INDEX.

ABANDONMENT OF SHIP, NOTICE OF: See IN-APPOINTMENT OF NEW TRUSTEES OF COLO-

2. By the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111, s. 1, the
Consignee or Indorsee of goods named in a Bill of
lading, and the Indorsee of a Bill of lading, to
whom the property in the goods mentioned shall
have passed by such indorsement, has transferred
to and vested in him all rights of suit, and he is
subject to the same liabilities in respect of such
goods as if the contract in the Bill of lading had
been made with himself -The right of suing upon
a contract, under a bill of lading, follows the
property in the goods therein specified, that is,
the legal title to the goods as against the Indorsee.
THE FREEDOM "
594
(Petitory) to recover possession of land in
Lower Canada: See COLONIAL LAW. 9.
ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY: See BANK-

66

-

NIAL CHURCH: See COLONIAL CHURCH.
ARTICLES AND FORMULARIES OF THE
CHURCH, rules of judicial exposition with refer-
ence to. VoYSEY v. NOBLE
ARTICLES OF CHARGE AGAINST BENEFICED
CLERGYMAN FOR HERESY: See Ec-
CLESIASTICAL LAW. 3.
ARTICLES OF RELIGION: See ECCLESIASTICAL
LAW. 3, 4.
ASSAULT: See PLEADING. 1.

ASSIGNEE OF PATENTEE: See PATENT. 1.

AVERMENT IN PLEADING AS A MATTER OF

AGGRAVATION. See PLEADING. 1.
AVERMENTS IN PETITION: See PRACTICE. 1, 4.
BAILMENT.] A bailment on trust implies that
there is reserved to the Bailor the right to claim
a re-delivery of the property deposited in bail-
ment.-Wherever there is a delivery of property
on a contract for an equivalent in money, or some
other valuable commodity, and not for the return
of the identical subject matter in its original or an
altered form, this is a transfer of property for
value-it is a sale and not a bailment.-Where,
therefore, Corn was deposited by Farmers with a
Miller, to be stored and used as part of the cur-
rent consumable stock or capital of the Miller's
trade, and was by him mixed with other corn de-
ADMIRALTY REGULATIONS with respect to posited for the like purpose, subject to the right of
steering and sailing rules. THE "VELOCITY" 44 the Farmers to claim at any time an equal quan-
regarding Lights, effect of Disobedi-tity of corn of the like quality, without reference
to any specific bulk from which it was to be taken,
ence when justifiable. THE "FENHAM
or in lieu thereof the market price of an equal
ADVANCES MADE ON GOODS SUBJECT TO quantity, on the day on which he made his de-
LIEN: See LIEN.

2.

RUPTCY.

ALB: See ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. 6.

-

212

mand, with a small charge for general purposes:
-Held, that such a transaction amounted to a
sale by the Farmer to the Miller, and was not a

ALIEN PRISONER: See PEREMPTORY CHAL- bailment of the corn, and entitled the Miller to

BANKING COMPANY, construction of Charter. BILL OF EXCHANGE continued.
See COLONIAL LAW. 12.

BANKRUPTCY.] A member of a Firm carrying
on business in London and Hong Kong, sent from
London a power of attorney to his Partners in
Hong Kong, enabling them to petition the Court at
Hong Kong for an adjudication of Bankruptcy, or
to make an assignment of all their estate in trust
for Creditors. Under this authority they peti-
tioned the Court, which was, by the law of
Bankruptcy in force there, in itself an act of
Bankruptcy; and they also assigned the property
of the firm to a Trustee, which was also an act of
Bankruptcy by that law. About the same time a
Partner of the Firm resident in London was ad-
judicated Bankrupt there, and a joint adjudica-
tion passed in Hong Kong against all the Part-
ners, the latter being subsequent in date to the
former-Held, that it was not competent to the
Partner in London to dispute the validity of the
joint adjudication.-Semble, a separate adjudica-
tion in England against the English resident
partner of a Hong Kong firm, is no ground for re-
fusing in Hong Kong a joint adjudication against
all the Partners, though one is not resident in the
Colony. LYALL v. JARDINE -
318
BARRISTER: See COLONIAL BAR.

