ACCUMULATIONS-continued.

self and his wife, and the life of the survivor of them, to apply all or any part of the income for the maintenance of the wife and the children of the marriage, and to accumulate the surplus (if any) so that the accumulations should be added to the principal fund and follow the destination thereof, with liberty for the trustees to resort to the accumulations of any preceding years and apply the same for the maintenance of the wife and children; and after the death of the survivor of the settlor and his wife upon trust, as to both capital and income, for such of their issue as the settlor and his wife by deed jointly, or the survivor by will, should appoint, and in default for the children of the marriage as tenants in common, sons at twenty-one, and daughters at twentyone or marriage:

Held, by Kay, J., that the only one of the said four periods of the Thellusson Act applicable to the case was the first, viz., the life of the settlor; and that the trust for accumulation contained in the settlement was void as from the death of the husband. JAGGER v. JAGGER 25 Ch. D. 729, [53 L. J. Ch. 201, 49 L. T. 667, 32 W. R. 284 Will-Residue.] A testator bequeathed

2. to his trustees and executors the sum of £3750

Bank of Ireland Stock, and directed them to retain it in their names for the purpose of securing the punctual payment of an annuity of £300 to his wife; and after her death he directed the annuity to be paid to the Governor and Trustees of the Hospital for Incurables, Dublin; and by a codicil he bequeathed the residue of his estate to the trustees for the time being of the Mater Misericordiæ Hospital, Dublin. The dividends on the Bank Stock were more than sufficient to pay the annuity, and a large surplus had been accumulated and invested by the trustees in 3 per cent. stock-Held, on a petition presented by them for the advice of the Court, that they were at liberty to pay over the accumulations of the surplus dividends, and to pay the future surplus dividends, to the trustees of the latter hospital as residuary legatees. Re THAREL'S TRUSTS

Maintenance of infants. See INFANT. 6, 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT—Of debt.

[13 L. R. Ir. 337

ACTION-continued.

holding from A., subject to this arrangement, and for many years paid the entire of the rent reserved by the lease. One year's rent being due, the landlord brought an ejectment, and B. paid the rent claimed in order to save the lands from eviction Held, that he was entitled to recover the amount from C. in an action for money paid. MURPHY v. Davey 14 L. R. Ir. 28 signee of Part of Lands subject to Charge Charge Recovery of Rentcharge-Arrears—Ascreated by Will.] An action for debt can be maintained for the recovery of the arrears of an of a part of the land, whether the charge was annuity charged upon land against the assignee created by deed or will. BooTH v. SMITH (No. 1) [51 L. T. 395, 47 J. P. 759

2.

3.

Recovery of Rentcharge-Annuity— Release Contribution-22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 10.] A testator devised copyholds to G., charged with an annuity to the Plaintiff, and died in 1875. In July, 1876, G. contracted to sell part of such land to the Defendant, and surrendered the residue of the land to W. in fee, the Plaintiff by deed releasing from the annuity the land so surrendered. In 1883 the Plaintiff brought an action against by Stephen, J., that the Defendant's right to hold the Defendant for arrears of the annuity:-Held, his part of the land freed from the annuity was preserved by the saving clause of the above section, and that the Plaintiff could not therefore recover. BOOTH v. SMITH (No. 2) 53 L. J. Q. B. 425 [Reversed by C. A., 38 W. R. 142, W. N. 1884, p. 230.]

4.

Recovery of Rentcharge. · Arrears. Liability of Owner of Part of Lands chargedAbolition of Real Actions-3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, 8. 36.] B. was the owner and occupier of part of certain lands which were by a private Act charged with payment to the vicar of the parish with an annual sum of £270 in lieu of tithes. The Act provided that if the annual rents were in arrear, the vicar was to have the same powers and remedies for recovering the same as are provided for the recovery of rent in arrear, and also that he might, if sufficient distress were not found on the premises, enter and take possession until the arrears were satisfied. Four years' arrears of rent accrued in respect of all the lands charged, and during the whole of that period B. was the owner and occupier of a portion of the lands. The vicar having brought an action against B. for the whole amount in arrear:-Held, that the action was maintainable, the remedy by real action, which was a higher remedy than the action of debt, having been abolished by 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 36:-Held, also, that B. had his remedy in an action for contribution against the co-owners. Thomas v. Silvester (L. R. 8 Q. B. 368, 42 L. J. Q. B. 237, 29 L. T. 290, 21 W. R. 912) followed. CHRISTIE v. BARKER

[53 L. J. Q. B. 537 (C.A.) Against charity-Consent of Charity Cómmissioners.

