consisting of Lord President Inglis, and Lords Deas, Mure, and Shand. Some English cases on the law of libel were quoted in argument, but the court based its judgment upon the special character of its own proceedings. Indeed, it might have been better if no reference had been made to English law, for Lord Deas is reported in the Scotsman as curiously misrepresenting our proceedings in a case of libel. The principle of the Scotch decision, so far as we are competent to disentangle it, is to the following effect. The right of publishing legal proceedings is merely a recognition of the fact that courts of justice are open to the public. Whatever reporters hear in open court, that they may publish, subject, of course, to certain admitted exceptions; and their reports will be protected by the plea of privilege. But newspapers have no such right to publish ex parte proceedings in an action, before they have been made public in open court, and at a stage when the other side has no opportunity of being heard in reply or explanation. So stated, the decision appears to be, not only good sense, but also in harmony with the practice of English law. It is difficult to imagine how circumstances identical in every respect could arise in this country. But if any one, whether newspaper proprietor or party to an action, were to venture to publish a statement of claim containing matter prima facie libellous, he would gain little by pleading privilege. There is, indeed, a class of English cases strongly corroborative of this opinion, which do not appear to have been cited before the Scotch court. These all have to do with the doctrine of contempt of court, and are confined to the chancery reports. So far back as Roach v. Garvan (2 Dick. 794) it was held a contempt for a party to publish his brief before the suit came on. In Vernon v. Vernon (19 W. R. 404) the plaintiff, having himself supplied a statement of his case to a local newspaper, moved that the newspaper proprietor should be committed for publishing adverse comments. Bacon, V.C., refused to make any order in the matter. But the nearest case is that of Cheltenham v. Swansea Wagon Company (17 W. R. 463, L. R. 8 Eq. 580), in which Malins, V.C., held it to be contempt of court for a newspaper to publish, before it was heard, a petition for the winding up of a company, which contained grave charges against the directors. AN INTERESTING POINT on the law of horses, not yet, so far as we know, decided by any reported English case, has recently been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court of Maine. Who is responsible for the cost of medicine and veterinary surgeon's attendance on a horse which has been hired and falls sick during the hiring? According to Pothier (Louage, § 129) if a horse which is lent for a journey falls sick, the expenses of the treatment must be paid by the lender. So the American Court held, and Barrows, J., in delivering judgment, is reported to have explained the reasons for his decision as follows [We are not responsible for the judge's English]: "Upon whom, then, as between the hirer and the owner, should the expense of keeping and caring for the defendant's horse which became diseased and sick while in the hirer's hands' fall? Up to the time when he fell sick it was the hirer's business to furnish him at his own proper expense with meat for his work. But how was it when he could no longer lawfully use him under his contract? Unless the horse was disabled through some fault or neglect of the hirer, the owner is the one who bears the burdens occasioned by his failure to perform the work for which he was hired, and among them would be the expense of the care and cure of the animal-an expense which enures directly to his benefit. There would be good reason for holding that in such a case the hirer is the agent of the owner to procure such reasonable and necessary sustenance and farrier's attendance as might be required until the animal could be got home." THE LUNACY LAWS. THE recent case of Nowell v. Williams has recalled attention to the subject of the Lunacy Laws so far as these authorize the forcible detention, without public inquiry, of persons alleged to be lunatics. It is not, we think, too much to say that, if the law had been contrived for the express purpose of facilitating the wrongful imprisonment of sane persons who, from whatever cause, had become obnoxious to their own relatives, it could hardly have been more accurately adapted to that end. It is not a very unusual phenomenon to find an heir who considers that his ancestor is keeping him too long out of his inheritance, and who would not be sorry to find some means of at least securing that it shall not be permanently diverted from him by the marriage, testacy, or conveyance of the present owner. If the latter should be, as is not unfrequently the case, a somewhat testy old gentleman, the thing is done. Or, again, the memory of a good many of our readers will carry them back to the case of a young man, of considerable property and very extravagant habits, who was incarcerated on a charge of lunacy, which, when it came to be investigated before a jury, proved to be the most