to establish his legitimacy and obtain an immediate judicial decision, the Court should not, as a matter of discretion, make an order for the perpetuation of testimony.

Injunction.]-In Lloyds Bank v. Royal British Bank, 19 T. L. R. 548, an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of an alleged trade libel failed, the circular complained of not being, in the opinion of the Court, of such a nature as to make the case one for the exercise of the jurisdiction, which "ought to be exercised on interlocutory motion only in the clearest cases, where if a jury did not find the matter to be libellous the Court could set aside the verdict as unreasonable." The extraordinary procedure on the part of the defendants complained of by the plaintiffs was the sending of a prospectus and circular by the defendants to shareholders in the plaintiff bank stating that the shareholder addressed was as the holder of so many shares in the plaintiff bank entitled to an allotment of so many shares in the defendant bank, there being no connection between the two banks, and this being merely an effort to dispose of shares.

Landlord and Tenant.]-The covenant in question in Lambourn v. McLellan, 19 T. L. R. 529, bound the lessee to deliver up at the end of the term the premises together with "all doors, locks, keys, etc., buildings, improvements, fixtures, and things which are now or which at any time during the said term hereby granted shall be fixed, fastened, or belong to the said messuage and premises or any part thereof." It was held that the covenant did not apply to certain machinery used by the lessee in his business, attached by him to the building by screws for its convenient user. The reminder that the Ontario Short Form of Leases Act contains the converse provision that the lessee may remove his fixtures, is perhaps scarcely necessary.-In re Warriner, Brayshaw v. Ninnis, 19 T. L. R. 543, is another case of unexpectedly wide liability being imposed on an unfortunate tenant by the covenant to pay "all rates, taxes, assessments, and impositions whatsoever," the tenant in this case as in some of those recently noted, ante p. 259, being obliged to pay the cost of

alterations ordered by the sanitary authority.-A covenant by a lessee not to paint or write any inscription, figure, or letter, nor affix, attach, or exhibit any signboard or other notice of trade or business to the exterior walls of the demised premises without the lessor's consent, was held, in AttorneyGeneral v. The Playhouse, Limited, 19 T. L. R. 580, to have been broken by attaching by iron brackets to the wall of part of the demised premises, used as a theatre, a metal frame with the name of the theatre thereon.

Negligence.]-Harris v. Perry, 19 T. L. R. 537, is an interesting case as to the extent of the responsibility of a person who gratuitously furnishes carriage to another. The plaintiff was an inspector of work for an underground railway which was being built by the defendant as contractor. To enable inspection to be made a planked foot-way had been built adjoining a temporary line of railway used for the purpose of removing the earth when excavated. At the invitation of the defendant's timekeeper the defendant got on an electric engine running on this line to go to another point in connection with the inspection, and was badly hurt in a collision between this engine and a loaded truck standing, owing to the negligence of the defendant's servants, as was found, on the line. The defendant, although the plaintiff was held to be at most a mere licensee, was condemned to pay damages, the case coming, as the Master of the Rolls thought, within the class of cases laying down the principle that even for a license a trap shall not be set, and he added: "At all events, I think it was competent for the jury to find, as they must be taken to have found, a failure of that ordinary care which is due from a person who undertakes the carriage of another gratuitously. The principle in all cases of this class is that the care exercised must be reasonable; and the standard of reasonableness naturally must vary according to the circumstances of the case, the trust reposed, and the skill and appliances at the disposal of the person to whom another confides a duty."-Reynolds v. Thomas Tilling, Limited, 19 T. L. R. 539, is another negligence case depending upon the effect to be given to a finding of contributory negligence.

It was a street collision case-defendants' omnibus and plaintiff's truck. The jury found in answer to two questions that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the omnibus, and also that there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff which contributed to the accident, and they were unable to agree upon an answer to the third question whether, notwithstanding the negligence of the plaintiff, the driver of the omnibus could have avoided the accident by the use of reasonable care. The plaintiff contended that there should be a new trial, but Mr. Justice Walton held that, even assuming that the third question had been answered in the plaintiff's favour, he would not have been entitled to judgment, for, "if the proximate cause of the injury is the negligence of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover anything," and so he dismissed the action.-The judgment in McDowall v. Great Western R. W. Co., 18 T. L. R. 340, noted 22 C. L. T. 137, was reversed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 552. This was the case where the brake of a car standing on the defendants' line near a highway was released by some boys who were trespassing on the line, and the car ran down a grade to the highway where the plaintiff was struck and injured. In the Court below the jury's finding, that the danger of interference by trespassers could and should have been guarded against, was treated as conclusive. The Court of Appeal, however, thought there was nothing in the circumstances of the case which would have induced anyone exercising common sense and care to have done anything more than the defendants had done, and that even if there had been negligence the negligence was not the effective cause of the accident.

