INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN LIBELS By H. C. FOLKARD, Is Tompson v. Dashwood OVERRULED? By TH. BATY, Whewell ... ... ... INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES. By ... JOHN WILKES AND THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. THE ... LAW OF TREASON UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE. ... ... By T. W. 63 21 6 ... 213 MASTERS IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT. By W. P. PAIN, LL B., Barrister-at-Law 169 NOTES ON RECENT CASES (ENGLISH). By T. F. UTTLEY, 117 119 Change of Name of Registered Trade Mark Proprietor Sale of Private Business to a Limited Company Are Continuing Noises a Nuisance? A Case for Chambers 264 County Councils and Urban District Councils and Repair of ... ... Furnace, Slag Heap, and Quarries. 28688886 PROCEDURE IN POETRY. BY JAMES WILLIAMS, D.C.L., TASWELL-LANGMEAD'S English Constitutional History ... ... HARRIS'S Principles of the Criminal Law ... ... 53 ... 54 55 56 ... POLLOCK's First Book of Jurisprudence for Students in the ... ... RIVIER, Principes du Droit des Gens ... NYS, Études de Droit International et de Droit Politique The Yearly County Court Practice, 1897 ... ... 130 EDWARDS' Compendium of the Law of Property in Land 131 HAYCRAFT, Executive Powers in Relation to Crime and Publications of the Selden Society, Select Cases in Chancery, A.D. 1364 to 1471 ... ... Page 201 ... ... ... 202 203 The Yearly Abridgement of Reports, 1895-6 ... PLUMPTRE AND MACKAY, Grant's Law Relating to Bankers 203 JOLLY, Seaborne's Law of Real Property ... HODSOLL, New System of Book-keeping for Solicitors FOLKARD, Law of Slander and Libel DICEY, Law of the Constitution DE COLYAR, Law of Guarantees MACY, The English Constitution BULLEN, DODD, AND CLIFFORD, Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings ... PUBLICATIONS OF THE SELDEN SOCIETY, Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, Vol. II., A.D. 1547-1602 ... ... ... Encyclopædia of the Laws of England. Vol. II. ... RIGHT OF COUNSEL TO BE INSTRUCTED BY LAY CLIENTS. ... 73 THE LATE SIR TRAVERS TWISS. BY THE Editor QUARTERLY DIGEST OF ALL REPORTED CASES. BARNES, Barrister-at-Law. THE LAW MAGAZINE AND REVIEW. THE No. CCCII.- NOVEMBER, 1896. Obiter Dicta. HE nineteenth Annual Meeting of the American Bar 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 hôtel 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; or 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 an 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. |