from their hands, were able to show those whom it concerned a full and detailed account of the receipts and expenditures of their so-called government. However excellent our systems of checks and counter checks may be to secure honesty and accuracy in public accounts, in view of the numerous "irregularities" of disbursing officers daily coming to light in our midst, we must confess our belief that concerning such matters "they do things better in France."

The Chicago Legal News, whose editorial office and publishing house were totally destroyed in the late fire, issues its number of October 14th on time. By it we are informed that the papers and libraries in the law offices in Chicago were burned. The reappearance of the Legal News so promptly, after the great calamity, is a welcome indication of the enterprise and energy which will, in a few years, restore its wonderful city to more than its former magnificence.

It is said that the late fire at Chicago destroyed very many of the public records, as well as documents and writings in lawyers' offices and business places. This is a loss which cannot be estimated in dollars, and consequently does not figure in the two hundred or so millions, wherein the wealth of that unfortunate place has been diminished. Yet it is a disaster which will be known and felt by many long after the ruined city is again built up. To say nothing of the writings relating to transactions of public boards, the most of which might, perhaps, be spared, the wholesale destruction of deeds, mortgages, notes, contracts, vouchers, account books and law papers must embarrass very greatly those interested in their preservation, and will frequently lead to vexatious and unsatisfactory litigation.

Those interested in real estate in Chicago have, probably, to some extent escaped the worst consequences of a wholesale destruction of the records. It seems that certain offices, where real estate transfers were made a specialty, were accustomed to keep an abstract of all deeds, mortgages, etc., appearing in the public records, and we are informed that three complete sets of these abstracts are known to be in existence. How many counties in this State are as well provided against the contingency of a loss of the county records?

Seduction under promise of marriage may be a very heinous offense and deserving severe treatment at the hands of the law, but it has always seemed to us that as there are usually two parties whose consent is necessary to the commission of the act, the legal penalty ought not to be visited wholly upon one. The seductive male must, of course, be a many-times dyed villain, but then, the "chaste" maiden who participates in the unholy contract is, to some degree, a wanderer from the path of rectitude. There should

indeed be thrown around the virtue of woman a barrier so strong that it could not be broken by the violence of lust, but when she so far forgets herself as to yield to a proposal whose making renders the proposer unfit to be a lover, and its acceptance her unfit to be a wife, the law, if interfering at all, should punish both. At it is now it does not, to any extent, prevent seduction, but only gives an opportunity now and then for designing women to levy black mail, or for angry ones to gratify their vindictive feelings.

Americans have heretofore been somewhat unfa

miliar with beggary carried on as a trade. To be sure we have, on various occasions, received a visit from the blind man whose eyes were destroyed by some explosion, the soldier whose arm or leg was lost in the war, or the sorrowful Italian bearing a printed certificate that his little all had been swept away by some great flood on the Po or the Adige.

To the necessities of all these we charitably contributed, asking no questions for conscience sake. It was only when we discovered that some one of them had, in endeavoring to remember his misery no more, expended our eleemosynary donation in procuring fire-water, that our inward faith became shadowed by unbelief. But the suppliants for relief are now multiplying so fast that the most indiscriminate givers begin to hesitate on bestowing alms. Lame men with little two sound legs, blind men whose eyesight a very miracle would restore, deaf and dumb men, whose comprehension of sound is remarkably acute, men and women and children, with various evils and misfortunes are crowding our streets. The laws against vagrancy are sometimes invoked, but they are to a great extent ineffectual. It seems to us that if simulating disease or distress for the sake of obtaining charity was made a misdemeanor, and the law enforced, the vagabonds who infest our cities would disappear, and those worthy of and needing help stand a better chance for relief.

OBITER DICTA.

Is an agreement to marry within a year a "marry time contract?"

A Florida negro, who robbed the post-office, is circulating a subscription paper to get bail.

A coroner's jury in Canada returned a verdict of "voluntary suicide."

A legal gentleman, just returned from Europe, reports that a foreigner gravely informed him that there was "nothing see-worthy in Lisbon."

The grand jury of Sonoma lately reported: "We recommend that, for the safety and comfort of the bald-headed men, the loose plastering be removed from the ceiling, or that the sheriff be instructed to furnish parties having business in the court with pillows, or suitable shields to cover their heads with." Fiat justitia-ruat ceiling!

