PROMISSORY NOTES OF EAST INDIA COMPANY. (Calcutta.) In an action against the East India Company by the holder of a forged instrument, purporting to be a promissory note issued by the Governor General in Council at Calcutta; it was held that the Company were not bound by the acknowledgment of it as genuine by a clerk in their Accountant-General's office, who was authorized by the Accountant-General to compare all such notes with the register, but not authorized to certify their genuineness, although it appeared it was his practice to do so.—Bank of Bengal App., East India Company Resp.,

245.

ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY.

(Jersey.) A remonstrance or petition is presented to a Court consisting of ten members, praying that a certain order of that Court might be annulled, or for such other relief as the Court might deem fit. Four of the members were of opinion that the remonstrance ought not to be received, three that the order in question ought to be modified, and three that the order ought to be annulled. The Court decided that the remonstrance was not admissible: Held, that the opinion of the majority of the Court being in favour of the reception of the remonstrance, though they differed as to the relief to be given, the rejection was in fact making the judgment of the minority the judgment of the Court, and that the case ought to be remitted. The Judicial Committee added, that the Royal Court had no power to make the order itself.-Le Gros App., Le Breton Resp., 181.

ZEMINDAR.

1. (Bengal.) A money lender in Calcutta, during the minority of a Zemindar, advanced money to his guardian and agent, for the purpose of enabling them to discharge the arrears due from the Zemindary to the government. A bond, in the English form, was given by the guardian and agent to an Englishman, as trustee for the lenders; the amount was paid into the treasury on account of the Zemindary; the bond contained! no mention of the Rajah's name or the Zemindary: Held, that the money was recoverable in the Provincial Courts from the Zemindar.Gopee Mohun Takoor App., Rajah Radhanal Resp., 228.

2. (Same.) A statute restricting Courts of Justice from hearing and determining suits on certain contracts entered into without the consent of government, and not registered in a particular manner, does not render. those contracts illegal in themselves; and therefore, on the repeal of the statute, such contracts, though entered into previously, may be enforced. -S. C.

Fixtures,

Interpleader Act,

Arbitration,

Practice, 35

Excise Witness, 3

Writ of Trial Act, 2

Practice, 8

Carmichael v. Houchen, 3 N. & M. 203

Chapel v. Hickes, 2 C. & M. 214
Charlton v. Watton, 6 C. & P. 385
Chilton v. Ellis, 2 D. P. C. 338
Chubb v. Westley, 6 C. & P. 436
Clarke v. Hooper, 10 Bing. 480

v. Lord, 2 D. P. C, 227

v. Webb, 1 C. M. & R. 29 Colburn v. Patmore, 1 C. M. & R. 73 Coombs v. Dodd, 3 Moo. & Sc. 817 Cooper v. Bliss, 3 Moo. & Sc. 797 Corbett v. Carpmael, 2 N. & M. 834 Coppin v. Potter, 10 Bing. 441

Cowell v. Betteley, 10 Bing. 432

Curtis v. Curtis, 3 Moo. & Sc. 819; 10 Bing. 477

Dabbs v. Humphries, 10 Bing. 446

Dadd v. Crease, 2 C. & M. 223; 2 D. P. C. 269
Darling v. Gurney, 2 C. & M. 225; 2 D. P. C. 235
Davies v. Watson, 2 N. & M. 709

v. Gompertz, 2 N. & M. 607

Dean v. Hogg, 10 Bing. 345

Decharms v. Horwood, 10 Bing. 526

Dibben v. Marquess of Anglesey, 10 Bing. 568
Dicas v. Warne, 10 Bing. 341; 3 Moo. & Sc. 814
Doe d. Coyle v. Cole, 6 C. & P. 359

d. Ellerbrock v. Flynn, 1 C. M. & R. 137
d. Fry v. Fry, 2 C. & M. 234; 2 D. P. C. 265
d. Gallini v. Gallini, 2 N. & M. 619

d. Gillett v. Roe, 1 C. M. & R. 19

d. Green v. Packer, 2 D. P. C. 373
d. Jones v. Williams, 2 N. & M. 602
d. Langdon v. Roe, 2 N. & M. 848
d. Leach v. Whitaker, 5 B. & Adol. 409
d. Marriott v. Edwards, 3 N. & M. 193
d. Norman v. Roe, 2 D. P. C. 399
d. Pritchard v. Dodd, 2 N. & M. 838

d. Pile v. Wilson, 6 C. & P. 301
d. Smith v. Bird, 2 N. & M. 679

Arbitration, 3

Work and Labour

Libel, 3

Practice, 44

Libel, 4

Limitations, Statute of, 2
Interpleader Act, 4
Landlord and Tenant, 9
Libel, 2; Pleading, 7