BENGAL LETTERS PATENT.] A cause having
been heard before a single Judge of the High
Court, and a decree made by him dismissing the
suit, an appeal was made to the same Court in
its appellate jurisdiction before two Judges. The
Court was divided in opinion; the Chief Justice
holding that the judgment should be reversed, and
the Puisne Judge that it ought to be affirmed;
and, under the 36th section of the Letters Patent
creating the High Court, a decree of reversal was
ordered. On appeal, the Judicial Committee,
without expressing any opinion, whether the 36th
section was applicable, having regard to the 26th
rule of the High Court, directed the appeal to be
heard on the merits. MILLER V. BARLOW - 733
BILL OF EXCHANGE.] The Bank of Van Die-
men's Land were Indorsers of a Bill drawn by G.
on G. & Co. at Melbourne at fifteen days after
sight. The Bill was transmitted by the Bank of
Van Diemen's Land to the Bank of Victoria, their
Agents at Melbourne, for presentment. The Bank
of Victoria received the Bill at one o'clock on Fri-
day, and at two o'clock on the same day the Bill
was presented by their Clerk to the Drawees,
G. & Co., for acceptance, and left with them for
that purpose. On Saturday, the following day,
an acceptance was written by one of the Firm of
G. & Co. across the face of the Bill, and the Bill
so accepted was handed to a Clerk to be delivered
in the usual course of business, and at half-past
11 o'clock on that day a Clerk of the Bank of
Victoria called upon the Drawees and asked for
the Bill. He was told by the Clerk of the
Drawees that the Bill had been mislaid, and re-
quested to call again on Monday, which he agreed
to do, as according to the custom in Melbourne
business closed at 12 o'clock on Saturdays. On
Monday the Clerk of the Bank of Victoria called
again upon the Drawees, and was told that the
Bill was ready to be delivered, but that in the
absence of the Clerk who had charge of it, it

could not then be got at, and he was requested to
call on Tuesday. The Clerk called on that day
and obtained the Bill, but the acceptance of the
Drawees was cancelled on the face of the Bill, the
Drawees having obtained information in the in-
terval that the remittance was not likely to be for-
warded by G. to meet the Bill. G. became insol-
vent, and the Bank of Van Diemen's Land having
received nothing in respect of the Bill, brought an
action against the Bank of Victoria, as their
Agents, for negligence. The evidence did not
show any uniform usage at Melbourne to present
Bills the same day for acceptance. The custom to
close at 12 o'clock on Saturdays was proved. The
Judge put it to the jury, whether they thought
that the Bank of Victoria was guilty of negligence
or a breach of duty, in not demanding that the
Bill should be delivered up on Saturday accepted
or unaccepted, and the jury answered that, strictly
speaking, there was a neglect, but considering the
respectability of the Drawees, and Saturday being
a short day, the Bank of Victoria was excusable in
leaving the Bill. The jury found for the Plain-
tiffs with nominal damages, and an application by
the Plaintiffs to increase the damages to £3,000,
the amount of the Bill, was refused by the Su-
preme Court:-Held, by the Judicial Committee
(affirming that judgment), that in the circum-
stances, and considering the position of the
Drawees, there was no such negligence by the
Defendants as Agents as to entitle the Plaintiffs
to substantial damages.-Held, further, that al-
though the Judge was wrong in directing the
jury on what was a matter of law and not fact,
yet that the substance of the answer of the jury
was, that it being the ordinary course to leave a Bill
for acceptance for twenty-four hours, and that the
twenty-four hours run out on Saturday, but not be-
fore 12 o'clock, it was an excusable neglect to post-
pone the demand for an answer until the opening
of the Drawee's Counting House on Monday. The
duty of an Agent is to be measured by considera-
tions arising in particular cases; his duty is to ob-
tain acceptance of the Bill, and it may be prudent,
in circumstances, from the respectability of the
Drawee, not to press for acceptance in such a way
as to lead to a refusal, providing that proper steps
are taken within the limit of time which will pre-
serve the rights of his Principal against the
Drawee. THE BANK OF VAN DIEMEN'S LAND
V. THE BANK OF VICTORIA

-

526

BILL OF LADING: See COLONIAL LAW. 10. DAMAGE
OF CARGO.

