A

ABANDONMENT OF CLAIM-See Personal Objection.
ABERDEEN ACT-See Entail.

ACCOUNT-See Bankrupt.

ACQUIESCENCE-See Road, Turnpike.

ACT OF SEDERUNT:-21st December 1723-See Fiars. 13th
February 1730-See Curator. 14th December 1756, §§ 5 and
6; 1828, §§ 67, 110-See Process. Removing. 18th November
1838-See Disentail. 17th July 1844, § 4-See Expenses.
24th February 1846-See Process.
ADJUDICATION-See Writ.

ADMISSION-See Proof.

ADVOCATION-See Expenses. Process.

Competency-Final Judgment-Statutes 50 Geo. III.
c. 112, § 36; 6 Geo. IV. c. 120, § 45-Process-In a petition
for interdict against the cutting off of any water-courses
leading to the petitioner's works, the sheriff, in the same
interlocutor, recalled the interdict previously granted with
regard to one of these, and assoilzied; but, as regarded an-
other, ordered minutes of debate—whereupon the petitioner
applied for leave to advocate the interlocutor under the pro-
visions of the statute 50 Geo. III. c. 112, § 36. The Lord
Ordinary having sustained the sheriff's judgment, the peti-
tioner reclaimed; and it being objected, that as this was an
advocation of an interlocutory judgment, the Lord Ordinary's
decision was final: Circumstances in which-Held, that
the judgment quoad the water-course, as to which interdict
had been refused, was a final judgment, and the Lord Ordi-
nary's interlocutor competently submitted to review; but,
before pronouncing on the merits, remit made to the sheriff
to decide the whole cause. Macfic v. Provost and Magistrates
of Greenock, 15th June 1850, p. 454.

Interlocutor Judicature Act-In an advocation, the
Lord Ordinary adhered simpliciter to the sheriff's findings in
point of fact, and did not embody them anew in his inter-
locutor-Held that there was here a failure to comply with
the 40th section of the Judicature Act; and the case was
remitted, in order that the interlocutor might be put into
the shape required by the statute. Wishart v. Motherwell's
Trustees, 3d July 1850, p. 521.

AFFIDAVIT See Bankrupt. Sequestration.
AFFIRMATION-See Proof.

AGENT AND CLIENT-See Implied Mandate. Indefinite Pay-
ment. Petition, Summary.

A law-agent, in rendering his account to his client,
having offered to deduct £32 therefrom, and to accept of
the balance of 120, "provided the same be remitted by" a
certain day: Circumstances in which-Held, that the
client had not timeously adopted the proposal, and that
the agent was entitled to full payment of his account,
subject to taxation. Cullen v. Mitchell, 19th June 1850,
p. 646.

AGENT AND PRINCIPAL-See Delivery.

SCOTTISH JURIST.

AGREEMENT-See Bill of Exchange. Pactum Illicitum. Per.
sonal Exception. Sale. Stamp. Trust-Conveyance.

Clause--Construction-A landowner made an agreement
with an iron-foundry company containing the following
clause:-" And further, the said J. C. hereby grants to the
said company and their foresaids the command of all the
water on the lands of O., and on any of the neighbouring
proprietors' lands which the said company may think proper
to lead through the lands of O., in such way and manner as
they or their foresaids may think most proper for the use
of the works, that either now are, or hereafter may be, carried
on by them at M., and that either in making dams, water-
leads, or otherwise, which they, their heirs or assignees, shall
have as full power to do as the said J. C. might have done
before entering into these presents, and that at any time
during the space of 999 years from and after Whitsunday
1787 years."-Held that the company were entitled to use
this water-course as a canal for the carriage of minerals to
their works, and to make a towing-path along its banks for
that purpose. Swan's Trustees v. Muirkirk Iron Company,
1st Feb. 1850, p. 205.

The

Contract-Construction-A glazier received an order
to glaze window-sashes before the duty on glass was taken
off. It was admitted that the rate of payment in view of the
contracting parties was the market rate. While the window-
sashes were in the glazier's hands, the duty was abolished,
and a drawback allowed upon unused stock on hand.
glazier refrained from glazing the window-sashes till he had
received payment of the drawback on the glass employed by
him for that purpose. Held that he was entitled to charge
his employer according to the market rate at the time of
contracting, without allowing any deduction on account of
the drawback; and that the exact time when the glass was
put into the sashes was immaterial to the question at issue.
Malloch v. Hodghton, 28th Nov. 1849, p. 33.

