ought to be continued, and that the proceedings by bill ought to be stayed. Parbury v. Chadwick, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 562.

2. Practice Winding-up Act-Reference to the Master-Petition-Report.-Under the Joint-Stock Companies Winding-up Act a report of the Master, upon a reference to inquire whether a company ought to be wound up, ought to be confirmed on an application to the court by way of petition and not by motion. Imperial Salt and Alkali Company, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 393.

3. Scripholder-Trustee-Costs.-The allottee of scrip in a provisionally registered public joint-stock company sold the scrip certificates in the market, and after the company obtained its act of parliament, and in default of the scripholder claiming to be registered within the time required by the company, was registered as the owner and received sealed certificates of the shares. He subsequently paid calls, and sold the shares in the market: Held, that the allottee was trustee of the shares standing in his name for the purchaser of the scrip certificates. The plaintiff (the purchaser of the scrip) discovering from the answer of the defendant (the allottee) that the amount received for the shares was only 91., and having previously grounds for supposing a larger amount might be recovered, offered to abandon the suit upon payment of the 91. and his costs. The defendant refused, and the court decreed payment to the plaintiff of the 97. and costs of the suit. Beckitt v. Billborough, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 522.

4. Winding-up Acts-Claim by the secretary for salary.-When the above company was formed, it was resolved that no director of the company should be personally responsible for the salaries of the officers, and that no officer should obtain payment for his services until a sufficient sum should have been obtained by the funds of the company for that purpose. It was also agreed that the officers should receive half their salaries until such time as it might be convenient to the company to pay the whole. Upon the company being wound up, the Master disallowed the claim of the secretary for salary during the two years he had acted as such and one year afterwards for default of notice: Held, that the claim for the full amount of salary for two years only must be allowed. In re Independant Insurance Company, Ex parte Cope, 20 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 28.

5. Winding-up Act-Contributories-Certificate of complete registration.-The Master upon winding-up the company excluded certain shareholders from the list of contributories, on the ground that the requisitions of the statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, in regard to the deed of incorporation, had not been complied with before the certificate of complete registration was obtained: Held, that the certificate of the registrar was sufficient evidence of complete registration, although all the requisite provisions might not have been fully complied with. In re Independant Assurance Company, Ex parte Bird, 20 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 30.

6. Winding-up Act-Contributory-Contribution of expenses.A. went to a meeting held for the purpose of getting up a railway,

but left before the business commenced, and refused to have anything to do with it. Some time after, A., under the threats of the secretary of the company, and a protest of non-liability, paid certain sums towards the expenses of the company. These circumstances were stated in the affidavit of A.: Held, that A. was not a contributory within the meaning of the Joint-Stock Companies Windingup Act. In re Direct Exeter, Plymouth and Devonport Railway Company, Ex parte Hall, 19 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 386

7. Winding-up Act-Contributory-Letter of allotment-Condition.-A. applied for shares in a railway company. A month after the application he received a letter of allotment, in which contained the words "not transferable; " and a declaration that if the deposit was not paid within a month, the allotment should be null and void. A. never paid the deposit: Held, that by reason of this declaration in the letter of allotment, A. was not a contributory. Whether the words "not transferable" would have had that effect, quære. In re Direct Birmingham, Oxford, Reading and Brighton Railway Company, Ex parte Capper, 19 L. J. (N. Ş.) Chanc.

394.

8. Winding-up Act-Contributory-Powers of Directors.-A banking company was projected in June, 1836, and A. was one of the promoters and directors. The bank commenced business on the 9th of September. On the 24th of September it was agreed between A. and the other directors that A. should retire from the company. On the 18th of October the first signature was affixed to the deed of settlement, which, however, was dated in August. By that deed it was declared, that all the acts done by the directors previous to the execution of the deed should be ratified. On the 25th of October A.'s retirement from the company was advertised in the Gazette. In 1841 the company broke up, and was afterwards ordered to be wound up: Held, that A. was not a contributory. In re Borough of St. Marylebone Joint-Stock Banking Company, Ex parte Busk, 19 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 391.

