Page images

use of the county generally. When the road was made a main road the sea had not encroached to the same extent as now, which rendered the question on whom lay the liability to repair damage done by storms, from time to time, a very serious one. The Court of Appeal held, therefore, that the local authority had no claim whatever against the County Council or those who happened to be on it, for any contribution towards the expenses that had been incurred in repairs. When, in 1883, the Justices of Kent dealt with the road and made an order declaring it to be a main road, did they mean to make the esplanade a part of the main road, and, if there was a highway and it required to be protected from the sea, could they build a sea-wall and put the expenses on the county ? The Court of Appeal held that in neither case could they do so. The inhabitants were under no obligation to keep the sea from a highway, and, if without being under an obligation, they chose to do so for their own purposes, they could not throw the expense on the people. The district council could not charge against the county any part of the expenses which they sought to charge against them.

Furnace Slag Heap and Quarries. The Midland Railway Company owned a slag heap at Willenhall, called the “Willenhall Slag Quarry." Slag, as is well known, is the refuse from blast furnaces, produced in the manufacture of pig-iron. The heap had been lying on the ground for nearly 11 years, and occupied a space of 15 acres, its face being 300 yards long and its height

In 1896 the railway company employed some men to loosen and pull down the slag with iron bars, and other men standing at the bottom of the heap were engaged in loading the slag into railway trucks for conveyance along the line to another place. At the place where the men

37 feet.



were working the face of the heap was 37 feet in height from the natural surface of the ground, the first 30 feet from the top being about 20 degrees out of the perpendicular. The mining inspector for the district contended that this heap was a mine and the slag a mineral within the meaning of the Quarries Act, 1894, and that a heap of such slag of large extent was quarry under the Act.

The inspector accordingly laid information against the railway company before the justices of Staffordshire at Willen hall, claiming that the company had committed an offence against the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, as applied to quarries by the Quarries Act, 1894, by failing to cause an abstract of the Act, with the name and address of the inspector of the district, and the name of the owner appended thereto, to be posted in legible character in some conspicuous place at the quarry. The justices, however, dismissed the information holding the slag heap did not come under the condition suggested by the inspector. The inspector took the case, Scott v. Midland Railway Company, to the Queen's Bench Division, but Mr. Justice Hawkins held that the justices were right and dismissed the appeal. The inspector's view was that in such a case as this the dangers from material were present, and it was against such dangers that the Acts provided safeguards. Of course, if wood were stacked, the same danger to men moving it was created, or of workmen pulling down a brick house. To hold that a slag heap was a mine and the slag a mineral, was, it was admitted by the inspector, stretching the ordinary meaning of words, and in that the Court evidently agreed by its dismissing the appeal.



Books Receibed.

The Publications of the Selden Society. Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty. Vol. II., A.D. 1547—1602. Bernard Quaritch, London, 1897. Price £1 8s.

Outline of the Law of Libel. By W. Blake Odgers, Q.C. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London, 1897. Price 3s. 6d.

Encyclopædia of the Laws of England. Under the General Editorship of A. Wood Renton, M.A., LL.B. Vol. II. Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd., London; and William Green & Sons, Edinburgh, 1897. Price £1.

International Law Directory, 1897. Edited and compiled by Philip Graburn Kime. Bowden, Hudson & Co., London, 1897. Price 7s. 6d.

Monopolies by Patents. By J. W. Gordon. Stevens & Sons, Ltd., London, 1897. Price 18s.

Robinson on Gavelkind. Fifth Edition. By Charles I. Elton, Q.C., and Herbert J. H. Mackay, LL.B. Butterworth & Co., London, 1897. Price 155.

Oke's Game Laws. Fourth Edition. By J. W. Willis Bund, M.A., LL.B. Butterworth & Co., London, 1897. Price 148.

The County Courts Act, 1888. By Edwin Shuttleworth. John Smith & Co., London, 1897. Price 5s.

Four Lectures on the Law of Employers' Liability at Home and Abroad. By Augustine Birrell, Q.C., M.P. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., London, 1897. Price 2s. 6d.

Roman Law Examination Test. By W. Addington Willis, LL.B. Butterworth & Co., London, 1897. Price 6s.