Mandate Sale-The holder of scrip for fifteen railway
shares instructed his broker, on 3d March, to sell them next
day at the highest market rate, "if the market was languid
and not likely to go up." The broker sold on 4th March at
17s. 6d. premium, subject to the approval of his employer,
to whom the sale was intimated. Before receiving the scrip-
holder's answer to this intimation, the broker cancelled the
bargain, and concluded a new sale on the same day, to the
same purchaser, at 20s. premium-that being shewn by the
evidence to have been the highest market rate at that hour
of the day, without any likelihood of a farther rise. The
stock, however, did rise in value that evening, and for some
months following. The scripholder having repudiated the
transaction, and refused to deliver up his scrip so as to en-
able the broker to fulfil his bargain with the purchaser-Held
that the conditional sale at 178. 6d. did not exhaust the
broker's mandate; but that the unconditional sale at 20s.
was covered by it, and was therefore binding on the scrip
holder. Henderson v. Dickson, 5th Dec. 1849, p. 57.

VOL. XXII.-No. XLII.

AGREEMENT-Non-Implement-Damages A broker
fifteen shares of railway stock on 4th March. His employer
wrongfully failed to deliver his scrip so as to enable him to fulfil
his bargain with the purchaser. On 9th July following, the
purchaser bought, at the then existing market rate, fifteen
shares of the same stock, which had greatly risen in value
during the interval, and debited the broker with the differ-
ence. The broker having paid it-Held that the full sum
so paid by him was the proper measure of damage as between
him and his employer-the purchaser having refrained from
"buying in" at an earlier period (when the stock might have
been obtained at a lower rate) at the request of the broker,
who had been induced to rely on his employer's proposals
for a compromise. Henderson . Dickson, 5th Dec. 1849, p. 57.
ALIMENT See Husband and Wife.

Husband and Wife-Circumstances in which the Court,
in absence of the husband, awarded an aliment of £30 per
annum, and £100 for bygone aliment, to a wife living sepa-
rately from her husband. Harper or Macnaughton v. J
Mac-
naughton, 13th Feb. 1850, p. 250.
ALTERATION OF SUCCESSION—See Entail.
AMENDMENT OF LIBEL-See Process.

Process A woman raised an action in her individual
character. While the suit was pending, she obtained her-
self decerned and confirmed executrix of her deceased hus-
band-Held (by the Lord Ordinary, and acquiesced in) that
she could not, by way of amendment of her libel, introduce
therein a new separate instance in the capacity of executrix.
Sharp or Smith v. Stoddart, 5th July 1850, p. 532.
APPEAL, LEAVE TO-See Process..
APPEAL, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO-Relevancy-A de-
fender presented a petition for leave to appeal against a
unanimous judgment finding the pursuer's case relevant, and
remitting it to the issue-clerks. The pursuer neither opposed
nor consented to the petition. Petition refused hoc statu,
with leave to apply again if the pursuer delayed to bring the
case to trial. North British Bank v. Graham, 28th May
1850, p. 416.

ARBITRATION See Interdict. Reduction.

*,,t

Submission Statute 8 Vict. c. 19, §§ 20, 24, 35-Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act-A railway company, and the
proprietor of lands through which the line passed, having
referred the question of compensation to arbitration, in terms
of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, both parties entered
into a minute of agreement prorogating the submission in-
definitely. The proprietor having died before any final de-
cree-arbitral was pronounced: Circumstances in which-
Held, that the submission still subsisted. Caledonian Rail-
way Company . Lockhart's Trustees, 12th Dec, 1849, p.
89.
ARRESTMENTS ON DEPENDENCE, RECAL OF-Caution
-In a question as to the recal, on caution, of arrestments
on the dependence of an action of reduction of a title to an
heritable estate, at the instance of the heir-at-law of the
granter Observed, That the procedure adopted on a similar
application in the Bargany case-viz, of making the pursuer
find caution for any damage which might accrue from the
maintenance of his arrestments-was specially adapted to
the circumstances of that case. Marsh v. Miller, 24th Nov.
1849, p. 22.

ASSIGNATION Sec Process. Title to Sue..
ASSYTHMENT-See Principal and Agent.

