1 A ^— A |o 8 3 5 4 2 4 3 I C SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY : ACILITY WINDOW ST Wilson's £ diction Rules, Practic Inner 1 of Line of the leather * # * A Large Price 1 Wheaton'i Edited work d at-Law Price 1 Chitty on referen Editioi Counst Sebastian Marks cludinj Preced 1875— Marks Statut Rules LEWI B arris Woodfall's Preoed an abbi/iorub ui UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY j Juris- , Orders, ice, with T, of the WOOD, e Master (or limp 9 ready.) >yal 8vo. 'j ready.) Edition. nging the Jarrister- •o. 1878. d ready.) ss, with Eleventh Majesty's 8s. cloth. if Trade swith, in- Dntaining ion Acts, "chandise ed States the New dex. By nn, Esq., ?t ready.) ■ction of ontaining .jstoms of the Country. By J. M. LKLY, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Bairister- at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1877. Price 1/. 16s. cloth. {Just ready.) Smith's (Josiah W.) Manual of Common Law; for Practitioners and Students. Comprising the Fundamental Principles and the Points most usually occurring in Daily Life and Practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 187S. Price 14s. cloth. {Just ready.) Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence. — A Manual of Equity Jurisprudence for Practitioners and Students, founded on the Works of Story, Spence, and other writers, and on more than a thousand subsequent cases, comprising the Fundamental Principles and the points of Equity usually occurring in General Practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Twelfth Edition. 12mo. 1878. Price 12s. Qd. cloth. {Just Smith's Real and Personal Property. — A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property, primarily connected with Con- veyancing. Designed as a second book for Students, and as adigest of the most useful learning for Practitioners. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Firth Edition. In 2 con- venient volumes. Demy 8vo. 1877- Price 21. 2s. cloth. "The work before us will, we think, be Ibundof very great service to the practitioner." Solicitors' Journal. . . . •' I knnw of no volume which so entirely fulfils the requirements of a students text bunk." From Dr. Rollit's Lecture. o * # * A Catalogue of New Law Works 6KATIS on application. STEVENS AND SONS 119, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. Stone's Practice for Justices of the Peace, Justices' Cle -a, and Solicitors, at Petty and Special Sessions in Summary Matters and Indictable Offences, with a List of Summary Convictions and of Matters not Criminal ; with Forms. Eighth Edition. By THOMAS SIRRELL PRITCHARD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Wenlock. In 1 vol. Demy 8vo. 1877- Price 11. 10s. cloth. " In clearness of exposition, in choice of matter, and above all, in orderliness of arrange- ment, the book leaves little to be desired .... The book, as a whole, is thoroughly satisfactory, and having gone carefully through it, we can recommend it with confidence to the numerous body of our readers who are daily interested in the subjects to which it relates." — Solicitors Journal, Decembers, 1877. Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases. — Ninth Edition. By HORACE SMITH, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1878. Price 11. lis. 6d. cloth. Russell s Treatise on the Duty and Power of an Arbitrator, and the Law of Submissions and Awards ; with an Appendix of Forms and of the Statutes relating to Arbitration. By FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition. Royal 8vo. 1878. Price 1Z. 16s. cloth. (J ll > st ready.) " The arrangement is good and clear, and the statement of principles and examination of cases intelligent and easy to follow." — Solicitors' Journal, January 19, 1878. Millar's Bills of Sale.— A Treatise on Bills of Stile, with an Appendix containing the Acts for the Registration of Bills of Sale, Precedents, &c. (Being the Fourth Edition of Millar and Collier's "Treatise on Bills of Sale.") By F. C. J. MILLAR, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. l2nio. 1877- Price 12s. cloth. " The value of the work is enhanced throughout by careful annotation."— Law Magazine, February, 187*. Prentice's Proceedings in an Action in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice. By SAMUEL PRENTICE, of the Middle Temple, Esq., one of Her Majestv's Counsel. Demy Svo. 1877. Price 10s. 6d. cloth. "The book can be sately recommended to studeuts and practitioners_ .... The recent cases appear to be fully noticed." — Law 'limes, November 10, 1877. "Whether lor the student or practitioner, we can cordially recommend the work."— Month' y Law Tracts, December, 1877. Smith's Mercantile Law. — A Compendium of Mercantile Law. By the late JOHN WILLIAM SMITH, Esq. Ninth Edition. By G. M. DOWDESWELL, of the Inner Temple, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Council. Royal 8vo. 1877. Price 11. 18s. cloth. Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership. —By FREDERICK POLLOCK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Author ^of "Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity." Demy 8vo. 1877. Price 8s. 6'DOW LIGHTS. case against Moseley, declaring his seisin in fee of an ancient house in York city ; and that he, and all those whose estate, &c, from time whereof, &c, had been used to have for them and their tenants for life, years, and at will, seven windows or lights, &c, by force of which windows he and all those, &c., had been used to have divers wholesome and necessary ease- ments and commodities, by reason of the open air and light. He then stated the obstruction occasioned by the defendant. The defendant, in answer, pleaded a custom in York to build up against windows which might, at any time, overlook the adjoining land (1) ; and then he justified the stoppage of the plaintiff's light under the custom. The plaintiff demurred, and judgment was given for him by the whole Court ; for, first, the defendant could not suc- cessfully set up one custom against another ; as, if one had a way over A.'s land by prescription, A. could not claim to stop that way by custom ; secondly, it might be that the owner of the land where the nuisance was created had granted to the owner of the house (1) But it must be understood that this custom applied to houses on new foundations, where there was not any building before. See Yelv. 216. OF AVINDOW LIGHTS. 9 to have the windows without obstruction, and thus the prescription would have had a lawful beginning (1). So, again, the plaintiff pre- scribed, in an action on the case, to have a light which his house had immemorially received, and of which house he was seised in fee. He further said, that one H. was seised in fee of the land adjoining, and that, having erected a shed upon his land, so as to stop the plaintiff's light, he, H., had demised for years to the defendant. The defendant urged, that as no request had been made to him to remove the shed, the action could not be maintained, because he, as lessee, had done nothing, but merely continued the premises as he found them ; and the Court seemed disposed to allow his objection (2) ; but the lord chief justice held it clear that the plaintiff might have had an assise of nuisance against the lessor (3). In (1) 9 Eep. 58, Bland v. Moseley, cited there; S. C, cited Hutt. 136, by mistake; S. C, cited Yelv. 216, as Moseley v. Ball ; S. C, semble, cited as Altlians case, Godb. 183. See Freem. 210; 1 Eo. Ab. 566; 1 Com. Eep. 74, n. (1). (2) The plaintiff, it seems, procured judgment, to be entered for him, and the defendant was put to bis writ of error ; Cro. Jac. 373. (3) 1 Eo. Eep. 221, Bippon v. Bowles; Cro. Jac. 373 ; and it was so adjudged many years afterwards, as we B 3 10 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. this last case Houghton, J., observed, that if one have a way over another's land, and if then the way be stopped by the owner of the land, who grants a lease for years, an action on the case will lie against the lessee for a continuance of the nuisance (1). And the distinction is obvious ; because it is hardly possible but that the lessee must, in some way or other, contri- bute to the obstruction complained of, as by refusing the alleged right of passage, &c. If, however, the lessee were to be entirely passive, it might be difficult to distinguish the case of ways from that of lights. These cases have been cited as examples of prescriptions ; and it therefore appears to have been sufficient to have alleged that li^ht had entered time out of mind through the obstructed windows, whereby the plaintiff had been injured in the enjoyment of his dwelling (2). And now, under the pro- shall see by-and-by ; 1 Lord Baym. 713, Rozewell v. Prior. See post, (1) 1 Eo. Eep. 222. (2) See 1 Ventr. 248, Anon. ; Poph. 170, citing 7 E. 3, 50; in which last case the immemoriality of the right was not sufficiently pointed out ; 9 Eep. 54 ; 2 Show. 96, — ■ — v. Fetherstoii, where it was held sufficient in pleading to say a certain messuage or tenement ; although it was admitted that such a mode would be OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 11 visions of the statute, the person claiming the light, whether plaintiff or defendant, need only state the disturbance of his enjoyment in the usual manner. Referring here, for a moment, to the case of Bland v. Moseley, and to the unsuccessful defence of setting up one custom against another which was attempted there, it may be added, that it is not the solitary instance of such an effort to defeat an action for obstructing ancient lights. Custom of London. This seems to be the proper place for the mention of a very weighty custom, which has been frequently relied on for that purpose, although now, in a great measure, if not entirely, abrogated by the statute of prescrip - tion (1) ; namely, the custom of the city of London, which allowed the building up on old foundations, in certain cases, although the adjoining windows should be thereby darkened. The custom above alluded to, in the city of York, extended to the raising of new buildings where none existed before, to the disparagement bad in ejectment, because the sheriff would not know of what to give possession. (1) 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71. See post. 12 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. even of ancient lights, which was too erroneous an usage to be countenanced, for it could not be reconciled with any reasonable commence- ment. But the custom of London was confined within much narrower limits, and appears to have been as follows : " It is warrantable, by the " custom of London, to rebuild any house upon "the old foundation, where the ancient house " stood, in height at pleasure of the party, "although, by rebuilding, the lights of his " neighbour be stopped up, unless there be some " writings to the contrary" (1). So that, as the privilege would not embrace any other than ancient houses, these must be necessarily of considerable antiquity, and con- sequently the right insisted upon cannot be considered as inconveniently extensive. The Court, upon one occasion, although they gave judgment against the defendant upon the issue immediately before them, yet held the custom reasonable. They said, that it might arise on a lawful commencement or reason in cities or boroughs ; for example, a tradesman might have settled himself in a commodious part of (1) Privilejjia Londini, p. 101, cited Moo. & Malk. 351 ; and see also Godb. 183 ; Yelv. 215 ; 1 Burr. 250. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 13 the city, where, through the increase of his trade, his house might havo become (to use the words of the report) too small for his company, and then the custom would allow him to build higher, for his better habitation, because the tendency of the privilege would be to people cities, and to encourage tradesmen in such places (1). However, when no such protection or in- vitation to settle was expedient, the judges did not lean towards the establishment of such a custom, although, if it corresponded with the circumstances of the case, they did not re- fuse to take notice of it. And it is worthy of remark, before we cite the decisions upon the subject, that the defence of the custom of Lon- don upon these occasions is an exception to the well-known rule, that one custom cannot be pleaded and set up against another; because, when the recorder comes into court and certi- fies a custom of the city, the usage must be re- cognised after the filing of the certiorari and return ; and the privilege of building upon old foundations, concerning which we now speak, has received that sanction (2). (1) Yelv. 216. (2) See 1 Burr. 248, Plummet- v. Bentham. 14 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. One of the earliest cases upon the custom was, where the plaintiff declared upon his pos- session of ancient lights, and alleged, that the defendant was the owner of an adjoining house ; that he had built a house upon a yard con- tiguous, which also belonged to him, and thus that the ancient windows had been obstructed. The defendant pleaded the custom of London, and the Court declared their approbation of it, but gave judgment against the defendant be- cause he was charged with building on the yard, the void piece of ground, which had no relation to the old foundations mentioned by the custom ; and, therefore, he had not answered the plaintiff's allegations (1). So, again, the plaintiff declared for stopping three of his lights by a building in the defendant's yard, and the custom of London was set up as a de- fence. Here, however, the defendant failed in his plea, for the plaintiff had charged him with stopping all the lights and air, whereas the defendant had only justified in respect of two (1) Yelv. 215, Hughes v. Keme ; Godb. 183, nom. Hughes and Keene's case, differently reported ; 1 Bulstr. 115, nom. Hughes v. Keymish, citing Hammond v. Alsey, Pasch. 34, Eliz., that a man may build upon a new foundation. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 15 of the windows and part of the third : he ought to have pleaded not guilty to part, to have shown in certain what part, and then to have justified for the residue. So the plaintiff re- covered by the opinion of the whole Court (1). Upon a similar occasion of obstructing win- dows, the recorder came into court and certified the custom ore terms ; and thus it was : " That " if any one hath a messuage or house in the " said city, near, or contiguous and adjoining, " to another ancient messuage or house, or to " the ancient foundation of another ancient " messuage or house, in the said city, of another " person his neighbour there, and the windows " or lights of such messuage or house are " looking, fronting, or situate towards, upon, or " over, or against the said other ancient mes- " suage or house, or ancient foundation of such " other ancient messuage or house of such " other person his neighbour, so being near, " adjacent, contiguous, or adjoining, although " such messuage or house, and the lights and " windows thereof, be or were ancient, yet such " other person his neighbour, being the owner " of such other messuage or house, or ancient (1) Yelv. 225, New hall v. Barnard ; 1 Bulstr. 116. 16 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. " foundations, so being near, adjacent, or ad- joining, by and according to the custom of " the said city, in the same city, for all the time " aforesaid used and approved, well and lawfully " may, might, and hath used, at his will and " pleasure, his said other messuage or house, so " being near, adjacent, or adjoining, by build- " ing, to exalt or erect, or, if new, upon the " ancient foundations of such other messuage " or house, so being near, adjacent, or adjoining, " to build and erect a new messuage or house, " to such height as the said owner shall please, " against and opposite to the said lights and " windows near or contiguous to such other " messuage or house, and, by means thereof, to " obscure and darken such windows or lights, " unless there be, or hath been, some writing, " instrument, or record of an agreement, or " restriction to the contrary thereof, in that " behalf." But it was certified, at the same time, that there was no custom to erect any building, thus confining the privilege to the raising of mes- suages or houses. The Court, after hearing the recorder, ordered the certiorari to be filed, and the return re- corded ; but the reporter does not mention the OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 17 result of the case (1). "We may conclude, however, that the custom prevailed, the de- fendant having shown that his house stood, at all events, upon an ancient foundation ; and it had been successful in a case in the early part of the reign of Geo. 1, where King, C. J., allowed it to be given in evidence under the general issue (2). The custom came again under consideration. An action was brought by the heir of a sur- viving trustee, for an injury to the reversion of a house in Wood Street, by obstructing an ancient window. The defendant occupied the two adjoining houses. He had a sky- light placed over an area, into which the window looked. This skylight had existed for some years, but below the window ; and now the defendant, having raised it, caused the ob- struction complained of. It was shown that the ancient window had been twice blocked up between the year 1792 and the time of the action (1829) ; once, by means of boards, for seven years ; and afterwards, with bricks, for (1) 1 Burr. 248, Plummer v. Bentham. {'!) Com. Rep. 273, Anon; Winstanley v. Lee, 2 Sw. 333, post. 18 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. fourteen or sixteen months. These acts were done by the orders of an under-lessee, without the knowledge of the reversioner. The sky- light rested, on one side, on the foundation of an old wall which had divided the back-yards of the defendant's houses ; but it appeared that two of the walls only forming the area belonged to the defendant. The defendant, however, relied upon the custom of London before mentioned ; but Lord Tenterden said, that the defendant ought to have proved an ownership of all four walls in order to avail himself of the usage, and upon this a verdict passed for the plaintiff. His lordship also inclined to hold, that proof ought to be brought forward, upon such occasion, that the walls enhanced upon are as ancient as the lights obstructed (1). His lordship, moreover, declined to give any (1) Upon this the reporter observes, that the " question might become very material in cases where " both the window and foundation were older than " living memory, as the verdict would pass, in almost " all such cases, for the party who was not obliged to " produce the evidence." And again, " The number of "instances in which defendants have successfully " relied on the custom would seem to furnish con- " siderable evidence that no such proof has hitherto " been required from them." M. & M. 352, note b. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 19 opinion as to the mode which had been adopted to bring the custom before him (1). Yet the ancient custom was not abandoned without a struggle. The custom was pleaded in case, upon which the replication stated the enjoyment for twenty years. In support of the demurrer to the replication, Sir W. Follett, S. G., said, that the Act did not interfere with any right, but merely facilitated the proof of it. But as the words, " any local usage, &c, " to the contrary notwithstanding," occur in the section relating to windows alone, the custom must have been in the view of the legislature (2). This decision did not give satisfaction, and it was questioned in error from the Court of Indeed, it seems to have been understood, from the beginning, that the custom of London, being in fur- therance of trade, should prevail against a prescription of this nature, however ancient. (1) Moo. & Malk. 350, Shadwell v. Hutchinson; 3 C. & P. 617. The counsel for the defendant had read a short statement of it from the " Privilegia "Londini," observing, that as ithad been certified by the recorder, more than once, the Court would take notice of it without proof. See the statute 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71, post, superseding the custom of London in this respect. (2) Suiters' Comp. v. Jay, 5 Q. B. Ill ; 2 Gale, D. 414 ; 6 Jur. 803. 20 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. Exchequer, but the Court were quite clear against the custom (1). Before we take leave of the subject of pre- scription, it should be added here, that the right thus claimed is in respect of the house, and not of the person ; wherefore, as we shall see hereafter, lessees for years, reversioners, and others who are not seised in fee in possession, might sue for their lights, because there needed not to be a prescription in any person, inasmuch as the allegation of immemorial enjoyment was confined to the house (2) ; so that if a plaintiff were to have declared in a que estate, being a mere lessee for years, his declaration woidd have been bad upon demurrer (3). Secondly, this easement of light might have been claimed by grant ; and if the right arose, in such cases, by virtue of express concessions only, whether by deed or parol, any further mention of it might be safely neglected. Some (1) Merchant Taylors' Comp. v. Truscott, 11 Ex. 855 ; 25 L. J., Ex., 173 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 356. See, as to the power of the Court of Aldermen over lights, under 19 Car. 2, c. 3, now obsolete, 2 Salk. 425, Arnott v. Brown. (2) Cro. Car. 326. (3) See 1 Lord llaym. 226. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 21 litigation, it is true, might occasionally take place, in order to gain the due exposition of a covenant ; but still the decision would be mainly governed by the manifest and obvious intention of the grantor. The law, however, acting upon principles of equity, not unfrequently presumed a grant where no such permission expressly ap- peared ; and hence a variety of questions and difficulties have come before the consideration of the Courts, which the late Act may, in some measure, avert for the future. For the circum- stances under which these implied grants have been recognised by no means range themselves under one head : sometimes a title was made to lights immediately from the landlord of the house in which they are enjoyed ; sometimes it was contended, and often successfully, that the landlord or owner of the adjoining dwelling had impliedly yielded the licence relied on. And this latter permission, which was formerly classed under the head of implied grants, seemed afterwards to be deemed rather a co- venant by implication. For, speaking with legal strictness, an easement of light can hardly be said to be granted except upon the soil where it is enjoyed ; because light and air are not used in the land of another, as rights of 22 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. common and of way may be (1). And the right to insist upon the non- obstruction and non-interruption of light more properly arises by a covenant which the law will imply not to create such hindrance to the enjoyment of that easement (2). Therefore, by adopting this rule, we could not treat of grants, eo nomine, excepting as between landlord and tenant, assignor and assignee, vendor and vendee, &c. ; cases in which the right to the windows arises on the land where they are situate, and where it passes under the ordinary words used in con- veyances, as lights, ways, water-courses, &c. The title to the easement, when claimed by virtue of the implied conditions above men- tioned, seems to have rested upon occupancy and acquiescence ; occupancy by the party en- joying it, and acquiescence for twenty years on the part of the adjoining land-owner. There was a class of implied grants, before the new statute, or, more properly, implied covenants, which must not be omitted (3). (1) With respect to other differences between rights of way, common, &c, and lights, see Hob. 131 ; 3 Mod. 48 ; 11 East, 374 ; 2 B. & C. 690 ; 3 B. & C. 340. (2) 3 B. & C. 340, per Littledale, J. (3) We have retained the term " implied grants" OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 23 These were presumed by the law under the fol- lowing circumstances : — If windows were opened opposite or contiguous to the premises of another, it is well known that the proper course was to build up against such new lights, if they were annoyances ; but should the lights have remained thus opened and unobstructed for twenty years, they acquired prima facie a pri- vilege and protection, and an action lay for darkening them (1) ; for, by reason of so long an acquiescence by the opposite or neighbouring inhabitant or owner, he was supposed by law to have assented to the alteration, or, in other words, a grant by him was presumed (2). So that if an action on the case were prosecuted for an injury to such lights, or if the owner of the lights abated the nuisance erected against them, the plaintiff in general was held entitled to recover on the one hand, and the defendant justified in removing the obstruction under which he suffered on the other. here, because in the cases which will immediately fol- low the presumptions were considered in that light, and not as of implied covenants arising from occupancy and acquiescence according to the modern doctrine. (1) 4 Esp. 69, Cotterell v. Griffiths. (2) See 2 B. & C. 689, Bayley, J. 24 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. A point, however, of considerable importance arose out of the consideration of the latter class of implied grants, or covenants. For it is an established rule, that, where such a license is relied upon, it must appear to have been con- ceded by one who was at the time in a situation to confer the privilege. So that if it were to turn out that the landlord, or owner of the in- heritance, had not assented to the opening of the new windows, or if the occupier, by reason of his particular tenure, a rector for instance, were to be held incompetent to make the sup- posed grant, the case on the part of the plaintiff necessarily failed, unless he could prove a pre- scription against the defendant ; and hence the value of showing the easement to be immemorial was clearly evinced. The following cases will illustrate the foregoing doctrine. The plaintiff sued the defendant for having wrongfully built a high wall, so as to occasion an obstruction of the description we have been alluding to. The premises of the plaintiff adjoined those of the defendant, and in 1787 the windows in question were opened towards the defendant's property. These lights were at that time unobstructed, because the opposite building was a low bake- house, tenanted by one A. until within three OF WINDOW LIGHTS. Z-) years previously to the action (1). Sir G. "W. was the landlord, and the present defendant claimed under him. The defendant had built the erection complained of about two years since upon the site of the old bakehouse, and having raised this new wall much higher than the old premises, the plaintiff's windows were con- siderably darkened. It further appeared, that the plaintiff would not have received any great inconvenience had he not made the alterations to vindicate which he had embarked in the present suit. It was urged that the defendant stood in the place of his landlord, his rever- sioner, who could not be bound by the acquies- cence of his tenant for twenty years ; but the objection was overruled. The point was again pressed upon a motion for a new trial, and the counsel against the rule feeling the difficulty, remarked, that as Sir Gr. W.'s steward resided in the town where the dwelling-house of the plaintiff was situate, he must have seen the windows in his constant walks. But the Court answered, that the point of acquiescence was not presented to the jury ; that there was no evidence in the report to warrant any presump- (1) Which was brought in 1809—1787—22 years. C 26 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. tion of knowledge on the landlord's part, and, therefore, that the foundation of the plaintiff's claim had failed, because the ground of that would be the exercise of an adverse right against the party capable of making the grant, who was, in this case, Sir G. "W". the reversioner. The rule was accordingly made absolute (1). In the next case it appeared that the obstruc- tion complained of by the plaintiff had been erected upon glebe land belonging to a rectory, and conveyed in exchange by the rector, with the consent of the bishop and patron, to a pur- chaser under 53 G. 3, c. 147, who had con- veyed it to the defendants. The conve} T ance first mentioned was within six years before the suit, and the plaintiff's window had existed without interruption for more than twenty years. It was objected that the rector was a mere tenant for life ; that he could not, there- fore, make such a grant as would sustain the plaintiff's pretensions ; and that length of time could not operate against one who was not the owner of the inheritance. But Dallas, C. J., directed a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to move to enter a nonsuit ; and the rule ob- (1) .11 East, 372, Daniel v. North. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 27 tained for this purpose was made absolute. It is in vain to urge, said Abbott, C. J., that the house in question should have been presumed ancient, or built on an ancient site, or that the window had been there before the adjoining land had been granted to the church ; for there was no evidence at the trial from whence the jury could presume any such facts. The pur- chasers, therefore, having bought all the rights belonging to the land at the time of sale, the plaintiff must necessarily submit to have a non- suit entered (1). It is observable that in the former of these two cases the origin of the plaintiff's right to the windows was ascertained, but not so in the latter. We mention this because in the case about to be cited the presumption of a grant was allowed, the windows in question having been well known for thirty-eight years, and their beginning not having been traced. It will be asked, therefore, why a grant should be implied from hence with more truth than in Barker v. Richardson; to which it may be readily answered, that the rector could not by (1) 4 B. & A. 579, Barker v. Richardson and another. See 2 Wms. Sauncl. 