A youthful remainder-man: Casabianca.

A justice, whose sense of humor was fully equal to his knowledge of law, was hearing a case where the counsel on either side were most uncommonly zealous. One would no sooner sit down than the other would jump up to make some remark, which was instantly seized upon and replied to by the other, and the constant interruption at last became ridiculously annoying. His honor could stand it no longer.

"Gentlemen," said he, "I presume there is some merit in this case if we should ever get at it, and I dare say there is something in the defense, too; but allow me to remark, that you two remind me very much of a pair of buckets eternally going up and down a well, with this important difference, gentlemen, that the empty one always comes up."

The N. O. Picayune is responsible for rather a good story in the way of divorce practice:

The attorney, of course, was "distinguished." They always are. His office was "gloomy." That makes a little background for the incidents. A lady came in who was very young, very pretty, and, we need not add, very bewitching. Beauty and loveliness in the shape of a client have double attractions, as every lawyer knows.

"Are you Mr. the lawyer?" she asked. "Yes, madam; pray be seated. In what way can I serve you?" asked the lawyer, blandly. "I want a divorce, sir." You want a divorce!" cried the astonished counsel; "why, who in the world could have the heart to separate from so beautiful a lady?" "No one that I know of. It is not the man that wishes to leave me; I want to leave the man.' "" "Oh, I perceive; but why?" "Well, nothing in particular; but, to tell the truth, I can do better."

This is as bad as "cold feet," or the lady who could only say that the fact was, her lord and master was so "positively uninteresting."

Some years ago, at an assize at Limerick, a boy was brought forward as a witness for the prosecution in a case of murder. He appeared not only young but ignorant, and the judge (Solicitor-General Burke) thought it necessary to examine him as to his qualifications for a witness. This was the style in which it was done:

Do you know, my lad, the nature of an oath?
An oath! no.

Do you mean to say that you do not know what an oath is?

DIGEST OF RECENT ENGLISH DECISIONS.

ADMIRALTY LAW.

1. Naval service: towing prize of war: property in prize: foreign enlistment act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 90), § 8. The property in a prize of war may pass to the captors without such prize being taken into a port belonging to the country of the captors, or being coudemned by a prize court. A prize of war (a merchantman), with a prize crew on board, is not a ship of war. A tug towing such a vessel from neutral waters to the waters of her captors, in the ordinary course of her employment, does not complete the capture, and is not employed in the naval service of a belligerent within the meaning of the foreign enlistment act 1870, § 8, sub. 4. The Gauntlet Adm., 25 L. T. R. 69.

2. Bottomry bond: communication with owner: bill of exchange: collateral security: procedure in colonial court.-A British ship, under a charter from London to Callao, put into Melbourne for repairs. The master, who was also part owner, fearing that the shipwrights would, unless their claims were paid, detain the vessel, and that she might thus be unable to fulfill her charter, raised the necessary funds from the ship's assets at Melbourne upon a bottomry bond of the ship and freight. Held, that the bond was not invalidated by the absence of previous communication between the master and the co-owner, and that the case was distinguishable from The Panama, L. Rep. 3 P. C. 199; 32 L. T. R. (N. S.) 73, and from all those in which the general duty of previous communication is laid down. Held, also, although a bottomry transaction cannot be based upon personal security, bills of exchange may be given in addition to the bond. Held, also, that the mortgagee of a ship cannot, for the purposes of such previous communication as is necessary between the party hypothecating the ship and the owner, be deemed an owner; though it may be otherwise if the mortgagee be also the ship's agent and agent for the owner. The Staffordshire, Adm., 25 L. T. R. 137.

AGENCY.

Principal and agent: written contract signed by agent: agent debited by seller: liability of disclosed principal.-Defendant had commissioned C. to buy 100 bales of cotton, but particularly directed that his name should not be disclosed. C. bought the cotton, for delivery, on a future day, of plaintiffs, who were cotton brokers, and who, expressing themselves unwilling to trust C., insisted on having the name of C.'s principal. C. having told plaintiffs that the cotton was for the defendant, but that the defendant did not wish his name to transpire, plaintiffs sold the cotton and delivered to him a sold note, addressed to him personally, and received from him a corresponding bought note, signed by him personally, and not as agent, and plaintiffs thereupon debited C. in their books. C. delivered to defendant a corresponding note: "Bought on your account, of Messrs. C. and D., 100 bales, etc." Defendant accepted and retained this note without demur. Before the time for the delivery of the cotton, cotton had fallen in price, and defendant then settled differences with C. When the time for delivery of the cotton arrived, cotton had still further fallen in price; plaintiffs thereupon called on C. to accept the cotton, or pay the difference in price, threatening proceedings in case he failed to do so. On C.'s failure to do so, plaintiffs called on defendant to accept the cotton, or pay the difference in price, and, on his refusing