baseless of inventions. True, in this case the alleged lunatic was in a position to require the solution of the question of his sanity or insanity by verdict, because it was necessary, for the purposes of the incarceration, to have him found lunatic by inquisition, and he was fortunate enough to be in communication with a legal adviser possessed of sufficient determination and energy to insist upon his rights. But it would be as absurd to defend the present state of the law, on the ground that it failed in this case to do a permanent injustice, as to adduce the fact that other persons have managed to escape from the asylums to which they have been consigned as a defence for their original incarceration. It is only too well known to those who have made it their business to look into this question that persons under detention, rightly or wrongly, as lunatics, in so-called private asylums, are not in general informed of their rights, and that should the keeper of the asylum and the person at whose instance. the alleged lunatic is detained-that is to say, the twopersons most interested in prolonging the detentiondesire to keep him in ignorance of the safe guards which the law has thrown round his liberty, such as they are, no efficient means for preventing them from doing so are provided by the law as it now stands. Once let the alleged lunatic find his way into the private asylum, and. his chance of communication of any sort with the world without depends-in the absence of such a combination of fortuitous circumstances as is seldom seen and can never be relied on-entirely upon the good-will of the very people who, if he be really sane, or even of doubtful sanity, are vitally interested in preventing any such communication. But, it may be said, the law so carefully guards the liberty of the individual in the first instance that it may fairly be presumed that no one is detained as a lunatic whose conduct has not, at any rate,. afforded strong grounds for the belief that he is of unsound mind. Let us see what is the protection afforded in this respect. Two medical men, neither of whom need have, or ordinarily in fact have, any special acquaintance with the subject, call upon the patient,. with whom they need not have, and frequently have not, any previous acquaintance whatever, not at his own instance, but at that of some third person who may have, and not seldom has, very strong grounds for desiring the lunacy of his relative; they may be, and generally are, carefully primed by their client with the questions likely to bring out the "delusions"-in other words, to excite the irritability-of the victim, who may be, and. almost invariably is, utterly ignorant of the object of their visits, and thus taken completely off his guard; if, as the result of a single interview so conducted, the patient is provoked to a hasty expression, or a movement of irritation, or if, from whatever motive, he expresses what can be tortured into an assent to any of the alleged delusions (which may be, for all the doctor knows, perfectly true, and not “delusions" at all), the successful operator retires, with an easy conscience, to put his signature to a document, on the faith of which, without any opportunity of meeting it, without even any communication to him of its existence, the person therein certified to be of unsound mind may be summarily arrested and imprisoned for the term of his natural life! We are aware that a select committee of the House of Commons some years ago reported that they had not been able to discover any cases of injustice under the operation of these laws; but that very fact goes far to prove the inefficiency of the means proIf a case vided for the investigation of the question. like that of Dr. Nowell could be brought to light, as this has been, as it were by accident, it requires a wonderful amount of faith to believe that it really is an isolated instance and not a type of a very much larger class which, for the most part, remain undiscovered and unremedied. was The jury in Dr. Nowell's case appended to their verdict an expression of opinion that the existing law as to the necessary medical certificates insufficient, and they made the absurdly futile recommendation that the medical witnesses should in future, like the witnesses to a will, sign in one another's presence. How that proposed alteration could, under any circumstances, affect the question beneficially to the alleged lunatic it is not easy to see; we think it will not be difficult to show that its effect, so far as appreciable at all, would be in the opposite direction. But this opens up a question too long to be dealt with within the We have endeavoured, as limits of a single article. briefly as we could, to point out the evil; we hope at an early opportunity to suggest the appropriate remedy. FARM LEASES. III. An indignant agriculturalist of the last generation con- when few landowners had their common forms of farm of his district. Whatever may have been its origin, however, the covenant to which we refer held its ground for some time, and it is still to be found (in a slightly modified shape) in a form of agricultural lease given in the last edition of