CASES STATED AS TO INCOME-TAX, HOUSE AND STAMP DUTY. H.H. the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Co. (Lim.), appellants, and Wyatt (surveyor of taxes), respondent Gresham Life Assurance Society, appellants, and Styles (surveyor of taxes), respondent The Governing Body of Charterhouse School, appellants, and Lamarque (surveyor of taxes), respondent Duke of Norfolk, K.G. appellant, and Same (surveyor of taxes), respondent London Library, appellants, and Carter (surveyor of taxes), respondent, Colquhoun (surveyor of taxes), appellant, and Heddon (surveyor of taxes), respondent Grainger & Son, appellants, and Gough (surveyor of taxes), respondent Whitebead, appellant, and Wilson (surveyor of taxes), respondent Onslow and others, appellants, and Commissioners of Inland Revenue, respondents Motions for Attachment for Contempt in Legacy and Succession Duty, &c. Matters, 11 In re Lowe, ex parte Lowe In re Jones, ex parte Jones In re Davies, J. ex parte Huggins re Williamson, ex Lowndes In parte In re Smith, ex parte Smith In re Tamplin & Sons, ex parte Motions in Bankruptcy for hearing before In re Reed, ex parte Trustee In re Breslauer, ex parte Trustee In re Scott, ex parte Mason In re Ridgway, ex parte Robinson In re Bradbrook, ex parte Bishop v. Hawkins In re Herepath and Delmar, ex In re Evans, ex parte Chief Official In re Calderwood, ex parte Board In re Bennett, ex parte Aldridge v. Webster In re Davis, ex parte Hammond In re Heard, ex parte Foreman v. In re Newton, ex parte Eve v. In re Scott, ex parte Mason v. In re Same, ex parte Same v. In re Bryant, ex parte Carr In re Reed, ex parte Salaman kins v. Bradbrook In re Clift, ex parte Colquhoun v. Fletcher The following numbers will be in the list for trial on Monday, January 13: Nos. 231 to 249, both inclusive. 231 Bettam v. London Road Car Co. (Lim.)-Part heard 232 Prince v. Roe 248 Clay v. Tilling 258 Hobson v. White 261 Marks v. Beyfus and others 275 Moore v. Rogers 313 Cottrill v. Harmar, Pearson 1 Platero v. Moses, Levy & Co. 41 Ham v. Wilkinson and others 54 Scheyer v. Woutner and au- 91 Central Markets Cold Air 140 Dards v. Kay and another 240 Ellis v. Board Tottenham Local In re Barton, ex parte Chief Offi- 256 Stevens v. Santa Fe Land Co. cial Receiver v. Barton In re Same, ex parte Same . Stewart In re O'Farrell, ex parte Chief Official Receiver v. O'Farrell and others In re Tillett, trading as Barton (Lim.) & Co. ex parte Harper e. Robin- 323 Gabb and another v. Elmsle son and others 334 Briton v. Weekes (Lim.) 350 Faris v. Moss and another 357 Greenbank v. Wilson 382 Glasbrook and another v. 389 Cochrane v. Peace and another 396 Haynes v. Weatherly 413 Key v. London Omnibus 438 Wilson v. Turner 447 Florence v. Saunders 494 Hudson and another v. Lon- 496 Foster v. North 517 Ditton v. Reading 554 Carpenter v. Aldrich Blake 560 Smith v. Lamplough 566 King v. Hobbs & Co. (Lim.) and others 567 Bobby v. Watson 592 Flicker v. Consolidated Credit Corporation 595 Gordon v. Vagliano 596 Humphery and another Hearn ". 600 Nicholson v. Deuchar 611 Tear v. Metropolitan Railway Co. 314 Crane v. Oliver 315 Martin v. Baker 93 Stewart v. Miller and another 318 Boot & Son v. Edgbaston Brewery Co. and another 325 Garrett v. Goodsall and another 326 Bryant v. Schmidt 330 Conolly v. Blunt 34AWilfrid v. Hollingsworth 103 Morgan v. Evans 331 Still v. Freehold House Property Co. (Lim.) 332 Rawlins v. Rawlins and another 333 Clifford r. Thorne 338 Theobalds v. Freehold House Property Co. (Lim.) 340 Hilton v. Link 342 Eason r. Trigg 346 Bryant v. Stiff & Sons 358 Gosden v. Marner 360 Smallwood v. King 361 Thuey v. Stevenage Local Board 364 Davies v. Redwood 375 Keighley v. Globe Parcel Express 376 Lacroix v. Civil Service Cooperative Society (Lim.) 378 Mace v. Forster 385 Johnstone v. Read 386 Claydon v. Patman 391 Ballard v. Rock Freehold Land Society (Lim.) 398 Burton v. Binks 401 Luning v. Berry 408 Macpherson and another r. Hirschberg 