to do so, they sold the cotton, and brought this action to recover the difference between the contract price and the price the cotton realized. Held (affirming the judgment of the court below), that there was evidence to go to the jury to show that defendant had notice of and ratified the contract made on his behalf by C., though it was not the contract that he originally authorized him to make; that parol evidence was admissible to show that the defendant was the principal in an action brought with a view to charging him as such; that it was a question for the jury to consider, whether, looking at all the circumstances, plaintiffs had elected, at the time of entering into the contract, to give credit to C., dealing with him, and with him alone; that there was evidence to go to the jury that they had not done so; that if they had not done so, they had subsequently an election whether to treat C. or defendant as liable to them on the contract; and that the facts warranted the jury in finding that plaintiffs had never elected to treat C. as their debtor, so as to preclude themselves for bringing the present action.

Semble, where a man has made a contract with an agent in such form and under such circumstances that he subsequently has the power of election whether to treat the agent or his principal as his debtor, he does not conclusively exercise his power of election unless he has sued one party to judgment. Calder and ano. v. Dobell, Ex. Ch., 25 L. T. R. 129.

CONTRACT.

Surety: liability of: payment by debtor to creditor avoided as a fraudulent preference.-A surety for a debt is not discharged by the fact of the creditor having innocently received payment from the principal debtor, if such payment has been subsequently avoided as a fraudulent preference under the bankruptcy laws by the assignees of the debtor, and they have recovered from the creditor the sum paid. Petty v. Cooke, Q. B., 25 L. J. R. 90.

CRIMINAL LAW.

Conspiracy: evidence: prisoners were indicted for conspiracy to commit larceny: a second count charged an attempt to commit a larceny.-The evidence was that the two prisoners, with another boy, were seen by a policeman to sit together on some doorsteps near a crowd, and, when a well-dressed person came up to see what was going on, one of the prisoners made a sign to the others, and two of them got up and followed the person into the crowd. One of them was seen to lift the tail of the coat of a man, as if to ascertain if there was any thing in the pocket, but making no visible attempt to pick the pocket, and to place a hand against the dress of a woman, but no actual attempt to insert the hand into the pocket was observed. Then they returned to the door-step and resumed their seats. They repeated this two or three times. There was no proof of any preconcert, other than this proceeding. Held, not to be sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. Held, also, not to be evidence of an attempt to steal. Reg. v. Taylor and Smith, Mid. Sess., 25 L. T. R. 75.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

Ward of court: religious education: faith of deceased father to be adopted in preference to that of surviving mother: inquiry as to convictions of the infant itself: when allowable:- It is the rule of this court that those who have the guardianship of a child after its father's death, or the court itself, if the child be one of its wards, shall have the strictest regard to the religion of

the father in dealing with the child; and that duty is, unless there be very special circumstances indeed, to bring the child up in its father's faith- -a rule to be departed from only when the interests of the child itself would be prejudiced by any change from what had been done.

And although in Stourton v. Stourton, 8 De G. M. & G. 760, the late lords justices had an interview with a boy of nine years and a half old, and having ascertained that he had acquired such strong convictions against the faith of his deceased father and in favor of that of his surviving mother, that to make any change would be to incur great risk of unsettling his religious faith altogether, and, therefore, disregarded what had been the father's religion, their lordships held that even that was a case carried to an extreme limit, which certainly ought not to be extended.

Where, therefore, a Roman Catholic father, who had never shown any indifference to his religion, had married a Protestant, and died leaving an only child by her of six months old, whom he had baptized in his own faith, it was held (affirming a decision of Wickens, V. C.), that notwithstanding that the child had been brought up by its mother in the principles of the Church of England up to the age of eight years and a half, it must, from the present time, be educated in the distinctive tenets of the Roman Catholic faith. Hawksworth v. Hawksworth, Chan., 25 L. T. R. 116.

