
 l(K)k<xl. Mr. Hunt has pro<lui-t'd a really 
 u.sfful l«>ok untiicumU'red by useless 
 niiitt4'r, which ilcscrves irreat succi^ss as 
 a manual of th<- law of fntudulent dis- 
 positions of property." — I^iw Journal. 
 
 " The author has collected with in- 
 dustry and care the authoritn's In-aring 
 on tho questions he has tmilcrtJiken to 
 deal witn. The matter is conveniently 
 broken up, and the reader is assisted hy 
 a good index." — Solicitort' Journal.
 
 16 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 BUND'S AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1875. 
 
 The LAW of COMPENSATION for UNEXHAUSTED 
 AGEICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, as amended by the 
 Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875. By J. W. Willis 
 Bund, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Author of 
 " The Law relating to Salmon Fisheries in England and Wales," 
 &c. 12nio. OS. cloth. 
 
 " "We think this design has been weU 
 accomplished. Tlie provisions of the 
 new hiw are, on the whole, accurately 
 stated and so clearly explained that the 
 unprofessional reader ■will tind it easy 
 to understand their meaning' and effect. 
 In the Appendix he provides a series of 
 useful foiTa.s." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " The chapter on the application of 
 the act (Chap. 7) is clearly and concisely 
 written, and the summary at the end of 
 the chapter, setting out the most im- 
 portant points to be attended to by both 
 landlords and tenants, vnil be found 
 very useful. The book is a good sup- 
 plement to any treatise on the law of 
 landlord and tenant. The index is ex- 
 haustive, and the collection of forma 
 supplies all that can be required." — 
 Laiij Magazine. 
 
 " It wiU be found very serviceable to 
 all those who have to administer the 
 Agricultural Holdings Act of last ses- 
 sion, and by all practically interested in 
 it, whether as landlords, tenants or 
 
 valuers." — Daily News. 
 
 " A more complete volume never came 
 under our notice." — ^Vnrcf.ilir Herald. 
 
 " This is a simple and useful summary 
 of the provisions of the present statutes 
 on this subject, with orders and forms 
 for practical appUcation." — Staiidard. 
 
 "It will enable any farmer or land- 
 owner to undei-stand precisely what are 
 the conditions at present existing as to 
 compensation for improvements by law 
 and by custom of the country." — Cham- 
 hf-r o/Agriculliuf Journal. 
 
 " He intends it for landowners, far- 
 mers, land stewards and the hke. All 
 who have any interest in landed pro- 
 pei-ty may read it to advantage."^ — Land 
 ond Water. 
 
 " Mr. "Willis Bund has compressed 
 into a simple and convenient form the 
 infoi-mation needful for understanding 
 the bearing of the Agricultural Hold- 
 ings Act on the law of compensation 
 for unexhausted improvements." — 
 Saturday Beview. 
 
 FAWCETT'S LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 
 
 A COMPENDIUM OF THE LAW OF LANDLOED 
 
 AND TENANT. By William Mitchell Fawcett, Esq., of 
 Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 1 vol. 8vo. 14s. cloth. 
 
 " This new compendium of the law on 
 a wide and complicated subject, upon 
 which information is constantly re- 
 quired by a vast number of persons, is 
 sure to be in request. It never wanders 
 from the point, and being intended not 
 for students of the law, but for lessors 
 and lessees, and their immediate ad- 
 visers, wisely avoids historical disijuisi- 
 tions, and uses language as untechnical 
 as the subject admits." — Law Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Fawcett takes advantage f>f this 
 characteristic of modem law to impart 
 to his compendium a degree of authen- 
 ticity which greatly enhances its value as 
 a convenient medium of reference, for 
 he has stated the law in the very words 
 of the authorities." — Law Ma/jazine.. 
 
 " The amoimt of information com- 
 pressed into the book is verj' large. Tlie 
 plan of the book is extremely good, and 
 
 the arrangement adopted has enabled 
 the author to put together in one place 
 the whole law on any particular branch 
 of the subject, and to avoid repetitions. 
 In this respect, though probably from 
 its smaller size it must contain less in- 
 formation than Woodfall, it ■will be 
 foimd far more convenient for ordinary 
 use than that treatise." — Solicitors' 
 Journal. 
 
 " Above all, it has been his purpose 
 to state the law in the language of the 
 authorities, presenting the principles 
 enunciated in the very words of the 
 judges. Another excellent featua-e is a 
 concise summary of the effect of each 
 enactment in the marginal notes. It 
 will be seen from this that the book is 
 thoroughly practical ; and as such will 
 doubtless find a favourable reception 
 from the profession." — Law Times.
 
 MESSRS. BUrrEKWOllTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 17 
 
 COOTE'S PROBATE PRACTICE.-Eighth Edition. 
 
 THE COM>[ON FOR^t PRACTICE OF THE HIGH 
 COURT of JUSTICE in granting Probates and Administrations. 
 By IIexuy Ciiaules Coote, F.S.A., lato Proctor in Doctors' 
 Commons, Author of "The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts," 
 &L\ &c. Eighth Edition. In I vol. 8vo., 2Gx. cloth; 3()s. calf. 
 
 •»• 7'fie Formf n.t printed in this work are in strict accordance with the Orders of Court 
 and Decisions of the flight Hon. Sir James Hannen, and are Uioae which are in use 
 in the Principal lieyistry of the Probate Divisional Court. 
 
 " This work first appeared soon after 
 the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
 tion over probate and adniiiiistriition, 
 and the establishment of the Court of 
 Probate by 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77. Tliat it 
 has reached the eighth edition is suffi- 
 cient attestation of its merit and popu- 
 liuity. Mr. Coote arknowlcdKes the 
 co-operation of his friend Mr. Frederic 
 Kruckenberg ; and it appears to us tliat 
 these pontlcmcn have spare«l no pains 
 to render thLs edition a ix-rfect specimen 
 of what a law book should be. In fact, 
 it woidd be a difficult tjink to find a 
 fault in ' Coote's Pi-obate lYacticc;' and, 
 with tlic ever inci-casinfr ma.ss of pro- 
 bate business, it may be conlideiifly 
 predicted, as well as hoped, tJiat tliis 
 new edition will meet with even prreatcr 
 success than its predecessors." — Law 
 Joiirnnl. 
 
 " Tlie above is another name for what 
 is commonly known to the profession as 
 Coote's Probate l*raetice, a work about 
 as indispensable in a solicitor's office as 
 any b<jok of practice that is known to 
 us. The seventh edition is chii^Jly di.s- 
 tingnLshable from tlic si.\th e<lition in 
 this, that certain imiwrtant modilica- 
 tions and altenitions arc cffcetcd which 
 have been wndcrcd nccc.s.«ar>- by the 
 iTudicaturc Acts. Judiiial decisions 
 subsequent to the last edition have been 
 
 carefully noted up. We notice several 
 new and useful fonns ; and the author 
 has not only attempted, but has in the 
 main succeeded, in adopting the fonns 
 and directions under the old Probate 
 pnictice, as embodied in p^e^^ous edi- 
 tions of tlie work, to the new procedure 
 under the Judicature Acts. Solicitors 
 know that the difficulties in the way of 
 HJitisfyiiig the different clerks at .Somer- 
 set IIoiLse are frequently RTcat, and 
 there is nothing so likely to tend to 
 simplicity of practice as Mr. Coote's 
 book." — I.nw Times. 
 
 " Xenrly five yeai-s have elap.sed since 
 the publication of the last edition of 
 this book, which has long held a hiu'li 
 reputation among solicitors, but we find 
 little change in its contents. Tlie Judi- 
 cature Acts, which have rendered obso- 
 lete so many works of practice, have K'f t 
 this almost untouched. Ilic chief 
 changes in this edition appear to be the 
 alteration of the headings of many of 
 the fonns ; the insertion of several new 
 cases and of some of the judgments of 
 Dr. Uctte.s-worth ; of the fees to be tjtken 
 by solicitow and paid to tlio Court in 
 Common Fomi Uusincss, as directed by 
 the Rules of 1S7I ; and a considcniblo 
 inci-ea.se in the number of forms in 
 Non-contentious Business."— ^o/ici/or** 
 Journal.
 
 18 
 
 LA^V WORKS PUBLISHED ]5Y 
 
 SHELFORD'S RAILWAYS.— Fourth Edition, by Glen. 
 
 SHELFOED'S LAW OF EAILAVAYS, containing the 
 wliole of the Statute Law for the Eegulation of Railways in 
 England, Scotland and L'eland. With Copious Notes of Decided 
 Cases upon the Statutes, Introduction to the Law of Railways, 
 and Api^endix of Official Documents. Foiu-th Edition, bj' 
 W. CuNXiNGHAii Glex, Barrister-at-Law, Author of the "Law 
 of Highways," "Law of Public Health and Local Goyern- 
 ment," &c. 2 vols, royal Syo. G3s. cloth; 7os. calf. 
 
 " Though vre have notliad the oppor- 
 tunity of g'omg conscientiously tlirough 
 the -whole of this elaborate compilation, 
 we have been able to devote enough 
 time to it to be able to speak in the 
 highest tenns of the judgment and 
 abUitj' -with which it has been prepared. 
 Its execution quite justifies the repu- 
 tation wliich Mr. Glen has ah-eady ac- 
 quired as a legal ^vl■iter, and proves that 
 no one could have been more properly 
 singled out for the duty he has so 'well 
 discharged. The work miist take its un- 
 questionahle positio?i as the leading Manual 
 of the Jlailway Law of Great Britain. 
 . . . The cases seem to have been ex- 
 amined, and their effect to be stated 
 with much care and accui-acy, and no 
 channel from which infomiation coiild 
 be gained has been neglected. ]Mi'. 
 Glen, indeed, seems to be satui-ated 
 with knowledge of his .subject. . . . Tlie 
 value of the work is gi-eatly increased by 
 a number of supplemental decisions, 
 which give all the ca.ses up to the time 
 of publication, and by an index which 
 appears to be thorouglily cxliaustive." 
 — Law Maf/azine. 
 
 "Mr. Ciien ha.s done wisely in pre- 
 scndng tliat reputation, and, as far as 
 pos.siblc, the text of Slielford — though 
 vei-y extensive alterations and adtlitions 
 liave been required. But lie has a claini 
 of his i)\\i\. lie is a wortliy successor (jf 
 the original autlior, and possesses much 
 of the same industiy, skill in aiTange- 
 ment and astuteness in enumerating 
 tlie points really decided V)y cited cases. 
 lint we have said enough of a work 
 alieady so well known." — Law Times. 
 
 "Mr. Glen has modestly founded liis 
 work as a superstructure on that of Mr. 
 Ix'onard Sheltbrd, but he has certainly 
 claims to publish it as a purely inde- 
 pendent composition. The toil has been 
 as great, and the reward ouglit to be as 
 complete, as if Mr. Glen had disre- 
 
 garded all his predecessors in the pro- 
 duction of treatises on railway law. 
 . . . Since the year 1864 he has been 
 unceasingly engaged in collecting mate- 
 lials, and though he has been ready for 
 the printer for some time, and has de- 
 layed tlie appearance of the volumes in 
 the expectation of legLslative changes in 
 railway law, yet he has expended full 
 five years of care and attention on his 
 work. Let us hope that he will have no 
 cause to tliink his labour- has been in 
 vain. At an;/ rate ice may venture to 
 predict that Mr. Cunninrjham Glen's edi- 
 tion of Shelford on Haihvays will he the 
 standard work of our day in that depart- 
 ment of law." — Law Journal. 
 
 " Far be it from us to under value Mr. 
 Shelford's labours, or to disparage his 
 merits. But we may nevertheless be 
 pei-mitted to observe that what has 
 hitherto been considered as 'the best work 
 on the subject' (Shelf ord), has been im- 
 measurnbly improved by the application of 
 Mr. Glen's diligence and learning. . . . 
 SufHcient, however, has been done to 
 sliow that it is in eveiy respect worthy 
 of the reputation wliicli tlie work has 
 always enjoyed." — Justice of the Peace. 
 
 " The practitioner will find here col- 
 lected togetlier all the enactments bear- 
 ing on eveiy possible subject which may 
 come before liiiu in coimection with 
 railways or railway travelling. What- 
 ever questions may arise, the lawyer 
 ■v'Hio has this book upon his shelves, 
 may say to himself, ' If there lias been 
 any legislation at all connected witli 
 tliis branch of the subject I shall at once 
 find it in Shelford ;' and it needs not to 
 be .said that on tliis account tlie book 
 will be a veiy ' comfortable' one to 
 possess. Tlie collection is equally ex- 
 haustive in the matter of i-ules, orders, 
 precedents and documents of official 
 authority." — Hulicilors' Journal.
 
 MESSRS. IJUITKH^VOIITII, /, FLE1:T STREET, E.C 
 
 19 
 
 GRANT'S BANKERS AND BANKING COMPANIES. 
 By R. A. FISHER.- Continued to 1876. 
 
 GRANT'S TEEATI8E ON THE EAAV liELATING 
 TO BANKERS AND BANiaNG COMPANIES. Third 
 Edition. AVith an A])pondix contaiuin;? tho Statutes in forco 
 and Supplement to IfSTG. By E. A. FisiiEii, Esc|., Judge of 
 County Coui'ts. 8vo. 288. cloth ; li'Ss. calf. 
 
 " Eijflit ypiii-s suffir-c<l to oxhimst tlio 
 soornd (.ilition of tliis viiluiible iiml 
 Htaiidiird work, wc iiood only now 
 notice the iniprovcincnts wliidi have 
 licon miulo. Wo liuve f)nec mort" looked 
 tlirough tho work, iind rtfoiniixc in it 
 the Hterlini^ iiiiTits whirh hiivo ac- 
 (luired for it the hifrh position which it 
 liolds in stundiird Icpil literature. Mr. 
 Fislier hiLs annotated all the recent 
 e.uses." — Law 'J'imr.i. 
 
 "l*iior to the publication of !Mr. 
 Onint'.s work on this subject, no trea- 
 ti.so containing the n'tjuired infoniia- 
 tion existed ; and, .since its uppeanince, 
 such imi)ortunt altemtion.s respcctinff 
 luinks and iMinkers have been int:-o- 
 duc<'d, that the work needixl in many 
 piirt.s entire reconstruct ion an<l amiu^re- 
 inent. The hist two editions have been 
 entrusted to the CJire of tlie ^'ntlcinau 
 who.se niiine Ls attached to the work. 
 Ttlr. I'isher'.s name is in itself a ^niaran- 
 teo that his duties of editor have been 
 nbly and conscientiously perfonned. 
 In this respect we can assure those 
 
 interested in tho .subject of this book, 
 that they will in no respect be di.sjip- 
 poiuted ; ob.solete and immat^'rial mat- 
 t<'r has btvn eliminated, and the present 
 edition presents the exLstinj? law of 
 bankei-s and banking companies as it at 
 present exists." — Junlice of tlif Peace. 
 
 " It is ei^'ht years since Mr. Fisher 
 published tlie second edition of thi.s 
 pnictical book, and it now appeai-s apiin 
 re-edited by the sjime hand. Its steady 
 sale shows tliat tlie public for whom it 
 is WTitten have reco^niized the kindnes.i 
 that wits meant them, and makes a 
 nioiv elabonito recommendation super- 
 ttuous. We must add, however, that 
 the additions to the work, and the 
 altenitions in it which Jlr. Fisher ha.t 
 inaile, are, a.s far as we can jud)^', i-eal 
 improvement.s, and tliat he has not 
 failrd to follow out the recent cases. 
 The book used with cure will no doubt 
 be of (frcat pnicticjil sen-ice to bankers 
 and their legal i\ibnacta."—SolkUura' 
 Juuriml. 
 
 DOWELL'S STAMP DUTIES AND STAMP LAWS. 
 
 A IIISTORY and EXELANATION of tlio STA^ir 
 DUTIES, coutaiuing Eoniavks on the Oi-igiu of Stamp Duties, a 
 Histoiy of tho Dutie.s in this ^^onntry from their commencement 
 to tho present time, ObseiTations on tho past and tho present 
 State of tho Stamp Laws, an Explanation of the Sy.stem and tho 
 Administration of tho Tax, ObseiTations on the Stamp Duties in 
 Eoreign Countries and the Stamp Laws at i)resent in forco in tho 
 United Kingdom ; with Notes, Appendices and a enpiuus Index. 
 By Stetiiex Dowell, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Assistant Solicitor 
 of Inland Eevenue. Svo. l'2s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 LAW WOllKS PUBLISHED 13Y 
 
 FISHER'S LAW OF MORTGAGE -Third Edition. 
 
 The LAW of MOETGAGE and OTHER SECUEITIES 
 UPON PROPERTY. By Willia:j: Richard Fisher, of 
 Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Lav. 2 vols. roy. 8yo. 60s. 
 clotli : 72.S. calf. 
 
 " Tliis -n-oik has btiilt up for itself, in 
 tlie experienced opinion of the profes- 
 sion, a very hig-h reputation for careful- 
 ness, acciu'acy and lucidity. This repu- 
 tation is fully maintained in the present 
 edition. The law of securities upon 
 property is confessedly intricate, and, 
 probably, as the author justly observes, 
 embraces a greater varietj' of learning 
 than any other single branch of the 
 English "law. At the same time, an 
 accui'ate knowledge of it is essential to 
 every practising barrister, and of daily 
 requirement amongst soUcitors. To all 
 such we can confidently recommend JIi-. 
 Fisher's work, which will, moreover, 
 prove most useful reading for the stu- 
 dent, both as a storeliouse of infomia- 
 tion and as intellectual exercise." — 
 Law Marjaziiie. 
 
 " Tliose who are familiar with the 
 work know that it is never prolix, that 
 it is accurate and complete: and we 
 think that the present edition will not 
 diminish its reputation in these respects. 
 (Jn suVijects upon which we have ex- 
 amined it we have found the cases dili- 
 ^i-nlly collected and carefully stated, 
 and the effect of the new legislation very 
 concisely given. The various points 
 upon wliich the Judicature Act has a 
 bearing on Mi\ FLsher's subject are very 
 well annotated; and not only on this 
 subject, but as the general result of an 
 examination of this edition, we can say 
 tliat it contains evidence of unremitting 
 care and industiy." — Solicitors^ Journal. 
 
 " His work has long been known as 
 the standard woi-k on tlio law of mort- 
 gages, and he lias ikjw published lii.s 
 third edition. The oliject and scojie of 
 his work is probably familiar to most of 
 our readers. It is, as (lie autlior liim- 
 self says, ' to explain the natuie of the 
 different kinds of scnirities, llie riglits 
 and equities which they create, ajid the 
 manner of and circumstances attending 
 tlieir discharge. The oailier parts of 
 the work have been recast, and now ap- 
 pear in the language and aiTangemcnt 
 used in the completed yixit of the ' Digest 
 
 of the Law of Mortgage and Lien,' which 
 Ml'. Fisher designed and executed for 
 the Digest Commission. This system 
 of classification, by adoption of compre- 
 hensive and foiTually stated proposi- 
 tions, is the right mode of framing a 
 work of this natui-o, and the present 
 edition of Mr. Fisher's work is, without 
 doubt, a vast improvement on the last 
 edition. Tlie form and stjie admit of 
 little exception. The work is not much 
 enlarged in bulk ; but, besides the new 
 statutes and decisions relating to the 
 subject, the author has added a gi'cat 
 number of references to contemporary 
 repoits not foi-merly cited. In conclu- 
 sion we may compliment Messi-s. Butter- 
 wortlis on the excellent tj-pe and coirect 
 printing of these volimies; and the hand- 
 some and convenient sts'le in wliich they 
 have been got up." — Law Journal. 
 
 " We have received the third edition 
 of the Law of Mortgage, by William 
 Richard Fisher, Barrister-at-Law, and 
 we are veiy glad to find that vast im- 
 provements have been made in the plan 
 of the work, wliich is due to the incor- 
 poration therein of what Mr. Fisher 
 designed and executed for the abortive 
 Digest Commission. In its present 
 foi-m, embracing as it does all the sta- 
 tute and case law to tlie present time, the 
 work isone of gi'eat value." — Law Times. 
 
 " Since the publication of the second 
 edition its author lias bestowed still 
 further consideration on the subject of 
 mortgage and otlier secui-ities upon 
 pi'cilicrty during liis employment by the 
 Dii;cs( of Law Comiuissioners. He has 
 eiiiliodied all tlie recent statutes and 
 drcisiiins affecting Iiis subject, besides 
 adding n fjreat iiuiiil/er of references to 
 (■iiutciiiiJiiraiy reports not cited in the 
 former editions ; and certainly, if any- 
 tliing could console a lawyer in finding 
 Die most familiar vohimes upon his 
 slielvcs superseded by later editions, it 
 would be to lind tliat (lif latia- editions 
 are so exuberant with additional value 
 as is this of Fisher on Mortgages." — 
 Iris/t Law 'I'imes.
 
 MESSRS. UUTTIiUWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 21 
 
 LEWIS'S INTRODUCTION TO CONVEYANCING. 
 
 IMMXriPJ.KS OF COXATA'ANriNG EXPLAINED 
 and ILLUSTKATKl) l)y C'ONCIISK riJKCKDKXTS. With an 
 A]iiii'ii(lix on tlif ElVcct of tho Transfer of Land Act in^fodifyin^ 
 an(l Shortenin;^ t'onvcyantrs. 15y llrnKUT Lkw'Is, H.A., lato 
 Scholar of l-iinnianuol College, Cambridge, of tho Middle Tt'nii)lc, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 8yo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 "Mr. Tx>wi.s is entitled to the emlit 
 of hiiWn^ i)r<i(luec(l ii veiT iiccful, iind, 
 lit the KJiiiic time, oripiniil work. Tlii.s 
 will appear fi-oiii a mere outlino of lii.s 
 iiliin, wliioli is ven,- iilily worked out. 
 J'lie milliner in which his di.-v>iertntioim 
 ehieidiile liirt sulijeef i.s clear and pnic- 
 tieal, and hi.s exi)o.''ition.«, with tlic help 
 of hi.s pi-ee<'dentx, have the liest of all 
 qiiidities in such a ti-eatise, beinp emi- 
 nently judicious and suhstantiul. Mr. 
 Ix>wis's work is eoiioeived in the ri^rht 
 spirit. Althouf;li a learned and poodly 
 volume, it may yet, with perfect pm- 
 prioty, be called a 'handy hook.' It is 
 iiesides a coumpeous attempt at lepal 
 improvement ; and it i.s, perhaps, by 
 works of such a ehiuiieter that law re- 
 fonii may be l>est accoinplLshcd." — [.<iw 
 
 Mftf/fizinf ittifi lirrirlf, 
 
 " liy the dilijrent and painstakinp 
 student who lias dulv mastered the hiw 
 of property, this work will undoubte<lIy 
 be hailed as a ver\- comiireheiisive ex- 
 p<ment of the I'l-inciples of Convey- 
 ancinfr." — Lrguleinu, or ArtUUA CUrka' 
 Mit'inziiif. 
 
 " The pcruKjil of tho work lin.s given 
 iw mueli pleu.sure. It shows a. thorouph 
 knowledge of the vuriou.-j eubjecta 
 
 treated of, and is clearly and intel- 
 lifribly written. Students mil now not 
 only be able to Ijccome pn)ficient dniffi*- 
 mcn, but, by carefully studjinp Mr. 
 Lewis's dis.sertaticins, may obtain an 
 insiirht into tlie hitherto neplected l*rin- 
 ciple.s of Conveyancing,'." — Lnjnl Ex- 
 aiiihii-r. 
 
 " On tho whole, we Consider that the 
 work is deseninif "t hiwh pniise, Ixith 
 for design and execution. It is wholly 
 free from the vicr- of birakmaking, and 
 indicates considerable i-eHection and 
 Icarniii'^'. Mi*. I^ewis ha.s at all event* 
 sikccikIi'iI in pi-oducing' a work to meet 
 an acknowled(,'ed want, an<l we have no 
 doubt he will iinil many gniteful n-aders 
 amoiijr.st more advanced, not les.s than 
 among' vounger students." — i:>olicilurs' 
 Joiiniiil 'and lUporlrr. 
 
 " Mr. Tiowis has contribute*] a valuable 
 aid to the law student. He lias eon- 
 den.sed the I'liictiee of ('onveyancin>r 
 into a shape that will facilitate its i-e- 
 tention on the memoiT, and his lYe- 
 ee<lent.s lue usefully aminped as a series 
 r>f progressive Ic^.sons, which may 1m> 
 either u.sihI iisillu-stiiitionsorcxerdi-cij." 
 Law Timc.1. 
 
 LEWIS'S INTRODUCTION TO EaUITY DRAFTING. 
 IM.MXCII'EES OF EQUITY DLWFTING, witli nu 
 Ari'KXDlX of FOIIMS. ]5y IlniKUT Lewi.^, 15.A., of Ihn 
 ^liddlo Teni]il(\ Harrister-at-ljaw', Author of "Principles of 
 Conveyancing Explained and Ilhl^stratcd." Po.st 8vo. I2s. cloth. 
 
