employers' business, Byrne, J., held that, having regard to the nature and scope of the defendant's employment, and the special trusts and duties imposed on him, he could not hold his patents as against his employers.

Municipal Corporations.]-The highway obstruction case of Bull v. Mayor, etc., of Shoreditch, has made a second appearance in the Court of Appeal: 19 T. L. R. 64. That Court had previously directed a new trial-18 T. L. R. 171, noted 22 C. L. T. 70-and now, reversing the judgment at the second trial, entered judgment for the plaintiff, there being, in the view of the Court, a breach of the defendants' duty to keep the road in repair, and therefore liability for the accident resulting from the plaintiff, in avoiding the part out of repair, driving into a heap of earth placed on another part of the road by other persons over whom the defendants had no control.-In Dublin United Tramways Co. v. Fitzgerald, 19 T. L. R. 78, another highway case, a tramway company were held liable in damages for an accident resulting from the slippery condition of the portion of the highway between the tracks, the company being bound (by special statute) to keep that portion "in good condition and repair."-Power to provide and maintain urinals "in proper and convenient situations," was held, in Leyman v. Hessle Urban District Council, 19 T. L. R. 73, not to justify the defendants in placing a urinal so near the plaintiff's premises, as to be, as was found on the evidence, a nuisance to him.

Partner.] The judgment in Hamlyn v. John Houston and Co., 18 T. L. R. 631, noted 22 C. L. T. 265, holding a firm liable in damages because one of the partners had obtained by bribery information as to a rival business, was affirmed by the Court of Appeal: 19 T. L. R. 66. "A principal may be held liable for the fraud or other unlawful acts, and even the crimes of his agent, committed in doing something which was legitimately within the scope of his authority."

Power of Appointment.]-In re Lawley, Zaiser v. Lawley, 19 T. L. R. 8, is an unusual case as to the effect of exercising a power of appointment. The donee of a general power of appointing a fund by will attempted to exercise the power

in favour of a creditor; but it was held that the fund becameupon his death part of the general estate of the testator and applicable in payment of debts generally. The creditor took only, so the Court held, under the will, and his position was really that of a legatee taking the bounty of the testator.

Sale of Goods.]-The contract in question in Ryan v. Ridley and Co., 19 T. L. R. 45,-for the sale of perishable goods -provided that payment was to be made by cash in exchange for the shipping documents. It was held that this meant payment within a reasonable time (in a business sense) after tender to the purchaser of the documents and that in default. the vendor was entitled to re-sell and recover from the purchaser the loss on such re-sale.-Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, 19 T. L. R. 80, was decided by the Court of Appeal on the far-reaching principle that a seller of goods of a possibly dangerous character is bound to warn a purchaser, who does not himself know it, of the danger. The plaintiff purchased a tin of a preparation of lime, and owing to some defect in the tin some of the lime, when the tin wasopened, flew in her eyes. In the opening of other tins of the same consignment similar accidents had, to the defendants' knowledge, occurred, and they were mulcted in damages.

Service out of Jurisdiction.]—The Duc D'Aumale, 19 T.. L. R. 42, 87, was an action for damages from collision between the plaintiffs' English vessel and the defendants" French vessel while the latter was in tow of an English tug. It was held that as there was a right of action against the owners both of the tug and of the vessel, the owners of the latter were proper parties, and service out of the jurisdiction of notice of the writ was allowed.

Solicitor.] The judgment of Kekewich, J., in Wright v. Carter, 18 T. L. R. 256, noted 22 C. L. T. 101, dismissing anaction to set aside certain conveyances from client to solicitor,. was reversed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 29, that Court being of opinion that the client had not the competent independent advice which is essential to the validity of such a transaction.

Statute of Frauds.]-That "do "—for ditto-may be a sufficient signature (by auctioneer as agent) to satisfy the statute is the point decided in Reynolds v. Hooper, 19 T. L. R. 33. In a sale catalogue the auctioneer wrote the name of the purchaser opposite the description of certain goods bought by him, putting opposite the description of the next parcel of goods, also bought by the same man, the word "do." This was held sufficient.