See CHARITY. 1, 2.

Against constable-Local venue-Notice of action.

See CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT. 1.

ADMINISTRATOR-continued.

5. Suppression of Will not appointing Executors-Sale of Leaseholds by AdministratorTitle of Purchaser.] A grant of letters of administration obtained by suppressing a will containing no appointment of executors is not void ab initio, and accordingly a sale of leaseholds by an administratrix who had obtained a grant of administration under such circumstances to a purchaser who was ignorant of the suppression of the will, was upheld by the Court, although the grant was revoked after the sale.

Abram v. Cunningham (2 Lev. 182) distinguished. BOXALL v. BOXALL 27 Ch. D. 220, [53 L. J. Ch. 838, 32 W. R. 896 6. With Will annexed-Attorney of Executor-Further Grant de bonis non.] A grant to the attorney of an executor does not break the chain of representation.-L., as attorney for the executor, obtained a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed of a testatrix. The executor died leaving part of the property unadministered:-Held, by Butt, J., that the executor's representative was entitled to deal with the property left unadministered of the testatrix, and that no further grant was necessary. IN THE GOODS OF DONNA MARIA VEA MURGUIA (or MARQUIA) 9 P. D. 236, 53 L. J. P. 47, [32 W. R. 799, 48 J. P. 711 7. With Will annexed - Grant to the Guardian for use and benefit of Minor.] The next of kin of a minor, the universal legatee, were an uncle who was abroad, an aunt who was in poor circumstances, and another aunt who had renounced. The Court granted letters of administration with will annexed for the use and benefit of the minor to a guardian elected by her. IN THE GOODS OF GARDINER (or GARDNER) [9 P. D. 66, 53 L. J. P. 31, 32 W. R. 756, [48 J. P. 456 With Will annexed-Interest-SisterLegatee-Widow.] In a contest for administration with the will annexed the Court preferred the sister of the testator to the widow, as it appeared that the sister, as a legatee, had the larger interest in the property to be distributed. IN THE GOODS OF HOMAN 9 P. D. 61, 31 W. R. 955 See also EXECUTOR; TRUSTEE. Administration in bankruptcy of insolvent estate.

8.

ADMIRALTY-continued.
Practice.

See PRACTICE-ADMIRALTY.
ADMISSIONS-Between co-defendants-Costs.
See PRACTICE-COSTS. 1.

In pleadings-Motion for judgment on.
See PRACTICE-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT.
1-5, 7.

Payment into Court upon.

See PRACTICE-PAYMENT INTO COURT.
Salvage action-Calling evidence.

See PRACTICE-ADMIRALTY. 13. ADULTERATION- Food and Drugs- + MilkSomerset House Analysis-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), s. 22.] Held, (diss. Lord Craighill), that the reference in the above section to the "chemical officers . Somerset House" is for the purpose of obtaining the result of their analysis merely, and that therefore their opinion as to what is the minimum percentage of fat to be found in new milk cannot be received as evidence. DARGIE v. DUNBAR

at

[11 C. of S. Cas. (Just.) 37 (Sc.)

2. Food and Drugs-38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, 88. 6, 12, 14, 20, 21-42 & 43 Vict. c. 30, s. 3Private Purchaser - Penalty - Proceedings to Recover-Notification to Seller of intention to have Article analysed-Condition precedentEvidence of identity of Sample-Corporation pur-chasing.] The provisions of s. 14 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, do not apply to the purchase of an article unless for analysis, and therefore it is not a condition precedent to the right of a purchaser for consumption to take proceedings for a penalty under the Act that he should have given to the seller the notification required by that section. Parsons v. Birmingham Dairy Co. (9 Q. B. D. 172, 51 L. J. M. C. 111, 30 W. R. 748, 46 J. P. 727) dissented from.

