<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Secretarial practice</title>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1828236004</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>TABLE OF CASE

859
PAGE
373

Att.-Gen. v. Ross (1909), 2 Ir. R. 246....... .
Attwood v. Munnings (1827), 7 B. &amp;amp; C. 278; 1 M. &amp;amp; R. 66...
Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Co. v. Curinshame {1906},
» “ho ~:~ LJ]. Ch. 437; 94 L.T. 651 1° ‘ans. vey;
C378 eee
+. v. Charlesworth (1914), 311.

1 C

A

Baglan Hall Colliery Co., Re (1870), 5 Ch. App. 346; 39 L. ).
Ch.591;23L.T.60; 18 W.R. 499.........c.c oc.
Bahia Railway, Re (1868), L. R. 3 Q.B. 584; 37 L. J. Q.B.
126; 9B. &amp;amp;S.844;18L.T. 467; 16 W. R. 862.... .... 4"
Baillie v. Oriental Telephone (1915), 1 Ch. 503; 84 L. J. Ch.
409; 112 L.T.569;31 TL. R.140..................
Bainbridge v. Smith (1889), 41 Ch. D. 462; 60 L. T. 879; 37
W.R.509...0cvv -isvines © save s-uunsnnnsees + I45, ~
Balaghat Gold Mining Co., Re (1901), 2 K.B. 665; 70 L. J.
K.B. 866; 85 L.. T. 8; 49 W. R. 625; 17 T. L. R. 660..
Balkis Co. v. Tomkinson (1893), A.C. 396; 63 L. 1. O.B. 134;
60L.T.598;42W.R.204;1R. 178...... —
Ballachulish Slate Quarries v. Bruce (1908), 45 S. L.. R. 667;
188. L.T. 48 ccc rose nunreme-- . ..
Bank of Syria, Re (1901), 1 Ch. 115; 70 L. J. Ch. 82; 03 ».. I
547; 49 W. R. 100; 8 Mans. 105. .
Baring-Gould wv. Sharpington Syndicat~ f(r!
68 I.. J. Ch. 429; 80 L. T. 739; ¢-Baroness
 Wenlock v. River Dee Ce. (18353;
Barron v. Potter (1914) 1 Ch. 395....
Barrow v. Paringa Mines (1909) 2 Ch. 658.......
Barton v. London &amp;amp; North-Western Railwav ‘-?Raq)
0.BD.77;59L.].Q.B.33;62L.T. 164; 35 +
Barton v. North Staffordshire Rly. (1888), 38 Ch.
57 L. J. Ch. 800; 58 L. T. 549; 36 W. R. 754. .
Bechuanaland Exploration Co. v. London Trading
(1898), 2 Q.B. 658; 67 L. J. Q.B. 986; 79 L.
3 Com. Cas. 285; 14 T.L. R. 587........ ‘
Beckwith’s Case Re New British Iron Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 324;
67 L © x€ 78 L.T. 155; 46 W. R. 376; 5 Mans.
168 . 2u
Bede Steam Shr
Bell Brothers
T. L. R. 68a.
Bellerby v. Rowland :™ Marwor-14;
 7v L.  C. :
9 Mans. 291; 18 T.
Bentinck’s Case, 18 Sol. Jo 271.
Bertram v. Godfray (1830), : Knann~
Betts &amp;amp; Co. v. Macnachten (1910), 1 (
1ooL.T.~~ ~~ Sol. fo. 52°
Binney v. Ince 1. 1 Cu (1866),
292 .
Bird v Bird’s Pate

G

z5
a8

OO

- LU

150

0
2

I

14+
78

7 Q

95
06

Ci, 200

" i</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
