oneself Lord Neaves or Mr. Guthrie Smith "never heard of them." If they did, they must have, at any rate, a rudimentary conception of a right arising merely ex dominio. Could we, however, persuade ourselves that recondite research of this description was alien from their studies, we still should be exceedingly anxious to hear the views of either of the learned gentlemen on that interesting and very elementary maxim of the Civil Law-noxa sequitur caput.

The statement at p. 42: "If the person injured has accepted a sum of money by way of indemnity, he is barred from maintaining any further action in respect of it," is not, perhaps, actually verbally inaccurate, but it may be very misleading if not studied in connection with a case like Lee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, L.R. 6 Ch. Ap. 527. Again, a statement startling to an English lawyer is made at p. 43: "A lunatic is not liable ex contractu.” Our reading of Molton v. Camroux, 4 Exch. 17, is in no way consistent with this sweeping statement. Probably, too, Mrs. Weldon, or the Lunacy Law Reform Society, would not accept the statement at p. 55: "In point of fact, during the thirty years since the existing Lunacy Acts came into force, not a single case of illegal detention is recorded." One more instance of this class of blemish. At p. 135, we are told that "negligence in the management of a horse or vehicle, or a public thoroughfare, is a pure jury question." Yet on the same page the cases of Hammack v. White, and Manzoni v. Douglas are cited, in both of which the question was withdrawn from the jury.

This instance illustrates another peculiarity of Mr. Guthrie Smith's book-the strange weakness of the opening sentences of some of his chapters when compared with the workman-like way in which they are developed. The chapter on Collisions at Sea may serve as an illustration of this. Perhaps, bearing in mind Lord Neaves's dictum, standing on his second page, Mr. Guthrie Smith did not see his way boldly to face the problem of the "remedy in rem" against ships. At any rate, his paragraph about it is vacillating and inconclusive in an extraordinary degree. The statement of the fact that there is a remedy in many cases more available than that against the ship is a great way from proving that in the residue the remedy against the ship is not of inestimable importance, and one which litigants would be greatly averse to lose, however little, in any particular instances, they may see fit to resort to

it. But when this preliminary obstacle is overpassed, the rest of the chapter rises to a high order of merit in its kind.

We have been much struck in our perusal of Mr. Guthrie Smith's book by noting the influence which English Law exercises in the Scotch Courts. In these days of Home Rule, it says much for the English system of Law, that it should so powerfully and universally commend itself to Scotch lawyers. As far as we remember, there is not a subject treated by him which is not illustrated by English cases; while throughout the book we do not remember any illustration whatever from French Law, which has its origin from a common source with that for Scotland. More than this-we had always been under the impression that Scotch lawyers drew largely from the resources of the Civil Law. This is not so, if Mr. Guthrie Smith's book may be taken as a sample. His references to the Roman Law are not so numerous as, for instance, those of Sir Frederick Pollock in his work on Torts, and not more so than in that stock book for English practitioners, Addison on Torts. If there were more of them in our opinion the value of the book would be increased, for on some of the subjects with which Mr. Guthrie Smith deals the Roman Law is even especially rich. Mr. Guthrie Smith, however, brings out very clearly the divergencies between English and Scotch decisions. We are far from saying that in the Law of Defamation the advantage does not lie with the Scotch lawyers; while in that class of cases of which Somerville v. Gray is an instance, we think that the instinct of Scotch lawyers was truer than that of the English Courts, whose decisions culminated in Wilson v. Merry, and that this is the opinion of a majority of competent critics. The Employers' Liability Act, 1880, is some evidence.

Principles of the Criminal Law. By SEYMOUR F. HARRIS, B.C.D., M.A., Oxon. Fifth Edition. By AVIET AGABEG, LL.B., of the Inner Temple and of the Northern Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Haynes. 1889.

In 1887 we reviewed the fourth edition of this work, and were careful to call the attention of Mr. Agabeg to certain omissions, which we noticed in our perusal of the work. On taking up the study of this new edition, while we are glad to acknowledge that much has been remedied, we have yet to say that more remains to be remedied. The resuscitation from the dead of the old Municipal Corporations Act (5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76) at p. 293, and in four other places, must cause much

merriment to the practising lawyer, and equal dismay to the student preparing for his examination. Nor is this all. At page 11, we are informed that there is no provision for the infliction of penal servitude after a previous conviction for misdemeanour, as there is in the case of felony. This omission, we are told, is a distinction between felony and misdemeanour ! It is difficult to understand so inexcusable a blunder on the part of the editor of a work on Criminal Law. May we refer him to sect. 8 of the Larceny Act? Again, the editor sins, this time by omission, at p. 225, where he is apparently ignorant of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 42, sect. 2, which regulates the trial of offences committed on the high seas, and Admiralty jurisdiction, and he should know that a person offending in such jurisdiction may be tried not only in the county, but also in the place where he resides, or may be, or may be in custody. We hope that the editor may see his way so to amend all errors and omissions before the next publication of the book, accepting our suggestions in good part, as he has already done to some extent, that in his sixth edition we may after a search of microscopic minuteness fail to find any more flaws. The editor gives much evidence of being a painstaking man, and his industry is the best foundation for the future prosperity and fame of the book under his charge.

The Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases Judicially Interpreted. By F. STROUD, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd. 1890.

This is a book on which much labour has been spent, though we doubt whether it has been wisely spent. The resulting work is not a Law Dictionary, and it is not a Legal Treatise, but something between the two. The various words dealt with are placed in alphabetical order, but are not, as a rule, defined. Thus, if the reader should look out "Copyhold," he will find. no explanation of the term; but he will read that "a devise of copyhold will pass customary freeholds," which is so much learning thrown away on the student anxious to attain a definition of "Copyhold." He may, however, cull a definition of "Manslaughter" and of "Mansion"; but "Tanistry" is a hidden word for him, both quâ definition and quâ interpretation, for it is not even mentioned. The author tells us in his Preface that the chief aim of the work is "that it may be a practical companion to the English-speaking lawyer." This, we fear, we must doubt whether it will ever be. It is rather a book for

the theorist or for the academician; it is full of ramifications and subtle distinctions, but far above the scope of the average every-day hard-working lawyer. It is a book which was, perhaps, hardly required, though we admit that its pages are full of evidence of the industry of the author.

Antologia Giuridica, diretta da PIETRO DELOGU, Professore nella R. Università di Catania. Catania. Tip. F. Martinez. (Vol. IV., 1890.)

Rivista di Diritto Pubblico. Direttore, Conte Comm. CESARE ALBICINI, Professore di Diritto Costituzionale nella R. Università di Bologna. Bologna. Tip. Zamorani e Albertazzi. (Vol. I., 1889.)

These two Reviews, one from storied Sicily, rich with memories of Greek and Roman, Saracen and Norman, who have all left their mark upon the island, the other from the home of Irnerius, and many another Lucerna Juris of the middle ages, have each a good raison d'être, among the various Reviews devoted to Juridical science in Italy. In the Rivista di Diritto Pubblico we find the chief place given, as might be guessed from its name, to questions connected with Public Law. In the Antologia Giuridica the element of Roman Law is dominant. This might, perhaps, have been more naturally expected of our Bologna contemporary, but in no part of Italy can it be out of place.

In the initial number of the Rivista di Diritto Pubblico, the Editor-in-Chief, Count Cesare Albicini, who fills the chair of Constitutional Law in the University of Bologna, discusses the tendencies of modern Public Law; Professor Iona, a "Docente " in the same University, treats of Method in the study of Public Law; Professor Minguzzi, who fills the chair of Constitutional Law in the University of Pavia, writes on Public Opinion under a Constitutional Government, and Zanichelli, who fills the Chair of Constitutional Law in the School of Social Science at Florence, discusses Parliamentary Privilege. It will thus be seen that the Rivista di Diritto Pubblico is true to its title, and that the subjects of which it treats are such as should be of interest to the Statesman as well as to the Jurist. The List of Contributors includes the veteran Cassani, now Emeritus Professor, whom we knew twenty years ago at Bologna, and younger men such as Ellero, Brunialti and others of note. The Antologia Giuridica, it may be not uninteresting to remark, numbers among its contributors several distinguished Italian

Jurists, from various parts of the Peninsula, such as the Deputy Nocito, and the Advocate Scialoja, both Professors in the Royal University of Rome, Carle, Professor in the University of Turin, as well as Carnazza Amari, and VadalàPapale, who fill chairs in the Editor's own University of Catania. Its Fourth Volume opens with an elaborate discussion by Adolfo Pantano, of what may be called the Literary relation in which Paulus Diaconus stands to the several publications of the Roman Law by Justinian. Paulus was held in profound esteem in the Early Middle Ages as the most learned man of his day, which, as Pantano says, he very likely was. It is clear that he was fully acquainted with the exact order of the several publications as well as with their matter, and his language is on some points almost word for word the same as that of Justinian. The parallel passages collected by Sig. Pantano are very remarkable, and cover the whole field of the work of Justinian. It would even appear probable that the last compilation of which Paulus Diaconus speaks, in the past tense, it is to be noted, comprised alike the Epitome Juliani and the Authenticum. So, at least Pantano argues. As to whether the Authenticum was drawn up in Italy or in Illyria, the opinions of modern Jurists vary, and Pantano does not seem to take a side, though he remarks that the opinion in favour of Italy is based upon Justinian's own language, in his Pragmatic Sanction of A.D. 554, Jura insuper.

Among other subjects treated in the Antologia Giuridica which have found a place in our own pages we may mention an inaugural address by Professor De Mauro, of the University of Catania, on the various functions of Punishment, corrective, reformative, &c., in connection with the new Italian Penal Code. We do not doubt that Professor De Mauro, if his English can carry him so far, will read with interest our valued contributor Mr. Alexander Robertson's article on Crimes and Punishments.

In the matter of Roman Law we may mention an article by Professor Longo, of the University of Palermo, on the Systematic Division of the History of Roman Law.

It is interesting to learn, as the Antologia Giuridica tells us, that a Civil Code is being drawn up for the Republic of San Marino-that singular little eagle's nest in the Apennines, which stands out with Andorra among the Pyrenees as one of the few survivals of medieval self-government. The work has been entrusted to Professor Scialoja, of Rome, a contributor to the Antologia Giuridica, and Professor Brini, of Bologna. We shall watch the result of their labour with much interest.