 •«* 'I'hiii Kork, liilriiilrit to ejrpUiii) tlir ytiirrnl priiiclplen of Ki/uiti/ Drafting, at tcfll n» 
 to fjrrm/tlij!/ I'lriiiliiiijs nf Ihr Court nf ( 'hniirrri/, u-ill be use/ul to liticyers rtsorlimj 
 to tlir Krw Kijiiili/ Jurindictinii of the Coiiiily I'oiirls. 
 
 \\ill be a ma.ss of uncertainty,— with it 
 over>- jinictitionor mu.-it leam the art of 
 equit>- drafting, and he will Wnd no 
 liettei- teacher than Mr. Lcwia."— /.flw 
 
 Timr^. 
 
 "rnictically the rules that apply to 
 the drafting and i-eading of bills will 
 apply to the compo>ition <if the County 
 Coiu-t document that will lie.substitute<l 
 ff)r the bill. Mr. L<wis's work is there- 
 fore likely to have a much wider circle 
 of readei-s than he eould have antici- 
 pated when he commenced it, for almost 
 eveiy page will be applicable to County 
 C(mrt I'nietice, should the bill, in any 
 Khanc or under any title, be retaineil 
 in the new jurisdiction, — without it we 
 fear that equity iu tho County Coui-ts 
 
 ' AVe have little doubt that this work 
 will soon gain a veiy favourable plac<- 
 in the estimation nf the I'nifessinn. It 
 is written in a clear and attractive style, 
 and is plainlv the result of nmcli 
 thoughtful anil eon.scientiouH labour." 
 — Law JInrjn:iiic ami L'ciiac.
 
 22 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 BEDFORD'S FINAL EXAMINATION GUIDE TO 
 PROBATE AND DIVORCE. 
 
 THE FINAL EXAMINATION GUIDE to the LAAV 
 of PEOBATE and DIVOECE : containing a Digest of Einal 
 Examination Questions -wdth the Answers. By E. H. Bedford, 
 Sohcitor,Teniple, Axithor of the ' ' Final Examination Guide to the 
 Practice of the Supreme Court of Judicatiu'e," &c. Post 8yo. 4s. 
 
 " The examiners have added as extra pupils and candidates generally in the 
 
 snljjccts in the ' Final' the Pi-oliate and examination in acquii-ing due knowledge 
 
 Divorce Law. IMr. E. II. Bedford, of these subjects. His Guide takes the 
 
 Solicitor, who seems to be always favourite form of questions and answers, 
 
 anxious to keep abreast of the tide, has and seems to have been carefully and 
 
 prepared a Guide or Manual to assist his aeciu'ately compiled." — Law Journal. 
 
 BEDFORD'S FINAL EXAMINATION GUIDE. 
 
 THE FINAL EXAMINATION GUIDE TO THE 
 PEACTICE of the SUPEEME COUET of JUDICATUEE, 
 containing a Digest of the Final Examination Questions, -w-ith 
 many New Ones, -n-ith the Answers, imder the Supreme Court of 
 Judicatm-e Act. By Edward IIexslowe Bedford, Sohcitor, 
 Temple. In 1 vol. 8yo. 7s. 6J. cloth. • 
 
 "Eveiy conceivable question appears which are likely to be set down imder 
 
 to have been asked and a full answer is those Acts and the New Rules, with 
 
 given in each case. Mr. Bedford really answers tliereto. Tlie chief point is that 
 
 knows better than we do what students the an.swers should be exliaustive as 
 
 require, and we have no dc.nbt tliut liis well as concise, and in this respect gi-eat 
 
 compilation ■will be extensively used. merit is .sho-mi in the present Digest." 
 
 It contains a sufficient index." — Laiu — Lniv Jonrnnl. 
 
 Times. " JIi-. Bedford's Final Examination 
 
 "Mr. Bedford, with Ms usual dili- • Guide supplies a want wliich wUl be 
 
 gcnce and promptitude, has contempo- much felt by students as to what tliey 
 
 raneously with the commencement of are to read with reference to the new 
 
 the operation of the Judieatm-e Acts practice. The Guide and Time Table 
 
 publislicd for the benefit of liis pupils by the same author vdW be found useful 
 
 and other law candidates for the Final helps to students in peru.sing the Judica- 
 
 E.xaminatiou a Digest of Questions ture Acts." — Law Kannination Joiir/ial. 
 
 By the same Author, on a Sheet, Is. 
 A TABLE of the LEADING STATUTES for the 
 INTEEMEDLVTE and FINAL EXAMINATIONS in Law, 
 Equity and ConTeyancing. 
 
 TOMKINS & JENCKEN'S MODERN ROMAN LAW. 
 
 ^ COMPENDIUM OF THE MODERN EOMAN LAW. 
 
 Founded upon the Treatises of Puchta, Von Yangcrow, Arndts, 
 Yrany, Mi'Mor, and the Cor])us Juris Civilis. By Frederick J. 
 ToMKLXs, Es(i., M.A., D.C.L., Author of the "Institutes of 
 Eoman Law," translator of "Gains," &c., and IIexry Diedricii 
 Jexckex, Esq., Barristers-at-Law, of Lincoln's Inn. Svo. 
 lis. cloth.
 
 MKSSRS. IJIITKKWOIMII, /, FJ,1;i;T STllKKT, K.C. 
 
 23 
 
 UNDERHILL'S LAW OF TORTS.-Second Edition. 
 
 A 8UM^LVRY OF THE LAW OF TOUTS, Oil 
 WRONGS INDEPENDENT OP CONTILVCT. By Authir 
 UxuEUHiLL, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Bamstoi-at-L;nv. 
 Second Eilitiou. Post 8vo. Sa. cloth. 
 
 " Ilfi has sot fortli the elements of the 
 law witli cloui-ncss and uecunicy. The 
 little work of Mi-. Undfrliill i.s incxpen- 
 tiive und may be relied on." — Law 
 
 " The plan is a pood one and has l)een 
 honestly canned out, and a p-ood index 
 facilitates reference to the contents of 
 
 tlie llf)ok." — Jit.sliri; n/lhf rr<irr. 
 
 " Mr. Underliill's ability in mukin? a 
 eleoi' diRt'st of the .subject treate<l of in 
 this volume is coti.spicuous. Many 
 work.s would have to Ik.- consulted for 
 the information here concisely given, 
 so that pi-actitioners as well as .students 
 will tind it ii.scful."— .Vcicao/M'' U'oiiil. 
 
 "His book is so clearly ■\\Titten that 
 it is easily comprehensible. To the law 
 
 student, for whom it is more particu- 
 larly written, it may Ix- recommended 
 both for its simplicity and aceui-aey." — 
 Jtiiriiiii'i A'h-rrtiarr. 
 
 " Intended for the student who de- 
 siifs to have principles before entering' 
 into particulars, and we know no biMik 
 on the subject so well adapte<l for the 
 pui-pose."— /,«!/' Kxiiininiilimi Jiiunml. 
 
 " Wo strontrly recommend the ma- 
 nual to students of iKith branches of the 
 profession." — Preliminary JCxnminalinn 
 Jutininl. 
 
 "A work which will, we think, be 
 found instructive to the beginmr, and 
 a useful handybook for the practitioner 
 in local courts." — J'uOlic Ojiiuion. 
 
 UNDERHILLS LAW OF TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. 
 A CONCISE MANUAL OF THE LAW EELATDsG TO 
 PRIVATE TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. By AitTiirii Uxdku- 
 liiLL, M.A., of Lincoln's Liu and the Chancery Bar, Barristtr- 
 at-Law'. PostSvo. 8s. doth. 
 
 "The Court.s of Equity have always 
 exercised a vei-y extensive authority in 
 all matters of tnist, an<l the ol>jcet of 
 this work is to pre.^ent to the wader the 
 principles in relation to the law of 
 private trusts, 'flic avithor has divide<l 
 his subjects into se vent y-six art iclcs, and 
 he so treats his subjects that it will not 
 be found a diUirult mutter for a pei-son 
 of ordinary iiiti'lli^renco to retain the 
 matter thei-ein contained, which njust 
 be constantly necessary, not only to tlie 
 professional man, but also for all those 
 who may have taken uixin thi'mselves 
 the res-jK)nsibilitie8 of a tru.stee."— •/".<- 
 lift- oj Ihr I'lar^. 
 
 " SVe recently pjiblished a short re- 
 view or notice of Mr. A. V. I^i^aeh's 
 ' Difiest of the Ijiw of lYobate Duty,' 
 and renmrketl that it was fnimeil after 
 the model of Sir ritzjamca Stephen's 
 
 * Digest of the Criminal Tviw and Ijiw 
 of Kvidence from the Indian Acts,' and 
 which has l>een followe<l by Mr. rollmk 
 in his ' Digest of the Ijiw of rariucr- 
 shi]>.' Mr. I'ndcrhill has, in the alMive- 
 iiiuuihI volume, iK'rfonn»'<l a similar task 
 in relation to the ' Ijiw of Tnists.' In 
 seventy-six artiili-s he has summari/cd 
 the Jirinciplcs of the ' I jiw of Trust.s' as 
 distmi'tly and aci-unitely as the sul>- 
 jeet will" admit, and has siipplcmentfxl 
 the articles with illustrations." — Lnic 
 Jnurnal, 
 
 "The work is intendnl for those who 
 cannot study larger tomes, and Mr. 
 I'nderhill is sani.'uiiie that the student 
 will be able to Irani and nmeiulH'r all 
 that he lias written. We lielievc this 
 to be (juite jxis^ilile, and iHimmend the 
 Work to the attention of students." — 
 Law Times.
 
 24 
 
 LAW -WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 PHILLIMORE'S INTERNATIONAL LAW.— 3rd edit. 
 
 COMMENTAEIES ON INTEENATIONAL LAW. 
 By the Eight Hon. Sir Egbert Phillimoke, Knt., P.O., Judge 
 in the Pi'obate, Matrimonial, Divorce and Admiralty Division of 
 the High Court of Justice. Third Edition. Vol. 1 in 8vo. 
 
 lln the Press. 
 
 *«* Vol. II., second edition, price 28s. / Vol. III., second edition, price 36s. ; Vol. IV. , 
 second edition, price 34s. cloth, may be had separately to complete sets. 
 
 Extract from PainjMet on "American Nevtrulity," hy George Bemis [Boston, U.S.). 
 • — " Sir Robert Phillimore, the present Queen's Advocate, and author of the most 
 comprclicnsive and systematic ' Commentarie.s on International Law' that England 
 has produced." 
 
 "The authority' of tliis work is admit- 
 tedly great, and the learning and ability 
 disjilayed in its preparation have been 
 recognized by«Titers rm public law both 
 on the Continent of EuroiJC and in the 
 United States. ■Witli this necessarily 
 imperfect sketch we must conclude our 
 notice of the iirst volume of a work 
 which forms an important contribution 
 to the litcratm-e of public law. The 
 book is of gi-eat utility, and one wliich 
 slioiikl find a place in the library of 
 evciy civilian." — L<nu Mayanne. 
 
 " We cordially welcome a new edition 
 of vol. 1. It is a work that ought to be 
 studied by eveiy cduexited man, and 
 which is of constant use to the jiublic 
 %Mntcr and statesman. "SVe wi.sh, in- 
 deed, that our public -smters would read 
 it more abuiidaiifly than they have done, 
 as tlicy would tlien avoid serious eiTors 
 in discussing foreign questions. Any 
 general critici.^m of a Tiook which has 
 been recrivc d as a standard work would 
 be supe'-Huoiis ; but we may remark that 
 whilst Sir lioljcit stri( tly adheres to the 
 canons of legal aulliorsliip, and never 
 gives a .stalrment witliimt an authority, 
 or offers a cniu lusioii wliicli is not mani- 
 festly deducilile from cstablislied facts 
 or authoritative utterances, yet so lucid 
 is his style, we had almost said so 
 popular, .so cle.-ir is tlie enunciation of 
 principles, so graphic the historical por- 
 tions, that the book may be read with 
 ]ilc.isure u.s well as profit." — Law 
 Junrtuil. 
 
 " It is the most complete repositoiy of 
 matters bearing upon international law 
 tliat we have in the hinguage. We need 
 not repeat the commendations of the 
 te.\t itself as a treati.se or series of 
 treati.ses wln'cli this journal expressed 
 ujion tlie ajipeaiance of the two first 
 volumes. Tlie reputation of the Author 
 is too well cstal^lished and too widely 
 known. AVe content ourselves with tes- 
 tifying to tlio fulness and thoroughness 
 of the work a« a compilation after an 
 inspection of the thiee volumes. (2nd 
 
 edition)." — Boston [United States) Daily 
 Advertiser. 
 
 " Su- Robert Plullimore may well be 
 proud of this work as a lasting record 
 of his ability, learning and his industr j'. 
 IIa\-ing read the work carefully and 
 critically, we are able to highly recom- 
 mend it." — Law Journal [second notice). 
 
 " We have within a short period 
 briefly noticed the pre%'ious volumes of 
 the important work of which the fourth 
 volume is now before us. "W'e have moie 
 than once recognized the.-ibOity and pro- 
 found research which the learned antlior 
 has brought to bear upon the .subject, 
 but this last volume strikes us as jicr- 
 haps the most able and lucid, and, in 
 addition to these merits, it deals with a 
 di\'ision of international juiisprudcnce 
 which is of very great interest, namely, 
 private international law or comity." — 
 Law Times. 
 
 " The second edition of Sir RoTiert 
 Phillimore's (Commentaries contains a 
 considerable amount of valuable addi- 
 tional matter, liearing more especially 
 on (]uestions of international law raised 
 by tlie wars and contentions that have 
 broken out in the world since the pub- 
 lication of the first edition. Having 
 upon a foiTuer occasion discussed at 
 some length the general iirincijiles and 
 execution of this imiiortant work, we 
 now propose to confine ourselves to a 
 brief examination of a single question, 
 on wbicli Su- Jiobert I'liillimore may 
 justly be regarded as the latest autlio- 
 rity and as the champion of the princi- 
 ples of maiitime law, which, down to a 
 recent period, were maintained by this 
 countiy, and whicli were at one time 
 accepted without question liy the mari- 
 time powers. SirlJobert Phillimore has 
 examined with his usual learning, and 
 established without tlu; possibility of 
 doubt, the histoiy of the doctrine 'free 
 Khii)s, free goods,' and its opposite, in 
 the third volume of his 'Commen- 
 taries' fp. ,302) ."—Ldinhur'jh Bcvii ir. No. 
 2t)G, October, 1S7C.
 
 MESSRS. UlTlKRAVORTir, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 25 
 
 BAINBRIDGE ON MINES.— 4th Edit., by Archibald 
 
 Brown. 
 
 A TKKATISE on the LAAV of MINES nnd MINERALS. 
 P.y 'Wii.i.iAM Baimuudge, Esq., F.G.S., of tho Inner Tomiile, 
 13arristcr-at-Law. Fourth Edition. ]5y Archibald Browtc, 
 M.A. ]"Alin. and Oxon, of tlio Middlo Toniplc, Barristcr-at-Law. 
 Tliis "Work has been -wholly re-cast, and in tho greater part re- 
 written. It contains, also, Boveral chapters of entirely new 
 matter, which have obtained at tho present day great Mining 
 importance. 8vo. 4js. cloth. 
 
 "llucli of tlic old ■work has been rc- 
 ■WTitten, and there is muoh in tliis edition 
 that is entirely new. The whole of tho 
 law relafinfT to mines and minerals is 
 treatwl in an exhaustive manner. A.s 
 eomin^ more iiarti( ularly within our 
 own peeidiar i)roviiiie, wc may notice 
 Chapter XII., which deals with criminal 
 otfences relating; tomines; CliapterXII., 
 as to the .statutory refndati<in and in- 
 spection of mines; and Chapter X"\'., 
 which contains the hiw relatintr to the 
 ratin^rof mines and quairies, eompri.s- 
 inn the liability of coal and other mines 
 iind qimrrics to the poor and other rjite.s 
 — The tenancy— Improvements to be in- 
 cluded — Allowances and deductions to 
 lie made — Itatealile value, and all other 
 matters nece.ssaiy to make this portion 
 of the work most valuable to tliose con- 
 cerned in the ratin^r of such iirojieHy. 
 The appendix contains a valuable col- 
 lection of cnnveyancinp funns — l^^ical 
 Customs — A Glossnrj' of Enfrlish Mining 
 Terms, and a full and well ananped 
 Index facilitates the rcfei-cncc to the 
 
 contents of the volume. The cases 
 cited are broupht down to a veiy recent 
 date. The work undertaken by Mr. 
 lirown was an arduous one, and he has 
 .sati.--factorilv pcrfoniied it." — Jii'lii'. "/ 
 yv«,v„;, ith'nlil. 
 
 " niis work must be already familiar 
 to all readers wliose pnioticc brinp-s 
 them in any manner in connection with 
 niin(s or mining, antl they well know 
 its value. AVc can only .say of this new 
 edition that it is in uU rc-spccts worthy 
 of its predeccs-sors." — Iaiw Times on 
 linl >dit. 
 
 " It would be entirely superfluous to 
 attempt a ^rencral re\-iew of a work 
 wliich has for so long a period occupied 
 the position of the standard work on 
 this impfiitant subject. Tlio-'^eoidy who, 
 by the nalvue of their practice, have 
 learned to lean upcjii Mr. liainbrid^e 
 as on a solid stJilf, can appreciate tho 
 deep research, the adminible method, 
 and the ffniceful style of this model 
 treatise.." — Law Journal on 3rd edit. 
 
 ADAMS'S LAW OF TRADE -MARKS. 
 
 A TEEATISE ON THE LAW OF TEADE-M^UJIvS; 
 with tho Trade-Marks Regulation Act, 1875, and tho Lord 
 Chancellor's Eulcs. By F. M. Ad.\ms, of tho Middlo Temple, 
 Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 7s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 " A comprehensive treatise on the 
 subject of the law of tnide-marks. AVe 
 can recommend Mr. Adams' work to 
 the favoimible attention of patentees, 
 manufacliu-crs und others interested in 
 
 tho use of tradc-mnrks."— CTnmJfr* o/ 
 
 C'otiiwrrrr Cfirniililr. 
 
 "The subject of trnde-marks is beset 
 with difficidtics, in the elucidation of 
 which this work will be valuable." — 
 City J'resa.
 
 26 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 SIR T. ERSKINE MAY'S PARLIAMENTARY 
 PRACTICE.— Eighth Edition. 
 A TEEATISE ON THE LAW, PEIVILEGES, 
 PEOCEEDINGS AND USAGE OF PAELIAMENT. By Sir 
 THO^kiAS Erskiis-e May, D.C.L., K.C.B., Clerk of the House of 
 Commons and Bencher of the !Middle Temple. Eighth Edition, 
 Eevisod and Enlarged. Syo. 42s. cloth. 
 
 CoxTENTs : Book I. Constitution, Powers and Privileges of Parliament. ^Book 11. 
 Practice and Pi-oceeding-s in Parliament. — Book III. The Manner of passing Piivate 
 BUls, -n-ith the Standing Orders in both Houses, and the most recent Precedents. 
 
 "A work, ■which has risen from the " Fifty pages of new matter have been 
 position of a text book into that of an added by Sir Thomas May in liis seventh 
 authority, would seem to a considerable edition, thus comprising every altera- 
 extent to have passed out of the range tion in the law and practice of Parlia- 
 of criticism. It is quite unnecessary to ment, and all material precedents re- 
 point out the excellent arrangement, lating to public and private bu.siness 
 accui-acy and completeness which long since the publication of the si.xth cdi- 
 ngo rendered Su- T. E. May's ti'eatise tion. "We need make no comment upon 
 the standard work on the law of Parlia- the value of the work. It is an accepted 
 ment. Not only are points of Parlia- authority and is undeniably the law of 
 mentary law discu.s.sed or decided since Parliament. It has been brought up to 
 the publication of the last edition duly the latest date, and should be in the 
 noticed in their places, but the matter hands of cveiy one engaged in Parlia- 
 thus added is well digested, tersely pre- mentaiy life, whether as a la'wj'er or as 
 scnted and carefully interwoven -nith a senator." — Laiv Times. 
 the text." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 NASMITH'S INSTITUTES. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES OF ENGLISH PUBLIC LAW, 
 
 embracing an Outline of General Jiu'isprudence, the Development 
 of the British Constitution, Public International Law, and the 
 Public Municipal Law of England. By David Nasmith, Esq., 
 LL.B., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of the 
 Chronometrical Chart of the History of England, &c.. Joint Trans- 
 lator of Ortolan's History of Eoman Law. Post 8vo. 1 vol. 12s. cl. 
 " "We believe the plan of the book ia the right one." — Law Maga::ine. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES OF ENGLISH FEIVATE LAW, 
 
 embracing an Outline of the Substantive Branch of the Law of 
 Persons and Things, adapted to the New Procedure. By David 
 Nasmitif, LL.B., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, 
 Author of "Institutes of Engli.sh I'ublic Law," &c. &c. In 
 2 vols, or books, post 8vo. 21s. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. Nasmitli has evidently expended it, the bulk of his Treatise, •wliich is con- 
 much labour and care in tlic compilation fined to a concise exposition of the exist- 
 und aiTangement of the present work, ing law, appears to merit the praise of ac- 
 and 80 far a.s wc have been able to test curacy and clearness." — Law Maijazine.
 
 MESSRS. UUlTKinVOUTII, /, FLEET STIIEET, E.C". 
 
 27 
 
 CLARK'S DIGEST OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS CASES. 
 
 A i)i(JJ:sTi:i) INDEX TO ALL THE liLI'UiiT.S 
 
 in tho HOUSE OF LORDS, from tho comracnccincnt of the 
 
 Series by Dow, in 1814, to tho end of tho Eleven Volumes of 
 
 House of Lords Cases; with References to more recent Decisions. 
 
 Reporter by Appointment to 
 
 il Svo. 31s. G</. cloth. 
 
 and obstniotions of mere precedent. 
 Tlic uikiio\vlo(lf;e(l eminence of tin; 
 liolile mill leunu'il i)oi>on.s by wliuin 
 the di'(isii)iis liiivo been pronoutu i d, 
 ^'ivcM tlHiii 11 value beyond their iittiriMl 
 iiutlioritativuniss. It is hoped tliiil 
 this Di^'ist will Imvo the flfert of 
 milking the profession tit liiitre fiinii- 
 liiirly iieciniitnted with tliem." — I'lX- 
 J'ulorij Xutice. 
 
 ]{y CiiAitLKs Clauk, Esq., Q.C 
 
 tho House of Lords. 1 vol. royi 
 
 " The decisions of the supreme tribu- 
 nal of this conntrj', liowever ituthoritJi- 
 tive in tlR'nisclvi's, were not, until of 
 lute yeiirs, iit nil funiiliiir to the greiit 
 bcKly of the Icpil j)rofcssion ; the early 
 reports of them l>einK' in the hands of 
 but few persons. In tliat tribunal, more 
 than in any other, questions ran be eon- 
 sidei-ed, as they have been, uponpuiiiy 
 legal princii)les, freed from the lettei-s 
 
 FULTON'S Manual of CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 
 A ^LVXUAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL IIISTOLV, 
 foiindctl on tho Works of Ilallam, Creasy, May and Broom : 
 comprising all the Eimdamcntal Principles and tho Leading 
 Cases in Constitutional Law. By Eouuest Fultox, Es([., 
 LL.D., B.A., University of London, and of tho Middle Temple, 
 Banister-at-Law. Post Svo. la. li'l. cloth. 
 
 make it thoi-oufflily useful and reliable." 
 — Ciril Hervire Unztltr. 
 
 " The (reneral n-ader will be much 
 plen.setl with the cliaptci-s on the pri\i- 
 leges of purliament." — Sltnitlnnl. 
 
 " A pood i-cfeit-nce book, us well as a 
 book that oupht to be ix'ad in the lirst 
 instance .stniipht through." — John Hull. 
 
 "'Ilie author has spand no pains, anil 
 has suceeeded in the .somewhat diJIieult 
 task of ])i-e.sentin)r the i-esults of a widi' 
 ranpe of reading in a well dig<'steil fonn. 
 5Ir. I'ulton may be eon^Tatulateil upon 
 the verj- sucec'^sful aceom]ilishment of 
 a by no means easy t<isk : his lKH)k sui>- 
 pHis a felt want."— /liWiV Oniiiin,,. 
 
 " Mr. I'ulton has compile<l a Manual 
 of Constitutional Ili.story to aid bcgin- 
 nei-s in their studies: the extnicts he 
 has given fn)m his authorities appear 
 to be well chosen." — /inih/ A>ic.». 
 
 " It is useless for an onlinan' sttident 
 simply to read a ponilerous work im the 
 C'on.stitution, nnlcKs at the sjime time 
 he is able to assimilate its ri .suits. Mr. 
 Fulton has ivcognizetl this dittieidtv, 
 and the result is the truly adnurublc 
 little manual to wliieh we call the atten- 
 tion of our i-eadeni." — Cuniulinn Xcu-s. 
 
