REVENUE-Estate Duty-Exemption - Settle-
ment of Personal Property-Trust for Conversion
into Realty-Payment of Probate Duty-Finance
Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), 8. 21, sub-s. 1.

By the Finance Act, 1894, s. 21, sub-s. 1,
"Estate duty shall not be payable on the death
of a deceased person in respect of personal pro-
perty settled by a will or disposition made by a
person dying before the commencement of this
part of this Act, in respect of which property"
probate duty (among other specified duties)
"has been paid, or is payable, unless . . . . the
deceased was, at the time of his death, or at any
time since the will or disposition took effect had
been, competent to dispose of the property."

Under the will of a testator, who died in 1849,
his residuary personal estate became vested in
trustees upon trust to invest it in land, and to
settle the land to the use of two persons in suc-
cession for life, with remainders over in tail male.
Probate duty was paid on the testator's personal
estate, and the residue of the same was invested
in land, which was settled in accordance with the
directions of the will. On the death of the
second tenant for life in 1900, the Crown claimed
estate duty in respect of the land:-

Held, that the estate duty claimed was not
payable, the case coming within the exemption
created by the above-mentioned sub-section.

Judgment of Channell J., [1904] 1 K. B. 749,
reversed. ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. EARL OF
LONDESBOROUGH

-

C. A. 98

2. Income Tax-Company-Exemption-
Income not exceeding 1601.- Income Tax Act,
1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 163-Finance Act,
1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 30), s. 34.

A limited company registered under the Com-
panies Acts is not exempt from liability to the
payment of income tax by reason merely of its
income not exceeding 160l. a year. MYLAM v.
MARKET HARBOROUGH ADVERTISER COMPANY

3.

Phillimore J. 708

Income Tax-Nitrate Grounds situate
Abroad-Profits and Gains-Deduction to meet
Exhaustion of Material-Income Tax Act, 1842
(5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), s. 100, Sched. D., First Case,
Rule 3.

The appellants, an English company, were
the owners of land in Chili containing deposits of
a substance called caliche, from which they
extracted by a process of manufacture nitrates
and iodine for the market. When the whole of
the caliche is exhausted, the land and the
machinery and plant used in the manufacture
would practically be of no value :-

Held, that in computing their profits for
income tax. the appellants were not entitled to
deduct any yearly sum to meet the exhaustion of
the caliche.

Judgment of Channell J., [1904] 2 K. B. 666,
affirmed. ALIANZA COMPANY v. BELL (SURVEYOR
OF TAXES)
C. A. 184
Licence to deal in Plate - Sale of
Packets of Tea containing Coupons-Prizes con-
sisting of Plate-Revenue Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict.
c. 90), 88. 1, 3.

4.

By 30 & 31 Vict. c. 90, s. 3, it is made an
offence for a person to do any act or carry on any

SALE OF GOODS-continued.

under s. 14, sub-s. 1, of the Sale of Goods Act,
1893, to recover the expenses to which the plain-
tiff had been put by the illness and death of his
wife:-

Held, that the purpose for which the milk
was supplied was sufficiently made known to the
sellers by its description, that there was evidence
that the buyer relied on the seller's skill, and
that there was an implied condition under the
Act that the milk was reasonably fit for con-
sumption, although the defect was not discover-
able at the time of the sale. FROST v. AYLESBURY
DAIRY COMPANY
C. A. 608
Fraud of debtor-Title of trustee in bank-

-

465

346

-

574

service,

-

3

SEWERS Drain or Sewer - Pipe draining
sereral Houses belonging to different Owners
Single Private Drain-Nuisance existing on
Land of one Owner-Notice to abate Nuisance-
Notice to other Owners-Apportionment of Ex-
penses-Local Government-Public Health Act,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 88. 4, 41-Public
Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict.
c. 59), s. 19.

A drain-pipe passing through private pro-
perty, and receiving and conveying to a public
sewer the drainage of several houses belonging
to different owners, is a "single private drain"
within the meaning of s. 19 of the Public Health
Act, 1890. A notice to the owner of one of the

SEWERS-continued.

houses on whose land a nuisance, arising from
the defective state of such a drain-pipe, is found
to exist, to abate the same and to execute certain
works for that purpose, is a sufficient notice to
throw upon him the duty of abating the nuisance,
and, upon his default, to entitle the local autho-
rity to recover from him the expenses incurred
by them in so doing. In such a case no notice
need be given to the other owners, and the
provisions of s. 19 of the Act as to apportion-
ment of the expenses incurred by the local
authority in executing the necessary works are
not applicable.

