« PreviousContinue »
Court. By W. P. Pain, LL B., Barrister-at-Law 169
45, 117, 260
OBITER Dicta ...
I, 59, 139,
PROCEDURE IN Poetry. By James Williams, D.C.L.,
Taswell-LANGMEAD's English Constitutional History
Probates and Administrations
Femme Mariée ; Les Salaires de la Famille Ouvrière
KILBURN'S Admiralty Jurisdiction and
127 127 128 129 129 130
131 131 132 133 133 134 134
199 199 200
Chancery, A.D. 1364 to 1471
203 PLUMPTRE AND Mackay, Grant's Law Relating to Bankers 203 Jolly, Seaborne's Law of Real Property
203 Hodsoll, New System of Book-keeping for Solicitors 204 Dicey, Law of the Constitution
204 FOLKARD, Law of Slander and Libel
205 DE COLYAR, Law of Guaranties
206 BULLEN, Dodd, AND CLIFFORD, Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings
206 Macy, The English Constitution
208 BASTABLE, Theory of International Trade
208 DURANDO, Il Tabellionato o Notariato
208 PUBLICATIONS OF The Selden Society, Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, Vol. II., A.D. 1547-1602
271 ELTON AND Mackay, Robinson on Gavelkind
272 Bund, Oke's Game Laws
273 Encyclopædia of the Laws of England. Vol. II. ...
273 ODGERS, Six Lectures on the Outline of the Law of Libel 274 Birrell, Four Lectures on Employers' Liability at Home and Abroad
275 Gordon, Monopolies by Patents
276 Willis, Roman Law Examination Test
276 SHUTTLEWORTH, County Courts Act, 1888
276 KIME, International Law Directory
277 Kyshe, Law and privileges...
279 REMARKS ON THE SITUATION IN CRETE, SOME. By Th. Baty, Whewell Scholar of International Law
161 RIGHT OF COUNSEL TO BE INSTRUCTED BY LAY CLIENTS. By JUNIUS.
73 Sketch OF THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF MR. JUSTICE Maule. By A CONTEMPORARY. ...
3 The Late SIR TRAVERS Twiss. By THE EDITOR THIRTEENTH CENTURY STATUTES, Some. II. By G. J. Turner, Barrister-at-Law
240 QUARTERLY DIGFST OF ALL REPORTED CASES. By T. J.
Barnes, Barrister-at-Law. Vol. XXII. (Nov.,
I, 37, 55,
No. CCCII.- NOVEMBER, 1896.
Association was a memorable one. It was held at Saratoga Springs on August 19th, 20th and 21st. The President, Moorfield Storey, of Boston, Mass., was present, together with many eminent members of the American Bar. Lord Russell of Killowen delivered an address on International Arbitration, and on the same day Mr. Montague Crackanthorpe, Q.C., a member of the English Council of Legal Education, addressed the meeting on Legal Education. Sir Frank Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., was also present.
During the last month a curious incident occurred in London. A Chinese who was sought for by the authorities of his own country, and had come to London, was by some means taken into the Chinese Embassy there, and was not permitted to leave. Rumours of physical injury to the détenu were rife; the Foreign Office were requested by the friends of the détenu to intervene, with the result that the man was released. This raises a curious question of International Law, viz., whether an Ambassador can imprison or punish natives of his own country within the Embassy walls. On the one hand it may be said that the hótel of an Ambassador is inviolable; but on the other it may more justly be observed that this privilege is a
toleration by the Laws of the State, to which the public minister is accredited, and must not be abused. We commend Lord Salisbury for his firmness. But for this, we should next have heard of an Englishman being taken and imprisoned within the walls of one of the minor Embassies ; even of an Embassy being used as a gambling house, or a foundry for false coin.
The negligent manner in which witnesses are allowed to wander in and out of Court, during a trial, in this country ought not to be permitted. It is not uncommon practice for counsel on either side to ask at the beginning of a trial that all witnesses may be ordered out of Court. This is acceded to by the judge; but with what result ? A witness has told his tale, and passes out of Court, in many cases to tell the others what questions he has been asked, and what he has replied. This practice offers every facility for perjury.
Some lawyers may recollect the remarks made by Lord Justice (then Mr. Justice) Kay some years ago on this subject, and reported in the Times, 13th December, 1882, in the case of Horwood v. The L.C. Company. He said that he was greatly impressed with the inexpediency of having witnesses in Court during the whole progress of a case, and that he recently had an opportunity of observing the practice of the French Courts in that respect. In France a convenient room is provided for witnesses to wait in, and no witness is allowed into Court until his turn comes to be examined. His Lordship wished that this practice could be adopted here, for it was no uncommon thing to have witness after witness coming up and repeating parrot-like what they had heard the previous witnesses say. If some such rule as that to which he had alluded were made by a Supreme authority, it would, in his Lordship's opinion, be of great value.