the instalments were due, J. M. died, and his administrator sued the defendant on the note for the whole amount thereof.

(2) Plaintiffs contracted with defendants to supply and erect certain machinery upon defendants' premises at specific prices for particular portions, and to keep it in repair for two years, the price to be paid on the completion of the whole. After some portion of the work had been finished, and others were in course of completion, the premises, with the machinery and materials thereon, were destroyed by an accidental fire. The plaintiffs brought their action for work done and materials provided for that portion of the work which had been finished.

(3) The defendants were solicitors to the petitioning creditor in certain insolvency proceedings, and had incurred costs, which were to be paid out of the estate. The plaintiff, a friend of the insolvent, offered to pay to the defendant a sum of money for these costs, which had not been paid owing to want of assets, on their undertaking not to appear at the examination of the insolvent, and not to oppose his order of discharge. The defendants, with the consent of their client, agreed to this, and received the money. They did not appear at the examination, but before the application for the discharge had been made the plaintiff brought an action to recover back the money.

(4) The defendant was sued for necessaries supplied to his wife. It appeared that the wife had committed adultery with the connivance of her husband, that she had been subsequently turned out of doors by him, that she had no means of support,

I

and that the plaintiff supplied her with the necessaries in question while she was living separate from her husband.

(5) Fruit-brokers in Melbourne gave a fruit merchant the following sold note:-"We have this day sold to you A. B., on account of C. D., Sydney, 100 cases of oranges of the brand C.D., at ten shillings per case, free on board...." and signed it without any addition. The oranges were not delivered, and the purchaser brought an action against the brokers for non-delivery of the oranges. (6) The defendants effected with the plaintiffs, who were underwriters, valued policies of insurance (including war risks) on a cargo which was afterwards totally destroyed by the Confederate cruiser Alabama, and the underwriters paid the valued amounts which were less than the real value. The United States, out of a compensation fund created after the loss, and under the provisions of an Act of Congress passed subsequently to the loss, paid to the defendants the difference between the sum they had received and the real value. Under the Act of Congress, no claim was allowed for any loss for which the party injured had received compensation from an insurer, but if such compensation should not have been equal to the loss actually suffered, allowance might be made for the difference, and no claim was allowed by or on behalf of any insurer, either in his own right or in that of the party insured. The plaintiffs sued to recover from the defendants the sum paid to them by the United States. (7) A cheque on a Melbourne bank was fraudulently obtained from the drawer, the defendant, who received no value therefor, and a month afterwards was cashed in Melbourne by the person

who obtained it with the plaintiff, who gave value, and was ignorant of the fraud, and of the fact that value had not been received by the defendant. The plaintiff immediately presented the cheque for payment, and, on its dishonour, gave notice thereof to the defendant, and then sued him, as drawer.

(8) Cloth merchants ordered of cloth manufacturers worsted coatings, which were to be in quality and weight equal to samples previously furnished, with the object, as the manufacturers knew, of selling the coatings to clothiers or tailors. The coatings supplied corresponded in every particular with the samples, but owing to a certain defect, depending on the method of manufacture, were unmerchantable for purposes for which goods of the same general class had previously been used in the trade. The same defect existed in the samples, but was latent and not discoverable by due diligence upon such inspection as was ordinary and usual in such cases. The purchasers having paid cash for the goods, brought an action for damage, on the grounds that the goods were not merchantable, as they ought to have been. (9) The plaintiff contracted to make a railway, and did work for a company, for which he was entitled to be paid cash. The company not being in a position to pay, an agreement was entered into during the progress of the works between the plaintiff and the company, by which the plaintiff agreed to accept debenture stock in lieu of cash; and the defendants, who were some of the directors, thereupon signed and issued to the plaintiff certificates for the agreed amount of debenture stock. At that time, although the fact was not known to the defendants, all the debenture stock

which the company was entitled to issue had been issued, and, consequently, the stock issued to the plaintiff was valueless. The company went into liquidation, but valid debenture stock, which was a first charge on the assets, retained its par value, but this first charge practically exhausted the assets. The plaintiff sued the defendant on their implied representation that they had authority to issue valid debenture stock.

JURISPRUDENCE.

The Board of Examiners.

1. State and explain the classification of law adopted

by

(a) Austin,

(b) Dr. Holland,

(c) Dr. Hearn,

together with the reasons given by each author for his classification.

2. What views have been expressed by Mr. Justice Markby upon any of the principles involved in any of the classifications mentioned in the last question?

3. Blackstone defines municipal law as "rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." Explain what he meant by the words "commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong," and criticise his position.

4. Sir Henry Maine remarks in his Ancient Law, "The mention of primogeniture introduces one

of the most difficult problems of historical jurisprudence."

(a) What are the considerations which render the origin of primogeniture in Europe a difficult problem?

(b) What solution of the question is expressed by Sir Henry Maine, and upon what grounds?

5. What are the views of Sir Henry Maine as to the connexion between the manor and the village community in England?

6. Give a sketch of the condition of the agricultural population in England at the time of the Domesday survey, as deduced by Mr. Seebohm.

HONOUR EXAMINATION IN MEDICINE.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.
The Board of Examiners.

1. Detail and discriminate the symptoms of aortic valvular disease, and of aneurism of the first portion or of the arch.

2. Discuss the significance of jaundice as a symptom, describing the conditions which may give rise to it, and the treatment applicable to each.

3. Describe the seat and nature of the chief central lesions which give rise to hemiplegia.