 "After carefully looking through the 
 sevenil chaptei-s, we may fairly sav the 
 book is well done, and that the object 
 of aiding the student in his (irst entiy 
 on the wide study of Constitutional Law 
 and Iliston- is attained."— 7'A»- l^w. 
 
 " Copious u.s<> lias Ixen made liy Mr. 
 Fulton of all the leading authorities on 
 tlie subject, and he wiites clearly and 
 intelligibly. There i.s a full and care- 
 fully prepared Index." — Law 'J'imrs. 
 
 "The method of its amingt'nient i.s 
 decidedly original and well calculatiil to 
 mift the object with which the book was 
 written, namely, to a.'^.'^ist law students 
 in preiiaring for their examinations, as 
 historj- now very i)ropirly fonns an im- 
 poi-tant part in all legal examinations. 
 >Ir. Fulton's, for jinutical infonnation, 
 and for student's i)iii-])oscs, is by far the 
 be.-^t Manual of Constitutional llistor)" 
 with which wo are acqmiinted." — Irish 
 Low Timr.i. 
 
 " ^i far as it goes it is not withotit 
 merit. The former part is written with 
 careand elcjinie.ss." — Sollritors' Joiirunl. 
 
 "The work before us is one whii'h 
 has long l>een wanted, and Mr. Fulton 
 appciu's to have taken gieat pains to
 
 28 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 TUDOR'S LEADING CASES ON REAL PROPERTY.— 
 
 Third Edition. 
 
 A SELECTION of LEADING CASES on the LAW 
 
 relating? to EEAL PEOPEETY, CONVEYANCING, and tlio 
 
 CONSTEUCTION of WILLS and DEEDS ; ^^-itli Notes. By 
 
 OwEX Daties Tudor, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister- 
 
 at-Law, Author of "Leading Cases in Equity." Third Edition. 
 
 1 thick vol. roj-al 8yo. 2^ 12s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 " The Second Edition is now before 
 us, and we are able to say that the same 
 extensive knowledg-c and the same la- 
 borious industiy as have been exliibitcd 
 by Ml'. Tudor on foiTner occasions 
 
 characteiize this hxter production of his 
 legal authorship : and it is enough at 
 tliis moment to reiterate an opinion 
 that ]Mr. Tudor has 'weU maintained the 
 high legal reputation which liis standard 
 works have achieved in all countries 
 where tlie English language is spoken, 
 and the decisions of our Covu-ts are 
 quoted." — Lnvj Mrir/nzine and Heviav. 
 
 "Tlie work before us comprises a 
 digest of decisions which, if not exhaus- 
 tive of all the principles of our real 
 property code, -wiU at least be found to 
 leave nothmg untouched or unelabo- 
 rated under the numerous legal doc- 
 trines to which the cases severally relate. 
 To Ml'. Tudor's treatment of aU tliesc 
 subjects, so complicated and so varied, 
 we accord om- entire commendation. 
 There are no omissions of any important 
 cases relative to the vai-ious branches of 
 the law comprised in the work, nor are 
 there any omissions or defects in his 
 statement of tlie law itself applicable 
 to the .ases disrussed by liim. We cor- 
 dially recommend the work to the prac- 
 titioner and student alike, but especially 
 to the foimcr." — Holkitors' Journal and 
 Jicporter. 
 
 "In tliis new edition, Mr. Tudor has 
 carefully revised his notes in accordance 
 with subsequent decisions that have 
 modified or extended the law as pre- 
 \'iously expounded. This and the other 
 volumes of Mi-. Tudor are almost a law 
 library in themselves, and we are satis- 
 fied that the student would learn more 
 law from the careful reading of them, 
 than he would acquire from double the 
 time given to the elaborate treatises 
 which learned professors recommend 
 the student to perase, with entire for- 
 getfulness that time and brains are 
 limited, and that to do what they advise 
 would be the work of a life." — Law 
 
 " This well-known work needs no re- 
 commendation. Justice, however, to 
 Ml-. Tudor requires us to say that fa- 
 miliarity ■\\itli its pages from its first 
 appearance have con'N'inced us of its 
 value, not only as a repertory of cases, 
 but a judicious summaiy of the law on 
 the subjects it treats of. So far as we 
 can see, the author has brought do'wn 
 the cases to the latest period, and alto- 
 gether there have been added about 170 
 pages of notes in the present edition. 
 As a guide to the present law the book 
 ■n"ill now be of great value to the la'wyer, 
 and it will be especially useful to him 
 when away from a large library." — 
 Jurisl. 
 
 WOOLRYCH ON SEWERS.— Third Edition. 
 
 A TEEATISE ON THE LAW OF SEAVEES, 
 including the Drainage Acts, By Humphry W. WooLRYCir, 
 Sorjcant-at-Law. Third Edition, "with considerable Additions 
 and Alterations. Svo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 "Two editions of it have been speedily 
 exhausted, and a third called for. The 
 author is &n accepted authority on all 
 subjects of this class.— /-«)(; T'ln'tpx. 
 
 " This is a f liird and greatly enlarged 
 edition of a book wliich-luis already ob- 
 tained an cstalili.-^licd rcputalion as tlie 
 most comi)le(e discussion of the subject 
 adapted to modern times. Since tlie 
 treatise of Mr. Serjeant Callis in tlie 
 early part of the 17lh century, no v;ovk 
 
 filling the same place has been added to 
 tlie literatui'e of the profession. It is a 
 work of no slight labour to digest and 
 an-ange this mass of legislation — this 
 task, however, Mr. Serjeant Woohych 
 has undertaken, and an examination of 
 liis book will, we think, con%nnce the 
 most exacting that he has fully suc- 
 ceeded. No one should attempt to 
 meddle ■niih the Law of Sewers ■without 
 its help." — Solicitors' Journal.
 
 MESSRS. nUlTERWOllTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 29 
 
 MOSELY'S ARTICLED CLERKS' HANDY BOOK.- By 
 
 Bedford. 
 
 Just publi.slied, iu 1 Vol., post Svo., Ss. Gil. clotli. 
 
 MdSELY'S PEACTICAL HANDY-BOOK OF ELE- 
 I^IIINTAIIY LAW, dobigued for tlio U.so of ARTICLED 
 CLKIIKS, with a Coiuso of Study, and lliuts on Heading for 
 tho Intormediato and Final Examinations. Second Edition, 
 hy Edwaud IIexslowk Bedford, Solicitor, Editor of tho 
 " Preliminary," " Intcrmetliato," and "Final," &c., &c. 
 
 I^aw. It will ccrtjiinlv not be llic fault 
 
 " This biKjk cannot be too strong-ly 
 rorunmioiulod to every one wIki e(jn- 
 ti'nipliites beoominff aBoMeitor." — Law 
 KxiiniiiKition Jminifif. 
 
 "Mr. E. II. Kodford, indefiitiprablo 
 in hi.< labours on Ijehalf of the articled 
 clerk, lia.s supervi.sed a new edition of 
 Mosely'a Handy Book of Elementar>- 
 
 of either author or editor if tlie yejirs 
 K])cnt under articles are not well spent, 
 and if tlie work reiiuired to lay a sound 
 foundation of lepil knowledt,'e is not 
 done with that ' kiiowled;,'e' of wliicli 
 they so emphatically deelai'C the ueces- 
 sity." — Law itagoiiite. 
 
 CUTLER & GRIFFIN'S INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW. 
 
 AN ANALYSLS OF THE INDIAN ri:NAL CODE, 
 inchuUn- the INDIAN PENML CODE AMJONJJMENT ACT, 
 INTO. I5y John Ci-tlek, B.A., of Lincoln'.s Inn, Larrister-at- 
 Luw, l'rofos.><or of Engli.sh Law and Juri.sprudence, and I'rofe.ssor 
 ol" Indian Jurisprudence at King's College, London, and Edmund 
 Fuller Grifi-ix, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barri.stcr-at-Law. 
 8vo. 65. cloth. 
 
 GOLDSMITH'S EaUITY.- Sixth Edition. 
 
 TJIE Jxx'riMXK AND FRACTICE OF EQUITY: 
 or a concise Outline of Proceedings in the High Court of Chan- 
 cery, designed princii)ally for tho Use of Students. Si.xth Edition, 
 according to the recent Statutes and Orders. By George Gold- 
 .SMITII, E.sq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Po.st Svo. 18.!t. cloth. 
 
 " It is difficult to know which to 
 
 ".\. well-known law stiident's book, 
 thf best, because tlie nio.st tliomutrldy 
 e•lnlplet<^ yet .simplilicd, in.structor in 
 the ])rineipks of equity that has ever 
 been priiviclid for him." — I.<iw Tiiiifs. 
 
 "Tlie wliolo work is elaliorated by 
 IMr. (ioldsniitli with evident C4ire and a 
 di'tiniiinatiou to deal with all that am 
 ome within the scope of tlie title. It 
 is eharaeterizcd by eoniineliensiveness 
 and at tho sjime time eonci.seness, by 
 clearness of dictiim and attractiveness 
 of stvle and avoidance of technicalities 
 which mij,'lit prove eiiibami.s.siii(^ to tlio 
 student, and a close adhereuce to tho 
 purpose as expressed in the preface." — 
 Law Journal. 
 
 prai.se most, the excelleiK-e and dij,niity 
 of the style, or the exhaustiveness of 
 tlie infonuation funiishi-d to the reader. 
 Jlr. Cioldsniith's plan oon-esponds to 
 some extent witli that adopte«l by Mr. 
 lla>-nes in liis excellent ' Uutlin'i's of 
 Eijuity,' but his work is inoi-e com- 
 plete than that of JL-. Uaynes." — J^ito 
 Kxiimiiinlion .lournnl. 
 
 " If a student wero confined to tho 
 selection of one book on ecjuity, IkiIIi 
 for its doctiine and practice, hi' could 
 liiuxUy do better than clioosi' tlie one 
 befoix' U8." — Hoticitura' Journal.
 
 30 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 CHRISTIE'S CRABB'S CONVEYANCING.— 
 
 Fifth Edition, by Shelford. 
 
 CEABB'S COMPLETE SEEIES OF PEECEDENTS 
 in CONVEYANCING and of COMMON and COMJklEECIAL 
 FOEMS in Alphabetical Order, adaj^ted to the Present State of 
 the Law and the Practice of Conyoj^ancing; with copious Prefaces, 
 Observations and Notes on the several Deeds. By J. T. Christie, 
 Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition, with numerous Correc- 
 tions and Additions, bj'LEOXAED Shelford, Esq., of the Middle 
 Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. roy. 8vo. 31. cloth; 3^. 12s. calf. 
 
 *,* This work, which embraces loth the Principles as well as the Practice of Conveyancing 
 contains likewise every description of Form wanted for Commercial Purposes. 
 
 Gen'ebal Table of Heads of Prefaces axd Forms. 
 Abstracts. — Accounts. — Acknowledg-ments. — Acquittances. — Admittances. — Aifi- 
 dav-its, Affirmations or Declarations. — Agreements : to relinquish Business : to 
 Guarantee : for a Lease : before Maniagc : for a Partition : between Piinoipal and 
 Agent : for tlie Sale and Pui'chase of Estates : for Sale of Copyhold Estates : for 
 Sale of Leaseholds : for Sale of au Advowson. — ^Annuitj- : secui-ed on Copyholds. 
 — .Vnnuities : Assignments of. — Appointments : of Guardians. — Apportionment. 
 — Apprenticeship : to the Sea Sei-vice : to an Attorney : Assignment of. — Ai-bi- 
 tration : Award. — A-ssignments : Bonds: Leases: Patents: Pews: Policies of 
 Insui-anee : Reversionary Interests. — Attest^itions. — Attornments. — Auctions : 
 Particulars of Sale. -^Bargains and Sales : of Tunbcr. — Bills of Sale of Goods. 
 — Bonds: Administration: Receiver pending Suit: Post Obit: Stamps on. — 
 Certihcates. — Composition: Conveyances in Trust for Creditors. — Conditions: 
 of Sale. — Confirmations. — Consents. — Copartnership : Dissolution of Copartner- 
 ship. — Covenants : Stamps on : for production of Title Deeds. — Declarations. — 
 Deeds : I. Nature of Deeds in General : n. Requisites of a Deed : m. Formal 
 I'arts of Deeds : TV. AVliere a Deed is neeossaiy or otherwise : V. Con.struction 
 of Deeds : VI. Avoiding of Deeds : VH. Proof of Deeds : VHI. Admission of 
 Parol Evidence as to Deeds : IX. Possession of Deeds : X. Stamp Duty on Deeds. 
 — Defeasances. — Demises. — Deputation. — Disclaimers. — Disentailing Deeds. — • 
 Distress : Notices of. — Dower. — Enfranchisements. — Exchanges. — Feoffments. — 
 — Fuither Charges. — Gifts. — Grants. — Grants of Way or Road. — Indemnities. — 
 Leases : I. Natui-e of Leases in General : II. Requisites to a Lea.se : HI. Parts of 
 a Lease : IV. Incidents to a Lease : V. Stamps on Leases. — Letters of Cx-edit. — 
 Licences. — Mortgages: of Copyholds : of Leaseholds : Transfer of: Stamp Duty 
 on. — Notes, Orders, Wan-ants, iVc. — Notices : to Quit. — Partition. — Powers : of 
 Attorney. — Presentation. — Piinliase Deeds : Conveyance of Copyholds : A.ssign- 
 ments of Leaseholds : Stamps on. — Recitals. — Releases or Conveyances : or Dis- 
 cliargcs. — Ri'nunciations or Disclaimers. — Resignations. — Revocations. — Separa- 
 tion. — Settlements : Stum]) Duty on. — Shipping : BUls of Lading : Bills of Sale : 
 BottomiT and Respondentia Bonds: Charter Parties. — Sm-renders. — Wills: 
 1. Dolinition of Will and Codicil : '_'. To what Wills the Act 7 Will. 4 i: 1 Vict. c. 2G 
 does not apply : ;!. What may lie (lisjjosed of by AVill : 4. Of the capacity of Per- 
 .sons to ni.ike Wills : r>. AVlio i]iav (ir who may not be Devi.sees : 6. Execution of 
 Wills: 7. Publication of AVills : .s. l!evoc.'iti<mof WUls : 9. Lap.so of Devises and 
 Bequests: 10. Provisions and Clauses in Wills : 11. Constnictiou of Wills. 
 
 " In carefulness we have in him a mendation of it to the notice of those 
 
 second Crabb, in erudition Craljb's su- for whose service it has been so la- 
 
 pei-ior ; and the result is a work of boriously compiled." — Law Times. 
 
 which the original autlior would liavo " Jlr. Shelford has proved liimself in 
 
 been proud, could it have appeared this task to be not unworthy of his 
 
 under his own aus])ices. It is not a fonncr reputation. To those familiar 
 
 book to be quoted, nor indeed could its with his other works it will be a suf- 
 
 merits be exliiljited by (juotation. It is ficient recommendation of tliis work 
 
 es.scntially a book of practice, which can that Mr. Shelford's name appears on 
 
 {)nly be described in rude outline and the title-page ; if there bo any who are 
 
 dismissed ■nith applause, and a recom- not well acquainted wth them, we ven-
 
 MESSRS. iniTi:u\\()Krii, 7, 1'1,i:i:t strekt, e.c. Jil 
 Christie's Crabb's Conveyancing— row^z/wfrf. 
 
 turo to rciKiniiit nil to Midi tli>> work iiuinovciucnts." — Law Jfnijnzinn ami 
 
 before u«, us tliu most (fi'iicniUy useful Jirvii-w. 
 
 and convoiiifiit ooUcotioii of pn'ooilciits " It possesses one distinctive feature 
 iu couvcyimi'intr, and of i-ominciviul in devotintr more attention than usual 
 fonns for ortliniiry use, wliicli are to bo in such works to fonns of a coniinercial 
 liad in the Kn^'lisli lanjruutfe." — Solid- nature. On the wliole the two volutnes 
 tiirs' Joiiniiil mill Hi pnrlfr. of Cnibb's I'reritleiits, as edited bv Mr. 
 "To this important part of his duty — lA>onard Sholford, will bo found ex- 
 the remodellinj? and jx'rfwtinn' of the tremely useful in a solicitor's otiieo, pre- 
 forms — even with the examination sentinw a laive amount of real i)roperty 
 which we have ahxiuly been able to learnintJr, with veiy numerous preci-- 
 atlord this work, we aix- able to iitiirm, dent.s; iiuli^d we know of no book so 
 tliat the learned editor has been emi- justly entitled to the appellation of 
 uently successful and elTected valuable ' handy' as the lifth edition of Mr. 
 
 Crubb's l*ix'cedents." — Lmxo Chronicle,. 
 
 CUTLER'S LAW OF NATURALIZATION. 
 
 THE LAW OF NATURALIZATION as Amontled 
 by tho Act of 1870. By Joiix Cutler, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Banistor-at-Law, Editor of " Powell's Law of Evidence," &c. 
 12mo. 'is. 6d. cloth. 
 
 "Professor Cutler's book is n useful present state of the law upon this most 
 
 summar>' of the law and of the chanties important subject." — Juslic; of the. 
 
 which have been made in it. The act J'eiu-f. 
 
 is jriven in full with a useful index." — "The author's position aa rrofessor 
 
 J.iiir Miiijnziiii-. of Enjrli.sh I.iiw and Jurispi-udenee is ii 
 
 "Mr. Cutler, in the work before us, j,'uaninteeofhisleir.ileonipetenee, whil.st 
 
 lucidly explains the state of the law pix>- his literaiy abilities have enabled liim 
 
 vious to the recent statute, and shows to clothe his lej^il knowle<lffe in lan- 
 
 the altemtions produced by it, so that fniat,'e which laymen can undei-stand 
 
 a cm-eful perusal of his book will en- without being misk-d by it." — John 
 
 able the reader fully to comprehend the llult. 
 
 COOTE'S ADMIRALTY PRACTICE.-Second Edition. 
 
 THE rJfACTlCE UE THE HIGH COUKT 
 f)F ADMIEALTY OF EXGIAND: also tho Practice of tbo 
 Judicial Comiiiitteo of Ilor Majesty's Most llonoiirablo Privy 
 Council in Admiralty Ai)peaLs, with Fonn.s and Pills of Costs. 
 Py IIexky Cuarlp:s Coote, F.S.A., ono of tho Examiners of tho 
 High Court of Admiralty, Author of "The Practice of the Court 
 of Probate," &c. Second Edition, almo.st entirely re-written ; 
 and with a SUPPLEMENT containiiKj the Coiinti/ Court Pruvtice 
 ill Aihiiiralty, the Act, Pules, Orders, &c. 8vo. 1G«. cloth. 
 
 •«• Thin work contains every Common Form in use bif the Praetilioner in AdmlmUtf, as 
 well as every ilesrriplion of Hill of Costs in that Court, a feature possessed by no 
 other work on the I'ractice'in Admiralty. 
 
 " Mr. Coote, being' an Examiner of stantiallv considci-ed, evcr>-thinR' that 
 
 the Court, may l>e eonsidertnl as an cjin be iesircd to the practitioner." — 
 
 authoritative exponent of the points of Jaiw Magazine. 
 which he treats. Ilia treatise is, sub-
 
 33 
 
 LAW WORKS rUBLISHED BY 
 
 ORTOLAN'S ROMAN LAW, Translated by PRICHARD 
 and NASMITH. 
 
 THE HISTOEY OF EOMAN LAW, from tlie Text of 
 Ortolan's Histoire de la Legislation Eomaine ot Generalisation du 
 Droit (edition of 1870). Translated, with the Author's permission, 
 and Supj)leniented by a Chronometrical Chart of Eoman History. 
 By I. T. Prichard, Esq., F.S.S., and David Nasmith, Esq., 
 LL.D., Barristers-at-Law. 8vo. 28s. cloth. 
 
 " We know of no -n-ork, -wliicli, in onr 
 opinion, exliibits so perfect a model of 
 ^yhat a text-book ought to be. Of the 
 translation before us, it is enough to 
 say, that it is a faithful representation 
 of the original." — Laiv ilagazbiP.. 
 
 ' ' This translation, from it s great merit, 
 deserves a warm reception from all who 
 desu-e to be acquainted with the liistoiy 
 and elements of Roman law, or have its 
 interests as a necessary part of a sound 
 legal education at heart. With regard 
 
 to that great work, it is enough to say, 
 that Englisli \«'iters have been con- 
 tinuaUj' in the habit of doing piecemeal 
 what Messrs. Prichard and Nasmitli 
 have done wholesale. Hitherto we have 
 had but gold dust from the mine ; now 
 we are fortunate in obtaining a large 
 nugget. Jlr. Nasmith is ah-eady knowTi 
 as the designer of a chart of the historj' 
 of England, which has been generally 
 approved, and bids fau'ly for extensive 
 adoption." — Law Journal. 
 
 CLIFFORD & STEPHENS' REFEREES' PRACTICE, 
 1873. 
 THE PEACTICE OF THE COUET OF EEFEEEES 
 on PRIVATE BILLS IN PAELLOIENT; with Eeports of 
 Cases as to the Locus Standi of Petitioners decided diu-ing the 
 Sessions 1867—72. By Frederick Clifford, of the Middle 
 Temple, and Pembroke S. Stephens, of Lincoln's Inn, Esqs., 
 Barristers-at-Law. 2 vols, royal 8to. 3?. 10s. cloth. 
 
 In continuation of the above, 
 Royal Svo., Vol. I. Part I., price 31s. 6(7.; Vol. I. Part II., 15s.; 
 Vol. II. Pai-t I. 12s. Q>d. sowed; and Vol. II. Part 11. 12s. Gd. sewed. 
 
 CASES DECIDED DUEING THE SESSIONS 1873, 
 1874, 187.5, 187G, 1877 and 1878, by the COUPT OF EEFEEEES 
 on PEIVATE Bn.LS in PAELIAMENT. By Frederick 
 Clifford and A. G. Eickards, Esqs., Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 "These Reports are a continuance 
 of the series of ' Clifford and Stephens' 
 Reports,' which began in 18G7, and seem 
 to bo marked by tlie same care and 
 accuiacy which liave made these lie- 
 ports a standard for reference and 
 quotation by ])ractitioners and the 
 Com! itself." — Times. 
 
 " The book i.s really a veiy useful 
 one, and will doubtless commend itself 
 to ParUamcutuiy practitioners." — Law 
 
 TilMf!. 
 
 "Tlic Reports themselves are veiy 
 ■well done. To parliamentary practi- 
 tioners the work cannot fail to be of 
 veiy great value." — Huliciiors' Journal.
 
 MESSRS. lil'lTKllWOK'ni, <, FJ.KKT STREET, E.C. 
 
 33 
 
 KELLY'S CONVEYANCING DRAFTSMAN. 
 
 Tlir: 1H:A1' rsMAX: ((.iitainin-- ;i Collrction of Conciso 
 Pri'cfilt'nts and J-'oniis in (.'unvtiyaiiciiif;; Avith Introductory 
 Observations and Practical Notes. I5y J.v.MES II. Kelly. I'ost 
 8vo. Gs. cloth. 
 
 "Mr. KpUv's (ilijoot is to pivc ft fow 
 proredontsdf ouch of thus*- iiisti-uiiK-nts 
 which lire most coiniiioiily iiMjuircd in ii 
 solicitor's ofKii', and for whuli jii-ci^c- 
 dents iiiv not iilwuys to !«• met witli in 
 the ordiniUT V>ook.s on convcyimcin),'. 
 Tlio idoii in II froiMl one, iind tlio prece- 
 dents contained in the book are, ^rener- 
 ally speakinjr, of the cliariicter conteiu- 
 platttl hy tlie author's desifni. AV'c 
 liave bcfn favoui'aMy im])ix>ssed witli 
 a penisiil of si'venil of tlio precedents 
 in tliis book, and pnictitionors wlio 
 Luvc already udopti-d fonas of tlieii' 
 
 own will probably And it advantaffcous 
 to collate them with llioso trivon by ]ilr. 
 Kelly. Ivicli sot of jn-occdents is pro- 
 faced by a fow toi-se and pmcticid ob- 
 w ivutions." - Siili,:i„rs' Jiiuriirit. 
 
 " Such statements of law and facts n.s 
 are contained in the work lue uocuratc." 
 
 — /..nr./„„n,„l. 
 
 " It contains matter not found in the 
 more ambit ioiLs works on conveyancing, 
 and we ventui-o to think that the student 
 will find it a usefid supplement to his 
 reading on the suljjoct of conveyanc- 
 ing'." — Law i,'xamiiiatiun Juurnal, 
 
 LATHAM ON THE LAW OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 
 
 A TKEATI8E on tho LAW of WINDOAV LIGnTS. 
 By Fii.vxcis Law Latham, of the Inner Tcmi)lo, Esq., IJarristor- 
 at-Law. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. 
 
 " Tliis is not merely a valualdo addi- 
 tion to the law libniry of the j)mi'ti- 
 tionor, it is a book that evorv law 
 student will road with profit. It ex- 
 hausts the subject of which it treats." 
 — /.rtrc TitiifS. 
 
