« PreviousContinue »
enjoyment which he contended ought now to continue, it was an enjoyment clam, not openly, and consequently not of right.
Martin B. added, that if he had been one of the jury, he should have found a. verdict for the defendants on the ground stated by Bramwell B. ; but, if that was the correct view of the case, it was a question for the jury, and not one of law.
On the judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Baron, we have but one remark to make. It is this :-—Lord Campbell, in Hu-mphries v. Brogden, does not appear to have intimated that the rule suggested by him was applicable to the case of support of building by building. The ruling of Lord Ellenborough in Stansell v. Jollard, and of Parke. B. in Hide v. ffliornborough, applies only to cases of support of buildings by the adjoining soil ; and we apprehend that it was not the intention of Lord Campbell to extend the rule to the case of support of building by building.
["',,‘ It should be understood that the notices of new works forwarded to us for review, and which-appear in this part of the Magazine, do not preclude our recurring to t-hem at greater length, and in a more elaborate form, in a subsequent Number, when their character and importance seem to require it.]
Social Science Papers.—Papers of the Social Science Association, 1859.
\VE were unable to do more in our last Number than briefly notice the doings of the Social Science meeting at Bradford in the autumn of 1859. The papers read on that occasion are now before us, and we refer to them with a view more particularly of drawing attention to what this Association is effecting, or promises to effect, in matters relating to the amendment of the laws of Great Britain. In other departments of science which are within the scope of the Association, many other topics as interesting will be found discussed, which, though by no means beyond the fixed limits which this Review proposes to itself, are yet less immediately connected with the lawyer’s profession, and the material he has daily to deal with.
There is a natural and necessary connection between social science and the construction and application of the law. The state of the laws of a country may affect its social condition, by either interfering unduly with the relations between man and man, or by omitting to enforce the rules which are properly within its province ; or, finally, by adopting a machinery for the purpose, which, by being cumbersome, costly, deceptive, or inappropriate, produces an effect injurious to the welfare of the community. Any scientific consideration of the con~ dition of society, or of the laws of a country, which did not embrace the investigation of the mutual relations of society, and the jurisprudence under which it exists, would be imperfect. The measures which concern the prevention and punishment of crime, the reform of the criminal, the modes of enjoying and disposing of property, of making contracts, of protecting the lives and liberties of the inhabitants of a country, fall strictly within the limits of the Association. The remarks in the paper by the common serjeant (Mr. Thomas Chambers) are very pertinent to this subject (wide, p. 159, et seq.) Mr. Chambers illustrates the effect upon society of legislation on commerce, and shows the working of our laws of debtor and creditor, the bankruptcy and insolvency system of our revenue laws, and those which affect capital and labour; and he comments forcibly on the moral effect on national character of the old practice of rendering obligatory in trivial matters “ oath taking.”
The address of Lord Brougham at the meeting at Bradford has been too widely circulated to justity us in giving an account of it here, or making extracts from it. It will be referred to in future times as a landmark by which the present state of society and of law may be judged, and the progress we are making in jurisprudence be measured. If the Association l1ad done nothing else, they would have done much in evoking this eloquent and valuable statement of what has been done, is doing, and yet remains to be donei It is indisputably one of the most important of the records of the last yeai-’s meeting.
Sir W. P. Wood's speech contains a valuable review of the condition of certain portions of our law, and will be also read with great profit. So also the paper by Mr. W. T. S. Daniel, “ On the Recent Reform in the Court of Chancery,” which has particular reference to this court, “ as it is, not as it was,” deserves attention, emanating as it does from a practical and practised lawyer. There are papers of interest upon the transfer of land and registration of title in this volume—sub_jects of which we have in previous Numbers fully treated. On the whole, the collection of papers before us justifies us in anticipating a career of growing usefulness for the Association.
The Common-Law Procedure Act, 1852 and 1854 ; by Thomas Hugh Markham. Second Edition. Robertson, 1860.
~ As we felt it our duty, in a preceding Number of this Review, to express dissatisfaction with two of Mr. Markham’s productions, we have the greater pleasure in being able to give now very considerable praise to the second edition of his useful work on the Common-Law Procedure.