A sample of milk, in course of delivery by the Defendant's servant under a contract for the delivery thereof to a workhouse, was procured for analysis by the master of the workhouse, and divided by him into three portions, one of which he retained, another he gave to the Defendant's servant, and the third he enclosed in a bottle labelled "Milk," and having on it the name of the contractor, and sent it by rail to the public analyst, who analysed it, and gave his certificate as provided by the statute. The Defendant having been fined for the act of adulteration:Held, that a purchase was shewn under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, there being a buyer on one side and a seller on the other; that the provisions of s. 14 of that statute did not apply, and no notification was necessary as a condition precedent to the bringing of the prosecution; that there was sufficient evidence that the milk taken was the milk submitted to analysis; and that a corporation such as the Board of Guardians v. HILLIARD was within the statute. ENNISKILLEN GUARDIANS 14 L. R. Ir. 214 Divide-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 3. Food and Drugs-Sample-Offer to 39 Vict. c. 63), 8. 14.] D. purchased from the Appellant a pint of milk, and, after the purchase was completed, told the vendor that he intended to have the milk analysed, and offered to divide

ADULTERATION-continued.

it with the vendor, which offer was refused. The milk having been found to be adulterated, the vendor was convicted:-Held, by Mathew and Day, JJ., that the provisions of the above section had been sufficiently complied with, for it was unnecessary for the purchaser to "offer to divide the [milk] into three parts" in so many words. CHAPPELL v. EMSON 48 J. P. 200 4. Food and Drugs-Written Warranty -Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63), 88. 6, 25-Contract to supply Milk each Day for Six Months whether a Warranty within the Act.] By s. 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, if the Defendant, in any prosecution under this Act, prove to the satisfaction of the justices that he had purchased the article in question as the same in nature, substance, and quality as that demanded of him by the prosecutor, and with a written warranty to that effect, he shall, under certain other specified conditions, be entitled to be discharged from the prosecution. Upon the hearing of an information against the Appellant, for having, contrary to the provisions of the Act, sold, on the 12th of April, 1883, certain milk to the Respondent, which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded by him, as it contained a percentage of water, the Appellant proved that he had purchased the article in question under a written contract made with F., on the 24th of March, 1883, whereby F. agreed to sell to the Appellant eightysix gallons of good and pure milk (each and every day) for six months, the said milk to be delivered twice daily:-Held, by Coleridge, C.J., and Mathew, J., that this contract did not constitute a written warranty within the meaning of s. 25 in respect of the specific article sold by the Appellant to the Respondent on the 12th of April, and therefore that the Appellant was not entitled to be discharged from the prosecution. HARRIS v. MAY 12 Q. B. D. 97, 53 L. J. M. C. 39, [32 W. R. 595, 48 J. P 261

ADVANCEMENT — Child-Intestacy-Death of universal Legatee and sole Executrix in Testator's Lifetime Statute of Distributions-Hotchpot.] A testator bequeathed all the residue of his property to his wife, whom he appointed sole executrix. She predeceased the testator. One of the testator's daughters had received on the occasion of her marriage a sum of £700. She also died in the lifetime of her father, leaving two children :Held, that the Statute of Distributions applied, and the sum advanced to the daughter must be brought into hotchpot. HARTE v. MEREDITH

[13 L. R. Ir. 341

2. Transfer of Stock into joint NamesTrust-Intention to benefit-Claim to have Retransfer.] The Plaintiff, a widow, in the year 1880 caused a sum of £6000 consols to be trans

ADVANCEMENT-continued.

ferred into the joint names of herself and the Defendant, who was her godson, and in whose welfare she took great interest. This transfer was not made known to the Defendant. In 1882 the Plaintiff, then eighty-eight years old, married a second husband, and soon afterwards applied to the Defendant to re-transfer the stock into her name alone:-Held, by Pearson, J., upon the evidence, that the transfer was originally made with the deliberate intention of benefiting the Defendant, and not with a view to the creation of a trust. The Court could not, therefore, compel the Defendant to re-transfer the stock. STANDING v. BOWRING 27 Ch. D. 341, 54 L. J. Ch. 10, [51 L. T. 591, 33 W. R. 79