 " Uis amingomont is lopical, and lie 
 diijcusscs fully each point of his subject. 
 
 Tlic work in our opinion is both pcr- 
 sjiicuous and able, and we cannot but 
 compliment tho author on it."— /.<ii« 
 
 " A treatise on this subject was 
 wanted, and Mr. l..atham has succeeded 
 iu meetini,' that want."— J(//t;i(inm. 
 
 REDMAN ON ARBITRATIONS AND AWARDS. 
 
 A CONCISE TREATISE on tin.' LAW OF AEBI- 
 THATIONS and AWAlfDS; v-ith an A]ipondix of l'recodont.s 
 and Statutes. Py Joseph IIawokth Pedmax, of tho Middle 
 Temple, Es(j., Barri.ster-at-Law, Author of "A Treati.so on tho 
 Law of Eaihvay Coiniianics as Carriers." Svo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 " a sinpidar feature in this work i.s, 
 that it has no foot notes, and this is u 
 deci<led ri'<v)mmondation. Tho aminjre- 
 ment is frood, the style clear, and tho 
 work exhaustive. There Ls a u.soful ap- 
 pendix of priHwlonts and .statutes, and 
 a v(>n' (food iridi'x." — /mw 'J'ini's. 
 
 " This is likely to prove a useful book 
 in practice. All the oixlinaiy law on 
 tho subject is tfivon shortly and in a 
 ciinvonient and accessiblo fonn. and the 
 index is a p)od one. The book is of a 
 portable size and modenite price, and 
 contains a faiiiy complete apixndi.x 
 of precedents. It is likely cnouyh that 
 
 it \»ill meet n demand both in the pro- 
 fession and amouffst lay arbitrators." 
 
 — Siiliritom' J nil null. 
 
 " Wo have no doubt but that tho 
 Wf)rk will be useful. Tlio pn-eoflents 
 of awards are clearly and concis<'ly 
 drawn. The aiTanjroment of chaptoin 
 is conveniently manafre<l. Tlio law in 
 clearly stati-d, and, so far as wo can 
 juil'_'o, all the important ca.sos lM>arinK' 
 din itly on the subjo<f ar<' (riven, while 
 till' iiiilcx apixars ix'asonably coi)ious. 
 These facts, combined with tho sniall- 
 ness of the volume, ought to make tho 
 book a succcsa." — Law Jouninl.
 
 34 
 
 LAW "WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ROUSE'S CONVEYANCER, with SUPPLEMENT, 1871. 
 Third Edition. 
 
 The PEAC'TICAL CONYEYANCEE, giving, in a mode 
 combining facility of reference -with general utility, upwards of 
 Four Hmidi'cd Precedents of Convej'ances, Mortgages and 
 Leases, Settlements, and MiscellanecAis Foi-ms, mth (not in 
 previous Editions) the Law and niinierous OutHnc Forms and 
 Clauses of Wills and Abstracts of .Statutes affecting Real Pro- 
 perty, Conveyancing Memoranda, &c. By PiOLLA Eouse, Esq., 
 of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-La-n*, Author of " The Prac- 
 tical Man," &c. Third Edition, greatly enlarged. With a 
 Supplement, giving Abstracts of the Statutory Provisions 
 affecting the Practice in Conveyancing, to the end of LS70; and 
 the I'cquisite -Vlteratious in Foi-ms, M'ith some new Fonns ; and 
 including a full Abstract in niunbered Clauses of the Stamp 
 Act, 1870. 2 vols. 8vo. 30.s. cloth; 38.s. calf. 
 
 %* The Siijiplcnu'iit may he had scparutehj, prke Is. M. seivcd. 
 
 " Tlie best test of the value of a book 
 ■\M-itten professedly for practical men is 
 the practical oue of the number of edi- 
 tions tlu-oug-h -which it passes. The fact 
 that tliis ^ell-known work has now 
 reached its thu-d shows that it is con- 
 sidered by those for whose convenience 
 it was wTitten to f uMl its pui-pose well." 
 — Law Jliff/nzine. 
 
 " This is the thii-d edition in ten years, 
 a proof that practitioners luae used and 
 appi'fived the precedents c<jllecti-d by 
 JL-. Louse. Li tliis edition, which is 
 f.Teatly enlarged, he has for the tii'st 
 time introduced Precedents of "Wills, 
 extendin<7 to no less than 116 pages. 
 "We can accord unniingled praise to the 
 conveyancing memoranda shoT^-ing tlie 
 practical effect of the various statutory 
 provisions in the different isaits of a 
 deed. If the two preceding editions 
 have been so well received, tlie welcome 
 given to this one hiy tlie profession wiU 
 be heaitier .still." — Low Times. 
 
 " So fur as a careful pei-usal of Mr. 
 Eoiise's book enables us to .judge of its 
 merits, we think that as a collection of 
 jjrecedents of general utility in ca.ses of 
 cotumon (jccun-ence it will be found 
 s;itisfactorily to stand the application 
 of tlie test. The draftsman ^ill lind in 
 the I'lactical Conveyancer precedents 
 appropriate to all instruments of com- 
 mon occurrence, and the collection ap- 
 ])ears to be especially well su]i] Jicd wilh 
 those which lelate to copyhold estates. 
 In order to avoid u.scless repetition and 
 
 also to make the precedents as simple 
 as possible, Ml-. Piouso has sketched out 
 a number of outline di-af ts so as to pre- 
 sent to the reader a sort of bnd's-eye 
 ^^ew of each instiument and show liim 
 its fonn at a glance. Each paragraph 
 in these outline fonns refers, by dis- 
 tinguisliing letters and numbers, to the 
 clauses in full requu-ed to be inserted in 
 the respective parts of the instrument, 
 and wliich are given in a subsequent 
 part of the work, and thus everj' pre- 
 cedent in outline is made of itself an 
 index to the clauses wliich ai-e necessaiy 
 to complete the draft. In order still 
 further to simplify the an-angement of 
 tlie vork, the author has adopted a plan 
 (which seems to us fidly to answer its 
 pm-pose) of gi^^ng the vai-iations which 
 may occiu' in any instrument according 
 to the natm-al order of its different 
 liarts." — Law Joiiniril. 
 
 " That the work has found favor is 
 proved by the fact of our now ha\ing 
 to review a thu'd edition. This method 
 of skeleton precedents appears to us to 
 be attended with iiiijiortaiit advantages. 
 Space is of course sa\-ed, but besides 
 this there is the still more important 
 consiik'iatiim that the draftsman is ma- 
 terially assisted to a bird's-eye view of 
 his diaft. Eveiyone who has done 
 much conveyancing work knows how 
 thorouglily important, nay, how essen- 
 tial to success, is the formation of a 
 clear idea of the scope and framework 
 of the iustniment to bo produced. To
 
 MKSSKS. JJl n'KRWOIlTH, 4 , 1 I.KKT STKKP:T, V..V 
 
 'riO 
 
 Rouse^s Conveyancer — continued. 
 
 cli/ik.s Hiul otlirr yiiiiiit.' liiiiuls a oniii-!«> 
 i)f roiivfvuiiciii)^ mull T yir. Uouso'.s 
 uuspiws ix, wi' think, cah'uLittHl to 
 provp very in.itnictive. To tlio Holicitor, 
 t'spmiilly till? ccmntiy priutitimuT, who 
 hiLS often to sot hiM clerks to work upon 
 ilraft.s of no i)artii'ulur ilitiiculty to tho 
 experienoeil pmi'titioner, but upon 
 which thoy tlie said tlerk-s are not to bo 
 
 quito tnistwl alone, we think to sucli 
 trentlemrn Mr. House's eoUeotion of 
 Precedents is ealculuted to prove ex- 
 tremely serN'ieeable. AV'«f i-epeut, 171 
 contlusioii, that solicitors, esju-eiallv 
 those practising in the country, will 
 lind tlii-s a useful work."— iWici(o/-ji' 
 Joiiniiil. 
 
 SAUNDERS' LAW OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 A TIJEATISE on tliu LAWappHcuhlo toNEGLIGENCE. 
 By TuoMAs W. S-vrxDEUS, Esq., iJarristcr-at-Law, Eccorder of 
 Bath. 1 vol. post 8to. 9a. clotli. 
 
 " The liook is admirable ; while small 
 in bulk, it contains everytliin^ that in 
 necessjiry, and it.s an-aniremcnt is siich 
 that one can readily refer to it. Ainonifst 
 those those who have done a jrood ser- 
 vice Jlr. Sjiundere will lind a place. "^ 
 Lrnr M.,:in:ii"-. 
 
 '* AVe find very con.sidcniblc diliffcncc 
 di.'iplayed. Tlie references to the ca-ses 
 are jriven much more fully, and on a 
 more iiitionul system than is common 
 with textbook WTiters. He hius a pood 
 index." — Snliritnrs' .Jniininl. 
 
 " The lU'conler of Hath has rendei-ed 
 pood serWce t< i the profession, and to tho 
 more intellifnmt si'ction of the penenil 
 pulUic, by the production of tlie care- 
 fully i)repariHl and pnictically useful 
 volume now under notice. As a work 
 of reference, the book will be verj' wel- 
 
 come in the office of tlie Bolicitor or in 
 the ehambei-s of the barrister." — Morii- 
 iiiij Ailrerlis''!-. 
 
 " Ml'. T. W. Saundcis is well kno^^Il 
 a."* a latxe contributor to le^nil litem- 
 ture, and all his works are distiniruishiil 
 by painsfakin^f and accuracy. This one 
 is no cxcejitioii, and the subject, which 
 is of very extensive interest, \^^ll ensiui- 
 for it a coiflial welcome from the pro- 
 fession." — Lino 'J'iiii'-.t. 
 
 " As scarcely a day pa.sses in which 
 <laims are not made, and actions 
 brought, for compensations for injurii-s 
 fi'oni ne;/leet of some kind, a short and 
 clear treati.se like tlic piTsciit on the law 
 ivlating to the subject ou},'lit to be wel- 
 comed. It is a modeiiite size volume, 
 and makes refei-enciM to all the authori- 
 ties on the question easy." — b'lomlanl. 
 
 DIXON'S LAW OF PARTNERSHIP. 
 A TREATISE ON THE LAAV f)E RlETNERSnir. 
 
 By JosEru Dixox, of Lincolii'.s Inn, Esq., Banistor-at-Liiw, 
 Editor of ' ' Lii.sh's Common Law I'lactico." 1 vol. Svo. '228. cloth. 
 
 " He has evidently l>estowe<l upon this 
 book the s;ime conscientious labour and 
 pain-stakiufT industry for which we had 
 to coiaplimcnt him some months since, 
 when i-eviewinir his edition of ' Lush'H 
 Pnwticeof the Superior Courts of l.jiw,' 
 and, as a result, he has productnl a 
 clearly written and well lUTanj^ed ma- 
 nual upon one of the most important 
 bninches of our mercantile law." — Laio 
 
 Joiimnl. 
 
 " Mr. Dixon has done lus work well. 
 The book is carefully and usefully pre- 
 Jiared." — Sutlritors' Journal. 
 
 " We heartily recommend to practi- 
 tionei-a and students Mr. Dixon's trea- 
 tise as the best exposition of the law we 
 
 have read, for the aminjrement is not 
 only ai-tistic, but conciseness has been 
 studied without saerilicc of eleame.ss." 
 
 Low TilllrX. 
 
 " Mr. Lindley's xiev: of the subject is 
 that of a i)hilo.sophieid lawTcr. Mr. 
 Dixon's is pui-cly and exclu.sively prac- 
 tical from l>esinninK' to end. Wo 
 imagine that veiy few (juestions an- 
 likelv to come before the practitioner 
 whic)i Mr. Di.xon's book will not 1m> 
 found to solve. We have only to add, 
 that the value of the iKHjk is very 
 materially increased by an excellent 
 iiiandnal sununary and a very copious 
 index." — y.<in> Jl'iyazine and Review. 
 
 C 2
 
 36 
 
 LAW AVORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 MICHAEL & WILL'S GAS AND WATER SUPPLY. 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 THE LAW EELATING TO GAS AND AVATEE : 
 
 comprising tlie Eights and Duties, as ■svell of Local Authorities 
 as of Private Companies in regard thereto, and including all 
 Legislation to the close of the last Session of Parliament. Second 
 Edition. By W. H. Michael and J. Shiress Will, of the 
 Middle Temple, Esqs., Barristers-at-La-w. Demy 8yo. 25s. cloth. 
 
 " The Law of Gas and "Water, by 
 Messrs. !Michael and Will, lias reached 
 a second edition, and the authors tell 
 us that they have not only brought the 
 law down to the present time but they 
 have re-written a considerable portion of 
 the text, particvdarly ■n-ith reference to 
 pas. Wlien the first edition appeared 
 we expressed an opinion that the work 
 had been executed ■«itli care, skill and 
 abilit}'. This edition is a decided im- 
 provement on the lii'st, and therefore 
 we need add nothing- now. It is a work 
 wliich has proliably found its way into 
 the hands of all interested in the prac- 
 tical application of the Acts of Pai'lia- 
 
 ment relating' to gas and water supply." 
 — Laiv Times., 
 
 " The collection of all the acts into one 
 volume has long been requii-ed, but it 
 was no light task, and therefore we were 
 not surprised to tiud it not done sooner. 
 Messrs. Michael and WiU, who are 
 barristers at law, were reserved for the 
 work, and no one can truthfully say 
 they have not acquitted themselves well. 
 All the legislation to the close of the 
 last session is included. The book is 
 invaluable to any one interested in the 
 supply of the two fluids, and this value 
 is enhanced by an index for reference of 
 nearly eighty pages." — TheJIetropoUtan. 
 
 POWELL'S LAW OF INLAND CARIIIEIIS.— 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 THE LAW OF INLAND CAEEIEES, 
 
 especially as regulated by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 
 1854. By EDMirNT) PowELL, Esq., of Lincoln College, Oxon, 
 ISI.A., and of the Western Circuit, Barrister-at-Law, Author of 
 "Principles and Practice of tho Law of Evidence." Second 
 Edition, almost re-written. Svo. 14s. cloth. 
 
 " The treatise before xis states the law 
 of which it treats ably and clearly, and 
 contains a good index." — SoUcitors' 
 Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Powell's writing is singularly 
 precise and condensed, \\itliout being at 
 all drj', as those who have read liis 
 admirable Book of EWdence \\iLl attest. 
 It will be seen, from our outline of the 
 I'untents, how exhaustively the subject 
 has been treated, and tliat it is entitled 
 to be that which it aspires to become, 
 
 the text book on the Law of Can-iers." 
 ■ — Lfiw Timt'H. 
 
 "The subject of this treatise is not 
 indeed a large one, but it has been got 
 up by Mr. Powell with considerable 
 care, and contains ample notice of the 
 most recent cases and authorities." — 
 
 Juritit. 
 
 " The two chapters on the Railway 
 and Canal Traffic Act, 18.00, are quite 
 new, and the recent cases under the 
 provisions of that statute are analyzed 
 in lucid language." — Law Moija::'iue.
 
 PLUMPTRE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS. 
 
 A .srAIMAPvY OF THE riUNfirLKS OF THE 
 T-A^V OF SIMPLE ('(^XTUACTS. By Clu'DK C. U. 
 I'M'MrTRi:, of tho Middle Toiiii)l<', Esq., Barristor-at-Liiw. 
 (Middle Temi^le Comuiou Law Schular, Hilary Term, IsTT.) 
 I'ost 8vo. 8:j. cloth. 
 
 *^* A ComjMuion Work to UiKkrhill on Torts. 
 
 " In our last volume wc hnd occasion 
 to nii'iition witli iii)prolijition two works 
 by Mr. Arthur Uiiilcrliill, A Suinmar>- 
 of tlip Liiw of Torts, and a t'ouoisc 
 Manual of the Law ri^latin^,' to lYusts 
 and Trustees; the Hi-st of these had 
 reached n second edition, and in its 
 preparation the author of the pivsent 
 work was associated with Mr. Under- 
 hill. In the preparation of this book 
 Mr. riuinptre has adopted the lines laid 
 down by Mr. Underhill ; by means of 
 short rules and sub-ndes he pn-sents a 
 sumniarj- of the Icadintr principles re- 
 lating to the law of sinii)le contracts, 
 with thedecisions of the t'ourt.s by wliidi 
 they are illu.strated. I'art I. deals with 
 the parties to a simple contract, and 
 treats of tho.sc pci-sons exempted from 
 the pcifonnancc of their contnicts by 
 reiuson of inwipacit)-, such as infants, 
 miuried women, lunatics, di-unkanls, 
 convicts and banknipts. Cliaptcr 1 is 
 devoted to contracts by coi-jiorations 
 and by of^nts, ami the following chap- 
 ter to partnei-s and partnersliips gener- 
 ally. 
 
 " In Part n. we have the constituent 
 parts of a simple contract, the consent 
 of the parties, the cimsideration, the pro- 
 mise, contnicts illepd at common law 
 and by statute, and fraudulent con- 
 tnicts. 
 
 " I'art in. pivcs rules for makinp a 
 simple contract, and treats of eimtracts 
 within the -Ith and 17th sections of the 
 Statute of Frauds ; Statutes of Limi- 
 tation ; the discharKe of the oblipation 
 imposed by the contnict by perform- 
 ance ; by mutual sipreement ; by accord 
 and satisfaction ; and by operation of 
 law ; oral endence and viitten con- 
 tracts ; damag-es ; and contraeta made 
 abroad. 
 
 " The book contains upwards of one 
 liundred ndcs, all ably illustniti'd 
 by ciuses, and a vcrj' full and well- 
 compiled index facilitates reference. 
 It is more particularly addn?8se<l to 
 students, but pnictitionei-s of bnth 
 branches of the le^jd profession will 
 find it a useful and trxistworthy guide." 
 — Justice of the I'eace, 
 
 SMITH'S PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING. 
 
 AX ELEMEXTAKA' AlEW OF THE PEACTICE 
 of ('( )XVEYAN( 'ING in SOLKITOUS" OFFICES, with an 
 Outline of the l'roceedin','.s under the Transfer of Land and 
 Declaration of Title Acts, ISOU, for the use of Articled Clerks. 
 By Edmuxd Smith, B.A., late of IVnihroke College, Cambridge, 
 Attoniey and Solicitor. Post Svo. Us. cloth. 
 
 DAVIS ON REGISTRATION.-Second Edition. 
 
 Ju.st puhli-shcd, ill 1 Vol., i.o.st 8vo., TJ.v. Cd. cluth. 
 
 THE LAAV of llECHSTEATION, TAELTAMENTAHY, 
 and :MUXICIPAL, M-ith all tlio STATUTlvS and CASES (in- 
 cluding tho Lcgii^latiou of tho present Session alYecting the 
 Franchise). By James Edwaku Davis, Escj., Barristcr-at- 
 Law.
 
 '68 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 BARRY'S PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING. 
 
 A TEEATISE on tlie PEACTICE of CONVEY- 
 i\A'CTXG. By W. Wiiittakeb, Baery, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Barrister-at-Lavr, late holder of the Studentship of the Inns of 
 Coiu't, and Author of ' ' The Statutory Jiu'isdiction of the Court 
 of Chancery." 8to. 18s. cloth. 
 
 " Tliis h-eatise supplies a -Wimt which meet Trith general approval." — Law 
 has long: been felt. ISIr. Bany's -work ^laga-'me. 
 
 is essentially what it prof esses to be, a "Readers who recal the instruction 
 
 treatise on the practice of conveyancing-, they gathered from this treatise when 
 in which the theoretical rules of real pubhshed week by week in the pages of 
 propei'ty law are ref eri'cd to only for the ' Law Times' wiH be pleased to leam 
 the pui-pose of elucidating the practice. that it lias been re-produced in a hand- 
 The treatise is the production of a some volume, which will be a welcome 
 person of great merit and still gi'eater addition to the law librarj-. The inf or- 
 promise." — Solicitors^ Jotirnnl. mation that the treatise so much admii'ed 
 
 "We feel bound to .strongly recom- may now be had in the more convenient 
 mend it to the practitioner as well as foi-m of a book v^lU suffice of itself to 
 the student. The author has proved secure a large and eager demand for 
 himself to be a master of the subject, it." — Lav} Times 
 
 for he not only gives a mo.st valuable "The work is clearly and agreeably 
 
 supply of practical suggestions, but WTitten, and ably elucidates the subject 
 criticises them with much abihtj-, and in hand." — Justice of the Peace. 
 we have no doubt that his criticism ■s^ill 
 
 BARRY'S FORMS IN CONVEYANCING. 
 
 EOEMS and PEECEDENTS in CONVEYANCING; 
 with Introduction and Practical Notes. By W. Wiiittakeu 
 Barry, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-La-^, Author of a 
 "Treatise on the Practice of Convej-ancing." 8yo. 21s. cloth. 
 
 — ♦— 
 HERTSLET'S TREATIES. 
 
 HEETSLET'.S TEEATIES of CominGrce, Navigation, 
 Slave Trade, Post Office Commmiications, Copyright, &c., at 
 present subsisting between Great Britain and Foreign Powers. 
 Compiled from Aiithentic Documents by Edw^vih) IIert.slet, 
 Esq., C.B., Librarian and Keejier of the Pajiers of the Foreign 
 Office. 13 Vols. 8vo. IG/. 7s. 
 
 •,* Vol. I. price 12."., Vol. II. jirice 12s., Vol. III. price IS.";., Vol. IV. price ISs., Vol. V. 
 price-lOn., Vol. VI.price2ns., Vol. VII. price SOs., Vol. VIII. price 30s., Vol. IX. 
 price SO-f., Vol. X. price 30s., Vol. XI. price 30s., Vol. XII. price 40s., Vol. XIII. 
 price 42.9. cloth, mit)/ he hnil separatel ij to complete sets. Vol. XII. iiicliules nii 
 Index of Suhjecls to the Twelve 2'uOlished Vulnmes, which Iiideu: is also sold 
 separalelij, price 10«. clolh. 
 
 HERTSLET'S TREATIES ON TRADE AND TARIFFS. 
 TEEATIES AND TAEIFE8 regulating- the Trade 
 between Great Britain and Foreign Nations, and extracts of the 
 Treaties between Foreign I'owers, containing ' ' Most Favoured 
 Nation" Clauses applicable to Great Britain in force on the 1st 
 Januaiy, 1875. By EUWARD Hertslet, Esq., C.B., Librarian 
 and Keeper of the Papers, Foreign Office. Fait I. (Au.stria). 
 Poval 8vo. 7s. U. cloth. Part II. (Turkev). 15s. cloth. 
 Pai-t III. (Italv). 1.5s. cloth. Part IV. (Chiiia). 10s. cloth. 
 Part V. (Spain). 1/. Is. cloth. Part IV. (Japan). 15s. cloth.
 
 MESSRS. UUITEUWOKIII, 7, I'l.Kl/l' SIKKKT, ]:.C. 
 
 ;3:> 
 
 HIGGINS'S DIGEST OF PATENT CASES. 
 
 A DIGEST of tlie RErORTEI) CASES rdatinp to tlio 
 L:iw and Practico of LETTERS PATENT for INVEXTIUNS, 
 decided from the passing of tho Statute of Monopolies to the 
 present time. By ('lkmkxt IIiggixs, M.A., F.C.S., of tho 
 Inner Temple, Bamster-at-Eaw. 8vo. '2ls. cloth; '2o3. calf. 
 
 " Mr. niffcins's work will be u.seful 
 ii-s II wi>rk i)f iifi'i-cncf. Upwards of 700 
 (•JUHC8 lire ili),fst(.'d ; anil, ln'sidcs a taMe 
 of eontcntfi, there is a full index to tho 
 suhject matter ; and that inilcx, which 
 jnvatlv enhanrcs the value of the book, 
 muMt have cost the author much time, 
 labour and thought." — f^nw Jimninl. 
 
 " ' Tliis is essentially,' sjiys !Mr. Hi;;- 
 pins in his preface, ' a liookof reference.' 
 It remain.-i to bo addc<l whctlier tho 
 compilation is reliable and exliaustive. 
 It is only fair to say tliat we think it is ; 
 and we wiU add, tliat tlie aminiremcnt 
 of subjci't matter (clironolofncal under 
 each hcMilin;,', the date, and dotiblo or 
 even tn'ble references being' appendeil 
 to eveiy decision), and the neat and 
 ejirefuUy executtxl index (which is de- 
 cidedly above the aveniifc) are such a.s 
 no reader of ' essentially a liook of refer- 
 ence' could quunx'l with." — Solicitor/^ 
 Journal. 
 
 " Mr. nisvins has, vrith wonderful 
 and accimite i-esoarcli,producc<l a work 
 which is much needed, .since wi' have no 
 collection of patent ciLses whii-li does not 
 tenninate ycii-s afj-o. 'llie work is well 
 iunintfe<l, and s'ivf's brief, though com- 
 prehensive, st4itement.s of the vari(jJis 
 (•a.sc.s decided." — Scitntific and Liltmry 
 Jlnirv. 
 
