« PreviousContinue »
of the action” of libel. Again, he says, “these venerable writers start by stating something which is not the fact ; ” and “these worthies will have it that malice is the gist of the action.” Now these are misrepresentations, as well as reflections upon some of our ablest Judges and text-writers. In no judgment, nor in any text-book recognised as an authority upon the law of libel, is it stated in the way Mr. Odgers puts it. Mr. Odgers refuses to recognise the authorities as to the distinction between malice-in-fact and implied malice, or malicein-law; though expressly laid down in the well-known leading case on the subject-—Bromage v. Prosser, 4 B. & C. 247, and which distinction runs through the whole current of subsequent authorities. At p. 115 Mr. Odgers says he was taught “that there must be et damnum el injuria in every action of tort." One might be curious to inquire in what school he was so taught. We ourselves know of no law text-book containing such a maxim. We are all familiar with the maxims damnum sine injurid, damnum absque injurid, and injuria sine damno, all of which are clearly and elaborately discussed and explained in most of our elementary treatises on the law of torts; but this is the first occasion on which we have ever seen those maxims perverted into the quaint proposition “ et damnum et injuria.” If space and time permitted there are many other unreliable statements we might point out. Sufiice it to say that in our opinion this book is not a trustworthy guide either for the student, the layman, or the lawyer.
Four Lectures on the Law of Employers’ Liability at Home and Abroad. By AUGUSTINE BIRRELL, Q.C., M.P., Quain Professor of Law at University College. London: Macmillan & Co., Limited. 1897.
Mr. Birrell, in the first of the four lectures comprised in the little volume before us, discusses with remarkable perspicuity and ability the doctrine of common employment as applicable to the liability of employers, shewing its origin in the Law Courts, its application, its effect and the objections to it. He then, in the next lecture, refers briefly to the liability of employers under the Common law, for negligence and breach of duty, and the circumstances which led to the passing of the “ Employers’ Liability Act, 1880”; the subsequent working of that Act, and its shortcomings. In the third lecture follows a learned and interesting discussion on “Foreign Law and
Systems of Insurance” with reference to the Liability of Employers. And the fourth lecture is devoted to the new Bill on the subject, which is so shortly to become law. In this lecture the chief features of the new Bill, and the leading arguments, pro and con, that were used in the House of Commons are stated with a terseness that could not be excelled ; and the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill are clearly and ably explained. The little volume is one which both employers and employed may read with interest, instruction, and advantage.
This work commences with a brief summary of the history of the Patent law, which may be taken to have begun in 1600; it sets out the Statute of Monopolies, and discusses it, bringing us down to 46 and 47 Vict., c. 57, the Patents Act, 1883. The work is very interesting, being not only of legal, but also of historical learning. In the Appendices we find a treatise on the “Book of Bounty,” with a facsimile of “By the King, a Declaration of His Majesty's Royal Pleasure In What Sort He Thinketh Fit to Enlarge, Or Reserve Himself In Matter Of Bountie.” It will amply repay attentive perusal.
The Roman Law Examination Test for Bar and University: Questions and Answers. By W. Annmoron WILLIS, LL.B., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. London : Butterworth & Co. 1897.
This little treatise which is intended to assist the student about to present himself for examination in Roman Law, preparatory to being called to the Bar, consists of questions, all of which have been set in examinations, and contain answers by the writer to the same. The book will prove a “golden way ” to students desirous of passing the Roman bridge, even if that bridge be kept by Horatius himself.
The County Courts Act, I888, with Notes, Cases, Points of Practice and Chapters on Receiver, Injunction and Discovery in Aid of Execution. By EDWIN SI-IUTTLEWORTH, Chief Clerk of the Birkenhead County Court. London : john Smith and Co. 1897.
fees, and the Acts mentioned in the title. It is likely to prove a handy book of reference for officials connected with the County Court, it being brief and well indexed.
Kime’s International Law Directory, containing an adequate representation of selected legal practitioners in most of the principal towns throughout the Civilized World. By PHILIP GRABURN KIME. London : Bowden, Hudson, and Co. 1897.
This directory is bound to be of considerable use, both to the legal profession and to the public at large, in these days when travels are multiplied and commercial intercourse is cosmopolitan. It contains inter alia an excellent telegraphic code.
