JOINT OCCUPATION OF A. FARM. 515 



£7 per ton, while that of tlie Peruvian was £\4, and the iinprobahiHty 

 of such a contract being made by tlie plaintiff was commented upon by 

 his counsel. The plaintiff was called, and in cross-examination was 

 asked, " Did you not sell portions of the ' rival guano ' to other parties 

 on the same terms ? " meaning the special agreement as to quality, 

 above referred to. Williams J., however, thought that such a question 

 might be put for the purj^ose only of testing the credit or memory of 

 the witness, and that it could not be offered as independent evidence for 

 the defence, that similar contracts to that insisted on had been made 

 with other parties. It was proposed to put similar questions to the 

 defendant, but the learned judge also refused his permission. A verdict 

 having been found for the plaintiff, the Court of Common Pleas refused 

 a rule for a new trial, on the ground of improper rejection of evidence, 

 and considered the case of Reg. v. Egorton quite distinguishable. And 

 per ByJcs J. : " It may be that the plaintiff might have been asked 

 whether he had ever made such contracts before, by way of testing his 

 memory or credit. But as evidence offered by the defendant, it was 

 totally inadmissible, and to hold otherwise would be contrary to every 

 principle and to universal practice " {ih.). 



A joint interest and occiqxitioji of a farm ty two persons is not a part- 

 nership, so as to convey to each an implied authority to lind the oilier, hj 

 the acceptance of hills of exchange, for payments in respect of the farm 

 {Grecnslade v. Doicer). And where, as in Wisli v. Small, the plaintiff 

 purchased two bullocks, and put them to feed on the lands of one Woof, 

 on an agreement that the profit above £20 to be made by the re-sale 

 after they had been fatted should be divided equally between the 

 plaintiff and Woof ; and it was objected in an action for the price, that 

 Woof should have been joined in the action ; Thompson B. thought that 

 he and Wish were merely partners in the profits, and that this was a 

 mode of paying Woof for the pasture, and the Court of Queen's Bench 

 refused a rule for a nonsuit. 



Under stat. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, s. 1, a lill of sale is void against 

 creditors unless a description of the residence and occufpaiion of the person 

 granting it he filed along tvith the hill of sale. It is not sufficient that 

 the bill of sale which is filed itself contains a description of his residence 

 and occupation {Helton v. English). The same statute requires that the 

 description of tlie residence and occupation of the attesting witness to a bill 

 of sale shall be given, though the bill of sale be not made by a person 

 in execution {Tuton v. Se^ioria). The defect of registration under the 

 Bills of Sales Act does not avoid a bill of sale as between the parties. 

 Where a bill of sale assigned certain horses as a security, and also such 

 other horses as might be substituted for them in the business of the 