a standard modern collection of precedents. The advantages of defining in the lease the obligations as to cultivation binds the lessee to cultivate "accord- 66 quitting are carefully specified, and in several the course of cultivation during the tenancy is provided for with more or less minuteness. And in the so-called "landlord's lease " for a term of years, given in this work-i.e., a form of lease with "covenants expressly adapted to the security of the landlord"—elaborate provision is made for the adoption of the four or five-course system of cultivation; for the duties of the off-going tenant and for the allowances to be made to him on quit"that no local usage or ting; and it is also provided custom of the country shall have any effect upon the tenancy created under this lease, but the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall depend only upon the terms of this indenture and upon the general law." And another form, which is described by this author as a very good specimen of the ordinary agricultural lease," prescribes the four-course system, and provides that the landlord shall pay at a reasonable fodder price for the hay, straw, and chaff left by the out-going tenant, also for seeds sown in the last spring of the term, and for folding sheep on the clover lays in the last year for the benefit of the incoming tenant. We may take it, therefore, that the ordinary covenants as to cultivation, which a quarter of a century before not unfrequently simply expressly prescribed as the guide the custom of the country without defining it, had, before 1850, grown into provisions complete in themselves, and excluding the custom. And as to allowances on quitting it is to be observed that not only were the ordinary payments for hay, &c., and for the seeds sown in the last spring, expressly provided for, but there now appear, for the first time so far as we have observed, in a few of the agreements for yearly tenancies before referred to (notably in Lord De Grey's and Mr. Tollemache's forms), provisions for compensation for draining, claying, and other unexhausted improvements. In order to trace the direction and extent of the changes which have occurred during the last quarter of a century in the provisions of farm leases, so as to complete our sketch of the history of the subject, probably the best course will be to compare the form of farm agreement employed thirty years or so ago on the estates in Derbyshire of a nobleman, with the form in use with reference to the same estates at a recent date. We select this case as a fair illustration, because the common forms used on the estates of great noblemen are not altered without much consideration and wide inquiry, and are seldom in advance of the times. In the form of agreement in use thirty years ago, the tenant was made to agree, with regard to cultivation of the farm, that he would not break up any meadow or old pastureland; that he would return to the land two tons of purchased manure for every ton of hay sold which had grown thereon; and would spread on the land all manure, &c., made on the premises; and that he would not "do any injury to any part of the said land by excessive or irregular ploughing, cropping, or mowing, or in any other manner' [as to this last matter the agreement was clearly behind the age]. As to allowances on quitting, the agreement provides that the outgoing tenant shall be paid for growing crops of wheat sown on a summer fallow; for the unconsumed hay, straw, and fodder of the growth of the preceding season, and for the unexpended manure and compost, "this payment to be in lieu of all other payments and compensations, notwithstanding any law, custom, or usage to the contrary." The Reviews. LEGAL DIARIES. LEGAL DIARY AND ALMANACK FOR 1880, &c. Edited by This strikes us as a very well arranged and complete legal diary. The size is convenient and the paper of good quality. Lists are given of counsel practising in London and of London and country solicitors, and, in addition to the other information common to these publications, we observe a list of stamp duties on instruments from 1804 to the present time, and an index to the important statutes from an early period. The digest of statutes of last session we suppose has become a recognized part of all these diaries, but the room it occupies might be better employed. THE LAWYER'S COMPANION AND DIARY FOR 1880. Edited by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Son; Shaw & Sons. We have so often noticed the successive issues of this work that little remains to be said beyond the remark that the present issue will sustain the reputation of the book. General Correspondence. To CORRESPONDENTS.