Appeal from Alfreton County Court. The workman, a pitboy of 15 years, met with a fatal accident arising out of and in the course of his employment at the respondents' colliery. The respondents admitted liability and paid 50l. into court. The applicant, the boy's mother, who was partially dependent on his earnings, declined to accept that sum, and commenced proceedings for arbitration, claiming 1501. At the hearing before the county court judge the applicant, in her evidence in chief, stated that she had been a widow for 11 years; that for some months previous to his death the boy had been receiving 26s. a week and that she herself earned about 17s. 6d. a week. Counsel for the respondents thereupon proceeded to cross-examine her with a view of ascertaining the cost of maintaining the boy and the value of his contributions in his lifetime to the maintenance of the household. The county court judge intervened and stated that he was not being helped much by the cross-examination, and that he was going to look to the future during the next three years. Thereupon counsel discontinued his cross-examination on that point, and in answer to a question put to him by the judge said that he was quite prepared to admit that the possible earnings of the deceased workman at the present time would be about 56s. a week. The county court judge, in making his award, said that the best he could do was to decide what would have happened in the future five, six, seven or ten years, and looking to the future he came to the conclusion that the 1501. claimed was not excessive, and he accordingly awarded that sum. 1: respondents appealed. Rigby Swift K.C., Greaves Lord K.C. and Marshall Freeman for the respondents. T. Ellison for the applicant. THE COURT (Warrington, Duke and Atkin L.JJ.) dismissed the appeal. They held, following Rennoldson v. Ellerman Wilson Line, Ltd., (1918) B. W. C. C. 70, that the county High Court of Justice. ASTBURY J. said that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it was plain on the memorandum that the man who paid the 101. on account of house being sold with possession in six weeks was the purchaser, and on the whole he thought that the memorandum described the property sufficiently to let in parol evidence of identity. It was described as a house that was being sold by Nelson to Auerbach for 500l. on November 21, 1918. There was a sufficient description to let in parol evidence. Solicitors for plaintiff: S. B. Cohen, Dunn & Co. consideration as the company may think fit, and in particular for shares, debentures or securities of any other company (whether incorporated in the United Kingdom or India or other part of the world) having objects altogether or in part similar to those of this company." Gore-Browne K.C. and Gordon Brown for the petition submitted that clause (e) of the proposed alterations fell within the enabling provisions of s. 9 (1) of the Act, and referred to In re New Westminster Brewery Co., [1911] W. N. 247, and an unreported case of In re Provident Clerks and General Guarantee Association there cited, in which Joyce J. and Parker J. made orders confirming alterations including objects similar to those set out in clause (e). They also referred to In re John Brown & Co., [1915] 112 L. T. 322. made by Joyce J. and Parker J., and he confirmed the P. O. LAWRENCE J. said that he should follow the orders A. C. Solicitors for defendant: S. Myers & Son. G. R. A. KING'S BENCH DIVISION. June 23. K. B. D. SEVERN FISHERY BOARD v. O'MAY. Case stated by Income Tax Commissioners. The Severn Fishery Board were constituted by the Severn Fisheries Provisional Order (1910) Confirmation Act, 1911, for the purpose of administering the provisions of the Salmon and Fresh-water Fisheries Act, 1861 to 1892. Under those Acts, the board are empowered to appoint water bailiffs to take legal proceedings against persons fishing in an illegal manner or otherwise infringing the Acts, and generally to execute such works, do such acts, and incur such expenses as they may think expedient for the protection and improvement of the fisheries within their district, and for the purpose of providing for their expenditure in administering the Acts they are authorized thereby to issue fishing licences to the public at certain fixed rates, it being made illegal to fish without a licence, and they are to receive and apply for the purposes of the Acts any penalties recovered from offenders against the Acts where the offenders are con This was a petition by the company, under s. 9 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, for the confirmation by the Court of the alteration of its memorandum of associaon by the inclusion of further objects, proposed to be elected by the special resolution in the petition mentioned. The company was incorporated in 1862, the objects for which it was established as set out in clause 3 of its memorandum of association being "the carrying on the business now farried on by James Marshall and Henry Dickenson Marshall, -neral engineers and millwrights, iron and brassfounders, and agricultural machine makers, and for the doing of such sher things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment the said objects." The petition prayed that the com-victed on the board's complaint. They have no property in pany's memorandum of association might be extended, enErged and altered by inserting therein after or at the end clause 3 the following additions thereto. Then followed venty-four additions, numbered a to x, in the widest terms, Eich included as a further object (e) "to sell or dispose of the undertaking of the company or any part thereof for such the soil of the rivers in their district. They were assessed to income tax for the years 1912-13 and 1913-14 under Sched. D, Case 6, in the sums of 231. and 1067. respectively on the average of the profits alleged to have been made by them in administering the Acts. The sums in question represented the excess of receipts over expenditure in those years respectively. On appeal the Commissioners confirmed trade, and that any balance of moneys received by them over the assessments. and above the expenses of administration did not constitute a profit which was assessable to income tax. The board appealed. A. M. Latter for the appellants. T. H. Parr (Sir Gordon Hewart A.