409 Jacobs v. Schmaltz 415 Bayliss v. King and others 418 Masters v. Jones 421 Taylor v. Pearson 422 Jones v. Great Eastern Railway Co. 423 Tuck v. Emanuel 442 Clapperton v. Tovey and others 444 Medland v. Fox 448 Davis v. Jacobs 449 Clarke v. Hart Dawson 511 Brown v. Withers 521 Collier r. Ridley 522 Moore r. Lee 529 Barnes and another v. Down 536 Miles r. Great Eastern Railway Co. 549 Prested r. Austin and others 557 Cresdec r. Tilley 568 Thompson r. Curtis 570 Holman v. Williams 572 Tasker r. Boyd and others 579 Kemp and Wife r. Benson 581 Sibley v. London Road Car Co. (Lim.) 585 Johnston v. Willesden Local Board 587 Lee v. London Tramways Co. (Lim.) 588 Gillett v. Wiuch 590 Gregory r. Lachman 591 Crocker r. Hobman & Co. others 513 Tower Furnishing, &c. Co. v. Page and another 515 Greene r. Morley 518 Cox r. Hoare 519 Arrol Brothers r. Deacon 524 Lyall r. Great Eastern Railway Co. 526 Hart, Bridges & Co. r. Hooper 530 Beesley v. Cook 531 Willett r. Shippey Brothers 532 Abdy r. Landed Estates Agency 533 Moss r. London and Transvaal Syndicate (Lim.) 534 Skirving v. Greenhough 537 Lomer v. Armstrong 539 Marsden & Co. r. Smedley 540 Same v. Harris 541 Tower Assets Co. (Lim.) v. Hopping and another 542 Allen r. Rogers and another 543 Hartley and others v. Woods and others 544 Same v. Perkins & others 553 Gunter v. Holman and i 602 Salbach v. Lumley 603 Smith . Higham and other 608 Wiley r. E. Pike & Son (Lim.) 613 Lee v. Hill 614 Webb r. Griffiths 433 Clark v. Kellaway 1aThompson, Shannon & Co. r. Adams 8 Dimond r. Mew 18 Boyd r. Farrar 24 Dunstan v. Higgins 28 Kenvin . Yarde-Buller 36A Leslie r. East & Co. 40 Christensen v. J. Kerr & Co. 78 Bessler, Wacchter & Co. r. Farnham and another 88ASaxelby and another v. Gamlen and wife 111 Adams r. Barton and another 221A Lotingar. Benham 242 Lindsay, Gracie & Co. r. Watt, Gilchrist & Co. 250 Cochrane r. Schrieber and another t. 264 Hingston r. Smythe 296 Rhymney Railway Co. Rhymney Iron Co. (Lim.) 299 Shoolbred & Co. r. Raffety 300 Balian & Sons r. G. O. Joly Victoria & Co. (Lim.) 313A Bowes, Scott & Read r.. Newberg Vautin (Patents) Gold Extraction Co. and another 363 Dick v. Harden Star, &c. Co. 383 Soames v. Hunt 384 Stewart v. Kent 402 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co. r. Baerselman 412 Pink r. Fleming 426 Donaldson r. Monson others 562 Ridgers v. Ridgers 565 Davis & Co. v. Howard 569 Hawkins v. Brabant 671 Sherlock v. Lock 573 Lydall v. Campbell 575 Spalding & Hodge v. Mar shall 577 Griffiths. School Board of Ystradyfodwg 578 Tynedale SS. Co. (Lim.) v. Newcastle-on-Tyne Home Trade Insurance Co. 580 Maude v. Cousins 582 Lane v. Meates and another 584 Sedger r. London Metallic Capsule Co. (Lim.) 589 Roberts r. Rutley 594 Measures Bros & Co. v. Barnett 599 Rogers r. Williams 600 Drew v. Retallack 606 Newman . Cooper and another 609 Gardner r. Smith 619 Turley r. Down 621 Mayfield v. Sankey and others 622 S. Mordan & Co. r. Morris, Hart & Co. 624 Monetary Advance Co. (Lim.) v. Whettam 629 Wallace r. Richardson 630 Law Guarantee and Trust Society (Lim.) and another v. Bank of England 631 Reeves v. Waitt and others 632 Perkins, Bacon & Co. (Lim.) . Link 633 Chapman r. Valentine 642 Gunning.r. Ward 643 Catley r. Edmonton Local Board 645 Thornton r. Sykes 646 Clifford r. Brown 647 Brown v. Wood and an- Same v. Hill and another Same r. Gush and another 652 Barton v. Nichols 653 Green and another e. Bryce 654 House v. Steel, Young & Co. 655 Morel Bros. Cobbett & Son (Lim.) r. Marquis of Ailesbury 663 Portway r. Piper 666 Rogers, Sons & Co. v. Lambert & Co. 668 Bellingham r. Harding 680 Holthurst r. Pankhurst 684 Barlow v. Apsey 685 Bishop r. Willoughby 687 Vestry of St. Mathew, Beth- 692 Cowperthwaite v. Sturge other 695 Tottenham r. New Guston Co. (Lim.) 696 Ambition Investment Building Society v. Ayes 697 Avis r. Clarke 698 Jackson r. Liley 707 Eaton v. Fenwick 713 Sawyer r. Stevenson 715 Thomas r. Searles and another 719 Russell