-All letters intended for publication in the "Solicitors' Journal" must be authenticated by the name of the writer. The Editor cannot undertake to return MSS. forwarded to him. UNDERLEASES. Turning now to the more recent agreement, we find, in addition to provisions restrictive of the ploughing up of old grass land, an absolute prohibition of the sale of any "produce" without the agent's written permission, and a provision that the tenant shall have at least one-fifth of the arable land in clover, summer or turnip fallow in every year; that he shall, with the first crop of corn after such fallow, sow good clover or other seed, and that he shall not take more than two white crops without a summer or turnip fallow intervening. But it is in respect of the compensation for the outgoing tenant that the most remarkable change occurs. simple provision of the old agreement has swollen to a series of elaborate clauses, occupying nearly as much space as the rest of the agreement, and arranging under thirteen heads the various subjects in respect of which compensation may be claimed by the outgoing tenant. The standard precedents of leases in use in our day | ing Society (27 W. R. 793, 877), decided by the Master show a like advance in the direction of definite provision and restriction. Thus in the volume of Davidson's Precedents relating to leases, it will be found that in every form of purely agricultural lease the system of cultivation to be adopted is specified in more or less detail, and the tenant is bound to consume all hay, straw, and root crops on the premises. The result to the tenant of the change from the comparative freedom and indefiniteness of the custom (first impliedly incorporated in his lease and then incorporated by express general reference) to the definite, inflexible and detailed provisions of the modern cultivation covenant, has not, so far as we know, been much observed, but it appears to be little short of a revolution. Mr. Justice Bowen has accepted an invitation from the Western Circuit to dine with the members of the bar mess at the Albion tavern, Aldersgate-street, on this day, Satur day, November 29. The conviction of Fullagar for appropriating to his own use property intrusted to him for safe custody has been affirmed by the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved. Sir Henry J. S. Maine, K.C.S.I., was entertained at dinner at Oxford on Saturday last, on the occasion of his resigning the chair of jurisprudence and in recognition of the great services rendered by him to legal study. The dinner, which took place in the hall of All Soul's College, was given by the professors and lecturers in law, and others, resident and non-resident, connected with the teaching of law at Oxford. The Regius Professor of Civil Law (Mr. Bryce) presided, and there were also present Lord Selborne, the Right Hon. Mountague Bernard; Dr. Clark, Regius Professor of Civil Law at Cambridge; Dr. Stubbs, Regius Professor of Modern History; Sir Travers Twiss Q.C., Mr. Horace Davey, Q.C. (counsel to the University), Sir Matthew Ridley, Dr. Tristram, and others. [To the Editor of the Solicitors' Journal.] Sir,-The recent case of Stocker v. The Planet Build of the Rolls, and affirmed on appeal, appears to be one property. Shortly stated, the point decided is that a of very great importance to the owners of leasehold lessee who has underlet has no power to enter on the lessee's covenants as to repairing, &c., contained in the demised premises for the purpose of fulfilling the original lease, even with a view to avoid a threatened re-entry, unless an express authority to enter and do such forfeiture by the superior landlord under his proviso for repairs has been reserved by the underlease. But, It has not, I believe, hitherto been usual to reserve supposed, no doubt, either that the underlessee might be any such power or authority in underleases, it being trusted to do the repairs, or that the superior landlord would not interfere as long as his rent was paid. after the above-mentioned decision, it is clear that any professional man will incur a very serious responsibility if he allows his client to grant an underlease which does not reserve to the underlessor power to enter and fulfil the repairing and painting covenants contained in the original lease, and to charge the underlessee with the expense. At the same time, it is obvious that such a power might become a source of very serious annoyance to the underlessee if the underlessor or his agent were disagreeable; it would be no joke for a man on returning to town painted at his expense in his absence, under the direcafter his holiday to find that his house had been retion of his landlord's agent, who might be a 66 decorator." The amount of house property held by underlease in London and its neighbourhood is so vast that it would be very desirable if those members of the profession who are concerned in its management could come to some understanding as to the best means of providing for the point above referred to. And I venture to trouble you with these lines in the hope that they may draw attention to the subject. CONVEYANCER. Bailey, N. C. Holmes, R., jun. Horne, F. W. Horsfield, A. R. Stuart, R. E. Wilkinson, W. H. Williams, F. D. Williams, T. E. Wilson, E. H. Turner, F. W. T. Vakeel, H. N. Wilson, E. T. Jenkyn, H. 0. Wallis, R. B. Yeoman, W. J. Jennings, F. J. Huelin, E., B.A. Hyde, R. Jennings, J. T. Keighley, H. G. Leeman, F., B.A. Lilley, C. E. Lilley, H. L. Naden, J. Neale, T. B. Nicholson, E. F. Pocock, P. W. Randall, E., B.A. Rivington, A. W., B.A, Scale, R. Simpson, H. J. G. Somerville, S. E. COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. Regulations