-G. with him) for the respondent. ROWLATT J. held that the appellants in so administering the Acts were not carrying on a business analogous to a Appeal allowed. Solicitors for the appellants: Hanhart & Co., for J. Stallard & Son, Worcester. Solicitor for the respondent: Solicitor of Inland Revenue, J. F. C. NOTICE TO SOLICITORS. HOUSE OF LORDS. RECORD OF BUSINESS. THURSDAY, July 10. Stubbs, Ltd. v. Mazure. Further and fully heard and con- Nicoll & Son v. Marshall & Co. Further heard and adjourned. TUESDAY, July 15. = With the view of insuring the greatest possible accuracy and rapidity in the various publications connected with the LAW REPORTS the Council will be obliged if the Solicitors to whom application is made by any reporter acting for the Council will as soon as possible after application furnish the Nicoll & Son v. Marshall & Co. Further heard and adjourned. necessary papers, together with any information in their power as to the names of the various Solicitors engaged in the case. At the same time, the Council thankfully acknowledge the assistance they have already received from so many members of the Profession in furnishing the papers required to prepare accurate reports. Nicoll & Son v. Marshall & Co. Further and fully heard, and consideration adjourned sine die. Steven and Another v. Claddagh Steamship Co., Ltd. Et è contra. In part heard and adjourned. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY CRIMINAL LAW. Sentence-Modified Borstal system EMPLOYER AND WORKMAN. Compensation-Injury by accident-Partial incapacity- PRIZE COURT. Goods-Condemnation-Appellants not owners-Absence of locus standi No. 29-1919. PAGE 211 211 211 210 RECORD OF BUSINESS. THURSDAY, July 10. In the Council Chamber.-Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Herman (Saskatchewan). Workmen's Compensation Board v. Canadian Pacific Railway In the Board Room.-Bindeshri Prasad v. Musamat Baisakha Judgments delivered: FRIDAY, July 11. Secretary of State for India v. Maharaja of Bobbili (Madras). American Surety Co. of New York v. Calgary Milling Co. Petition for special leave to appeal: Dominion Chain Co., Ltd. Appeals: Workmen's Compensation Board v. Canadian Pacific MONDAY, July 14. The Santa Catharina (Prize Court, England). Judgment de- Workmen's Compensation Board v. Canadian Pacific Railway Mackenzie and Others v. Bing Kee (British Columbia). Part TUESDAY, July 15. Salti et Fils v. Procurator-General (Prize Court, England). Mackenzie and Others v. Bing Kee. Concluded. Cur. adv. vult. July J. C. Appeal from a decree of the Prize Court (England) co demning goods, part of the cargo of the German steamsh Kronprinzessin Cecilie. The Vacuum Oil Company, which was registered in t United States, shipped in July, 1914, in the above-nam steamship at Philadelphia goods for delivery at Hambu some to a German company and some to an Austrian co pany. The goods had been sold upon f.o.b. terms, and property in them passed to the consignees at the date The Clan Chisholm. Owners of s.s. Istria v. Cayzer, Irvine and shipment. The steamship was seized in the port Co. and Others. Appeal from Hill J. Allowed. Falmouth at 11 P.M. on August 4, namely, immediately u The Grelorm. Shipping Controller v. Owners of s.s. Grelorm. the outbreak of war. FRIDAY, July 11. In re an Arbitration between James Ellis and The Urban District Council, Ruislip, Northwood. Appeal from Bailhache J. Allowed. Same v. Same. Appeal from Bailhache J. Dismissed. La Fontaine. Owners of s.s. Margot v. Owners of s.s. La Fontaine (damage). Appeal from Hill J. Dismissed. Kenilworth. Admiralty v. Owners of s.s. Kenilworth. Appeal from Hill J. Dismissed. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. RECORD OF BUSINESS. MONDAY, July 14. APPLICATIONS. Rex v. Foster. Dismissed. Rex v. Ommah. Dismissed. Rex v. Yelen. Dismissed. Rex v. Lackey. Dismissed. FINAL APPEALS. Rex v. Craven. Dismissed. On March 26, 1916, the President of the Admiralty D sion (Sir Samuel Evans) condemned the ship, and uj March 28, 1916, he condemned the goods now in question Upon an appeal to the Privy Council by the shipown it was held that art. 1 of Hague Convention No. 6 appl and the condemnation of the ship was accordingly set as an order being made for detention in the form adopted The Chile, [1914] P. 212. By art. 4 of the Convention, principle which applies to an enemy ship in the circ stances referred to in art. 1 applies also to enemy cargo board the ship. June 17. Kerly K.C. and J. G. Joseph for the appella contended that the Chile order should be made in respec the goods. R. A. Wright K.C. (Sir Gordon Hewart A.-G. with 1 for the Crown. July 8. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (Lord Parmoor, Wrenbury, Lord Sterndale and Sir Arthur Channell) missed the appeal. LORD PARMOOR, in delivering their Lordships' judgn said that the appellants not being the owners of the g at the date of their seizure, had no locus standi to sup the appeal, nor to ask for an amendment of the proceed by substituting the names of the consignees for their ov claimants and appellants. Reference was made to Proton, [1918] A. C. 578, 584, and The Antilla, [] A. C. 250. Solicitors for appellants: Kerly, Sons & Karuth. A. M. |