 " nie verj- elaboifitc Digest just com- 
 plctcfl by Mr. ]Ii;.'-"„'insis wmlhy of bein;,' 
 n'co;.'ni/ed liy the juofcs.-iion as a tho- 
 roughly u.-»eful book of refeivncc upon 
 
 tho Hubjoct. Mr. Iliirjrin''''' object hn.^ 
 lieen to supply a reliable and exhaus- 
 tive sumnuiry of the reported {latent 
 cjises decided in English courts of law 
 and equity, and this object lie ajipcars 
 to have attained." — M'miitij Jinirniil. 
 
 "We consider that Mr. llifrgins, in 
 tho imjiluction of this work, has met a 
 long felt demand. Not merely the legal 
 ])rofe.s.sion and jiatent agents, but pa- 
 tentees, actual or intending inventors, 
 manufacturei-s and their scientilic ad- 
 vi.sei-s, will Hn<l tlie Digest an invaluable 
 book of reference." — ('/iriuiml Xm-.i. 
 
 "Tlie animgemcnt and condensjition 
 of the main ])iiniiples and facts of the 
 cjiscs here digested render the work in- 
 valuable in the way of reference." — 
 Stniiiliird. 
 
 "The work constitutes a stop in tho 
 right dii-ection, and is likclvto prove of 
 mucli scrWcc as a guide, a by no meunM 
 iinniaterial point in it.s favour lie'ing that 
 it iniludes a number of companitively 
 recent ca.ses." — Emjiiirtr. 
 
 " In line, wo mn.st pronounce tho 
 book as invaluable to all whom it may 
 concern." — Qnmltrhi Jmininl of Srimrr. 
 
 "On the whole, ^Ir. Higgiiis's work 
 hius iK'cn well aicomplislied. It has 
 ably fidHllcd its object, liy supplying a 
 reliable and autlKiitic siimiiiaiy of the 
 rcportf'd I'atent Ijiw C'a.s<s <lecide<1 in 
 English Courts of Law and Equitv." — 
 JrUlt J.fiiv Tiiius. 
 
 DOV/ELL'S INCOME TAX LAWS. 
 
 THE IXCOMi: TAX ]>AWS at present in forco in tho 
 United Kingdom, with praetical Notes, A])pcn(liees and a cojiioiis 
 Index. By Stephex Dowell, iM.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Assistant 
 Solicitor of Inland Eevcnuc. 8vo. 12s. G<L cloth. 
 
 " To commi.ssioners nnd nil con- 
 remc<l in the working of the Income 
 Tax ilr. Dowell's book will be of gi-cat 
 vhIiic. "—/,<;«• Joiiriint. 
 
 " For pnictical puiTioses tho compdn- 
 tion must prove vci-y useful." — J,nw 
 'i'lmm. 
 
 " We c«n honestly commend Mr. 
 Dowell's work to om- rcadera iia being 
 
 well done in every rcppcct."— /,<iw 
 
 " Mr. Dowell's official position emi- 
 nently 11t.s him for tho work ho Iuib 
 undertaken, and his hi.stoiy of the 
 Stamp Ijiws shows how can-fully luid 
 cons<'ientiously he iH'rfoniis what Lc 
 undeitiikca." — Juadcc oj the I'tacc.
 
 40 LAW VvORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 INGRAM'S LAW OF COMPENSATION.— Second Edit. 
 
 COMPENSATION to LAND and HOUSE OWNEES: 
 
 being a Treatise on tlie Law of the Compensation for Interests 
 in Lands, &c. payable by Eailway and other Public Companies ; 
 Tvith an Appendix of Fonns and Statutes. By Thoiias L)^^'BAE. 
 IxGRAAi, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-La'v^', now Professor 
 of Jurisprudence and Indian Law in the Presidency College, 
 Calcutta. Second Edition. By J. J. Elmes, of the Inner Temple, 
 Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post Svo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 " AVliether for companies taking' land requirements of the profession when 
 
 or holding it, Mi-. Ingram's volume vnll he designed the monogi-aph before us. 
 
 be a welcome guide. With tliis in his Tlie appendix contains no less than 
 
 hand the legal ad\T.ser of a company, or sixtj' forms required in the practice of 
 
 of an owner and occupier whose pro- tliis branch of the law and the statutes 
 
 pertj' is taken, and who demands com- and parts of statutes in which it is em- 
 
 pensation for it, cannot fail to perfonn bodied. The index is verj' ample. Thus 
 
 his duty rightly." — Law Times. it will be seen to be abook verj- valuable 
 
 " This work appears to be carefully to aU solicitors who may be concerned 
 
 prepared as regards its matter. This for railways or for the persons whose 
 
 edition is a thii-d larger than the fii-st ; properties are afl'ected by them." — Law 
 
 it contains tNrice as many cases, and an Times, second .lotice. 
 
 enlarged index. It was much called for "His explanations are clear and ac- 
 
 and doubtless will be found very useful ciu-ate, and he constantly endeavoui-s 
 
 by the practitioner." — Law Jlar/azinr. not only to state the ctfe'ct of the law 
 
 " The appearance upon the title page which he is enunciating, but also to 
 
 of the words Second Edition atte.sts in show the principle upon which it rests." 
 
 the most conclusive manner tliat Mr. — Athenceum. 
 Ingiam has rightly measured the 
 
 SCRIVEN ON COPYHOLDS.— Fifth Edition by Stalman, 
 
 A TEEATISE ON COPYHOLD, CUSTOMAEY 
 FREEHOLD, and ANCIENT DEMESNE TENUEE, with 
 the Jmisdiction of Courts Baron and Courts Leet. By Joiix 
 ScKiVEX, Serjeant-at-Law. The Fifth Edition, containing 
 Eeferences to Cases and Acts of Parliament to the present time. 
 By IIexky St.vlmax, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at- 
 Law. Abridged in 1 a"o1. royal Svo. 30s. cloth. 
 
 TUDOR'S CHARITABLE TRUSTS.— Second Edition. 
 
 THE LAAV OF CHAPITA]{LE TEUSTS ; witli the 
 Statutes, including those to ISGW, the Orders, Eegulations and 
 Instructions issued pursuant thereto, and a Selection of Schemes, 
 with Notes. By OwEX Davies TrBOR, Esq., of the Middle 
 Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of ' ' Leading Cases in Equity." 
 Second Edition, containing all the recent Statutes and Decisions. 
 Po.stSvo. 18.S. cloth. 
 
 " No living -m-itcr is more capable fe.aturc of the work is the manner in 
 
 than Mr. Tudor of producing such a wliich Mr. Tudor has dealt -with all the 
 
 work: his Leading Cases in Equity, recent statutes relating to this subject." 
 
 and also on the Law of Keal Property, Sn/iiuinrs' Jnuriini. 
 
 have deser\Tdly earned for him tlie " Mr. Tudor's excellent little book on 
 
 highest reputation as a learned, careful Giaritublc Tioists." — Law Times. 
 and judiciou.'i text-T^iiter. The main
 
 MESSRS. UriTEKWOKTir, 7, FLKKT STllKET, E.C. 41 
 
 FORBES ON SAVINGS BANKS. 
 
 THE LAAV ]n:LATIXf} TO TRUSTEE AND TOST 
 OFFICE SAVINOS BANKS, with Notes of Decisions and 
 Awards made l)j' the IJanistcr and Iluffistrar of Fi'icndly 
 Societies, By UitQi'iiAKT A. FoititES, of Jjincoln's Inn, Es(i., 
 Bariistcr-at-Law. 1 vol., lUmo., 7a. G(/. cloth. 
 
 SHELFORD'S SUCCESSION, PROBATE AND LEGACY 
 
 DUTIES. Second Edition. 
 
 THE LAW rolatin- to tlio rROTJATE, LEGACY 
 and SUCCESSION l)UTli:S in ENGLAND, IRELAND and 
 SCOTLAND, including; all the Statutes and the Decisions on 
 tho.so Subjects: with Forms and Ollicial ric'i:ulations. By 
 LeoxAKD SheLFOHP, Es(j., of the Middlt! Tenqde, J{arristcr-at- 
 Law. The Second Editicni, Avith many Alterations and Additions. 
 12mo. IGs. cloth. 
 
 " The trcitiso before us, ono of tlio Its merits have lioen nlivndy tested by 
 most useful and popular of liis prodiio- most of tlieiii." — l.-nv I'ini's. 
 tions, boiiiK' now the text book on the " Mr. Shelfoi-d's I«>ok iipiK-ars to lis 
 
 Kubjert, nothintr n-inains but to make to Iw the best and most eomplete work 
 known ita appearuucc to oui' rcadci's. on this extix'mely intricate subject." — 
 
 Litw Mfiijnziitf. 
 
 DAVIS'S CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACTS. 
 
 THE rinMINAE law rOXSOLID.VTTON ACTS, 
 ISUl ; with an Introduction and ])ractical Notes, illustrated by 
 a copious reference to Cases decided hv the Court of Ciiminal 
 Appeal. To;rether with Al].hal.etical Tiildes of Offences, as well 
 those punishabl(> u])<)n Siuiimarv Conviction as uj)on Indictment, 
 and iiicludinjj: the Ulfences under the New Bankrujitcy Act, so 
 arranj;ed as to present at one view the jiarticiilar OlW-nce, the 
 old or new Statute upon which it is founded, and the Limits of 
 I'unishment ; and a full Index. By James EdW'.UID Davis, 
 Esc^,, Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. lOs. ch)th. 
 
 BAYLIS'S LAW OF DOMESTIC SERVANTS. 
 By Monckton. -Fourth Edition. 
 
 THE IHGHTS, DUTIES AND PiELATIOXS (^F 
 DOMESTIC SERVANTS AND TIIIHR MASTIORS AND 
 MlSTRi:SSi:s. "With a .>^hort Account of Servants' Institutions, 
 &c., and their Advantages. By T, IIi:.vi;Y Bavi.is, M.A., 
 Barrister-at-Law, of the Inner Temjile, Fourth Edition, with 
 consideralde Additions, by Edwakd F. MoXrKTox, Es<[., ]?.A., 
 Barrister-at-Law, of the inner Temi>le. Foolscap 8vo. 'Is, cloth.
 
 42 LAW "WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 SEABORNE'S LAW OF VENDORS & PURCHASERS. 
 A CONCISE IMANUAL of the LAAV of YENDOES 
 and PUECHASERS of EEAL PEOPEETY ; mth a Supple- 
 ment, including the Yendor and Pui-chaser Act, 1874, -svith Notes. 
 2nd Edition. 13y Hexry Seaborne. Post 8yo. 10s. 6d, cloth. 
 
 *t* This v:nrk is desii/ned to funiish Practitioners with an easy means of reference to thn 
 Statutory Enactments and Judicial Decisions reyulatinij the Transfer of Meal Pro- 
 perty, and also to hring these authorities in a coinjjendious shape under the attention 
 of Students. 
 
 " The book before us contains a good the most important branches of the 
 deal, especially of practical information law. The student will llnd this book 
 as to the com-se of conveyancing- matters a nsef ul introduction to a drj' and 
 in solicitors' offices, ■which may be use- difficult subject." — Law Exmnination 
 ful to students." — Solicitors' Journal. Journal. 
 
 " We will do Mr. Seaborne the justice " Intended to furnish a ready means 
 
 to say that we believe his work will be of access to the enactments and deci- 
 of some use to articled and other clerks sions governing that branch of the law." 
 in soUcitors' offices, who have not the — The Times. 
 
 opportunitj' or inclination to referto the " The book -n-ill be fovind of use to the 
 
 standard works from which his is com- legal practitioner, inasmuch as it wUl, 
 pUed." — Law Journal. so far as regards established points of 
 
 "The value of SIi-. Seaborne' s book law, be a handier work of reference than 
 consists in its being tlie most concise the longer treatises we have named." — 
 summary ever yet published of one of Athenccum. 
 
 TOMKINS' INSTITUTES OF ROMAN LAW. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES OF EOMAN LAAY. Part I., 
 
 containing the Sources of the Eonian Law and its External 
 History till the Decline of the Eastern and Western Empires. 
 By FiiEDEElCK ToMKixs, M.A., D.C.L., Barrister-at-Law, of 
 Lincoln's Inn. Eoy. 8vo. 1 2s. cloth. (To be completed in 3 Parts. ) 
 
 DREWRY'S EaUITY PLEADER. 
 
 A CONCISE TEEATISE on tlie Erineiples of EQUITY 
 PLEADING, -ndth Precedents. By C. Stewaut Di?EA\niY, Esq., 
 of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 6s. boards. 
 
 GAIUS' ROMAN LAW.— By Tomkins and Lemon. 
 
 Ulidiral.d hy permission to Lord ChancUor llinherhy.) 
 
 THE COMMENTAEIES of OMUS on the EOMAN 
 LAW: Tvith an English Translation and Annotations. By 
 Ekederick J. ToMKi^-s, Esq., M.A., D.C.L., and William 
 George Lemox, Esq., LL.B., Barristers-at-Law, of Lincoln's 
 Inn. Svo. 27s. extra cloth. 
 
 " AVe feel bound to speak in the interest in legal litcratiu'e." — Solicitors' 
 
 liiglicst teniis of tlie manner in ^\■hich Janrnal. 
 
 yix. Tomkins and Mr. Ixmon have ^ "The translation is carefully executed 
 
 executed their task. We unhesitatingly 'and the annotations show extensive 
 
 recouuncnd its cjircful perusal to all knowledge of the Roman Law." — Athe- 
 
 Htudents of Roman Law." — Law Maya- nnnm. 
 
 zine. " One of the most valuable contribu- 
 
 " The authors have done a pood ser- 1 ions from an Engh.sh source to our legal 
 
 vice to the study of IJoman Law, and lit era tui'e which the last half-centuiy has 
 
 deserve the thanks of those who take an v,-ii-nesscd."—L'dinburyhL'veniiiyCouratit.
 
 MESSRS. HI rTKinvouTir, 7, flkkt stkekt, e.c. 43 
 
 FIELD'S REGULATIONS OF THE BENGAL CODE. 
 
 '['UK IJECari.ATIoXS OF TllK UENdAL CODE, 
 ]](lito(l, witli Clironoloj^iiiil Tal)los of l{t'i)cal and AineiiiliiK'nt, 
 ami an Introduction. ]{y ('. I). FlKM), of tho Inner IVnijdo, 
 Barrister-at-Law, and of "ll.M.'.s lk'nj,'al Civil Scrvico. 1 vol. 
 roval 8vo. -I'ls. cloth. 
 
 FIELD'S TABLE OF, AND INDEX TO, INDIAN 
 STATUTES. 
 
 CHKoXoLOiaCAL TAP.LE OF, AND INDEX TO, 
 THE IXDIAN STATUTE T.OOK f(.r the Year l.s.Jl; ^vith ii 
 General Introduction t(j tlie Sbitute Ijaw of India. "With Snj'jilr- 
 meiit continuinf? tho work to Aup:ust, 1872. By C. D. Fikld, 
 M.A., LL.D., of tho Inner Temple, ]?arrister-at-Law, and of 
 II.M.'s Bengal Civil .Service. Inijierial -Jto. -i'ls. cloth. 
 
 BRANDON'S LAW OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT. 
 
 A TEEATISE uimn tlio CUSTOMAEY LAW of 
 FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, and tlie I'EACTICE of tlio 
 ALVYOR'S COURT of tho CITY OF LONDON therein. With 
 Fonns of rrocedurc. By WooDTiiorrK Bn.vxDOX, Esij., of tho 
 Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Svo. lis. cloth. 
 
 MOSELEY ON CONTRABAND OF WAR. 
 
 AVILVT IS (OXTL'AI'.AXD Ol' AVAL' AND WHAT 
 IS NOT. A Treatise com[>nsing all the American and JOn;rli>h 
 Authorities on the Subject. By Joseimi Moseley, Esq., B.C.L., 
 Banistcr-at-Law. Post >Svo. os. cloth. 
 
 SMITH'S BAR EDUCATION. 
 
 A IITSTOKY' of EDi;(ATION for tlio ENGLTSIT 
 BAR, with SUGGESTIONS as to SUBJECTS and METHODS 
 of STUDY. By PiiiLii' Axstie Smith, Esq., M.A., LL.B., 
 Ban-ister-at-Law. Svo. ds. cloth. 
 
 WILLS ON EVIDENCE.- Fourth Edition. 
 
 AN ESSAY on the riUNCIPLESof CIKCTMSTAN- 
 TIAL EVI1)1-:NCE. Illustrated hy numerous Ca.sos. By tlie 
 late AVlLLi.VM Wills, Esq. Fourth Eflition. Edited l>y liis 
 Sou, Aleueu AVills, Esq., Ban-istcr-at-Law. Svo. lOs. cloth.
 
 44 LAW AVORKS PLBLISHED BY 
 
 ROUSE'S COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT 
 MANUAL.— Third Edition. 
 
 The COPYHOLD ENFEANCHISEMENT :MANUAL; 
 
 enlarged, and treating tlie subject in the Legal, Practical and 
 Mathematical Points of View ; giving numerous Forms, Rules, 
 Tables and Instructions for Calculating the Values of the Lord's 
 Eights ; Suggestions to Lords' Stewards, and Copyholders, pro- 
 tective of their several Interests, and to Valuers in perfonnance 
 of their Duties; and including the Act of 1858, and Proceedings 
 in Enfranchisement under it. By Eolla Eouse, Esq., of the 
 iNLddle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Thii'd Edition, much enlarged. 
 12mo. 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 " Tliis new edition follows the plan of f ession, jvc feel sure the legal world will 
 its predecessor, adopting a fivefold Aixi- greet ■with pleasm-e a new and improved 
 sion: — 1. The Law. 2. The Practice, edition of liis Copyhold Manual. The 
 with Pi-acticcd Suggestions to Lords' third edition of that work is before us. 
 Stewards and Copyholders. 3. The It is a work of gi-eat practical value, 
 Mathematical consideration of the Sub- suitable to la^vj-ers and laj-men. "We 
 ject in all its Details, -with Eides, Tables can freely and heartily recommend this 
 and Examples. 4. Forms. 5. The volume to the practitioner, the steward 
 Statutes, with Notes. Of these, we can and the copyholder." — Law Mnf/n:iiie. 
 r>nly repeat what we have said before, "Now, however, that copyhold tenm-es 
 that they exhaust the sul ij ect ; they give arc beiufr frequently converted into free- 
 to the practitioner all the materials re- holds, Mr. Rouse's treatise wiU doubtless 
 quii-ed by him to conduct the enfran- be productive of veiy extensive benefit ; 
 chisement of a copyhold, whether volun- for it seems to us to have been veiy care- 
 taiy orcompulsoiy." — Law Times. fully prepared, exceedingly well com- 
 
 ," "SVhen we consider what favoiu- Mr. i>osed and 'mitten, and to indicate much 
 
 Rouse's Pi'actical Man and Pi-actical experience iu copyhold law on the part 
 
 Conveyancer have found -with the pro- of the author." — Solkitofs' Jountal. 
 
 HEALES'S HISTORY AND LAW OF PEWS. 
 
 THE IIISTOEY and the LAW of CHUECH SEATS 
 
 or PEWS. By Alfred IIeales, F.S.A., Proctor in Doctors' 
 
 Commons. 2 vols. 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 " jU together we can commend Mr. of the author's industiy, talent and 
 Heales's book a.s a well conceived and learning." — Law Journal. 
 well executed work, wliich is CNidence 
 
 BRABROOK'S WORK ON CO-OPERATION. 
 
 THE LAAV and PEACTICE of CO-OPEEATIYE or 
 IXDUSTELVL and PEOVIDEXT SOCIETIES ; including the 
 "Winding-up Clauses, to which are added the Law of France on 
 tlie same subject, and Eoniarks on Trades Unions. Bj' Edward 
 W. Brabrook, F.S.A. , of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, 
 Assi.stant-Eegistrar of Friendlv Societies in England. Gs. cloth. 
 
 LUSHINGTON'S NAVAL PRIZE LAW. 
 
 A MANUiVL of NAVAL I'EIZE LAW. By Godfrey 
 LrsiriXGTOx, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 Eoval 8vo. 10s. M. cloth.
 
 MESSRS. IJUITKRWOIITII, / , FI.KET STUKPyr, E.C. 
 
 4o 
 
 WIGRAM ON WILLS. -Fourth Edition. 
 
 AN j:xa:\iixati()N of the iutles of law 
 
 respoctiii- th.« Admission of EXTltlXSIC EVIDEXCE in Aid 
 of the IN rKKrUHTATlOX of AVILT.S. 15y th.. Ki-lit Hon, Sir 
 Jamics Wi(jiLVM,Ivnt. Tlio Fourtli l']dition,])ri']);irc<l forlli((])russ, 
 with th«; sanction of thu loiirnod Author, by W. Kxux WlURAM, 
 M.A., of Lincoln's Lui, Esq., Banistor-ut-Luw. 8vo. Us. cloth. 
 
 " In tlio rclcbnitotl trcntiso of Sir 
 JaiiH-s W'ijniim, tho rules of law iii-e 
 Ktatfd, (liM'Us.sc<l iind cxpliiinpti in a 
 inauui-r which hius excitiil tlu' iidniira- 
 tion of ovt'rj- judjfc who hius liad to con- 
 unit it." — Lord Kiiii/siloii-ii, i,i n I'rivy 
 CiiiiiK-il Judijmrnl, Jill;/ St/i, ISjS. 
 
 "There I'lin be no doubt tliat tlio 
 note* of Mr. Knox Witn'am have en- 
 liunce»l the value of the work, lus afford- 
 ing' a ready reference to recent cases on 
 the subjects enibniced or arisin}f out of 
 Sir JauKS Wigmui's propositious, and 
 
 wliich frequently frive additional Rup- 
 jiort, ami in some instances an extension 
 to the orifi-inul te.xt." — /jnw ('linmiil,-. 
 
 " Understood as ^.'en<'nil (guides, the 
 proi)ositions establishe*! l)y Sir James 
 NVitsTiini's book are of the hiphest value. 
 Hut whatever view may be entertained, 
 tlie book is (me which will always be 
 hii,'lily prized, and is now jircsentod in 
 a vcr)- sjitisfactoiy shape, tlmiiks to the 
 industiy and inteUii,'ence displayed in 
 the notes by the pi-esent editor." — 
 HoUcUura' Journal and lirjiorter. 
 
 COOMBS' SOLICITORS' BOOKKEEPING. 
 
 A :MAXUAL of SOLTCITORS' liOOKKEEPING : 
 
 conii)risinj? practical oxeniplilications of a concise and sinijdo 
 plan of Double Entry, with Forms of Account and other IJooks 
 relating? to Bills of (,'o,sts. Cash, itc, showinpf th(nr operation, 
 {^ivinj^ directions for keoi^inf^, posting and balancinj^ them, and 
 instructions for drawin*;; costs. Ada])t<'d for a larj;o or small, 
 solo or iiartnorshij) business. By W. B. C'ooMiis, Law Accountant 
 and Costs Draftsman. 1 vol. 8vo. 10^. Gt/. cloth. 
 
 thi" nhiivr wnrk, tlir /onn.i ofwhirh fire rnpy- 
 , 11/ the pricra sUit'-<l in the tvork nt jKi'j' 'kn. 
 
 commencement to their ultimate con- 
 ciu.sion. The bill Iniok nmtains pn*- 
 eodents of bills of c)sts illustnitin:; the 
 eoiTesp.indc'iice between that and the 
 di.sbursenieiit book, and so with the cash 
 book, ledg-er and other books ; ever>' 
 item has its reference, and any intricate 
 points have l>eon explainetl, which ore 
 merits which no other work <m the suli- 
 je<'t possi'sses; indeed so cleir do f lie in- 
 structions appeir, that a t\To of avenure 
 skill and abilities with applii' It ion could, 
 uniler or<linar>'ciiviiinst iiices, opi>nand 
 keep the aeeoiinfs of a business ; and so 
 far as we ejin jiidifo the author Ii.'Ls suc- 
 ectxled in his endeavour to divest xoliei- 
 tors' liookkeeiiinif of complexity, and 
 to be eonci.se and simple without Ix-injr 
 inefficient. We c.mnot dismiss thw 
 volume without bricHy coinmentiu!^ 
 upon the excellent style in which it w 
 8ubmitted to tlie profession." — Law 
 Journal. 
 
 •,• Tlie vnriniin Acrount Ponk.i dfirrihi-l 
 
 riijlit, mill/ hit had from tlii I'ublUliem 
 
 " Tljc author of the above, relying on 
 the well-known' fact that solieitoi-s do 
 not like intricate bookki'i']>iiiu', has pix"- 
 senteil to tli:it bninih of the iir.it'essicm 
 a work in which tlie really superHiious 
 has been omitted, and that only which 
 is nece.ssHi-}- and useful in the oitlinary 
 routine in an attorney's office hius been 
 retained. lie has perfonm-)! his tjusk in 
 n masterly manner, and in doinjf so has 
 ^-iveIl tlie why and the \vli"iefori' of the 
 whole system of S( ilicitors' llookkeepiii^'. 
 The volume is the most coinpreliensivo 
 we remeinl)er to h:ive .seen on the sul>- 
 ject, and from the I'lear and intelligible 
 mmner in which the whole has Ix-en 
 worked out it will i-ender it unexcej)- 
 tionable in the hands of the student and 
 tlie pnictitioner." — Law Mniiazin'. 
 