INNKEEPERS.

Inn, money lost by guest at: evidence of negligence of guest: leaving bedroom door unlocked.- Plaintiff, a guest at defendant's inn, went to bed, leaving a bag containing about 271. in his trousers' pocket. He left his trousers on the ground at the side of his bed furthest from the door. There was a key in the lock of the door, but plaintiff only shut the door, and did not lock it. Plaintiff had previously pulled the bag containing the money out of his pocket in the commercial room for the purpose of paying somebody some money. In the course of the night somebody entered plaintiff's bedroom through the door, and stole plaintiff's bag of money. Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which occasioned the loss in such a way that it would not have happened if plaintiff had used the care that a prudent man might reasonably be expected to have taken under the circumstances. Oppenheim v. White Lion Hotel Company, Com. Pl., 25 L. T. R. 93.

2 Smelly 70s contra

LIBEL.

Alleged misconduct in conducting business: inference as to personal misconduct of proprietor.-The W. M. N. and the W. D. M. were rival papers published in the same town. On the occasion of an agricultural show at G., the W. M. N. published an article, saying that in the show-yard an audacious attempt to obtain money by false pretenses had been detected and exposed, to wit, that "a certain newspaper, of limited circulation, published in a town remote from G., has inserted, without any order to do so, columns of advertisements referring to the implements on view, copied from other newspapers to which advertisements have been given, or from papers of a year ago," and alleging that the object was to swell the number of advertisements in the paper, and to inveigle the manufacturers into payment by subsequently sending in bills for the spurious advertisements. A week after the publication of this article another appeared, in which the

charge of inserting advertisements without orders was made against the W. D. M in terms. Held, that although the first article did not refer in express terms to any individual or to any newspaper, evidence might be given to show to whom and to what it had reference, which was a question for the jury. Held, further, that it was for the jury to say whether the alleged libel applied to the management of the plaintiff's paper, and, if so, whether it was a libel on the plaintiff personally by means of imputing personal misconduct to him, or as reflecting on the way in which he managed his business; for, although it might not have been meant to charge the plaintiff with any actual personal corruption, yet, if it were a charge on the management of his commercial business, that it was being carried on in a disgraceful way, it would be for the jury to say whether it was libelous. The circulation and position of a newspaper are not matters of general public interest, and a discussion on the subject is not protected if it be libelous. Latimer v. Western Morning News Company, Nisi Prius, 25 L. T. R. 44.

1. Negligence: railway: gate left open at a level crossing: 8 Vict. c. 20, § 47.-By section 47 of the railway clauses consolidation act, 1845, when a railway crosses a road on a level, the company are to erect gates across such road on each side of the railway, and are to employ persons to open and shut such gates, which are to be kept constantly closed except during the time when horses, cattle, carts, or carriages passing along the road shall have to cross such railway. Upon the defendants' line of railway there was a level crossing with a gate at each side, north and south. A cart passed over, and the gate on the north side was left open. The plaintiff came up to the north gate for the purpose of crossing the line, at which time a train passed down the south line; as soon as it had passed he attempted to cross, when he was knocked down and injured by a train which he did not see, which came along the north line. Had he been looking he could have seen such train approaching from some distance. The question having been reserved, whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, held (Bramwell, B., dissenting), that there was evidence of negligence. Wanless v. The North-eastern Railway Company, Ex. Ch., 25 L. T. R. 103.

2. Railway accident: injury to passenger; compensation paid: receipt in full discharge: action for further damages: receipt pleaded: bill to restrain plea: no allegation of fraud by defendants: injunction: effect of a receipt at law.-The legal and equitable rights of a passenger injured by a railway accident are exactly the same as those of a passenger injured by any other common carrier, and the same considerations and rules apply in both cases.

Where a receipt has been given under seal it discharges at law all cause of action, and can only be set aside by the equitable jurisdiction of courts of law: but a mere receipt in writing has no such effect, it amounts simply to an acknowledgment of money paid; it cannot be pleaded in answer to an action, and it may be impeached or explained by parol evidence.

