standers not acquainted with the mat-
ter to which they relate. Young v.
Sloan, 284.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See LIMITATIONS (STATUTE OF.)

at Lachine by one of the line, and,
through the tow-boat, was several times
delayed and detained before reaching
the place of destination. Held, that
the contract with the government was
sufficiently proved: that the line of the
tow-boats having been established
according to the printed notice import

STATUTES (CONSTRUCTION OF). the basis on which future constructive

43 Eliz. ch. 6, sec. 9-See "Costs."
22 & 23 Car. II. ch. 9-See "Costs."

4 Wm. IV. ch. 1, sec. 17-See "Limita-
tions" (Statute of.)

9 Vic. ch. 34, sec. 23-See "Mortgage."
12 Vic. ch. 81-See "Municipal Council

Acts."

or implied agreements with individual
ship owners are to be rested: that the
plaintiff's vessel with a fixed and
known destination having been taken
in tow by a tug of defendants, the
inference must be that she was to be
towed through to her place of destina-
tion with due and reasonable diligence
according to the provisions contained
in the public notice, and that without
a special agreement on the subject
she should not be dropped or deserted
at the pleasure of the owner of the
14 & 15 Vic. ch. 122, sec. 3-See "Roads." tug. Gaskin v. Calvin & Cook, 527.

12 Vic. ch. 82-See "Pleading," 9.
13 & 14 Vic. ch. 48-See "Municipal

Council Acts," 10.

13 & 14 Vic. ch. 49-See "Pleading," 9.
14 & 15 Vic. ch. 7, sec. 8-See "Mort-
gage."

14 & 15 Vic. ch. 66, sec. 2-See "Admis-

sions," 1.

ST. LAWRENCE TUG BOATS.

Delays-Liability of owners there-
for.]-Declaration: That defendants
were owners of a line of tow-boats on
the river St. Lawrence and St. Law-
rence canals, and that they received
a schooner of plaintiff's to be towed
from Lachine to Kingston for reason-

TOLLS.

See MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED, 3.-
ROADS.

TRESPASS.

See COSTS.

TRUST AND TRUSTEE.

able reward, &c., and undertook to See MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED, 1.

use due and reasonable diligence and
dispatch in towing said schooner.
Breach-want of diligence and unrea-
sonable delay, &c. Pleas-1. Non-
assumpserunt. 2. That they did use
due diligence and dispatch, &c. Facts
-Defendants had entered into a con-
tract with government to tow vessels
on the river St. Lawrence. A public
notice signed by the secretary of the
Board of Works, and containing regu
lations for towage, &c., also signed by
defendants, appeared in a public news-
paper at Kingston. One of the defen-
dants, when examined as a witness,
proved the contract with government.
Plaintiff's schooner was taken in tow

4 A

UPPER CANADA COLLEGE.
See PLEADING, 9.

VARIANCES.

In name of a corporation as stated
in a by-law.]-"Municipal Council
Acts, 7"

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

See AGREEMENT.

Under what circumstances the pro-
perty in chattels vests in a vendee by
the contract of sale.]—In an action of
trover for wheat and flour of the plain-

VOL. II.

564

tiff, it appeared that H. K. & Son, defendants. being the owners of a grist mill, on the plaintiff's agent took a formal On the 5th November the 14th October 1851, applied to the delivery at the mill of all the wheat plaintiff's agent for an advance upon and flour there, being 348 barrels of 5000 bushels of wheat alleged by them flour and 1500 bushels of wheat, (the to be in the mill, for which they pro. defendants' clerk being on the preduced the warehouse receipt. The mises but not interfering), and again agent preferred purchasing the wheat directed that it should be sent to Tofor the plaintiff, and they therefore ronto. None of the flour at that time gave him the following receipt: "5007. had been marked [R], but 300 barrels Received from R. A. G. agent, for were so marked on this occasion. The Thomas Rigney, New York, 5007. on flour was not sent, as the defendants' account 5000 bushels of wheat sold agent forbade the teamsters to take it, him at 2s. 9d. per bushel. Toronto, and on the 7th November he obtained 14th October 1851. (signed) H. K. possession for the defendants of all the & Son." And he thereupon paid the wheat and flour in the mill, which was 5007., minus his charge for agency afterwards shipped on defendant's acand brokerage. The wheat in the count, some of it being marked [R]— mill was on the same day insured by and being 670 barrels in all. At the H. K. & Son at the request of the trial evidence was given by the miller plaintiff's agent, in their own names, of H. K. & Son as to the quantity of the policy providing that in case of loss wheat in the mill on the 18th October, the amount should be paid to the plain- and of the flour delivered from the tiff. The agent then agreed with H. mill before the assignment to the deK. & Son for grinding 5000 bushels of fendants, upon which the defendants wheat at their mill before 1st January contended that from the proved course following, and he debited them with of business in the mill, none of the the 500l. paid on account. On the identical wheat in the mill at the time 16th October the plaintiff's agent went of the sale to the plaintiff could have to the mill and took a sample of the been manufactured into the flour of wheat, but as it appeared, without the which the defendants had taken posknowledge of H. K. & Son or their session under the assignment. The servants. No delivery of any part jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, was at this time or previously made. with 3447. 3s. 4d. damages. On the 18th, the agent, without any court made absolute a rule for a new further communication with the parties, trial upon payment of costs, holding made out bought and sold notes, and that the evidence left it doubtful transmitted the bought note by letter to the plaintiff, and delivered the sold note to one of the firm of H. K. & Son, directing them at the same time to deliver the flour as ground, marked [R] to a wharfinger in Toronto for shipment to the plaintiff at New York. On the 31st October H. K. & Son assigned all their property to the defendants, who duly registered the assignment, and on the 4th November H. K. & Son delivered possession to the defendant's clerk, which possession was continued thenceforward by the

The

whether the property in any wheat ever vested in the plaintiff'; and 2ndly, that the weight of evidence rendered it probable that no part of the wheat in the mill at the time of the contract with the plaintiff came into the defendants' possession. Rigney v. Mitchell et al., 266.

VERDICTS.

See NEW TRIALS. RECORD (NISI
PRIUS), 2, 3.

Practice of Court, when excessive.]

1

-Where a jury gives a greater verdict |
than is warranted by the evidence and
data by which they ought to have been
guided, the court will, where the
amount is mere matter of computation,
direct a verdict for the plaintiff for the
correct amount, or grant a new trial on

WAIVER.

See RECORD (NISI PRIUS), 2, 3.

WHARFINGER.

AGENT, 2.

payment of costs. Stephenson v. See PLEADING, 10-PRINCIPAL AND

Ranney, 196.