Succession Duty.]-An important question as to the Quebec Succession Duty Act was dealt with by the Judicial -Committee in Lambe v. Manuel, 19 T. L. R. 68. By that Act a tax is payable on "all transmissions owing to death, of the property in, usufruct or enjoyment of, movable and immovable property in the province." It was held that the tax was payable only on property which the successor claimed under or by virtue of Quebec law, and therefore not in respect of property of a testator resident in Ontario consisting of (1) bank shares in a bank having its head office in Montreal; (2) bank shares in the Montreal register of a bank having its head office in Toronto; and (3) a debt secured by mortgage on land in Montreal.

Trademark.]-Bourne v. Swan, 19 T. L. R. 59, while deciding nothing new, puts in a neat form some of the principles to be applied in contests as to pictorial trademarks. The issue in such a case is whether the defendant's trade-mark is calculated to deceive the public into believing that the goods to which it is applied are those of the plaintiff. Intention on the part of the defendant to deceive, or actual misleading of a purchaser, need not be proved, and the Judge is entitled to decide whether, having regard to the trademarks in question, there is such a resemblance between them as is calculated to deceive. In Provident Chemical Works v. Canada Chemical Manufacturing Co., 22 Occ. N. 381, and Grand Hotel Co. v. Wilson, recently decided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, -to be reported in 4 O. L. R.-many of the cases on this subject are referred to.

EDITORIAL REVIEW.

The Exchequer Court Reports.

A correspondent suggests that the Law Society of Upper Canada should provide for supplying the members of the society in good standing with the reports of cases in the Exchequer Court of Canada as well as the Supreme Court reports. Possibly the Benchers may have supposed (if they considered the matter) that there was no great demand for reports of Exchequer cases. Our correspondent thinks that Crown cases, shipping cases, trade-mark cases, and particularly patent cases, are of general interest and importance, and that at all events a very considerable number of practising barristers would like to have the reports. It is not easy to see why any distinction should be made between the two sets of Dominion reports, if there is really a desire on the part of the profession generally to have both, and provided the funds will warrant an increased expenditure. This would not be very great, as the cases decided in the Exchequer Court of Canada make up only about two volumes in three years. In this issue of the Occasional Notes we print at length, in advance of the regular issue, an important judgment of the Court. We may add that the Exchequer cases are reported and edited with great care and ability.

County of Huron Judicial Changes.

Mr. Masson, Judge of the County Court of Huron, has retired on account of ill health; Mr. Doyle, junior Judge, has been promoted to the senior judgeship; and Mr. Philip Holt, K.C., of Goderich, has been appointed junior Judge. Mr. Holt's appointment is well spoken of, but it is a pity that in his case a policy enunciated some years ago has been departed from by the Dominion government. It is better that a man should not become local Judge in the county where he has practised as a solicitor. It is not necessary to suggest that a Judge will be influenced by his former associations. If any

person thinks or suspects that a Judge is so influenced,. the administration of justice is weakened in the estimation. of the public. If nothing had ever been said or written as to the advisability of appointing as Judge for a particular county a barrister who had not practised in that county, if a practice in that regard had not been established and followed,. there would be less reason for complaint.

The Testimony of Experts.

Surgeon Ormsby, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, in his opening address recently delivered to the surgical section of the Royal Academy of Medicine,. dealt with a question that is of considerable present interest to Judges and lawyers-namely, the conflict of medical testimony in courts of law. Now-a-days jurists are beginning to search their consciences as to the legal propriety of expert testimony of any sort, and the question discussed by Surgeon Ormsby is very à propos. Expert partisanship has grown to such proportions in the Irish courts that a patient recently was represented as lying helplessly in bed, suffering from the injuries produced by a collision of his bicycle with a passing car, when as a matter of fact he was actually shooting on the Dublin mountains. That, of course, was an exceptional caseof medical enthusiasm; but the ordinary "shock cases" that are to be heard every day in the courts, in which medical testimony is adduced on each side of a most contradictory character, present sufficiently strange elements for consideration. Surgeon Ormsby's explanation of the diversity of medical opinion is that in many instances the doctor is misled. Sometimes he is deliberately deceived by the patient, and often the visit of a presumably hostile expert has such an effect on the mind or nerves of a patient that he involuntarily deceives the doctor. In other instances, medical men are led on by excitement of the litigation, or the subtlety of counsel, to give a more decided opinion of a particular case than they would if they were giving it in their consulting-room. Whatever be the explanation, Surgeon Ormsby's solution of theproblem is clear and intelligible. He thinks that in all actions for personal injuries the Court should be assisted by a medical assessor of undoubted knowledge and eminence,