r. Kitchen 720 Boyd and another v. Hammond & Co. 721 Radford & Co. v. Brass 724 Wenninger . London and St. Katharine Docks Co. 727 Drury r. Tomkins 728 Adley and another v. Slater and another 730 Marians and another t. Head 732 Hepburn & Co. r. Harding 733 Lane, Monro & Co. r. Same 734 Lane r. Same 735 Davis r. Dallor 736 Dames v. Pocock 738 Arnot r. Daggatt and another 740 R. N. Cunningham & Co. (Lim.) v. Whiteley and others 743 Sonhammer . Keeble 744 Solomon v. Read Portsmouth r. Portsmouth and Ritter, Amy r. Ritter, F. A. Style, E. r. Style, T. T. Parties must be prepared to try their Actions ten days after the same have Torres . Torres, Lawrence J., been entered for Trial. Thompson, Robert, and Lawrence, John Evans . Evans Barnes and Richards v. Hastings White e. White and Jerome (pau and others (Jenkins intervening, Dodds cited) Ward r. Ward Parker v. Duncan Franklin v. Beale per cause) Lewis r. Lewis and Hutchingson Maxwell e. Maxwell Smith, C. L. e. Smith, Thos. Stevens v. Stevens and Durban George . Iles (Price and others Brough r. Brough (R.C.R.) cited) Metcalfe v. Webb Illingworth v. Butterfield (Keigh- Garth and others r. Harper and others (by their Guardian) Bridgland and Withey r. Storey COMMON JURY CAUSES. Richards r. Richards and Hone Oapenshaw v. Oapenshaw (pau- Bailey v. Bailey and Creig De Faye r. De Faye, Evans, Rees, and Nolan Fieldhouse v. Fieldhouse Lamplugh e. Lamplugh Powell . Powell and Benham Newman, G. v. Newman, Thomas Parker, Ellen v. Parker, J. W. (J.S.) Taylor, L. v. Taylor, Wm. Kingdon v. Kingdon and Roode Shepherd v. Shepherd and Honeyford Bardsley v. Bardsley, Couzens, and Bayfield . Bayfield Robinson, J. A. v. Robinson, J. H. Todd, M. A. v. Todd, C. L. Perceval r. Perceval (J.S.) Pickard v. Pickard (pauper cause) Harding r. Harding and Jones Hill, H. M. v. Hill, A. T. d'Etchgoyen, S. B. BEFORE THE COURT ITSELF-DEFENDED. Bagge, E. A. A. v. Bagge, F. H. Titford v. Titford (stayed security) Jarrett v. Jarrett Payne . Payne, Carter, and Fry Parkes e. Parkes and Thellusson Scambler v. Scambler (J.S.) Passmore v. Passmore Drake v. Drake (J.S.) Jeal . Jeal and Smith (pauper cause) Wood, H. v. Wood, John (stayed security) (J.S.) Holmes v. Holmes and Pearson Rhodes . Rhodes and Hodgson Poclet v. Poclet (J.S.) Hudson, M. v. Hudson T. S. (J.S.) Badham v. Badham and Gorst Hocker v. Hocker (J.S.) M'Conachie r. M'Conachie and Thorpe, E. v. Thorpe, A. CAUSES standing over by consent or otherwise; to be replaced in the List of Causes for Hearing on the Petitioner giving Ten Days' Notice in writing to the other parties for whom an appearance has been entered, and filing a Copy of such Notice in the Registry. Coustas r. Coustas (J.S.) Luck, S. v. Luck, W.V. (defended) (stayed security) Harris . Harris and Eccleston (undefended) Nokes v. Nokes (undefended) Wood . Wood and Brook (defended) (stay security) Williams . Williams, Young, and Moore (defended) (stayed) Osborne r. Osborne and Grey (defended) (stay security) Bates v. Bates and Baker (C.J.) (stay security) Crowe, Mary v. Crowe, Robert Parks v. Parks (defended) (R.C.R.) Williams, Wm. e. Williams, Griffiths r. Griffiths, Clark, Crosby, and Crowther (defended) (stay security) Aarons. Aarons and Wadmore (defended) (stay security) Worsnop v. Worsnop and Roulstone (defended) (stay se. curity) Kerr . Kerr, Rountree, and Butler (defended) (stay security) Bradshaw r. Bradshaw and Crisfield (C.J.) (stay security) Wright v. Wright and Kenworthy (C.J.) (stay security) Wright, A. o. Wright, F. W. (defended) (J.S.) Levin . Levin (defended) (J.S.) Wright, A. v. Wright, F. W. (defended) (J.S.) (stay security) Dodson v. Dodson (undefended) (defended) (stay security) Wilson r. Wilson, Rand, and Wardell (stay security) C. J. Unreported Cases. POLICE CASE. THE CUSTODY OF PARISH RECORDS. AT Marlborough-street, on January 8, Henry Gray, a genealogical bookseller, carrying on business in Leicestersquare, was summoned before Mr. Hannay by the Rev. Thomas