In September, 1865, the plaintiff, a civil engineer, sustained considerable injury by a collision on the defendants' railway, by which he was a passenger. He was attended by his own medical man, by the one on the company's staff, and by a third, who was totally independent. After consultation with them he made

He

a demand of 650l. as compensation, but after discussion with the company's manager he consented to accept 4001., and gave a receipt which in terms was a complete discharge for all loss sustained and expenses. alleged, however, that he gave the receipt upon the express assurance of the manager that it should not exclude him from further compensation if his injuries proved to be more serious than it was then acticipated they were. After some months the plaintiff got much worse; his spine was found to have sustained a severe shock, and he was disabled from the practice of his profession. Further compensation having been refused by the company, the plaintiff commenced an action to recover 3,000l., and to this action the company pleaded the receipt. Upon this the bill was filed, not alleging fraud, but relying upon the circumstances under which the receipt was alleged to have been given, and praying an injunction to restrain the defendants from so pleading: Held (reversing the decree of Malins, V. C.), that the bill must be dismissed, for that the question of the intention and understanding when the receipt was given could be tried at law, and the plaintiff did not require the aid of this court to prevent his being bound by it. Lee v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, Chan. 25 L. T. R. 77.

TRUSTS.

Post-nuptial settlement by a father on wife and children: power for maintenance of children out of expectant shares at trustees' discretion: death of wife: children maintained by father: bankruptcy of father: claim of trustee in bankruptcy to accumulated income of children's shares.-A., in the year 1860, executed a postnuptial settlement of a sum of 15,000l. in favor of his wife for life, with remainder to their children, who, being sons, should attain twenty-one, or, being daughters, should attain that age or marry. The settlement contained a trust for application by the trustees of such part as they should think fit of the income of any child's expectant share toward maintenance, without reference to A.'s ability to maintain. The wife died four months after the settlement. A., being of ample fortune, maintained his children himself until 1870, when he was adjudged bankrupt. He had never made any application to the trustees of the settlement for maintenance of his children. Held, that the trustee of A.'s property under his bankruptcy had no claim to the accumulated income of the trust-fund. Re The Trusts of Kerrison's Settlement, V. C. M., 25 L. T. R. 57.

WILLS.

1. Charitable devise: whether on trust or condition: surplus income: application: resulting trusts: cy près: where reparation to be executed. A testator in 1570 devised certain lands, tenements and gardens in the city of London to the plaintiffs' company, "to this intent, and upon this condition," that they should yearly, "of and with the rents and profits of the said lands, tenements and gardens," provide and give to twelve poor men and twelve poor women of the parish of St. Botolph, Without Bishopsgate, certain articles of clothing mentioned in the will, the materials of which were to be of the respective cost or value therein stated; and to the intent that such garments might be the better seen, performed and delivered, according to his mind and the condition in that behalf appointed forever, he required and prayed the chamberlain and town clerk of the city of London yearly to call upon and put in mind the plaintiffs' company, and look that

the said garments should be justly and truly bestowed. And he gave to the chamberlain and town clerk for their labor and pains to be taken in that behalf, 10s. apiece, yearly, forever, to be received at the hands of the company out of the same issues, rents and profits, "and so that the whole residue of the said rents and profits they should maintain and gather yearly into an whole stock, and therewith keep the reparations of the tenements to them devised, and, if need were, new build the same, as to their discretion need should appear as the same stock would fall out." And in case the company should be remiss in performing and delivering the garments according to the meaning in his testament declared, then he willed that the parson, church wardens and parishioners of St. Michael's, Cornhill, should enter upon the devised hereditaments, and the same should hold to the like intent and upon the like condition. The cost of the materials was 131. 88., and at the death of the testator the yearly value of the property was 261. only. But this value increased very largely, and for many years the company retained the surplus after making the payments directed, and maintaining the houses in repair. Held (affirming the decision of the master of the rolls), that the company were not entitled to such surplus, but that the whole rents were devoted to charitable purposes, and must be applied cy près. Merchant Tailors' Co. v. Attorney-General, Chan., 25 L. T. R. 109.

2. Will: construction: gift to B. and "her child or children:" illegitimate child.-A testator, after directing his trustees to hold a share of his property upon trust to pay the income thereof to his niece during her life, and, after her death, to her husband for life, and, subject to the trusts in favor of the husband and wife, to hold the capital and income of the share in trust for the child, if only one, or all the children, if more than one, of his niece A., directed his trustees to hold another share upon such trusts in favor of his niece B. and her husband, and her child or children, as should correspond with the preceding trusts in favor of A. and her husband, and her child or children. B. had only one child, who was illegitimate. At the date of the will she was fifty years old, and had been married many years. Held, nevertheless, that B.'s illegitimate child did not take under the words, "her child or children." Paul v. Children, Rolls, 25 L. T. R. 82.