9. Winding-up Act-Contributory-Receipt of dividends-Executor.-A., a shareholder in a company, died leaving B. his executor. B. did not comply with the formalities laid down by the deed of settlement as to executors becoming members of the company in respect of the shares of their testators, but received the dividends declared on the shares after the death of the testator: Held, that B., either in his own or his representative character, must be held to have made a contract with the directors, and ought to be put in the list of contributories. In re North of England Joint-Stock Banking Campany, Ex parte Gouthwaite, 19 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 393.

10. Winding-up Act-Discretion of the court as to the winding up companies-Banking company in India.-The court has a discretion to refuse to order a company to be wound up, under the JointStock Companies Winding-up Acts, where there is reason to believe that more harm than good would be done by the order, and that such order would not be necessary or expedient. A petition for winding

up a banking company established at Calcutta, with correspondents in London, which had suspended payments, and where a deed of arrangement had been executed in India, on the ground of an alleged improper carrying out of such deed in England, was dismissed. In re Union Bank of Calcutta, 19 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 388.

11. Winding-up Act-Husband and wife.-A., a feme sole, being entitled to shares in a company, married B. Nothing was done with the shares, which continued to be in the name of A. when A. died: Held, that B. was not liable as a contributory, under the Joint-Stock Companies Winding-up Act, 1848, in respect of losses or liabilities as to the shares before or after the coverture. Vale of Neath and South Wales Brewery Joint-Stock Company, Ex parte Kluht, 19 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 385.

12. Winding-up Acts-Liability of provisional committee-man. -The Master had placed the name of Mr. Clarke on the list of contributories, on the ground that he had allowed his name to be advertised as one of the provisional committee. Mr. Clarke had taken no shares in the company: Held, that a person being one of the provisional committee, did not of itself subject him to any liabilities, unless he had authorized expenses being incurred on his behalf. The Master's decision was reversed. In re Falmouth, Helston and Penzance Railway Company, Ex parte Clarke, 20 L. J. (N. S.) Chanc. 14.

13. Winding-up Act-Directors, powers of-Contributory.— A banking company was established in 1836. By one of the clauses of the deed of settlement the directors were empowered to act in such manner as would, in their opinion, best promote the welfare of the company, and, for that purpose, to make rules, bye-laws and provisional regulations. A. was an original director of the company, and held fifty shares in it. In 1838 an arrangement was entered into between A. and the other directors, under which A. was to retire from the direction, and give up his shares to the company at par. The company broke up in 1841, and was ordered to be wound up: Held, that the transaction of 1838 was not within the powers of the directors, and that A. was a contributory in respect of the shares held by him. Borough of St. Marylebone Joint-Stock Banking Company, Ex parte Stanhope, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 389.

14. Winding-up Act-Provisional committee-man · Contributory.-Under the Winding-up Act, the name of a gentleman was placed by the Master on the list of contributories, who had become a provisional committee-man upon the understanding that he was not to incur any liability for expenses. No shares were allotted. Motion to reverse the Master's decision refused. Croydon Direct West End Junction Railway Company, Ex parte Studeley, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 417.

15. Winding-up Acts-Provisional committee-man not liable as contributory.-The Master placed Mr. Carmichael on the list of contributories to this company as a provisional committee-man, and as an allottee of 100 shares: Held, that the evidence was not suffi

cient to show that Mr. Carmichael had bound himself to take any shares, and that he being only in the position of a provisional committee-man, who had not authorized any expenditure on his behalf, his name must be expunged from the list of contributories. In re West Coast Railway Company, Ex parte Carmichael, 20 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 12.

CONSTRUCTION.

See DEED. DEVISE. WILL.

CONTRIBUTORIES. See COMPANY.