B

BANKRUPT See Expenses. Expenses, Caution for. Obligation.
Personal Objection. Proof.

Affidavit-Account-Statute 2 and 3 Vict. c. 41, § 32-
Where the affidavit of a party, claiming to vote in a seques-
tration, referred to an account containing accumulations and
deductions of interest, which, though docqueted in reference,
and attached to the affidavit, was subscribed by the deponent
only, and not by the justice of peace-Held that the vote
was bad. M'Cubbin v. Turnbull, 21st June 1850, p. 469.

Affidavit Sequestration Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 41,
$$ 3, 33-Security-A, the obligant under a cash-credit, in
which B and C were his co-obligants, and on which inhibi-
tion had been used against A, having become bankrupt, B
paid the debt, and obtained an assignation of it, and of the
inhibition. Thereafter, C having paid B his share of the lia-
bility, and got a receipt from B, claimed to vote on A's se-
questration, but in his affidavit he failed to value the security

of the inhibition-Held that the vote was incompetent.
Hay v. Durham, 9th Feb. 1850, p. 242.
BANKRUPT—Affidavit-Sequestration Voucher-It was ob
jected to the vote of a creditor in a sequestration, who claimed
on a business-abount, that it did not credit certain sums paid
to account by the bankrupt, for which receipts were inexist.
ence, and that, consequently, the account produced did not
exhibit the true balance between the parties. Terms of an
affidavit which-Held to proceed entirely on the account
produced, and objection thereto repelled. Hay v. Durham,
9th Feb. 1850, p. 242.

J

Affidavit-Voucher-Bill of Exchange-Vitiation

a for the on
a competition for the trusteeship on a bankrupt estate-
1. a vote founded on a bill, the place of payment in which
had been altered by scoring out the words "in London."
without mention thereof in gramio; and, 2. a vote founded
on a bill, in which the syllable "teen" was added, by inter-
polation, so as to read nineteen shillings, instead of nine
shillings-Held bad. M'Cubbin v. Turnbull, 3d July 1850,
P. 523.

W

Process-In an action of constitution against a party
against whom a commission of bankrupt had been issued
in England, it was pleaded that, in the circumstances, the
proper course was to sist procedure in Scotland, until a claim
should be made by the pursuer in the English bankruptcy.
The action having been intimated to the assignees, who did
not appear-Plea repelled, and the action allowed to proceed.
Roy v. Campbell, 14th June 1850, p. 450.

Sequestration Consignation-Process-Sequestration
of the estates of a deceased debtor refused, in respect of con-
signation of the sum claimed by the petitioning creditor;
and held that the latter could not uplift any part of the con
signed fund under a petition for sequestration. Rodger v.
Gellatly's Trustees, 8th June 1850, P. 436.
-brooss sd).

Sequestration Process Competition for Trustee-In
a competition for the trusteeship in a sequestration, where
the sheriff has not given any judgment on the objections, it
is competent for a party, in an appeal to the Court, to object
to the votes in favour of his competitor, and to redargue
objections to votes in his own favour, without having taken
an appeal. Hay v. Durham, 9th Feb. 1850, p. 242.

Sequestration Statute 1696, c. 5--Bill of Exchange-
A granted his bill to B, and by him it was indorsed to C
within sixty days of B's bankruptcy. Subsequent to the
bankruptcy, A having become insolvent, C accepted from
him a composition on the sum contained in the bill, and dis-
charged him of all liability. B's sequestration was wound
up by a composition-contract, and the estate having been
reconveyed to him, he reduced the indorsation to C under
the act 1696, c, 5, and claimed payment from him of the whole
amount of the bill: Circumstances in which Held, that C
was not liable in payment of more than the composition re-
ceived by himself from A. Drunimonde. Watson, 29th Jan.
1850, p. 197.