175, d., Bradbury v. Grinsell. ■ c 2 28 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. possibility bind his successor ; and to have pre- sumed that the plaintiff's lights were more ancient than the rectory, would have been un- reasonable. The principle adhered to, how- ever, in the case beneath was, that every fair and sensible presumption should be entertained in favour of ancient lights ; and that as the owner, although he might not have been cog- nizant of the state of the windows, was in a condition to assent, his license should be presumed, there being no evidence as to the commencement of the easement. An action upon the case was brought for obstructing the plaintiff's ancient windows by means of a wall. Some of the witnesses represented that they had known the windows for thirty-eight years, but the origin of the lights was not fixed. The defend- ant had been the purchaser of the premises adjoining the plaintiff's house about three years before the action. These premises belonged, before the sale, to a family, no member of which, as it seemed, had ever seen them. They had been, for twenty years before the sale spoken of, in the hands of the same tenant. It was submitted, first, that as the plaintiff's windows were not at the extremity of her land, the pre- sumption of a grant did not arise ; and, secondly, OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 29 that the doctrine of presumption would not apply, for want of knowledge, on the part of the owner of the premises sold to the defendant, that the plaintiff's windows were in existence. Holroyd, J., however, treated them as ancient lights, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, giving the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit. The rule, being applied for, was re- fused. First, the position of the windows, whether at the extremity of the plaintiff's land or not, was not material, nor would it in any degree vary the rights of the parties. Secondly, had the plaintiff's easement commenced during the tenancy of twenty years, the defendant's objection might have prevailed ; or, had the evidence of that tenancy gone back as far as the existence of the windows, it would have been material to have inquired whether they had or not the appearance of ancient lights at that time ; but here they could not be taken otherwise than as ancient lights, unless some evidence had been offered to contradict that fact, and, consequently, the plaintiff was en- titled to recover (1). (1) 2 B. & C. 636, Cross v. Lewis See the judg- ment of Littledale, J., 3 B. & C. 339, as applicable to all these cases. 30 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. Thirdly, a title to light might have arisen by occupancy and acquiescence for twenty years, or less, perhaps, under the particular circum- stances of the case. As where a lodger occupied the first and second floors of a house. He had thereby a right to the skylight of the staircase, and case lay for obstruction (1). Originally, indeed, such easements could hardly be considered as commencing in any other way than by occupancy ; but as the claims to the use of windows used to be made most frequently in respect of some prescription or grant, we have mentioned the latter in the first instance, according to the law which prevailed before the 2 W. 3, c. 71, to which we shall immediately advert. And here it is observable, that although the presumption of an implied grant prevailed after an user of light acquiesced in for twenty years, yet, by applying the doctrine of occupancy and acquiescence to those cases, the result was the same. Consequently, the decisions lately cited show, first, that if a party assented to the enjoyment of windows put out from a neigh - (1) Underwood v. Burrows, 7 C. & P. 26. The lodger has a right to the door-bell, the knocker, the skylight, and the water-closet. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 31 bouring house, during a period of twenty years, by offering no interruption to them, he was considered, not as having impliedly conferred a grant prior to the commencement of the user, but as having tacitly entered into an agreement or covenant that, after so long an enjoyment, neither he, nor those claiming un- der him, would molest the free advantage of a right which owed its birth to mere occupancy ; and, secondly, that the person thus submitting silently to this condition must have been proved to have been cognizant of the enjoy- ment so substantiated by lapse of time, or, being cognizant, that he was so circumstanced as to have been able to yield the acquiescence required by law ; and it is not unworthy of remark, that where the adjoining premises were on lease, the period of adverse possession for twenty years could not be otherwise reckoned than from the time when the reversioner became acquainted with the existence of the lights ; a question, it seems, peculiarly for the attention of the jury. We have thus shewn, that, according to the old law, the privilege of light could be claimed by prescription, by grants, either express or implied, and by occupancy. Now, however, the new statute of prescription has interfered, 32 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. conferring at once an absolute right after twenty years, and abolishing all presumptions of grants within that period. For in those cases where it has been held, that the grantor of an estate cannot derogate from his own conveyance, the law will rather imply a covenant than a grant. It is enacted by the third section of 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71, that when the access and use of light, to and for an} r dwelling-house, workshop, or other building, shall have been enjoyed therewith for the full period of twenty years, without interruption, the right thereof shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, any local usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding, un- less it shall appear that the same was enjo} r ed by some consent or agreement expressly made or given for that purpose by deed or writing. This third section is retrospective ; therefore, where windows were enjoyed in 1815, the ease- ment had accrued (1). By section 4, — The periods are to be deemed to be those next before suits for claims are brought, and nothing shall be said to be an interruption unless submitted to for one year after the party interrupted shall have had (1) Simper v. Foley, 2 Johns & H. 555. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 33 or shall have notice thereof, and of the person causing the interruption. The words " any suit or action" are worthy of notice. If an occupier enjoy light for the full period of twenty years, and after that period if an action be brought, and again, subsequently, if another action be instituted concerning the same premises, the period of twenty years will count as from the first action. The term of twenty years is indefeasible. Therefore, upon demurrer to a replication setting out an action in Chancery, and another in the Common Pleas, prior to both of which the time had run out, the Court refused to limit the title under sections 3 and 4, to the pending suit, but referred it to any sivit, so that judgment passed for the plaintiff (1). The third section, said Mr. Justice Coleridge, " seems to me to simplify and almost " new erect the right to light and the mode ',' of acquiring the access of it. It founds it on " actual enjoyment for the full period of twenty " years without interruption, unless that enjoy- " ment is shewn to have been by consent or (1) Cooper v. Hubbuck, 9 Jur. 575 ; 12 C. B. 456. So is Frewen v. Phillips, as to indefeasibility after twenty years ; 11 C. B. 449 ; 7 Jur. {N. S.) 1246; 30 L. J., C. P., 356. C 3 34 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. " agreement expressly made by deed or writ- "ing"(l). And by section 6, — In the several cases men- tioned in and provided for by the Act no pre- sumption shall be allowed or made in favour or support of any claim, upon proof of the exercise or enjoyment of the right or matter claimed for any less period of time or number of years than for such period or number mentioned in this Act, as may be applicable to the case and to the nature of the claim. It seems to follow, from this legislative provision, that lights may now be claimed, first, in respect of twenty years' possession, without interruption ; secondly, by express grant ; and lastly, by virtue of such an implied grant or covenant as will prevent a grantor or lessor from impeaching his own deed or license. Now, although the period of twenty years may be defeated by an interruption, yet if nine- teen years elapse, the person enjoying lights may be in a more favourable position than before, because, as soon as the period of nineteen years has turned, the right at the end of twenty years becomes absolute, notwithstanding the (1) In Truscott v. The Merchant Taylors Company, in error on a bill of exceptions ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 357. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 35 pendency of an action ; for as there must be an acquiescence for a year, the twentieth year of enjoyment must elapse before the period for acquiescence. Under such circumstances it was held that the plaintiff acquired a title under the statute. The interruption had not been ac- quiesced in for one year. Maule, J., considered the omission of the words "as of right" to have happened on purpose. So if the inter- ruption should take place within the twenty years, and then the twenty years should elapse, and afterwards, but ivithin the year, an action should be brought, the case will be the same (1). An obstruction had existed for more than one year, when a promise was made to remove it. Before twelve months had elapsed since the promise, proceedings were taken by the owner of the light. The interruption was held insufficient (2). A verbal permission will suffice under the (1) Flight v. Thomas, 3 Per. & D. 402 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 811. The plea must show an easement, else it will be bad, even after verdict ; 7 Dowl. P. C. 741., Flight v. Thomas. This judgment was affirmed in the House of Lords, 11 Ad. & El. 688 ; 8 CI. & F. 231 ; 1 West, 671. (2) Gale v. Abbot, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 987. 36 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. statute, and the enjoyment needs not to be adverse. The actual user for twenty years will make the right absolute. The defendant pro- posed to give evidence of a negotiation for an agreement to enjoy this light, and that the agreement could not be found. But Tindal, C. J., said, that if it were so, no defence against obstruction would be disclosed (1). 1. By Twenty Years' Possession. Whatever opinions might have prevailed before the Act, upon the possibility of acquiring a title, within twenty years, to undisturbed lights, it is now finally settled, that such a term alone will give the right at present. There is an end, therefore, of the notion of mere occupancy yielding the privilege. To a great extent, indeed, the section now before us upholds the presumptions which were so often combated under the old law. The pre- sumptions are abolished ; but the term whicli they almost universally favoured is at once (1) The Mayor, fyc, of London v. The Pewterers' Company, 2 Moo. & Hob. 409. The litigation upon the statute of prescriptions as to lights was foreseen by the writers in " The Jurist" soon after the Act had passed. See 1 Jur. 810, 859 ; 2 Jut. 125. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 37 adopted. At first it was impossible to gain an invincible title without an absolutely prescrip- tive proof ; then the term of twenty years was struggled for with various success ; and now, lastly, it is fixed by statute as an indefeasible bar to let or hindrance. Before the statute the claim of twenty years made out a prima facie case ; now it is conclusive. But the Act has a much more extensive scope than may at first bo imagined. It seems, that reversioners of all kinds are bound after this term of twenty years ; for it will be observed, that the eighth section relates to ways and water-courses only. Those authorities, accordingly, which involve the question of cognizance or not on the part of a landlord, or of inability to confer a grant in the case of ecclesiastical persons, are now no longer applicable after the twenty years. The principles laid down in Daniel v. North, Cross v. Lewis, and Barker v. Richardson, will not now prevail against possession for the term alluded to. If a man lease for years, and his tenant permit the user of lights for twenty years, the landlord can no longer interfere, as rever- sioner, at the end of the term, though he may sue, as reversioner, during its existence. If a man lease for twenty-one years, and his tenant 38 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. permit the easement of a new light, the lessor must interest himself before twenty years have elapsed, or he will be finally concluded. In such a case, also, as Barker v. Richardson, before mentioned, the claim of the plaintiff would now be held good. Nevertheless, it fol- lows from hence, that, as on the one hand, this term will now give an absolute right ; on the other, it is competent, generally speaking, to build up against lights at any period within twenty years. And here we have mentioned, that, accord- ing to the fourth section, an act of interruption must be acquiesced in for one year after notice both of the thing done as well as of the person authorizing or causing it. Therefore, if, under ordinary circumstances, A. be desirous of destroying B.'s title to light before the end of twenty years, he must give B. notice of his act, as well as his own partici- pation in it; and then if B. submit to or acqui- esce in the disturbance for one year, he will lose his claim to the uninterrupted enjoyment he otherwise would acquire. It seems, also, that the notice should be given to the landlord as well as to B. the tenant, otherwise the former might set up a want of notice against the evi- OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 39 denco of interruption. In this case, it is sug- gested, that presumptions will not be wholly shut out ; for, upon occasions of very obvious interruptions, it is not unlikely but that judges will direct juries to presume notice, especially where the acquiescence of both tenant and re- versioner appears probable. The best method, consequently, in fitting up boards or palings, or building in any way so as to obstruct light, will be to serve both parties with notice, and that will be such an interruption as the law contem- plates within this section. The interruption must be of a physical cha- racter. The payment of rent is not such. An interruption within the meaning of the third section must be such an interruption as is con- templated by the fourth section. There must be a discontinuance of the enjoyment by reason of an obstruction submitted to or acquiesced in for a year. Judgment reversed upon error in error from a bill of exceptions to the riding of Pollock, C B. (1). [Unless it shall appear that the same are (1) The Plasterers' Company v. The Parish Clerks' Company, 6 Ex. 639. Error from the Exchequer upon a bill of exceptions to the ruling of Pollock, C. B. Judgment reversed. 20 L. J., Ex., 362; 15 Jur. 965. 40 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. enjoyed by some consent or agreement, &c] These words hardly need any explanation. They mean, that if the owner of a house should suffer his neighbour, for instance, to put out a light, the license being granted by deed, the right to such a window should not be deemed absolute, even after twenty years' enjoyment, because of the prior consent and sufferance. Such a case might occur in workshops adjoin- ing each other, where a mutuality of light might be convenient, and, indeed, on other occasions. 2^-3. By Grants or Covenants, expressed or implied. Express grants, or covenants, as we have already observed, need scarcely any mention, because their meaning is too plain in general for mistake ; but if a landlord lease his house to A., and then, having made no reservation of the lights, he seek to obstruct the windows of the dwelling which he has demised, here he is acting in contravention, not of an express, but of an implied grant ; for he must be taken to have yielded up all the benefits and appur- tenances of the things demised ; and to bear him harmless in interfering with his tenant's OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 41 light, would be to enable hirn to derogate from his own grant, which the law will not allow. Upon such an occasion it was found in vain to allege the want of antiquity in the house. The defendant had fixed boards to the windows of the plaintiff's house ; the latter brought his action for a nuisance ; and the Court were quite clear in favour of the plaintiff (1). And Hale, C. J., said, that if a man were to build a house upon his own ground, and then grant the house to A., and also certain lands adjoining to B., B. could not build up against the lights of A. A fortiori, the defendant's conduct on this occasion could not be justified (2). A case decided in the Common Pleas, at Westminster, contains nearly a similar statement of facts. Here the landlord owned two adjoining houses, each of which had some ancient windows. He leased one of these houses to B., who assigned it to Gr., and Gr. took a new lease from the land- lord in the next year. Then, with respect to the other house, the landlord leased that also to (1) 1 Ventr. 237, Cox v. Matthews; 3 Keb. 133; 6 Mod. 116, Rosewell v. Prior j 1 Ld. Raym. 713; Holt, 500. (2) 1 Ventr. 239. See 2 Ho. Rep. 241, Gioin v. Dampori. 42 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. C, in tlie same year in which the new lease was granted to Gr. ; and it is important to observe, that the new lease to Gr. was made before that to C. Some alteration had been made in the windows of C.'s house before the demise to him, and Gr. having obstructed these altered lights, an action upon the case was brought by C. Upon the disclosure of these facts, Lord Chief Justice Tindal held, that although the interests of G.'s term, which came to him by assignment, would not have been affected by the landlord's lease to C. without more, yet that, by accepting a new lease from the landlord, Gr. surrendered the old term by operation of law ; consequently, the new lease, being derived out of the land- lord's reversion, became subject to the rights already granted by the landlord to C. There- fore, the jury having found that the alteration in the windows took place before the lease to C, the landlord could neither be held compe- tent to obstruct them himself, nor to convey to any other person a right to do so. There was a verdict for the plaintiff (1). This decision proves that the tenant cannot obstruct lights with greater impunity than the (1) Moo. & Malk. 396, Coutts v. Gorham. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 43 landlord, because the original implied grant continues so as to give a right of action against the lessee or assignee. The tenant, in fact, cannot stand in a better position than his landlord. Therefore, if the landlord cannot obstruct, an injunction will be granted against the tenant (1). So again, if, instead of letting the property, as in the last case, the owner dispose of it absolutely, the law remains the same, for the vendee cannot exercise more general rights than his vendor. A case, much relied upon since, has established this point. A man had erected a house upon his own land, and he then sold the house to one person, and the adjoining ground to another. The vendee of the land, however, obstructed the lights of the house by piling up timber, and upon this an action was brought. The Court took some time to consider of their decision, and one (2) of the judges dissented from his brethren when judgment was given ; but the majority (3) held, that the plaintiff should recover. Kelyng, J., seemed to (1) Davies v. Marshall, 1 Drew & Sm. 557 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 720. (2) Kelyng. (3) Twisden and Wyndham. 44 or WINDOW LIGHTS. intimate, that if the land were sold first, and the house afterwards, the vendee of the former might stop the lights ; but to this it was answered, by Twisden, J., that in either case the easement could not be obstructed in the hands of the vendor or his assignees. The plaintiff accordingly had judgment (1). Twisclen, J., added that the matter had been argued, and distinctions taken, in a prior action brought con- cerning a house in Shoe Lane, and that the decision was in favour of the plaintiff (2). Here, again, the implied grant was recog- nised ; and, notwithstanding the resistance of Judge Kelyng, the determination in question was acted upon as good authority in a com- paratively modern case. Two houses, part of a range of buildings, and built at the same time, were sold by auction by the same proprietor. A. bought one, and the defendant the other. (1) 1 Lev. 122, Palmer v. Fletcher; Th. Kaym. 87; 1 Sid. 167 ; 2 Keb. 553, 625, 794; S. C, cited 1 Show. 64. It seems that there were two judgments in this case, one on special verdict, the other on demurrer, and that the damages awarded under the writ of in- quiry were as much as the rent of the house. The Court thought the measure of damages outrageous, and stayed the filing of the writ; 2 Keb. 836. (-2) 1 Sid. 167 ; 1 Lev. 122. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 45 A. granted a lease of his purchase to the plaintiff for twenty-one years. The defendant having built an additional room, which inter- cepted his, plaintiff's, light, he went to trial at the Gloucester assizes, but was nonsuited by Graham, B., with liberty to apply to enter a verdict in his favour, with nominal damages. Much attention was paid to the arguments on both sides by the Court, and the result was, that they considered Palmer v. Fletcher to be decisive upon the question; that the plaintiff ought not to sustain a derogation of any right which he acquired by his purchase ; and that, as the openings for windows were sufficiently visible at the time of the sale, the Court could not do otherwise than recognise an implied condition, that nothing would afterwards be done to obstruct the light. And Mr. Baron Wood considered that the plaintiff had claimed a right by grant upon this occasion, and that when the house was granted to A., the lessor, he became as fully the grantee of everything necessary to its enjoyment, as though it had been said at the time that no one should obstruct the then existing light. The rule, was, there- fore, made absolute (1). {!) 1 Price, 27, Comptonx. Richards. See2Atk.,83, 46 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. But if openings be left in walls, so undefined as to make it uncertain whether they have been left for doors or windows, no implied grant can be entertained. An easement of this kind must be apparent and continuous, so that a claim of a right of way failed under such circumstances ; whereas there being a clear development of one window, as far as that, the plaintiff was held to be entitled to a verdict (1). It is, perhaps, worthy of remark here, that not only does the right to the easement of light belong to the purchaser or lessee upon occasions such as those we have just spoken of, but the privilege also of resisting and vindicating any intrusions on or interruptions of that easement ; and it will be easily perceived that the learned baron took this extended view of the subject ; for, in many conveyances, the word " appurtenances " is used, under which lights will pass as of course ; or (which is more frequent) the word " lights " is particularly mentioned, and thus there is an express grant so far ; but in the instances above The East India Company v. Vincent. But we shall find that a stranger may obstruct lights under the cir- cumstances mentioned in the last pages, when we come to speak of "obstructions." (1) Glave v. Harding, 27 L. J., Ex., 286. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 47 cited a title to the future enjoyment of the grant absolutely and uninterruptedly is con- sidered to have been conveyed by implication. And in a late case of a similar kind it was held to make no difference that, in the conveyance to the plaintiff, his house was described as bounded by building ground belonging to the defendant. It had been insinuated, in argu- ment, that the plaintiff had taken his house subject to future erections ; else, it was said, that the words "building ground" had no 'meaning (1). Now, in this last case of implied covenants, it does not seem that the statute will make any difference, notwithstanding the abolition of pre- sumptions ; for both the third and sixth sec- tions have obvious reference to cases where time is of the essence of the matter ; whereas in the decisions just cited another term is brought into the proposition, namely, a common law principle, that a man shall not, directly or in- directly, avoid his own grant. This act of the landlord or vendor operates, as it were, by estoppel. The doctrine of prescription as con- templated by the statute seems to be beside (1) 9.Biii^. 305, Swansborough v. Coventry. 48 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. the question, and another principle intervenes, which prohibits a man from nullifying his own deed. It is presumed, therefore, that the sixth section does not apply to the last mode of claiming lights ; that parties taking under the same conveyance cannot build up against each other ; and that a lessor cannot do his tenant a wrong in this respect, even within the term of twenty years from the commencement of the respective interests. By section 5 it is declared, that in all actions upon the case, and other pleadings wherein the party claiming may now, by law, allege his right generally, without averring the existence of such right from time immemorial, such general allegation shall still be deemed sufficient ; and if the same shall be denied, all and every the matters in this Act mentioned and provided, which shall be applicable to the case, shall be admissible as evidence to sustain or rebut such allegation ; and that in all pleadings to actions of trespass, and. in all other pleadings wherein, before the passing of this Act, it would have been necessary to allege the right to have existed from time immemorial, it shall be sufficient to allege the enjoyment thereof as of right, by the occupiers of the tenement in OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 40 respect whereof the same is claimed, for and during sucli of the periods mentioned in this Act as may be applicable to the case, and without claiming in the name and right of the owner thereof, as is now usually done ; and if the other party shall intend to rely on any proviso, exception, incapacity, disability, contract, agree- ment, or other matter hereinbefore mentioned, or on any cause or matter of fact or of law not inconsistent with the simple fact of enjoyment, the same shall be specially alleged and set forth in answer to the allegation of the party claiming, and shall not be received in evidence on any general traverse or denial of such allegation. So that under this section the right is to be pleaded in the same manner as you declare in actions for disturbance, and the answer to the action is to be specially replied. Lastly, by section 7 there is a proviso that the time during which any person, otherwise capable of resisting any claim to any of the matters before mentioned, shall have been or shall be an infant, idiot, non compos mentis, feme-covert, or tenant for life, or during which any action or suit shall have been pending, and which shall have been diligently prosecuted, 50 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. until abated by the death of any party or parties thereto, shall be excluded in the computation of the periods hereinbefore men- tioned, except only in cases where the right or claim is hereby declared to be absolute and indefeasible. Therefore it follows, that as the privilege of lio-ht is declared to be absolute and indefeasible after twenty years' possession, the rights of the persons mentioned in the proviso will be barred after that time, notwithstanding their respective incapacities. A license to put up a ladder is not a license to put out a window in answer to a request for that purpose. Therefore the plaintiff, who made no answer to the request about the window, although he gave leave to put up the ladder, was allowed to obstruct the window when put out (1). These parties became again involved in law respecting light. Blanchard brought an action against Bridges for an ob- struction. Blanchard shewed that Bridges had witnessed the progress of the building, and that he was a party to the deed which gave Blanchard a title to the house, Bridges having (1) Bridges v. Blanchard, 3 Nev. & M. 692. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 51 sold the adjoining land to Blanchard. . . . This was no license from Bridges for Blanchard to put out windows, nor was it a covenant. Bridges, in permitting Blanchard to build to the extremity of his land, expressly reserved to himself the right of building to the extremity of his own land (1). (1) Blanchard v. Bridges, 4 Ad. & El. 176; 5 Nev. & M. 567. D 2 52 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. CHAPTER II. User of Lights. It will not be necessary for us to enter at length upon this subject of user, for many of the points relating to it are necessarily involved in the consideration of obstructions (to which we shall immediately hasten), and there is not any remedy, in general, for an undue and im- proper use of this easement, except the building up against it, which raises instantly the question of obstruction. The well-known maxim, however, Sic utere tuo ut alienum non Icedas, is one which every one entitled to the enjoyment of lights will do well to remember, since, although no action may be sustainable for an immoderate enlargement, or other un- justifiable use of windows, serious inconveniences may arise from the efforts of other parties to block up or restrain the nuisance. Thus, where the plaintiff had removed some blinds which fronted the defendant's garden, and thus acquired a much larger easement of light than OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 53 lie possessed before, a paling, put up by the defendant to resist the innovation, seems only to have been held illegal by Lord Kenyon because, in fact, it made the plaintiff's rooms more dark than they had been before the taking away of the blinds (1). The defendant had exceeded the right which he possessed, of repelling the nuisance, by diminishing the quantum of light enjoyed previously by the plaintiff, which it was deemed by the learned Chief Justice incompetent for him to do. So, again, where the plaintiff had raised and en- larged an ancient window, the defendant, the owner of the adjoining ground, erected a building which covered several inches of the space occupied by the old window, still, how- ever, admitting more light to pass through the new than the plaintiff had enjoyed before the alteration ; and here, again, the plaintiff re- covered, although, had the defendant acted with judgment, he might have repressed this undue user of the light on the part of the plaintiff; for Mr. Justice Le Blanc, who tried the cause, admitted, that the defendant might have obstructed the enlarged part of the (1) 4 Esp. 69, Cotterell v. Griffiths. 