in a matter of the disputed interpretation of a recognised portion of the terminology of the Law of Nations. In fact, visitation and search are synonymous, and the two epithets are used together by some English writers, as, e.g., Hosack, Rise and Growth of the Law of Nations, Lond., 1882, p. 168, where the learned author says, incidentally, that the right of visitation and search was an acknowledged incident of naval warfare in the early part of the sixteenth century, and adduces evidence from Rymer's Fadera, XIV., 329. It were much to be desired that the Powers interested in the suppression of the Slave Trade should come to a definite agreement on the words to be employed, and the meaning to be attached to the words expressing the English phrase visitation and search. THE Law Magazine and Review Quarterly Digest OF ALL REPORTED CASES, IN THE LAW REPORTS, LAW TIMES REPORTS, LAW JOURNAL REPORTS, AND WEEKLY REPORTER. VOL. XVII., 1891-92. BY C. H. LOMAX, M.A., OF THE INNER TEMPLE, Barrister-at-Law. LONDON: STEVENS AND HAYNES, Law Publishers, BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, W.c. 1892. Quarterly Digest. INDEX of the cases reported during August, September and October, 1891. Where a case has already been given in the Digest for a preceding AAS V. BENHAM (65 L.T. 25), 16, Abstainers and General Insurance Co., Alexander Pirie & Son v. Goodall, Allchurch V. Hendon Committee, 22, i. Assessment Allcroft v. Bishop of London, 12, iv. Angus v. Clifford (L.R. [1891] 2 Ch. 449; 65 L.T. 274), 16, 113, ii. V. Logan (65 L.T. 162), 16, August, the, 28, iii. Baumvoll Manufactur v. Gilchrest, Beasley v. Roney (65 L.T. 153), 16, Beckett v. Tower Assets Co. (60 L.J. Bentley v. M.S. & L.R., 10, i. Bishop v. Taylor (60 L.J. Q.B. 556), Boehm, goods of (64 L.T. 806), 16, Bonnard v. Berry man (60 L.J. Ch. 617), Bootham Strays, duty on, re, 26, iii. 3 Ch. 53; 64 L.T. 819), 16, 145, i. Bowers v. Harding (60 L.J. Q.B. 474), Boyce v. Gill, 24, v. Briggs & Spicer, re (60 L.J. Ch. 514), Brighton Guardians v. Strand Guar dians (60 L.J. M.C. 105; 64 L.T. Bristol, &c., Bank v. M.R., 27, i. v. Hawkes, 18, v. Bucknell v. Vickery, 20, vi. Budd v. Lucas (60 L.J. M.C. 95), Bullis v. Jones, 25, ii. Burchard v. Macfarlane, 24, ii. Bart v. Gray (65 L.T. 229), 16, CAERLEON TINPLATE Co. v. HUGHES, Calliope, the (39 W.R. 641), 16, 100, i. Carrier v. Price (60 L.J. Ch. 570; 65 L.T. 69), 16, 111, iv. Carter v. Silber (65 L.T. 51), 16, Cawse v. Nottingham Asylum (60 Chappell v. North, 2, iv. City and South London Railway Co. v. London County Council, 20, iv. Cleaver v. National Reserve Fund Colman's Trade Marks, re (60 L.J. Ch. Comfort v. Betts (64 L.T. 685), 16, Commissioner of Stamps v. Hope, Cooke v. Smith (60 L.J. Ch. 573), Coombs v. Wilks, 10, v. Cordova Union Gold Co., re (L.R. Coupé Co. v. Maddick, 3, ii. Cox v. Bennett (60 L.J. Ch. 651), & Neve, re (64 L.T. 733), 16, 101, iii. Coxon v. Gorst (60 L.J. Ch. 502), 16, Crawford v. Forshaw (65 L.T. 32), 16, Cross v. Fisher, 6, i. Crump, e. p.; re C., 4, vi. Cullen, e. p.; re Parrott (60 L.J. Q.B. DAN RYLANDS, e. p.; re COLLIER, 4, Davis, e. p.; re Easton, 4, v. De Penny v. Christie (60 L.J. Ch. De Souza v. Cobden (60 L.J. Q.B. Dennis, goods of, 33, iii. Dicido Pier Co., re (64 L.T. 695), 16, Dickenson, goods of (64 L.T. 808), 16, Dillon v. Haverfordwest Corporation Dowse v. Gorton (64 L.T. 809), 16, Fisher v. Jackson (60 L.J. Ch. 482; Fortescue v. Bethnal Green Vestry |