Sequestration—Trustee, Competition for Voucher
Decree Cognitionis Causa Statute 1695, c. 41-Grounds and
Warrants-Held that a decree cognitionis causa, taken in
absence against the representatives of a deceased debtor, and
not preceded by a charge under the act 1695, was not a suff-
cient voucher, under the bankrupt act, to enable the holder
to vote in a competition for the office of trustee on the seques
trated estate of the deceased. Turnbull v. M Naughton, 27th
June 1850, p. 505,

Sequestration, Recal of Caution-Held that a bank-
rupt (the trustee and creditors not appearing) was entitled
to oppose a petition for recal of his sequestration, without
finding caution. Hooper v. Fergusson and Co. 13th July 1850,
p. 606.
LUMATRAN
Sequestration, Recal of Statute 1 and 2 Vict. 4,
$8 14, 21-A party who had unsuccessfully opposed seques
tration of the estate of a deceased, having presented a peti
tion for recal, on reasons identical with those on which be
had opposed the issue of sequestration, the Lord. Ordinary
repelled the same, whereupon he reclaimed; and it bein
..objected that the petition for recal was incompetent, inas
much as the reasons for recal had been finally disposed of by
the interlocutor granting sequestration-Objection repelled:
buit circumstances in which, recal of the sequestration rafused
Elder. v. Thomson, 12th June 1850, p. 440 Jarage rat

Stamp-Voucher A party applying for sequestration

of the estate of a deceased, produced an account-current,
consisting chiefly of payments of cash to the deceased, vouched
by written orders, running-" Debit my account with."-
Held that, though the orders were unstamped, the account
was sufficiently vouched, to the extent of granting seques-
tration. Elder v. Thomson, 12th June 1850, p. 440.
BANKRUPT Statute 1696, c. 5-Reduction-Competency-
Question, Whether a reduction, under the act 1696, c. 5,
of an indorsation, as granted within sixty days of bank-
ruptcy, be competent at the instance of the bankrupt
himself, after discharge? Drummond v. Watson, 29th Jan.
1850, p. 197.

Title and Interest-Persona Standi-Affidavit-Where
the affidavit of a claimant in a sequestration, produced with-
out any vouchers, bore that the bankrupt was owing him a
certain sum as the amount of a call due on railway stock,
which had been sold by the claimant to the bankrupt, but
the bankrupt having failed to register the transfer, the call
had been made by the company on the claimant-the sheriff,
in respect of the want of vouchers, and that the narrative of
the affidavit did not bear that any debt was as yet owing
the claimant, held that he was not entitled to vote as to the
acceptance of an offer of composition. This judgment was
allowed to become final; but the bankrupt having thereafter
applied for his discharge, the claimant objected thereto; and
having produced an extract decree obtained since the date
of the sequestration, not against the trustee, but the bank-
rupt himself, ordaining him to obtain himself registered as
proprietor of the stock in question, with expenses, together
with execution of the same-as also another affidavit for
the expenses in the action up to the date of the sequestra-
tion-pleaded, that the defect in the first affidavit was now
obviated, or, at any rate, that he was entitled to object on
the second-Held that the claimant had no persona standi
entitling him to appear to object. Lang v. Moore, 16th July
1850, p. 576.

46

Trustee Affidavit-In a competition for the trustee-
ship on the sequestrated estate of a firm, the name of which
was also the names of the individual partners thereof, the
objection to an affidavit, that it was contradictory, inasmuch
as it bore that the company and the partners by name, as
such partners and as individuals," were indebted to the de-
ponent, and that, notwithstanding, it proceeded to set forth
that the deponent held "no other person, company or obli-
gant, than the said" company, bound for the debt-Repelled,
in respect that the oath, in the circumstances, sufficiently
set forth that the individuals were bound for the debt. Mac-
Cubbin v. Turnbull, 3d July 1850, p. 523.

1

Trustee, Competition for-Affidavit-In a competition
for the trusteeship on a sequestrated estate, a party intend-
ing to object to the vote of Colin B. and Co., merchants in
Huddersfield, lodged an objection to the vote of John B. and
Co., and the sheriff repelled the objection simpliciter. Held
that the objector was not entitled to object, on appeal, to the
vote of Colin B. and Co., more especially as, among the claim-
ants, was a firm of J. B. and Co., merchants in Manchester.
M'Cubbin v. Turnbull, 3d July 1850, p. 523.

Voucher-Proof-A party applying for sequestration
of the estate of a deceased, produced an account-current, in
which he credited the deceased with the balance of another
account-Held that the credit did not require to be vouched.
Elder v. Thomson, 12th June 1850, p. 440.

Writer's Hypothec-Security-Affidavit — Question,
Whether a writer's hypothec requires to be stated as a secu-
rity, in the affidavit of a party applying for sequestration of
the estate of a party deceased? Elder v. Thomson, 12th June
1850, p. 440.