Major Rees, vicar of Cwm, Flintshire, for unlawfully detaining a manuscript on vellum, “consisting of a true note and terrier of the glebe lands and, tithes signed by the minister and principal inhabitants of the village of Cwm in the year 1781, and the baptismal and burial register of the years 1791 to 1812." Mr. Arthur Gill, barrister, who prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, said that the summons had been taken out under section 40 of the Police (Metropolitan) Act, 1839, which provides that in all cases where goods the value of which is not greater than 157. are unlawfully detained the magistrate has the power to order them to be delivered up. The document in questio n consisted of about 40 pages bound in rough calf, and there could be no doubt as to its identity. The matter at issue was one of title. He contended that under the Act of Parliament (52 Geo. III. c. 146, s. 4) dealing with the subject the manuscript belonged to the parish of Cwm, and that Mr. Gray had no legal title to it, no matter under what circumstances it came into his possession. The Rev. T. M. Rees deposed that the registers of the parish of Cwm were complete from the year 1730 up to the present time, with the exception of the one dating from 1791 to 1812. He missed the register in question about three years ago, when a man called upon him about a birth in the year 1810. About four weeks ago he received information that the register was in the possession of the defendant, and was advertised in a catalogue for sale. Adolphus Emery, clerk in the employ of Dalziel and Beresford, solicitors, said that acting under instructions he wrote a letter asking for the manuscript to be given up, and a reply was received from the defendant saying that he would not part with it without payment. Subsequently the defendant was served with a demand to deliver up the register, signed by Mr. Rees and the churchwardens. Mr. Gray, who elected to give his version of the matter upon oath, said that the manuscript first came under his observation on October 5, 1888, when he noticed it in the catalogue of Mr. Charles Herbert, of Goswell-road. He purchased it from Mr. Herbert. Owing to a mistake in the date of the summons he did not know that the present proceedings were to be taken till he recently received a notice from the Treasury, and the consequence was that he had not time to instruct a legal gentleman to defend him. Mr. Hannay said he would, if it were desired, adjourn the hearing of the sumMr. Gray said he would prefer to have the dispute mons. settled immediately. He had bought the book in market overt and was entitled to be paid for it. He had offered to let the complainant have it for 50s., although he estimated the value of it at 37. 38. Mr. Hannay.-But you see Mr. Gill asserts that you can have no title to the document, as it belongs to the parish. It seems strange that there is no record of how the register got out of the church. Mr. Gill. The church might possibly have been broken into years ago. Mr. Hannay.-If that were so there would probably be some tradition in the village about such an event. Perhaps it was taken into a Court of law for the purpose of being put in evidence, and was forgotten and never brought back to the church. All I can do in the matter is to make an order for the defendant to pay the value of the document or to give it up. And supposing Mr. Gray chooses to retain the book and to pay the complainant the value set upon it? Mr. Gill.-In that case I would ask you to impound the book, and then a civil action can be brought by Mr. Rees to recover it in another Court. Mr. Hannay.-But I have no power to do so. Mr. Gill.I think you have; the document is now in your possession. Mr. Hannay.