“ The Pacific Blockade of Crete.”—Mr. Th. Baty, referring to the note by Dr. Gover on this subject, at pp. 184-5, writes to us :—Dr. Gover thinks that we who assert that pacific blockade is war merely object to the

The objection lies a great deal deeper than that. A power which initiates a blockade and calls it “pacific,” will consider itself to be at peace. It will claim all the advantages of being at peace, and this is what it is submitted should be impossible. These advantages are neither trivial nor few. They comprise relief from constitutional embarrassments, exemption from the reproach of breaking the peace of the world, permission to enjoy neutral assistance, and freedom from the fear of military surprise. And, no doubt, this does not exhaust the list of conveniences.

“A Question of Legitimacy.” - At p. 173, line 24, read “ leur enfant, leur mariage, en quelque lieu.And at p. 174, for $ 192 read $ 55.



Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty. Vol. II., A.D. 1547—1602. Edited for the Selden Society by ReginaLD G. MARSDEN. London : Bernard Quaritch. 1897.

We reviewed the first volume of this interesting compilation in our February Number, 1896, and we are pleased to see the compilation continued in the volume before us. It begins with the history of the Court of Admiralty, and follows with an account of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the seaports—wrecks, droits and salvage; also of prohibitions, early references to the Admiralty Court, summary of cases litigated in the Admiralty 1528—1602, a series of exemplifications and examinations, and some remarks on the records subsequent to the reign of Elizabeth.

Notwithstanding the determined attack upon the Admiralty Court by the Common Law judges, the business' transacted by it during the seventeenth century was very considerable. Its character is very similar to that of the sixteenth century. Forty-five prohibitions were issued during the first eight years of the reign of James I. In the view of the Common Law judges, the Admiralty had no jurisdiction in most of the matters with which it had hitherto dealt. Collision in a county, wreck (or salvage), charter-parties, bills of lading, bottomry, wages, piracy and even prize were all held to be matters for prohibition. Nevertheless the Court, whether by right or by sufferance, went on very much as before until the Restoration. During the Commonwealth, its business seems even to have increased, owing, probably, to an Ordinance of Parliament which declared or gave the jurisdiction which it claimed. With the Restoration, the attack of the Common lawyers upon the Court began afresh, encouraged by the disfavour which then attached to all the doings of the Commonwealth, including the recent settlement of the Admiralty jurisdiction. The efforts of Sir Leoline Jenkins to induce Parliament to confirm that settlement, and their final failure, are historical; ample references to them occur in the Admiralty Court records. The decadence of the Court dates from this period. Admiralty lawyers then gave up a hopeless struggle with the Common Law judges, and the business of the

Court rapidly declined. During the eighteenth and early part of the nineteenth century, the business consisted principally of piracy, salvage, collision, wages and bottomry suits, but the amount of the business was trifling, compared with that of former years; and the jurisdiction, even in these matters, was questioned by occasional prohibitions.

Notwithstanding one or two prohibitions in matters of prize, the jurisdiction upon this subject was never seriously contested, and it was finally recognized towards the end of the eighteenth century. The separation of prize from instance business appears to have been made shortly after the Restoration, partly in consequence of conflicting claims of Charles II. and the Duke of York, the Admiral, to certain droits. From this time the instance and prize records are kept distinct.

Extracts from the records of the High Court of Admiralty, together with their translations, take up the greater part of the volume. We must congratulate the editor on the able manner in which he has designed and carried out this laborious task, which cannot fail to cast a new vista on the proceedings of our ancient Admiralty.

Robinson on Gavelkind : the Common Law of Kent, with additions relating to Borough-English and similar Customs. By Charles I. ELTON, of Lincoln's Inn, Q.C., and HERBERT J. H. MACKAY, LL.B., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition. London : Butterworth & Co. 1897.

In some 250 pages a great deal of information is contained concerning the Common Law of Kent. All lands whatsoever lying in the county of Kent are presumed to be of the nature of gavelkind till the contrary be made to appear. Lord Hale says that such presumption is not allowed in any other county, but the person claiming the benefit will be bound to prove the custom. The descent of lands in Kentish gavelkind has long been settled as being among all the sons or their representatives, and in default among all the daughters or their representatives, and so in the case of the males and females in other degrees. The history of this peculiar tenure is a sealed book to many lawyers; hence it is with pleasure that we welcome the new edition of this work, which is well brought down to date, and will be found very reliable by those practitioners who have to deal with the matters in question.

« PreviousContinue »