(Towage. Ordinary. — Extraordinary. — Agreement) (Court of Adm.)

Money v. Money

117

(Taxation of Costs. - Two Counsel allowed Wife, although one Counsel
only retained by Husband)

- (Arches.)

Northampton, The

152

--

(Collision. - Dragging Anchor. Owners not liable for Fault of Pilot.
Difference between driving with and dragging the Anchor.
Definition of)

Foul Berth,

(Court of Adm.)

O.

Ogden, John Henry, In the Goods of

113

(Letters of Administration.
tificate required)

- Wife of deceased Lunatic. - No medical Cer-
(Prerog.)

Orbona, The

(Shipping. Salvors in Possession. - Abandonment of Vessel by Crew.
Salvors not bound to delay Course to take in Crew. - Policy of Insurance..
Not void by Deviation to assist Vessel in Distress)

(Court of Adm.)

P.

Panther, The

31

(Collision. Neglect to show Light. Admiralty Regulations. - Steam
Vessels)
(Court of Adm.)

(Prize of War.-Order in Council.-Exemption from Capture) (Prize C.)

Polka, The

447

(Prize of War. - Condemnation of Prize taken into Neutral Port.- Sale of
Prize lying in Neutral Port)
(Prize C.)

Richards v. Queen's Proctor

235

(Revocation. Intention of Testator.- - Not to be inferred from mere Ap-
pointment of Executor in subsequent Instrument)

(Prerog.)

Rosalie, The

188

(Salvage. Services of Officers of Marine. - Government Vessels)

(Court of Adm.)

Rosehaugh, The

(Salvage or Pilotage. When Services become one or the other)

(Court of Adm.)

Seymour, The Sir George

Segredo otherwise Eliza Cornish

(Shipping. Ship taken by Pirates. — Recapture by Ship of War. — Sale
of Ship. Authority of Master to sell. Law Maritime.-Lex Loci con-
tractus. Invalidity of Sale)

Selmes, Burder (The Office of Judge promoted by) v.

(Court of Adm.)

(Arches.)

(Collision. Report of Registrars and Merchants. - Practice. Assessors
appointed to assist in Reconsideration of Report)

67

(Court of Adm.)

T.

xi

Page

(Collision.
probandi)

Thomas, Brown v.

Toivo, The

T- E., G-S. v.

Telegraph, The (Valentine v. Cleugh)

Admiralty Regulations. Light at the Masthead. —'Onus

389

(Consis.)

427

(P. C.)

29

(Prerog.)

185

(Bottomry Bond. - Where, after Payment, fresh Bond may be given)

Van Drom (Baron), In the Goods of

(Administration. - Dutch Law. -Executory Clause)

245

(Prerog.)

Virtue, The

77

- Transfer not completed.
(Ship Registry Act. Sale by Auction.
of Proceedings by Vendors in a Cause of Possession)

Wansfell, The

269

-

(Collision. Admiralty Regulations. Both Vessels in Fault)

(Court of Adm.)

Weatherley v. Weatherley

193

(Divorce.-Pleading. —Adultery.—Acts antecedent to Marriage) (Consis.)

(Churchwarden. — Election. Agreement to close Poll before usual Hour)
(Arch. C. of Mid.)

APPENDIX.

Her Majesty's Declaration with reference to Neutrals and Letters of Marque
Instruction for the Commanders of her Majesty's Ships and Vessels of War, as to
disposal of captured Vessels

Order in Council granting general Reprisals against Russia

i

xi

Page

ii

ii

viii

Order in Council for preventing Vessels clearing out for Russia, and ordering a
general Embargo or Stop of Russian Vessels

for exempting from Capture or Detention Russian Vessels under special
Circumstances

extending to India and the Colonies the Indulgence granted to Russian
Vessels by her Majesty's Order in Council of 29th March 1854

for preventing Vessels clearing out for Russia, and ordering a general
Embargo or stop of Russian Ships in the Channel Islands, and the Isle of
Man

ix

in furtherance of her Majesty's Declaration of the 28th March 1854,
respecting the Trade of Neutrals and British Subjects

ix

to extend to the 15th May 1854, the Indulgence granted to Russian Vessels
which shall have sailed from a Russian Port in the Baltic or White Sea
prior to that Date

Proclamation regulating the Distribution of Captures made by her Majesty's Fleets,
&c., acting with any Allied Fleet, &c.

Standing Interrogatories

Χ

111

xiii

PREROGATIVE
COURT OF
CANTERBURY.

May 6.

a will or codi

cil, bearing date inJanuary, 1837, presumed to have been made prior to

WILLIAM SIMKIN died on the 20th July, 1847, leaving Alterations in a will, dated 25th January, 1837, in which there were various alterations and interlineations. Both the will and alterations were in the handwriting of the deceased. No evidence could be obtained as to the time when the alterations were made. The will was found locked up in a bureau, the key of which was in the possession of the deceased.

Dr. Jenner moved the Court to grant probate of the will as it was found, with the alterations. He submitted that the presumption of law respecting alterations laid down by the Superior Court, in Cooper v. Bocket (a), did not apply here. The will was made before the Wills Act came into operation, and there was no reason to presume that the alterations were not made during the same year.

SIR JOHN DODSON. Before the 1st January, 1838, these alterations would have been entitled to probate. In the absence of evidence I apprehend that the general presumption of omnia rite esse acta must prevail; and we must conclude that these al

(a) 4 Notes of Cases, 688.; S. C. 4 Moore, P. C. C. 410.

E. & A.-VOL. I.

B

Jan. 1. 1838.
Statement.

Argument.

Judgment.