were treated as a class. But the Court took hold of the words "or such of them as shall be alive at the death of my sister and myself." This, they thought, indicated an intention that if the number of the legatees was diminished before that time, the whole gift was to go among the diminished number; and they thought that it made no difference whether such diminution took place by the death of a legatee or by the act of the testator. "Down to the death of the survivor of the testator and his sister, the residuary legatees may be regarded as taking jointly."

It may be noted that in the recent case of In Re Whiting ([1913], 2 Ch. 1)-which was not cited in Watson v. Donaldson -another way of escape was found. There the will had given residue on trust to divide it equally between forty-six named persons; a codicil had revoked the gift of shares to two of these persons, and in all other respects had confirmed the will (as did the codicil in Watson v. Donaldson). It was held that, although this was not a class-gift, still there was no intestacy, but that the whole residue passed under the will as altered and re-published by the codicil, to the named persons, omitting the two whose gifts were revoked. Evidently, if In Re Whiting is correct, the rule in Creswell v. Cheslyn is in most cases practically gone. It would go unregretted by Joyce, J., who says, "after what has been said about Creswell v. Cheslyn by some of the most eminent judges, I suppose that, in any case that was precisely the same in all its circumstances, one ought to follow Creswell v. Cheslyn, leaving the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords to reverse the decision."

The Irish Land Act 1903, by sect. 48, provides that in normal cases a landlord-vendor, who sells lands to tenantpurchasers under the machinery of the Act, shall receive, in addition to the price which will ultimately be repaid by the tenant-purchasers to the Land Commission, a percentage or

"bonus" paid to him out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund. The attempt to define the legal nature of this bonus has led to some conflict of decision between English and Irish Courts. In Heard v. Gabbett ([1915], 1 Ir. R. 213), Ross, J., gives a further description of it, chiefly negative. It is not an interest in the lands sold, nor is it part of the proceeds of sale of the lands. The decision of Eve, J., in Tremayne v. Rashleigh ([1908], I Ch. 681), to the effect that it is an interest in the lands, is expressly disapproved. It is " a personal thing given as an inducement to an owner to sell lands "an improvement on the older and more vague description of the bonus as "a by-product of the sale." The present case held directly that it did not pass under a gift by will of "my property being sold to tenants under the Irish Land Act 1903 and the proceeds thereof when sold."

Without going into the facts of Murphy & Co., Ltd., v. Crean ([1915], 1 Ir. R. 111), some observations as to the nature of a publican's licence in Ireland, and the impossibility of severing the property in it from the property in the licensed premises, may be noted. Such a licence is an authority to a named person to carry on trade in a specified house. There is not in the whole licensing code any provision for the transfer of a licence from one house to another house. An attempt to create property in a licence, apart from the premises, is illegal. "A severance of licences from licensed premises, to be dealt with apart from and irrespective of the premises, and when separated to be manipulated in the interest of private individuals for their personal profit or gain, is not permitted by law."

A small difference in practice between Ireland and England is shown by Bradshaw v. McMullen ([1915],

2 Ir. R. 187); compare Williams v. Hunt ([1905], 1 K. B. 512). In Ireland, if a mortgagee issues an originating summons under Ord. LV, r. 7, there is no jurisdiction thereon to make a personal order for payment of the mortgage-debt. Therefore if the mortgagee, pending such proceedings, sues in the King's Bench Division on the covenant for payment, that action will not be stayed.

The decision of the majority of a Divisional Court in Allen & Sons v. King ([1915], 2 Ir. R. 213) has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal. As the decision on appeal has not yet been reported, full comment may be deferred until the report appears. It may here be noted that the case, in one aspect, involves a consideration of the effect of Hurst v. Picture Theatres, Ltd. ([1915], 1 K. B. 1), as to the irrevocability of a parol licence given for value and relating to land. By an unsealed writing A. gives to B. the right to affix posters and advertisements to the wall of a building proposed to be erected on A.'s premises by a company not yet formed, for four years from a given date or from the opening of the proposed building for business, in consideration of an annual payment. A. afterwards demises the premises to the company, who have notice of the licence, but whom A. does not effectively bind to give effect to it. The company refuse the permission granted by the licence; held, that B. can sue A. for damages.