54 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. window, but that he clearly could not invade any of the space occupied by the window as it originally stood ; the light and air must pass through an ancient window as formerly ; for, to the extent of its size, in the first instance, it is privileged (1). It is dangerous to meddle with the ancient mode of user. The easement may be altogether lost (2). The plaintiff and the defendant had houses in the same court at opposite sides. Nineteen years before the action the plaintiff rebuilt his house, putting new windows into a raised story, and altering the dimensions of the old windows. At length, in 1850, the defendant rebuilt, and raised a story likewise, obstructing both the new and old lights of the plaintiff. It was proved that the defendant could not have succeeded in blocking out the new windows without in some way meddling with the privileged windows. A verdict having passed for the plaintiff, the Court held, that (1) 3 Camp. 80, Chandler v. Thompson; and see also, on this subject, 2 Vern. 646; 2 Atk. 83, where it was said, that if you open a window against another, he may build up against you. (2) Garritt v. Sharpe, 3 Ad. & El. 320; 4 Nev. & M. 834. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 55 the action was not maintainable (1). When one of two neighbours, occupying houses near each other, raises his house a story, he em- powers the other to do the same at any time within twenty years (2). Again, the plaintiff thought fit to alter the position of two windows, so as to raise a question as to the right of the defendant to obstruct, and Kin- dersley, Y. C, directed an action at law, making in the meantime an interim order as beneficial as might be to both parties (3). It was no good objection that the plaintiff was not the occupier, nor had any intention of occupying. So, again, the owner of an opposite house altered his lights both in position and size, and confounded them in some measure with new windows. The other owner could not obstruct these new lights without building (1) Renshaw v. Bean, 18 Q. B. 112 ; 10 Jur. 811 ; 21 L. J., Q. B., 219. (2) 16 Jur. 817; 21 L. J., Q. B., 223, Lord Campbell, C. J. (3) Wilson v. Toionend, 4 Drew & Sin. 324 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1109 ; 30 L. J., Ch., 25. As to the order, see Sutton v. Montfort, 4 Sim. 565. Kindersley, V. C, intin ated his preference of Chandler v. Thompson over Renshaw v. Bean, had not the latter been decided in full Court. 56 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. against some portions of the old windows. These were not the identical unchanged lights, and the plaintiff here compelled the owner of the servient tenement to build up against this ancient section of windows (1). So it was where the plaintiff enlarged some ancient, and put out some new windows, upon which the defendant, being unable to block out the new lights without in some way obstructing the old, built a wall. The plaintiff then restored the windows to their ancient state. But he had aban- doned his rights. In any other way the defendant would not only have lost the costs of his building caused by the plaintiff, but he would likewise be liable in damages. The verdict was entered for the defendant (2). However, if, instead of building the wall, the plaintiff had applied to a Court of equity, the restoration of the windows to their ancient state would have been directed, and an injunc- tion would have issued to hinder any ob- (1) Hutcliinson v. Copestake, in error, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 863 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 54 ; 31 L. J., C. P., 19. (2) Jones v. Tapling, in error, 11 C. B. 283; 12 C. B. 826; 31 L. J., C. P., 110, 142 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 462. See comments upon these cases, 9 Jur. pt. 2, p. 175. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 57 struction of the old windows after the restora- tion. But the plaintiff must not incur un- necessary delay. In that case the party injured will be left to his rights at law, and the Court of Chancery will retain the bill for a year (1). (1) Cooper v. Hubbuck, 30 Beav. 160 ; 31 L. J., Ch., 123 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 457. See also Turner v. Spooner, 1 Drew & Sm. 467 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1068 ; 30 L. J., Ch., 801, post. 58 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. CHAPTER III. Obstructions to Lights. We now come to that which is, perhaps, the most important topic connected with this subject ; namely, obstructions to light. This point deserves particular attention, because it is not every interruption of the nature above mentioned which will support an action or suit ; for there are many acts which occasion the deprivation of accustomed light, and yet the individual incommoded is not entitled to any redress : it therefore becomes of some moment to ascertain what shall be said in law to be an obstruction. On several occasions, too, an inconvenience, occasioned by shutting out the usual supply of light and air, cannot be remedied in any respect ; as, for instance, the destruction of a prospect in consequence of intervening buildings. And, again, assuming that the injury done has been such as would warrant the bringing of an action, possibly the house obstructed may not be within the pro- OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 59 tection of the law upon the occasion, and thus the proceedings might fail upon that ground. Then, further, supposing that not only the mischief done were sufficient to justify a suit, but that the house were, under ordinary cir- cumstances, a privileged place, still, there might (as we shall fully see by-and-by) be answers to such an action, of a character which would warrant the judges in holding that no legal obstruction had been, in fact, committed, and, consequently, that the plaintiff could have no redress. The subject seems to divide itself into three parts : — 1. What shall be said, literally speaking, to be such an obstruction as the law will take notice of? 2. What houses shall be considered so pri- vileged as that it may not be lawful to darken their windows ? and what not ? 3. What are the remedies allowed by law in cases of stopping lights ? Nature of Obstructions. As to the first point, it is observed by Lord Coke, that the common law prohibits the build- ing of any edifice so as to be a common nuisance, 60 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. or a nuisance to any man in Iris house, as the stopping up of his light, &c. (1), which means the light of his house. For the use of an open space of ground, in a particular way, re- quiring light and air, for twenty years, does not give a right to preclude tlue adjoining owner from building on his land so as to obstruct the light and air (2). But the light of a manufactory will be regarded, as where the plaintiff and defendant held adjoining pieces of ground under a common landlord, and the plaintiff then erected a manu- factory with his landlord's leave, and without objection by the defendant. The Court granted an interim injunction, the plaintiff undertaking to bring an action forthwith, and make good damages (3). An individual who complains that his win- dows have been interrupted must be taken to have enjoyed the easement of light for a certain time previous to the obstruction, and (1) 3 last. 201 ; 9 Rep. 58, Aldred's case. (2) Roberts v. Macord, 1 Moo. & Rob. 230. The same principle with reference to air applies to a windmill ; Webb v. Bird, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 621 ; 30 L. J., C. P., 384. (3) Crook v. Wilson, 3 W. R. 378. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. Gl the test of the injury is, whether the accus- tomed portion of light has or not been ma- terially diminished. It is not necessary that a total privation of light should be sustained in order to make good the charge, nor that the wrong inflicted should strictly verify the old precedent, namely, Quod messuagium horridd tenebritate obscuratum fuit. The principal ques- tion for the consideration of the jury seems to be, whether the plaintiff's house has been ren- dered more uncomfortably dark than before the nuisance. Thus the plaintiff proved, in an action on the case, that he was possessed of an ancient house, the windows of which looked into the defendant's garden, and that the defendant had erected a large paling, which had completely darkened them. The defence was, that these windows had never been completely open, by reason of certain blinds, fastened to the frames, and which prevented the plaintiff from seeing into the defendant's garden : the blinds sloped upwards, and only served for the admission of light. It was further said, that the plaintiffhad thrown down these blinds, and had thus acquired an uninterrupted view over the defendant's pre- mises; that it was not competent for the plaintiff, who had only a qualified right, to make the 62 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. alteration complained of, and thus possess him- self of an easement in every respect unqualified ; and that the defendant, therefore, was justified in preventing a mode of enjoyment to which the other party was not entitled. Upon this Lord Kenyon asked, whether the paling thus erected had made the rooms darker than when the blinds were up ; and, being answered in the affirma- tive, his lordship said, that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover, and a verdict was accordingly returned in his favour (1). So where a plaintiff has enlarged a window in his dwelling-house, both in height and width, by substituting a sash frame for a leaded case- ment, Le Blanc, J., held, that although that part of the new window which constituted the enlargement might be lawfully obstructed, yet (1) 4 Esp. 69, Cotterell v. Griffiths. The defendant complained also, upon this occasion, that the plaintiff had disturbed the privacy of his garden by removing the blinds. It is observable, that no action can be maintained for an intrusion of this sort, although it has been said that such proceedings may be read of in the books ; but Lord Chief Justice Eyre has declared, that the party injured cannot sue for the grievance, the only remedy being to build on the adjoining land, opposite to the offensive window ; 3 Camp. 82, by Le Blanc, J., at Shrewsbury. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. G3 that the whole of the space occupied by the an- cient window was privileged, without refer- ence to any advantage the plaintiff might have derived by changing the form of the window (1). Yet this case must be read with attention. If there be no encroachment on the old site, but only an enlargement, affording greater facilities of light, the adjoining owner cannot reduce the light. There is no alteration in the aperture or position, but only in the framework and glazing. Moreover, the owner of the dominant tenement is not confined to a particular species of user (2). The case is different where an encroachment occurs. Here, although the defendant could not obstruct the new, without in some measure meddling with the old lights, an injunction was refused. In order to obtain the injunction, the plaintiff must close the new light, and restore the ancient position (3). Thus it has been proved, that those obstructions which darken the accustomed lights of a house are in their nature objectionable, and that a defendant will be un- (1) 3 Camp. 80, Chandler v. Thompson. (2) Turner v. Spooner, 1 Drew & Sm. 467 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1068 ; 30 L. J., Ch., 804. (3) Weatherley v. Boss, 32 L. J., Cli., 128. Een- shuw v. Bean was approved. 18 Q. B. 112 ; 21 L. J., Q. B., 219 ; 16 Jur. 814. 64 OF "WINDOW LIGHTS. able to resist a verdict where the creation of sucli nuisances is brought home to him. But it will be clearly perceived, from hence, how im- portant it is for a jury to consider the quantum of light enjoyed, because a plaintiff is not enti- tled to a verdict at their hands which may es- tablish a more extended easement than he has been wont to enjoy (1) ; so that, in Chandler v. Thompson, the defendant's error consisted, not in raising an obstruction to the plaintiff's light, but in building his paling so high as to hinder his neighbour from the benefit of that portion of light which came in at the windows when the blinds were up, that is to say, before the altera- tion. So, admitting the right to obstruct a new light, if in so doing the ancient light is un- avoidably abridged, the act may be justified. But the facts must appear on the record, so that, for want of a plea to that effect, judgment passed for the plaintiff (2). Some decisions shall be immediately cited to illustrate this dis- tinction, and show the dividing point, as it were, (1) Therefore not for an increase of light by enlarging windows ; by Wilmot, C. J., in Dovgal v. Wilson, cited 2 Wms. Saund. 175, (a) ; S. P., 2 Vern. 646, Cherring- ton x.Abney. (2) Blnkes v. Push, 11 C. B. 324; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 360 ; 31 L. J., C. P., 121. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 65 between the accustomed supply and an excess of light. An action on the case was brought for stop- ping up ancient lights. It appeared that the plaintiff's house had been used for twenty years as a malt-house, and had been subsequently converted into a dwelling, that is to say, a parish workhouse, which was inhabited by pau- pers. The defendant had set up a wall on the adjoining ground, of which he was the owner, and this was the nuisance complained of ; and here the distinction above adverted to was clearly recognised by Lord C. B. Macdonald. The question was, whether such a quantity of light had been obstructed by the alteration as would have made the house, in its ancient state, as a malt-house, more dark than before. No man could, by any act of his own, suddenly im- pose a restriction upon his neighbour : the jury would consider, therefore, whether a proper degree of light for the purpose of making malt had been prevented from entering, in conse- quence of the wall which the defendant had erected. The verdict was for the defendant (1). (1) 1 Camp. 320, Martin v. Goble. 66 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. Best, C. J., carried this point a little further, in a case where the issues were, first, whether the plaintiff's ancient lights belonging to his house in the city of Norwich had been illegally obstructed by a certain building of the de- fendant ; and, secondly, as to the extent of the damage sustained, the first issue being found in the affirmative. It appeared in evi- dence, that the plaintiff's light had certainly been diminished, and it was therefore con- tended that he was, at all events, entitled to a verdict upon the first issue, any obstruction of lights being illegal. But Best, C. J., told the jury, that it was not sufficient to constitute a legal obstruction that the plaintiff' had, in fact, less light than before, nor that his warehouse, which was the place principally affected, could not be used for all the purposes to which it might otherwise have been applied. There must be, added the C. J., a substantial pri- vation of light, in order to maintain the pre- sent issue, such as to render the house uncom- fortable, and to prevent the plaintiff from car- rying on his business as beneficially as before. The jury were then directed to distinguish be- tween a partial inconvenience and a real injury. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 67 The verdict was for the defendant on both the issues (1), " In the case of obstruction of light," said Lord Denman, " we leave it to the jury whether " any real inconvenience is sustained, though " some light may demonstrably have been "obscured" (2). It should be remarked here, that this deci- sion does not clash with that of Cotterell v. Griffiths, before cited, inasmuch as the high paling obviously darkened the premises of the plaintiff, in the latter case, in a manner ex- tremely prejudicial to the enjoyment of his dwelling ; and it will be recollected, that the last authorities which we have mentioned relate to obstructions in houses used for the purpose of trade, where a partial diminution of light does not always create so baneful an effect as would happen, under such circumstances, in rooms used exclusively for habitation. Thus, it may be said, that such an intermption of lights as will render a dwelling less comfortable, or a place of business less beneficial, will be an injury for which an action may be maintained. (1) 2C.& P. 465, Bach v. Stacey ; Parker v. Smith, 5 C. & P. 438. (2) In H. v. Sharpe, 3 Eailw. Ca. 35. C8 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. The defendant erected a building opposite to certain windows, and a question arose as to the amount of light withdrawal. Lord Deninan said, that to sustain the action a considerable diminution of light must have been suffered, and that merely taking off a ray or two of light would be insufficient (1). So where the build- ing causing the obstruction was separated from the windows obstructed by a public street in the metropolis, it was left to the jury to say whether there had been any substantial diminu- tion of light. And the judge observed, that whether the intervention of a public street would be a good defence, was matter of law (2). An upright screen of translucent plated glass, raised thirty-five feet from the ground, and at a dis- tance of thirty feet from the adjoining house, was held not to be an obstruction (3). Hence, it will be easily conceded, that a pros- pect cannot be held so valuable to the person who enjoys it, as to enable him to sue for an obstruction of it. Thus, it was said, in an old (1) Pringle v. Wenham, 7 C. & P. 377. Verdict for plaintiff. (2) Roe v. Marquis ofWestmeath,1 L. T. 82. (3) Badclife v. Duke of Portland^ Jur. (N. S.) 1007 ; 3 Giff. 702. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 69 case, by Wray, C. J., that no action lies for stopping a prospect, which is a matter only of delight, and not of necessity ; and yet, said the learned Chief Justice, it is a great commendation of a house if it has a long and large prospect (1). Nevertheless, it seems, that the Court of Com- mon Pleas had entertained an action for ob- structing a prospect on one occasion, but the judgment was reversed in error ; and by Twis- den, J., " Why may I not build up a wall, that " another man may not look into my yard ? " Prospects may be stopped, so as you do not "darken the light" (2). To darken a prospect, therefore, is not a nuisance (3). The same point was raised before Lord Hardwicke, as to Gray's Inn Gardens, but the Chancellor refused to interfere. In a plain case of nuisance it might be different (4). We have now shown the nature of obstruc- tions. Referring the reader, however, at the same time, to the fourth section of 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71, which has been commented upon in a (1) 9 Eep. 58. (2) 1 Mod. 55, Knowles v. Richardson; 2 Keb. 611, 642. (3) In Arnold v. Jefferson, Holt, Ca. 499. (4) Att.-Gen. v. Doughty, 2 Ves. sen. 453. The 70 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. former page, we will now assume, for the sake of making the subject more clear, that the par- ticular mischief complained of has been fully proved. It must further appear, that the win- dows intruded upon are entitled to the protec- tion of the law. It therefore becomes neces- sary to ascertain what shall be said to be such a house. What an Ancient House, fyc. Before the statute, of which we have already said so much, the windows of a dwelling or other place, which had existed from time im- memorial, were always considered as privileged, and secure from all invasion, the custom of London enabling persons to build on an- cient foundations alone excepted (1). But it was considered, for many centuries, that this continuation of the light, time out of mind, was absolutely indispensable; so that, under ordinary circumstances, if the origin of the easement could have been traced, the plaintiff parties might build, but at their peril. See 2 Bro. Ch. Ca. 64, n. (2). "A man can bring no action for " the loss of a look out or a prospect ;" 7 C. & P 411 . by Parke, B. (1) See ante, p. 11. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 71 failed. Thus it was agreed, by all the judges, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that, if two men be owners of two parcels of land adjoining, and the one build a house with windows look- ing towards the land of the other, and the lights so made have continued for thirty or forty years, yet that the other person might, notwith- standing, after that lapse of time, build against those windows ; and that the first cannot have any action, because it was his folly to have built his house so near to his neighbour's land (1). The law, however, looked with more indulgence upon rights in more modern times ; and it was intimated, by Lord Kenyon, that Wilmot, C. J., was the first judge who held, that the privilege of ancient lights should attach to the free and uninterrupted possession of windows for twenty years (2). The learned judges, however, did not suddenly establish the new doctrine. In one case, where the new law was received, the defendant was attempting to show that the lights had not existed for more than sixty years, when Wilmot, C. J., said, that if a man had possessed lights for so (1) Cro. El. 118, Bury v. Tope ; 1 Leon. 168. (2) 4 Esp. 70 ; said by Lord Kenyon to have been so determined in Upsdell v. Wilson. 72 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. long a time, no other person could stop them. Such a possession evidenced a grant of the li- berty to make them ; it proved an agreement to allow them. If, said the judge, I cannot be disturbed in my house after sixty years, shall I be disturbed in my lights ? The Chief Justice then said, that he thought a much shorter time than sixty years might be sufficient, but that here there had been such a possession (1). In a previous case, where it appeared that the lights had been enjoyed for forty years, and that they were then obstructed by the owner of the ad- joining ground, Wilmot, J., held, that an action would lie ; and he said, that as twenty years were sufficient to give a title in ejectment, he saw no reason why it should not be sufficient to possess, for such a period, uninterruptedly, any ease- ment belonging to the house (2). The same doc- trine prevailed again in a case before Gould, J., tried some years afterwards. An unbroken pos- session was proved for twenty-five years, and the learned judge then called on the defendant's counsel to show whether this claim could be (1) 2 Wms. Saund. 175, (a), Dougal v. Wilson; Sit- tings in C. B. Trm. 9 Geo. 3, cited there. (2) 2 Wms. Saund. 175, (a), Lewis v. Price ; Wor- cester Sp. Assizes, 1761, cited there. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 73 answered : upon this, the defendant offered a grant from the former owner of the defendant's premises to the plaintiffs predecessor, dated thirty-six years since, by which leave was granted to put out a particular window, and contended that it must from thence be pre- sumed, that the plaintiff never had any other grant, and thus there would be an answer to the presumption arising from length of posses- sion. Gould, J., however, thought, that as the grant related to a particular window which was not included in the action, and as there was no exception of or reference to any other in the grant, the case was not altered. The de- fendant then relied on a possession previous to these twenty-five years ; but the judge overruled this objection likewise, observing, that if the defendant had any evidence to ex- plain the possession within the twenty years, as that it had been limited or modified, or bad in its commencement, that would be material. The defendant, however, offering no such evidence, a verdict passed for the plaintiff. Upon a motion for a new trial, it appeared that some degree of misapprehension had taken place as to the ruling of the judge ; the counsel in support of the rule insisting, that Gould, J., £ 74 OF WINDOW LTGHTS. had holden the possession for twenty years to be an absolute bar under all circumstances, and that the judge had refused permission to rebut the presumption raised ; whereas the learned judge, upon being consulted by Mr. Justice Ashhurst, said, that he had no idea but that it was a question for a jury ; and that, had the counsel for the defendant requested it, he would have left the matter to the jury ; the rule was then discharged (1). So, again, sixteen years afterwards, in a case where the defendant ob- jected that a window broken out by the plaintiff, in the wall which adjoined the defendant's garden, was not ancient ; it appeared, upon the examination of a witness, to have been broken open thirty years since, and Lord Kenyon said that was sufficient, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff (2). A possession for twenty years, therefore, of lights, in any particular situation, was, according to the doctrine univer- sally received and acted upon, prima facie evidence of a title to the easement. And the (1) 2 Wma. Saund. 175, (c), Darioinv. Upton; Mich. 26 G. 3. (2) 4 Esp. 69, Colterell v. Griffiths. See also Moo. & Malk. 400, Penwarden v. Ching ; 5 Taunt. 465, Tit- terton v. Confers. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 75 Act of William the Fourth confirmed this reso- lution of the judges, as we have already men- tioned at large. A was seised of a house and land. In 1855 he granted the land to trustees for ninety-nine years, and in the next year granted it in fee. In 1 857 he granted the house to Gr., under whom the plaintiff was entitled, but there was neither limitation nor covenant as to light. The de- fendant built under the authority of the trustees, obstructing light which for twenty years had come to the house of the plaintiff. If the grantees of the land might have built upon it in 1856, the conveyance of the house in 1 857, to the person from whom the plaintiff ob- tained possession, could not alter the case. The defendant had judgment (1). New Houses. But not only are ancient houses, and such as have had windows for the above period, privi- leged from obstructions ; new dwellings may also gain a right to the same protection, as we have already seen when treating of the claim (1) White v. Bass, 7 Hurl. & N. 722 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 312; 31 L. J., Ex., 283. E 2 76 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. by implied grant. This point need not be mentioned here at length, because the autho- rities in support of it have been already col- lected in a former page : the purport of them was, as we may recollect, that if a person sell a house with its appurtenances, he cannot after- wards seek to destroy the use of those windows which existed at the time of the sale in the pro- perty disposed of ; and that the vendee of the adjoining land, who has made his purchase of the proprietor of the house, is equally bound to respect his neighbour's lights (1). And, again, if a person should buy a new house at an auction, his neighbour, who becomes the pur- chaser of an adjoining new house at the same time, belonging to the same vendor, cannot ob- struct the opposite or contiguous lights, because he takes his property subject to the rights of the vendor, who could not, in any way, be justi- fied in stopping the lights of either house when sold, inasmuch as he could not derogate from his own grant (2). A new house may thus become privileged within the period of twenty (1) Ante, p. 41 ; 1 Ventr. 237—239 ; 6 Mod. 116 ; L Lev. 122 ; M. & M. 396 ; 9 Bingh. 305. (2) See ante, p. 43 ; 1 Price, 27. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 77 years, above mentioned ; and so, also, may new windows in an old house, which have not been enjoyed for twenty years, if the effect of stopping them were to derogate from an express grant, or implied condition. What Houses are not Privileged. We have observed, however, that circum- stances may occur to prevent a house from gaining or being entitled to the privilege of preserving its lights unobstructed ; and it is quite clear, that unless protected by some of the implied conditions above alluded to, windows under the age of twenty years, or thereabouts, may be lawfully interrupted. Thus, in a case where Palmer v. Fletcher had been recognised as an authority against the conduct of any landlord or builder who would strive to defeat his own grant, Holt, C. J., proceeded to mark the difference which would immediately arise, if the vendor had sold the vacant ground ad- joining his house, without reserving the benefit of the lights in favour of the vendee of the house. If so, the other vendee might unques- tionably build up against the lights ; but where the lights were not parted with, as in Palmer v. Fletcher, there the vacant groimd became I O OF WINDOW LIGHTS. charged with the easement (1). The vendee of the vacant ground would have stood, in case of the extinguishment of the right by non- reservation, in the condition of a stranger ; and it has long been held, that a stranger having land adjoining to a house newly erected, is warranted in stopping its lights, because, under those circumstances, a man may act as he thinks fit upon his own land (2) . We have thus shewn what may be considered as obstructions to lights, both in respect of the particular interruptions complained against, as of the houses which the law will protect in the enjoyment of that easement. It should, however, be remarked here, that one very im- portant defence to actions for obstructions has not yet been mentioned, namely, the extinguish- ment of the privilege, arising from various causes. We have devoted a place for the separate consideration of this doctrine at the end of the treatise ; and we now proceed, thirdly, to mention the chief remedies which may be employed, at law and in equity, for injuries of the description above adverted to. Before, how- (1) 2 Ld. Raym. 1093, in Tenant v. Goldwin, by Holt, C. J. ; S. P., 6 Mod. 114, in S. C. (2) 1 Lev. 122. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 79 ever, we enter upon this inquiry, it may be desirable to mention two cases, which do not seem to belong to any of the heads already dis- cussed, and which are yet very relevant to the subject of obstruction. In the first of these the Building Act was relied upon as a defence : the mischief complained of was the wrongful erection, by the defendant, of a wall and build- ing near to the window of the plaintiff's work- shop, so that he had suffered material incon- venience in his trade of a coach-maker. The premises of the two parties adjoined, and, until 1803, had been divided by a wall of brick and mortar, standing wholly on the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had built a workshop for the purposes of his trade, thirty-four years before the action ; and the full enjoyment of light was necessary to this building, the win- dows of which fronted the land of the defendant. The wall above mentioned, being, at length, con- demned as ruinous by the district surveyor, was taken down, and a party wall, eighteen inches thick, was erected by the plaintiff, half on the land, and half at the expense of each proprietor. At the same time the plaintiff rebuilt his workshop ; and it appeared, that the windows which were the subject of the 80 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. action looked out on the adjoining land, from the party wall in which they were inserted. While the old wall stood the defendant had used it by erecting a shed against it on his land, but which rose not any higher than the wall ; now, however, he carried up an additional height of perpendicular wall, upon his half of the new party wall, and had built up his shed to the same height, thereby creating the ob- struction complained of. It was objected, at the trial, that these windows of the plaintiff were a nuisance, being in the party wall, and, therefore, that an action was not maintainable ; but the jury were directed to find for the plaintiff, the point being reserved ; and the Court refused to disturb the verdict; for, although the defendant might possibly abate the plaintiff's building as a nuisance, and then have justified, if an action had been brought under the Building Act; or, again, although the magistrates might have ordered the build- ino- to be pulled down, upon an information laid by the district surveyor, the defendant, never- theless, was by no means justified in obstructing the lights. The plaintiff was not charged with building an illegal wall, but the defendant was the party complained against, for interrupting OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 81 an easement ; and it was the opinion of the Court that the title to the lights remained, not- withstanding the raising of the wall (1). In the other case, the landlord of a house in Oxford Street, which he had divided into two tenements, was the plaintiff, and a person to whom the landlord had demised one tenement was the defendant. The plaintiff lived in the other ; and the window which the defendant was charged with obstructing existed in the house at the time of the demise. It was under- stood and admitted, that this window was of recent construction. The defendant having obstructed it, an action was brought, and the defendant's counsel submitted, that it must fail for want of evidence that the easement was ancient. But Abbott, C. J., said, that the action was maintainable, although the window was new, and there was no stipulation against the obstruction when the tenement was leased ; for the person in this case held as tenant, and the window was in existence at the commence- ment of his term (2). Here the defendant's (1) 5 Taunt. 465, Titterton v. Confers ; 1 Marsh. 140. (2) Ry. & Moo. 24, Riviere v. Bower. E 3 82 OV WINDOW LIGHTS. character, as tenant, obviously rendered any attempt on his part to molest his landlord abortive ; for there is a privity of contract between persons so situated as will create im- plied conditions, that neither shall do anything to the annoyance of the other, during the con- tinuance of the relationship which subsists between them. The defendant had raised a party fence wall, which divided the premises of the plaintiff and defendant, and had built up a workshop and a stable up to and upon the wall so raised, whereby the plaintiff's windows were darkened. The defendant's objection on the Building Act being overruled, it was left to the jury to say whether the plaintiff's enjoyment of light and air was diminished to a greater degree than it would have been had it been erected on the defendant's moiety of the wall only. The jury found in the negative, but they found that there had been such a diminution of light and air as made the plaintiff's premises less fit for occupation. Upon this the verdict was for the plaintiff, with liberty to move to enter a nonsuit. The Court said, that the case was not within the Building Act, and that an action on the case was the proper remedy, and the rule for a non- OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 83 suit was discharged (1). If the building, however, be on a party wall, half belonging to A. and half to B., trespass or case will lie (2). REMEDIES FOR OBSTRUCTIONS. The action upon the case is the most direct and usual form of action adopted for the re- dress of the grievance here treated of. It was customary to sue by an assise of nuisance in very ancient times (3), but this remedy gave way to the action on the case, and the use of the latter has continued without intermission to this day. Bat although no objection has been made to the nature of this proceeding, several points have been raised, from time to time, as to the particular relations in which the individual making use of it has stood. For example, it has been urged, upon different trials, that lessees and reversioners were not competent to sue for an injury of this sort. Thus, where the plaintiff was a lessee for years, it was moved to arrest the judgment, because the (1) Wells v. Ody, 7 C. & P. 410 ; 1 Mees. & W. 452. (2) S. C. (3) 7 E. 3, 50 ; 22 H. 6, 15 ; 1 Ro. Ab. 107, citing S. C. See Vin. Ab., Tit. Stopping Lights, D. 84 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. declaration had not alleged any person in whom the prescription might be fixed ; for as to the plaintiff, he could not prescribe ; but the Court answered that the prescription was tied to the house, and not to the person, and the matter was adjudged for the plaintiff (1). So where a reversioner, being the owner of the inheritance, sued his own lessee for stopping up windows in his house, it was moved to arrest the judg- ment, because the nuisance might, perhaps, be abated before the expiration of the term, and the suit, consequently, was precipitate. But the Court disallowed the objection (2) ; and this case was cited afterwards, by Aston, J., upon another occasion, where the plaintiff had counted first upon his possession, and then as reversioner, and there had been a verdict for him with general damages, and the Court held that Thomlinson v. Brown was decisive upon the question ; for, according to Mr. Justice Aston' s note of the case, it had been there held that an action might be brought by one in re- spect of his possession, and by the other in (1) Cro. Car. 325, Symonds v. Seaborne ; S. C, not S. P., Sir Wm. Jones, 326, nom. Nerrers v. Seaborne. (2) Say. Hep. 215, Thomlinson v. Brown. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 85 respect of his inheritance, for the injury done to the value of it (1). And again, Lord Ten- terden held, that the heir of a surviving trustee was competent to sue for a damage to the rever- sion of a house in Wood Street, the lights of which had been stopped ; for the nuisance com- plained of was an injury to the right (2). If the reversioner sues, it is sufficient for him to show an obstruction which may cause the in- jury ; and a declaration is not bad upon de- murrer, because it might be shown that the injury was merely temporary (3). But if a right be established against a leaseholder, the reversioner is bound. It is not a breach of the covenant to repair and keep in repair, to have enlarged windows (4). It may be further remarked here, that diffi- culties have occasionally arisen as to the per- sons against whom this action for disturbance of lights should be brought. But it has long been received as law, that if a lessor, having (1) 4 Burr. 2141, Jesser v. Giffbrd ; and see 3 Leo. 109, Biddlesford v. Onslow. (2) Moo. & Malk. 350, Shadwell v. Hutchinson. (3) As hoarding. Metr. Assoc. Sfc. v. Fetch, 27 L. J., C. P., 33 ; 5 C. B. 504. Shadwell v. Hutchinson, Moo. & Malk. 350, was cited. (4) Doe d. Dallon v. Jones, 1 Nev. & M. 6. 86 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. created a nuisance during his possession, de- mises the premises where the obstruction exists to another, the lessee continues liable, at the suit of the injured party, until the removal of the nuisance. Thus it appeared, that the de- fendant was lessee for years of a piece of ground adjoining to an ancient messuage, which latter had ancient lights, and that the defendant had erected a house to the interruption of these lights. The defendant then assigned his term over to another, and the plaintiff brought his action against the assignor, the original lessee, for a continuance of the nuisance ; and the Court held, that the action lay against the de- fendant in this case, for he was liable before his assignment to all consequential damages, and he could not discharge himself by granting over the term ; and they said, moreover, that if the nuisance were to continue after recovery for the erection of it, a new action would be maintainable for the continuance ; and they held also, that the proceedings might be had either against the lessor or lessee in such a case (1). Holt, C. J., observed, in giving judg- (1) 12 Mod. 635, Roswell v. Prior; 2 Salk. 460; 1 Ld. Baym. 713 ; S. P., Carth. 456, in Johnson v. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 87 ment, that lie was not satisfied with the case of Rippon v. Bowles (1), where the judges had inclined to hold that a lessee was not answer- able for the continuance of a nuisance, inas- much as it would be waste to abate it ; for it is the lessee's fault to contract for an interest in land upon which there is a nuisance. Never- theless there shall be but one satisfaction ; and, consequently, if a plaintiff sue the lessor, he shall, after his damages have been ascertained, be barred for ever against the lessee (2). But here it will have been noticed by the reader, that no continuance of the nuisance was laid by the plaintiff ; therefore, where a declaration averred such a continuance, it was held that a plea of judgment recovered for the same iden- tical grievances was no answer to the action. For the obstruction of light, from November, 1828, till the commencement of the suit (which was the present mischief complained of), could Long. See also 1 Keb. 794, Palmer v. Fleshier, where a similar action was entertained. (1) 1 Ro. Rep. 221 ; Cro. Jac. 373, cited ante, p. 9 ; and note, that the plaintiff having procured judgment to be entered, the defendant, notwithstanding the inclination of the Court, was put to his writ of error. (2) 12 Mod. 640; S. P., Carth. 455, Johnson v. Long; 1 Salk. 10 ; 1 Ld. Raym. 370. 88 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. not be said to be the same with that which had been effected at an earlier date. A verdict having passed for the plaintiff, the Court re- fused a rule for a new trial (1). If a person acts as manager of works by which light is obstructed, the action may, pro- bably, lie against him alone. But if he be co- defendant with the contractor, his employer, he cannot urge in defence that the contractor only is liable, because he is himself manifestly the sole superintendent. Had the contractor given all the orders, the managing clerk might have been looked upon as a mere servant (2). Trespass was brought for pulling down a stable. The plea was, the possession of a dwelling- house adjoining the plaintiff's close, so as to con- fer a title to have the light and air enter through a certain ancient window therein ; that the stable obstructed the light and air, and darkened the window. The replication was De Injuria. Special demurrer. This replication was held good. The plea consisted merely of excuse. It neither claimed any interest in the plaintiff's (1) 4 C. & P. 333, Shadwell v. Hutchinson; 2 B. & Ad. 97. (2) Wilson v. Peto, 6 Moore, 47. See Stone v. Cartivright, 6 T. R. 411. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 89 land, nor set up such a right by virtue of any authority from the plaintiff, within the rule which precludes the adoption of a general re- plication. It only claimed a right on the part of the defendant to enjoy his own land in a given way (1). The plaintiff declared in case, that he was seised of a court-yard, and that the defendants made new windows towards it, whereby his goods could not be kept safe, &c. Holt, C. J., said, that the plaintiff might fence his own yard. There was no obligation laid by pre- scription to inclose for him. He might build against these windows (2). Still, in a case of irreparable mischief, the Court will interfere (3). Injunction. Another course of proceeding is to apply to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the defendant from illegally building, so as to obstruct lights. This measure is of course pursued where the mischief is in pro- (1) Thompson v. Eastwood, 8 Exch. 69. (2) Richardson v. Taylor, Comb. 242. (3) Ryder v. Bentham, 1 Ves. sen. 543 ; and see Smith v. Elger, 3 Jur. 690; Att.-Oen, v. Doughty, 2 Ves. sen. 453. 90 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. gress, and it lies entirely in the breast of the equity judge to refuse or grant the remedy prayed for. However, the Court will lend a favourable ear, in general, to applications of this sort (1), and will frequently direct an issue, in order that the real merits of the case may be determined, whilst the defendant becomes subject to a temporary inconvenience only. The Court will sometimes likewise direct a view, to ascertain whether the new buildings stand upon the old foundations (2). Upon another occasion the defendant was found to have made considerable progress in the erection of an obstruction to the plaintiff's lights, and yet it was resolved that an injunction should issue to compel him to cease building, until the bill should be fully answered, or other order be made (3). So against the lessee of an ecclesiastical (1) Duke of Beaufort's case cited, 2 Bro. Ch. Ca. 65. Especially when the encroachment appears to be evident. As where the plaintiff in a small degree ob- scured his own lights, upon which the defendant built so as seriously to diminish the light and air of the plaintiff. Archdekne v. Kelk, 2 Giff. 683 ; 5 Jur, (N. S.) 114. (2) Att.-Gen. v. Benthan, 1 Dick. 277. (3) 2 Euss. 121, Back v. Stacey. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 91 corporation, till she should establish her right to the easement in an action, the building, if completed, being a nuisance (1). In the case of a tenant from year to year who filed a bill against adjoining tenants for obstruction, the landlord gave him notice to quit, and at the hearing eight months of the tenancy were unexpired. The Master of the Rolls granted the injunction. This law the lords justices did not deny ; but as the inconvenience of pulling down buildings apparently exceeded any damage sustained by the plaintiff, they, in opposition to the opinion of Sir J. E-omilly, refused the interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff might bring his action, and the defendants were to accept notice of trial for the next assizes. It is worthy of remark, that the defendants had full notice of the supposed mischief (2). The Court of Exchequer granted an injunc- tion under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 82, though not as of course. It was to restrain several supposed wrongful acts respecting ancient lights. The injunction was to lie in the office till Michael- (1) Sutton v. Lord Montfort, 4 Sim. 559. The plaintiff to bring an action ; the defendant not to set up her coverture, nor any outstanding legal estate. (2) Jacomb v. Knight, 32 L. J., Ch., 601 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 529. J ■i i 92 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. mas Term (1), the defendants undertaking to pull down as much of the wall and building as should be sufficient to restore to the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the light and air he had previously, and to do the same to the satisfaction of a surveyor to be agreed on or nominated by one of the judges of this Court, the defendants to pay the costs of the rule and of the surveyor (2) . A case has lately occurred in which there was no question but that the lights of the plaintiff had been obstructed. And the Master of the Rolls made a decree, in effect, that the buildings newly erected should be reduced so as to restore the ancient user enjoyed by the plaintiff. But the Lord Chancellor introduced a new theory, and directed an inquiry as to the amount of damages which, he thought, could be estimated as a compensation for the injury. And this decree, differing from the opinion of the M. E., was made, although the defendants continued their works after notice from the plaintiff (3). (1) This was in Trinity. (2) Jessel v. Chaplin, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 931. (3) Isenbergv.E.Ind. House Estate Co., 10 Jur. (N. S.) 221. This is a doubtful decision ; for by it a person of sufficient means is enabled to overturn, by the side- OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 93 But in a case where there was a dispute be- tween the plaintiff and the defendant as to the ownership of a wall upon which the defendant was raising an obstruction, the injunction was denied. The plaintiff was possessed of a mes- suage and ground adjoining, inclosed by a wall ; and the defendant, having pulled down this wall, began to build against the plaintiff's lights, contending, at the same time, for the property of the wall and ground. An injunction being asked, Lord King said, that if he were to grant it, it would be to determine the right on motion ; but he ordered that the defendant should re- ceive a declaration in trespass or ejectment as soon as the plaintiff should think proper to tender it (1). Here it is observable, that the defendant not only denied the obstructing of the plaintiff's lights, but claimed also a part of wind of an equitable jurisdiction, the ancient rights of his neighbour, even after a due notice of dissent. It seems to be an invasion of a constitutional right; and a common lawyer must at once adhere to a right which, in this instance, equity has not in her proper province protected. It is the notice which creates the diver- gence during these events. See Jacomb v. Knight, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 529; 32 L. J., Ch., 601 ; and the just ob- servations of " The Jurist," 10 Jur. pt. 2, p. 85. (1) Fitzgib. 106, Bateman v. Johnson. 94 OF "WINDOW LIGHTS. the plaintiff's possession, which fact distin- guishes this case materially from that of Back v. Stoxey, just cited above. So where the legal right was doubtful, and nothing had occurred to render the interposition of the Court absolutely necessary before trial, the injunction was refused (1). An injunction likewise was refused to re- strain the building of a brick wall which was seventeen feet from the house of the plaintiff (2). However, when the obstruction is quite clear the Court will interfere, as if a house be ren- dered less comfortable by the obstruction (3). There had been a building adjoining that of the plaintiff, with a wall alleged to have been of the height of twelve feet, and not interfering with his light. The defendant was about to pull down the ruins of this wall, and to rebuild the wall to the height of thirty feet, which, he said, had been the original height. The balance of evidence being in favour of the plaintiff, an injunction was granted ; and as the defendant (1) Winstanley v. Lee, 2 Sw. 333. (2) Fishmongers' Company v. East India Company, 1 Dick. 163. See Morris v. Lessees of Lord Berkeley, 2 Ves. sen. 453. (3) Johnson v. Wyatt, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1333. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 95 at the hearing did not move to dissolve the injunction, it was made perpetual, without com- pelling the plaintiff to try his right at law (1). So where the defendant looked on with apparent acquiescence whilst the plaintiff was altering his lights, and had the plans of the alteration submitted to him, after which he commenced an obstruction ; the Court granted an injunction (2). But a delay of five weeks is not an acquiescence so as to hinder relief (3). By a railway Act it was declared, that no- thing should authorize the Company to injure any house built before November 30, 1835, without consent. By another clause compensa- tion was awarded. The reversioner of a house brought an action against the Company for obstructing lights, and the defendants pro- pounded their compensation clause. But it was held that the plaintiff was not bound to come in under that clause. The house was not (1) Potts v. Levi/, 2 Drew, 272. (2) Cotching v. Bassett, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 590 ; 32 L. J., Ch., 286. The observations of Lord Eldon in Dann v. Spurrier were cited, 7 Ves. 235. (3) Johnson v. Wyatt, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1333. There must be a strong case of acquiescence at the hearing to induce non-interference by the Court ; S. C. 96 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. specified in the Company's schedule, and, there- fore, they were liable (1). A tenant from year to year may have an injunction against the erection of a wall which will obstruct his lights, the writ being limited to his period of tenancy (2). And as between landlord and tenant there is a contract both express and implied, that the ancient lights of the lessee shall be protected ; so that a lessee whose lease has expired during the obstruction may, upon renewal, maintain his suit in Chancery (3). A tenant made an agreement for a lease, and then filed a bill to restrain his lessor, but did not ask to have the agreement specifically maintained. Here an equitable, not a legal right was claimed, and an injunction was re- fused (4). The declaration complained of an obstruction of light. The equitable plea was, that the defendants pulled down an ancient wall, and built up a new one with the plaintiff's knowledge. The equitable replication was, that (1) Turner v. Sheffield and Hotlieram, It. C, 10 Mees. & W. 425 ; 3 Railw. Ca. 222. (2) Simper v. Foley, 2 Johns. & H. 555. (3) Gale v. Allot, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 987. (4) Fox v. Purssell, 3 Sm. & Giff. 242. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 97 the plaintiff asserted, on the faith of false re- presentations, that no grievance would ensue. Both these forms of pleading were held good, and judgment was given for the defendant on his plea, and for the plaintiff on his replica- tion (1). So reversioners of premises, who were about to diminish the light of their lessee, were upon every ground restrained from the wrongful act of obstruction. In fact, the smallest ob- scuration of light would be an injury to the business of the plaintiff, a diamond mer- chant (2). However, upon another occasion, where the building was thirty feet distant from a mansion, the terms imposed, upon refusing the immediate injunction, were, that the plaintiff should try his right at law, and that the defendant should undertake to abate if the verdict were unfavour- able to him (3). And it must be understood, that if judgment be given to pull down houses, or any part of a building which darkens light, such part only as (1) Barnes v. Marshall, 10 C. B. 697 ; 31 L. J., C. P., 61 ; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 720. (2) Hertz v. Union Bank of London, 2 Giff. 686; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 127. (3) Smith v. Elger, 3 Jur. 790. F 98 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. creates the nuisance can be removed (1). In- deed, the Lord Chancellor said, upon motion, that he never knew an instance of judgment to abate upon that proceeding, and, rarely, after a decree (2). Still, abatement will be ordered if the nuisance be real (3). In those days, when such decrees were rare, disputes concerning light were likewise, by comparison, rare ; and the rarity itself shows how unsound the judg- ment against a mandatory injunction must appear, by dissolving a substantial and irre- parable injury into a doubtful money compen- sation (4). But there is yet another remedy permitted by the law ; and although it should be resorted to on emergent occasions only, and even then with great caution and moderation, circum- stances may occur which would render its adoption as prudent as it certainly would be legitimate. This proceeding is by entering upon the land of the person building up against (1) Shalmer v. Pulteney, 1 Ld. Eaym. 276 ; Id. 277, Powell, J. (2) Ryder v. Bentham, 1 Ves. sen. 343. (3) 2 Ves. sen. 453 ; by Lord Hardwicke. (4) Isenberg v. East India House Estate Company, 10 Jur. (N.S.) 221. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 99 the lights, and abating the erection as a nui- sance ; and the Courts have so strongly enter- tained the occasional propriety of thus removing the obstruction, that where the defendant had been convicted of a riot for pulling down part of a house which was a nuisance to his lights, and which had been so found by a jury in an action brought to try the right, a small fine only was set upon him ; and it was said, that if one build a house so near mine that it stops my lights, or shoots the water upon my house, or is in any other way a nuisance to me, I may enter upon the owner's house and pull it down (1). But it is not competent for a party to adopt this course, unless the thing in question be obviously a nuisance ; and, therefore, upon the commencement of an erection which seems likely to prove an interruption, the only safe method is to apply for an injunction. Thus, in a case where it appeared that the plaintiff had set up several pieces of timber for the erection of a house, so as to threaten the lights of an adjoining messuage, he was successful in his action, notwithstanding that he had been (1) Rex v. Sosewell, 2 Salk.459. F 2 100 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. apparently the aggressor ; for one of the de- fendants, who was the owner of this neigh- bouring dwelling, and his servant, the other defendant, having by his order obstructed the plaintiff's workmen in the execution of their intended building, an action of trespass was brought for an assault, and the loss of the ser- vice of these workmen was laid as a gravamen. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and put the special matter upon the record, by way of justification, upon which the plaintiff demurred ; and judgment was given for the plaintiff, not only because the plea was bad in some formal points, but on the merits, because it was impossible for the defendants to have known whether the building would have been a nuisance until its erection. The plaintiff might have forborne, and have left off his building, which, as far as it had proceeded as yet, presented no annoyance, and, as Lord Coke then observed, Nemo tenetur divinare. But as soon as the work had so far advanced as to have been plainly a nuisance, then the defendant might have entered and destroyed it (1). It is doubtful whether an (1) Norris v. Baker, Bridgm. 47 ; 1 Ro. Rep. 393 • 3 Bulstr. 196, nom. Morrice v. Baker. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 101 injunction would be allowed to issue in this case, because it must appear to the satisfaction of the Court that the window of the applicant will necessarily suffer by the building com- plained of, before the Court will countenance a remedy so summary. In order to obtain an injunction it must be made out that material injury, amounting to a nuisance, will occur. Affidavits that ancient lights will be darkened will not suffice. The diminution of the value of the premises is not a ground. An action on the case might often lie on facts that would not support an injunction (1). Indictment. It appears, according to a note in Lord Ray- mond, that, upon an indictment for a nuisance, Holt, C. J., had ruled, that the building of a house in a larger manner than before, so as to darken the street, was not a public nuisance (2). The defendant must, of course, have been acquitted. (1) Att.-Gen. v. Nichols, 16 Ves. 338. (2) Rex v. Webb, 1 Ld. Bayni. 737 ; Arnold v. Jefferson, Holt, J., Ca. 498. This opinion was con- firmed by V. C. Kindersley, 21 L. J., Ch., 159. 