CONVERSION.—The testator gave his real and personal estate to trustees upon trust to apply the rents, issues and proceeds for the benefit of his two daughters, with a direction, on the youngest attaining twenty-one, to divide the whole into two equal moieties, of which the testator gave one moiety to his two daughters equally, and directed the other to be placed out upon government or real securities, and the dividends and interest thereof to be paid to the daughters for their lives, and, upon their death, the said monies and effects to be divided amongst their children: Held, that there was no conversion by the will of the moiety of the real estate devised to the daughters on the youngest attaining twenty-one. Cormick v. Pearce, 7 Hare, 477.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGN.-1. Under the Copyright of Designs Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 100, the proprietor of a design protected by the act is entitled to an injunction restraining, not merely the sale, but the manufacture of any article to which the design is applied during the period of the protection. Form of order on compromise, staying all proceedings, except on breach of an injunction. Mac Rae v. Holdsworth, 2 De Gex & S. 496.

2. Injunction. The protection of copyright for three years, granted by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 65, to "any new or original design for any article of manufacture having reference to some purpose of utility, so far as such design shall be for the shape or configuration of such article," is not clearly applicable to the design of a "protector label," which consisted in making in the label an eyelet-hole, and lining it with a ring of a metallic substance, through which a string attaching the label to packages passed. The court refused to grant an injunction before the hearing against an infringement of such design. Quære, the meaning of the words "shape or configuration" in the act. Margetson v. Wright, 2 De Gex & S. 420.

COSTS OF DISCLAIMING DEFENDANT.-The assignee in insolvency of a sub-mortgagor disclaimed: Held, that he was not entitled to his costs. Clarke v. Wilmot, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 53, observed upon. Stafforth v. Pott, 2 De Gex & S. 571.

COSTS.-Tenant for life-10 & 11 Vict. c. 96.-Under the act for the indemnity of trustees, a tenant for life petitioned for payment

of the dividends to her: Held, the general personal estate of the testatrix being exhausted, that the costs of the petition must be paid out of the income, and not out of the principal. In re Lorimer, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 524.

And see EXECUTOR.

TICE.

ADMINISTRATION SUIT. RAILWAY PRAC

COUNTY COURT.-Jurisdiction of Court of Chancery-Prohibition. The judges of the courts of common law being upon the circuit, a prohibition out of the Petty Bag Office was applied for and was granted by the Court of Chancery to the judge of the County Court to prevent him from carrying into execution a judgment obtained therein upon a matter stated not to be within its jurisdiction. Wright v. Cattell, 19 Law J. (N. S.) Chanc. 527.

CREDITORS, CONSENT OF, TO SUIT. See BANKRUPT. CUSTODY OF INFANTS.-Before the jurisdiction of the court to deprive a father of the guardianship of his children can be called into action, the court must be satisfied that the father has so conducted himself, or placed himself in such position, as to render it not merely better for the children, but essential to their safety or welfare, that the father's right should be interfered with (except in the cases within the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 54). Although the circumstance of the children being in the custody of the mother excludes the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 54, the provisions of that act are proper to be regarded in considering an application by her to retain such custody, and to restrain the father from interfering with it. Conduct showing the father to be a person to whose guardianship it would be very objectionable to intrust children, held sufficient ground for depriving him of their custody, and for providing otherwise for their care and maintenance, and education, where such a provision can, by an actual appropriation of property, be effectually secured. But where the only security proposed was a deed of covenant of the infant's mother-in-law to provide for the maintenance and education of the children for her life: Held, that such conduct was not sufficient to enable the court to interfere. In the Matter of Robert Fynn, Alfred Fynn and Emily Fynn (Infants), 2 De Gex & S. 457.

DEBT, PROOF OF JOINT, AGAINST ESTATE OF PREDECEASING DEBTOR.-Where an intestate and another had mortgaged a leasehold estate, of which they were tenants in common, to secure payments in respect of shares held by them on a benefit building society, and had entered into a joint covenant to make the payments, but were not partners, and had no joint estate, and the intestate's codebtor was sworn to be in insolvent circumstances: Held, that the covenantee was not entitled to prove as a specialty creditor under a decree for the administration of the intestate's estate. Crossley v. Dobson, 2 De Gex & S. 486.

DEED.-1. Construction-Ignorance of fact.-Under the will of