BASTARD See Proof.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS-See Expenses. Jury Cause.

Where, in a bill of exceptions, the Court sustain one of
the exceptions and allow a new trial, their Lordships will
not determine the validity of the remaining exceptions.
Melrose and Co. v. Hastie and Co. 1st Feb. 1850, p. 207.
BILL OF EXCHANGE-See Bankrupt. Title to Sue.

Agreement-Proof, Parole-A accepted a promissory-
note for the accommodation of B, who placed it in the hands
of his bankers. It was averred that this depositation was
merely for discount, and not as a security to the bank for
their general dealings with B. In a suspension at the in-
stance of a charge given by the bank-Held incompetent to

prove the above averment by parole evidence. Glen v.
National Bank of Scotland, 8th Dec, 1849, p. 79.
BILL OF EXCHANGE-Construction Compensation -4

firm in Huddersfield drew a bill upon their debtor in Glas-
gow, and transmitted the bill duly accepted and blank in-
dorsed to a broker in Liverpool, for the purpose of discount
in Glasgow. The broker transmitted the bill to a bank in
Glasgow with the following letter:-"The enclosed has been
sent me from Huddersfield, to send to Glasgow for discount;
and if you can do it for the on moderate terms, it will oblige.
I have not indorsed it, but I will guarantee my liability the
same as I had put my name to it," The bank having re-
ceived payment from the acceptors-Held liable for the pro-
ceeds to the drawers; and not entitled, under the terms of
the broker's letter, to deal with the bill as his property, and
to set off the proceeds against a debt due by him to them.
Farrar and Rooth v. North British Bank, 6th July 1850, p. 535.

Foreign-Proof-Writ or Oath-An English firm em-
ployed an agent in Glasgow to sell their goods on commis-
sion. In the course of their dealings with him, they drew a
bill upon him, which he accepted payable in England, and
which they indorsed to their bankers there. In a charge at
the banker's instance on the bill-Held that the place of
payment did not render it an English bill, to the effect of
enabling the acceptor to prove, otherwise than by writ or
oath, that the bankers were merely interposed agents for
the drawers, whom he alleged to be his debtors. Strathern
o. Masterton and Company, 25th June 1850, p. 483,

Novation-Delegation Sequestration Statute 2 and
3 Vict. c. 41, § 119-A and B granted an acceptance to C
for £200, which was retired by payment of £40, and the
granting of a promissory-note for £160. A having been
sequestrated, entered C in his state of affairs as a creditor
for £200, and was thereafter discharged on a composition.
Meantime, the promissory note having become due, C drew
another bill on B for £150, which he subsequently retired
himself. B having afterwards been sequestrated, C lodged a
claim on his estate, founding on the £150 bill, in which he
deponed that he held no other person bound for the debt,
and no security for the same. Thereafter, having raised an
action against A and his cautioner for the amount of com-
position on £160, as a debt due and owing by him at the date
of his sequestration; and they having pleaded, that A's ac-
ceptance to the £160 bill was a forgery; that the substitu-
tion of the £150 bill for the former bills extinguished the
debt by novation and delegation; and that the pursuer's
claim was excluded by the terms of his deposition in claim-
ing on
B's estate, and by his having transacted separately
with, and given time to, the debtor: Circumstances in
which-Held, that whether the last promissory-note was
forged or not, A was liable under his former acceptance, and
in virtue of the entry in his state of affairs. M'Lennan v.
Fraser, 4th Dec. 1849, p. 49.

Onerosity-Suspension-In a suspension of a bill of ex-
change, on the ground that it was the renewal of a £70 bill,
granted in consideration of a loan of £35, and that £10 was
charged for the renewal, by the borrower, who was of full
age when the transaction was entered into the suspender
prayed the Court to pass the note, for the purpose of making
inquiry. Note refused. Wedderburn v. Joel, 27th Nov.
1849, p. 28.

Prescription, Sexennial-The indorsee of a bill having
brought an action of payment, within the six years of pre-
scription, against the acceptor, and obtained decree, the lat-
ter made payment, and the indorsee granted an assignation
in favour of a party on account of the acceptor, who, after
the lapse of the six years, instituted an action against the
drawer, as the true debtor: Circumstances in which-Held,
that the action was not barred by the sexennial limitation.
Roy v. Campbell, 14th June 1850, p. 450.

