posed authority of a warrant which was defective on its face, was held liable in damages. The extent of the gaoler's liability is considered. The difficulty was caused by an amendment to the original sentence on appeal to the quarter sessions.

Fire Insurance.]-Workman v. London and Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 19 T. L. R. 360, is a peculiar case as to insurance commissions not likely to be of practical value. A company having large risks to insure had been in the habit of placing the insurance in different insurance companies through an insurance broker, and, hoping to be allowed the commissions themselves, they decided to deal directly with the insurance companies. The discarded brokers persuaded the insurance companies to refuse to deal directly with the company, and thereupon this action was brought against the brokers and the insurance companies for damages for conspiracy, but it was brought not by the company themselves, but by agents who had been instructed to look after their insurance business for them. It was held that these agents could not maintain the action, because they could shew no damage, any commission which they could earn being the property of their principals.

Fixtures.]-In Lyon v. London City and Midland Bank, 19 T. L. R. 334, chairs let on hire to the occupier of certain premises to be used at public entertainments, each chair being, in order to comply with municipal regulations, fastened in its place by screws, were held not to have lost the character of chattels.

Life Insurance.]-Foster v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, 19 T. L. R. 342, is a case arising out of the increase of rates some five years ago by the defendant company. The Court of Appeal held that under the policy and constitution there was power to increase the rates, but that the documents circulated by the company were "tricky and misleading," and they therefore decreed rescission of the policy (issued twelve years before), and repayment of all premiums with interest.

Limitation of Actions.]-The judgment in Langrish v. Watts, 18 T. L. R. 658, noted 22 C. L. T. 297, as to the effect under the Statute of Limitations of a conditional promise to pay, was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 359, the effect of the correspondence being held to be a promise to pay if the claim on investigation was found to be correct. In Kirkland v. Peatfield, 19 T. L. R. 362, the doctrine of Sutton v. Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511, was held to apply to a mortgage of a reversionary interest in land, and an action on the covenant was held to be barred in twelve years. In view of the provisions of R. S. O. 1897 c. 72, s. 1 (h), it is not necessary to refer to the Ontario cases in which a result contrary to that in Sutton v. Sutton has been arrived at.

Mortgage.]-The short point decided in Stevens v. Theatres, Limited, 19 T. L. R. 334, is that the power of sale in a mortgage is not extinguished by the bringing of an action for foreclosure, and that pending the time for redemption, the power may, with the leave of the Court, be exercised.

Partnership.]-Where it is contended that a person not served with the writ in an action against a firm is liable as a partner, the proper form of issue is, so the Court of Appeal decides in Davis v. Hyman and Co., 19 T. L. R. 348, whether the person in question was, or had held himself out as, a partner in the defendant firm.

Patent.]—Taking orders in England for goods manufactured abroad and delivered abroad to the purchasers' agents, was held in Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Chemische Fabrik Vormals Sandoy, 19 T. L. R. 308, to be so far an infringement of the plaintiffs' English patent as to justify an order for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction notice of a writ of summons indorsed with a claim for an injunction.

Principal and Agent.]—In Bartram and Sons v. Lloyd, 19 T. L. R. 293, there is a clear and useful statement of the rule that if an agent receives without the knowledge of his principal a commission from the person with whom on behalf of his principal he is making a contract, the principal is entitled to repudiate the contract. But the right of repudiation must

be exercised at the earliest opportunity, and in the case in hand the principal was held to have waived the right.Tarkwa Main Reef v. Merton, 19 T. L. R. 367, is the useful complement to the preceding case, based as it is on the principle that an agent cannot hold for his own benefit property obtained by him by means of information gained by him in the course of his employment, which he should have disclosed to his employers. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Oliver v. Bank of England, 18 T. L. R. 341, noted 22 C. L. T. 133, as to transfer of shares under forged power of attorney, was affirmed by the House of Lords: 19 T. L. R. 312, sub nom. Starkey v. Bank of England.