 "Thnm^'hout Ww pm fnrni.'l account 
 books most of the different matters of 
 business which usu.dly arise in a solici- 
 tor's office have been pa.s.sed Irom their
 
 4G LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 LAWRENCE'S PARTITION ACTS, 1868 and 1876. 
 
 THE COMPULSOEY SALE OF EEAL ESTATE 
 tinder the PO WEES of the PAETITIOX ACT, 18(38, as Amended 
 by the Partition Act, 187(5. Py PiiiLii' IIexhy Laa\tiexce, of 
 Lmcohi's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-La-n'. 8vo. 85. cloth. 
 
 " In tliis volrnne Mr. Lawi-ence ti'eats Statute of 1S68, and tlie means hy 'which 
 
 of a variety of important questions eon- under it persons may now maintain a 
 
 neeted with the compulsory sale of real suit. On the sale of land the whole 
 
 estate under the Partition Act, 1876. The suhject is ably treated, and the book 
 
 author lias done liis work very fairly. contains, amongst other things, a valu- 
 
 AVe may remark of the t)-pe that it is able selection of leading ca.ses on the 
 
 particularly clear and legible." — Law subject." — Justice of tJiel'eace. 
 Journal. " The book is wi'itten in a clear and 
 
 "Mr. LawTence is evidently ac- perspicuous stjle, and ■wQl well repay 
 
 quainted with liis subject. He explains perusal." — Law Examination Journal. 
 the state of the law pre\ious to the 
 
 HUNT'S BOUNDARIES, FENCES & FORESHORES.— 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 A TEEATISE on tlie LAW relating- to BOUNDAEIES 
 
 and PEXCES, and to the Eig-ht.s of Property on the Sea Shore 
 and in the Beds of Public Pavers and other Waters. Second 
 Edition. By APvTnuii Joseph Hl^'t, of the Inner Temple, Esq., 
 Barrister-at-Lav. 12mo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 " There are few more fertile soiu-ces the seashore and the subjects of sea 
 
 of litigation than those dealt with in walls and commissions of sewers."— 
 
 :Mi-. Hunt's valuable book. It is sutti- Law Ti„ux. 
 
 cicnt here to say that the volume ought "Mi-. Hunt chose a good suhject for 
 
 to have a larger cu'culation than ordi- a separate treatise on Boundaries and 
 
 narily belongs to law books, that it Fences and Eights to the Seashore, and 
 
 oufiht to be found in ever}- countiy wo are not sui-prised to hud that a 
 
 gentleman's library, that the cases are second edition of his book has been 
 
 brought d(jwu to the latest date, and called ior. The present edition contains 
 
 that it is carefully prepared, clearly much new matter. The chapter espe- 
 
 viTitten and well edited." — Imw Maij- ciaUy which treats on rii^lits of property 
 
 a'iine. on the sea.shore, ■\\liiili has been gi'catly 
 
 " It speaks well for this book, that it extended. Additions have been also 
 
 has so .soon passed into a. second edition. made to the chai^tcrs relating to the 
 
 That its utiUtj' has been appreciated is fencing of the property of mine owners 
 
 shown by its success. Mr. Himt has and railway companies. All the cases 
 
 a\'ailed himself of the opportunity of a which have been decided since the work 
 
 second edition to note u]) all tlie cases to tiist appeared have been introduced iu 
 
 this time, and to extend considerably their proper places. Thus it will be 
 
 some of the chapters, especially that seen this new edition has a considerably 
 
 which treats of rights of property on enhanced value." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 GRANT'S LAW OF CORPORATIONS IN GENERAL. 
 
 A J'EACTPJAL TEEATISE ON THE LAAV OE 
 CORPOEATKJXS IN GENEEAL, as well Aggregate as Sole ; 
 including Municipal Corporations, Eailwaj', Banking, Canal and 
 other Joint-Stock and Trading Bodies, Dean and Chapters, Uni- 
 versities, Colleges, Schools, Hospitals, ■with qiidsi Corporations 
 aggregate, as (jiiardians of the Poor, Churchwardens, Church- 
 wardens and Overseers, &c., and also Coiiiorations sole, as Bi.shops, 
 Peans, Canons, Archdeacons, I*arsons,&c. ]}y James Gr^\:xt, Esq., 
 of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Eoyal 8vo. 26s. boards.
 
 MKSSHS. lU'lTKK WORTH, 4, FLKFIT STKKKT, K.C. 
 
 BUND'S LAW OF SALMON FISHERIES. 
 
 THE ].AW ivlatiu};- to tlio SAl.^roX nsTIET^TES 
 of K\(iI,AXI) :ui(l "WALKS, as aiiMiidcd by "The Salniuii 
 Eishcry Act, IST.'i;" with tho Statutes and Cases. Hy J. W. 
 Willis Bund, ^I.A., liL.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Barristei-at-Law, 
 ^'ico-Cllainnan )Sovern Eishcrv Board. Post cSvo. Ijs. cloth. 
 
 /'/■OKI llif Tliirlrenth Aiinmil Ilrport n/ liinpei-tnr nui-klmul nn Sulmoii Fi/ifirrlr.i, \ff74, 
 — " I would wish ill tliLs plitco to cxprt'ss my iipproviil of ' Bund'H I^iiw of .Siliiioii 
 Fiithfrii-s in ICiitfluuil and Wules, witli Statutes mul Cases.' Tliis work will alfoi-d 
 Kli'at u-ssistJini'f to tliose enpifnil in aduiinistcnuj,' the law, wliile it ulTords valuublu 
 iiifunnatiou on the theory and jinutiee of Salmon leg-islation iu t'l'nenil." 
 
 From thf Thiitrfiith Aiimiiil Uriiorl of Inspfclnr M'lilpnlr on Si)lrnnn Fi.tlirn'fx, 1S74. 
 — "Mr. AVillis Ihiiid, the Draftsman of the new Aet, has puMishecl an importjint 
 treatise on the whole of the Salmon FLsheiy Acts, wliieh luis already been accepted 
 as a complete expo.-;ition of those Statutes." 
 
 " Doubtless all the law will be found 
 1)etween his eovei-s, and we have not 
 l>een able to detect any eiToneous state- 
 ments. AVe can recommend the book 
 as a dis<iuLsition — it is cuuscientiously 
 exe<uttHl.'* — I.11W Tiiiifs. 
 
 " With Mr. Hund's work at his elbow, 
 the inquii-er will tind it tolenibly ea.sj- 
 work, for Mr. ISund has witli jn^'at skill 
 and labour done all the most ti-ouble- 
 Honie work for him, and each point of 
 law is ni;u-ked out so that there can l>e 
 no ditiieidty in understanding; it, for not 
 only UK the point.s unnivelled and dis- 
 eus-sed, but the e!i>es which have come 
 iK'fore the superior courts upon the 
 
 various points arc distinctly set forth, 
 and the decision upon each made plain. 
 yiv. liund lia-s done the work excel- 
 lently well, and nothing' fui-ther in this 
 way can be desired."— 7'Ac />';>/</. 
 
 " We have always found liis opinion 
 Bound, and his explanations clear and 
 lucid. Tliis volume must of nec(>s.sity 
 become a handbook to salmon ti.sliei-8in 
 jrencrid, antl especially to boanls of <'on- 
 seryatoi-s, who will "thereby be much 
 a.s.si.stiHl in the formation of the new 
 boards of conservatoi-s, imder the Aet 
 of IST.'I ; also the ojxTation of the Acts 
 of ISJl and l.s<V>, as amcndi^l bv the 
 Act of 1873."— /,<//«/ -I/,./ Il''i('/-. 
 
 TROWER'S CHURCH BUILDING LAWS, Continued 
 to 1874. 
 
 THE LAW. of tlio BUILDIXd of rilTT.riTES, 
 TARSOXAOKS, and Si.'lIOOLS, and ol' tho Division of Paji.-^lics 
 and l*lact>s. I'.y C'lIAIlLES Eu.AJN'CIS TuowEli, M.A., of tho Inner 
 Toniplo, Esq., Barristcr-at-Law, lato Fellow of Exeter Colh'j^o, 
 Oxford, and late Secrotaiy of Presentations to Lord Chaneellcjr 
 We.stbury. l*ost Svo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 T/ie Supplfinetit may be had srparatilif, price l.<. sewed. 
 
 " A pood book on this subject is caX- 
 oidated to Ik." of con.sidenibU- sennco 
 botli to law>'ei-s, clerics and lajincn ; 
 and on tlie whole, after taking a suney 
 of the work before us, we may ppjnounce 
 it a u-seful work. It contains a preat 
 mass of information of essential imrMn-t 
 to those who as pari.sliionei's, lepil ad- 
 
 \-i8ers or clenOTncn are concerned with 
 ^flelK.^s, endowments, district chajM'lries, 
 parishes, ecdesiastiiiil c'.immi.'«iiins, and 
 sucli like matters, a)>out which the 
 l)ublic and notably the clerical public 
 seem to know but little, but whii'li it is 
 neeillcss to say are matters of much im- 
 portance." — Holicilora' Jvurnal.
 
 48 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 COLLIER'S LAW OF CONTRIBUTORIES. 
 
 A TEEATI8E on the LAW OF CONTEIBUTOEIES 
 
 in the Winding-up of Joint-Stock Comiianies. By Egbert 
 Collier, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post Syo. 
 9s. cloth. 
 
 " Ml'. Collier's general arranfrement 
 appeal's to have been carefully de^-iscd, 
 and is probably as neat as the nature 
 of the subject admits of. It is impos- 
 sible after a pemsal of the book to 
 doubt that the author has honestly 
 studied the subject, and has not con- 
 tented himself with the practice of 
 piecin;? together head notes from re- 
 ports." — Solicitors^ Journal. 
 
 "Mr. CoUier has not shrunk from 
 pointing' out Ms \-iews as to the recon- 
 cUabiLity of apparently conflicting' deci- 
 sions or as to many points on ■\vliich the 
 law is still unsettled ; ■without making' 
 any quotations for the piu'pose of illus- 
 trating the above remarks, ■sve think we 
 are justified in commending' this treatise 
 to the favom'able consideration of the 
 profession." — 7,«w Jovntal. 
 
 " IsVr. Robert Colliei-'s treatise on the 
 subject deserves attention beyond the 
 limits of his profession. The chapter 
 sho'^\'ing' the modes in wliich hability 
 may be inciuTed is full of insti-uctive 
 •warning." — Saturday Jieview. 
 
 " The perplexity of the laws relating 
 to personal liability, naturally suggests 
 a collection of precedents and cases 
 which may be considered settled, and 
 of direct application to the generahty 
 of cases ; and this the author appears to 
 have done -n-ith success, as far as we 
 can judge of the merit of the ■n'ork." — 
 
 SKniilnnl. 
 
 " Tliis is a valuable legal work, wliich 
 should 1 II' in the linnds of all speculators 
 in the foniiution of now ventures in 
 tlie sliape of joint stock companies and 
 
 association.?. It is important that such 
 persons should know the exact position 
 they assume, in a legal point of 'V'iew, 
 and this they will be enabled to do by a 
 pemsal of this work, ■mitten bj' a bar- 
 rister of some repute." — BuUididst. 
 
 " Tliis work he has done veiy tho- 
 rouglily, and the scope of the treatise is 
 far ■n'ider than the author has laid down 
 in liis preface. There is probably no 
 branch of the law of conti'acts more 
 difficult and intricate than tliis of con- 
 tribution, and the cases Cjuoted by Mr. 
 ColUcr are treated \nt\\ great discrimi- 
 nation, so that the book enables a man 
 who has not made the subject a matter 
 of .special study to ad\-ise ■«'ith compara- 
 tively small trouble to himself. This is 
 the advantage of T^Titers devoting them- 
 selves to what we may call the byeways 
 of the law — a dangerous track for the 
 weakly, the inlu'm, or the unaccustomed, 
 but light and easy enough with such a 
 guide as Mi\ CoUier. Lajinen may also 
 leam from the work the exact hability 
 which they incur before entering into 
 contTacts, and thus avoid the cliance of 
 ruin." — Irish Law Times. 
 
 " The work is clearly and ^■igorously 
 •written, and Mr. Collier has managed 
 to put a great deal of information into 
 a small space. The book will be found 
 to be a u-seful addition to the list of 
 ti'eati.ses on a branch of the law which 
 has gTO'B-n immensely since 1862." — 
 Atliiiiivum. 
 
 " 'Ml'. Collier has earned out his in- 
 tention, and has produced a work of 
 great utihtj'."— T/^e Law. 
 
 BULLEY & BUND'S NEW BANKRUPTCY MANUAL. 
 
 A MAXIMAL OE THE LAW AND PEAOTICE 
 OF BANKEUPTCY as Amended and ConsoHdated by the 
 Statutes of LS(j9, -nith an APl'EXDIX containing the Statutes, 
 Orders and Forms. Bj' Joiix F. BuLLEY, B.A., and J. W. 
 WiLLLsBxiN'D, M.A.,LL.B., Barristers-at-Law. 12m(). 1(35. cloth. 
 AVith a Supplement including the Orders to AjH-il, 1S70. 
 
 *^* The Supplement may be had separately. Is. sewed. 
 
 " Tliis is a treatise, not an edition of 
 the acts, and wliere the law is to a l.'U'gc 
 extent new, this is the best, though the 
 most troublesome, mode of deahng with 
 
 it. A very complete index makes the 
 work all that the practitioner, be he bar- 
 rister or solicitor, can requii-e." — Law 
 
 Tillies.
 
 MESSRS. BU'lTEinVOKTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 49 
 
 (l.ATK CIIIKI' (.LEKK TO TUE LUUU MAVtMt OF I.O.NUO.x). 
 
 Oke's Magisterial Synopsis: a Practical Guide for 
 
 Magistrate's, their Clorks, Solicitors, and Constables; coni])rising 
 Smnniary (."onvictions and Indictable Oft'oncos, with thoir Penal- 
 ties, Punishments, I'rocedure, &c.; (t//i/itth({i<iilli/ (iml UtbuUtrlji 
 arraiitn'il: with a Copious Index. Tirvlftli Julilion, iniirh eiilar;/<(l. 
 13y Tiio>rAs AV^ Sacxdeus, Esq., lato Kocorder of Bath, and 
 now one of the Motropolituu Police Magistrates. In 2 vols. 8vo. 
 (iOs. cloth; 70s. calf. 
 
 " Twelve editions in twcutj-- 
 eight years say more for the prac- 
 tical utility ot tills work than any 
 nunii.^r of favoarable reviews. Yet 
 wo feci bound to accord to the 
 learned Recorder of Bath tlie praise 
 of having fully maintained m the 
 present edition the will-canied re- 
 putation of this useful book. The 
 many important statutes passed 
 since the eleventh edition api)eared, 
 only four years since, ajid wliich 
 cither impose new duties upon or 
 modify the old l;iw administered 
 by justices of the j)eaco, have been 
 carefully incorjiorattd in the ])re- 
 sent work. Among these wc may 
 notice in the legi.slatiou of the last 
 session alone the Acts concerning 
 Cnielty to Animals, Drugging of 
 Aninials, Eleim iitarv Ediuation, 
 Indu.strial and Provident Societies, 
 Merchant Shipjiing, the I'oor Law, 
 Salmon Fishnig an<l Wild Fowl 
 Protection. A coi)ious iude.x of 
 over 100 i)ag('s otfei"s ever facility 
 of reference which can be desiretf, 
 in addition to the alphabeticjd and 
 tabular aiTangement of offences 
 with their ]>enalties, piniishmenta, 
 and procedure." — Late Mmjaziiif, 
 Fthniiiri/^ 1X77. 
 
 " All wc can do in reviewing a 
 new edition of a work, on the 
 general plan of which the ])rofe8- 
 sion ha.s justly conferred so dis- 
 tinguishccl a mark of approval as 
 is involved in a twelfth edition, is 
 to see whether the statutes and cases 
 wliich have been passed and decided 
 
 within the four years which have 
 elapsed since the last edition have 
 been duly incoi-porated. They aji- 
 pear, on the points on which wo 
 have tested the book, to have been 
 noticed by Mr. Saunders with con- 
 siderable care. The index has been 
 very greatly improved, and haa 
 become a valuable feature of tho 
 work." — Soliciturs^ Juiiniol. 
 
 "The indu.strious, capable and 
 painstaking Recorder of B.ath (Mr. 
 r. \V. Saunders) h,as edited tho 
 twelfth edition of Oke's Magisterial 
 SjTiopsis. The law admini.stered 
 by magi.strates, like almost every 
 other branch of our jiiri.sprudence, 
 goes on growing almost every day 
 of the legal year, and a new edition 
 of such a work as this every few 
 years means no small amount of 
 laboiU' on the jiart of the editor. 
 The array of statutes which have 
 been pa.sscd during the last four 
 years recpiiring the attention of 
 justices IS fonni<lable enough, as 
 appeai-8 by Mr. Saundere's preface. 
 We are glad to sec that Mr. Saun- 
 ders has bestowed great care in tho 
 revision of the inde.x, which is now 
 a feature in the work." — Law 
 Tiiiir.i. 
 
 "Thefirsteditionof this work was 
 published in IHIS, and containwl 
 410 ]>ages. The twelfth edition 
 has now lieen luiblished, and rou- 
 taiiis 1,.')79 pa^es. Doth of these 
 facts have their moral. Tlie first 
 proves how great a reward waits 
 upon a genuine success in legal 
 
 Mr. Oke's ]\'vrks continued over.
 
 50 
 
 LAW WORKS PLBLISHED BY 
 
 ittr. (Dltc'^ iiTagtStcrtal ZlXoxii^— continued. 
 
 literature : the second jDroves what in legal literature 
 immense labour is cast upon the 
 author who endeavours to win the 
 reward. We believe the issue of 
 twelve editions of a large law book 
 within the S23ace of twenty-eight 
 years to be without precedent in 
 the history of legal literature, and 
 we are quite sure that the result 
 has in this case not at all exceeded 
 the merit of the work. The new 
 edition now before us has been 
 brought out under the superintend- 
 ence of Mr. Saunders, the Recorder 
 of Bath, whose name is well known 
 
 Mr. Saunders 
 has for many j'ears made many of 
 the subjects which fall within the 
 scope of magisterial jurisdiction his 
 special study, and we are not at all 
 surprised tliat he should have been 
 selected to carry on the work of 
 Mr. Oke. A host of acts have been 
 passed since 1872, and all these 
 have been introduced into the work, 
 and put in their proper places, so 
 that they can be found, as wanted, 
 by justices, justices' clerks and 
 solicitors." — Zaic Journal. 
 
 Oke's Magisterial Formnlist : being a Complete Collec- 
 tion of Foiins and Precedents for practical use in all Cases out 
 of Quarter Sessions, and in Parocliial Matters, by Magistrates, 
 their Clerks, Attornies and Constables. By Geoege C. Oke, 
 Author of "The Magisterial SjTioj)sis," &(i. Fifth Edition, 
 enlarged and improved. By Thomas W. Satj]nt)ers, Esq., 
 late Eecorder of Bath, and now one of the Meti-opolitan Police 
 Magistrates. In 1 vol. 8vo. 38s. cloth; 43s. calf. 
 
 "The last edition of this very 
 useful work was published in 1868. 
 Since which time, in addition to 
 numerous amending and consoli- 
 dating acts bearing upon magis- 
 trates' law, other important statutes 
 have come into effect. New f onus, 
 applicable to these and other acts, 
 have been prepared with much care 
 by the learned editor of the present 
 edition (Mr. Saunders), while those 
 which had become inapplicable 
 have been eliminated. Besides the 
 table of contents, a table of statutes, 
 connected with the forms, has been 
 added ; a clear, imusually copious 
 index leaves nothing to be desired 
 by those who have to administer the 
 branch of the law to which Oke's 
 Magisterial Formulist relates." — 
 Laic Magazine. 
 
 "Mr. Saunders has not been 
 called upon to perform the func- 
 tions of an annotator merely. He 
 has had to create, just as Mr. Oke 
 created when he wrote his book. 
 'Jliis, of course, has necessitated 
 the enlargement and remodelling 
 
 of the index. Ko work probably is 
 in more use in the offices of magis- 
 trates than 'Oke's FoiTuulist.' That 
 it should be reliable and compre- 
 hend recent enactments is of the 
 very first imijortance. In selecting 
 Mr. Saunders to follow in the steps 
 of Mr. Oke the publishers exercised 
 wise discretion, and we congratu- 
 late both author and publishers 
 ujion the complete and very ex- 
 cellent manner in which this edition 
 has been prepared and is now pre- 
 sented to the profession." — Law 
 Tiweii. 
 
 ' • The duty of editing anew the 
 ' Magisterial Fonnulist ' has fallen 
 upon the Eecorder of Bath, whose 
 experience and industry ought to 
 fmiiish a guarantee that in his 
 hands a work of so much value and 
 celebrity will not lose any of its 
 foiTner attributes. Apart from the 
 statutory f oi-ms, there is a daily and 
 hourly need of forms pressing upon 
 clerks to justices, and their time is 
 too valuable to admit of the labour 
 of drawing what is wanted on an
 
 MESSRS. ]JUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 51 
 
 iWv. (Dfcc'^ iHagtstcrial ZlXox^k^—conthiuefr. 
 
 cinorfjoncy. There is not a inomber 
 of this most iiniiortant and intelli- 
 gent chuss of men wlio lias not 
 learned to look upon Oke's 'Forni- 
 ulist' as a trusty friend and safe 
 guide in the moment of need, and 
 who will not welcome an edition 
 which embraces the novel matter 
 required ])}• fresh legislation. When 
 we tind that 900 pages are occui)ied 
 with these forma, and that the index 
 alone consists of 100 i)ages, we can 
 form 8omo idea of the task which 
 Mr. Saunders has undertaken, the 
 pcrfonnancc of which ought to add 
 to liis repute. Mr. iSaundei-s has 
 compiled a new table of statutes 
 connected with the fonns, an addi- 
 tion wliich will certainly be found 
 useful." — Line Jutirnal. 
 
 "This well-known work stands 
 no longer in need of any introduc- 
 tion or recommendation : it is not 
 BO much the convenience as the 
 necessity of every person who has 
 to conduct or advise the conduct of 
 a magistrate's business. To return, 
 however, to tlie more proper func- 
 tion of the book before us, the 
 question with any new edition of 
 such a work as the present is, 
 
 whether it has been so kept abreast 
 with legislative changes lus to pro- 
 servo its character of jiractical 
 utility. Although all will join with 
 the i)resent editor in lamenting 
 that the public can no longer com- 
 mand the services of the accurate 
 and experienced author, j-et we seo 
 no rea.son to think that they will 
 suffer through the duty of re-edit- 
 ing this valuable collection of fonns 
 having devolved upon Mr. Sauu- 
 dui-s, who seems to have iierfoiined 
 his task with the care and accuracy 
 whicli he has accustomed us to ex- 
 pect from him. His labour has 
 not been a light one, for, as ho 
 points out, recent legislation h;us 
 not only added to the already wide 
 tield of magisterial duties, but has 
 also, by the process of consolida- 
 tion, as well as by considerable 
 substantive alterations, varied tho 
 necessary fonns. These changes 
 have been duly followed, and tho 
 ^vork, wliich was last edited in 
 1SU8, ma J' now be relied upon as a 
 safe aud comi)leto guide in the 
 matter it relates to." — Solicitorn^ 
 JuiiriKil. 
 
 Oke's Laws as to Licensing Inns, &c. Second Edit. 1874; 
 contiiiuing the Licon.siug Act.s, 1S72 aud 1871, aud tho other 
 Acts in force a.s to Ale-houses, Becr-liouses, Wine aud Eofre.sh- 
 lucut-houses. Shops, &c., where Intoxicating Liquors are sohl, 
 aud Billiard aud Occasional Licences. Systematically arraugeil, 
 ■with Exj)lauatoiy Notes, the authorized Forms of Licences, 
 Tables of Offences, Index, &c. By Geouge C. Oke, late Chief 
 Clerk to tho Lord Mayor of London. Second Edition, hy 
 W. C. Glex, Esq., Barristcr-at-Iiaw. Tost 8vo. lOi. cloth. 
 
 " It is superfluous to recommend 
 anj' work on magisterial law which 
 beara the name of ^Ir. (!eorgo C 
 Oke on the title page. Tliis treatise, 
 wliich Mr. Oke modestly describes 
 as little, is a comprehensive manual. 
 The law is cited in a manner ea.sy 
 of reference." — Linv Ji>iiru(il. 
 