Promissory-Note-Non-Onerosity-Proof-Writ-Oath
-The granter of a promissory-note suspended a charge upon
it on the ground-1st, that it was granted without value
for the charger's accommodation; 2d, that the charger was
barred by his acceptance of a composition on all debts due
by the suspender. The charger denied that the note had
been granted for his accommodation, and admitted that he
had signed the composition-contract, but only on condition
of its acceptance by the suspender's other creditors, who had
not acceded to it--Held that both grounds of suspension

could be instructed only by the suspender's writ or oath.
Connals v. Stalker, 24th Nov. 1849, p. 25.
BILL OF EXCHANGE-Stamp-Proof-A bankrupt, in his
list of debts, stated A to be his creditor by a certain specified
bill. The bill being unstamped-Held that there was no evi-
dence of the debt. Ogilvie and Son v. Taylor, 7th Dec. 1849,
p. 75.

Summary Diligence-Foreign-Grounds and Warrants
-Process-A domiciled Scotsman, during a temporary resi-
dence in London, accepted a bill payable there, and drawn
upon him by an Englishman-Held that the bill was a good
warrant for summary diligence in Scotland. Don v. Kealy,
30th May 1850, p. 417.

Summary Diligence-Proof-Grounds and Warrants
1. A bill of exchange vitiated in the date, rejected as a
ground of summary diligence. 2. Held incompetent to cure
the defect by parole evidence. M'Rostie v. Halley, 2d March
1850, p. 353.

Writ-Summary Diligence-Vitiation-A bill of ex-
change found torn in three pieces in the repositories of the
creditor, held insufficient as a ground of summary diligence.
Thomson v. Bell, 5th July 1850, p. 534.

BOND-See Delivery.

BOTTOMRY--See Insurance, Maritime.

BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA-See Ship!

BOUNDING CHARTER See Feudal.

BURGH-Sce Title to Pursue.

BURSARY-See Testament.

C

CALLS, NOTICE OF See Railway.

CAUTION-See Arrestments on Dependence, Recal of. Bankrupt.
Expenses.

JURATORY-See Removing.
CAUTIONER-See Judicial Factor, Removal of
CESSIO-Suspension-A debtor who had obtained a decree of
cessio, suspended a charge upon debts acquired prior to the
decree, on the ground that property admittedly received for
his behoof by the trustee under the cessio, before becoming
trustee, had not been accounted for Charge suspended, for
the purpose of investigation. Smith v. M'Intosh, 11th Dec.
1849, p. 82.

T

CHARGE See Diligence.
CHURCH-See Summons.

Glebe, Designation of-Process-In a suspension of a
decree of designation of a glebe, the Court remitted to the
presbytery to reconsider the matter, with power to adhere
to the designation already made, or to make a new one.
Campbell and others v. Morgan and the Presbytery of Ler-
wick, 17th July 1850, p. 583.

Process-Record of Presbytery, Authentication of—
Statutes 1686, c. 3; 43 Geo. III. c. 54-In a reduction, at
the instance of a schoolmaster, of a sentence of deposition
pronounced against him by the presbytery, on the ground
that the interlocutor of relevancy and allowing a proof a
deliverance ordering certain portions of the proceedings to
be cancelled, in respect of a judgment of the Court of Session
in a suspension of the same, at the instance of the pursuer-
and the judgment finding him guilty, and sentence of de-
position following thereon-were not legally authenticated
by the signatures of the moderators of the meetings of pres-
bytery, at which the same were pronounced: Circumstances
in which, on a report as to the practice of church courts-
Reasons of reduction repelled. Fergusson v. Skirving and
others, 26th June 1850, p. 493.