102 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. CHAPTER IT. Extinguishment of the Right to Light. The last point to which we have to direct the attention of the reader is that of extinguish- ment. There is more than one event which will determine or extinguish this easement of light ; and circumstances have occurred, on the other hand, under which it has been strongly insisted that the right was annihilated, whereas the Courts have held that the particular act done worked no alteration of the privilege. It will, therefore, be desirable to inquire what shall be said to occasion this destruction of ancient or other lights, and what not. Unity of Possession. And first, unity of possession, which is fatal to the continuance of so many incorporeal he- reditaments, as ways, commons, &c, has always been held to abate the privilege of lights also. Thus, a writ of quod permittat was brought against the defendant, prosternere quandam domum, tyc, and it appeared that the plaintiff OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 103 had been, possessed of an ancient window, and that the defendant had erected a house upon his own freehold, so near that of the plaintiff that it overhung the same, and stopped the light. The defendant pleaded a former unity of possession of both the houses in one R. A. ; and that, because his own house had become ruinous, he pulled it down, and built another in its room. Issue being taken, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, it was moved to arrest the judgment, inasmuch as no greater part of the new house ought to be abated than that which overhung the plaintiff's house beyond the former building ; and this rule, the Court admitted, would have holden, provided it had been properly pleaded. For although, before the unity of possession, one of these houses might have wrongfully overlooked the other, yet the tort was purged as soon as they ceased to be in different hands ; therefore, neither party could in justice complain of an antece- dent wrong, and consequently, but for the in- crease of the new house, there would not have been any cause of action ; and, notwithstanding that judgment was given for the plaintiff upon the record as it stood, the Court stayed the execution until the part overhanging de novo 104 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. might be viewed, it appearing to have been a vexatious proceeding on the plaintiff's part (1). And it was further said, that if one have an ancient house and lights, and purchase the next house or ground, his privilege against the newly purchased land ceases ; and, therefore, it was added, that if the former house were let, the lessor might build upon the land adjoining, and if the latter, that the lessee might build in like manner (2). But these latter positions are not in accordance with the law now re- ceived, nor with cases adjudged in former times ; for, as to the first, it is clear that a man cannot derogate from his own grant, nor seek to stop up lights which he has demised to another (3) ; and, as to the second, it would be contrary to the implied contract between land- lord and tenant, that such an interruption should take place by any such act on the part of the latter (4). (1) Robins v. Barnes, Hob. 131 ; Mo. 666 ; where it was said that the vendee should never abate the nuisance. (2) Hob. 131. (3) Unless, indeed, the landlord had made no reser- vation of the lights. See ante, p. 60, where the autho- rities are collected. (4) See ante, p. 81. Riviere v. Bower, Ry. & Moo. 24. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 105 This doctrine of extinguishment by unity continues, notwithstanding the statute 2 & 3 "W". 4, c. 71, which, by section 3, confers the benefit of light absolutely after twenty years' uninterrupted use. Case was brought, since that Act, for obstruction. The pleas were, " Not guilty," and a traverse of the right. It ap- peared in evidence that the plaintiff and his father had occupied an ancient house in fee, as well as a garden, for sixty years, and during that time enjoyed the use of light. At length the garden fell into the hands of the defendant. In 1846 he built a wall in the garden, and caused the obstruction. It also appeared that the plaintiff and his father had occupied the garden under three successive landlords, as tenants from year to 3 r ear. It was objected, that in this case there had been a unity, and a nonsuit was directed, which the Court sus- tained. By Parke, B : "It converts into a " right such an enjoyment of the access of light " over contiguous land, as has been had for the " whole period of twenty years, in the character " of an easement distinct from the enjoj'ment of " the land itself. And the statute puts this " species . of negative easement, as it has been " termed, upon the same footing in this respect as f 3 106 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. " those positive easements provided for as ease- " ments in the other sections, all of which, after " long enjoyment, are invested with the quality "of rights" (1). However, as soon as the unity ceases, the right survives as to the particular easement. If the dominant and the servient tenements be united for different estates, as soon as the owner- ship becomes severed the easement revives (2). Non- User. Another cause, which operates to destroy the easement of which we are treating, is the non- user of it, either by shutting up the windows through which the light has been derived, or by any other act which manifests a design to abandon the enjoyment of it for the future. And we shall find that, in order to effect this destruction of the privilege, it is not necessary that the user should have been forborne for twenty years, as in the cases of commons and ways. In the action, however, to which we are about to refer, it appeared that the window had (1) Harbridge t. Warwick, 18 L. J., Ex., 245 ; 3 Ex. 552. (2) Simper v. Foley, 2 John. & H. 555. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 107 been actually shut up for that period. The plaintiff sued the defendant for erecting a privy in his house, which was a nuisance to that of the plaintiff. When first built, it was not an inconvenience ; but the plaintiff subsequently opened a window in the wall of her house, im- mediately over it, and then it was that the former easement became obnoxious. There was the mark of an old window in the place where this window had been struck out, but it had been filled up with brick and mortar above twenty years before the erection of the privy. Lord Ellenborough directed a nonsuit, observ- ing that, as to the window, the case was the same as though it had never been erected, and that the plaintiff had, consequently, brought the nuisance upon herself by opening the window (1). The doctrine of extinguishment, however, concerning light, was most fully considered in a more modern case, which was decided by the Court of King's Bench, after due and careful examination. An action on the case had been brought for obstructing lights, and it appeared that the plaintiff and defendant were owners (1) Lawrence v. Obee, 3 Campb. 514. 108 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. of messuages adjoining to each other ; that of the plaintiff was an ancient house, and close to it there had been a building, formerly used as a weaver's shop, and to which the privilege of ancient lights appertained. About seventeen years before the action, the then owner and occupier of the premises took down the old shop, and erected a stable on its site, having a blank wall adjoining the premises of the pre- sent defendant. It had been latterly used as a wheelwright's shop. About three years since, the defendant erected a building next to the blank wall, and the plaintiff then opened a window in that wall, in the same place where there had formerly been a window in the old wall, and it was for the obstruction of this light that the dispute arose. Mr. Baron Hul- lock having directed a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, a rule nisi was obtained, and the Court were unanimously of opinion that it should be made absolute ; for the former pos- sessor of the shop had apparently abandoned the window which gave light and air to his house, and unless he had manifested some in- tention to resume the enjoyment of them (which the plaintiff was bound to have OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 109 proved), the Court could not do otherwise than consider that the right had been perpetually relinquished : indeed, by building the blank wall, the then owner might have induced an- other person to become the purchaser of the adjoining ground for building purposes, and he could not be allowed to frustrate those pur- poses by pretending to revive an easement which he had shown no intention of retain- ing (1). It having been contended by counsel in this case, that the non-user ought to have continued for twenty years, in order to warrant a release or extinguishment of the plaintiff's right, Littledale, J., said, that it would be most inconvenient to hold that doctrine, for it was not like the case of a common or a way, where a grant of the easement is presumed, after twenty years' enjoyment, to have taken place before the user commenced. Upon another occasion, Martin, B., left these points to the jury : whether the lights were closed so as to lead the other party into a belief that they had been abandoned, and so causing him expense ; whether an intention of manifestly and per- manently giving up the lights appeared. The (1) Moore v. Baicson, 3 B. & C. 332. 110 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. plaintiff had blocked up his windows (1), and the defendant bought the tenement which they overlooked, and built up the premises, upon which the plaintiff reopened the apertures for light and obtained a verdict. The Court ap- proved of the direction of the judge, and dis- charged the rule for a new trial (2). The en- joyment of light requires not any consent from the owner of the adjoining land. It arises by mere occupancy, and ought to cease when the person who so acquired it discontinues the occupancy. The source of it is mere user, and it may, therefore, be lost simply by non- user (3). The plaintiff enlarged his house, and so altered the position of his ancient windows. The defendant, within twenty years, obstructed these windows, and the Court held, that he was justified in traversing the plaintiff's right without pleading more specially. The verdict was entered for the plaintiff, on not guilty, (1) He filled them up for the purpose of warehousing tea. (2) Stokoe v. Singer, 8 El. & Bl. 81 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1256 ; 26 L. J., Q. B., 257. (3) 3 B. & C. 339—341 ; 2 Bl. Com. 14. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. Ill and for the defendant on the plea denying the right (1). " Questions may arise," says Professor Amos, in one of his lectures, " under the new Act, " whether a right of common, way, and especially " of light, can be lost by flux of time alone, in " less periods than sixty, forty, or twenty years " respectively. And whether they can be lost " in less time than these periods by any act in- " dicating an abandonment short of a release, " under seal. And whether instruments of " abandonment may not be presumed ; and if " so, within what, if any, stated periods ? The "subject of abandonment of rights has been " very little considered in our jurisprudence." What not an Extinguishment. But, as we have already seen in several cases (2), the mere alteration of the window entitled to the privilege will not be followed by the extinction of it. Nor can the opening of a new window extinguish or even suspend (1) Renshaw v. Bean, 21 L. J., C. B., 219 ; 18 C. B. 112 ; 16 Jur. 814; cited with approbation by Pollock, C B., 26 L. J., Ex., 36. (2) Ante, p. 62. 112 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. the ancient right, whatever the legal conse- quence as to obstructing it may be (1). To be sure, the excess of the easement beyond its ancient form may be interrupted and built up against, but the undue enlargement occasions no detraction from the original right. This matter is so clear that we need not do more than refer to Luttrel's case, where it was said, that if one have an old window to his hall, and he convert the hall into a parlour, or to any other use, yet his neighbour will not be war- ranted in stopping the light, for the prescription survives the alteration (2). Building Act. It has been held, that the provisions of the Building Act, 14 G. 3, c. 78, concerning lateral windows, have not destroyed the ancient rights attached to those windows. And it will be recollected (3), that a defence of this nature, to an action for the obstruction of lights, proved unsuccessful (4) ; for, however liable a party (1) Binkes v. Push. 11 C. B. 324 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 360 ; 31 L. J., C. P., 121. (2) 4 Rep. 87. (3) See p. 81, ante. (4) Tittertonv. Conyers,h Taunt. 465 ; 1 Mar&h. 110. OF WINDOW LIGHTS. 113 might be to the interference of the surveyor, supposing that the windows were in existence contrary to the provisions of the Act, or to the interruption of the defendant himself, if he had proceeded according to the directions of the statute, it was impossible that the justification relied upon could be available as the defendant had used it. Parol License when not countermandable. A case occurred, some years since, in which the Court held, that a parol license to put out a window could not be recalled at the pleasure of the person making it ; and we will, therefore, notice it here, in the last place, as being nearly allied to the doctrine of extinguish- ment. An action was brought for a nuisance for wrongfully placing a skylight over the area above the plaintiff's window, so that the light and air were excluded from the house of the plaintiff, and various noisome smells introduced. It appeared, however, at the trial, that the sky- light had been erected with the express consent and approbation of the plaintiff; while the plaintiff, on his part, insisted, that after it had been finished, he had objected to it, and had 114 OF WINDOW LIGHTS. given notice that it should be removed. But Lord Ellenborough held, that this license having been acted upon, and expense incurred, could not be recalled, without, at least, putting the defendant in the same situation as before, by offering to reimburse him all his expenses ; and the defendant had a verdict, which the Court afterwards refused to disturb (1). (1) 8 East, 308, Winter v. Brockivell. Lord Ellen- borough said, on the motion for a new trial, that the rule was, that a license granted was not counter- mandable, but only when it is executory. Here it had been executed. To the same effect is Davies v. Mar- shall, 10 C. B.. 697; 7 Jur. (K S.) 720; 31 L. J., C. P., 61. INDEX. Abatement of obstructions, proceeding by, 98 But there must be a nuisance, 99 Acquiescence, right to light by, after twenty years, 30 What sufficient to disentitle to relief, 95 What insufficient, 96 Action on the case for obstructing light, 83 By and against whom, 83 — 88 Air, bestowed for the common benefit of man, 1 Ancient Souse, what, as to light, 70 Appurtenances, lights will pass under these words, 47 Building Act, when no defence to an action concerning light, 79, 82, 112 Case, action on the, for obstructing light, 83 Compensation Clause, Railway Act, 94 Covenants, light enjoyed under, 40 Custom in York concerning light, 8 Of London, 11, 70 The custom of London was not abandoned with- out a struggle, 19 Enlargement of Windows, 62 Extinguishment of the privilege of light, 78 Doctrine of, 102 Unity of possession, ib. Non-user, 100 116 INDEX. Grant, light claimed by, 20, 40, 47 Implied, 22 But there must be a defined intention to support an implied grant, not mere openings in walls, 46 Incapacity, proviso concerning it (2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71), 49 Indictment, as a remedy for darkening windows, rarely maintainable, 101 Injunction, when granted for obstructing light, 63, 89 The Court will direct an issue, 89 By the Court of Exchequer, 91 When denied, 92 In order to obtain it, material injury must occur, 101 Interruption to light, of little value after nineteen years, 34, 38 Must be physical, 39 Landlord, his rights concerning light, 40, 48 Must respect the light of his lessee, 96 Lessee, his right as to light, 46, 96 When he may sue for an obstruction, 83 When he may be sued, 86 License to put out lights, 24 To put up a ladder is not a license to put up a window, 50 Light, what it is in law, 1 How claimed, 4 By prescription or grant, 5, 9, 20 Grants implied, 22 Bight to, may now be pleaded without averring prescription, 48 User of, 52 Obstructions to, 58 Nature of the obstruction, 61, 68 Where the lights are so confused as to prevent a clear distinction between a partial destruc- tion of the old, 62 INDEX. 117 Lig lit — con tinned. A prospect if not protected, G9 Eight to prescription in old times, 70, 71 When the change took place, and concerning the period of twenty years, 72, 76 What houses are not privileged, 77 Diminution of, making a house less habitable, the subject of an action, 82 Extnguishment, 102 Parol licence when not countermandable, 113 London, custom of, concerning lights, 11 Not surrendered without a struggle, 19 Manufactory, bght of, when regarded, 60 New Souses, when entitled to the easement of light, 75,81 Non-user of lights, when an extinguishment, 106 Obstructions to lights, 58 There must be a substantial privation to justify that expression, 66 As, if the dwelling be made less comfortable, 68 Remedies against, 83, 101 Occupancy, right to light after twenty years, 30 Parol License, in the case of ancient lights, when not countermandable, 113 Pleading, a right to light may now be claimed gene- rally, 48 Prescription for light, 5, 9, 24 In old times indispensable, 70, 71 But the period of twenty years was subsequently recognised, especially by Wilmot, C. J., 71, 72 Presumption as to light, none allowable except under 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 71, a. 6 ; 34 Prospects, no action lies for obstructing, 69 Recorder of London certifying the ancient custom as to light ore ienus, 15 118 INDEX. Sent, payment of. not an interruption within 2 & 3 W.4, c. 71, s. 4; 39 Reversioner, when he may sue for an obstruction of his light, 83 Tenant cannot stand in a better position than his landlord as to light, 43 From year to year, denied an interlocutory in- junction, 90 Injunction granted, the writ being limited to the tenant, 96 Twenty Years' Possession of lights, 36 When and how the doctrine first obtained, 71 Its success, 74 Unity of Possession with respect to lights, 102 User of lights, 52 Dangerous to meddle with the ancient mode of, 51 Owner of dominant tenement not confined to a particular species of, 63 Vendor and Vendee, respective rights of, with refe- rence to lights, 43, 48 York, custom in, concerning lights, 8 WILLIAM STEVENS, PKINTBE, 37, BELL YABD, TEMPLE BAB. March, 1378. .A. CATALOGUE OF LAW WORKS, PUBLISHED BY STEVENS AND SONS, (Late Stevens and Nokton), 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.O. (Formerly of Bell Yard, Lincoln's Inn). Law Books Purchased or Valued. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. — Public and Local Acts from an early date, may be had of the Publishers of this Catalogue, who have also on sale the largest collection of Private Acts, relating to Estates, Enclosures, Railways, Roads, &c, &c. ACTION AT LAW.--Prentiee's Proceedings in an Action in the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice. By SAMUEL PRENTICE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Royal 12mo. 1877. 10s. 6d. "The book can be safely lecumtueuded to students and prac'itioners .... The recent cases appear to be fully noticed." — Law Times, November, 10, 1877. " Whether for the student or practitioner, we can cordially recommend the work." — Monthly Law Tracts, December, 1877. Smith's Elementary View of the Proceedings in an Action at Law. — Twelfth Edition, adapted to the practice of the Supreme Court. By W. D. I. FOULKES, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1876. 10s. 6d. " The student will find in ' Smith's Action' a manual, by the study of which he may easily acquire a general knowledge of the mode of i>rucedure in tlie various stages of an action in the several divisions of the High Court of Justice." — Law Times, September 2 1870. ADMIRALTY-— Boyd.— Fide "Shipping." Pritchard's Admiralty Digest.— With Notes from Text Writers, and the Scotch, Irish, and American lieports. Second Edition. By ROBERT A. PRITCHARD, D.C.L., Barrister-at-Law, and WILLIAM TARN PRITCHARD. With Notes of Cases from French Maritime Law. By ALGERNON JONES, Avocat a la Cour Imperiale de Paris. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1865. 3/. Roscoe's Treatise on the Jurisdiction and Practice of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, and on Appeals there- from, <&e. With an Appendix containing Statutes, Rules as to Fees and Costs, Forms, Precedents of Pleadings and Bills of Costs. By EDWARD STANLEY ROSCOE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Northern Circuit. {Nearly ready.) Stuart's Cases heard and determined in the Vice-Admiralty Court at Quebec, 1836-75. Edited by GEORGE OKILL STUART, Esq., Q.C. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1858-75. Net, 51. ' %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings, A 2 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. AGENCY. — Petgrave's Principal and Agent.— A Manual of the Law of Principal and Agent. By E. C. PETGRAVE, Solicitor. 12mo. 1857. 7s. 6d. Petgrave's Code of the Law of Principal and Agent, with a Preface. By E. C. PETGRAVE, Solicitor. Demy 12mo. 1876. Net, 2s. Rogers. — Vide "Elections." Russell's Treatise on Mercantile Agency. — Second Edition. 8vo. 1873. 14s. AGRICULTURAL LAW.— Addison's Practical Guide to the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vic. c. 92), and Treatise thereon, shewing the Alterations in the Law, and containing many useful Hints and Suggestions as to the carrying out of the Provisions of the Act; with Handy Forms and a Carefully Prepared Index. Designed chiefly for the use of Agricultural Landlords and Tenants. By ALBERT ADDISON, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature. 1 2mo. 1876. Net, 2s. 6d. Cooke on Agricultural Law. — The Law and Practice of Agricultural Tenancies, with Numerous Precedents of Tenancy Agreements and Farming Leases, &c, &c. By G. WINGROVE COOKE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1851. ' 18s. Dixon's Farm. — Vide "Farm." ARBITRATION.— Russell's Treatise on the Duty and Power of an Arbitrator, and the Law of Submissions and Awards ; with an Appendix of Forms, and of the Statutes relating to Arbitration. By FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition. Royal 8vo. 1878. {Just ready.) 11. 16s. ARTICLED CLERKS.— Butlin's New and Complete Examination Guide and Introduction to the Law ; for the use of Articled Clerks and those who contemplate entering the legal profession, comprising Courses of Reading for the Preliminary and Intermediate Examinations and for Honours, or a Pass at the Final, with Statute, Case, and Judicature (Time) Tables, Sets of Examination Papers, &c, &c. By JOHN FRANCIS BUTLIN, Solicitor, &c. Svo. 1877. 18s. " Mr. Butlin devotes entire chapters to the consideration of Williams onRcal Property, llaynes on Equity, and Chitty on Contracts, in their bearings upon the studies of the articled clerk, and his recommendations as to thoroughness of reading is very sound." — Law Magazine, February, 187S. •'A sensible and useful guide for the legal tyro." — Solicitors' Journal, April 21, 1S77. "In supplying law students with materials for preparing themselves for examination, Mr. Butlin, we think, has distanced all competitors. The volume before us contains hints on readii'g, a very neat summary of law which the best read practitioner need not despise. There are time tables under the Judicature Act, and an excellent tabular arrangement of leading cases, which will he found of great service .... Tuition of this kind will do much to remove obstacles which present themselves to commencing students, and when examinations are over the book is one which may be usefully kept close at hand, and will well repay 'noting up.'" — Law Times, February 2J, 1877. Head. — Vide "Statutes." Rubinstein and Ward's Articled Clerks' Hand- book. — Being a Concise and Practical Guide to all the Steps~ Necessary for Entering into Articles of Clerkship, passing the Preliminary, Intermediate and Final Examinations, obtaining Admission and Certificate to Practise, with Notes of Cases affecting Articled Clerks, Suggestions as to Mode of Reading and Books to be read during Articles. Second Edition. By J. S. RUBINSTEIN and S. WARD, Solicitors. 12mo. 1878. * 3s. " No articled clerk should be without it." -Law Times, February 17, 1877. "Will serve as a simple and practical guide to all the steps necessary for enteiing into articles of clerkship to solicitors, for passing the several examinations, and for pro- curing admission on the roll." — Law Times, February 24, 1877. *„* All standard Law Works are kept in Slock, in laic calf and other lindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. ARTICLED CLERKS -Continued. Wharton's Articled Clerk's Manual.— A Manual for Articled Clerks : being a comprehensive Guide to their successful Examination, Admission, and Practice as Attorneys and Solicitors of the Superior Courts. Ninth Edition. Greatly enlarged. By CHARLES HENRY ANDERSON, Senior Prizeman of the Incor- porated Law Society, &c» Royal 12mo. 18b'4. 18*. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION.— Palmer.— Vide "Conveyancing." ATTORNEYS.— Cordery.— Vide " Solicitors." Pulling's Law of Attorneys, General and Special, Attorneys-at- Law, Solicitors, Notaries, Proctors, Conveyancers, Scriveners, Land Agents, House Agents, &c. , and the Offices and Appointments usually held by them. Their several Qualifications and legitimate Province, Rights, Duties, Privileges, Exemptions, Disabilities, and Liabilities in the General Practice of the Law, in Legal Proceedings, in Legal Negotiations, and Legal Formalities. And the Law of Costs as between Party and Party and Attorney and Client. By ALEXANDER PULLING, Serjeant-at-Law. Third Edition. 8vo. 1862. 18s. " It is a laborious work, a careful work, the work of a lawyer, and, beyond comparison, the best that has ever been produced upon this subject." — Law Times. Smith. — The Lawyer and. his Profession. — A Series of Letters to a Solicitor commencing Business. By J. ORTON SMITH. 12mo. 1860. 4s. AVERAGE. — Hopkins' Hand- Book on Average.— Third Edition. 8vo. 1868. 18s. Lowndes' Law of General Average. — English and Foreign. Third Edition. By RICHARD LOWNDES, Author of "The Admiralty Law of Collisions at Sea." (In preparation.) BAILMENTS.— Jones on the Lav/ of Bailments— Fom-th Edition. By W. THEOBALD. 8vo. 1834. Net, 5s. BALLOT. — FitzGerald's Ballot Act. — With an Introduction-. Forming a Guide to the Procedure at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections. Second Edition. Enlarged, and containingthe Municipal Elections Act, 1875, and the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875. By GERALD A. R. FITZGERALD, M. A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fcap. 8vo. 1876. 5s. 6d. " A useful guide to all concerned in Parliamentary and Municipal Elections."— Law Magazine, February, 1877. " We should stiongly advise any person connected with elections, whether acting as candidate, agent, or in any other capacity, to become possessed of this manual." — Novem- ber 20, 1876. BANKING — Walker's Treatise on Banking Law. In- cluding the Crossed Checks Act, 1876, with dissertations thereon, also references to some American Cases, and full Index. By J. DOUGLA S WALKER, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1877. 14s. " Persons who are interested in banking law may be guided out of many a difficulty by consulting Mr. Walker's volume." — Law Times, May 19, 1877. BANKRUPTCY.— Bedford's Final Examination Guide to Bankruptcy. — Third Edition. 12mo. 1877. 6s. Lynch's Tabular Analysis of Proceedings in Bankruptcy, fortheuse of Students for the Incorporated Law Society's Examinations. Second Edition. Svo. 1874. Net, Is. Scott's Costs in Bankruptcy. — Vide 11 Costs." %* All standard Law Works are kept in Ftock, in law calf and other hind tugs 4 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. BANKRUPTCY. -Continued »,,,,. Smith's Manual of Bankruptcy. — A Manual relating to Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and Imprisonment for Debt ; comprising the New Statute Law verbatim, in a consolidated and readable form. With the Rules, a Copious Index, and a Supplement of Decisions. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, Esq., B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. 12mo. 1873. 10s. *,* The Supplement may be had separately, net, 2s. 6d. Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy, comprising the Bankruptcy Act, the Debtors Act, and the Bankruptcy Repeal and Insolvent Court Act of 1869, and the Rules and Forms made under those Acts. Second Edition. By ROLAND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., and WALTER VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., assisted by Francis Hallett Hardcastle, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barristers -at- Law. 8vo. 1876. 1?. 8s. " ' Williams on Bankruptcy' is quite satisfactory, the more so, perhaps, as the authors have wisely 'not attempted to give all the old authorities, even where the law seems un- changed, but rather the rest; It of those authorities.'" — Law Magazine, November, IS76. " ft would be difficult to speak in terms of undue praise of the present work. . . . The present edition brings down the law to May, 1876, and the profession has now not only the most recent, but certainly one of the best, if not the best, treatise on the Law of Bankruptcy." — Public Opinion. BILLS OF EXCHANGE— Chitty on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, with references to the law of Scotland, France and America. - Eleventh Edition. By JOHN A. RUSSELL, Esq., LL.B., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and Judge of County Courts. Demy 8vo. 1878. (Just ready), 28s. Eddis' Rule of Ex parte Waring. By A. C. EDDIS, B.A. , of Lincoln' s Inn, Barrister-at Law. Post 8vo. 1876. Net, 2s. 6c?. BILLS OF SALE Millar's Bills of Sale. — A Treatise on Bills of Sale, with an Appendix containing the Acts for the Registration of Bills of Sale, Precedents, &c. (being the Fourth Edition of Millar and Collier's Treatise on Bills of Sale). By F. C. J. MILLAR, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1877. 