The great revolution made in the practice of the Common-Law Courts by the Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854, and the various rules and orders of the judges made in connection therewith, rendered a large portion of the old books of practice useless ; and a demand arose not only for new elaborate works of the same character, but also for a book which, taking for granted a previous knowledge in its readers of the old practice, should point out the changes that had been effected, while it ofiered to the practitioners a vade mecum sufiicient for many of the matters of practice and pleading which are of daily occurrence.
At this modest and useful object we understand Mr. Markham to have aimed ; and, we think, he has attained it. He has not attempted any disquisition, nor travelled from this object in any way ; but in a small compass he has given the Procedure Acts, Rules, a11d directions as to taxation of costs, &c. &c. Under each section of the acts are collected and abstracted all the numerous and important decisions relating thereto ; the compiler giving very often, as he says, the 1Ipsissima verba of the learned judges. Moreover, with not a few of the principal rules he has pursued the same useful plan, subjoining thereto any decisions relating to them.
» By the arrangement which Mr. Markham has adopted, the practiioner, in the hurry of N isi Prim, or of the practice at judges’ chambers,
cm, at a moment’s notice, note the current of authorities bearing upon points as they turn up from time to time.
' The index to the second edition is a great improvement on that of the last, though there are still one or two deficiencies in this respect. Some few inaccuracies, moreover, we have discovered in the references to cases. This is an error which law-books should be free from ; for though in those we have noticed we have been able speedily to rectify the blunders, still few things are more annoying at times than to have to look twice before you can find the case referred to. There is one thing, too, we must observe: the book much wants a good table of contents, well paged, the utility of which, in a work of this sort, is most obvious, and Mr. Markham need not fear to have one ; it would only serve to show how much he has contrived to put into a very small compass.
The Law of Torts or Private Wrongs. By Francis Hilliard. 2 vols; Bostoni Little, Brown, & Co., 1859. .
WE have not hitherto been able to examine the above important work so closelyas it deserves, or we intend. It must suflice us in this Number to mention the publication of what we believe holds forth promise of being accepted as a valuable addition to legal literature. In his preface Mr. Hilliard says, “Torts, so far as I am informed, have never as such been discussed in any treatise or abridgment.” This was so, we are inclined to think, until the publication of Mr. Broom’s commentaries, the third book of which is not only directed to this subject, but is, \ve think, perhaps one of the most successful and scientific portions of it. In Selwyn’s “ Nisi I"rius,” moreover, there will be found spread about much valuable matter relating to the Law of Torts. Nevertheless there is room for Mr. Hilliard’s book, if it be, as we hope to find it is, the able and thorough work of a. careful lawyer.
Costs in the Superior Courts of Common Law, and Probateiand Divorce, and in Conveyancing, Bankruptcy, &c., and in the Procedure under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. By John
Scott, Esq., of the Inner Temple. Second Edition. London:
Stevens and Norton, l8Gfl.
Ir has been said of old, “ If a man will not work, neither shall he eat.” But it will equally hold of the legal profession, that “if the lawyer be not paid, neither will he work!” and to be paid he must know how to make his charges. For reasons, the validity of which we do not now discuss, attorneys and solicitors are paid under the fostering care of statutory enactment ,' and, to obtain remuneration for their
labour, they must know thoroughly the theory and practice relating to “bills of costs.” If it requires science in a. lawyer to do his work well, it demands also considerable technical art to charge for it properly. We have known men who understood either of these branches of their calling to the exclusion of the other. Now, though Mr. Scott's work will not assist any man of law in finding out what he ought to do in those matters strictly legal, which must be preliminary to the time of payment ; yet it is an excellent-—nay, an essential—oflicecompanion when that auspicious moment arrives for obtaining the due reward of services done; or, in other words, when the clerk is making out the “bill of costs.”
Mr. Scott's book, now before us, has reached a. second edition, and contains many improvements on, and additions to, the former one. Armed with a. copy of this publication, the ingenious and skilful solicitor--who of course is one of our readers--may not only, with greater facility and accuracy, substantiate his own claim for payment for his eminent services, but he may haply detect and annihilate the iniquitous overcharge of some avaricious professional man, who of course is not among our readers. l