BIRETTA: See ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. 6.
BISHOPRIC, COLONIAL: See COLONIAL CHURCH.
BOTTOMRY BOND.] Before resorting to Bottomry
for raising necessary supplies, it is absolutely
necessary (where practical) that notice should be
given by the Master to the Owner of the Vessel,
and an allegation that such Owner was Insolvent,
is no excuse for not communicating to him, unless
he has been judicially declared Insolvent, and the
ownership of the Vessel vested in his Assignees,
to whom such notice must then be given.-Semble:
-Notice to the Mortgagee of the Vessel in such
circumstances, would not suffice. THE "PANAMA

[199

COLLISION: See COMPULSORY PILOTAGE.
COLONIAL BAR.] Whether an appeal lies to the
Queen in Council against a judgment of the Court
of Queen's Bench in Lower Canada, quashing a
writ of Error against an Order of the Court of
Queen's Bench on the Crown side, fining and
ordering an attachment against a Counsel for an
alleged contempt of Court-quære.-Semble, where
a fine is imposed, the remedy is to petition the
Crown for a reference to the Judicial Committee,
under the Statute, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 4.-A
Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in Lower
Canada, whilst sitting alone in the exercise of the
Criminal jurisdiction, has, under the authority
conferred on him by sect. 72 of ch. 77 of the Con-
solidated Statutes of Canada, no power to pro-
nounce a Counsel in contempt for publishing two
Letters reflecting upon the conduct of such Judge,
or to impose a fine In re RAMSAY. - 427
COLONIAL CHURCH.] In 1847, the Colony of
the Cape of Good Hope, with its dependencies,
was erected into a Bishop's See and Diocese, to
be called the "Bishopric of Cape Town," and the
Appellant was appointed and consecrated Bishop
thereof. By the Letters Patent the Bishop was
constituted a body corporate, with power to hold
and enjoy land and hereditaments of what nature
or kind soever; and he was further empowered
to resign the office of Bishop of Cape Town, with-
out prejudice to any responsibility to which he
might be liable, in law or equity, in respect of his
conduct in his office. In 1850, a grant was made,
in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty, of a
piece of land in the Town of Pietermaritzburg and

-

COLONIAL CHURCH-continued.
district of Natal, in the Colony, to the Appellant
and his successors, in trust for the English
Church. In October, 1853, the Appellant, in
pursuance of the power given him in his Letters
Patent, resigned the office and dignity of Bishop
of Cape Town. In November, 1853, Letters Pa-
tent were issued for erecting the district of Natal
into a separate See or Diocese, subject and sub-
ordinate, with the See of Graham's Town, thereby
also created a separate See, to the Metropolitan
See of Cape Town; and the Respondent was ap-
pointed Bishop of Natal. The Respondent was,
as in the original Letters Patent creating the
Appellant Bishop of Cape Town, constituted a
Corporation sole, with the like power to hold and
enjoy lands, and the Church then building on
the ground granted in 1850, was declared to be
thenceforth the Cathedral Church and See of the
Respondent as such Bishop of Natal. In De-
cember, 1853, the Appellant was appointed by
Letters Patent, Bishop of the See of Cape Town,
and Metropolitan of the Cape of Good Hope, with
the same corporate character and capacity as had
been before conferred on him by the Letters Pa-
tent of 1847. Soon after the Respondent's conse
cration, the Appellant appointed him by power
of Attorney to act as Trustee of certain lands
and Churches in the Colony and See of Natal,
including the land and Cathedral Church thereon
in the City of Pietermaritzburg, granted in 1850,
and which had then been entered on the Colonial
the Appellant revoked this power of Attorney. In
register in the name of the Appellant. In 1864,
consequence of this and other proceedings taken
at the instance of the Appellant to prevent the
Respondent from having the free use of the Ca-
thedral Church at Pietermaritzburg, the Respon-
dent brought an action of ejectment against the
Appellant for possession of the land and Church,
claiming nominal damages, and for the substi-
tution of his own for the Appellant's name as
Trustee thereof. The Supreme Court gave judg-
ment in favour of the Respondent, and decreed
the land and the buildings thereon to stand
vested in the Respondent and his successors, as
Bishops of Natal.-On appeal, Held, by the Ju-
dicial Committee, first, that though the suit was
not properly framed so as to allow the substitution
of the Respondent as Trustee in the place of the
Appellant, yet, that, having regard to the terms
of the grant, and the successive Letters Patent
appointing the Appellant and Respondent respec-
tively Bishops of Cape Town and Natal, and that
the Respondent's Patent was subsequent to the
Appellant's resignation, but prior to his second
Patent as Metropolitan; the Appellant had ceased
on such resignation to be a Trustee of the land
and Cathedral Church, or to have any estate or
right to interfere with the Respondent's free access
to and use of such Church; and-Second, that it
was competent to the Crown at the date of the
Letters Patent to the Respondent, to "Ordain
and declare that the Church in the City of Pieter-
maritzburg should thenceforth be the Cathedral
Church and See of the Respondent and his suc-
cessors, Bishops of Natal; and the decree of the
Court below varied by its being declared, that the
Respondent, as Bishop of Natal, shonld have free

3

3 M 2