for the Examination of Students on the Subjects In December next there will be four examinations, one in the subject of the lectures given by each professor, open (subject, as hereinafter mentioned), to all students who have during the year attended the lectures of any of the professors, but no student will be admitted to the examination in the subjects of the lectures of any professor unless he shall have attended at least two-thirds of the lectures given during the year by such professor. No student will be admitted to more than two examinations; and no student who shall have obtained a studentship will be admitted to any such examination. After the examinations the following prizes will, on the recommendation of the committee, be given (that is to say): To the students who shall have passed the best examination in the subjects of the lectures of each professor :First prize, £50; second prize, £25; third prize, £15; fourth prize, £10. And a first and second prize of £70 and £30 respectively, to the students who obtain the greatest aggregate number of marks in the examination in the subjects of the lectures given by any two of the professors. No student will be entitled to more than one prize, but a student will receive the prize of the highest value to which he shall appear to be entitled. The committee will not be obliged to recommend any of the above prizes to be awarded if the result of the examination be such as, in their opinion, will not justify such recommendation. The examinations will take place at Lincoln's-inn Hall, and will commence on Thursday, the 18th of December, 1879. Students who propose offering themselves for examination must enter their names personally on or before Wednesday, the 10th of December, at the office of the Council of Legal Education, Lincoln's-inn Hall. The examinations will be partly oral and partly in writing, by means of printed papers and questions. discussed by the Law Students' Debating Society. These questions were, "Is the tendency of modern times towards the obliteration of national distinctions in Europe ?" and "Is honesty the best policy ?" "The author of the remarks appears to object to the first of these questions as being so wide that it could not by possibility have been thoroughly discussed. If the society "had eat continuously for a few weeks, perhaps some answers worth having might have been obtained; but the notion of answering such a question in an hour or two, is somewhat absurd." Debating societies, whether legal or other, are societies for debate. They exist for the purpose of educating their members in the expression of thought. It is not, at least, their primary purpose to obtain answers worth having to questions propounded. To evoke debate, ths questions chosen must be of a kind to excite interest and secure the attendance of members. It will not, I imagine, be the solitary experience of the committee of the Law Students' Debating Society, that those questions excite most interest, and bring together the largest number of members, which are somewhat general in their terms and wide in their scope. Both the questions mentioned above justified the choice of them by the interest evinced by the attendance of members when they were discussed, and by the character of the debates which arose upon them. "I do not think the society to which I belong flatters itself that the conclusions at which it arrives upon any subject are of great importance to the world at large. But I am sure that in a debate of an hour or two upon the questions under consideration, much was said worth listening to, and tending both to excite thought and to define opinion. "The first question was really much narrower than the second. As regards the latter, I may take this opportunity of correcting an impression, which seems to have got abroad, that we abandoned the venerable conclusion that "honesty is the best policy." But, if you will put this proposition in an interrogative form to those accustomed to accept it as a truism, I think you will be astonished to find how little they really understand its real significance, and how imperfectly they perceive the nature of the truth which it contains, and which will secure its permanence. Many members of the Law Students' Debating Society will, doubtless, owe to the debate in which they took part a more intelligent appreciation of its meaning and a more confirmed belief in its truth. "I should occupy too much of your space if I entered upon the consideration of other points which the remarks in your journal suggest. I desire only on this occasion to refer to the two questions discussed by the Law Students' Debating Society, which were commented upon by you, and to justify the selection of them. It is the habit of that society to discuss general as well as legal questions, and in the selection of the latter as well as of the former it is the inclination of the committee to choose questions of larger rather than of more limited scope. They believe that in this inclination they are justified by the character of the debates which such questions evoke, and by the prosperous condition of the society, which they cannot but