Record of Presbytery, Cancellation ofA libel having
been raised before a presbytery, against a schoolmaster, after
the proof for the prosecution was closed, and the exculpatory
proof partly led, the schoolmaster suspended on the ground
that access to the proof had been denied him. The Lord
Ordinary granted interim-interdict against the respondents
pronouncing any ultimate sentence of deposition; but the
presbytery proceeded in the cause, to the effect of finding
the schoolmaster guilty. Subsequently, on their giving in
a minute consenting that all proceedings, subsequent to the
date of the refusal of access, should be held as cancelled, un-
der a reservation to proceed with the case de novo as from
that date, the Court recalled the interdict. Thereupon the
presbytery, the schoolmaster having refused to say whether
he wished the proceedings in question cancelled or not,

cancelled the same; and he having farther refused to lead
additional proof, found him guilty, and pronounced sentence
of deposition. In a reduction, at the instance of the school.
master, on the ground that it was incompetent for the pres
bytery to cancel their own proceedings, and to try him a
second time-that the evidence of certain of his witnesses
had been cancelled, which evidence it was impossible for
him to replace and that certain members of presbytery were
disqualified from judging in the case, by reason of agency:
Circumstances in which-Reasons of reduction repelled.
Fergusson v. Skirving and others, 26th June 1850, p. 498,
CITATION See Process.\

CLAUSE-See Agreement. Construction. Crown. Entail. Fee.
Landlord and Tenant. Poor-Law. Statute 3 and 4 Will, IV.
e. 46. Superior and Vassal. Testament. Trust. Vesting.
Construction-Intention-Mortis Causa Settlement-
A testator appointed his trustees, after certain special be-
quests, to "make payment of the interest of £6000 sterling
to my sister during all the days of her life, in the event of
her surviving me
and to place at interest, in the
public funds, or with adequate security, £6000 sterling for
this purpose,
and to account for the whole residue,
if any, to A, B, and C." The testator's sister survived him
for several years, and received nothing during her lifetime
but a very inadequate substitute for her annuity under her
brother's settlement. In a competition between her exe-
cutors and the residuary legatees, arising from there not be
ing trust-funds enough to make good to the executors the
arrears of an annuity answering to a capital sum of £6000–
Held, under a reference to the clauses of the deed, that
the annuity was to be satisfied, preferably to the residuary
bequests, out of the capital of the trust-estate, so far as it
would go for that purpose. Berry's Trustees v. Cox's Trus
tees, 18th June 1850, p. 455.

ConstructionTurnpike Act→Held, upon the construc-
tion of certain local road acts, empowering turnpike-road
trustees" to make and alter, widen, improve, repair and
maintain," certain statute-labour roads "as turnpike roads,"
that the extension of their breadth to the minimum of twenty
feet required by the General Turnpike Act was not a con-
dition precedent to the trustees' right to levy toll-the trus
tees having assumed these roads as turnpike-roads under
their management. Macintosh v. Trustees of West Stirling.
shire Turnpike-Roads, 22d Nov, 1849, p. 14.
CLERICAL ERROR-See Writ.
COMMISSION-See Trust.

COMMISSION AND DILIGENCE FOR RECOVERY OF
WRITINGS See Process.

COMMISSION AND FACTORY See Title to Sue.
COMMONTY-See Feudal.

COMPANIES CLAUSES ACT-See Judicial Factor." Jury
Cause, Proof. Railway.

COMPARATIO LITERARUM-See Proof.
COMPENSATIO INJURIARUM--In an action of damages for
assault and defamation, the defender craved a counter issue-
whether, a month before the facts set forth in the summons,
the pursuer had published a calumpious newspaper article,
to his (the defender's) loss, injury, and damage Held (by a
majority of the whole judges) that the counter issue must
be disallowed; and that the defender must bring a separate
action. Opinion, That the issue in the counter action ought
to be tried before the same jury. Tullis v. Crichton, 8th
March 1850, p. 379..

COMPENSATION-See Bill of Exchange. Novation. Railway
COMPETENCY See Advocation. Bankrupt. Disentail. Ental
Jurisdiction. Obligation. Pelition, Summary. Process, Proof
Public. Sequestration. Summons.

COMPETITION—Multiplepoinding Riding Interest-Title
to Pursue-Process-A party died in Jamaica, leaving a will
by which he appointed two executors, one of whom was resi
ident there. The other having made up titles in Scotland,
The raised a multiplepoinding with regard to certain funds of
the deceased, in which process a party appeared and claimed
as on a riding interest, in respect that he was heir as
nearest of kin to a party with whose effects the deceased, in
name of executor, had unlawfully intromitted. The exec-
Stor, not admitting the claimant's statement-Objected, That
t as the claim was not constituted, it could not be admitted
in the competition as a riding interest. Objection sustained,
and claim repelled, Stevenson Geddes, 4th Dec. 1849, p. 51.