Principal and Agent.]—Gerahty v. Baines and Co., 19 T. L. R. 554, was an action for commission by a canvasser for advertising. The question in issue was the right of the plaintiff to commissions on renewal advertisements issued after the termination (with reasonable notice) of the plaintiff's engagement as canvasser. It was held that he was not so entitled.-Millar v. Radford, 19 T. L. R. 575, is also a commission case, in which the Master of the Rolls makes some useful observations. The plaintiffs were employed to find

a purchaser or failing that a tenant; they found a tenant and were paid the rental commission. Subsequently the tenant bought, and they claimed commission in respect of the sale, but failed, the Court holding that the sale had not been. brought about by their exertions. "The right of commission," says the Master of the Rolls, "did not arise out of the mere fact that agents had introduced a tenant or a purchaser. It was not sufficient to shew that the introduction was causa sine qua non. It was necessary to shew that the introduction was an efficient cause in bringing about the letting or the sale." -Hambro and Son v. Burmand, 19 T. L. R. 584, is an interesting case dealing with the liability of the principal for the agent's fraud. The agent, who was authorized to take insurance risks for the principals, issued in their names guarantee insurance policies for the benefit of an insolvent company in which he was personally interested. Bigham, J., in an elaborate judgment, points out that "there are only three ways in which a man can be bound by a contract made by one who purports to act as his agent in making it. First, he will be bound if the agent had in fact his authority to make the contract on his behalf; secondly, he will be bound if, though the agent had in fact no such authority, he has held out the agent as having such authority, and has thereby induced the other party to enter into the contract; and, thirdly, he will become bound if, the contract having been entered into in his name but without his authority, he subsequently ratifies the agent's act." The second ground-" holding out"-was held to be untenable, the only holding out being that of the agent, and "an agent to make contracts on behalf of another has no power by his own unauthorized falsehood to create an estoppel against his principal so as in effect to entirely alter the scope of his authority." Ratification was also negatived, for "to constitute a valid ratification of the unauthorized acts of an agent there must be full knowledge of what those acts were, or such an unqualified adoption that the inference may properly be drawn that the principal intended to take upon himself the responsibility for such acts whatever they were." This left only the question of actual authority to be dealt with, and on that the decision was also

against the plaintiffs, for a power to contract for and on behalf of the principals does not authorize a contract really on behalf of and for the benefit of the agent, and the person dealing with the agent must ascertain at his peril the extent of his authority, and whether he is exercising it legitimately.

Sale of Goods.]-The judgment in Preist v. Last, 19 T. L. R. 278, noted ante p. 158, where the vendor of a hot water bottle was held responsible in damages when the bottle burst, on the principle that reliance by the purchaser on the vendor's skill and judgment threw upon the latter the liability of implied warranty, was affirmed by the Court of Appeal: 19 T. L. R. 527. The case was decided under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, but the Master of the Rolls remarked that the section in question "seemed merely to express the law as it was before the Act," so that the decision is of general application.

Solicitor.]-In In re Burton, 19 T. L. R. 581, it was held that, under the English Act, a solicitor who is found guilty of the offence of permitting an unqualified person to use his name must be struck off the roll. While under our Act, R. S. O. 1897 c. 174, s. 28, there is a discretion vested in the Court, the case is important as shewing what the offence is and the serious result of committing it.

Street Railway.]-In City of Montreal v. Montreal Street R. W. Co., 19 T. L. R. 568, the Judicial Committee deal with certain clauses of the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the decision being that the railway company were entitled to sweep or throw snow and ice from their tracks on the other parts of the streets, and could use such appliances, including especially electric sweepers, as were best adapted for the purpose.

Treasure Trove.]-While not of much importance in this Province from a legal point of view, the case of AttorneyGeneral v. Trustees of the British Museum, 19 T. L. R. 555, dealing with the right of the Crown to treasure trove-chiefly Celtic ornaments of gold-will be found of much intrinsic interest.