 "The arrangement in chaptci-s 
 by Mr. Oke seems to us better th;ui 
 
 the plan pursued by tlie authors of 
 the rival work; and we think tliat 
 ^Ir. tilen has done well to leave in 
 many cases a concise statement of 
 the effect of the legislation rei)caled 
 by the late act. He also gives a 
 useful list of places beyond tho 
 metropolitan district and in tho 
 police district." — Holicitorii' Joiir- 
 iiul. 
 
 d2
 
 52 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 iltr. ©fec'g ilTagt!3tcrial ZBrOxH—mithiued. 
 Oke's Handy Book of the Game Laws ; containing the 
 
 ■W'liole Law as to Game, Licences and Certificates, Gim Licences, 
 Poacliing Prevention, Trespass, Eabbits, Deer, Dogs, Bii-ds and 
 Poisoned Grain, Sea Birds, Wild Bii-ds, and Wild Fowl, and 
 tlio Eating of Game througliout the United Kingdom. Syste- 
 matically arranged, with the Acts, Decisions, Notes and Forms, 
 &c. Third Edition. By J. W. Willis Bund, M.A., LL.B., of 
 Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law; Vice-Chairman of the 
 Severn Fishery Board, and Author of "The Law relating to 
 Salmon Fisheries in England and Wales," &c. Post 8vo. 14s. cl. 
 
 "A book on the Game Laws, 
 Lrought up to the present time, 
 and iucludino; the recent acts ^vith 
 regard to wild fowl, &c., was much 
 needed, and Mr. Willis Bund has 
 most opportunely supplied the want 
 hy bringing out a revised and en- 
 larged edition of the very useful 
 handy book of which the late Mr. 
 Oke was the author. The com- 
 jirehensive nature of the work is 
 shown by the voluminous title 
 ])age, and the extent to which the 
 book is expanded will be under- 
 stood when we say that it contains 
 about 1.50 pages niore than the last 
 edition . " — 77i c Field. 
 
 "The editor.ship of the present 
 I^ublication has, we are hajipy to 
 say, fallen into such able hands as 
 tliose of Mr. Willis Bund. In con- 
 clusion, we would observe that the 
 l)resent edition of the above work 
 will be found by legal men or others 
 wlio require any reliable infomia- 
 tion on any subject connected with 
 tlie game laws, of the greatest 
 jiractical utility, and that landed 
 ])roprietors, fanners, and sports- 
 men will find ' Oke's Game Laws' 
 an invaluable addition to their 
 libraries, and an ea-sy means of 
 enlightening themselves on a sub- 
 ject which closely affects them." — 
 Land and Water. 
 
 "Mr. Willis Bund has edited a 
 third edition of 'Oke's Game Laws.' 
 The changes in the law by statute 
 and the reported cases to the end 
 
 of 187G are duly noted. We think 
 he sustains the reputation of the 
 author." — Law Times. 
 
 " The task of bringing out a 
 third edition has fallen upon Mr. 
 Bund. Several important statutes 
 bearing upon the subject have been 
 passed since 1863, and many im- 
 portant decisions given by the 
 Courts. With these the author has 
 dealt in a careful and complete 
 manner, and on the whole he seems 
 to have succeeded in maintaining 
 the just reputation of the work." — 
 Lan- Journed. 
 
 ' ' The present edition, which is 
 really worthy of the reputation of 
 the XJrccediug ones, collects all the 
 important decisions to the end of 
 1876, and includes a reading of all 
 the recent statutes. All this matter 
 is comprised in some .500 pages, and 
 offered at a price that only the 
 general demand for Mr. Oke's 
 works coidd render remunerative. 
 Possessed of the many valuable 
 qualifications we have indicated, 
 the third edition of 'Oke's Game 
 Laws' may well be expected to 
 achieve a success no less than was 
 attained by its predecessors. No 
 more its author could desire." — 
 Irhh Law Times. 
 
 "A new and re\ased edition of 
 ' Oke's Handy Book of the Game 
 Laws' makes its ajipearance in 
 seasonable time. Tlie lamented 
 autlior having died since tlie last 
 appearance of the work, this new
 
 MESSRS. nUlTERAVORTII, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 53 
 
 edition, which contains all the most 
 recent statutes, ami notices of cases 
 of importance bearinf^ on tlie sub- 
 ject, has ticcii ]iiv]iareil unilir tlic 
 eilitorsliip of Mr. Willis Bund." — 
 Jjtiih/ ,V( /r.v. 
 
 " Mr. Bund's difjest of tlic now 
 laws pa.ssed since the death of Mr. 
 Oko is admirable. The editor in the 
 ]irc.sent in.stanco deserves unquali- 
 fied praise." — ll'orawlir Jlcrultl. 
 
 " Under the competent care of 
 Mr. Bund, Messrs. Butterworth 
 have issued a third edition of Oke's 
 excellent handv - book upon the 
 Game Laws. iSnice the last edition 
 wius j)ublishcd such new meiusures 
 na the Gun Licence Act, the Wild 
 Birds I'rcscrvatiou Act, the Sea 
 Birds I'rcscrvatiou Act, and othei-s 
 in the same direction, have been 
 passed. Of these full cognisance 
 
 Oke's Fishery Laws. Second Edition by Bund. 
 
 Ji<f>r jiiifi/I^Iic'/, ill 1 ]'vl. jios( Sco., ij.v. cloth. 
 A Ilandy Book of tlio Fisliory Luws: coiitainiiif;: the Law a.s 
 to Fi-slieiios, I'rivatc and Piililic, in tho Iiilaiid Waters of Yav^- 
 lund and "NVales, and the I'roslnvatiT Fislicrios I're.'^on-atiou 
 Act, 1S78. Systematically arranged : with the Acts, Decisions, 
 Notes, and Fonn.s, by George C. Oke. Second EiJition, hy 
 J. AV. Willis ]K'xd, ^[.A., IJj.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Banistcr- 
 at-Law, Chainnan of the Severn Fishery Board. 
 
 is taken in the new Lsstio. Si^jnall y 
 comprehensive and exact is the in- 
 formation supjilied, and the volume 
 is an indispensable com])anion not 
 only to country pentlemcn and 
 ma^^istratcs, but to all dealci-s in 
 Kamc and cverj' person possessing 
 a gun." — SkikIui/ Times. 
 
 "This is a new and revised 
 edition of a most useful handy 
 book, the laws alTecting the sulijcct 
 matter being brought down to tho 
 ]>rcscnt time. The work has been 
 also materially enlarged, and special 
 chaptci-8 written on Scotch and 
 Irish Game Laws — Projjcrty in 
 {!ame and other Wild Animals — 
 Actions of TrcsjKuss at Common Law 
 — The Poacliing Prevention Act, 
 aud other kindred subjects, have 
 been added." — BcWs Mesaciigvr. 
 
 " This is a second edition of Mr. 
 Okc'a book on the Fishery Laws, 
 edited by Mr. Willis Bund. It is 
 a cai)itai and, as it jimfcsscs to be 
 in its title, a handy book on fishery 
 law : for, \)\ simply turning to tho 
 index, the inrpurer who may bo 
 peq)lexcd uj)on anj' point of ti.sliery 
 law can find his case stated in a 
 condensed and simT)lc fonn which 
 will probably tell hnn all he wishes 
 
 to know. Cousidcring how very 
 difTuse lishcrj- law is, and the num- 
 ber of acts of i>arliament it now 
 involves, the comi)rc.«sing of it into 
 so small a space has been done 
 wonderfully well." — The Field. 
 
 "Thi.s is an extremely useful 
 little work, and one which should 
 1)0 read by cveiy English and 
 Welsh angler." — ruhUfJurii' Cir- 
 eular. 
 
 Oke's Law of Turnpike Roads ; comprising the whole 
 of the General Acts now in force, includinf^ thoi^e of ISOl; tho 
 Acts a.s to Union of Trnsts, for facilitatinj; Arranp:ements with 
 their Creditors; as to the interference by llaihvays with Boads, 
 thcii' Non-repair, and enforcing: Contributions froni I'arishes, 
 &;c., practically arranp;ed. With Ca.ses, cf>2>ions Notes, all tho 
 necessiiry Fonns, and an elaborate Lidex, &c. By Geokge 
 C. Oke. ISvcoiid Editwn. 12mo. lbs. cloth.
 
 54 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE LAW EXAMINATION JOURNAL. 
 
 Edited by HERBERT NEWMAN MOZLEY, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of ICLag's College, Cambridg'c ; and of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Price Is. each Xumhei; hy post Is. Id. Nos. 34 & 35 [Jotthle manlier), price 2s., 
 
 bi/ post 2s. 2(1. 
 
 *»• All lack numhers, commencing with Xo. L, may lie had. 
 
 No. XL.— Trinity, 1879. 
 I. Settled Estates Act, 1877 (ss. 16—41). II. New Rules for the Honours 
 Examination. III. Digest of Cases. IV. Review : Claude Plumptrc on 
 the Law of Simple Contracts. V. Final Examination, June, 1879 : Ques- 
 tions and Answers. VI. Intennediate Examination, June, 1879: Ques- 
 tions and Answers. VII. CoiTcspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXXIX.— Easter, 1879. 
 I. The Statute of Quia Emptores. II. The Settled Estates Act, 1877 
 (ss. 1— 15). III. Rules of the Supreme Court, March, 1869. IV. Digest 
 of Cases. V. Final Examination, April, 1879 : Questions and Answers. 
 
 VI. Intennediate Examination, April, 1879: Questions and Answers. 
 
 VII. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXXVIII.— HilarA% 1879. 
 I. Real Property Limitation Act, 1874. ll. Statutes of 1878 (re. 52 
 to 79). III. Rules of the Supreme Court, November, 1878. IV. Final 
 Examination, January, 1879: Questions and Answers. V. Intermediate 
 Examination, January, 1879: Questions and Answers. VI. Corre- 
 spondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXXVIL— Michaelmas, 1878. 
 I. Statutes of Past Sessions. II. Statutes of 1878 (Second Notice). 
 
 III. Notices relating to the Intennediate Examinations to he held in 1879 
 and 1880. IV. Reviews of Books. V. Final Examinntion, November, 
 1878: Questions and Answers. VI. Intennediate Examination, Nov. 
 1878 : Questions and Answers. VII. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXXVI.— Trinity, 1878. 
 I. Statutes of 1878 (Chapters I. to XIX. inclusive). II. Statutes of Past 
 Sessions, including (1) The Act for the Amendment of the Law of Real 
 Property, and (2) The Satisfied Tenns Act. III. Reviews of Books. 
 
 IV. Final Examination, June, 1878: Questions and Answers. V. Inter- 
 mediate Examination, June, 1878: Questions and Answers. VI. Corres- 
 pondence and Notices. 
 
 Nos. XXXIV. and XXXV.— Hilary and Easter, 1878. 
 I. Statutes of 1877 (Second Notice — conclusion). II. Regulations for 
 Examinations made under the Solicitors Act, 1877. III. Digest of Cases. 
 
 IV. Intennediate Examination, November, 1877: Questions and Answers. 
 
 V. Final Examiiiafi(Jii, January, 1878: Questions and Answers. VI. In- 
 tci-mediato Examination, January, 1878 : Questions and Answers. 
 VII. Final E.xamination, April, 1878: Questions and Answers. VIII. In- 
 tennediate Examination, April, 1878: Questions and Answers. IX. Cor- 
 respondence, &c, 
 
 No. XXXIIL— Michaelmas, 1877. 
 I. Statutes of 1877 (First Notice) . II. Digest of Cases. III. Intennediate 
 Examination, June, 1877 : Questions and Answers. IV. Final Examina- 
 tion, November, 1877: Questions and Answers. V. Notices of Inter- 
 mediate Examinations for 1878. VI. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXXII.— Trinity, 1877. 
 I. Satisfied Terms. II. Rules of the Supreme Court, May, 1877. 
 III. Digest of Cases. IV. Intennediato Examination, April, 1877: 
 Questions and Answers. V. Final Exnmiiiation, June, 1877: Questions 
 and Answers. VI. Reviews of Books. VII. Correspondence and Notices.
 
 MESSRS. llU'lTERWORTir, 7, FLEET STREET, V..C. 55 
 
 THE LAW EXAMINATION JOURNAL-continued. 
 
 Xo. XXXI.— Kasfcr. 1S77. 
 I. Tlio Statutes of lS7f)(Tliinl Notice). II. Digest of Cases. III. Iiilcr- 
 inediateE.xamiimtion. January, 1877: Questions ami Auswei-s. IV. Final 
 Examination, Ajuil, 1877: Que.stions and Answers. V. Kcvicw: Kobcrts's 
 rrinciiilcs of Ei^uif y. VI. CoiTC.si)ondencc and Notices. 
 
 No. XXX.— Hilary, 1877. 
 I. Statutes of 187r) (Second Notice). II. Rules of the Supreme Court, 
 Dec. 187G. III. Digest of Cases. IV. Intermediate Examination, Nov. 
 187G: Questions and Answers. V. Final E.xamiuation, Jan. 1877: Ques- 
 tions and Answers. VI. Kcviews. VII. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXIX.— Michaelmas, 1876. 
 I. Statutes of 1876 (First Notice). II. Kules of the Supreme Court, 
 June, 1876. III. Intermediate E.xamiuation, June, 1S7C: Questions and 
 Answers. IV. Final Examination, November, 1870: (Questions and 
 Answers. V. Notices of the Intennediate Examinations for 1877. 
 
 VI. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXVIII.— Trinity, 1S7G. 
 I. The Rules of February. 1876. II. The Statutes of 187.3, concluded. 
 
 III. Digest of Ca.ses. IV. Intennediate Examination, April, 1876: 
 Questions and Answei-s. V. Final Examination, June, 1876: Questions 
 and Answers. VI. Kcviews. VII. Correspoudcuce and Notices. 
 
 No. XX^^I.— Easter, 1876. 
 I. Notices for the June and November Examinations, 1876. II. Furiher 
 Extracts from the Kulcs of November 'J, 187'). III. Statutes of 187') 
 (Third Notice). IV. Digest of Cases. V. Intennediate Examination, 
 Januarj", 1876: Questions and Answers. VI. Final Examination. Ajjril, 
 1876: Questions and Answei-s. VII. The Now Law Dictiouarj'. 
 VUI. Reviews of Books. IX. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXVI.— Hilary, 1876. 
 I. The New Rules relating to Examinations. II. The Statutes of lS7o 
 (Second Notice). III. Digest of Cases. IV. Intennediate Examination, 
 Michaelmas Sittings, 187'): (Juostions and Answei-s. V. Final Examina- 
 tion, Hilary Sittings, 1876: Questions and Answei-s. VI. Reviews. 
 
 VII. Correspondence and Notices. 
 
 No. XXV. — Michaelmas, 1873. 
 I. Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances, i:j Eliz. c. 5. II. Statutes of 
 1875 (First Notice). III. Digest of Ca.ses. IV. Intennediate Examina- 
 tion, Trinity Tcnn, 187'): Questions and An.swei-s. V. Final Examination, 
 Michaelmas Tenu, 187'): Questions and Auswcre. VI. Reviews of Books, 
 VII. Corresi)ondencc and Notices. 
 
 No. XXIV.— Trinity. 187o. 
 I. The Statute of Uses, continued. II. Digest of Ca-^es. III. lutcr- 
 metliate Examination, Easter Term, 187'"): Questions and Answers. 
 
 IV. Final Examination, Trinity Tenn, lS7o: Cir.estions and Answers. 
 
 V. A New Law Dictiiiii.ii v. VI. Conc.spoudencc and Notices. 
 
 •«* Cnples of Vol. I. of (J,,- J.mr Kxaiiilimtion Journal, rnntn'.inun Xo.t. 1 In H, irilh 
 Jnll ImltxiK mill Talilen of Caatu Cilnl, via;/ nmv he hnd, jirirr 1(>». bnuiul in cloth. 
 
 Vol. II. oj titt siiiiie i.i til.Ho now ready, rontaininij Xoa. \h to 'is*, ivil/t Inilcs, jtrift in 
 cloth, IGs. 
 
 Thf Index to Vol. II. may he had separately to com]>lett copies for binding, price &/. 
 stKed.
 
 56 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE BAR EXAMINATION JOURNAL. 
 
 THE BAE EXAMINATION JOUENAL, containing 
 the Examination Papers on all tlie subjects, with Answers, set 
 at the Greneral Examination for Call to the Bar. Edited by 
 A. D. Tyssex, B.C.L., MA., Sii- E. K. Wilsox, Bart., M.A., 
 and W. D. Edwards, LL.B., Barristers-at-Law. 3s. each, by 
 post 35. Id. Nos. 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Hil. 
 1872 to Hil. 1878, both inclusive, may now be had. 
 
 *»* JVb. 13 is a double number, price Gs., by post Qs. 2d. Xos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are out 
 of print. 
 
 THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION JOURNAL, 
 And Students' Literary Magazine. 
 
 Edited by James Ekle Bexham, formerly of King's College, London; 
 
 Author of "The Stiident's Examination G-nide," &c. 
 
 Now Complete in Eighteen Numbers, containing all the Questions, with Answers, 
 from 1871 to 1875, and to be had in 1 Vol. Svo., price 18s. cloth. 
 
 Nos. I. to XVIII. may still be had, price Is. each, by post Is. Id. 
 
 BALL'S POPULAR CONVEYANCER. 
 
 THE POPULAR CONVEYANCER ; being a Compre- 
 hensive, Theoretical and Practical Exjiosition of Convej-ancing, 
 with Concise Precedents. By Ja^ies Ball. Svo. 10s. Gd. cloth. 
 
 Contents : — Cliap. I. Introduction. — n. Terms employed in Conveyances. — 
 IQ. AgTccnicnt.s or Conti-acts for Sale or Purcha.se. — IV. General Contracts. — 
 v. Conveyances on Sales. — VI. Lea.ses. — YIl. llortfrafres. — ^TII. Partnersliips. — 
 LX. Settlement-^.— X. 'Wms.— XL Miscellaneous Deeds.— XH. Abstracts of Title. 
 — Xrn. Jlemorials.- XIV. Notices.— XV. necitals.— XVI. Requisitions on Title. 
 — X^^I. On conductin<r and complctinj? ConveyancLns' Matters. Appendix A. 
 Charter of i'eoflfment.— B. 2;5 & '2i Vict. cap. 14.5 (with Xotes).— C. Affida^-its and 
 Declarations. — D. Public Companies : Instruments required upon Incorporation. — 
 Table of Cases Cited. — Table of Precedents. — General Index. 
 
 " The work shows that 'Mr. Ball has transacted in a solicitor's office. We 
 
 a very clear conception of conveyancin;,'-; think the book will be useful for tliis 
 
 bis notes are well ■mitten and compen- purpose, and the dilif,''ence vnth which 
 
 dioiLS, and the precedents have been • the author has annotated his precedents 
 
 selected wth yreat care. Such a book -nill certainly .save the solicitor or his 
 
 must commend ilsolf to students and couveyancinj^' clerk, the trouble of im- 
 
 practitioners." — /^mr Times-. partinir .i g-ood deal of elementaiy in- 
 
 "Mi\ Ball's main object is to place in formation to the articled clerks." — 
 
 the bamls of clerks and students a f,iude Solicitor:!' Journal. 
 to the simpler conveyancinfj matters
 
 MEssiis. iJurrERwoRTir, 7, fi-eet street, e.g. 57 
 
 BAXTER'S JUDICATURE ACTS.— Third Edition. 
 
 JUDIUATUKK ACTS AND RULES, 1873—1879 ; 
 containing all tho Statutes, Rulos, Forms, and Decisions to tho 
 present tiuie. By "Wyxxe E. 13.\-XTER, Solicitor, Under Sheriff 
 of London and Middlesex. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. 
 
 CUTLER'S CIVIL SERVICE OF INDIA. 
 
 ON liEruRTlNG CASES for their PERIODICAL 
 EXAMINATIONS by SELECTED CANDIDATES for tho 
 CIVIL SEIIYICE of INDIA. Being a Lecture deUvcrcd on 
 AVodnesday, June 12, 18G7, at lung's College, London. By 
 Jo^^' Cutler, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Banistcr-at-Law, Pro- 
 fessor of Enghsh Law and Jmisjirndcncc, and Professor of 
 Indian Jurisprudence at lung's College, London. Svo. Is. 
 sewed. 
 
 BROWNING'S DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL 
 PRACTICE. 
 
 THE PRACTICE and PROCEDURE of tlio COURT 
 for DIYOECE AND ]\L\TEIMONLiL CAUSES, inchuUng 
 tho Acts, Eules, Orders, Copious Notes of Cases and Fonns of 
 Practical Proceedings, with Tables of Costs. By W. Erxst 
 Brow^'IXG, Esq., of tho Inner Temple, Burrister-at-Law. Post 
 8yo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 PHILLIPS'S LAW OF LUNACY. 
 
 THE LAAV CONCERNING LUNATICS, IDIOTS, 
 and PEESONS OF UNSOUND MIND. By Charles P. 
 PHlLLir.s, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and 
 Commissioner in Lunacy. Post Svo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. riiillips has, in liis vciy pom- prosont law, as well a.« flic pmrfioo 
 plete, diiborati' unci Hsi'ful volume, pre- ix'latintf to luuacy." — Law Mmjiuiitt 
 scntcd lis wilh au excellent view of the and llukic.
 
 58 LAAV WORKS TUBLISIIED DY 
 
 HOLLAND ON THE FORM OF THE LAW. 
 
 ESSAYS upon tlie FOEM of tlie LAW. By Thomas 
 Erskixe Holl.^'D, M.A., Fellow of Exeter College, and 
 Chicliele Professor of International Law in the University of 
 Oxford, and of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 
 Is. 6(7. cloth. 
 
 "A work of great ability." Atkenceum. essays to our readers." — Law Magazine. 
 
 "Entitled to very high commenda- "A work in which the whole matter 
 
 tion." — Law Tunes. is easily intelligible to the lay as wcU 
 
 " The essays of an author so weU as the professional public." — Saturday 
 
 quaUlied to write upon the subject." — Si-vietr. 
 
 Law Journal. " BIr. Holland's extremely valuable 
 
 " "We can confidently recommend these and ingenioiis essays." — Spectator. 
 
 WRIGHT ON THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY. 
 
 THE LAW OF CEIMINAL CONSPIEACIES AND 
 
 AGEEEMEXTS. By E. S. Weight, of the Inner Temple, 
 Ban-ister-at-Law, Fellow of Oriel Coll., Oxford. 8yo. 4s. cloth. 
 
 "It is with great plea-siire that we ordinary text-book, and from the 
 
 notice tliis short but veiy able and oracular diction in which too many of 
 
 thorough work. It shows not merely the modem school of jiuisprudence 
 
 unsparing and well directed reseaich, enshrine their fine ideas." — Solicitors' 
 
 but a power of discrimination and Journal. 
 
 analysis of which it is rarelj- our good " Looking at this work from a purely 
 
 fortime to meet with, and its matter is legal point of view, we have no hesita- 
 
 conveyed in language equally remote tion in according it very high praise." 
 
 from the drj- and withered style of the — Sjiectator. 
 
 CHITTY, Jun., PRECEDENTS IN PLEADING.— Third 
 
 Edition. 
 
 CHITTA^, Jux., PEECEDENTS in PLKADLN^G; vitli 
 copious Notes on Practice, Pleading and Evidence, by the late 
 JosErn Chitty, Jun., Esq. Third Edition. By the late 
 ToMi'.sox Chitty, Esq., and by Leofeic Tejiple, E. Gr. 
 WiLLLV^rs, and Chaele.s Jeffeey, Esqrs., Banisters-at- 
 Law. Complete in 1 vol. royal 8vo. 38s. cloth. 
 
 LOVESY'S LAW OF MASTERS AND WORKMEN. 
 
 Tho LAW of AEI3ITEATI0N between MASTEES and 
 WOEKMEN, as founded upon the Councils of Conciliation Act 
 of 18G7 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 105), the Master and Workmen Act 
 {•') Geo. 4, c. 9G), and other Acts, with an luti-oduction and 
 Notes. By C. W. Loye.sy, Esq., of the Middle Temple, 
 Bani.stcr-at-Law. 12mo. -is. cloth.
 
 MESSRS. BUTTERWOKTir, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 59 
 
 The Doctrine of Continuous Voyages as applied to 
 
 COXTj;Al;A\J»<.i WAi; ^m.l BLOCICM)!-;. <o]itni>t.Mlwiththo 
 DECLAIIATIOX oi TAIUS of IHJU. By Siu Tuavkus Twiss, 
 Q.C., D.C.L., &c., &c., I'residont of the Bremen Conference, 
 1876. Ecad before the Association for the Reform and Codifi- 
 cation of the Law of Nations at the i:\jitwerp Conference, 1877. 
 8vo. 25'. G'L sewed. 
 