Bail, 3

Prisoner, 1

Action on the Case

Process, 3 Attorney, 3

Practice, 11; Slander, 2

Limitations, Statute of, 1

Costs, 12 Pleading, 3

Money had and received, 2

Prisoner, 2

Trespass, 1
Coparcener

Arbitration, 2

Process, 2

Evidence, 6

Landlord and Tenant, 12

Ejectment, 6

Devise, 2

Ejectment, 4

Ejectment, 8

Covenant to stand seised; Fine

Practice, 3; Landlord and

Tenant, 3; Lease, 1 Devise, 4; Ejectment, 10 Copyhold, 4; Husband and Wife, 2;

Fawcett v. Cash, 3 N. & M. 177
Figgins v. Ward, 2 D. P. C. 364
Finch v. Cocker, 2 D. P. C. 383

Fidgett v. Penny, 1 C. M. & R. 108

Finney v. Montague, 2 N. & M. 804

Fisher v. Begrez, 2 C. & M. 240; 2 D P. C. 279

v. Papanicholas, 2 C. & M. 215; 2 D. P. C. 251

Fleming v. Gooding, 10 Bing. 549

Ford v. Dillon, 2 N. & M. 662

Frith's bail, 2 D. P. C. 229

Garland v. Carlisle, 10 Bing. 452; 2 C. & M. 31; 3 Tyrw. 705

Garratt, Exp. 2 D. P. C. 376

Gibbs v. Southam, 3 N. & M. 155
Graham v. Barras, 3 N. & M. 125
Greenham v. Gibbeson, 10 Bing. 363
Greenslade v. Tapscott, 1 C. M. & R. 55
Gregory v. Elvidge, 2 D. P. C. 259

v. Tuffs, 6 C. & P. 271

Griffiths v. Pointon, 2 N. & M. 675
Groombridge v. Fletcher, 2 D. P. C. 353

Grover v. Heath, 2 D. P. C. 285

Guy v. Newson, 2 C. & M. 140

Hallen v. Runder, 3 Tyrw. 959

Hamber v. Purser, 2 C. & M. 210

Bankruptcy, 5

Hammond v. Thorpe, 1 C. M. & R. 64

Harding v. King, 6 C. & P. 427
Harrington v. Caswall, 6 C. & P. 351
Hart v. Dally, 2 D. P. C. 257
Haslam v. Sherwood, 10 Bing. 540
Haworth v. Hardcastle, 10 Bing. 551
Haynes v. Foster, 2 C. & M. 237
Hays v. Trotter, 3 N. & M. 174
Haythorn v. Bush, 2 D. P. C. 240
Henning v. Samuel, 3 Moo. & Sc. 818
Herbert v. Piggott, 2 D. P. C. 392
Hill v. Salter, 2 D. P. C. 380
Hoadly v. M Laine, 10 Bing. 482
Hopwood v. Watts, 3 N. & M. 146
Hodson v. Terrill, 2 D. P. C. 264
Horsley v. Purdon, 2 D. P. C. 228
Howell v. Jones, 1 C. M. & R. 97
Hunt v. Colson, 3 Moo. & S. 790

Attorney, 6

Assault

Witness, 3

Practice, 38

Assumpsit, 1

Patent

Bill of Exchange, 4

Attorney, 5

Venue, 3

New Trial, 3

Executor and Administrator, 5

Writ of Trial Act, 4

Frauds (Statute of), 2

Practice, 5

Attorney, 10

Practice, 31

Principal and Surety, 2
Landlord and Tenant, 1

Johnson v. Berrisford, 2 C. & M. 222; S. C. nomine Johnson v. Nevison,

Lardner v. Dick, 2 D. P. C. 333

Latraille v. Hoepfner, 10 Bing. 335; 3 Moo. & Sc. 800

Lawrence, Exp., 2 D. P. C. 230 ——v. Potts, 6 C. & P. 428 Lewis v. Eicke, 2 D. P. C. 337

v. Rogers, 1 C. M. & R. 48 Lorymer v. Stephens, 1 C. M. & R. 62 Lysons v. Barrow, 10 Bing. 563

M'Alpine v. Coles, 2 D. P. C. 299

M'Kenzie v. M'Leod, 10 Bing. 385

Mallam v. Arden, 10 Bing. 299; 3 Moo. & S. 793
Mammatt v. Matheu, 10 Bing. 506

Marshall v. Forster, 2 C. & M. 213; 2 D. P. C. 228

Maude v. Sessions, 1 C. M. & R. 86

Mendizabel v. Machado, 3 Moo. & S. 841

Mestayer v. Biggs, 1 C. M. & R. 110..

Middleton v. Mucklow, 10 Bing. 401

Mitchell v. Hunt, 6 C. & P. 350
Monk v. Bonham, 2 D. P. C. 336

Moore v. Thomas,, 3 Moo. & Sc. 810

Venue, 4

Practice, 21

Practice 46

Attorney, 15

Bankruptcy, 3

Writ of Trial Act, 3
Practice, 40

Costs, 19 Pleading, 4

Landlord and Tenant, 5

Attorney, 12

Slander, 3

Practice, 9 Process, 10

Overseers Practice, 27 Pleading, 5

Costs, 16 Practice, 6

Attorney,

Attorney, 24 Interpleader Act, 3 Evidence, 4

Money had and received, 3 Executor and Administrator, 1