-No, it is not. I will make an order for the defendant to give it up or pay the value of it— three guincas. I advise him to give it to the complainant, as if he refuses an action will be brought against him in another Court which will put him to great expense. No doubt much might be said in favour of the defendant, but on the whole I think this book is a description of property to which he cannot have acquired a title, even by paying for it. The document is an historical document, and undoubtedly belongs to the parish to which it refers. Mr. Gray said that after what he had heard from the learned magistrate he would hand the register to Mr. Rees. THE NEW MUZZLING ORDER. I venture to think that the policy adopted by the Board of Agriculture will meet with the approval of every fair THE following letter appeared in the Times of the 4th minded man, whether he be a muzzler or an anti-muzzler. inst. under the above heading : The fact that a perfectly fair and impartial report of the proceedings on the 14th ult., when Mr. Chaplin received at the Board of Agriculture two deputations upon the muzzling of dogs in connection with the prevention and stamping out of rabies and hydrophobia, appeared in the Times induces me to trouble you with a few remarks on the new order which takes effect from the 31st ult. 1. Mr. Chaplin has made a new departure in so far as he has wiped out local option in connection with rabies. Under the sway of the Privy Council local authorities outside the City and Metropolitan Police districts were recommended to pass muzzling orders applicable to their respective jurisdictions. Some did and others did not act upon the advice of the Agricultural Department. The result was just what might have been expected. Dogs were muzzled on one side of a boundary and unmuzzled on the other. Assuming the muzzle to be of any utility in stamping out rabies, no more ludicrous way of enforcing it could have been devised. If local authorities are left to act, or not to act, as in the exercise of their discretion they think best, it is certain that they will ultimately, if not immediately, act in accordance with the views of the majority, which views are fluctuating and uncertain. . The new order is elastic. If the infected areas to which it now applies (as per schedule) are in fact extended, it can be expanded so as to embrace every newly-infected place. If, on the other hand, any district now within the schedule is proved to be free from the suspicion of contagion, the order is capable of being contracted so as to let the district revert to the ordinary law relating to the keeping of dogs. Many persons are of opinion that the introduction of dogs as animals and of rabies as a disease within the meaning and mischief of the Contagious Diseases Acts was a mistake, and that the ordinary law is quite equal to the task of dealing with mischievous and dangerous dogs. But the Board of Agriculture has to deal with things as they are, and I for one sincerely hope that all dog-owners who have the misfortune to reside within a proclaimed district will loyally co-operate with the authorities in their efforts to stamp out the disease, even to the extent of adopting the detestable muzzle, not virus (which it is not), but as a badge of ownership and as a safeguard against the transmission of the rabific as visible evidence that its wearer is a healthy animal. I am, Sir, obediently yours, THE LIVERPOOL LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION. 2. Now all persons of average common sense being agreed that, if rabies be prevalent in a given district, what is called here and there muzzling' is worse than useless, it was certain that the Board of Agriculture, upon THE following report for the year 1889 was presented which under the latest statute has devolved the entire to the members of the Liverpool Law Students' Associaadministration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) tion at the annual meeting held on January 6:Acts, would take the earliest possible opportunity of returning to common sense by dealing with canine rabies on the same lines as those on which it deals with glanders, foot-and-mouth