What strikes—and, if he sees it for the first time, amazes-— the English reader in this and other Canadian professional journals is the competitive advertising of the legal profession. Both The Barrister and the Canada Law journal positively teem with advertisements of which the following is a fair type :— “P. W. C. (formerly with D. and H., Barristers, . . . .), Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law, Commissioner for the Provinces. T. Building, Boston, Mass.
“ Aflidavits and other evidence for use in Provincial Courts carefully prepared. Special attention given to all Collections, Commercial Litigation, Probate and Equity Matters. (Reference, Hon. L. D . . . . . .).”
May it be long before we find such things in our own Law Times!
La Giustizia Penale, Rioista Critica Settimanale di Dottrina Giurisprudenza e Legislazione. Rome. january and February, 1897.
The names of Beccaria and Lombroso are sufficient to prove the high place which Italian writers have taken among authorities on penal law. This periodical is a combination of reported decisions, with leading articles on the subject treated. Both will be found very interesting by an English reader, and will introduce him to views, especially on the question of evidence, very far removed from those that are in favour in English practice. For instance, the gist of one decision is as
follows (p. 202) :—The President has jurisdiction to forbid a conference between the accused and his counsel until the former has been interrogated by the President.
These numbers contain interesting reports of criminal cases in the Italian Courts. The jury is very much in evidence ; the effect produced by many of the cases on the mind of an English lawyer is that trial by jury in Italy is itself on its trial, and one of the editors takes a very strong view in favour of its abolition.
judgment of His Honour the Chief Yastice in the Case of Brown v. Leyds, Delivered 22nd ]anuary, 1897. Pretoria : ]ohn Keith.
This is a reprint (revised by Chief ]ustice Kotzé himself) of the famous judgment deciding that the Grondwet of the South African Republic cannot be altered by a resolution of the Second Volksraad. The judgment will well repay perusal. It raises and disposes of numerous interesting questions as to the conflict of laws with the constitution.
The Harvard Law Review. Cambridge, Mass. March to june, 1897.
The articles which will be found most interesting on this side of the Atlantic will probably be those on “A Movement in English Legal Education " and “ The Incidence of Rent,” the latter by Mr. T. Cyprian Williams. There are notes of some curious cases, especially one raising the constitutionality of a provision in the charter of Kansas City inflicting a fine of two and a-half dollars on every qualified voter who failed to vote. On a delinquent voter objecting to pay the fine, the matter came before the Courts, and the provision was declared unconstitutional.
The American Law Register and Review. Philadelphia. January to ]une, 1897.
This is a publication somewhat in the nature of The Harvard Law Review, and contains an interesting summary of recent English and American cases grouped in each number under the title “ Progress of the Law." Here, as in the Harvard publication, constitutionality fills a large space. An instance is People v. Warren, a New York case mentioned on p. I88. There it was held that a statute making it a crime for a contractor to employ an alien as a labourer on public works violates the treaty between the United States and Italy, which provides that resident Italians shall enjoy the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States.
The Law and Privileges relating to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of England, with a History from the Earliest Periods, and a Series of K ing's Attorneys and Attorrlej/‘s and Solioitor's General from the Reign of Henry III . to the 60th of Queen Victoria. By JAMES WILLIAM NORTON KYSHE, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-atLaw, Registrar of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong. London : Stevens and Haynes. 1897.
The origin, development and incidents of the ofiices of the two leading law ofiices of the Crown are known in a dim and fragmentary fashion to most members of the legal profession, though few are aware of the number of decisions there have been upon their privileges and prerogatives. The work of Mr. Kyshe not only imparts instruction on this and other heads, but teems with interest in regard to every matter directly or indirectly concerning these prominent posts. The first part is historical; and we learn from it that much doubt and uncertainty exists as to who was the first Attorney-General, and that the oflice did not become a fixed institution till the reign of Edward IV., though before that there were many Attornati Regis. The first Solicitor-General was appointed in the same reign, in the person of one, Richard Fowler, at a salary of £10 a year. They do not appear to have had seats in the House of Commons till much later. The second portion of the work deals with their privileges, peculiarities, and disadvantages, the last of which appear chiefly to have, in former days, consisted in being brought into unpopularity and odium, through having to be the agents of the Crown in enforcing its exactions upon the nation. Indeed the work is replete with citations from reports of cases in State and other prosecutions; and the coarseness and vituperative nature of the language frequently occurring in the mouth of the Sovereign’s legal adviser would astonish us if used nowadays. The last portion of the work deals with the “right of reply," namely, having the last word in criminal prosecutions, which,