Bradford v. Eastbourne Corporation, [1896]
2 Q. B. 205, approved.

Thompson v. Eccles Corporation, [1904] 2
K. B. 1, and Haedicke v. Friern Barnet Urban
Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 807, overruled.

THOMPSON v. ECCLES CORPORATION. HAEDICKE
v. FRIERN BARNET URBAN COUNCIL C. A. 110

-

SHERIFF-Fees - Possession Money- Several
Warrants against same Debtor-Sheriff's Act, 1887
(50 & 51 Vict. c. 55), 8. 20-Order of August 31,
1888, as to fees.

Where a sheriff has put a man in possession
of goods under a writ of fi. fa. issued by one
creditor, and afterwards received other writs
against the same debtor from other creditors, and
has merely kept the same man in possession on
behalf of all the creditors, he cannot, upon the
executions being withdrawn, recover possession
money at 58. a day from more than one creditor.

Though called a fee, possession money under
the Sheriff's Act, 1887, is only intended to cover
the sheriff's out of pocket expenses. GLASBROOK
v. DAVID & VAUX
Farwell J. 615

SHIPPING
Warranty of Fitness to receive Cargo-Duration
Bill of Lading-Seaworthiness — -
of Warranty-Incorporation of Harter Act-Effect
of, on Obligation of Shipowner.

The warranty, which is primâ facie implied
in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea.
that the ship is fit for the reception of the cargo.
is an absolute warranty; and the incorporation
in the bill of lading of the provisions of the Act
of Congress known as the Harter Act does not
cut down the obligation of the shipowner in that
respect to an obligation to exercise due diligence
to make the ship fit for that purpose.

The above warranty is a warranty only as to
the condition of the ship at the time of loading;
it does not continue in force after the goods are
once on board.

The defendants received on board their ship
for carriage certain goods of the plaintiff. After
the goods were on board the ship's engineer had
occasion to open a sluice-door in a watertight
bulk-head in the lower part of the ship. He
shortly afterwards shut the sluice-door, but failed
so screw it down so closely as to make it water-
tight. He subsequently proceeded to fill one of

SHIPPING-continued.

the ballast tanks, for which purpose he opened a
sea-cock in the ship's side to allow the water to
flow in. The water, on its way from the sea-
cock to the ballast tank, passed through a valve-
chest, the joint between the lid and body of
which had been packed in the ordinary way with
cotton to make it watertight. This joint had
been remade shortly before the plaintiff's goods
were put on board, and it had been imperfectly
done. When the tank was full the engineer
screwed down the sea-cock, but, owing to the
accidental presence of some hard substance, the
screw-valve was prevented from bedding down
closely on to its seating and the sea-cock was left
partially open, with the result that the continued
pressure of the water forced out the defective
packing of the valve-chest, and the water flowed
through the joint down into the lower part of the
ship, where it passed through the sluice-door
into the cargo hold and damaged the plaintiff's
goods:-

Held, that the defective fitting of the sea-
cock and of the sluice-door, being defects which
came into existence after the plaintiff's goods
were loaded, were not breaches of the implied
warranty of the fitness of the ship to receive the
cargo; but that the defective packing of the
valve-chest, being an existing defect at the time
of the loading of the goods, was a breach of the
warranty. MCFADDEN v. BLUE STAR LINE
Channell J. 697

Insurance, Marine.

-

C. A. 815

See under INSURANCE, MARINE.
SOLICITOR-Bill of Costs-Cross-claim by Client
-Account stated not in Writing.

Where, a solicitor having a claim against his
client for costs, and the client having a cross-
claim against the solicitor, the parties agree
upon the amounts of their respective claims and
state an account shewing a balance in the
solicitor's favour, an action may be maintained
by the solicitor for that balance, notwithstanding
that he had delivered no detailed bill, and that
the agreement for the settlement of the cross-
claims was not in writing. TURNER . WILLIS

Div. Ct. 468!

1842.

-

504