12s. " The original woik is brought down to date, and the latest casus are referred to and considered. The value of the work is tnhauced throughout by careful annotation." — Law Maaazint, February, 1878. BOOK-KEEPING.— Bedford's Intermediate Examina- tion Guide to Book-keeping. — Second Edition. 12mo. 1875. Net, 2s. 6c?. BUILDING ACTS, — Woolryeh. — Vide "Metropolis Building Acts." CANAL TRAFFIC ACT.— Lely's Railway and Canal Traf- fic Act, 1873. — And other Railway and Canal Statutes ; with the General Orders, Forms, and Table of Fees. Post 8vo. 1873. 8s. CARRIERS. — Browne on Carriers. — A Treatise on the Law of Carriers of Goods and Passengers by Land and Water. With References to the most recent American Decisions. By J. H. BALFOUR BROWNE, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at- Law, Registrar to the Railway Commission. 8vo. 1873. 18s. CHANCERY and Vide " EQUITY." Daniell's Chancery Practice. — The Practice of the High Court of Chancery, with some observations on the Pleadings in that Court. By the late EDMUND ROBERT DANIELL, Barrister-at- Law. Fifth Fldition, by LEONARD FIELD and EDWARD CLENNELL DUNN, Barristers-at-Law ; with the assistance of JOHN BIDDLE, of the Master of the Rolls' Chambers. 2 vols. 8vo. 1371. 4J. 4s. • * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. CHANCERY- Continued. The Practice of the High Court of Chancery and the Court of Chan- cery (Funds) Act, 1872, together with Appendices containing the Act, and the Rules and Orders thereunder, and a Collection of Forms. By LEONARD FIELD and EDWARD CLENNELL DUNN, Barristers-at-Law. 8vo. 1873. 8s. 6d. "It is the merit of Mr. Daniell's 'Practice' that it takes nothing as known. The reader is minutely instructed what he is to do and how he is to do it, and if he closely follows his guide he cannot go wrong. ' — Law Times. Daniell's Forms and Precedents of Proceed- ings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom ; with Practical Notes and Observations, forming a complete guide to the practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court and of the Courts of Appeal. Being the Third Edition of " Daniell's Chancery Forms." By WILLIAM HENRY UPJOHN, Esq., Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn. (In the press.) Morgan's Acts and Orders, Fifth Edition. 1876.— The Statutes, General Orders, and Rules of Court relating to the Practice, Pleading, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judi- cature, particularly with reference to the Chancery Division, and the Actions assigned thereto. With copious Notes. Fifth Edition. Carefully revised and adapted to the new Practice by GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN, M.P., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and CHALONER W. CHUTE, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister- at-Law, and late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. In 1 vol. Demy 8vo. 1876. 1/. 10*. "A most valuable feature is the annotation of the Bules of Court, which give all the recent cases, and is as useful as a new edition of any of the works on Judicature Acts only. This edition of Mr. Morgan's treati>e must, we believe, be the most popular with the profession. "—Law Times, December 9, 1876. " In the shape in which it now appears we have no doubt this edition will meet with a very favourable reception hy the professions, and will exceed in demand any of its pre- decessors."--iaw Journal, December 30, 1876. "The practitioner will find in the present edition, a lucid and compendious statement of the substance of the Consolidated and other Orders of the Court of Chancery, which, though not expressly incorporated ia the new enactments, are, by implication, left un- touched by them, placed side by side with the Judicature Acts and Rules of Court. . . . . This new edition will maintain and enhance the high reputation deservedly gained by the original work " — Law Magazine and Review, February, 1877. Morgan and Davey's Chancery Costs. — Vide "Costs." Orders and Rules of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. — Published by authority, as issued. CHURCH AND CLERGY.— Phillimore.— FwZe"EcclesiasticalLaw." Stephen's Laws relating to the Clergy. — 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1848. 21. 18s. CIVIL LAW. — Bowyer's Commentaries on the Modern Civil Law.— By Sir GEORGE BOWYER. D.C.L., Royal 8vo. 1848. 18s. Bowyer's Introduction to the Study and Use of the Civil Law.— By Sir GEORGE BOWYER, D.C.L. Royal 8vo. 1874. 5s. Cumin's Manual of Civil Law. — A Manual of Civil Law, containing a Translation of, and Commentary on, the Fragments of the XII. Tables, and the Institutes of Justinian ; the Text of the Institutes of Gaiua and Justinian arranged in parallel columns ; and the Text of the Fragments of Ulpian, and of Selec- tions from Paul's Receptee Sententiae. By P. CUMIN, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Medium 8vo. 1865. 18s. Greene. — Vide "Roman Law." All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. . STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. CiVIL LAW.— Continued. Mears. — Vide "Roman Law." Voet Commentarius ad Pandectas, Translated into English. — Parti. The Contract of Sale. (Book xviii.) By SIR ROLAND KNYVET WILSON, Bart., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1876. Net \l. Is. COLLISIONS.— Lowndes' Admiralty Law of Collisions at Sea. — 8vo. 1867. 7s 6d. COLONIAL LAW. —Clark's Colonial Law.— A Summary of Colonial Law and Practice of Appeals from the Plantations. 8vo. 1834. 1/. 4s. Vanderlinden. — Vide "Dutch Law." COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND.— Bowyer.— Vide "Constitutional I/aw." Broom and Hadley's Commentaries on the Laws of England.— By HERBERT BROOM, LL.D., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law ; Reader in Common Law to the Inns of Court : Author of " A Selection of Legal Maxims," &c. ; and EDWARD A. HADLEY, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law ; late Fellow of Trinity Coll., Cambridge. 4 vols. 8vo. 1869. Zl. 3s. " Messrs. Broom and Hadley have been unsparing in their editorial labours. There are abundant reference notes, so that the diligent student can consult the authorities if he is so disposed. Besides the table of contents, there are an appendix and a copious index to each volume. Nothing that could be done to ni;ike the work useful and handy has been left undone. " — Law Journal, November 19, 1^69. COMMERCIAL LAW.— Levi's International Commercial Law. — Being the Principles of Mercantile Law of the following and other Countries — viz. : England, Scotland, Ireland, British India, British Colonies, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Buenos Ayres, Den- mark, France, Germany, Greece, Hans Towns, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Sweden, SwitzerlanJ, United States, and Wtirtemburg. By LEONE LE VI, Esq., F.S.A., F.S.S., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Professor of the Principles and Practice of Commerce at King's College, London, &c. Second Edition. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1863. 11. 15s. Smith. — Vide ' ' M ercantile Law. " COMMON LAW.— Braithwaite.— Vide "Oaths." Fisher. — Vide " Digests." Orders and Rules of the High Court of Justice, Common Law Divisions. — Published by Authority, as issued. Prentice. — Vide "Action." Smith's Manual of Common Law. — For Practitioners and Students. A JVlanual of Common Law, comprising the funda- mental principles and the points most usually occurring in daily life and practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 1S7S. (Just ready.) 14s. " Admirably conceived and executed Eminently lucid and concise . . . . . . A pocket-hook of pith and essence of common law." — Leguleian. "Mr. Josiah Smith possesses, in an eminent degree, that kind of logical skill which exhibits itself in the simple arrangement, but exhaustive division, of wide and complicated subjects, and is, moreover, gifted with the rare power of accurate condensation." — Solicitors' Journal. " To more advanced students, and to the practitioner, whether barrister or attorney, we think the 'Manual of Common Law ' a most useful and convenient companion It is compiled with the scrupulous care and the ability which distinguish Mr. Smith's previous works." — Jurist. •' Smith's Manuals of Common Law nnd Equity must be resorted to as the open sesames to the learning requisite in the Final Examination of the Incorporated Law Society.'' — From Dr. Hollit's Lecture, p. 11. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in laic calf and other bindings, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. COMMONS AND INCLOSURES.— Chambers' Digest of the Law relating to Commons and Open Spaces. — Including Public Parks and Recreation Grounds ; with Official Documents, Bye-Laws, Statutes and Cases. By GEORGE F. CHAMBERS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Im- perial 8vo. 1877. 6s. 6d. Cooke on Inclosures.— The Acts for facilitating the In- closure of Commons in England and Wales ; with a Treatise on the Law of Rights of Commons, in reference to these Acts, &c, &c. With Forms as settled by the Inclosure Commissioners. By G. WINGROVE COOKE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. 12mo. 1864. 16s. COMPANY LAW— Vide "Joint Stocks." COMPANIES, LIABILITIES OF PROMOTERS OF— Finlason's Report of the Case of Twycross v. Grant, in the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Appeal, with the Judg- ments, as revised by the Judges, and an Introduction and Notes, containing notices of the pre^ ious cases on the subject. By W. F. FINLASON, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1877. Net, 2s. 6rf. COMPANY PRECEDENTS.— Palmer.— Vide "Conveyancing." CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-Bowyer's Commentaries on the Constitutional Law of England. — By Sir GEO. BOWYttR, D.C.L. Second Edition. Eoyal 8vo. 1816 11. 2s. CONTRACTS.— Addison on Contracts. — Being a Treatise on the Law of Contracts. By C. G. ADDISON, Esq., Author of the " Law of Torts." Seventh Edition. By L. W. CAVE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Recorder of Lincoln. Royal 8vo. 1875. 1Z. LSt. "At present this is by far the best book upon the Law of Contract possessed by the Profession, and it is a thoroughly practical book." — Law Times. Leake on Contracts. — The Elements of the Law of Con- tracts. Second Edition. By STEPHEN MARTIN LEAKE, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) Pollock's Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity ; being a Treatise on the General Principles relating to the Validity of Agreements, with a special view to the comparison of Law and Equity, and with references to the Indian Contract Act, and occasionally to American and Foreign Law. Second Edition. By FREDERICK POLLOCK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. (In the press. ) The Lord Chief Justice in his judgment in Metropolitan Railway Company v. Broa- den and others, said. "The Law is well put by Mr. Frederick. Pollock in his very able and learned work on Contracts."— The Times, February 10, 1877. " He has succeeded in writing a book on Contracts which the working lawyer will find as ustfnl for reference as any of its predecessors, and which at the same time will give the student what he will seek for in vain elsewhere, a complete rationale of the law." — Law Magazine and Review, August, 1876. '• Mr. Pollock's work ought, in our opinion, to take a high place among treatises of its class. The ' fusion of law and equity ' so far as that fusion is possible, is in his pages au accomplished fact." — Pall Mall Gazette, March 3, 1876. " A work which, in our opinion, shows great ability, a discerning intellect, a compre- hensive mind, and painstaking industry. The book ought to be a success. >' — Law Journal, March 18, 1876. " There is no part of the woik that does not please us by the freshness of the style and the ingenuity of the treatment. The author may be congratulated on having achieved a marked success in a field where others before him have written well." — Solicitors' Journal, April 8, 1876. Smith's Law of Contracts.— By the late J. W. SMITH, Esq., Author of "Leading Cases," &c. Sixth Edition. B. VINCENT T. THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 1874. 16s. * # * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock in law calf and other bindings. 8 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW P UBLIC ATIONS. CONVEY ANCING.-Greenwood's Manual of Convey- ancing. — A Manual of the Practice of Conveyancing, showing the present Practice relating to the daily routine of Conveyancing in Solicitors' Offices. To which are added Concise Common Forms and Precedents in Conveyancing ; Conditions of Sale, Conveyances, and all other Assurances in constant use. Fifth Edition. By H. N. CAPEL, B.A., LL.B., Solicitor. Demy 8vo. 1877. 15s. "Tlie information under these beads is just of that ordinary practical kind which is learned from experience and is not to be gathered from treatise-*. . . . A careful study of these pages would probably arm a diligent clerk with a< much useful knowledge as he might otherwise take years of desultory questioning and observing to acquire." — Solicitors' Journal. "The young solicitor will find this work almost iuvaluable, while the members of the higher branch of tne profession may refer to it with advantage. We have not met with any book that furnishes so simple a guide to the management of business entrusted to articled clerks." — Sheffield Post. Martin's Student's Conveyancer. — A Manual on the Principles of Modern Conveyancing, illustrated and enforced by a Collection of Precedents, accompanied by detailed Remarks. Part I. Purchase Deeds. By THOMAS FREDERIC MARTIN, Solicitor. Demy 8vo. 1877. 5s. 6d. " We have no doubt that the student will find in Mr. Martin's treatise a good guide to the practical part of conveyancing." — Law Times, June i3, 1877. " It should be placed in the hands of every student." Palmer's Company Precedents. — Conveyancing and other Forms and Precedents relating to Companies' incorporated under the Companies' Acts, 1862 and 1867. Arranged as follows : — Agreements, Memoranda of Association, Articles of Association, Resolutions, Notices, Certificates, Provisional Orders of Board of Trade, Debentures, Reconstruction, Amalgamation, Petitions, Orders. With Copious Notes. By FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALMER, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1877. V. 5s. " There had never, to our knowledge, been any attempt to collect and edit a body of Forms and Precedents exelusively^relating to the formation, working and winding-up of companies. This task Mr. Palmer has taken in hand, and we are glad to say with much success ... The information contained in the 65 > prges of the volume is rendered easily accessible by a good and full index. Tne author Iihs evidently not been sparing of labour, and the fruits of his exertions are now before the legal profession in a work of great practical utility." — Law Magazine, February, 1878. " To those concerned in getting up companies, the assistance given by Mr. Palmer must be very valuable, because he does not confiue himself to bare precedents, but by intelligent and learned commentary lights up, as it were, each step that he takes. The volume before us is not, therefore a book of precedents merely, but, in a greater or less de- gree, a treatise on certain portions of the Companies' Acts of 1862 aud 1867. There is an elaborate index, aud the work is one which must commend itself to the profession." — Law Times, June 9, 1877. "The precedents are as a rule exceedingly well drafted, and adapted to companies for almost every conceivable object. So especially are the forms of memoranda aud articles of association ; and these will be found extremely serviceable to the conveyancer. . . All the notes have been elaborated with a thoroughly scientific knowledge of the principles of company law, as well as with copious references to the cases substantiating the principles. . . We venture to predict that his not' s will be found of great utility in guiding opinions on many complicated questions of law and practice. ' — Law Journal, June 23, 1877. Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing. — With Dissertations on its Law and Practice. Eighth Edition. By FREDERICK PRIDEAUX, late Professor of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court, and JOHN WHITCOMBE, Esqrs., Barristers-at- Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1876. Bl. 10s, " Prideaux has becoTie an indispensable part of the Conveyancer's library The now edition has been edited with a care and accuracy of which we can hardly speak too highly." — Solicitors' Journal, October 14, 1876. " We really fan hardly imagine a conveyancer being required to prepare any instru- ment which he wdl not hud sketched out in the work under notice We may also he allowed to add our tribute of praise to these Precedents for their conciseness, perspicuity, precision, and perfection of drafting." — Law Journal. September 23, 1876. %* All standard Law Works arc kept in Stock, in law calf and oilier bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. CONVICTIONS.— Paley on Summary Convictions.— Fifth Edition. By H. T. J. MACNAMAKA, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. 8vo. 1866. 12 # i S- Stone. — Vide " Petty Sessions." COPYRIGHT.-Phillips' Law of Copyright.— The Law of Copyright in Works of Literature and Art, and in the Appli- cation of Designs. With the Statutes relating thereto. By CHARLES PALMER PHILLIPS, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1863. 12s. " Mr. Phillips' work is at once an able law-book and a lucid treatise, in a popular forms on the rights of authors and artists." — Jurist. CORONERS.— J ervis on the Office and Duties of Coroners. — With Forms and Precedents. Third Edition. By C. W. LOVESY, Esq., Puisne Judge, British Guiana. 12mo. 1866. 12... COSTS.— Carew's Precedents of Bills of Costs, for obtaining Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration in the Principal Registry of the Court of Probate. 1869. 5s. Morgan and Davey's Treatise on Costs in Chancery.— By GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN, M.P., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, late Stowell Fellow of University College, Oxford, and Eldon Scholar ; and HORACE DAVEY, M.A., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, late Fellow of University College, Oxford, and Eldon Scholar. With an Appendix, containing Forms and Precedents of Bills of Costs. 8vo. 1865. U. Is. Morris' Solicitors' Fees and Court Fees, under the Judicature Acts.— With Copious Index. By WILLIAM MORRIS, Solicitor. 12mo. 1876. 4 5 . Scott's Costs in the Superior Courts of Com- mon Law, and Probate and Divorce, and in Conveyancing; also in Bankruptcy (Act of 1869). Proceedings in the Crown Office* on Circuit and at Sessions, and in the County Court, &c. With an Appendix, containing Costs under Parliamentary Elections Act 1863. By JOHN SCOTT, of the Inner Temple, Ehq., Barrister-at- Law. Third Edition. Royal 12mo. 1868-73. 1/. 4 S . "Mr Scott's work is well known to the profession. It is an extensive collection of taxed bills of costs in all branches of practice, supplied to him probably by the taxing masters. Such a work speaks for itself. Its obvious utility is its best recommenda- tion." — Law Times. Scott's Costs under the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 187S; containing the " Additional Rules " and Scale of Costs ; together with Precedents op Taxed Bills. By JOHN SCOTT, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1876. 5s. 6d. Summerhays and Toogood's Precedents ' of Bills of Costs in the Chancery, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, Probate and Divorce Divisions of the High CoLirt of Justice, in Conveyancing, Bankruptcy, &c, with Scales of Allowances and Court Fets, &c, &c. Second Edition. Royal 8vo. 1877. 15 s _* Webster's Parliamentary Costs.— Private Bills, Election Petitions, Appeals, House of Lords. By EDWARD WEBSTER, Esq., of the Taxing Office, House of Commons, and of the Examiners' Office, House of Lords and House of Commons Third Edition. Post 8vo. 1867. 20s. "The object of this work is to give the scale of costs allowed to Solicitors in relation to private bills before Parliament, the conduct of Election Petitions and Appeal Causes and the allowance to Witnesses. The connection of the author with the Taxing Office of the House of Commons gives authority to the work."— Solicitors' Journal. '%* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 10 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. COUNTY COURTS.— The Consolidated County Court Orders and Rules, 1875, with Forms and Scales of Costs and Fees, as issued by the Lord Chancellor and Committee of County Court Judges. Authorized Edition. Super-royal 8vo. 1875. Net, 3s. County Court Rules, 1876. Authorised Edition. A T et,6d. Pitt-Lewis' County Court Practice. — A Complete Practice of the County Courts, including Admiralty and Bankruptcy, embodying the Act, Pules, Forms and Costs, with Table of Cases and Full Index. By G. PITT-LEWIS, of the Middle Temple and Western Circuit, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, sometime Holder of the Studentships of the Four Inns of Court. (In preparation.) CRIMINAL LAW, — Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases. — With the Statutes, Precedents of Indictments, &c, and the Evidence necessary to support them. By JOHN JERVIS, Esq. (late Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas). Eighteenth Edition, including the Practice in Criminal Proceedings by Indictment. By WILLIAM BRUCE, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Stipendiary Magistrate for the Borough of Leeds. Royal 12mo. 1875. 11. lis. 6d. Cole on Criminal Informations and Quo War- ranto— By W. R. COLE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1843. 12s. Greaves' Criminal Law Consolidation and Amendment Acts of the 24 & 2o Vict.— With Notes, Observations, and Forms for Summary Proceedings. By CHARLES SPRENGEL GREAVES, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, who prepared the Bills and attended the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament to which the Bills were referred. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 1862. 16s. Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases.— Ninth Edition. By HORACE SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1878. (Just ready.) ll.lls.6d. Russell's Treatise on Crimes and Misdemea- nors.— Fifth Edition. By SAMUEL PRENTICE, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. 3 vols. Royal 8vo. 1877. 51, 15s. 6rf. This treatise is so much more copious than any other upon all the subjects contained iu it, that it affords by far the best means of acquiring a knowledge of the Criminal Law in general, or of any offence in particular ; so that it will be found peculiarly useful as well to those who wish to obtain a complete knowledge of that law, as to those who desire to be informed on any portion of it as occasion may requite. This work also contains a very complete treitise on the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases, and in it the manner of taking the depositions of witnesses, aud the examinations of prisoners before magistrates, is fully explained. " What better Digest of Criminal Law could we possibly hope for than 'Russell on Crimea?' " — Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Speech on Codification. "We may safely assert that the fifth edition of ' Russell on Crimes' has, under the careful hand of Mr. Prentice, fully reached the standard attained to by the preceding editions." — Law Journal, January 27, 1877. " Mo more trustworthy authority, or more exhaustive expositor than 'Russell' can be consul' ed." — Law Magazine and Review, February. 1877. " Alterations have been made in the arrangement of the work which without interfering with the general plan are sufficient to show that great care and thought have been bestowed We are amazed at the patience, industry and skill which are exhibited in the collection and arrangement of all this mass of learning." — The Times, December 26, 1876. *_* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. s. d. 5 7 5 6 8 7 6 9 6 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 11 DECREES.— Seton.— Vide " Equity." DIARY. — Lawyer's Companion (The), Diary, and Law Directory. — For the use of the Legal Profession, Public Com- panies, Justices, Merchants, Estate Agents, Auctioneers, &c, &c. Published Annually. Thirty-second Issue for 1878. The Work is 8vo. size, strongly bound in cloth, and published at the following Prices : — 1. Two days on a page, plain ....... 5 2. The above, interleaved for Attendances 3. Two days on a page, ruled, with or without money columns 4. The above, interleaved for Attendances .... 5. Whole page for each day, plain ...... 6. The above, interleaved for Attendances 7. Whole page for each day, ruled, with or without money columns .......... 8 6 8. The above, interleaved for Attendances . . . 10 6 9. Three days on a page, ruled blue lines, without money columns . . ....... 5 The Diary, printed on JOYNSON'S paper of superior quality, contains memoranda of Legal Business throughout the Year. The Lawyer's Companion for 1878, is edited by JOHN THOMPSON, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law ; and contains a Digest of Kecent Cases on Costs ; Monthly Diary of County, Local Government, and Parish Business ; Oaths in Supreme Court; Summary of Legislation of 1877 ; Alphabetical Index to the Practical Statutes ; a Copious Table of Stamp Duties ; Legal Time, Interest, Discount, Income, Wages and other Tables; Probate, Legacy and Succession Duties ; a London and Provincial Law Directory, and a variety of matters of practical utility. " A publication whirh has long ago secured to itself the favour of the profession, and which, as heretofore, justifies by its contents the title assumed by it. The new volume presents all the attractive features of its predecessors, combined with much matter compiled specially for the coming year." — Law Journal. "The present issue contains all the information which could be looked for in such a wmk, and gives it in a most convenient form and very completely. We may unhesitatingly recommend the work to our readers."— Solicitors' Journal. " The ' Lawyer's Companion and Diary' is a book that ought to be in the possession ot every lawyer, and of every man of business." "The ' Lawyer's Companion ' is, iudeed, what it is called, for it combines everything required for reference in the lawyer's office." — Law Times. DICTIONARY. — Wharton's Law Lexicon. — A Dictionary of Jurisprudence, explaining the Technical Words and Phrases employed in the several Departments of English Law ; including the various Legal Terms used in Commercial Transactions. Together with an Explanatory as well as Literal Translation of the Latin Maxims contained in the Writings of the Ancient and Modern Commentators. Sixth Edition. Enlarged and revised in accordance with the Judicature Acts, by J. SHIRESS WILL, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Super royal Svo. 1876. 21. 2s. "As a work, of reference for the library, the handsome and elaborate edition of ' Wharton's Law Lexicon ' which Mr. Shiress Will has produced, must supersede all former issues of that well-known work."— Law Magazine and Review, August, 1876. "No law library is complete without a law dictionary or law lexicon. To the practi- tioner it is always useful to have at hand a book where, in a small compass, he can find an explanation of terms of inlrequent occurrence, or obtain a reference to statutes on most subjects, or to bo.ks wherein particular subjects are treated of at full leugth. To the student it is almost indispensable." [Continued. * # * A 11 standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 12 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. DICTIONARY.— Wharton's Law Lexicon.^ continued. "We have simply t'> notice that the same ability and accuracy mark the present edition which wtre conspicuous in its predecessor. Mr. Will has done all that was ren- dered necessary by the judicature Acts, in the shape of incorporation and elimination, and has brought the statute Law down to the date ot publication." — Law Timet, March 4, .1876. " Wharton's perennial Liw Lexicon has just been adapted to the new condition of the Law, brought about by the Judicature Act. The task of revision has been ably per- formed by Mr. Shiress Will." — Saturday Review, April 15, 1876. DIGESTS. — Bedford. — Vide " Examination Guides." Chamber's — Vide " Public Health." Chitty's Equity Index. — Chitty's Index to all the Reported Cases, and Statutes, in or relating to the Principles, Pleading, and Practice of Equity and Bankruptcy, in the several Courts of Equity in England and Ireland, the Privy Council, and the House of Lords, from the earliest period. Third Edition. By J. MACAULAY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 4 vols. Royal 8vo. 1853. 71. 7 s. Fisher's Digest of the Reported Cases deter- mined in the House of Lords and Privy Council, and in the Courts of Common Law, Divorce, Probate, Admiralty and Bank- ruptcy, from Michaelmas Term, 1756, to Hilary Term, 1870 ; with References to the Statutes and Rules of Court. Founded on the Analytical Digest by Harrison, and adapted to the present practice of the Law. By R. A. FISHER, Esq., Judge of the County Courts of Bristol and of Wells. Five large volumes, royal 8vo. 1870. 12/. 12s. (Continued Annually.) " Mr. Fisher's Digest is a wonderful work. It is a miracle of human industry." — Mr. JuUice Willes. " The fact is, that we have already the best of all possible digests. 1 do not refer merely to the works which pass under that title — though, I confess, I think it would be very difficult to improve upon Mr. Fisher's 'Common Law Digest' — I refer te the innumerable text books of every branch of the law. What better digest of criminal law could we possibly hope for than 'Kussell on Crimes,' and the current Roscoe and Archbold. to say nothing of the title, 'Criminal Law,' in 'Fisher's Digeiit.'"— Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C. , in his Address to the Law Amendment Society on Codification in Indiaand England, Session 1872-3. Leake. — Vide "Real Property." Notanda Digest in Law, Equity, Bankruptcy Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Cases. — By H. TUDOR BODDAM, of the Inner Temple, and HARRY GREENWOOD, of Lincoln's Inn, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. The Notanda Digest, from the commencement, October, 1862. to December, 1876. In 1 volume, half -bound. Net, 31. 3s. Ditto, in 2 volumes, half-bound. Net, 31 10s. Ditto, Third Series, 1873 to 1876 inclusive, half-bound. Net, 11. lis. erf- Ditto, Fourth Series, for 1877, with Indexes, in 1 volume. Net, 1/. Is. Ditto, ditto, for 1878, Plain Copy and Two Indexes, or Adhesive Copy for insertion in Text-Books. Annual Subscription, payable in advance. (No. 1 now ready.) Net, 21s. *** The numbers are issued regularly every alternate month. Each number will contain a concise analysis of every case reported in the Law Reports, Law Journal, Weikly Reporter, Law Times, and the Irish Law Reports, up to and including the cases contained in the parts for the current month, with references to Text-books. Statutes, and the Law Eeports Consolidated Digest. An alphabetical index of the subjects contained in each number will form a new feature in this series. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindinus. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 13 D I GESTS.— Continued. Pollock.— Vide "Partnership." Roseoe's. — Vide " Criminal Law " and "Nisi Prius." DISCOVERY.— Hare's Treatise on the Discovery of Evidence. — Second Edition. Adapted to the Procedure in the High Court of Justice, with Addenda, containing all the Reported Cases to the end of 1S76. By SHERLOCK HARE, Barrister-at- Law. Post 8vo. 1877. 12s. ■The book is a uselul contribution to our text-books on practice The editor has incorporated his alterations with the original, so as to spare the reader the labour of combining for himself each statement with its necessary supplement, and the work remains concise and complete." — Solicitors' Journal, February 19, 1876. " We have read his work with considerable attention and interest, and we can speak in terms of cordial praise of the manner in which the new procedure has been worked into the old material. Not that the old material has been allowed to remain unimproved. In many instances necessary changes and amendments have been made, evincing a thorough appreciation of the necessities of the case on the part of the learned editor. . . . . All the sections and orders of the new legislation are referred to in the text, a synopsis of recent cases is given, and a good index completes the volume." — Law Times, January 8, 1876. Seton.— Vide "Equity." DIVORCE.— Browne's Treatise on the Principles and Practice of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes: — With the Statutes, Rules, Eees, and Forms relating thereto. Third Edition. By GEORGE BROWNE, Esq., B.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Ludlow. 8vo. 1876. U. 4s. " We think this Edition of Mr. Browne's Treatise has been edited with commendable care. The book, as it now stands, is a clear, practical, and, so far as we have been able to test it, accurate exposition of divorce lawand procedure." — Solicitors' Journal, April 22, 1876 QOMICIL.— Phillimore's (Sir R.) Law of Domicil.— 8vo. 1847. DUTCH LAW.— Vanderlinden's Institutes of the Laws of Holland.— 8vo. 1828. 1/. 18s. EASEMENTS.— Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Easements.— By JOHN LEYBOTJRN GODDARD, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 1877. 16s. "The book is invaluable: where the cases are silent the author has taken pains to ascertain what the law would be if brought into question."— Law Journal. "Nowhere has the subject been treated so exhaustively, and, we may add, so scientifi- cally, as by Mr. Goddard. We recommend it to the most careful study of the law student as well as to the library of the practitioner."— Law Times Woolrych. — Vide "Lights." ECCLESIASTICAL. — Finlason's Folkestone Ritual Case. — The Judgment of the Judicial Committee in the Folkestone Ritual Case, with an Historical Introduction and brief Notes. By W. F. FINLASON, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1877. Net, 2s. 6d. Phillimore's (Sir R.) Ecclesiastical Law.— The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England. With Supplement, containing the Statutes and Decisions to end of 1875. By Sir ROBERT PHILLIMORE, D.C.L., Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury ; Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council. 2 vols. 8vo. 1873-76. SI. 7s. 6d. %* The Supplement may be had separately, price 4s. 6d., sewed. Stephens. — Vide "Church and Clergy." %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 14 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. ELECTIONS.— FitzGerald.— Fide "Ballot." Rogers on Elections, Registration, and Election Agency.— Witb an Appendix of Statutes and Forms. Twelfth Edition. By F. S. P. WOLFERSTAN, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1876. 11. 10a. "The book maintains its reputatiou as a well arranged magazine of all the authorities on the subject." — law Journal, August 19, 1876. "Mr. Wolferst-an has added a new chapter on election agency, which contains a care- ful and valuable digest of the decisions and dicta on this thorny subject."— Solicitors' Journal, October 2S, 1876. ENGLAND, LAWS OF,— Bowyer.— Vide "Constitutional Law." Broom and Hadley. — Vide " Commentaries." Syms' Code of English Law (Principles and Practice) for handy reference in a Solicitor's office. By F. R. SYMS, Solicitor. 12mo. 1870. 16s. EQUITY, and Fide CHANCERY. Seton's Forms of Decrees, Judgments, and Orders in the High Court of Justice and Courts of Appeal, having especial reference to the Chancery Division, with Practical Notes. Fourth Edition. By R. H. LEACH, Esq., Senior Registrar of the Court of Chancery ; F. G. A. WILLIAMS, of the Inner Temple, Esq. ; and H. W. MAY, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barristers-at-Law. In 2 vols. Vol.1. Royal 8vo. 1877. 11. 10s. "This Volume contains Judgment by Default and at Trial; Motion for Judgment; Transfer and Payment of Funds into and out of Court ; Proceedings in Chambers; Dis- covery and Production; Injunctions; Stop Orders and Charging Orders; Ne Exeat Attachment of Debts ; Transfer and Consolidation of Actions ; Prohibition Patents ; Interpleader ; Issues ; Referees and Arbitration Receivers ; Trustees (including Trustees Act) ; Charities ; Orders affecting Solicitors; and Taxation of Bills of Costs, &c, &c. "Cannot fail to commend itself to practitioners. Nothing need be said as to the value of the work, which is one of settled authority, and we have only to congratulate the profession upon the fact that this edition comes out under circumstances peculiarly calculated to enhance its value."— Law Times, February 24, 1877. •' The impression derived from our perusal of tbe book is that it represents the result of conscientious and intelligent labour on the part of the editors, and we think it deserves, and will obtain, the confidence of the profession." — Solicitors' Journal, April 7, 1877. (Vol. II. in the press.) Smith's Manual of Equity Jurisprudence.— A Manual of Equity Jurisprudence for Practitioners and Students, founded on the Works of Story, Spence, and other writers, and on ■more than a thousand subsequent cases, comprising the Fundamental Principles and the points of Equity usually occurring in General Practice. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Twelfth Edition. 12mo. 1878. (Just ready.) 12s. 6d. " To sum up all in a word, for the student and the jurisconsult, the Manual is the nearest approach to an equity code that the present literature of tho law is able to furnish "- Law Titties. "It will be found as useful to the practitioner as to the student." — Solicitors' Journal. «' Mr. Smith's Manual has fairly won for itself the position of a standard work.''— Jurist. " It retains and that deservedly, the reverence of both examiners and students.''— Dr. Rollit's Lecture on a Course of Reading. " There is no disguising the truth ; the proper mode to use this book is to learn its pages by heart." — Law Magazine and Review. Smith's (Sidney) Principles of Equity.— 8vo. 1856, 11. 5s. EVIDENCE.— Archbold.— Fide " Criminal." Hare. — Vide "Discovery." Roscoe. — Vide " Criminal.*' Roscoe. — Vide " Nisi Prius." EXAMINATION GUIDES.— Bedford's Guide to the Preli- minary Examination for Solicitors.— Fourth Edition. 12mo. 1874. Net, 3s. * * All standard Law Works are kepi in Stock, in laiv calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 15 EXAMINATION GUIDES. -t Bedford's Digest of the Preliminary Examina- tion Questions on English and Latin, Grammar, Geography, History, French Grammar, and Arithmetic, with the Answers. 8vo. 1875. 18s. Bedford's Preliminary Guide to Latin Gram- mar.— 12mo. 1872. Net, 3s. Bedford's Intermediate Examination Guide to Bookkeeping. — Second Edition. 12mo. 1875. Net,2s.6d. Bedford's Final Examination Guide to Bank- ruptcy.— Third Edition. 12mo. 1877. 6s. The following are published the day after each Examination : — Bedford's Preliminarv. — Containing the Questions of the Preliminary Examinations. Edited by E. H. BEDFORD, Soli- citor. Sewed. Net, Is. Bedford's Intermediate. — Containing the Questions and Answers at the Intermediate Examinations. Edited by E. H. BEDFORD, Solicitor. Hilary Term. 1878. No. 37. Sewed. Net, Is. V Nos. 1 to 34. U. each. Nos. 35 and 36. Is. Bedford's Final. —Containing the Questions and Answers at the Final Examinations. Edited by E. H. BEDFORD, Solicitor. Hilary Term. 1878. No. 36. Sewed. Net, Is. %* Nos. 1 to 33. 6d. each. Nos. 34 and 35. Is. Butlin.— Vide "Articled Clerks." H e ad. — Vide ' ' Statutes." Lynch and Smith. — Vide "Judicature Acts." Rubinstein and Ward. — Vide " Articled Clerks." EXECUTORS.— Williams' Law of Executors and Ad- ministrators. — A Treatise on the Law of Executors and Ad- ministrators. Seventh Edition. By the Rt. Hon. Sir EDWARD VATJGHAN WILLIAMS, late one of the Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, and WALTER VATJGHAN WILLIAMS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1873. 31. 16s. FACTORY ACTS. — Notcutt's Factory and Workshop Acts. — Comprising all the Laws now in force (including the Act of 1874) for the regulation of Labour in Factories and Workshops, with Introduction, Explanatory Notes, and Notes of decided cases. By GEORGE JARVIS NOTCUTT, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1874. 9s. FARM, LAW OF. — Addison ; Cooke. — Vide "Agricultural Law." Dixon's Law^ of the Farm — A Treatise on the Law of the Farm. Fourth Edition. By HENRY PERKINS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) FIXTURES. -Amos and Ferard on Fixtures.— Second Edition. Royal 8vo. 1847. 16s. Woodfall. — See "Landlord and Tenant." FORMS — Chitty's Forms. Eleventh Edition. ByTHOS. CHITTY and THOS. WILLES CHITTY, Esqrs. {In preparation.) Corner's Forms of Writs and other Pro- ceedings on the Crown side of the Court of Queen's Bench.— 8vo. 1844. 7s. 6d. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Slock, in law calf and otlier bindings. 16 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. FORM S .— Continued. Darnell's Forms and Precedents of Proceed- ings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom ; with Practical Notes and Observations, forming a complete guide to the Practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court and of the Courts of Appeal. Being the Third Edition of " Daniell's Chancery Forms." By WILLIAM HENRY UPJOHN, Esq , Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn. (In the press.) Moore's Solicitor's Book of Practical Forms. — 12mo. 1852. 7s. 6d. HIGHWAYS.— Bateman's General Highway Acts. — Second Edition. With a Supplement containing the Highway Act of 1864, &c. With Notes by C. MANLEY SMITH, Esq., one of the Masters of the Queen's Bench. 12mo. 1865. 10s. 6d. Shelford's Law of Highways. — The Law of Highways ; including the General Highway Acts for England and Wales, and other Statutes, with copious Notes of the Decisions thereon ; with Forms. Third Edition. With Supplement by C. MANLEY SMITH, Esq., one of the Masters of the Queen's Bench. 12mo. 1865. 15s. %* The Supplement may be had separately, price 3s. sewed. INCLOSURES.— Vide "Commons." INDIAN LAW — Montnou; the Hindu Will of Bengal. With an Introductory Essay, &c. Royal 8vo. 1870. Net, 11. 10s. Norton's Leading Cases on the Hindu Law of Inheritance.— 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1870-71. Net, 21. 10s. INFANTS.— Ebsworth's Law of Infants. — A Handy Book of the Law of Infants. By JOHN EBS WORTH, Esq., Solicitor. 12mo. 1861. 3s. Forsyth's Law relating to the Custody of Infants in Cases of difference between Parents or Guardians. — 8vo. 1850. 8s. INJUNCTIONS.— Seton.— Vide" Equity." INSURANCE.— Arnould on the Law of Marine Insu- rance.— Fifth Edition. By DAVID MACLACHLAN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1877. 3?. "Asa text book, Arnould is now all the practitioner can want, and we congratulate the editor upon the skill with which he has incorporated the new decisions."— Law Tinus, Oct. 6th, 1877. „ ,, Hopkins' Manual of Marine Insurance.— 8vo. 1867- 18s - Lowndes.- Vide "Average." INTERNATIONAL LAW. — Amos' Lectures on Inter- national Law. — Delivered in the Middle Temple Hall to the Students of the Inns of Court, by SHELDON AMOS, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law ; Professor of Jurisprudence (including International Law) to the Inns of Court ; Professor of Jurisprudence in University College, London. Royal 8vo. 1874. 10s.6d. Kent's International Law. — Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J. T. ABDY, LL.D., Judge of County Courts. Second Edition. Revised and brought down to the present time. Crown £vo. 1878. {Just ready.) 10s. 6d. "Dr Abdy has done all Law Students a great service in presenting that portion of Kent'sCommentaiies which relates to public international Law in a single volume, neither large, diffuse, i. or expensive." ,.,*,_. ».. * u- "Altogether Dr. Abdy has performed his task in a manner worthy of his reputation. His b^ok will be useful not onlv to Lawyers and Law Students, for whom it was primRrily intended, but also for laymen. It is well worth the study of every member of an enlightened and civilized community."— Solicitors' Journal. _ * * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock,in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE LONDON, W.C. 17 INTERNATIONAL LAW -Continued. Levi's International Commercial Law. — Being th. Principles of Mercantile Law of the following and other Conntrie • — viz. : England, Ireland, Scotland, British India, British Colonies, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Buenos Ayres, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hans Towns, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Prussia Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States, and Wurtemberg. By LEONE LEVI, Esq., F.S.A., F.S.S., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at-Law, Professor of the Principles and Practice of Commerce at King's College, London. &c. Second Edition. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1863. 11. 15s. Prize Essays on International Law— By A. P. SPRAGUE, Esq., Counsellor of Law in the United States, and M. PAUL LACOMBE, Advocate in France. With an Introduc- tion by His Excellency DON ARTURO DE MARCOARTU, Ex-Deputy to the Cortes. Royal 8vo. 1876. 7s. M. Vattel's Law of Nations.— By JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Royal 8vo. 1834. 11. Is. Wheaton's Elements of International Law; English Edition. Edited with Notes and Appendix of Statutes and Treaties, bringing the work down to the present time. By A. C. BOYD, Esq., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Author of the " The Merchant Shipping Laws." Demy 8vo. 1878. (Just ready). 11. Ss. Wildman's International Law. — Institutes of Inter- national Law, in Time of Peace and Time of War. By RICHARD WILDMAN, Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. 8vo. 1849-50. 11. 2s. 6d. INTESTATE SUCCESSIONS— Colin's Essay on Intestate Successions. — According to the French Code. By BAR- THELEMY HARDY COLIN, of the Middle Temple. 12mo. 1876. 6s. "A very intelligent essay."— Law Times, February 24, 1877. JOINT STOCKS.— Jordan's Joint Stock Companies.— A Handy Book of Practical Instructions for the Formation and Management of Joint Stock Companies. Fifth Edition. 12mo. 1875. Net, 2s. 6d. Palmer — Vide "Conveyancing." Thring's (SirH.) Joint Stock Companies' Law.— The Law and Practice of Joint Stock and other Public Companies, in- cluding the Statutes, with Notes, and the Forms required in Making, Administering, and Winding-up a Company, with a Supplement containing the Companies' Act, 1867, and Notes of Recent Decisions. By Sir HENRY THRING, K.C.B., The Parliamentary Counsel. Third Edition. By GERALD A. R. FITZGERALD, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 12mo. 1875. 1/. •'This, as the work of the original draughtsman of the Companies Act of 1862, and well-known Parliamentary counsel, Sir Henry Thring, is naturally the highest authority on the subject."— The Times, April 21, 1876. JUDGMENTS. — Pask's Judgments, Executions, and Crown Debts.— The Judgments Law Amendment Acts relating to Real Property, 22 & 23 Vict., c. 35, and 23 & 24 Vict. , c. 38, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 115, and 27 & 28 Vict. c. 112. With Notes, References to Cases, and Index : forming an Appendix to " The Practice of Registering," &c. By JAMES PASK, Chief Clerk to the Registrar to the Court of Common Pleas, Westminster. Third Edition. 12mo. 1866. Sewed. Net, 2s. *«* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock inlaw calf Times. "Mr. Wilson has appended to the Acts and Rules, especially the latter, a valuable body of notes, which we are sure will be found useful.''— Law Journal. "Mr Arthur Wilson, as might have been expected, is particularly successful in deal- ing with the Rules of Court, to which, indeed, his notes are an almost indispensable accompaniment." — Law Magazine. * * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in latv calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 19 JUDICATURE ACTS -Continued. Clowes' Compendious Index to the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, and to the Orders and Rules issued thereunder. By W. CLOWES, Esq., one of the Registrars of the Court of Chancery. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. (Uniform in size with the Queen's Printer's Edition of the Acts and Rules.) 1875. Half bound. 10s Qd. %* The above, with the Acts and Rules (Authorized Edition), Orders in Council, and additional rules, court fees, &c, complete in one Volume, bound in limp leather. \l, 5s. Leys' Complete Time-Table to the Rules under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875. Show- ing all the periods fixed by the Rules within or after which any proceed- ings may be taken. By JOHN KIRKWOOD LEYS, M.A., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal8vo. 1875. Net, Is. 6d. Lynch and Smith's Introduction to the Final Examination. — Being a collection of the questions set by the Incorporated Law Society, with the answers adapted to meet the recent extensive alterations made by the JUDICATURE ACT 1873. By H. FOULKS LYNCH, Solicitor, and ERNEST AUGUSTUS SMITH, Solicitor, Clifford's Inn, Prizeman ; Senior Prizemanof the Incorporated Law Society, and BrodvipGold Medalist. 1872. Vol. I. The Principles of the Law. Post 8vo. 1874. 12s.' Lynch's Epitome of Practice in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. With References to Acts, Rules, and Orders. Eor the Use of Students. Royal 8vo. Third Edition. Incorporating the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and the Rules of the Supreme Court, December, 1875, and June 1876. 1876. Net.lt. Morgan. — Vide "Chancery." Scott. — Vide " Costs." Stephen's Judicature Acts 1873, 1874, and 187S, consolidated. With Notes and an Index. By Sir JAMES STEPHEN, one of Her Majesty's Counsel. 12mo. 1875. 4s. 6d. JURISPRUDENCE.— Amos, Law as a Science and as an Art. — An Introductory Lecture delivered at University College at the commencement of the session 1874-5. By SHELDON AMOS, Esq., M.A, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. Net, Is. 6d. Phillimore's (J. G.) Jurisprudence.— An Inaugural Lecture on Jurisprudence, and a Lecture on Canon Law, delivered at the Hall of the Inner Temple, Hilary Term, 1851. By J G PHILLIMORE, Esq., Q.C. 8vo. 1851. Sewed. 3s." Qd. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.— Arnold's Summary of the Duties of a Justice of the Peace out of Sessions.— Summary Convictions. By Sir T. J. ARNOLD, Chief Metropolitan Police Magistrate. 8vo. 1860. 11. Q s [ Burn's Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer. — Edited by the following Barristers, under the General Superinten- dence of JOHN BLOSSETT MAULE, Esq., Q.C, Recorder of Leeds. The Thirtieth Edition. Vol. I. containing titles "Abatement" to " Dwellings for Artizans;" byTHOS. SIRRELL PRITCHARD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Recorder of Wenlock. Vol. II. containing titles " Easter Offering " to "Hundred •" by SAML. BOTELER BRISTOWE, Q.C, M.P.,of the Inner Temple, %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other binding. 20 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE-Contirfued. Esq. Vol. III. containing titles " Indictment " to " Promissory Notes ;" by LEWIS W. CAVE, Q.C., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Recorder of Lincoln. Vol. IV. containing the whole title " Poor ;" by JAMES EDWD. DAVIS, Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate for Stoke-upon-Trent. (Sold separately, price 11. lis. 6d.) Vol. V. con- taining titles "Quo Warranto" to "Wreck;" by JOHN BLOSSETT MATJLE, Esq., Q.C., Eecorder of Leeds. Eive vols. 8vo. 1869. 11. Is. Since the publication in 1845 of the former Edition of Burn's Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer the whole range of the Law which Magistrates had to administer has undergone more or less alteration, and, indeed, the time which has elapsed since that publication appeared has doubtless worked as great a change in the Magistrates them- selves : so that to very many of the Gentlemen now composing the body of Justices the Encyclopedic Work of Burn must be, if not entirely unknown, at least unfamiliar as a book of reference. Paley. — Vide "Convictions." Stone. — Vide " Petty Sessions." JUSTINIAN, INSTITUTES OF.-Cumin.— Vide "Civil Law." Greene. — Vide "Roman Law." Mears. — Vide "Roman Law." Voet. — Vide "Civil Law." LAND DRAINAGE.— Thring's Land Drainage Act.— With an Introduction, Practical Notes, an Appendix of Statutes relating to Drainage, and Forms. By THEODORE THRING, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1861. Is. LAND TAX — Bourdin's Land Tax. — An Exposition of the Land Tax ; its Assessment and Collection, with a statement of the rights conferred by the Redemption Acts. By MARK A. BOUR- DIN, of the Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House (late Registrar of Land Tax). Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 1870. 4s. LANDLORD AND TENANT.— WoodfalPs Law of Landlord and Tenant. — A Practical Treatise on the Law of Landlord and Tenant, with a full Collection of Precedents and Forms of Procedure. Eleventh Edition. Containing an Abstract of Leading Propositions, and Tables of certain Customs of the Country. By J. M. LELY, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1877. (Just ready.) tt 16s. LAW, GUIDE TO.— A Guide to the Law for General Use. By a Barrister. Twenty-first Edition. 1877. Net, 3s. 6d. "There may be many students of both branches of the profession who will find the following pages an assistance to them in the couise of their reading, not in substitution of but together with, or preliminary to, the voluminous and highly technical works which they have necessarily to examine." LAW LIST.— Law List (The).— Comprising the Judges and Officers of the different Courts of Justice, Counsel, Special Pleaders, Draftsmen, Conveyancers, Solicitors, Notaries, &c, in England and Wales ; the Circuits, Judges, Treasurers, Registrars, and High Bailiffs of the County Courts, District Registries and Registrars under the Probate Act, Lords Lieutenant of Counties, Recorders, Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, Coroners, Colonial _ Judges, and Colonial Lawyers having English Agents, Metropolitan and Stipendiary Magistrates, Law Agents, Law and Public Officers, Circuits of the Judges and Counsel attending Circuit and Sessions, List of Sheriffs and Agents, London Commissioners to Administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, Conveyan- '\*AU standard Law Works are kept in Stock,in law calf and other bindim/s. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 21 LAW LIST.— Continued. cers Practising in England under Certificates obtained in Scotland, &c, &c, and a variety of other useful matters so far as relates to Special Pleaders, Draftsmen, Conveyancers, Solicitors, Proctors and Notaries. Compiled by WILLIAM HENRY COUSINS, of the Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House, Registrar of Stamped Cer- tificates, and of Joint Stock Companies. Published annually. By authority. 1878. (Now ready.) Net, 10s. 6d. LAW REPORTS. — A large Stock of second hand Reports. Estimates on application. LAWYER'S COMPANION.— Vide "Diary." LEADING CASES.— Haynes' Students' Leading Cases in Constitutional Law, Common Law, Real Property Law, Equity, Probate and Divorce, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Law. By JOHN E. HAYNES, Solicitor. Author of "The Student's Statutes." (In the press.) LEGACIES.— Roper's Treatise on the Law of Lega- cies. -Fourth Edition. By H. H. WHITE. 2 vols. Royal 8 vo. 1847. 3/. 3s. LEXICON.— Fide "Dictionary." LICENSING.— Lely and Foulkes' Licensing Acts, 1828, 1869, 1872, and 1874; Containing the Law of the Sale of Liquors by Retail and the Management of Licensed Houses ; with Notes to the Acts, a Summary of the Law, and an Appendix of Forms. Second Edition. By J. M. LELY and W. D. I. FOULKES, Esqrs., Barristers-&t-Law. Royal 12mo. 1874. 8s. " Messrs. Lely and Foulkes's plan is to print in full the principal Acts, and to inter- polate between the sections of each of these statutes all subsidiary enactments, distin- guishing them by brackets and marginal n'.tes These notes are usually sensible and to the poinc and give evidence both of care and knowledge of the subject." — Solicitors' Journal. LIEN.— Cross' Treatise on the Law of Lien and Stoppage in Transitu.— 8vo. 1840. 15s. LIGHTS -Woolrych's Practical Treatise on the Law Of Window Lights.— Second Edition. 12mo. 1864. 6s. LOCAL GOVERNMENT.- Vide "Public Health." LUNACY.— Elmer's Practice in Lunacy.— The Practice in Lunacy under Commissions and Inquisitions, with Notes of Cases and Recent Decisions, the Statutes and General Orders, Forms and Costs of Proceedings in Lunacy, an Index and Schedule of Cases. Sixth Edition. by JOSEPH ELMER, of the Office of the Masters in Lunacy. 8vo. 1877. 21s. MAGISTERIAL LAW.— Burn.— Vide "Justice of Peace." Leeming and Cross.— Vide " Quarter Sessions." Paley. — Vide "Convictions." Pritchard. — Vide " Quarter Sessions." Stone. — Vide " Petty Sessions." MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY. — Tapp on Main- tenance and Champerty.— An Inquiry into the present state of the Law of Maintenance and Champerty, principally as affecting Contracts. By WM. JOHN TAPP, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq. , Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1861. 4 S . g^_ *»* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings 22 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. MANDAMUS. — Tapping on Mandamus, — The Law and Practice of the High Prerogative Writ of Mandamus as it obtains both in England and Ireland. Royal 8vo. 1848. 1/. Is, MARINE INSURANCE — Vide " Insurance." MARTIAL LAW.— Finlason's Treatise on Martial Law, as allowed by the Law of England in time of Rebellion ; with Practical Illustrations drawn from the Official Documents in the Jamaica Case, and the Evidence taken by the Royal Commission of Enquiry, with Comments Constitutional and Legal. By W. F. FINLASON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1866. 12s. MERCANTILE LAW— Boyd.— Fide "Shipping." Brooke. — Vide "Notary." Russell. — Vide "Agency." Smith's Mercantile Law. — A Compendium of Mercantile Law. By the late JOHN WILLIAM SMITH, Esq. Ninth Edition. By G. M. DOWDESWELL, of the Inner Temple, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Royal 8vo. 1877. 1/. 18s. "We can safely say that, to the practising Solicitor, few books will be found more useful than the ninth edition of ' Smith's Mercantile Law.'"— Law Magazine, Nov. 1877. Tudor's Selection of Leading Cases on Mercan- tile and Maritime Law— With Notes. By O.D.TUDOR, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Royal 8vo. 1868. 11. 18s. METROPOLIS BUILDING ACTS — Woolrych's Metropolis Building Acts, together wiih such Clauses of the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 and 1S62, and other Acts, as more par- ticularly relate to the Buildings Acts, with Notes, Explanatory of the Sections and of the Architectural Terms contained therein. Second Edition. By NOEL H. PATERSON, M.A., of the .Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1877. 8s. Qd. MINES. — Rogers' Law relating to Mines, Minerals, and Quarries in Great Britain and Ireland; with a Summary of the Laws of Foreign States and Practical Directions for obtaining Government Grants to work Foreign Mines. Second Edition Enlarged. By ARUNDEL ROGERS, Esq., Bar- rister-at-Law. 8vo. 1876. 1/. lis. 6d. "Most comprehensive and complete."— Law Times, June 17, 1876. "Although issued as a Second Edition, the work appears to have been almost entirely re-written and very much improved. . . . The volume will prove invaluable as a work of legal reference." — The Mining Journal, May 13, 1876. MORTGAGE.— Coote's Treatise on the Law of Mort- gage.— Third Edition. Royal 8vo. 1850. Net, 11. MORTMAIN.