Railways.]-The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Glasscock v. London, Tilbury, and Southend R. W. Co., 18 T. L. R. 295, noted 22 C. L. T. 138, where the plaintiff obtained damages for injuries sustained in stepping from a railway carriage which projected beyond the station platform, was affirmed by the House of Lords, 19 T. L. R. 305, solely on the ground that there was some evidence to support the jury's findings.

Restriction on Alienation.]-In re Fitzgerald's Settlement, 19 T. L. R. 347, may be referred to because of its recognition of the well settled principle that a prohibition of alienation of property cannot be imposed, except in the case. of a married woman's separate property. By the settlement in question-on marriage-property was settled on the husband for life, for his support and without right of alienation or of attachment by creditors, a form of settlement valid by Scotch law, by which it was in vain contended it was governed.

Sale of Goods.]-Holt v. Wren, 19 T. L. R. 292, is another case as to implied warranty under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, the article in question being beer. The publican who supplied the beer in question to the plaintiff, was held to be responsible to him in damages because of illness having resulted from the presence of arsenic in the beer, although the plaintiff had not in buying the beer relied on the defendant's skill or judgment, but had bought because of his own

good opinion of the beer brewed at the brewery supplying the beer in question.

Trade-mark.]-Kodak Limited v. London Stereoscopic and Photographic Co., 19 T. L. R. 297, contains, to those addicted to the vice of "snap-shotting," an interesting sketch of the history of the kodak and of films, while for the legal practitioner it decides that "Kodak," "Brownie," and "Bull's Eye" are good trade-marks, not only for cameras of those well-known types, but also for the films therefor manufactured by the plaintiffs. "Panoram" was, however, held to be a descriptive word, and not capable of registration as a trade-mark. Fels v. Thomas Hedley and Co., 19 T. L. R. 340, is a similar case, the name "naptha " as applied to soap being held to be descriptive, and not to have acquired in the market a meaning denoting only the plaintiff's soap.

Trust.]-In Jackson v. Dickinson, 19 T. L. R. 350, a trustee was held entitled to recover from the estate of his deceased co-trustee one-half the amount of a loss on an unauthorized investment, the facts shewing in effect an agreement between the two trustees to take the risk resulting from the breach of trust, and to share the loss if any should result.

Will.]-Betts v. Gannell, 19 T. L. R. 304, was a contest as to the execution of a will. The testator signed the will in the presence of the witnesses, who then signed it in an adjoining room, the door being open, but they not being in view of the testator. Probate was refused. It may be noted as an incidental point that some beneficiaries who appeared were refused costs out of the estate, which were allowed, however, to the executors and the next of kin.

EDITORIAL REVIEW.

Death of Sir Oliver Mowat.

We refer elsewhere to the death of Sir Oliver Mowat, K.C.M.G., Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, who had a distinguished career on the Bench and at the Bar, as well as in public life. His death occurred on Sunday the 19th April.

Before proceeding with the business of the Court of Appeal on the following day the Chief Justice of Ontario addressed the Bar as follows:

We meet this morning in the shadow of a great sorrow. With the rest of his fellow-citizens and fellow-countrymen, we mourn the death of Sir Oliver Mowat, the LieutenantGovernor of the Province. He has been such a prominent and central figure in the life of the Province and of the Dominion for so many years, that his removal by death from the sphere of his many activities must stir the thoughts and emotions of all in an unusual degree. He has passed away crowned with many honours won in the service of his country. but distinguished even more by the esteem, admiration, and affection of his fellow-men. We venture no attempt to render an adequate tribute to the work, the achievements. or the virtues of this truly good and therefore truly great man. To review his career would be to review the history of the Province for more than half a century. We who knew him as a lawyer and a Judge can perhaps most justly appreciate the value of the services he rendered to his native Province in that capacity. His luminous judgments, rendered while Vice-Chancellor, still remain to guide and instruct the lawyer, the Judge, and the student of the present day, while the result of his labours as a law reformer stands in the statute books as an enduring monument to his fame. The record of his work as a public man, a legislator, and a statesman, speaks for itself, and it may be safely intrusted to the historian and the chronicler of the time. All classes will honour and cherish the memory of the man, remembering