Baron Martin. p. 158, was another case of his which at tracted much attention at the time. Among his most interesting cases was that of Miller i'. Salomons (7 Ex. Rep. 475), raising the question, on which Macaulay so eloquently and convincingly argued, as to the civil disabilities of the Jews. It was an action against a Jew member of Parliament for Greenwich, to recover penal ties for having voted without properly taking the oath of abjuration, i. c., omitting the words, "On the faith of a true Christian." The issue really narrowed itself to this, whether the words in question, " on the faith of a true Christian," were surplusage, in the sense that it was sufficient that the terms of the oath without them would bind the conscience of the abjurer, or whether they were designed to obtain a profession of Christian faith. The majority of the court were of opinion that they were so designed. Baron Martin dissented, and de livered an elaborate judgment, and it must be confessed that common sense was on his side, but the words of the statute • were too strong to be got over. The whole subject was threshed out again, but under some what different conditions, by the late Charles Bradlaugh. Embrey r. Owen (6 Ex. Rep. 353), is an important case on water rights. Flowing water, it decides, is publicijuris in this sense only, that all may reasonably use it who have a right of access to it, and that none can have any property in the water itself, except in the particular portion which he may choose to abstract from the stream and take into his possession, and that during the time of his possession only. The same principles apply to air and light. Crossed checks are a great mystery to the uninitiated. Bellamy r. Majoribanks (7 Ex. Rep. 389) is a very instructive case on their origin and meaning. According to it, the crossing of a check payable to bearer with the name of the banker, whether made by the drawer or bearer, does not restrict the
109
negotiability of the check to such banker or to a banker only, but is a mere memoran dum that the holder is to present it for pay ment through some banker. The practice of crossing cheeks originated, it seems, at the clearing house; the clerks of the differ ent bankers who did business there having been accustomed to write across the checks the names of their employers, so as to enable the clearing-house clerks to make up the accounts. We are so frequently told that an Eng lishman's house is his castle, that it is rather startling to find that, though it is illegal to break open outer doors or 'Commit violence, a landlord is entitled to enter the premises for the purpose of distraining by turning the key, by drawing a bolt, by raising a latch, or by any other means usually adopted by the tenant (Ryan i>. Shilcook, 7 Ex. Rep. 72). A very able judgment of his is to be found in Crouch r. Great Northern Railway Company ( 11 Ex. Rep. 742), which decided that a railway company cannot legally charge a greater sum for the carriage of a package containing several parcels belonging to dif ferent persons than for a package containing several parcels all belonging to one person. The company's contention was, that a mis delivery in the former case would expose them to several actions of trover. This was the legal objection; the real one, of course, was loss of business. Baron Martin points out very clearly that the proper action against a carrier for misdelivery is an action on the custom of the realm or bail ment; in other words, on the contract, and that upon a single bailment there could not be two actions. After three and twenty years of judicial life, Baron Martin felt that his increasing deafness counselled his retirement, and early in 1873 he retired, amid the universal regret of bar and bench — regrets for a most able, as well as most kindly and genial judge. In his combination of tenderness and