— Rawlinson's Notes on the Mortmain Acts ; shewing their operation on Gifts, Devises and Bequests for Charitable Uses. Designed for the Use of Solicitors in Adminstra- tion Suits in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. By JAMES RAWLINSON, Solicitor. Demy 8m 1877. Inter- leaved. Net, 2s. 6d. MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS- Vide "Ballot." * * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 23 NAVY. — Thring's Criminal Law of the Navy, with an Introductory Chapter on the Early State and Discipline of the Navy, the Rules of Evidence, and an Appendix comprising the Naval Discipline Act and Practical Forms. Second Edition. By THEODORE THRING, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, late Commissioner of Bankruptcy at Liverpool, and C. E. OIFFORD, Assistant- Paymaster, Royal Navy. 12mo. 1877. (Just ready.) 12s. 6cl. "A full series of forms of warrants, minutes, charges, Ac., and a good Index, complete the utility of a work which should be in th'i hands of all who have to deal with the regu- lating and governing of the Fleet." — Law Magazine. February, 1878. " In the new editiou, the procedure, naval regulations, forms, and all matters con- nected with the practical administration of the law have been classified and arranged by Mr. Gifford, so that the work is in every way useful, complete, and up to date." — Naval ami Military Gazette, December 12, 1S77- NISi PRIUS.— Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius. — Thirteenth Edition. By JOHN DAY, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and MAURICE POWELL, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1875. (Bound in one thick volume calf or circuit, 5s. 6d., or in two convenient vols. calf or circuit, 10s. net, extra.) " The work itself has long ago won a position altogether unique, and in the hands of its present editors there is no fear that the position will be lost." — Law Journal, July 10, 1875 Selwyn's Abridgment of the Law of Nisi Prius.— Thirteenth Edition. By DAVID KEANE, Q.C., Recorder of Bedford, and CHARLES T. SMITH, M.A., one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1869. (Published at 21. 16s.) Net, 11. NOTANDA — Vide "Digests." NOTARY. — Brooke's Treatise on the Office and Prac- tice of a Notary of England. — With a full collection of Precedents. Fourth Edition. By LEONE LEVI, Esq., P.S.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1876. 11. 4s. NUISANCES.— FitzGerald.— P«te "Public Health." OATHS. — Braithwaite's Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature. — A Manual for the use of Commissioners to Administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. Part I. containing practical information respecting their Appoint- ment, Designation, Jurisdiction, and Powers ; Part II. comprising a collection of officially recognised Forms of Jurats and Oaths, with Explanatory Observations. By T. W. BRAITHWAITE, of the Record and Writ Clerks' Office. Fcap. 8vo. 1876. 4s. 6d. "Specially useful to Commissioners."— Law Magazine, February, 1877. " The work will, we doubt not, become the recognized guide of commissioners to ad- minister oaths." — Solicitors' Journal, May 6, 1876. PARTNERSHIP.— Pollock's Digest of the Law of Part- nership. By FREDERICK POLLOCK, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Author of " Principles of Contract-at-Law and in Equity." Demy 8vo. 1877. 8s. Qd. *** The object of this work is to give the substance of the Law of Partnership (excluding Companies) in a concise and definite form. "Of the execution of the work, we can speak in terms of the highest praise. The language is simple, concise, and clear; and the general propositions may bear comparison with those of Sir James Stephen." — Law Magazine, February, 1S78. " Mr. Pollock's work appears eminently satisfactory . . . the book is praiseworthy in design, scholarly and complete in execution." — Saturday Review, May 5, 1877. "Mr. Pollock is most accurate in his law, which is a matter of much importance, iu a book whose contents may almost be got by heart by a hard-working student." — The Spectator, May 12, 1*77. "A few more books written as carefully as the 'Digest of the Law of Partnership,' will, perhaps, remove some drawbacks, and render English law a pleasanter and easier subject to study than it is at present." — The Examiner, March 31, 1877. *»* All standard Law Works arekeptin Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 24 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. PATENTS.— Hiadmarch's Treatise on the Law rela- ting to Patents.— 8vo. 1846. 1U Is. Seton. — Vide "Equity." PERSONAL PROPERTY.— Smith's Real and Personal Property.— A Compendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property Primarily Connected with Conveyancing ; Designed as a Second Book for Students, and as a Digest of the most useful Learning for Practitioners. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1877. (Just ready.) 2?. 2s. PETITIONS — Palmer.— Fide " Conveyancing." PETTY SESSIONS.— Stone's Practice for Justices of the Peace, Justices' Clerks and Solicitors at Petty and Special Sessions, in Summary Matters and Indictable Offences, with a List of Summary Convictions and of Matters not Criminal. With Forms. Eighth Edition. By THOMAS SIRRELL PRITCHARD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Wenlock. In 1 vol. Demy8vo. 1877. (Just ready.) 1/. 10s. " The design of the present Edition has been developed with a view to offer to Magis- trates and Practitioners, in one volume of moderate size, a complete general account of the Procedure at Petty Sessions in Summary Matteis and Indictable Offence?, in such a consecutive form, accoidingto the usual rder of events, as to render easily attainable information on any point of procedure as it may arise at any given period of the pro- ceedings."— Extract from Preface. "In clearness of exposition, in choice of matter, and, above all, in orderliness ot arrangement, the book leaves little to be desired The book, as a whole, is thorouehly satisfactory, and, having gone carefully through it, we can recommend it with confidence to the numerous body of our readers who are daily interested in the subjects to which it relates."— Solicitors' Journal, December 8th, 1877. PLEADING,— Archbold.— Fiter, Judge of County Courts, and Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and H. F. THURLOW, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Bariister-at-Law. 8vo. 1876. ML Is. " The present editors appear to have taken the utmost pains to make the volume com- plete, and, from our examination of it, we can thoroughly recommend it to all interested in the practice of quarter sessions " — Law rimes, March 18, 1876. * # * All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 26 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. QUARTER SESS'.ONS.-Conto«ed. Pritehard's Quarter Sessions. — The Jurisdiction, Prac- tice and Procedure of the Quarter Sessions in Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Matters. By THOS. SIRRELL PRITCHARD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Wenlock. 8vo. 1875. 21. 2s. "We can confidently say that it is written throughout with clearness and intelligence, and that both in legislation and in case law it is carefully brought down to the most recent date." — Solicitors'' Journal, May 1, 1875. RAILWAYS— Browne. — Vide " Carriers." Lely's Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1873.— And other Railway and Canal Statutes ; with the General Orders, Forms, and Table of Fees. By J. M. LELY,Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1873. 8s. Simon's Law relating to Railway Accidents, in- cluding an Outline of the Liabilities of Railway Companies as Carriers generally, concisely Discussed and Explained. 12mo. 1862. 3s. REAL PROPERTY. — Dart. — Vide " Vendors and Purchasers." Greenwood's Recent Real Property Statutes. Comprising those passed during the years 1874-1877 inclusive; Consolidated with the Earlier Statutes thereby Amended. With Copious Notes. By HARRY GREENWOOD, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {Joint Editor of " Notanda Digest") (In the press). Leake's Elementary Digest of the Law of Pro- perty in Land. — Containing : Introduction. Part I. The Sources of the Law.— Part II. Estates in Land. By STEPHEN MARTIN LEAKE, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. 11. 2s. *»* The above forms a complete Introduction to the Study of the Law of Real Property. Shelforcl's Real Property Statutes.— Eighth Edition. By T. H. CARSON, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq. 8vo. 1874. 11. 10s. Smith's Real and Personal Property.— A Com- pendium of the Law of Real and Personal Property, primarily connected with Conveyancing. Designed as a second book for Students, and as a digest of the most useful learning for Practi- tioners. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., Q.C., Judge of County Courts. Fifth Edition. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1877. 21. 2s. "As a refresher to the memory, and a repository of information that is wanted in daily practice, it will be found of great value."- Jurist. . . . " He has given to the student a book which he may read over and over again with profit and pleasure." -law Times. "The work before us will, we think, be found of very great service to the practitioner." — Solicitors' Journal. . . . " I know of no volume which so entirely fulfils the requirements of a student's text book."— From. Dr. Rollit's hectare. RECEIVERS— Seton.— Vide " Equity." REGISTRATION.— Rogers.— Vide " Elections." REGISTRATION CASES.— Hopwood and Coltman's Registration Cases.— Vol. 1.(1868-1872). Nct,-2l.lSs. Calf, Vol. II. Part I. (1873). Ntt, 10s.; Part II. (1S74). Net, 10s. 6d; Part III. (1875). Net, 4s. (id; Part. IV. (1876). Net, As. Part V. (1877). Net, 3s. sewed. REPORTS. — A large Stock of second hand Reports. Estimates on application. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 27 RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION.- -FitzGerald's Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1875. — With Explanatory Introduction, Notes, Cases, and Index. Royal 8vo. 1876. 3s. 6d. "A well-timed addition to the author's previous work on Sanitary Law." — Lata Magazine, February, 1877. ROMAN LAW.— Cumin.- Vide "Civil." Greene's Outlines of Roman Law.— Consisting chiefly of an Analysis and Summary of the Institutes. For the use of Students. By T. WHLTCOMBE GREENE, B.C.L., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. Foolscap 8vo. 1875. 7s.6d. Mears' Student's Ortolan.— An Analysis of M. Ortolan's Institutes of Justinian, including the History and Generalization of Roman Law. By T. LAMBERT MEARS, M.A., LL.D. Lond., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. P ublished by permission of the late M. Ortolan. PostSvo. 1876. 12s. 6d. " We have no doubt that this book is intended to meet a real demand. Nor have we any reason to doubt that the work has been well and faithfully executed . . . However, both students and their teachers are at the mercy of examiners, and this book will very probably be found useful by all parties."— Athenaeum, October 28, 1S76. " Dr. Mears has made his edition the edition par excellence of that great French writer."— Irish Law Times, December 30, 1876. SAUNDERS' REPORTS.— Williams' (Sir E. V.) Notes to Saunders' Reports. — By the late Serjeant WILLIAMS. Continued to the present time by the Right Hon. Sir EDWARD VAUGHAN WILLIAMS. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1871. 21. 10s. SETTLED ESTATES.— Middleton's Settled Estates Act, 1877, with Introduction, Notes and Forms, and Summary of Practice by JAMES W. MIDDLETON, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at- Law. 12mo. 1878. 3s. Qd. SHIPPING, and vide " Admiralty." Boyd's Merchant Shipping Laws; being a Consolida- tion of all the Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts from 1854 to 1876, inclusive ; with Notes of all the leading English and American Cases on the subjects affected by Legislation, and an Appendix containing the New Rules issued in October, 1876 ; forming a com- plete Treatise on Maritime Law. By A. C. BOYD, LL.B., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Midland Circuit. 8vo. 1876. 1/. 5 S . " Mr. Boyd confines himself to short, and as far as we can judge correct, statements of the effect of actual decisions."— Solicitors' Journal. January ?0. 1877. "The great desideratum is obviously a good index, and this Mr. Boyd has taken par- ticular care to supply. We can recommend the work as a very useful compendium of shipping law." — Law Times, December 30, 1876. SOLICITORS.— Cordery's Law relating to Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Judicature.— By A. CORDERY, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) SPECIAL SESSIONS PRACTICE.— Stone.— Vide "Petty Sessions." STAMP LAWS — Tilsley's Stamp Laws.— A Treatise on the Stamp Laws, being an Analytical Digest of all the Statutes and Cases relating to Stamp Duties, with practical remarks thereon. Third Edition. With Tables of all the Stamp Duties payable in the United Kingdom after the 1st January, 1871, and of Former Duties, &c, &c. By EDWARD HUGH TILSLEY, of the Inland Revenue Office. 8vo. 1871. 18s. %• All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 28 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. STATUTES, and vide "Acts of Parliament." Biddle's Table of Statutes.— A Table of References to unrepealed Public General Acts, arranged in the Alphabetical Order of their Short or Popular Titles. Second Edition, including Refer- ences to all the Acts in Chitty's Collection of Statutes. Royal 8vo. 1370. (Published at 9s. Qd.) Net, 2s. Qd. Chitty's Collection of Statutes, with Supple- ments, to 1877. — A Collection of Statutes of Practical Utility ; with notes thereon. The Third Edition, containing all the Statutes of Practical Utility in the Civil and Criminal Administration of Justice to the Present Time. By W. N. WELSBY and EDWARD BEAVAN, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. In 4 very thick vols. Royal 8vo. 1865. 121. 12s. With Supplemental Volume to the above, comprising the Statutes 1865—72. By HORATIO LLOYD, Esq., Judge of County Courts, and Deputy -Chairman of Quarter Sessions for Cheshire. Together 5 vols. Royal 8vo. 1865—72. 15/. 16s. Vol. II., Part I., 1873, 7s. 6d. Part II., 1874, 6s. Part III., 1875, 16s. Part IV., 1876, 6s. 6d. Part V., 1877, 4s. 6d., sewed. %* Continued Annually. " When he (Lord Campbell) was upon the Bench he always had this work by him, and no statutes were ever reterred to by the Bar which he could not find in it." Head's Statutes by Heart; being a System of Memoria Technica, applied to Statutes, and embracing Common Law, Chan- cery, Bankruptcy, Criminal Law, Probate and Divorce, and Convey- ancing. By FREDERICK WILLIAM HEAD, of the Inner Temple, Student-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1877. Net, Is. Qd. Lyneh's Statute Law of 1870, for the use of Students for the Incorporated Law Society's Examinations. 8vo. Net, Is. 1872, Net, Is. ; 1873, Is. Qd. ; 1874, Is. ; 1875, Is. ; 1876, Is.; 1877, ls.;seucd. *Publie General Statutes, royal 8vo, issued in parts and in complete volumes, and supplied by the Publishers of this Catalogue immediately on publication. *The Revised Edition of the Statutes, prepared under the direction of the Statute Law Committee, and published by the authority of Her Majesty's Government. Imperial 8vo. Vol. 1. — Henry III. to James II., M 2.— Will. & Mary to 10 Geo. III., „ 3.— 11 Geo. III. to 41 Geo. III., „ 4.— 41 Geo. III. to 51 Geo. III., „ 5.-52 Geo. III. to 4 Geo. IV, „ 6.-5 Geo. IV. to 1 & 2 Will. IV, „ 7.-2 & 3 Will. IV to 6 & 7 Will. IV, „ 8.-7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict, to 5 & 6 Vict., „ 9.-6 & 7 Vict, to 9 & 10 Vict., „ 10.— 10 & 11 Vict, to 13 & 14 Vict., „ 11.— 14 & 15 Vict, to 16 & 17 Vict., „ 12. -17 & 18 Vict, to 19 & 20 Vict., „ 13.— 20 Vict, to 24 & 25 Vict., „ 14.— 25 & 26 Vict, to 28 & 29 Vict., *** Volume XV. in preparation. ♦Chronological Table of and Index to the Statutes to the end of the Session of 1S77. Fourth Edition, imperial 8vo. 1878. 1/. 9s. * Printed by Her Majesty's Printers, and Sold by Stevens & Sons. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 1235-1685 . 1?. Is . Od. 1688-1770 . 1 1770-1800 . 17 1801-1811 . 18 1812-1823 . 1 5 1824-1831 . 1 6 1831-1836 . , 1 10 1837-1842 . 1 12 6 1843-1846 . , 1 11 6 1847-1850 , , 1 7 6 1851-1853 . , 1 4 1854-1856 , , 1 6 1857-1861 , . 1 10 1862-1865 . , 1 10 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 29 TORTS. — Addison on Wrongs and their Remedies. — Being a Treatise on the Law of Torts. By C. G. ADDISON, Esq., Author of " The Law of Contracts." Fourth Edition. By F. S. P. \VOLFERSTAN,Esq.,Barrister-at-Law. Royal8vo. 1873. 11. 18s. TRADE MARKS.— Rules under the Trade Marks' Re- gistration Act, 1875 (by Authority). Sewed. Net, Is. Mozley's Trade Marks Registration. — A Concise View of the Law and Practice of Registration of Trade Marks, as altered by the Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875, and Amended Act, 1876, and the Decisions thereon. With an Appendix con- taining a copy of the above Acts and Rules, with Directions for Registration, &c. Also the Merchandise Marks Act, 1862. By LIONEL B. MOZLEY, Solicitor of the Supreme Court. Crown 8vo. 1877. 3s. 6d " Mr. Mozley has done his work well, and his book furnishes a very intelligible guide to a very abstruse subject." Sebastian on the Law of Trade Marks. — The Law of Trade Marks and their Registration, and matters connected there- with, including a chapter on Goodwill. Together with Appendices containing Precedents of Injunctions, &c. ; The Trade Marks Regis- tration Acts, 1875 — 7, the Rules and Instructions thereunder; The Merchandise Marks Act, 1862, and other Statutory enact- ments; and The United States Statute, 1870, and the Treaty with the United States, 1877 ; and the New Rules and Instructions issued in February, 1878. With a copious Index. By LEWIS BOYD SEBASTIAN, B.C.L., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 187S. (Just ready.) 14s. Trade Marks' Journal. — 4to. Sewed. (Issued weekly.) Nos. 1 to 132 are now ready. Net, each Is. Index to Vol. I. (Nos. 1 — 47.) Net, 3s. Ditto, Vol. II. (Nos. 48—97.) Net, 3s. Wood's Law of Trade Marks. — Containing the Mer- chandise Marks' Act, 1862, and the Trade Marks' Registration Act, 1875 ; with the Rules thereunder, and Practical Directions for obtaining Registration ; with Notes, full Table of Cases and Index. By J. BI GLAND WOOD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. 12mo. 1876. 5s. " Mr. Wood's ' Table of Cases ' is novel and ingenious, each case being distinguished by a concise description in a parallel column." — The Athenaeum, June 24, 1876. TRAMWAYS.— Sutton's Tramway Acts.— The Tramway Acts of the United Kingdom, with Notes on the Law and Practice, and an Appendix containing the Standing Orders of Parliament, Rules of the Board of Trade relating to Tramways, and Decisions of the Referees with respect to Locus Standi. By HENRY SUTTON B. A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1874. 12s. USES — Jones (W. Hanbury) on Uses. — 8vo. 1862. 7s. VENDORS A'DPURCHASERS.— Dart's Vendors and Pur- chasers. — A Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to Ven- dors and Purchasers of Real Estate. By J. HENRY DART, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.. one of the Six Conveyancing Counsel of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Fifth Edition By the AUTHOR and WILLIAM BARBER, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq, Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal Svo. 1876. 3/. 13 s . Qj t " A standard work like Mr. Dart's is beyond all praise." — Tlt,e Law Journal, February 12, 1876. %* All Law Reports arc kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 30 STEVENS AND SONS' LAW PUBLICATIONS. VICE. — Amos (Professor Sheldon) on the Laws for the Regulation of Vice. — A comparative Survey of Laws in Force, for the Prohibition, Regulation, and Licensing of Vice in England and other Countries. With an Appendix giving the text of Laws and Police Regulations as they now exist in England, in British Dependencies, in the chief towns of Continental Europe, and in other parts of the world ; a precise narrative of the passing of the English Statutes ; and an Historical Account of English Laws and Legislation on the subject from the earliest times to the present day. By SHELDON AMOS, M.A., Barrister-at-Law and Professor of Jurisprudence in University College, London. 8vo. 1877. 18*. WATERS. — Woolrych on the Law of Waters.— Including Rights in the Sea, Kivers, Canals, &c. Second Edition. 8vo. 1851. Goddavd.— Vide u Easements." ^ et > 10s - WILLS. — Montriou. — Vide " Indian Law." Rawlinson's Guide to Solicitors on taking In- structions for Wills.— 8vo. 1874. 4s. Theobald's Concise Treatise on the Construc- tion of Wills.— With Table of Cases and Full Index. By H. S. THEOBALD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. 8vo. 1876. 11. "Mr. Theobald has certainly given evidence of extensive investigation, conscientious labour, and clear exposition." — Law Magazine, May, 1877. "We desire to record our decided impression, after a somewhat careful examination, that this is a book of great ability and value. It bears on every page traces of care and sound judgment. It is certain to prove of great practical usefulness, for it supplies a want which was beginning to be distinctly felt." — Solicitors' Journal, February 24, 1877. "His arrangement being good, and his statement of the effect of the decisious beinj; clear, his work cannot fail to be of practical utility, and as such we can commend it to the attention ot the profession." — Law Times, December 2-1, ldlii. " It is remarkaoly well arranged, and its contents embrace all the principal heads on the subject." — Law Journal, Febiuary 3, 1877. Williams. — Vide " Executors." WINDOW LIGHTS.— Woolrych.— Vide "Lights." W RONGS — Vide "Torts." * # * All Law Reports are kept in Stock, in taw calf and other bindings. REPORTS. STEVENS J^JST) SOISTS HAVE A LARGE QUIRE STOCK OF MANY OF THE OLD REPORTS. ESTIMATES FOR SECOND-HaND REPORTS OR TEXT-BOOKS ON APPLICATION. STEVENS & SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. STEVENS AND SONS (Late Stevens and Norton), ?lato $ufcltsf)et0, ISoofcscUcrs, anti iSipotteca, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. (Late of Bell Yard, Lincoln's Inn). Established 1810. BUsTDIITG- STEVENS AND SONS EXECUTE ALL BINDiMC IN THE BEST MANNER, AT MODERATE PRICES, AND WITH DISPATCH. The Law Reports, Law Journal, and all other Reports, bound to Office Patterns, at Office Prices. All Standard Law Works kept in stock in Library Bindings. LIBRARIES PURCHASED OK VALUED. A Large Stock of Second Hand Reports and Text Books on Sale. PRIVATE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. The Publishers of this Catalogue possess the largest known Collection of above (including Public and Local), and can supply single copies commencing from a very early period. STEVENS & SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. JffEW WORKS AID SEW EDITIONS. insr :f>:r,:e:f > .a:r.a.txo:n\ Archtaold's Practice in the Queen's Bench, Com- mon Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice. — Thirteenth Edition. Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Cheeks, &c. By M. D. E. S. Chalmers, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) Chitty's Forms. — Eleventh Edition. By Thomas Chitty&nd Thomas Willes Chitty, Esqrs. Cordery's Law Relating to Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Judicature. By A. Cordery, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Bairister-at-Law. (In the press.) Daniell's Chancery Practice. -Sixth Edition. Daniells' Forms and Precedents of Proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom ; with Practical Notes and Observations, forming a complete guide to the Practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court and of the Courts of Appeal. Being the Third Edition of " Daniells' Chancery Forms." By William Henry U/john, Esq., Student and Holt Scholar of Gray's Inn. Dixon's Law of the Farm. -Fourth Edition. By Henry Perkins, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) Greenwood's Recent Real Property Statutes. Comprising those pas.-ed during the years 1874-1877 inclusive; Con- solidated with the Earlier Statutes thereby amended. With Copious Notes. By Harry Greenwood, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. (In the press. ) Haynes' Students' Leading Cases in Constitutional Law, Common Law, Red Property Law, Equity, Probate and Divorce, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Law. By John F. Haynes, Solicitor. Lowndes' Law of General Average.— English and Foreign. Third Edition. By Richard Loicndes. Author of " The Admiralty Law of Collisions at Sea." (In the press.) Pitt - Lewis' County Court Practice. — A complete Practice of the County Courts, including Admiralty and Bank- ruptcy, embodying the Act, Rules, Forms, and Costs, with Table of Cases and full Index. By G. Pitt-Lewis, of the Middle Temple and Western Circuit, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, sometime Holder of the Studentships of the Four Inns of Court. Pollock's Principles of Contract at Law and in Equity. — Second Edition. By Frederick Pollock, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (In the press.) Roscoe's Treatise on the Jurisdiction and Practice of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, and on Appeals therefrom, &c. With an Appendix containing Statutes, Rules as to Fees and Costs, Forms, Precedents of Pleadings and Bills of Costs By Edward Stanley Roscoe, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Northern Circuit. (Nearly ready.) Seton's Forms of Decrees, Judgments, and Orders in the High Court of Justice and Courts of Appeal, having especial reference to the Chancery Division. Fourth Edition. With Practical Notes. By R. H. Leach, Esq., Senior Registrar of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, F. G. A. Williams, of the Inner Temple, Esq., and H. W. May, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barristers- at-Law. In 2 vols., royal 8vo. ( Vol. II. in the press.) Stevens and sons, 119, chancery lane, w.c. STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. Theobald on Wills. — A Concise Treatise on the Construction of Wills, with Table of Cases, and full Index. By H. S. THEOBALD, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. Demy 8vo. 1876. Price 11. cloth. " This is a buok of great ability and value. It bears on every page traces of care and sound judgment. It is certain to prove of great practical usefulness, for it supplies a want wbich was beginning to be distinctly felt."— Solicitors' Journal, Fcbruarj 24, 1877. Morgan's Acts and Orders, 1876. — The Statutes, General Orders, and Rules of Court relating to the Practice, Pleading, and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature, particularly with reference to the Chancery Division and the Actions assigned thereto. With Copious Notes. Fifth Edition. Carefully revised and adapted to the new Practice. By GEORGE OSBORNE MORGAN, M.P., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and CHALONER WILLIAM CHUTE, of Lin- coln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, and late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 1 vol. Demy 8vo. 1876. Price 11. 10s. cloth. "A most valuable feature is the annotation of the Rules ol Court, which give all the recent cases, and is as useiul as a new edition of any of the works on Judicature Acts only. This edition of Mr. Morgan's Treatise must, we believe, be the most popular with the profession." — Late Times, December 9. 1S76 Wharton's Law Lexicon, or Dictionary of Jurisprudence, explaining the Technical Words and Phrases employed by the several Departments of English Law, including the various legal terms used in Commercial Business ; with an Explanatory as well as Literal Trans- lation of the Latin Maxims contained in the Writings of the Ancient and Modern Commentators. Sixth Edition. Revised in accordance with the Judicature Acts, by J. SHIRESS WILL, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Super-royal 8vo. 1876. Price 21. 2s. cloth. "We have simply to notice that the same ability and accuracy rn;irk the present Edition which were conspicuous in its predecessor." — Law Timts, March 4, 1876. Green-wood's Manual of Conveyancing. — A Manual of the Practice of Conveyancing, showing the present Practice relating to the daily routine of Conveyancing in Solicitors' Offices. To which are added Concise Common Forms and Precedents in Conveyancing, Con- ditions of Sale, Conveyances, and all other Assurances in constant use. Fifth Edition. By H. N. CAPEL, B.A., LL.B., Solicitor. 8vo. 1877. Price 15s. cloth. " The information under these heads is just of that ordinary practical kind wbich is learned from experience, and is not to be gathered from treatises. " A carelul study of these pages would probably arm a diligent clerk with as n.uch useful knowledge as he might otherwise take years of desultory questioning and observing to acquire." — Solicitors' Journal. Smith's (John W.) Action at Law. — An Elementary View of the Proceedings in an Action at Law. Twelfth Edition. Adapted to the practice of the Supreme Court. By W. D. I. FOULKES, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Joint Editor of the "Licensing Acts" and the "Judicature Acts." 12mo. 1876. Price 10s. 6<2. cloth. Browne's (G.) Principles and Practice of the Court for Divorce, &c— Third Edition. By GEORGE BROWNE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1876. Price 11. 4s. cloth. FitzGerald's Public Health and Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts. — The Law relating to Public Health and Local Government, as contained in the Public Health Act, 1875. With Introduction and Notes showiug all the Alterations in the Existing Law; with references to all the Cases decided on Sections of Former Acts, which are re-enacted in this Act, together with a Supplement containing "The Rivers Pollu- tion' PREVENTION Act, 1876." With Explanatory Introduction, Notes, Cases, and Index. By GERALD A. R. FITZGERALD, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 187(5. Price 11. Is. cloth. * # * The Supplement, containing "The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876," may be had«ei^ii^Ir,|ipTO y^l^tr cloth. "Mr. G. A. R. FitzGerald was eiiiplLy<*Wy tl^WA-rtlfiMrrli i he preparation of the Act of 1875, and is there&^^«,^riliti[v«t 'fW''fl'MilI 1 PORNlAi '"' ll