DIGEST OF RECENT AUSTRALIAN DECISIONS.*

ADMINISTRATION.

Wife's misconduct.-Gross misconduct of a wife as such will disentitle her to administration of her husband's estate after death; but ante-nuptial want of chastity will not so disentitle her. Cawley v. Cawley, 6 W., W. & A'B. 41.

BANKS AND BANKING.

1. Bill of exchange. -In an action by a bank, as indorsees of a bill of exchange against L., the acceptor, it was proved that the bill had been handed by K., the drawee, to the bank for collection, and was indorsed in blank. The drawer had overdrawn his account at the bank. The bank appropriated the bill to secure another acceptance in favor of K. by a different person, which acceptance was paid. Held, that notwithstanding this

Appearing in The Australian Jurist reports, in Wyatt, Webb & A'Beckett's reports, and in Webb, A'Beckett & Williams' reports.

specific appropriation, the bank could apply L.'s bill in payment of K.'s overdraft, and could sue as indorsees. Commercial Bank v. Lawrence, 1 A. J. R. 118.

2. Dishonor of bill.-In an action against a bank for dishonoring a customer's bill, when there was sufficient funds paid in to meet it, the question to be submitted to the jury is whether a sufficient time had elapsed, after the payment of the money into the bank, to enable the clerks to become aware of such payment. Trodel v. The Colonial Bank of Australia, 1 A. J. R. 99.

BAILMENT.

Bailee: larceny.-Where a mortgagee wrote to mortgagor, requesting him to remove chattels from land of mortgagee on which they were, to other land belonging to the prisoner (mortgagor), who did so, and subsequently sold them,- held, that if prisoner (mortgagor) had not acted upon the letter, a question might arise as to his position; but, as it was acted on, that, apart from the mortgage, which might be looked upon as introductory, there was evidence of a bailment and larceny as a bailee, upon which jury might convict. Reg. v. Boyd, 1 A. J. R. 88.

BILL OF EXCHANGE.

1. Material alteration: husband and wife. - After issuing and acceptance of bill by A., A.'s wife's name was added as joint acceptor with A. Held to be material alteration, although when done, and afterward, she was a feme covert. The Oriental Bank Corporation v. Beilby, 1 A. J. R. 81; 1 W., A'B. & W., L. 66.

2. Acceptor: renewal: condition precedent.-Drawer and acceptor of bill of exchange agreed that if acceptor paid a certain amount at maturity it would be renewed for the remainder. Held, that a full payment of amount agreed on was a condition precedent to acceptor's right to renewal. Pachten v. Politz, 1 A. J. R. 26; 1 W., A'B. & W., L. 11.

3. Bank.-A bank in Melbourne received, on a Friday, from a customer in Launceston, for presentment and collection, a bill, and left it with the drawees for acceptance on the same day. The drawees wrote their names upon it, accepting it on the Saturday, but before returning it to the bank (which they did on Tuesday), canceled their acceptance. In an action by the customer against the bank for negligence in presenting the bill, held, that the bank need not have presented the bill for acceptance before Saturday, and would then have had till Monday to obtain the acceptance, or the refusal, by the drawees, to accept, and that the circumstance of having presented the bill on Friday did not compel the bank to obtain an answer on Saturday. A bill of exchange must be presented within a reasonable time of its receipt by the holder, which is a mixed question of law and fact. It need not be sent for acceptance by the very earliest opportunity, though it must be sent without improper delay. In presenting fresh bills of exchange for acceptance, reasonable diligence is used, if done on the day after the receipt of the bill. Bank of Van Dieman's Land v. Bank of Victoria, 6 W., W. & A'B., L. 178.

4. A bill was dishonored, in Melbourne, on a Monday, and notice of dishonor was sent to the drawer, in Launceston, Tasmania, by a mail leaving Melbourne on Tuesday. A mail had left Melbourne for Launceston on Monday evening; but letters by Tuesday's mail were delivered as soon as those by Monday's mail. Held, that due diligence had not been used in giving notice of dishonor. Ib.