J. S. B.

503

Reviews.

[SHORT NOTICES DO NOT PRECLUDE REVIEWS AT GREATER
LENGTH IN SUBSEQUENT ISSUES.]

War: Its Conduct and Legal Results. By T. BATY, D.C.L., LL.D., and J. H. MORGAN, M.A. London: John Murray. 1915.

The Authors are entirely justified in their claim that in this book they are breaking fresh ground. Works on International law of every complexion abound, but, as far as we know, not one dealing with the effect of War upon our own Municipal law is in existence. When we remember that, with one brief interval, this country has been free from European conflict for just a century, this omission is not surprising. During this period enormous changes have taken place in every department of human activity, which have given birth to new problems, or perhaps, as the Authors prefer to put it, to old problems in a new guise. Upon the effect of war upon the laws of the realm, the Common law has much to say. The safety of the realm and the prerogative of the Crown in relation thereto have in the past been fully discussed in the Courts, and the principles upon which the latter may be exercised have been declared. But the power of the Crown when England is "at war" without the English realm being in a state of war has not hitherto been explored adequately, if at all, by any writer. In this branch of the law and in many others doubt and confusion are only very slowly being dispelled by the decisions of the Court, and the emergency legislation, which is the subject of strong criticism by the Authors, has once more undergone revision by the Legislature. This book, however, is written less for the jurist than for the man in the street-"the man who is concerned about his duties, in the event of invasion, at home, and the soldier with his rights abroad, the special constable, the sheriff, the magistrate, the recruit, the trader, the shipowner, and the newspaper proprietor." Whilst, however, the Authors seek to make the law clear and simple for the average citizen, they do not hesitate to question the doubtful legality and the propriety of some recent Statutes. In the case of the Defence of the Realm Act, for instance, they doubt whether the Government under this Statute is entitled to issue new regulations outside the scope of those specified in the Act.

With regard to the trial of civilians by Courts-Martial, they take the view expressed in the last number of this Review, that whilst the King's Courts are sitting and juries can be empanelled, the subjection of the lives of private citizens to military law is entirely unjustifiable. That part of a single afternoon, they observe, should have been thought sufficient for the Committee stage of the Bill is a curious commentary on the vigilance of the House of Commons. Although both Authors accept a joint responsibility for the book as a whole, acting in consultation with each other throughout, each has undertaken those subjects with which he is especially conversant. Dr. Baty is a recognised authority on International law and Professor Morgan on Constitutional law. For the compilation of a work dealing with grave problems, only to be solved by a profound knowledge of both these subjects, the Authors constitute an exceptionally powerful combination.

A Manual on the Principles of Roman Law. By R. D. MELVILLE, K.C., M.A., LL.B. Edinburgh: W. Green & Son. 1915.

This book is primarily intended for the use of Egyptian law students. The Egyptian Native Codes are based principally upon the French Codes, and a sound knowledge of the principles of Roman law is therefore imperative for the Egyptian law student. Since the latter has no acquaintance with the Latin language, the ordinary text-books on Roman law are valueless, since it is impossible to expound the subject to him either directly or by way of commentary upon the Latin texts. The most practicable alternative, therefore, was to present a statement in such language as could be understood, and in such a manner as would compensate for a lack of classical education, of the main principles of Roman law. With this object the learned Author has treated, in self-contained divisions, the main principles of the Corpus Juris Civilis, relating to Persons, Property and Obligations, in so far as these form the foundation of modern legal science. Both in the historical Introduction and in the text Mr. Melville has, with marked success, indicated the course of the development of Roman legal institutions and principles, so essential to a true appreciation of any legal system. In addition to full citation of the Latin texts and other authorities, frequent references are made to the French Civil Code and to French authorities. A useful bibliography is added. An Advocate of the Scottish Bar and Professor of Roman Law in the Khedival School