 Mr. Justice Lush's Common Law Practice. By Dixon. 
 Third Edition. LUSH'S rRACTICE of tho SUPERIOR 
 COURTS of COMM(JX LAW at WEST^OXSTER, in Actions 
 and I'rocoodings over which thoy have a common Jurisdiction ; 
 •\^■ith Introductory Treatises respectin;:^ Parties to Actions; Attor- 
 nios and Towni Ajjonts, their Qualifications, Rights, Duties, 
 Pri%'ileges and Disabilities; the Mode of Suing, whether in 
 Person or by Attorney, in Foi-ma Pauperis, &c. &c. «S:c. ; and 
 an Appendix, containing tho authorized Tables of Costs and 
 Fees, Forms of Proceedings and Writs of Execution. Third 
 Edition, liy Joseph Dixox, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister- 
 ut-Law. 2 vols. Svo. -lOs. cloth. 
 
 Supreme Appellate Jurisdiction. A Speech delivered 
 ill the House of Lords on tho 11th June, IJST-I. By the Right 
 lion. Lord O'lLvGAX. 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
 The Law and Facts of the Alabama Case with Referencs 
 
 to the Geneva Aibitratiou. By Jamls 0"DuWI>, E>q., Banister- 
 at-Law. Svo. 2s. sewed. 
 
 A Letter to the Right Hon. the Lord High Chancellor 
 concerning Digests and Codes. By William Ru iiakd FisiiEit, 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barnster-at-Law. Royal (Svo. L*!. sewed. 
 
 Gray's Treatise on the Law of Costs in Actions and 
 
 oilier I'll' ICEJ'^DIX'GS in tho (Vnu-ts of Cominnu Law at 
 Westminster. By Joiix Gr.vy, Esi^., of the Middle Temple, 
 Bamster-at-Law. 8vo. 2 Is. cloth. 
 
 Rules and Regulations to he observed in all Causes, 
 
 SUITS and i'ROCEl^DIXGS instituted in th.> (.'onsistory Court 
 of London from and after tho 2Gth June, 1877. By Order of 
 the Judge. Royal Svo. !«. .sewed. 
 
 Pulling's Practical Compendium of the Law and Usage 
 of MERCANTILE ACC(.)UXTS; describing the varicnis Rules 
 of Law affecting them, the ordinaiy mode in which they are 
 entered in Account Books, and the various Fonns of Proceeding, 
 and Rides of Pleading, and Evidence for their Investigation at 
 Common Law. in Equitv, Bankruptcv and Insolvency, or bv 
 Arbitration. With a SUPPLEMENT, contaijiin;: the Law of 
 J<jint Stock Comi>anies' Accounts, imder the Winding-up Acts 
 of 1S4S and IM!). By Alexander Pullixo, E^[., of the Inner 
 Temple, Bumstcr-at-Law. 12mo. Ud. boards.
 
 60 LA"SV WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Foreshore Rights. Eeport of Case ofWilliamst-. Nicholson 
 
 for remo-s'ing Sliini>-le from the Porcshore at Witherusea. Heard 
 31.st May, 1870, at IIiill. 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
 Hamel's International Law. — International Law in con- 
 nexion "^nth Municipal Statutes relating to the Commerce, 
 Eights and Liabilities of the Subjects of Neutral States pending 
 Foreign War; considered "s\'ith reference to the Case of the 
 "Alexandra," seized under the pro\'isions of the Foreign 
 Enlistment Act. By Felix HLvegraye Hamel, of the Inner 
 Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Post Svo. 3s. sewed. 
 
 Keyser on the Law relating to Transactions on the 
 STOCK EXCILINGE. By IIexky Keyser, Esq., of the 
 Middle Temj^le, Barrister-at-Law'. 12mo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 The Inns of Court and Legal Education pending 
 Legislation Eeyiewed, ■svitli Suggestions for the proper Founda- 
 tion of a Law University. A Paper read at the Pro-sincial 
 Meeting of the Incorporated Law Society of the United liingdom, 
 held at Liverpool, l-4th October, 1875. By C. T. Sauxdees, a 
 Member of the Council. Svo. Is. sewed. 
 
 A Memoir of Lord Lyndhurst. By William Sidney 
 GiBSOX, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., Barrister-at-Law, of Lincoln's 
 Inn. Second Edition, enlarged. Svo. 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 A Memoir of Mr. Justice Talfourd. By a Member of the 
 
 Oxford Circuit. Picprinted fromtheLaAv Magazine. Svo. Is. sewed. 
 
 Remarks on Law Reform. By George W. M. Dale, of 
 
 Lincoln's Inn, Esq. Svo. Is. (kl. scAved. 
 
 Blayney's Practical Treatise on Life Assurance. Second 
 
 Edition. By Frederic Blayxey, Es([. 12mo. 7s. boards. 
 
 The Laws of Barbados. (By Authority.) Bnyal Svo. 21s. cl. 
 
 Pearce's History of the Inns of Court and Chancery; 
 with Notices of their Ancient Discijibne, Eulcs, Orders and Cus- 
 toms, Eeadings, Moots, Masques, Eevels and Entertainments, 
 including an account of the Eminent Men of the Foiu- Learned 
 and Honourable Societies — Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the 
 Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn, »S:c. By Egbert E. Pe.viice, 
 Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 Baker's Practical Compendium of the Recent Statutes, 
 CASES, and Hl'X'ISIONS alfecting the OFFICE of COEONEE, 
 ■svith Precedents of Inquisitions, and Practical Forms. By 
 William Baker, Esq., one of the Coroners for Middlesex. 
 12mo. 7s. cloth. 
 
 A Practical Treatise on the Law of Advowsons. By 
 
 J. MiRKiroTSE, Es([., Barristor-at-Law. Svo. 1-is. boards. 
 
 Field's Law relating to Curates. The Law relating to 
 PEOTESTAXT CUEATES and the EESIDEXCE of IXCUM- 
 B]':NTS or their B1:N]']]-'ICES in lONGLAND and lEELAND. 
 By C. H. Field, M.A., LL.H., of II. M.'s Bengal Civil Service; 
 Author of the Law of E'vidcnce in India, &c. I'ost Svo. (is. cloth.
 
 MESSRS. lUTl'ERWORTH, 7, ri.KET STREKT, V..C. Gl 
 
 Williams' Introduction to the Principles and Practice 
 
 of rieailinj? in tlio Superior Courts of Law, cmbraciiijr an Outlino 
 of tho whole Procot'diujjs in an Action at Law, on Motion and at 
 Jiulj;;o.s' Chambers; together with tho llulcs of Pleading and Prac- 
 tit'o, and Forms of all tho i)rini'ipal Proceedings. ]ly Watkin 
 Williams, M.P., of tho Imicr Temi)lo, Esq., Barrister-at-Luw. 
 8vo. 12.1. cloth. 
 The Lord's Table: its true Rubrical Position. The 
 
 Purchas Jndj,'nu'iit not rrliahle. Tho I'owcr of the Laity and 
 Churchwardens to i)rovont Pomanizing. Suggestions to tho 
 Laity and Parishes for tho duo ordering of tho Table at Com- 
 immion Time. Tho llubrical Position of tho Celebrant. 13y 
 II. F. Naiteii, Solicitor. Kvo. la. sowed. 
 
 Greening's Forms of Declarations, Pleadings and other 
 
 PR()('I-^]-;i)lX(iS in 1h<' Sujicrior Courts oi Coinnioa Law. witli 
 tho Common Law I'roceduro Act, and other Statutes ; Table of 
 Officers' Fees ; and the Now Rules of I'ractico and Pleading, 
 with Notes. By IIexry Grkenixg, Es(]., Si^ecial I'leader. 
 Second Edition. 12mo. 10s. G(/. boanls. 
 
 Browne's Practical Treatise on Actions at Law, 
 
 embracing the Subjects of Notice of Action; Limitation of 
 Actions ; necessary I'arties to and proper Forms of Actions, tho 
 Conseqiicnco of Mistake therein ; and tho Law of Costs with 
 refercnco to Damages. By RowLAXD Jay BitowxE, Esq., of 
 Lincoln's Inn, Special I'leader. 8vo. His. boards. 
 
 Deane's Law of Blockade, as contained in the Judgments 
 
 of l>r. Lu-liiiiirt<in and t]ic( 'ascs on I'luckadc decided dui'ing IN.VI. 
 J'yJ. P. 1)i;vm:.1>. CI. ..Advocate in I), .ct()rs"('i.iiini<iii><. Nvn.lOs.c]. 
 Linklater's Digest of and Index to the New Bankruptcy 
 ACT, and tho accompanying Acts of ISliO. By Joiix LlXKLATElt, 
 Solicitor. Second Edition. Imperial Svo. 3$. Vnf. sewed. 
 
 Pothier's Treatise on the Contract of Partnership. 
 
 Translated fmni tin- French, with N.tcs. by O. ]). TfDol!, Lsq. 
 Barnster-at-J>a\v. .Svo. os. cloth. 
 
 Norman's Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to 
 LETTERS PATENT for LN VllNTK )NS. IJy Joiix Paxtox 
 NoicMAX, M.A., of tho Inner Tem])Ie. I5arrister-at-Law. Post 
 Svo. Is. V)il. cloth. 
 
 Francillon's Law Lectures. Second Series. Lectures, 
 ELEMFATARY and FAMILIAR, on E\(;LlSir LAW. Bv 
 James Fuaxcillox, Es.i., County Court Judge. First and 
 Second Series. Svo. Ss. each, cloth. 
 
 Gurney's System of Short Hand, as used by both Houses 
 
 of Parliament. Seventeenth Edition, revised and impnned. 
 
 12mo. lis. lid. cloth. 
 
 " (juraey's is, wc believe, admitted to be the best of the numy systems."— Ldic Ttmrs.
 
 62 LAW "WOllKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Gaches' Town Councillors and Burgesses Manual. The 
 TOWN COUNCILLOES AND BUEGESSES MANUAL : a 
 popular Digest of Municii^al and Sanitary Law, vdth informa- 
 tion as to Charters of Incorporation, and a useful Collection of 
 Eorms, especially adapted for newly incorj'jorated Boroughs. 
 By Loms G-aciies, LL.M., B.A., of the Inner Temj)le, Esq., 
 Barrister-at-Law. Post Svo. 7s. cloth. 
 
 Hunter's Suit in Equity: An Elementary View of the 
 
 Proceedings in a Suit in Equity. With an Ajipendix of Eorms. 
 Bj'' S. J. HuxTEK, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Bari-ister-at-Law. 
 Sixth Edition, by G. W. Laweaxce, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. 
 Post 8yo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 Kerr's Action at Law: being an Outline of the 
 
 Jurisdiction of the Superior Coiu'ts of Common Law, ■uith an 
 Elementary Yiew of the Proceedings in Actions therein. By 
 Egbert Malcolm Kerr, LL.D., Barrister-at-Law, now Judge 
 of the Shcritf 's Coui't of the City of London. The Third Edition. 
 12mo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 Parkinson's Handy-Book for the Common Law Judges' 
 CIIAMBEES. By Geo. II. Parkixsox, Chamber Clerk to the 
 Hon. Mr. Justice Byles. 12mo. 7s. cloth. 
 
 A Treatise on the Law of Sheriff, with Practical Forms 
 and Precedents. By Eiciiard Clarke Sewell, Esq., D.C.L., 
 Barristor-at-Law, Eellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Svo. II. Is. 
 
 Drainage of Land: How to procure Outfalls by New 
 Drains, or the Improvement of Existing Drains, in the Lands of 
 an Adjoining 0-mier, rmdcr the powers contained in Part III. of 
 the Act 24 & 25yict. c. 133, ISGl ; with Explanations of the Pro- 
 visions, and Suggestions for the Guidance of Landowners, Occu- 
 piers, Land Agents and Surveyors. By J. Wil. Wilsox, Solicitor. 
 
 Fearne's Chart, Historical and Legigraphical, of Landed 
 Property in England, from the time of the Saxons to the present 
 ^]ra, displapng at one view the Tenures, Modes of Descent and 
 Power of Alienation of Lands in England at all times during that 
 Period. On a sheet, coloured, (is. ; on a roller, 8s. 
 
 Speech of Sir R. Palmer, Q,.C., M.P., at the Annual 
 
 Mecjting of the Legal Educatif)n Association, in the Middle Temple 
 Hall, 1871, with a Ecport of the Proceedings. Svo. Is. sewed. 
 
 Law Students. Full Report of the Proceedings of the 
 
 First General Congress of I^aw Students' Societies. Held at 
 Bhniingham, 21st and 22nd ^Eay, 1872. Svo. 2s. sewed. 
 
 Legal Education : By W. A. Jevons. A Paper read at 
 
 the Social Sci(>nce Congress at L<'eds, 1S71. Svo. (id. sewed. 
 
 The Ancient Land Settlement of England. A Lecture 
 delivered at University Colh^ge, London, October 17th, 1871. 
 By J. W. Willis Buxd, M.A., Professor of Constitutional Law 
 and History. Svo, Is. sewed.
 
 MESSRS. IIUTTKRWORTII, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 63 
 
 i^cflfsiastiral llaUj. 
 
 The Case of the Rev. G. C. Gorham against the Bishop 
 
 of Kxi'tiT, as hoard ami dott-Tininod l)y tli»' .Ju<liiial ('()iiiuiitt«'o 
 of till' Privy Council on appeal from thoAnlics Court of Cantor- 
 bury. By I'DWAiM) F. MuoKK, M.A., 15arristor-at-].a\v, Author 
 of Moon-"s I'rivv Council Kcjvirts. lloyal Svo. Ss. rlnth. 
 
 Coote's Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, with Forms 
 
 and Tabli's of Costs. ]{y lIi:\KY ClIAKI.KS ('(idtk. rroit«jr in 
 Doctors' Conuiions, v\:r. "()n<' thick \i<\. Nvo. 'Js^. 1m,;ii(|s. 
 
 Burder r. Heath. Judgment delivered on November 2, 
 
 lS(il, by till' i;i-ht Honorable SiKl'llKX i.lsillxuTo.v, 1>.('.L., 
 J)('an of tin* Arch(>s. l-'olio, l.i. sewed. 
 
 The Law relating to Ritualism in the United Church of 
 
 Knf,'land and lrcl;ind. J5y I\ II. II.VMKL, Kscj., liarristcr-at- 
 ]jaw. rjmo. 1 v. s.'Wi'd. 
 
 Archdeacon Hale's Essay on the Union between Church 
 
 and .STATIC, and tlm i:stal)li>hnu'Mt liy Law of tli.. Trot'^-mt 
 Ut'fornicd Kcli^irion in En;^'land, Ireland and Scotland. IJy 
 "NV. II. IIai.k, M.A.. Archdeacon of London. Svo. li. sewed. 
 Judgment of the Privy Council in the Case of Hebbert 
 
 r. I'unhas. IMited l)y MliWAi:!) iJiillock, of the Inner Temple, 
 15arrister-at-Law. le'.yal Svo. J>'. CI. 
 
 Judgment delivered by Right Hon. Lord Cairns on behalf 
 
 of th»j Juflicial Committee of thit I'rivy Council in th«> Case of 
 Martin c. Mackonochie. IMiteil byW.'Kiixsr HlioWM.Ni;. Ks<j.. 
 
 Uarri-ter-at-Law. Itoyal Syo. \<.'il/. se\\v,|. 
 
 Judgment of the Right Hon. Sir Robert J. Phillimore, 
 Ctlicial Trincipal of the Court of Arches, with Ca.s4's of Martin r. 
 Mackonocliie and Flamank r. Simpson. Edited by Wai.tku 
 (t. I'. I'liiij.iMOUE, li.A., of the Middle Temi)le, Ac. S<rond 
 Edition, roval Svo. 2>i. (!</. sewed. 
 
 The Judgment of the Dean of the Arches, also the Judg- 
 
 m.Mitof the riMVV CtUXClL. in I.iddell Nldk} and llorno 
 and others a;jainst Westerton. and Eiddell (clerk) and I'ark un<l 
 Evans aprainst Heal. Edit<'d by A. F. Uayfoud, LL.I). Iloval 
 
 Svo. :U. (■,./. sewed. 
 
 The Case of Long ». Bishop of Cape Town, embracing 
 
 the opinions of the Judj^es of ( olonial Court hitherto unpublishf<l, 
 tof^etner with the decision of tho l*rivy Council, ami I'reliminarj* 
 Observations l>y the Editor. I'oyal Svo. (Ji. sewed. 
 
 The Law of the Building of Churches, Parsonages and 
 
 Schools, antl of the llivisionof Parishes and 1 'laces iontinut-d 
 to 1H74. IJy Chami.ks Fkaxcis Tuowek, M.A., IIurri«tor-al- 
 Law. Post'svo. !»«!. clotli. 
 
 The History and Law of Church Seats or Pews. By 
 
 A.lIu.VLLs,F.S.A.,l'ioctoriuDuctors'Commou.s. 2vol.'j.i>vo.lG.<.« 1.
 
 PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION. 
 
 PMllimore's International Law. Tlm-d Edition. Vol. I. 
 
 In Sto. 
 
 Dr. Tristram's Practice of the Probate Division of the 
 
 High Court of Justice in Contentious Hatters. Seventh Edition. In 1 vol. Sro. 
 
 Sannders' Summary Jurisdiction Act; arranged as a Sup- 
 plement to Oke's S^Tiopsis. In 1 vol. Svo. 
 
 Glen's Law of Highways. The Third Edition. In Sto. 
 
 A Collection of Mortgage Precedents and Decrees ; intended 
 
 as a Companion 'SVork to the General Law of Mortgage. By"V\'. E. Fishee, Esq., 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. In 1 vol. royal Svo. 
 
 Law Examination Journal, No. 41, Michaelmas, 1879. 
 
 Imprinted at London, 
 nvinher Sen en in Fletc strdc liuthin Temple barre, 
 
 whylom the signe of the Hande and starre, 
 
 and the Hovse where lined Richard Tottel, 
 
 printer liw ^^pccial patentee of ti)c bofer^ of tf}c Common lalwc 
 
 in the seueral reigns of 
 Kug Edxc'. VI. and of the qvenes 2Iarye and Elizabeth. 
 
 1553—1879.
 
 LAW WORKS FOR STUDENTS. 
 
 — ^ — 
 
 In 8vo., 35., by post 3s. Id. Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 9 to 16, iotli inclusive, may still he had. 
 
 The Bar Examination Journal. Edited by A. D. Tyssen 
 
 and W. I). Edwaeds, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 Contents of each Numbkr. — Lists of Subjects and the Papers in both the 
 General Examination for all Students, and also in Indian Law for Indian 
 Students, with the Answers ; Notices as to the Examinations, &c. 
 
 In 8vo., Is., iy post, Is. Id. Kos. 1 to 38 may still be had. 
 The "Law Examination Journal and Law Student's Ma- 
 gazine. Edited by H. N. Mozley, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 Contents op each NaJinER. — Leading Articles by the Editor; Reviews of 
 Books ; Summary of new Decisions in Banco and at Nisi Prius ; Analysis 
 of the more important practical Statutes of the Session ; Intermediate 
 Examination Questions and Answers ; Final Examination Questions and 
 ^inswers ; Notes on the Examinations ; Correspondence. 
 
 The Preliminary Examination Journal and Students' 
 Literary Magazine. Edited by James Eele Benham, for- 
 merly of King's College, London. Now complete, in 18 numbers, 
 and giving all the Questions and Answers from February, 1871, to 
 May, 1875, both inclusive, bound in cloth, price IS*. The numbers 
 may still be had separately, price Is. each, by i^ost Is. Id. 
 
 Sha-w's Inns of Court Kalendar for 1878. 8vo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Lavr Dictionary. 8vo. 
 20*. cloth. 
 " Law students desirous of cramming will find it acceptable." — Law Times. 
 
 Mr. Serjeant Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of 
 
 England. Eighth Edition. By James .Stephen, Esq., LL.D., Judge 
 of County Courts, &c. 4 vols. 8vo. cloth. [In the Frvus. 
 
 Goldsmith's Doctrine and Practice of Equity. Sixth 
 
 Edition. 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 " A well-known students' book ; the best, because the most complete, yet 
 simplified, instructor ever provided for him." — Law Times. 
 
 Tudor's Selection of Leading Cases on Real Property, 
 
 Conveyancing, WiUs and Deeds. 3rd Edit. Roy. 8vo. [/« the I'nsx. 
 
 Kelly's Conveyancing Draftsman. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. 
 
 " A very useful little book for conveyancing practitioners, i. e. for solicitors 
 and students." — Law ilagazine. 
 
 TTnderhill's Law^ of Torts or Wrongs. Second Edition. 
 Post 8vo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 "lie has set forth the elements of the law with clearness and accm-aey." — 
 Law Times. 
 
 TJnderhill's Lav/^ of Trusts and Trustees. Post 8vo. 8s. ol. 
 
 Fulton's Manual of Constitutional History. Post 8vo. 
 
 7s. (Jd. cloth. 
 "AVe may fairly say the book is well done." — The Law. 
 
 Chute's Relation of Equity to Common Law. Post 8vo. 
 9s. cloth. 
 
 Trower's Manual of the Prevalence of Equity under 
 Section 25 of the Judicature Act, 1S7'>, amended by the Judicatui'e 
 Act, 1875. By Chaeles Feancis Teowee, Esq., M.A., Barrister at 
 Law. In 8vo. 5s. cloth. 
 
 *#* For complete Catalogue, see end of this Book.
 
 LAW WOrivS FOR STl'DKNTS conluiual. 
 
 Mosoly's Articled Clerks' Handy Book, with Directions 
 
 as tu <-<nirsu i>i Stuily iiinl otiur iisi'ful Iiifonuiitioii. 'JuJ Kditiuu, by 
 Bkiu-ouI). pDst Svo. S,v. G(/. clotli. 
 
 Roberts' Principles of the Court of Equity : a First Book 
 
 on Equity JuiispriKkuco. Tliird Kditiou. Svo. iSx. tli.th. 
 
 " To the htuilent rliiss of our rcinlore wc corJially r«'<xjiiim<n<l it." — /xiic 
 Jourwtt. 
 
 Ball's Popular Conveyancer; with Forms. 8vo. lOs. 6d. 
 
 clotli. 
 
 Drewry's Forms of Claims and Defences In the Chan- 
 
 ci-ry Division i>f tlio lli^'li Court uf Ju.sticc. I'lf.st fSvo. 0*. duth. 
 
 " On the wholo wo can thorou(?hly rucommcnd it to our n-uJcm." — Iaiw 
 
 Kxnmination Journal. 
 
 Bedford's Final Examination Guide to the Practice of 
 
 tilt) Suj)remo Court of Judicature, (iucitiona and Answers. Svo. 
 7.«. (yd. clotli. 
 
 Bedford's Final Guide to the L>aw^ of Probate and 
 Divorce. {.Questions and Answers. Svo. 4.v. doth. 
 
 Bedford's Table of Leadinf? Statutes for the Intermediate 
 and Final Kxaiuiuation in Law, Kqtiity and Conve\ancin>^. I.*, on i 
 a sheet. I 
 
 Seabome's Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Real Pro- 
 perty, 'ind Edition. I'o.st Svo. cloth. [hi l/u J'm.i. 
 
 " The student will find this book a useful introduction to a dry and difficult 
 subject." — Law h'xaviinatioti Journal. 
 
 liewis's Principles of Conveyancinfr Explained and Illus- 
 trated by Coni-ise Precedents. Svo. ISs. cloth. 
 
 " ilr. Ix'wis liiuM cuntribiitoil u viOimblu iiid to tlie I/iiw .'^tudcnt."- /-flu' Timet. 
 
 Lew^is's Principles of Equity Drafting: with an Appendix 
 
 of Forms, i'ost .Svu. \lf. cloth. 
 
 Barry's Treatise on the Practice of Conveyancing. Svo. 
 ISo.. cloth. 
 
 " The treatise is the production of a pcr»on of great merit."— .So/i>i»»r«* 
 Journal. 
 
 Powell's Principles and Practice of the Law of Evidence. 
 
 Fourth Edition, liy .1. Cuti.ku. H.A.. and V.. V . (iunn.N, 11. .\., 
 Barristers-at-I,aw. In Svo. IS*, cloth. 
 
 Pearce's History of the Inns of Court. 8vo. 8a. cloth. 
 
 Cutler and Griffin's Analysis of the Indian Penal Code. 
 
 Svo. Uv. cloth. 
 
 Cutler on Reportinip Cases for the Examinations by 
 
 Selected Candidates for the Civil Service of India, hvo. ].«. ^4•Wl•d. 
 
 "HL. Ortolan's History of the Roman Law, translated 
 
 into En^jlish {uith the Author'n jxrmiisioti), and Siijiplementtil by n 
 Chronomctrical Chart of Roman Historj', by I. T. PliiciUiU) and 
 D. NASSiiTn, Esqrs., BarrLsters-at-Law. Svo. '.'Sj. cloth. 
 
 Nasmith's Institutes of Eng-lish Public Law. Post 8vo. 
 
 V1.S. cloth. 
 
 Nasmith's Institutes of Enirlish Private Law. 2 vols. 
 Post Svo. 'lis. clotli. 
 
 •»• For complete Catalogue, see end of Hm Book.