feel gratified to find that you characterize as 'excellently conducted."" Upon this letter we have only to remark that we entirely agree that debating societies are societies for debate But by debate we do not understand the utterance of snippets of knowledge or random observations made on the spur of the moment. Our impression is that questions of too general a character encourage the tendency to this sort of talk, and tempt members to attend by the prospect of being able to say something without previous preparation or trouble. LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. This society held its weekly meeting at the Law Institution on Tuesday evening last. A paper was read by Mr. J. A. Neale, B.A., entitled "The Wars of the Roses: A Review of Eight Dramas of Shakespeare," and was followed by a discussion in which Messrs. E. Beresford, B.A., Cowdell, Hemsley, Napier, A. Austin, and A. M. Ellis took part. Mr. Neale succeeded in raising by his remarks a good debate, and though he did not escape adverse criticism a general tribute was paid to the excellence of his paper. A vote of thanks was cordially passed to Mr. Neale at the conclusion of the meeting. UNITED LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of the above society was held at Clement'sinn Hall on the evening of Wednesday last, when the subject for debate was "That the action for breach of promise of marriage should be abolished." Mr. F. B. Moyle opened in the affirmative, and a well-sustained discussion ensued, in which several visitors participated.__ Messrs. J. C. McColla, A. Rahman, Eustace Smith, R. G. Templer, C. Kains-Jackson, and W. C. Owen supported the opener, and Messrs. Bateman Napier, E. Foâ, Parker Seeton, H. G. Maxwell, of the Oxford Union, and another opposed. Mr. Moyle replied, and the chairman (Mr. Shirley Shirley) put the motion to the vote, when it was carried by a majority of seven. A meeting of the above society was held on Wednesday last, at Clement's-inn Hall, Strand, when Mr. W. H. Kelke opened in the affirmative the subject for debate, viz :"That the law of primogeniture should be abolished, and the settlement of real estate limited to a life or lives in being." In the discussion which followed Messrs. C. Parsons, Henderson, and A. Spokes supported, and Messrs. Rundle, Levy, R. G. Templer, and R. T. D. Acland opposed the opener, who having replied, the chairman put the motion to the vote, when it was carried by a majority of four. On Wednesday, December 10, there will be a joint debateat Clement's-inn Hall between the members of the Law Students' Debating Society, and the United Law Students' "That regis Society, the subject for discussion being tration [Qy. of title] should be made compulsory." BIRMINGHAM LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY. A meeting of this society was held on Tuesday evening, November 18. Mr. Jos. Rowlands presided. The report of the delegates appointed to represent the society at the recent Congress of Law Student Societies held in London was read, and a resolution passed that it be received and entered upon the minutes. A debate then took place on the following subject: "Is an advocate justified in defending a prisoner whom he knows to be guilty of the crime with which he is charged?" The speakers on the affirmative were Messrs. Rogers, O'Connor, and Jones; on the negative, Messrs. Cochrane, Taylor, and Samuel. After a summing up by the chairman, the question was put and decided in the affirmative. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the meeting. MANCHESTER LAW STUDENTS' DEBATING SOCIETY. Mr. The third meeting of the session of this society was held on Tuesday evening at the Law Library, Cross-street Chambers, when the chair was taken by E. Jones, Esq., barrister-atlaw. The minutes of the last meeting having been read by the hon. sec. (Mr. T. W. Millar) and approved, and other formal business transacted, the chairman called upon the hon. sec. to open the debate in favour of the affirmative. The question for discussion was as follows:-" Is a purchaser in strict right entitled to call for the stamping, by the ven dor, of unstamped but extinct equitable charges which appear on the abstract of title; and, if so, should such charges be stamped as agreements or mortgages?" Millar was followed by Messrs. Butcher, Rycroft, Attkins Hardman, and Price in favour of the affirmative, and Mr., Hislop, who led the negative side of the debate, was followed by Messrs. Marshall, R. B. Wilson, J. C. Wilson, and Solly. Mr. Millar having after an animated discussion replied, the chairman in a most able and exhaustive manner summed up, and put the question to the meeting in three divisions, and it was ultimately decided in favour of the affirmative-the charges to be stamped as legal mortgages and not as agreements. A hearty vote of thanks to the chairman, proposed by Mr. Attkins, seconded by Mr. Hardthree hours, to a close. brought a most successful meeting, lasting upwards of man, At the request of the solicitors practising in the Sheffield County Court, the judge on Thursday issued an order that solicitors should wear robes in court to distinguish them from accountants. |