disease, and the other contagious disorders into the company of which rabies has been recently introduced by statute. The principle on which, as I understand, these Acts are administered in regard to all contagious diseases included in their scope is this. The instant a disease is reported to exist the district in which it has made its appearance is proclaimed, and the concurrent adoption of every measure calculated in the smallest degree to assist in the process of stamping out is not only suggested but peremptorily ordered by the Board of Agriculture. It was to be expected that the President of the Board would apply that principle to the treatment of rabies, unless he were dissuaded by some very cogent reasons against its application. Now, the two societies represented at the deputations received by Mr. Chaplin, while agreeing on some points, have taken directly opposite views in regard to the muzzle. The one society looks upon it as the abomination of desolation, while to the other it is the symbol of a millennial condition of society. Both societies desired to be heard before the Board committed itself to any new official act in dealing with rabies. Both were heard through their representatives, with a patient courtesy beyond all praise. Speaking for myself, I can only say that the suavity of Mr. Chaplin's manner was such as I expected. Having heard both sides he decided in favour of neither. Medio tutissimus ibo is his motto. He has stood by the House of Lords' recommendation that where rabies prevails the muzzle should be enforced. To enforce the muzzle in districts where rabies is unknown would be (he said) to court opposition. On the other hand, to make the muzzling of dogs optional with dog-owners would be to put on one side a means of dealing with rabies which past experience has proved to be, at all events, useful as an adjunct to other measures of restriction and control. Your committee have again the pleasure of submitting to you the following report of the proceedings of the Association during the past year. Since the last annual meeting twenty-nine new members have been elected, seven have resigned, twelve have ceased to be members in pursuance of rule 8, and two have died. There are, therefore, now 424 members on the roll, as compared with 425 at the close of last year; of this number thirty-eight are barristers, 262 are solicitors, eight are bar students, and 116 are articled clerks. During the year twenty-six members have passed the final examination, and of these three have obtained honoursviz.: Class 2-Messrs. E. W. Swift and E. V. Crooks; Class 3-Mr. H. Mawson, LL.B. The Timpron-Martin gold medal of 1888 was gained by Mr. Hadden Todd, who served his articles with Messrs. Laces, Bird, Newton, & Richardson, and the Atkinson gold medal was gained by Mr. P. M. Smythe, who served his articles with Messrs. Simpson & North. The members of this association were invited by the Liverpool Law Society to witness the presentations which took place on March 1 last. Mr. H. McMaster, B.A., passed the Bar final examination, and was called in July last by the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn. The president of the Liverpool Law Society on this occasion announced the foundation of a new prize for Liverpool law students, to be called the 'Enoch Harvey Prize.' The history of the foundation of this prize will be of interest not only to the members of this association, but to all members of the legal profession. Owing to the important part taken by Mr. Harvey, in connection with the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, the members of the Liverpool Law Society proposed to present him with a testimonial, as an acknowledgment of their appreciation of the very valuable services he had rendered to the profession. On this coming to the knowledge of Mr. Harvey he requested that, instead of a testimonial to himself, the money subscribed should be devoted to |